The staggering implications

By Carl 

I want to speculate a little here, and in so doing put a little perspective on why this story seems to have legs: 

LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron offered details for the first time on Wednesday of a broad inquiry into the relationships between the police, politicians and the press in the broadening scandal confronting Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in Britain.

Speaking to Parliament, Mr. Cameron said the inquiry would be led by a senior judge, Lord Justice Leveson, and would have the power to summon witnesses to testify under oath. The announcement came as Mr. Cameron fought to recover the initiative in a scandal that has turned into potentially the most damaging crisis of his time in office.

Mr. Cameron’s Conservative Party took power in May 2010, supported by some of the newspapers in Mr. Murdoch’s British stable, and his critics said that he, like some of his predecessors in 10 Downing Street, sought to maintain that support even as the phone hacking scandal erupted last week. 

Keep in mind that Cameron hired a former editor at News Of The World, Andy Coulson, as his (now former) director of communications. Keep in mind too that former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has alleged that he was a subject of inappropriate investigation by another Murdoch paper, The Sunday Times by "known criminals," as he put it. It's not a stretch to suggest that Brown himself may have had his phones and voicemails hacked.

Let that sink in a moment: the Conservative Cameron won election to the Prime Minister post in a bare plurality, falling 20 seats short of a clear majority, and needing to meld a coalition government with the Liberal Democratic Party of Nick Clegg. The Labor Party lost a staggering 91 seats in that 2010 election.

It's not inconceivable, although I'd be skeptical of drawing this conclusion without better evidence than Brown's say-so, that Murdoch basically overthrew democracy and installed a puppet in Cameron. His organization could have hacked any number of phones (they've shown a particularly morbid curiousity with the technology,) and uncovered any number of campaign strategies.

There are allegations by London's Metropolitan Police from as early as 2006 that the Royal Family's voicemails had been eavesdropped on, and continuing allegations have been made by various people that they too were targeted.

And that's just voicemails. Cell phones have been notoriously easy to eavesdrop on, using various hard-, soft- and fleshware (bystanders overhearing conversations.) E-mail interceptions are not out of the question either, if you presume that Murdoch's empire was basically an organized crime syndicate.

And going with that theme, it's easy to see that the same things might have happened here, assuming they happened at all.

Keep in mind that this entire story came out only because 13 year old Milly Dowler was found dead, despite the fact that her voicemail box never was full and her family and friends called constantly and left messages in the hopes she was alive and would call as soon as she could. The hackers, private investigators, clumsily deleted voicemail messages to the missing girl, unintentionally giving false hope to the family and destroying potential evidence for the police.

This was in 2002. Is it a stretch to think that, for at least ten years, Murdoch has committed similar crimes and obstructions of justice world-wide?

Perhaps even in a national election like, say, Bush-Kerry in 2004?

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Prime Minister Cameron

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you've already heard, I'm sure, Gordon Brown resigned yesterday, opening the door for Conservative David Cameron to be Britain's new prime minister, with Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats agreeing to a coalition deal that will give them five Cabinet spots, including Clegg as Cameron's deputy.

The BBC has some of the coalition details here.

While a Labour-led left-of-center coalition was a possibility, Brown just didn't have much legitimacy to govern, I think, or rather public perception of legitimacy, and a non-Brown coalition would have been weak, insecure, and short-lived. Indeed, as I suggested yesterday, the best thing for Labour, in the long run, was to admit defeat and regroup under a new leader and a new regime that leaves the Blair-Brown years behind.

It will be interesting to see how the Tory-LibDem coalition works out. The LibDems, after all, while a nominally liberal party that could be centrist, often run to the left of Labour, particularly in Scotland, and they seem to have given up a great deal for the sake of power, including their preference that the U.K. adopt a proportional representation electoral system for elections to Westminster. (The Tories have agreed to a referendum on the Alternative Vote system, which is decidedly not a PR system -- and which, ironically enough, could benefit Labour.) In addition, the LibDems have signed on with a governing party that will pursue right-wing economic, military, and immigration policies.

Selling out obviously comes at a price. Enjoy your brush with power, Clegg.

Brown out, but what now?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It had to happen.

British PM Gordon Brown has announced that he will step down as Labour leader by September, once a new leader (and PM?) is chosen. All to facilitate a desired Labour-LibDem coalition (with the backing of the smaller progressive parties), all to keep David Cameron and the Tories out of power -- given that LibDem leader Nick Clegg doesn't much care for Brown and is much more likely to strike a deal knowing that Brown will be gone.

