“Britain’s role as a bridge”

(An overly simplified, probably overly opinionated overview of the “Special Relationship”)

Britain’s position in the post-WWII Europe was always envisaged by the Americans as the middle-man. They liked the idea of a united Europe after having (albeit belatedly) found themselves embroiled in two rather unpleasant wars on the continent, and saw a unified western European democracy – of a similar size to the continental United States – as a potential handy buffer against the potential threat of Stalin’s Russia.

Winston Churchill, meanwhile, while formulating post-war possibilities with his American counterparts (it was the half-American Churchill who coined the phrase “Special Relationship”, after all), reckoned Britain’s role to be not so much middle-man, as the kindly – yet firm – uncle, standing on the sidelines of a Europe (excluding Britain) that he hoped would become ever more unified, occasionally barking orders when the continental lot stepped out of line. It was primarily thanks to this vision, based on a pre-war understanding of Britain’s global power (and certainly before the loss of India, something Churchill would never have countenanced) that led Churchill and then his lieutenant and successor, Anthony Eden, to ignore all the initial talks and refuse to participate in the Treaty of Rome back in 1957, that formed what has become the European Union.

Britain’s refusal to take the leading role in Europe that the US wanted her to take straight after the Second World War has been the cause of a lot of problems:

Continue reading

Ireland and extraordinary rendition

The always tip-top Jim Bliss has a follow-up to my post of yesterday, with some intriguing points about the constitutional implications of the Republic of Ireland’s apparent involvement with secret CIA flights:

“An independent neutral republic not only has a right, it has a duty, to regulate any foreign military traffic that crosses its border…. So that we are not complicit in acts inconsistent with our international obligations. If a US airforce plane lands in Shannon and it contains people snatched from the street by the CIA en route for torture in an Uzbek detention centre, the Irish authorities have an absolute legal obligation to detain that flight and prevent a crime against humanity.”

Of course, as pointed out before, under UN resolution 47/133 (and we all remember how seriously breaches of UN resolutions are taken by Bush and Blair, right?), both the UK and the US also have an absolute legal (and, indeed, legally-reinforced moral) obligation to detain such flights…

Update: Davide also has more. The final report is being presented at a press conference this morning (though not voted on by MEPs until February), so perhaps the big boys of the proper press might get on to this at last…

Update 2: the Lib Dems and SNP have today called for an enquiry into the British government’s involvement with the flights, as well as the official government line on using information extracted under torture.

Bush and definitions

The Bush administration uses unimaginative essay-writing technique #236: “It all depends on your definition of…”*sigh* Why must the world be run by such second-class minds? And why has this story been buried on a weekend (there’s nothing about it on the main pages of either the Washington Post or the New York Times, and the ever-handy Newsmap shows it’s receiving far less press coverage than a baseball game between the Detroit Tigers and St Louis Cardinals) when the midterms are less than a fortnight away? Surely “Vice President condones the torture of filthy foreigners” is a major vote-winner these days?

The UK backs ditching “adequate” data protection

Sounds boring, eh? Especially when you find out that the EU, the most boring institution in the world bar the International Confederation of Accountancy and Algebra, is also involved.

However, following earlier outrage from the elected portion of the EU over plans to rubber-stamp the unilateral transfer of transatlantic air passenger data to US law enforcement agencies (visiting Auntie Flo in Toronto? Congratulations! You’ve won a CIA file with a bonus FBI record thrown in for free!), today MEPs will be voting on proposals to reduce the protection of our personal data that to date we have all (perhaps unknowingly) enjoyed.

Germany, Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Norway, Sweden and the UK all appear to support the removal of the current European Commission restrictions that data can only be exchanged with non-EU states if “an adequate level of data protection is ensured in the third country”.

This would, in turn, free up the powers that be (guided down this path at the request of the US by our own dear Tony Blair during last year’s UK presidency of the EU) to push even harder for the EU to approve the hand-over of detailed information on everyone who flies to North America from the EU when MEPs vote on the “EU/USA agreement on the use of passenger name record to prevent and combat terrorism and transnational crime, including organised crime” proposals tomorrow morning.

So, considering that our government is apparently so keen to overturn EU guidelines on protecting our privacy and to hand over various bits of private information to a foreign government (with no reciprocal handover of data on that country’s citizens) – and especially considering that once again they are sneaking this in via the less heavily scrutinised EU – how far can we really trust our dear lords and masters when they tell us that our details will be safe once on their various planned identity databases?

Dark-skinned bearded types

It was always fairly obvious that dark-skinned bearded types (especially those with hooks for hands) wouldn’t find much sympathy when getting extradited to the US on terror charges. But since those bankers got done by the not even slightly reciprocal Extradition Treaty a few weeks back the pressure from middle England is mounting.
“Gareth Hardwick, a director of Staffordshire-based Grafton International, said: ‘I am outraged at the predicament UK executives find themselves in as a result of the extradition agreement the UK has with the US but the US does not have with the UK.

