>BTW - does anyone have any clue why Mr. Cool Britania has transformed
>himself into the mouthpiece of Bush administration, siding with the
>Conservatives against his own party?
>
>Wojtek
Not so. In fact one of the bye products of Blair's centrist politics is that the Conservative Party has virtually no where to go. Tonight Duncan Smith was warned by senior party leaders essentially that he is on probation.
Blair's systematic centrism within UK politics has allowed the centre of gravity of the country to slide to the left.
In the economic sense of imperialism Britain is one of the major imperialist countries. But in the political sense it no longer wants to see itself as a great power. It would be nice to win at football and cricket more often.
I posted as follows yesterday to PEN-L trying to explain Blair's sense of conviction, ahead of tonights set-back for him.
Blair's political goals, his ideology and his methodology are not the same as Bush's. see below.
What is being tested tonight is whether any other state can in the world can afford to be a side kick of the US militarily unless there is some sort of global acquiescence if not a formal UN vote for a military intervention.
That will severely restrain in turn the scope of arrogant US unilateralism.
>It is the job of politicians to appear strong when they have a weak case,
>and to be skilful in brushing over the weaknesses. Nevetheless Blair's
>resolute stand in the House of Commons needs some explanation.
>
>I suggest it is that he thinks absolutely systematically always in terms
>of the balance of forces rather than being randomly opportunist. Therefore
>no matter that the majority of his party does not want a war now and on
>these terms, he sees that Bush will not back down. It is in his conception
>of Britain's interests to continue its alliance and seek more influence
>within that alliance.
>
>Secondly, although Bush's perspective is US hegemonism, Blair's is a
>federal world government. He can see the statue in the stone.
>
>Yes he would rather have a more comprehensive approach to middle east
>peace, including the Palestinians, but he, more than Bush, has locked the
>Security Council into a logic of using the threat of invasion to extract
>concessions from Saddam. Therefore it is dependent on that military force
>which applies that threat of invasion, and is in its hands, the hands of
>the US.
>
>Alan Simpson MP, one of the leaders of the Labour group against the war,
>has a sophisticated alternative involving bargaining and negotiating with
>Saddam: that all but military sanctions will be lifted if Iraq cooperates
>with continued inspections and allows in monitors of change in human
>rights. It would also be part of a wider package including pressure on
>Israel. But while Blair could in private discuss this, he can afford to
>ignore it, because the balance of forces with the US is such that a war
>will happen.
>
>Blair avoids discussing the scenario of what would have happened if
>Britain had stepped aside from the US war momentum against Iraq, and left
>the Bush administration effectively isolated on a world stage. That he
>would probably argue, is not an option for a centrist British prime minister.
>
>Last night faced with a typically agressive attack by Jeremy Paxman, the
>chair of the Labour Party, John Reid, former member of the Communist
>Party, kept his cool and politely and robustly failed to collapse. He
>assert about the "dodgy dossier" that the PhD student's thesis was more
>credible than many contributions to the Newsnight programme and speeches
>by MP's. Paxman had no answer to this.
>
>All this is not about an abstract conception of democracy, that people
>freely decide what they wish, the votes are added up and the will of the
>people is what gets carried out. It is a conception of a complex civil
>society, in which many agents decide what they want to do, and how
>determined they are to do it. They then adjust their positions in a
>sophisticated way usually with the balance of forces in mind. Blair and
>Reid's steadiness is also a reflection of the profound nature of New
>Labour thinking, which is quite different to the thinking of the
>unilateralist clique around Bush. Blair is a sophisticated actor in an
>emerging complex global civil society. (Of which the Coelho article, that
>Ian posted, is another expression). Hence Blair is going to spend an hour
>on Friday in an interview on MTV. Almost incomprehensible. He has the
>strength of someone who believes his own ideology, and thinks it works.
>And to a certain extent it will.
Congratulations on the virtual march on washington. CNN Europe was reporting how rapidly the protest has been organised with the aid of the internet. You need to play on Blair's wobbly position, at least to get some members of Congress to start breaking with the bipartisan consensus, to open more scope for popular protest.
Chris Burford
London