As Chris Bowers notes at Open Left, this broad coalition would have a narrow majority of 328 seats. Would it last? Surely not, and I wonder if it wouldn't be best for Labour to let it go, to let Cameron either govern with a minority or to force another election (if no government is formed by later this month), and to regroup under a new leader while Cameron imposes tough spending cuts, pushes the Tories hidden right-wing agenda, and proves to be a failure. That's a risk, but it may be a risk worth taking for the long-term well-being both of the party and of the country.

I realize that it's hard to give up power, and I understand why Brown and Labour want to hold onto it. But at what cost? The LibDems, who are demanding a great deal in return for their votes, want electoral reform, and specifically a proportional representation system that would benefit themselves most of all. Now, whether you support PR or not (and I generally don't), what's clear is that PR wouldn't benefit Labour (unless it received a majority of the popular vote, which would be rather difficult to achieve under PR, it would forever be required to form coalition governments with the LibDems and/or other left-of-center parties, hampering its ability to govern effectively) and would, in my view, be bad for the country generally. And for what? For a few more months of power, or for another year or two, at most, of unstable government?

Anyway, coalition talks are underway. I just can't see a Tory-LibDem union, and non-Labour Brown seems to have the upper hand. Stay tuned.

Hung Parliament?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The latest from the BBC:

The Conservatives are on course to be the largest party in a hung parliament, after nearly 400 election results.

Tory leader David Cameron said it was "clear that the Labour government has lost its mandate to govern".

The Lib Dem vote was up 0.9% on 2005 and Labour down 6.4% after 399 results. The Conservatives are up 3.9%.

Although Labour are set to lose over 90 MPs, Gordon Brown said he wanted to play a part in the UK "having a strong, stable and principled government".

Downing Street says the Labour leader, re-elected in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, will try to form a coalition in the event of a hung Parliament.

But shadow foreign secretary William Hague says any attempt by Brown at securing a pact with Lib Dems "would be a shameless piece of politics".

Well, no. Presumably the Queen would ask Cameron first if he could form a government, but he'd only be able to form one with minority support in the House of Commons. If Brown could successfully put together a coalition with the LibDems, perhaps by agreeing to a national referendum on electoral reform (as the LibDems want the country to adopt a proportional representation system for elections to Westminster), among other things, he could make the case that he has the support of a majority of MPs and is therefore in a position to form a stable government. (If Cameron were to form a minority government, a Labour-LibDem coalition could defeat it on any confidence vote, forcing another election.)

But this is all just talk right now. Of course Brown is talking as if he could form a coalition government. What else is he to say? He can't give up -- not yet. I just wonder if the LibDems are prepared to sign on to Labour for the long run, or if they'd not rather sit back, let Cameron govern for a time, and try to build on their fairly strong support for the next election. I also wonder if Labour really wants Brown to remain in power, particularly at the head of a coalition government. Surely much of the party would rather just move on, even in defeat, putting the Blair-Brown years behind it and moving forward under new leadership.

We shall see. At it stands right now, Labour and the LibDems don't even have enough seats collectively to overcome the Tories. It's 213-157-33.

Andrea Mitchell, ignoramus extraordinaire

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe yesterday, Alan Greenspan's wife called Nick Clegg, the leader of Britain's Liberal Democratic Party, "very anti-American on the subject of Iraq, Afghanistan, and engagement." She also claimed that he opposes Britain's "special relationship" with the U.S. and is a Euroskeptic.

Thankfully, former NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski was there to refute her ignorant (or intentionally misleading) comments. Clegg may be anti-war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but so are many Americans. Far from opposing the "special relationship," he desires, as Think Progress explains, "a positive, strong and even uniquely warm relationship with the United States." And he's not a Euroskeptic at all, as he supports Britain's close engagement with "a strong Europe." Indeed, if anyone's a Euroskeptic, it's David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives.

Now, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, clinging to power by a thread, has also called Clegg anti-American, but we can write that off as political desperation (and the usual sort of political campaign dishonesty), I think. With Mitchell, one cannot help but wonder if her smears of Clegg derive from her right-leaning tendencies, if I may put it nicely.

Actually, no. There's really no need to wonder at all.

British election just over a week away

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Want something fun to do? Then check out the BBC's "Election seat calculator."

Because, as you know, Britain heads to the polls on May 6, and the race between Prime Minister Gordon Brown's governing Labour Party, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats is incredibly tight. Labour appears to be in third at the moment, with David Cameron's Conservatives in the lead and the historically third-place Lib Dems, headed by upstart Nick Clegg, a stunning second (after Clegg did so well in the first debate).

In Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system, though, Labour has a built-in advantage that means it could actually lose the popular vote and yet still win the most seats. This is because Conservative support is heavily concentrated in "safe" ridings that the party tends to win with big majorities, whereas Labour support is more evenly distributed across ridings in which it tends to be competitive. And in a first-past-the-post system, as opposed to a proportional representation system (in which seats are allocated based on the popular vote), it doesn't matter if you win a seat by a single vote or by thousands and thousands of votes, what matters is just having the most votes in a riding. (It's like Gore winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college vote, which tends to favour Republicans.)

Anyway, it's all quite exciting, and entertaining, and it's worth paying attention to. Here, as a good entryway in, in addition to the links above, is the BBC's main election coverage page. 

As for me -- a Canadian but also a British citizen, if much more Canadian than British, and probably much more American than British, too -- I've had enough of Labour, which has been in power since 1997, when Tony Blair trounced John Major, but still prefer it to the Conservatives, who are revitalized under Cameron but who are still a party of regressive right-wing policies. I actually like the Lib Dems a great deal now, and that's the party I tend to have the most in common with, policy-wise. I just don't know enough about Clegg, who remains a bit of a novice. And while Brown's premiership has hardly been all that impressive -- I'm not sure how it could have been, though, given Blair's shadow over it -- there's a lot I like about the PM and his priorities. And so I actually wouldn't mind to see a Labour-Lib Dem coalition committed to the environment, civil liberties, and responsible diplomacy (as opposed to Blair's pro-American adventurism, however rooted in idealism).

British newspaper reports Hillary will be secretary of state

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There has been much speculation -- it has been reported, through anonymous sources, that Obama discussed the job with Hillary at their meeting in Chicago last week, and Bill is apparently being vetted with respect to his many international dealings and connections -- and now one newspaper (and one newspaper alone), Britain's Guardian, is reporting that Hillary will accept Obama's offer.

Or will she? The Guardian does not identify any sources. It has simply "learned" that Hillary "plans to accept the job." Which may or may not be true -- but how does it know this and how is it the only media outlet with what is undeniably major news?

I actually do think the job is hers if she wants it. Whether or not a formal offer has been made, it would be rather difficult for Obama to defend giving the job to anyone else at this point, even a reputable choice like Kerry. I will have more to say if and when we know more.

For now, though, let me just repeat what I've said already, which is this: I am intrigued by the prospect of Obama and Hillary working together to chart a new course in U.S. foreign policy. And I do not buy into the whole "Team of Rivals" view that has rapidly made its way around the punditocracy and into the CW. Obama and Hillary were engaged in a long and sometimes bitter primary campaign, and they have certainly been rivals within the party, but they are not enemies of the sort they are often made out to be. Indeed, Obama picking Hillary would be a lot like Reagan picking Bush for VP in 1980, two leading figures from the same party coming together to form an alliance to strengthen the party/government.

And, to be sure, there is always rivalry to some degree among the leadership contenders in any party. How could there not be? Hillary wanted to be the Democratic nominee, as did Obama, and the two were required to engage in a long campaign against each other. Does that make them enemies? Hardly. Does it make them rivals? Sort of. They were rivals during the primary campaign, and that campaign emphasized the differences between them, and no doubt left some hard feelings between them, but, with that campaign long over, they are no longer rivals in any formal way. And yet the media continue to insist that the divide remains, because, of course, what the media want is drama: the "Team of Rivals" story plays better than, say, my "Team of Allies" alternative.

And yet I stick to that alternative. The fact is, both Obama and Hillary are loyal Democrats. It may not be easy to get over losing, but Hillary isn't a petulant child. She is no doubt thinking about her future, but can she not also be thinking about what's best for her party, for her president-elect, and for her country? And it may be, in this case, that what is best for her future is also what is best for the country, namely, being secretary of state. Furthermore, on the issues, Obama and Hillary are in agreement far more than in disagreement. It's not like Obama has asked, say, Giuliani to be attorney general, Romney to be treasury secretary, or Palin to be energy secretary. What he is doing, if we are to believe the reports, is to unite his party and strengthen his administration by reaching out to one of its leading figures, his former rival for the nomination.

This happens all the time in parliamentary systems, where the leader of the party -- say, the prime minister -- must form a government from other sitting members of his or her party, with top Cabinet spots often going to his or her former leadership rivals. In the U.K., for example, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown apparently made a secret deal before they took office, while they were still in opposition, with Blair assuming the leadership of the Labour Party, and then, once elected, Blair going to No. 10 and Brown taking the chancellorship (finance minister). Over time, though, there is no doubt that they became heated "rivals," each with his own support in the party. And yet, they continued to govern together as "allies." Here in Canada, Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin, the two leading figures in the Liberal Party from 1990 until Chretien stepped down in 2003, were, within the context of the party, bitter "rivals" with significant ideological and policy differences who nonetheless governed Canada together for over a decade.