“‘It makes me fearful of any legislation connected with terrorism. The Government needs to act swiftly to protect those UK citizens already in the system.’”

Don’t threaten the white middle classes with your terror laws, Tony – they don’t like it up ‘em, and are rather more inclined to vote than the usual targets…

Carnival of German-American relations

Sixty years ago today, Germany declared war on the United States. To mark the occasion, check out the Carnival of German American Relations – lots of interesting stuff.

Alternatively, check out Britblog Roundup 43, over at DK’s place. (Although amongst his 10,000 words per hour blogging output it’s very easy to miss it – prolific or obsessive compulsive I have yet to decide with that one…)

Expanding free trade

Two large trading blocs using subsidies and tax breaks to give their own businesses an advantage in the global market? Who’d have thought it? Yep, it’s the EU/US show again! And this time the poor little diddums have gone running to mummy. Oooh! Oooh! The bad men’s nasty metal birdie got more money than mine! Waaah!

Nosemonkey’s advice to the businessmen of the world? Grow up, crybabies. It’s a fucking plane. Of course it’s going to get subsidies, because it’s a fundamentally uneconomical way to travel.

The classic, however, is the final line, which the BBC copyist must have had a nice chuckle over (even while misplacing his/her commas):

“both sides insist that despite the trade wars, as the world’s two largest trading blocs, they remain committed to expanding free trade.”

Heh! World trade, folks. It’s silly.

Sunday reading

Newsweekwhy doesn’t Chirac step down?

Chirac acts like a man who doesn’t know his wife has moved out. Asked last week who he thought was most likely to succeed him, the president smiled widely and replied, “I think that subject is altogether premature.”

It’s not, of course, so check out this lengthy profile of likely successor Nicholas Sarkozy in Foreign Policy.

Meanwhile in Spain it’s Church vs. State all over again as the Pope tackles socialism (well, Gay marriage at any rate), while A Logical Voice and Dear Kitty are planning to take on pollution by Blogging for Greenpeace as part of the 2005 Blogathon, so give them some support and stuff.

And if you want a struggle, how about trying to get to grips with the workings of the European Central Bank’s monetary policy, via The Economist? Or how about a look at how the political elite is ignoring the people (rather bizarrely that article seems to think this is a new phenomenon…)

Or why not try some of the quandries on show at the Philosophers’ Carnival or the many fascinating tidbits at the History Carnival. While you’re doing that, and in the spirit of Proms season, you could update your classical music library at Classic Cat. Good stuff.

Finally, Anne Applebaum’s attempts to work out the world’s attitude to America are rather entertaining. Loads of statistics, lots of theories, but somehow manages to avoid the basic answer: we like America but we hate Bush. I’d have thought that was obvious by now?

Update: Britblog Roundup 22 is good to go, courtesy, as per usual, of one Mr. T. Worstall.

If this is true…

Via Robin Grant, if true then this would make me very angry indeed. Edward at Fistful has more, as does Tim Ireland.

There are ALWAYS limits to what the public should be told, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, and now this is true more than ever. It’s this little thing called responsibility, tactics. If playing Poker, you do not show your hand for fear of tipping off your opponents and letting them know not to go all-in in case you wipe them out in one stroke. Counter-terrorism operations are, I’m sure we can all agree, just a tad more serious than Poker.

When it comes to last week’s attacks I’ve tried to avoid too much finger-pointing (bar highlighting the impact a certain fascist party may have had), because playing politics over the bodies of the innocent dead is one of the most distasteful things I can imagine.

But if there is any truth to these suggestions – if it does turn out that politics has been played with our national security – impeachments alone won’t be enough. This would be gross, irresponsible negligence of the highest order. A blase disregard of people’s safety and lives resulting in the maiming and death of scores of innocents. And for what? Power, plain and simple. If this is true, our leaders will have become as bad as those they are supposed to be fighting.

Farm subsidies

OK, maybe I was being a tad harsh… Via Andrew and Tim Worstall, President Bush offers to scrap US farm subsidies, as long as the EU scraps the CAP:
“Let’s join hands as wealthy industrialised nations and say to the world, we are going to get rid of all our agricultural subsidies together. And so the position of the US Government is, we are willing to do so, and we will do so with our fine friends in the European Union.”

Interesting… Bush knows it’ll never happen, so I reckon my earlier snide point still largely stands, but interesting nonetheless.

Shaking off the bonds of colonial oppression

The 4th July. Independence Day. Means everything to Americans, tit all to anyone else (including us Brits, who lost a bunch of our prime colonies thanks to the thing and now have to pay through the nose to have a nice smoke.)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Unless, of course, you’re African.

Posted in USA