NO NASA SCHADENFREUDE PLEASE
The tragic loss of the Challenger Space Shuttle is a blow to space exploration and, perhaps, to American pride. With an unpopular war looming the Gulf many in Europe will be tempted to take pleasure in America's loss - as some did in the attacks on September 11, 2001. Posters on the UK's Guardian website did venture that they were not 'likely to cry over the loss of millions of dollars in a US dick-waving demonstration' and 'space satellites... what a dumb waste of money'. For others the prompt advertisement of Challenger debris for sale on ebay - since removed - was evidence of the depths of human depravity. But Nasa's space programme is evidence of the best endeavours of US society, unbidden scientific enterprise, just as the plans to invade Iraq are its worst.
MYSTERY OF UK GRIDLOCK EXPLAINED
British commentators were dumbfounded by the failure of the authorities to grit the roads in time to prevent gridlock after ice formed. Who was to blame for people being left in their cars as long as twenty hours on the static M11? London Mayor Ken Livingstone quickly pointed the finger elsewhere, and everyone wondered at the failure of a sophisticated early warning system to get the gritting trucks out in time. Pointlessly, the government has promised legislation to oblige local authorities to grit - as if they could not just have rung them up and asked them.
This is no mystery. The failure of the gritting lorries was caused not by tardiness, but by road congestion. Before they could get to site, they were caught in a gridlock of drivers, leaving early to avoid the frost. On any properly operating road network increased demand would be no great problem. But Britain's road networks have been deliberately snarled up under legislation in 1998 empowering local authorities to undertake 'traffic calming measures' - that is, reducing supply - and by the failure of the government to build new roads or expand existing ones. What is mysterious is that its proponents have not embraced the success of the policy to dissuade car users by snarling up traffic. Was this not what they were hoping for?
CHEESE-EATING SURRENDER MONKEYS...
...Euro-Weenies, EUnuchs. These are just some of the insults Americans make against Europeans, gathered together by Timothy Garton Ash in his article 'Anti-Europeanism in America' (New York Review of Books 13 February 2003). Ash's point is to show that it is not European 'anti-Americanism' that needs explaining, but America's anti-Europeanism. Insightful as 'Anti-Europeanism in America' is, Timothy Garton Ash ties himself in knots trying to distinguish between anti-Europeanism (prejudicial) and anti-Americanism (justified):
'Anti-Europeanism is not identical with anti-Americanism', writes Ash, dubiously. 'The emotional leitmotifs of anti-Americanism are resentment mingled with envy; those of anti-Europeanism are irritation mixed with contempt'.
Of course, all four attitudes are distributed equally amongst all protagonists. Ash's point is that America is predominant (hence irritated, contemptuous), Europe supine (hence resentful, envious) - but that is just a component of the attitude of anti-Americanism: you are too powerful.
Meanwhile the impact of American pressure on the 'Old Europe' alliance of France and Germany, resounded when the pro-American Europeans ganged up to support the war against Iraq. The so-called 'Gang of Eight' issued a letter backing the US. Perhaps aware that it would be less plausible in Brussels if it was predominantly East European leaders signing up, the Gang of Eight kept those down to a minimum, with Spain, Portugal, Britain, Italy and Denmark making up the West European case for war. Signatory Tony Blair showed that his previously expressed ambition for a common European diplomacy was dependent on Britain's role at the centre of it: once France and Germany set the agenda, Britain returned to its old role of wrecking unity. Blair might also recall that, along with other Western leaders, his new ally Silvio Berlusconi was roundly condemned by all as the unacceptable face of the Western alliance for his anti-Islamic comments.
US policy is caricatured in Brussels as unilateralism. But a better account is given by Charles Krauthammer in the winter edition of The National Interest. America's foreign policy, he argues, has emerged from the multilateral policy pursued by Clinton (and though Krauthammer will not have it, indicated by George Bush Sr.'s first Gulf War coalition). Multi-lateralism, says Krauthammer left America tied down like Gulliver, by Lilliputians. The new policy puts American interests first as the best guide to what's best for the world. It is not, as he rightly argues, indifferent to the world, like Pat Buchanan's isolationism. On the contrary, the US intends to get Europeans onside, but on its terms. Talking tough is a negotiating ploy, not an attempt to lose friends. But here Krauthammer misunderstands the real dynamic. Ultimately, Iraq itself is unimportant to the US. What is important is containing the conflict between Europe and America - under American leadership. This conflict is what drives the twin attitudes of anti-Americanism and anti-Europeanism.
-- James Heartfield
http://www.heartfield.demon.co.uk/james1.htm