In other words, the Obama vs. Hillary meme has largely been manufactured. In any parliamentary system, there is little doubt that they would both be top members of the government. Sure, they may not be close personally, and there may be a few crucial differences between them on policy, but Obama is forming a government, not building a circle of friends, and his Cabinet certainly does not need to be ideologically rigid. If he thinks that Hillary would be a positive addition to his administration, that they could work well together, and that she would be an excellent secretary of state at this extremely challenging time, then why not?

They are allies, after all, far more than they are rivals.

"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I haven't posted anything on the recent G8 summit in Japan, mainly because, from what I could tell, it was just the same old bullshit from the same old bullshitters. With global warming one of the key issues on the table, it's tough to get too excited over the prospect of Bush, Harper, Merkel, Sarkozy, and Berlusconi -- what an astoundingly and abominably appalling list; they and Brown, who is somewhat better then they are on the environment, are the leaders of the world's major democracies? -- actually doing something productive about our most pressing crisis.

I can't even get excited in a negative way: Expectations were very low going in, those expectations were met, and the do-nothingness will go on regardless of what is said publicly. The summit didn't get much attention in the U.S., what with media attention fixated on whatever sensationalism can be distilled from the Obama-McCain race, and perhaps understandably so. The G8 in general is only mildly interested in doing anything about global warming -- Bush not at all -- and the summit was, as usual, little more than a glorified photo-op.

As The Independent is reporting, though, Bush did use the occasion to signal, if only privately, just where he and the U.S. are with respect to our most pressing crisis:

President George Bush signed off with a defiant farewell over his refusal to accept global climate change targets at his last G8 summit.

As he prepared to fly out from Japan, he told his fellow leaders: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

President Bush made the private joke in the summit's closing session, senior sources said yesterday. His remarks were taken as a two-fingered salute from the President from Texas who is wedded to the oil industry. He had given some ground at the summit by saying he would "seriously consider" a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050.

Seriously consider, Dick Cheney's ass. It's not happening -- and it's not good enough anyway.

Bush just told us all to fuck off. Thankfully, he'll be fucking off himself soon enough -- no, not soon enough, but soon. Then, perhaps, our expectations can go up, the G8 can be a bit more productive, and it'll be worth paying attention.

But that will take genuine American leadership -- and hence a genuine leader in the White House. For all the hits Obama has been taking recently over FISA, Iraq, abortion, and the like, what is still clear is that he, and only he, is the candidate with what it takes to provide that leadership.

Malign legacy: Bush's destruction of the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Our must-read of the day comes from yesterday's Independent (U.K.), which commented on President Bush's meeting with Prime Minister Brown on Monday. They talked up the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K., but:

[P]erhaps Mr Bush's most significant legacy, as far as Britain is concerned, will be the destruction of the instinctive trust of America and its leaders that once prevailed here. It is no exaggeration to say that Mr Bush has done more damage to relations between our two nations than any president in living memory. This rupture is not an accident of circumstance; there are no impersonal forces of history to blame. This sorry state of affairs is the consequence of the actions of a single leader and his small coterie of advisers.

America's invasion of Iraq must, of course, be recorded at the top of the charge sheet. In 2002, Tony Blair announced that he was prepared to pay "the blood price" for the sake of the special relationship. But it was not the then prime minister who paid it. That fate has, instead, fallen to 176 British troops who have lost their lives in Iraq.

Yet President's Bush's malign legacy is about much more than Iraq. Relations have been soured by the prolonged jailing of innocent Britons in Guantanamo Bay, the suspected use of Britain as a stopover point for CIA torture flights and a hopelessly one-sided extradition treaty. President Bush has even helped to undermine the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War. He has antagonised Russia by pushing America's missile defence shield project, an outpost of which is to be situated on British territory.

And that -- as bad as it is -- just skims the surface of what has been a truly malignant presidency.

Hints for Obama: How others do it

By Carol Gee

Because it is the widespread assumption that Senator Barack Obama will become the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States, what if Obama goes on to win the general election in November? Also assuming a win and zooming ahead, he will need to get some useful preparation for the job. One of the ways to do that is to watch other national leaders. If he watches our current president (OCP), however he will quickly get into trouble, given the bad track record of OCP. So, unless he just does everything the opposite of OCP, our new president will need to look outside U.S. borders.

Perhaps Obama can look to other nations for examples of good or poor leadership. Today's post is a round-up of a few current news stories about the men and women who will probably become the new President's "peers" in January of 2009.

