Where does last week leave Gordon Brown’s ambitions?
July 11th, 2005
-
When will Blair go?
On the morning of May 6th the future for Gordon Brown looked relatively straightforward. He had been loyal to Tony Blair during the election campaign and within a relatively short time, a year to eighteen months, he would get his reward. The deal in the Granita restaurant all those years ago would soon be reality.
This was certainly how the betting markets viewed it. In that first post General Election week you could have got just 2/1 on Blair going this year and the spread on the number of weeks of his third term had the changeover taking place later on next year.
How things have changed? First the French referendum got Blair off the hook of his promise of a UK vote and then there were last week’s events - the Blair’s triumph in Singapore and his reaction to London Bombs. It is hard to imagine how Gordon Brown would have handled all of this.
-
Seven days ago we said “Back Lucky Tony” on the Olympic decision and those that did got 3/1. This week we say back Blair in all the markets on how long he will stay.
Very interesting is the Blair switch project from Betfair which has 2/1 available on Blair lasting beyond January 1 2008. Also interesting is the spread from Spreadfair on how many weeks the Tony Blair third term will last.
We cannot see Tony Blair going soon - reinvest some of your 2012 winnings.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Right now true but as we have seen und=foreseen events can change things dramatically eg Say a New Tory Leader got a Slight Tory Lead even say 3 Points or less but Con sistentr for a Month or Two and ther Brownites will Surely Start the the drums rolling again. And of course many other things could happen, that we don’t know about to Paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld.
Isn’t a counter-argument that if Blair’s good run continues, it may encourage him to go sooner? I had a vague feeling on Wednesday that he might just decide to go out on a high (the terrible events of Thursday of course destroyed even that).
It was only a vague notion anyway and I think it was almost certainly way to early to think about it. But if he has a very good spell like this (”good” is the wrong word in this context but you know what I mean) sometime in 2007 he would surely be tempted - more so than if he were in the doldrums.
Maybe I just don’t get politicians’ psychology. Like gamblers, they may just find it difficult to leave the table when the cards are going their way.
But he couldn’t go this Year at least not Voluntarily or it would be absolutely obvious he was cutting and running. As we’ve seen then by the end of the Year, events, a new Tory Leader etc the Economy could be drastically different, maybe TB will disprove the notion that all Political Careers end in the Proverbial but i wouldn’t bet the Family Fortune on it.
1 , I . Yes you’re correct it’s the usual suspect - “events dear boy , events ” .
Here’s another scenario . GB gets knocked down by the proverbial Clapham Omnibus , driven by Peter Mandelson , and TB looks around and says ” hey I mean (pause) it’s a terrible tragedy (dramatic pause) and I feel the country needs stability (pause) and Gordon would only want what’s best for the country (long dramatic pause) so I carry on in the interests of the nation ” (long shot fade to black).
3 - I think that’s right and it was only an idle notion really. But if the G8 presidency and Olympic bid had been a year or two later there would have been a case. And if a similar run (minus Thursday) happens in 18 months, why not cash in his chips?
I get the impression that Tony Blair is going to stay in power for as long as he can possibly can, I just don’t think it’s in his nature to walk away voluntarily - he enjoys his status too much.
5 Quite, but it like wanting to walk off the Golf Course with your last SAhot havingg been a Corker, instead Sod’s Law dictates you have an embarrassing air shot. TB had better pray Lady Luck smiles on him one Last Time.
Otherwise Gordon will shatpen his knives, the Murdocjh Press will bounce back to the Tories at the Slightest sign of an uplift in Tory Fortunes, and he could well end up being draggeed out as opposed to Strolling outa.
James [2] wrote Maybe I just don’t get politicians’ psychology. Like gamblers, they may just find it difficult to leave the table when the cards are going their way - I think you get it exactly. Thatch didn’t even want to leave when they were going against her…
Another analogy… who was it said that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac? Perhaps Blair fears that when he has to leave No. 10 he will no longer (you can lower the tone of the site for yourselves :))
Party leaders do get bigger “majorities”, they say…
I wonder how David Mellor’s fortunes in that department have changed since he lost.
