Lets all vote for bush
ser | 20.05.2003 17:23
Britain's future lies over the Atlantic – not the Channel
By Dick Morris
(Filed: 19/05/2003)
Have you looked at a map lately? Did you notice how the English Channel is getting wider and the Atlantic Ocean is shrinking? In fact, any objective surveyor would be sure to conclude that the distance from London to Paris is far greater than that between 10 Downing Street and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
This revisionist geography is not just an Iraq war thing. It is a sober conclusion based on the changing realities of foreign affairs. During the Cold War, America, Britain and the rest of Western Europe had to present a solid phalanx to the Soviet Union. Sometimes American hawks got a bit to the Right of European doves, but the Atlantic alliance rested on its two pillars - North America and Western Europe.
After the fall of the Soviet Union and the defeat of communism in Russia, President Bill Clinton argued that economic and trade issues should come ahead of military/diplomatic concerns on the international agenda.
Issues such as curbing instability in the Balkans, preventing genocide in Africa, protecting human rights in China, cutting the flow of illegal drugs, and fighting international terrorism all had their place in the Clinton Administration, but they ranked below the need for economic stability, sound national currencies and a free flow of goods and services across international borders.
In the econo-centric world of Clinton foreign policy, the United Kingdom could only play as part of a pan-European team.
In this way, London could only participate in a four-sided world of America, the European Union, Japan and China. Russia was negligible and the rest of the world mattered little. But September 11 shattered the assumptions that underlay Bill Clinton's world view. Suddenly, terrorism became the pre-eminent problem and the military-diplomatic-intelligence matrix we need to confront it our dominant need.
In this construct, the size of one's economy is no longer the admission card to the top levels of global leadership. Japan's large economy is of little use in addressing these new priorities and Russia's small one no impediment. Britain need no longer come as a diplomatic package with France and Germany.
In the new era, willingness to act counts for more than any other factor in attaining global power. The war against terror does not require a massive economy to sustain years of expensive combat, but a relatively small and proficient military, combined with political will - among leaders and voters alike - to use it.
Here, Britain's heritage and tradition of global involvement and leadership have conditioned it to play a major and decisive role on the world stage.
Always globalist in its thinking, Britain has learnt the lesson of its pre-Second World War days and has embraced the need for a strong hand in foreign affairs. Understanding the reason to use force against injustice in a way German post-war conditioning (for which we must be grateful) will not allow, Britain can and should step up to the permanent role in global leadership that its limited population and economy forced it to abandon in the 1950s. The era of "no commitments east of Suez" is long gone.
In an econo-centric world, the British Commonwealth counts for little. But in the global fight against terror, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other English-speaking countries are valuable and important allies.
The political lesson of the war in Iraq is that the people of America and Britain have far more in common with one another than do the British people with the French or the Germans.
Our common linguistic heritage, shared values, renunciation of appeasement as a policy option, commitment to do battle against injustice, and our essential optimism about the possibility of success make us partners in a way that continental Europeans, with their history of foreign occupation, can never hope to match.
Neither America nor Britain is prepared to sit by while villains do their worst. Both nations have historically put promoting human rights ahead of making money as global priorities. The peoples on either side of the Atlantic share an affection, a warmth, and a feeling of responsibility that bind us tighter than any economic union ever can.
Britain should no longer act like a European fish swimming in the Atlantic Ocean out of its native water. The ties that bind George W Bush and Tony Blair are more than just a determination to topple Saddam Hussein. They run to a shared concept of global duty.
Has the mandate of the United Nations run its course? Is the veto of the fearful, appeasing and economically selfish French delegation as hobbling as was that of the Soviet Union in the Cold War?
Before there was a United Nations, there was an Anglo-American alliance and then a Big Three of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. Will Vladimir Putin join with Mr Bush and Mr Blair to create a de facto world order determined to root out terrorism?
The days when Vladimir is content to join Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder in toasting their shared impotence over vodka, champagne and beer are probably numbered. His instinct for power is too finely tuned and the opportunities to restore Moscow's big power status too tempting to consign him for long to the backwaters.
But whether Russia participates or not, the political and diplomatic future of Britain lies with America, not with France and Germany.
The British are a can-do people, imbued with energy and positivism. Like Americans, they look to their future. Unlike the French, they are neither cranky nor neurotic. Unlike the Germans, they have been neither beaten nor humiliated.
Britain can trade and share its currency with anyone its wants. It can subscribe to joint domestic policies with the continental bureaucrats if it so desires. (Although I suspect the door to Nafta is open to Britain if it ever gets tired of its current confrères.)
Make your economic destiny with the Continent if you wish. But save your political vows for a marriage with America. We want you ever so much more than they do, and our joint future is a lot brighter than theirs.
Dick Morris was a campaign strategist for President Clinton
Next story: If our airports don't grow, they will die
News: Hain sparks furore over EU 'liars'
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.