Australia: Progressive ideas -- PM Kevin Rudd leads to the Labor Party that beat out the right-wing Liberals after several years of being out of power. It looks as if a parallel exists that might make useful learning for Obama. Culturally, Aussies and Americans share some same elements of style. Obama is widely seen as a progressive intellectual. He also has a reputation for lofty talk. The event in Australia billed as a summit for brainstorming. That would not be a bad idea for Obama at some point, and a model that seems to fit in with what I think will be his governing style. The story is headlined, "Australia's brightest brain-storm for progress" (Reuters, 4/19/08). To quote:

. . . a summit of the nation's top minds on Saturday, bringing Hollywood together with corporate chiefs.

"Today we are throwing open the windows of our democracy to let a little bit of fresh air in," Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told the gathering of 1,000 scientists, unionists and central bankers,

. . . Rudd has asked to throw up at least 10 big ideas to improve Australia's future by 2020. Critics have panned the meeting as a unwieldy talk-fest.

. . . Rudd, whose centre-left Labor government ended almost 12 years of conservative rule in November, said ideas must be affordable and he would respond by the end of the year.

"I say it's worth having a go through this summit, even if we fail. What is there to be lost from trying?" Rudd said.

United Kingdom: Global solutions to global problems -- Barack Obama seems to be a big picture kind of thinker who wants to unite towards common goals. He might get along with others who have a similar capacity to be collaborative. In a predictable turn of events, OCP is becoming more and more irrelevant to other world leaders, including the British PM. The headline puts it this way: "Brown's speech looks beyond Bush" (BBC News, 4/19/08). To quote:

. . . in Boston, the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was in a spiritual home of sorts, familiar territory from the many holidays he has spent on nearby Cape Cod.

This is where he chose to deliver a key foreign policy speech, a decision that went down well with Massachusetts liberals, as he called for American leadership on a range of issues, including climate change.

In a broad and almost idealistic speech, he emphasised the need for global solutions to global problems and said international institutions, set up after World War II, needed to be overhauled to deal with the challenges of the 21st Century.

. . . "Now is an opportunity for a historic effort in co-operation, a new dawn in collaborative action between America and Europe," he said in his hour-long speech at the JFK presidential library, adding that "America's leadership is, and will be, indispensable".

The message was clear - the days of unilateralism should be behind us and the post-Iraq war tensions across the Atlantic are water under the bridge.

Germany: Domestic Surveillance -- Barack Obama has occasionally talked about the need to protect U.S. civil liberties. It seems to me that such bedrock constitutional protections cannot be compromised away. Obama must be able to resist any unnecessary clamoring for bipartisanship that would weaken necessary protections against unreasonable search and seizure. German PM Angela Merkel has not fared well in Germany's similar situation. The chilling headline reads, "Germany to Allow Video Surveillance of Private Homes" (Deutsche Welle, 4/18/08). To quote:

Changes proposed to the law governing Germany's federal criminal police operations would allow investigators to use wire taps and surveillance cameras in homes of innocent citizens to keep tabs on terror suspects.

. . . A cabinet decision on what is known as the BKA law is expected this summer. The acceptability of using video cameras as well as microphones in private homes for up to a month has divided opinion among the Social Democrats, who share power at the federal level with Chancellor Angela Mekel's Christian Democrats.

. . . The new draft regarding video surveillance met with resistance among members of her party. Berlin's Interior Minister Ehrhart Koerting (SPD) and Sebastian Edathy (SPD), the chairman of the Bundestag's Interior Affairs Committee, were among those voicing strong skepticism.

After months of discussions, Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries (SPD) and Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble (CDU) settled this week on a compromised version of the BKA Law, with Zypries drawing the line at allowing investigators to break into homes to install spyware programs on private computers.

Brazil: The Environment and Climate Change -- The United States failure to play its appropriate leadership role in energy consumption, controlling greenhouse gases, and validating scientific input can be laid straight at the feet of OCP. Barack OBama must figure out what his appropriate leadership role is to be. Let us hope that his administration can avoid Brazil's military interventions. The story is headlined, "With Guns and Fines, Brazil Takes On Loggers" (NYT, 4/19/08). To quote:

This is Operation Arc of Fire, the Brazilian government’s tough campaign to deter illegal destruction of the Amazon forest. It is intended to send a message that the government is serious about protecting the world’s largest remaining rain forest, but so far it has stirred controversy for its militaristic approach to saving trees, and the initial results have been less than promising.

The operation began in February after new satellite data showed that deforestation had spiked in the second half of 2007 after three consecutive years of declines. The new data rattled the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, which has been trying to play a bigger role in discussions about global climate change amid mounting scientific evidence that some 20 percent of annual global greenhouse emissions come from the clearing of tropical forests, including the burning, decay and decomposition of the land.