8/9 . In which case poor IDS is now a born again virgin !
I think you are wrong. Better to go at the end of the G8 year. He isnt daft and will know that things wont get any better.
That said, I am not risking any money either way!
Though he’s had a period of unpopularity and in my opinion made a serious mistake by going into Iraq I predict that when he’s gone he’ll be missed and in a way that Maggie,Major,Heath Callahan and Wilson never were. And that isn’t a reflection on Gordon Brown.
12 - But that’s because you’re a Labour supporter Roger. I dare say many on the right would say that they were missing Maggie terribly during the 92-97 period.
12 Agreed - whether he goes in the next year, or the next four, we are now in the last phase of his leadership - and I think that most balanced commentators are beginning to acknowledge what a fine PM he has been. Even Iraq does not look good at the moment - but in twenty years or so, I think we may well be judging that very differently.
14 Most Balanced? Like any politician your view of him will be Coloured by your Political Stance. It is no use pretending otherwise, and Blair will be no different, a few will love hi,m a few will loathe him, most will be utterly indifferent one way or another the moment he leaves Downing Street in whatever way he does it.
This is surely a chicken and egg question - I, for one, do not support political parties in the way that I support my football team. I back Labour, because I believe Tony Blair is a fine Prime Minister.
16, Quite agree. But some people do back Parties because of a residual sense of idenitity. AS for Blair i think we agree there is no such thing as a balanced view of him or any Politician, as your political stance will inevitably colour the lense through which you view their actions and deeds.
17 It’s an interesting question. I think our responses to politics and to politicians are a mixture of the emotional and the rational. I do believe it is possible to make judgements that are detached and objective (this site provides may good examples). Time, of course, helps - while I loathed Thatcher while she was PM, I now acknowledge that much of what she did (and which I opposed vehemently at the time)was in fact good for the country.
13 - some of us still miss Maggie now!
19 , Rik . Breaking News ….. SDP renegade pledges undying love and loyalty to the leader over the water …….
Odds on Mrs T as next Tory leader …… not at any price ……
Fascinating: From John B -
16: “I back Labour, because I believe Tony Blair is a fine Prime Minister.”
18. “I now acknowledge that much of what she[Thatcher] did (and which I opposed vehemently at the time)was in fact good for the country.”
As I suspected the labour government has morphed into thatcherism.
We are a more selfish, more centralised country, with a weakening higher education system, and a lost manufacturing base (I could go on).
Against that Blair’s Africa campaign must be praised - I dont think the Conservatives would have done that.
Thatcher is the root cause of the predicament that the Tory party now finds itself in. Discuss
19 - then you need to get more practice or better glasses, Rik.
21. Icarus, Blair is actually Lady Tatcher with a differen haircut.
Have you ever seen the 2 in the same room together?
21 - Thatcher turned around a country that was on its knees after years of Socialism under Labour and (so called) Tory govts. She had the bottle to do what was needed and we have our current prosperity and low unemployment to thank her for as a result.
Blair’s Africa campaign is tokenistic nonsense which will do little if anything, to help ordinary Africans.
Mother and son:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1955000/images/_1958763_pms300ap.jpg
http://www.newlabournewlies.org.uk/images/front_070504.jpg
24 - http://cvcl.mit.edu/gallery.htm#hybrid
One of my posts seems to have gone AWOL!!!
23 - no Icarus, I just have an appreciation of how Maggie turned around this country from the mess it was in when she took office!
22 - a nice double-edged coment Icarus, and one I know you know a bit about. When the market revolution is complete what is the point of Thatcherism?
26 - you need to scroll down a bit …
27 - replace Maggie with Tony and she with he …
28 - you are having a laugh! one of Labour’s great good fortunes was the excellent economic situation it inherited from the Tories. Contrast with the disaster Labour left in 1979!