By Dick Morris
(Filed: 19/05/2003)
Have you looked at a map lately? Did you notice how the English Channel is getting wider and the Atlantic Ocean is shrinking? In fact, any objective surveyor would be sure to conclude that the distance from London to Paris is far greater than that between 10 Downing Street and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
This revisionist geography is not just an Iraq war thing. It is a sober conclusion based on the changing realities of foreign affairs. During the Cold War, America, Britain and the rest of Western Europe had to present a solid phalanx to the Soviet Union. Sometimes American hawks got a bit to the Right of European doves, but the Atlantic alliance rested on its two pillars - North America and Western Europe.
After the fall of the Soviet Union and the defeat of communism in Russia, President Bill Clinton argued that economic and trade issues should come ahead of military/diplomatic concerns on the international agenda.
Issues such as curbing instability in the Balkans, preventing genocide in Africa, protecting human rights in China, cutting the flow of illegal drugs, and fighting international terrorism all had their place in the Clinton Administration, but they ranked below the need for economic stability, sound national currencies and a free flow of goods and services across international borders.
In the econo-centric world of Clinton foreign policy, the United Kingdom could only play as part of a pan-European team.
In this way, London could only participate in a four-sided world of America, the European Union, Japan and China. Russia was negligible and the rest of the world mattered little. But September 11 shattered the assumptions that underlay Bill Clinton's world view. Suddenly, terrorism became the pre-eminent problem and the military-diplomatic-intelligence matrix we need to confront it our dominant need.
In this construct, the size of one's economy is no longer the admission card to the top levels of global leadership. Japan's large economy is of little use in addressing these new priorities and Russia's small one no impediment. Britain need no longer come as a diplomatic package with France and Germany.
In the new era, willingness to act counts for more than any other factor in attaining global power. The war against terror does not require a massive economy to sustain years of expensive combat, but a relatively small and proficient military, combined with political will - among leaders and voters alike - to use it.
Here, Britain's heritage and tradition of global involvement and leadership have conditioned it to play a major and decisive role on the world stage.
Always globalist in its thinking, Britain has learnt the lesson of its pre-Second World War days and has embraced the need for a strong hand in foreign affairs. Understanding the reason to use force against injustice in a way German post-war conditioning (for which we must be grateful) will not allow, Britain can and should step up to the permanent role in global leadership that its limited population and economy forced it to abandon in the 1950s. The era of "no commitments east of Suez" is long gone.
In an econo-centric world, the British Commonwealth counts for little. But in the global fight against terror, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other English-speaking countries are valuable and important allies.
The political lesson of the war in Iraq is that the people of America and Britain have far more in common with one another than do the British people with the French or the Germans.
Our common linguistic heritage, shared values, renunciation of appeasement as a policy option, commitment to do battle against injustice, and our essential optimism about the possibility of success make us partners in a way that continental Europeans, with their history of foreign occupation, can never hope to match.
Neither America nor Britain is prepared to sit by while villains do their worst. Both nations have historically put promoting human rights ahead of making money as global priorities. The peoples on either side of the Atlantic share an affection, a warmth, and a feeling of responsibility that bind us tighter than any economic union ever can.
Britain should no longer act like a European fish swimming in the Atlantic Ocean out of its native water. The ties that bind George W Bush and Tony Blair are more than just a determination to topple Saddam Hussein. They run to a shared concept of global duty.
Has the mandate of the United Nations run its course? Is the veto of the fearful, appeasing and economically selfish French delegation as hobbling as was that of the Soviet Union in the Cold War?
Before there was a United Nations, there was an Anglo-American alliance and then a Big Three of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. Will Vladimir Putin join with Mr Bush and Mr Blair to create a de facto world order determined to root out terrorism?
The days when Vladimir is content to join Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder in toasting their shared impotence over vodka, champagne and beer are probably numbered. His instinct for power is too finely tuned and the opportunities to restore Moscow's big power status too tempting to consign him for long to the backwaters.
But whether Russia participates or not, the political and diplomatic future of Britain lies with America, not with France and Germany.
The British are a can-do people, imbued with energy and positivism. Like Americans, they look to their future. Unlike the French, they are neither cranky nor neurotic. Unlike the Germans, they have been neither beaten nor humiliated.
Britain can trade and share its currency with anyone its wants. It can subscribe to joint domestic policies with the continental bureaucrats if it so desires. (Although I suspect the door to Nafta is open to Britain if it ever gets tired of its current confrères.)
Make your economic destiny with the Continent if you wish. But save your political vows for a marriage with America. We want you ever so much more than they do, and our joint future is a lot brighter than theirs.
Dick Morris was a campaign strategist for President Clinton
Next story: If our airports don't grow, they will die
News: Hain sparks furore over EU 'liars'
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy.
ser