So, if Obama's staff would consider taking some notes on how others do it, he might get a leg up on what will be a very big cleanup job come January of next year. Australia models smart leadership and a sense of community, the United Kingdom models global interconnected thinking, Germany models an inability to resist surveillance overkill, and Brazil models a too-little/too-late approach that is also a danger in the USA.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Smearing Britain

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is what the Bush White House -- that is, what Bush himself -- does to friends who no longer do what it (he) wants. (Which says a lot about Bush's view of friendship.)

As Think Progress is reporting, "a senior White House foreign policy official" has informed Britain's Daily Telegraph that "[t]he White House no longer views Britain as its most loyal ally in Europe since Gordon Brown took office..." This official made two key points, one pertaining to the British prime minister, the other pertaining to Britain's military:

-- "There's concern about Brown. But this is compensated by the fact that Paris and Berlin are much less of a headache. The need to hinge everything on London as the guarantor of European security has gone."

-- "Operationally, British forces have performed poorly in Basra. Maybe it's best that they leave. Now we will have a clear field in southern Iraq."

In short: FUCK YOU!

Bush has found new and fast friends in conservatives Nicolas Sarkozy in France and Angela Merkel in Germany. He may not quite realize that they're not necessarily his sort of conservative, that they don't necessarily buy into his righteous, delusional visions, that they do not necessarily approve of American hegemony, that they do not necessarily want the U.S. to have "a clear field" anywhere, and especially in Iraq, but when your other (and former) friends are coming to their senses, maybe any new friend will do, anyone who kisses your ass and makes you feel so good about your pathetic self.

It may be that Bush has less in common with Gordon Brown than with Tony Blair and that, in principle, he objects to Brown's views on Iraq. But should that be enough to turn him against his most important ally, a historical partner, the one major power that has sided with him throughout the Iraq War and Occupation? Thanks for nothing, the message seems to be.

And more: Britain sent thousands of troops to Iraq. France and Germany didn't, and neither did other close friends like Canada. Britain participated in the invasion, the war, the occupation. Britain lost many of those troops on the battlefield -- fallen heroes, all because Bush wanted so badly to go to war with Iraq, all for Bush's misadventure in Mesopotamia, all for what turned out to be a horrible failure, a lost war. Thanks for less than nothing, the message seems to be, you weren't any good and it's good that you're leaving. For Bush, the warmonger who has never been to war, or anywhere near a war, this is simply appalling. With this new spin, he (and one presumes that the official was speaking in an official capacity, that is, for the president) has smeared not just an entire country, a friend, a loyal ally, but each and every British man and woman who put on that uniform and went off to fight in Basra, and elsewhere in Iraq, who fought Bush's disaster of a war.

As a British citizen myself, I'd like to respond: FUCK YOU, MR. BUSH.

And I'll leave it at that.

The new "Big Three"

By Carol Gee

Leadership has significantly changed hands this year in Europe. Chancellor Angela Merkel began Germany's year of European Union leadership at the beginning of the year. On May 6 France elected a new leader, Nicholas Sarkozy. And Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair as the United Kingdom's Prime Minister in July just as "doctor-terrorists" attacked the UK. The new "Big Three" leaders of traditional U.S. allies -- Britain, France and Germany -- deserve more of our attention. How willing are they to be strong allies?

UK remains "willing." In Iraq 168 British soldiers have died since 2003. Just under 50,000 British troops were in Iraq at its highest point of involvement. The number of U.S. troops there is at an all time high of 162,000. U.S. casualties today stand at 3736 killed in Iraq. And PM Brown remains committed to the presence of soldiers from the United Kingdom in Iraq and Afghanistan. The BBC (8/28/07) reports that:

"PM rules out Iraq exit timetable." Prime Minister Gordon Brown has ruled out setting a timetable for withdrawing UK troops from Iraq, saying it would undermine their "important job" there.

Writing to Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell, he said the military still had "clear obligations to discharge".

Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the UK forces' training and mentoring role was what was needed on the ground.

France willing - to do what? In France new President Sarkozy enjoys a 60+ approval rating, even though he is "losing some of his shine," according to Germany's Deutsche Welle. French president Sarkozy took his personal vacation in New England, had lunch with our current president (OCP), and made recent headlines with his statement about bombing Iran. To quote Victor Davis Hanson at National Review (8/31/07):

. . . French president Nicolas Sarkozy. He suddenly, in the eleventh hour of the crisis, reminds the world that bombing Iran is still very possible (and he doesn't specify by whom):

An Iran with nuclear arms is, to me, unacceptable, and I am weighing my words…And I underline France's full determination to support the alliance's current policy of increasing sanctions, but also to remain open if Iran makes the choice to fulfill its obligations. This policy is the only one that will allow us to escape an alternative, which I consider to be catastrophic. Which alternative? An Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.