29 - http://www.nature-wildlife.com/girtxt.htm
Rik - I’m not an apologist for St Tony but I suspect Labour could also argue that the mess present in 1979 was as a result of the spectacular failure of the “Tory Century” preceding their period in office.
30. Err why the Link?
31 - you’re having a giraffe!
30 - so the Winter of Discontent was the result of Tory govts!!?? Hmmm!
33 - in fairness, the Heath government wasn’t an unqualified success in industrial relations.
Re. 28, in as much as Labour inherited a good economic situation, it had far more to do with George Soros and White Wednesday than the Major government.
I’m no fan of the 74-79 Labour government (with its appeasment of the trade unions and its vindictive, self-defeating 83% and 98% upper income tax rates, which saw thousands of people leave the country), but I’m no fan either of the sado-monetarism of the early 80s which meant almost all the oil revenues spent on keeping people unemployed (many of them sacked from good firms, not just overmanned ones) instead of in the country’s infastructure (like the railways, which had been so neglected that Railtrack did not even have a full register of assets - because publishing one would have put off shareholders).
I must confess, though, that I missed Maggie from 92-97 - I doubt she would have made the mistake of resuscitating a Treaty which should have been allowed to die after the Danes said no to it in a referendum, of privatising the railways in just about the most complicated and unworkable way possible (a return to the Big Four or British Rail plc might have worked), and of the shameful so-called ‘conservative realist’ appeasement of Milosevic, in which a government which was happy to sell arms to General Suharto slapped an arms embargo (and voted for its continuance) on a democritically elected government of a UN-recognised sovereign state ffighting for its survival when attacked by ethnic separatists, and from Serbia itself (the recently released videotape of members of the REd Scorpions killing Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica confirms long-held suspicions that the involvement of Serbian forces in the attack on Bosnia-Herzegovina did not end with JNA mortars being used against villages on the Drina River).
About the one highlight of the Major years (apart from White Wednesday) was Michael Howard’s ‘prison works’ strategy at the Home oFfice which, despite the cut in police numbers, saw crime fall)
What a joy that was to see, after the ignominy of another instance of Hurd’s appeasement mentality, this time that of criminals, was exposed by the dreadful 1991 Criminal Justice Act.
Hope there aren’t too many typos - I was writing this during an update.
Will Labour leadership be at all swayed by possible lost deposit in Cheadle by-election? Despite Labour’s attempts to put out even nastier leaflets attacking the Lib Dems than the Tories are doing in order to try and save this money 9and face) I am not sure that anyone much in Cheadle can be ****d to go out and vote Labour on Thursday - so little chance of success is on the cards.
My view is that the steamship Blair will plough through the waves regardless of such hiccups, and indeed of Galloways tastelessly timed but true remarks that although he didn’t press the detonators, Tony Blair’s slavish idoloatry of GeeDubbya has been the critical factor which has brought these sad extra casualties to our shores.
“Galloways tastelessly timed but true remarks that although he didn’t press the detonators, Tony Blair’s slavish idoloatry of GeeDubbya has been the critical factor which has brought these sad extra casualties to our shores.”
I am not sure the voters of Cheadle will necessary see it that way. I can see Labour doing (relatively) well in Cheadle actually.
37.”I can see Labour doing (relatively) well in Cheadle actually. ”
If Labour will do well, the Libdems could risk. Except if Labour will get voters from the tories, but I think that the tories are left with their core vote which is hard to attract.
36 - that is offensive rubbish when we dont even have confirmation of who the perpetrators are yet. I do wish people would avoid this sort of knee-jerk anti-American rubbish!
33, 34 - yes, if you take a historical viewpoint. The state of play in late 70s Britain in industrial relations was the product of centuries of animosity between the labouring and the rentier classes.