Note especially the French president’s reference to “us” and the logic of his syllogism: Iran can’t and won’t have the bomb; one catastrophic remedy is bombing; therefore someone must increase sanctions or someone will bomb Iran, as the least bad of two awful alternatives. He can say all that — without the global hatred that George Bush would incur had he said half that.

German has been willing to be involved in Afghanistan but not Iraq. In May, 3000 German troops were in the northern area and three died there in a suicide bomb attack. A German taken hostage by the Taliban recently surfaced in a video. Recently Chancellor Angela Merkel was willing to speak out about human rights in China. From Germany, the Financial Times (8/27/07) reports that:

Angela Merkel will use a visit to China starting today to press Beijing to take on greater international responsibility concerning intellectual property rights, climate change and human rights in Africa.

. . . Her tough comments were seen yesterday as part of an effort by Ms Merkel to use a string of foreign trips in the next two months to reinforce her image as an international power broker, following her foreign policy successes in the European Union and G8 industrial nations grouping in the first half of 2007. Her week-long Asia trip includes her first visit as chancellor to Japan, where she will deliver a keynote speech in Kyoto on the urgency of tackling climate change.

In September she will represent Germany at the United Nations General Assembly meeting - a job traditionally performed by the foreign minister - and in October she will make a rare visit by a German chancellor to Africa, visiting Ethiopia, South Africa and Liberia.

The year 2007 is a new era in US/EU relations because new people are in place as leaders, not because OCP has changed. He is still a go-it-alone kind of guy. How to assess the partnerships? The alliance between the U.S. and Germany has been relatively strong. Angela Merkel has been a strong European Union President. The relationship between the U.S. and France may become more positive now that President Chirac is no longer in the picture, though that is still to be seen. And UK PM Gordon Brown has been surprisingly firm in his support for keeping at least a few troops in Iraq.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Around the world: France, Spain, Pakistan, and the Ivory Coast

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's another installment of our Around the World series. We have the highlights, but make sure to click on the links to read the articles in full.

1) France: "France and Britain will push for a U.N. resolution to dispatch African Union and United Nations peacekeepers to Darfur, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says." He and French President Nicolas Sarkozy met in France, the first (formal) meeting between the two new leaders.

I applaud their efforts, assuming that they should be taken seriously, but Darfur needs more than peacekeeping (there is no peace to keep) and the threat of sanctions against Khartoum. Besides, what good will a U.N. resolution do if not backed up by force? What Darfur needs is NATO, preferably with solid U.S. backing.

**********

2) Spain: "A judge ordered copies of a satirical magazine confiscated Friday for publishing a front-cover cartoon of Spain's Crown Prince Felipe in an intimate bedroom scene with his wife, Princess Letizia, court officials said." The judge apparently thinks the cartoon may constitute "libel against the monarchy," which is punishable by up to two years in prison. The magazine is El Jueves. The cartoon is graphic -- pornographic satire, I suppose. You can see it for yourselves at the magazine's website, or here (a Basque news site -- hardly, one imagines, friendly to Madrid).

According to the Basque site, the cartoon is "about a newly approved measure brought in by President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to boost birth rate in Spain by offering financial assistance worth euro2,500 (US$3,450) to Spanish families for each new child born or adopted." And, yes, the "intimate bedroom scene" (such a quaint way to put it by the AP, in a story picked up around the world) is actually Felipe giving it to Letizia from behind and saying: "Do you realize, if you get pregnant this will be the closest to real work I've ever done?"

That's funny, is it not? I'll defend the freedom of the press, but I'll also defend a good joke. The authorities should back off.

**********

3) Pakistan: "More than 50 people were killed in suicide attacks across Pakistan on Thursday as the violence engulfing this country gave no sign of abating... The fatalities pushed past 150 the number of people who have died violently in the last week, since Islamic militants vowed revenge for a government raid on a radical mosque."

Not good. Keep watching this ongoing story. President Pervez Musharraf is hardly the ideal leader, not even close, but if his quasi-legitimate regime falls all bets are off.

**********

4) Ivory Coast: "The United Nations is investigating allegations of widespread sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers serving in Ivory Coast." Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan admitted last year that "[t]here have been crimes such as rape, paedophilia and human trafficking" committed by U.N. peacekeepers on various missions around the world". This seemingly would be more of the same.

The U.N. already suffers from a massive credibility problem around the world. It hardly needs its troops going around abusing those it is tasked with protecting. More to the point, those who are allegedly being protected hardly need the U.N., or even just some rogue peacekeepers, doing this to them. Africa in particular needs a robust U.N. presence throughout the continent. This won't help matters at all.

Right track -- wrong track

By Carol Gee

U.K. on a new track -- While listening on C-SPAN just now to new British PM, Gordon Brown, I was struck by one the phrases in his acceptance speech. He talked about "ending the poverty of aspirations" for people in the United Kingdom. (He had used that quote from Aneurin Bevin previously in a 2005 speech, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer). His words brought a sigh to my heart, because it seems that his diagnosis must also apply to our own nation, the United States of America.

A poverty of aspirations has infected too many of our elected leaders. And I believe the affliction is of the spirit, a poverty of spirit, brought on by our leaders succumbing to the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The violent assaults were directed toward a number of important symbols of American aspirations: the wealth of Wall Street, the military might of the Pentagon, and (as it was planned) the freedom symbolized by the U.S. Capitol. These leaders must have felt personally attacked, just like millions of Americans. The directions in which they have led the nation since then have been down, not up; with lowered, rather than elevated, expectations for us.

It is sad because U.S. leaders need not have become permanently terrorized in spirit. It evidently left their aspirations for the American people poverty stricken, lacking in imagination and capacity. The current administration has been consistently reactive, militarily myopic, poor at planning or executing, and lacking in any rich vision for a good future for us and our descendants. They seem to be stuck on war as the only answer, mistrustful of most of the rest of America, and severely "broke" when it comes to wisdom or good ideas. Because of limited vision - at times blindness - these leaders no longer enjoy the confidence of their own people. Recent polls numbers are unambiguously negative towards the people they elected over and over.

A new track in 2008 -- We are in the process of deciding who will replace the current afflicted Bush administration in 2008. On C-SPAN I am listening to a campaign speech by John Edwards. It is filled with aspirational language, vision and hope for a better America than the one he now calls "the two Americas." Barack Obama is now talking about "taking our government back," standing in his shirtsleeves in the midst of a crowd. His speeches draw big throngs because of his visionary language, his hopefulness, and his richness of optimistic spirit. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has an outstanding record of leadership, and is leading the charge right now to bring the troops home from Iraq. Hillary Clinton is strengthening her lead in the polls, according to her strategist Mark Penn. And it is not entirely due to her ability to fundraise. Her issues list includes "Strengthening the Middle Class," "Restoring America's Standing in the World," and "Strengthening Our Democracy."

On the right track -- My Democratic presidential choices are so very rich in aspirations. I would be absolutely comfortable having any one of them in the Oval Office. They all lift my spirits, because I have once again remembered that America will indeed have a better future. I just know it!

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

The Blair announcement

By Michael J.W. Stickings

British Prime Minister Tony Blair will "make an announcement" today regarding his future plans (i.e., resignation and departure date), the BBC is reporting (as are many others). He "will tell Cabinet colleagues of his intentions [this] morning, before making his plans public in a speech in his Sedgefield constituency".

Which means that the Gordon Brown era will soon be upon us.

With no Cabinet-level challenge for the leadership, and only a backbench challenge if any at all, his "coronation" is all but assured.

**********

Update: Well, it's done.

Après moi, Gordon Brown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Au revoir, Tony Blair.

As the The Guardian is reporting, "Blair began the final countdown to his departure [yesterday] by promising a resignation announcement next week and anointing Gordon Brown as his successor". Said Blair: "Within the next few weeks I won't be prime minister of this country. In all probability, a Scot will become prime minister of the United Kingdom, someone who has built one of the strongest economies in the world and who, as I've always said, will make a great prime minister for Britain." (Yes, Brown is a Scot.)

Blair and Brown, who don't like each other, are making nice (in a phony way), and Blair is doing what he can, so it would seem, to ensure a smooth transition of power (for fear of David Cameron's Tories, one suspects), but in some key ways and on some key issues a Brown premiership will be much different than the Blair premiership. Start with the Iraq War, which, as Kevin Drum rightly notes, Brown has never much supported -- which means that "the British withdrawal from Iraq will proceed, if anything, on an even quicker pace than before" -- for my comments on that withdrawal, see here and here. Needless to say, there won't be quite as much warmth between London and Washington as there has been in recent years.

Anyway, get ready for a seven-week leadership campaign -- which Brown is almost certain to win. And get ready for the retirement of a still-youthful and -energetic Blair. Whatever will he do with himself?

For my recent thoughts on Blair, see here. For more on Brown, see my brother's post here.