40 - yes and even the worst years (1972 under Heath, winter 1978/9 under Callaghan and 1984 under Thatcher - each a little over 20 million working days lost to strikes) constitute a blip when compared with the 1920s when such levels were absolutely commonplace and levels above 80 million and 160 million were recorded in 1921 and 1926. You can argue whose policies were right or wrong but the forces at work are mainly very long term and it is a question of how people cope.
Who was it who said, when asked to say what he though the effects of the French Revolution were, “It’s too early to say”?
41 - Mao?
41 - Ghandi, I think, or was it him that when asked what he thought about Western Civilisation said “It would be a good idea”?
41. Usually attributed to Zhou En Lai.
The Blunt and tragic truth re Bosnia 35, is Major couldn’t act until the Clinton Administration was prepared to do so, anymore than Blair can have invaded Iraq without the Americans. Put brutally only the Yanks have the raw Military Power to undetake Such Operations.a
Welshman David Pain speaks???
Re. 36, it’s worth bearing in mind that the opposition of France and Germany to the Iraq war hasn’t stopped French and German nationals being killed by jihadists in north Africa and Pakistwan. Also, a 100 Britons died in the original 9/11 attacks.
The withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq didn’t stop either hte planting of another bomb on a train line (in revenge for the explusion of the Moors from Andalusia) and further planned atrocities from the original Madrid bombers.
We’re also a target for Al Qaeda when, like Australia, we supplied troops to stop Indonesia militias rampaging through
East Timor (bin Laden said on one tape that Bali was
revenge for Australia’s helping a predominantly
Catholic country gain its independence from a
predominantly Muslim country.
While a more equitable settlement for the Palestinians
would help stem recruitment to Al Qaeda, we’ll also
be a target for Al Qaeda as long as we continue to
support the existence of Israel. In fact, we’ll be
a target for as long as we (quite rightly) oppose the
an Islamic Empire stretching from Indonesia to southeern Spain
I also can’t help but notice how the likes of
Pilger, Abbott, Chomsky et al talk about the
radicalising effect of the Iraq War, while they keep
very quiet about the radicalising effect of the
appeasement of the Bosnian Serbs. Maybe this is
because they supported the one-sided arms embargo
that left the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina
dependent on foreign jihadist volunteers from
Algeria and Chechnya in a conflict which radicalised
British-born Pakistan volunteers such as Ahmed Omar
Sheikh (who was imprisoned for beheading Daniel Pear
l) and which was ended only by NATO intervention which Chomsky, Moore, Alice Mahon etc. so consistently opposed.
I also well remember a piece in the Observer in August 2001 which bemoaned the sympathy of US neo-conservatives for
the Chechens (though, to be fair, there is also some
sympathy for the Chechens - the non-jihadist Chechen
nationalists - from some on the left, such as Vanessa
Redgrave).
We shouldn’t, though, be surprised about the Pilger-Chomsky axis: for jihadist murders, and its total
indifference to the suffering of the largely secular
and liberal Muslims of Bosnia - that’s where the
Pinter-Pilger axis’s dreary ‘America is always wrong’ and its inverted jingoist ability to give the benefit of the
doubt to totalitarian mass murderers(whether the
Soviet Union, Pol Pot - Chomsky still doesn’t accept that they committed genocide in Cambodia - or Al Qaeda), something which
is never extended to democracies. Thus, the non-existent massacre in Jenin is played up for all its worth, while Srebrenica is either denied outright, or played down. Killing trade unionists in Colombia is bad, but the killing of trade unionists in Iraq is condoned.
Re. 45, simply not true - read Brendan Simms’ ‘Unfinest Hour: Britain and the destruction of Bosnia’, and you’ll find
that whenever the Clinton administration tried to
intervene (through no-fly zones), the British
obstructed them. In fact, Bush snr’s one moment of
strength towards Milosevic (the ‘Christmas warning of
December 92), which probably kept the peace in Kosovo for six and a half years, provoked fury within the Major administration
There was also anger at the US turning a blind eye to breaches of the arms embargo, a breach which resulted in the military gains for the Bosnian government in the Summer of 95.
It was only the threat of total isolation, with
Jacque Chirac taking a tougher line than Mitterand, that led Britain to agree to the NATO military action of 95, which
saved the remaining safe havens of Tuzla, Bihac, and
Sarajevo, and which led to the war’s end.
When Tadeuz Mazowiekci resigned as UN Human Rights rappoteur, it was in protest at Hurd’s relentless obstruction of anything which might curb the Bosnian Serbs (for his exact words, again, see Brendan Simms’ ‘Unfinest Hour’)
That should read the initial no-fly zone - the British so weakened it that it had be renewed a few months later.
Malcolm Rifkind has his fans on this site. After having read in Simms’ book of how Rikfind said to Senators Dole and McCain (the first of whom was horribly injured in World War Two, the secondof whom was held captive and tortured by the North Vietnamesse) that ‘You Americans don’t know anything about fighting’, I’m not one of them.
On the other hand, he does deserve credit, alongside David Davis, for taking up the cause of the Mull of Kintyre helicopter crash pilots.
47 - Richard I couldn’t agree more. Your last paragraph in particular sums up the ludicrous double standards applied by the likes of Pinter, Pilger and Chomsky.
47. “Pinter-Pilger axis’s dreary ‘America is always wrong’ and its inverted jingoist ability to give the benefit of the
doubt to totalitarian mass murderers(whether the
Soviet Union, Pol Pot - Chomsky still doesn’t accept that they committed genocide in Cambodia”
This overlooks the fact that the Khmer Rouge had the support of the United States.
Wasn’t Pilger one of the first to expose the Khmer Rouge’s genocide in Cambodia ?
Re. 52, the Khmer Rouge may have had the support of
the US after the Vietnamese invasion, but it certainly
did not when it was in power, and killing 20% of the Cambodian population.
In as much as the US was blamed for the actions of
the Khmer Rouge at the time
(as in William Shawcross’ Sideshow), it was indirectly, through the invasion, and bombing, of the country in the early 70s).
Any support Americans gave to the Khmer Rouge at the time was of the moral variety from Chomsky, when he sneered at the
accounts of Cambodian refugees interviewed in Thailand
Whether or not the Khmer Rouge had the support of the US at any time, it does not make Chomsky’s genocide denial
any less reprehensible. It puts him, in fact, on a par with
David Irving - yet, while David Irving is a pariah
figure (with publishers pulping his books, and his
last book largely unreviewed), Chomsky is described
by the New York Times as ‘the most important intellectual alive today’.
OTOH Dole 50 himself behaved disgracefully by condoning on TV the Propaganda War agfainst Kerry’s Wounds/War Records. Kerry was enraged and Shocked a fellow Vet would do that in Stark Contrast to Mccain and phoned him toi say so, and tell him, “Senator i bled from each one of those Wounds.”
While I agree with much of Richard’s various postings re; the hideous downplaying of Serb (and Croat!!!) atrocities by British and other European governments, and the role this played in radicalisation of some British & European muslims, I cannot accept that this ranks anywhere alongside Blair’s fawning to Bush over Iraq (and to a lesser extent over Israel for a number of years) in terms of moving the UK to the second place in potential Al Qaeda (and others’) targeting.
You are right that all ‘westerners’ especially isolated easy pickings in Mid East countries are potential targets in some way, but that is different from being isolated as mass targets for major action. To some extent I think that last week’s slaughter was as much about the G8 exclusive ‘club’ as about Britain - I would have thought it likely that intelligence analysts would have predicted this particular juxtaposition as a red-alert co-incidence and acted accordingly.
Re. 53, yes - I should have made it more clear that
I was referring specifically to Chomsky re. the denial
of Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia.
On the other hand, Pilger has said re. the actions of
the insurgents in Iraq (including
attacks on public infrastructure such as water plants, for which he condemned the Contras in Nicaragua, and the murder of trade unionists, which Pilger condemns in Colombia) that ‘we can’t be too choosy’, and after years of (rightly) exposing the Indonesian genocide in East Timor
gave not a word of credit to his own country’s role in
(however belatedly) stopping the Indonesian militas from
rampaging through East Timor, and helping it gain
independence. Was he pleased when Gusmao took up his post in the newly independent East Timor? Not at all.
He also bemoaned the West’s non-intervention in Bosnia, then condemned the NATO airstrikes which ended the war as (inevitably) all about oil.
49. I will read but it already Sounds like a hatchet Pilger Type Work. As for the Yanks they were extremely reluctant to commit troops to that area an experience Blair would have Six Years Later. Re Kosovo impossible to say, you could argue equally with regard to the Serbs their efforts and Strength and expansionist aims were solely directed at Bosnia and Croatia, while the Bombing that resulted encouraged many in the KLA to believe that if the Serbs were committed into acts of Barbarism in Kosovo too then the Americans and Nato would be drawn in on their side, a correct assumption as it turned out. The Violent riots and ethnic Cleansing (when in a chilling reprise of Sreenica according to the UN Investigator UN Troops cowered in their barracks rather than face the rioters) last year may indicate frustration that, they having achieved that intervention it is stopping independece and eventually UNion with Albania.
AS for the French everyone remembers their Pro-Serb stance. The French officer who allegedly gave Nato Bombing Plans to Serbia etc.
Richard, there is a section of the Left that will condemn the West regardless of how it acts (and condemn the West if it doesn’t act). Non-intervention in Country X will be branded disgraceful, and attributed to racism if the victims are non-white; intervention will be branded as neo-colonialism.
It’s quite striking to witness the reversal of attitudes among some people towards Saddam and East Timor over the past few years.
Re. 56, really, why not? A lot of Muslims I knew at the time (including young Muslims at my Sixth Form College, where I got howled down when I drew the short straw of defending
Western policy towards Bosnia) were just as angry over
Bosnia as they were (and are) about Iraq.
I knew Muslims at university who went to weekend conferences/schools - the foremost grievance discussed at such events was policy towards Bosnia.
It may well be that the London bombers were radicalised by Iraq - on the other hand, we know (from his own account) that the British born Ahmed Omar Sheikh (who slit Daniel Pearl’s throat) was radicalised by (and in) Bosnia, which led a whole load of other British-born Muslims to pass through the training camps in Afghanistan
Also, as I noted earlier, Spain was targetted for mass action y the Madrid bombers EVEN AFTER the troops were withdrawn.
A bomb was found on a train line (with responsibility claimed by the Abu Hafs Al Masri brigade, referring to the expulsion of the Mors in 1492) and the bombers, who blew themselves up when
confronted by the police, were planning more bombings still.
Re. 55, Dole has often behaved appallingly (his comments about the millions killed in ‘Democrat wars’ in the 76 vice-presidential debate overshadowed his political career for quite a while, probably including the 88 primaries), but he was right about Bosnia nad Kosovo, and it’s disgraceful that Sidney Blumenthal
describes him as ‘an isolationist’ in ‘The Clinton
Wars’. As well as being disgraceful, Dole’s behaviour att
re. the attacks on Kerry show that the Doles, as well as McCain are trying (if not, in fact, have made) their peace with the Bush clan.
So Howard is now praising Blair is he? IMO without blaming anyone but the bombers for the killing ,he in all seriousness cannot declare an attack is ‘inevitable’ and then refuse to deport suspected islamic terrorists or indeed how does he explain secuirty needed to protect 8 politicians at the G8 which obviouusly left 8 million londoners a little less protected. The last thing Blair (and the intellignec eservices) need right now is praise and a kick up the backside might be more appropriate
Re. 58, not at all - Simms’ background is, for one thing, on the right (I think he was involved in the Bow Group), and its far better than Pilger’s various chippy witterings.
Re. 58, not for the first time, Sean, we agree.
Re. East Timor (Pilger’s stance on which I’ve alre
ady alluded to) and Iraq, yes, see Nick Cohen.
I well remember how the left used to campaign for
sanctions against Saddam in the 80s (and, as an alternative to the freeing of Kuwait in the 91 Gulf War), but later condemned them as a humanitarian outrage.
Which leads to my next point - there was just as much outrage among jihadist sympathisers (and wider Muslim opinion) over
the sanctions (ended by the war) as there was about the war itself. There was also outrage (in fact, it was largely the reason Al Qaeda was established in the first place) among Islamic Fundamentalists over the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (the ending of which was one of the unofficial aims of the war).
60 Absolutely McCain has, the hottest rumour in washington a few weeks ago as even the Bushes realise a gap must exist between family Members in the White House is a McCain-Buush Ticket for 2008.
54. The record of American support for Pol Pot under Ford is not quite as clear cut as you make out, but over the next few years we should get the full picture as the documents get released from the Archives for this period; I suspect, however, that an understanding of what was going on in Cambodia existed at the highest level, but the attitude that (via the Chinese) Pol Pot had the potential to be ‘our son of a bitch’ in the face off against the Vietnamese and the Soviets dominated.
It is clear that Brzezinski’s obsession with China certainly led to such a policy being implemented well before the Vietnamese invasion, but again we will have to wait a few years until the documents are declassified.
There is a book out just recently on U.S. Cambodia relations 1969-2000 by Kenton Claymer, but I haven’t had the chance to read it yet. I have heard that it is good, and think that it will remain the most important text on this subject for the next 5-8 years, (once again!) until we have access to the documents.
62 I didn’t imply he was a Lefty like Pilger only that he was adopting the same Polemical, Black is Black White is White Attitude that Pilger does to everything albeit from a Left Wing as opposed to Right Wing Point of View.
I meant re. 59 - time to have my dinner.
Re. 58, and the behaviour of the French, Chirac
(not a politician for whom I have much time) did not
share these Serbophile attitudes. As I’ve said before, he was very much in favour (pressed for, in fact) the 95 NATO action which led the Serbs to the negotiating table.
Even William Shawcross (scathing about Chirac in Allies) notes Chirac’s role in ‘bringing a new energy’ to the international community re. Bosnia in an earlier book, ‘Deliver us from Evil’.
Re. 65, OK, fair enough, I take your point.
I wouldn’t say, though, that he adopts the tone you
(rightly) criticise re. Pilger.
With Pilger, though, it’s not so much ‘black is black, white is white’ as ‘black is white, and white is black’ given his contortions over East Timor (and the murder of trade unionists) which his ‘everything America/Australia/the West’ does is
wrong’ (sneering at East Timor’s independence and new government as there solely to advance Western business interests)
On the other hand, now it really is time for dinner.
64. - Chrisco
There’s some great stuff on this in Henry Kissinger’s book Diplomacy. See also Walter Isaacson’s book on Kissinger.
I hope I’m not misrepresenting them but my impression is that Pol Pot was little more than a fringe movement until the US bombing raids into Cambodia, which acted as a sort of recruiting sergeant for PP.
There is much on this complex issue in both books.
Regards
Peter
I suppose the religious hatred laws are still on the agenda. Amazing you can basically say ordinary non - muslims have it coming to them for out of their hand government decisions and yet if yu say anything about dodgy mohammed you get up before the courts. what a state
68. Anything Kissinger writes has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt, as he has been shown to be a very unreliable chronicler of the period! Jussi Hanhimaki’s recent book on Kissinger, ‘Flawed Architect’, is instructive.
70. Chrisco
I agree that you must read him (and most people) with a healthy degree of scepticim but that’s not the same as dismissing him out of hand. Reading him and Isaacson together is instructive, especially as the basic facts of the Vietnam campaign are now pretty well established.