Samizdata

If you haven’t come across it yet, I recommend (as does Michael Blowhard to whom my thanks) William Shawcross’ 2003 Harkness Lecture, delivered on March 27th, in other words just as the public bit of the war was getting seriously under way, but before it had been successfully concluded. It is a very good brief summary of the state of the world now, as seen through the eyes of the USA’s neo-conservatives, and it is particular good as a brief introduction to neo-con ideas and attitudes:

I don’t want to say that they all believe the same things. They don’t, but there are some common threads in their views.

They tend to believe that we live in a special moment of history, one which is characterised above all by America’s unparalleled military power and the opportunity to expand the boundaries of democracy around the world. This is the time for a grand strategy to assert Pax Americana. This is the decisive decade in human liberty.

They value strategic thinking and the setting of priorities. They are wary of permanent alliances and are attracted to bold geopolitical moves for the expansion of American values. They are not wedded to stability. Conversely, they are not afraid of challenging the status quo. As we are seeing in Iraq.

They see American values as universal values and believe passionately in the special mission of the United States to bring American style democracy to the rest of the world. That is particularly true since 9/11. They, like President Bush, tend to see the world in very straightforward terms – even in terms of good and evil. They do not believe that evil governments can be reformed. Sovereignty is relative – the more evil the state the less sovereignty to which it is entitled.

They are particularly close to the state of Israel, in some cases to the Likud party, and they see the defence of Israel as a test of America’s willingness to defend American values. They believe that Israel will achieve peace not through compromising with her enemies, but through a grand re-ordering of her environment, through overwhelming force, and through daring strategic moves.

Even before the agonising rows over Resolution 1441 and Iraq’s lack of disarmament, they had no great regard for the United Nations. They see it as filled with undemocratic or anti American nations which seek to use it to constrain the United States.

In other words, it won’t end with Iraq.

We live in interesting times.

A few days ago, I spent a pleasant evening at chez de Havilland enjoying a sumptuous dinner consisting of a selection of char-grilled endangered species washed down with a delightful bottle of Ultra-Extreme-Right-Wing cordial.

After dinner, we retired to the drawing room to smoke cigars (hand rolled by grossly exploited third-world children) whereupon the discussion turned to matters of international affairs. It was during the course of our deliberations that I struck upon what I considered to be a quite promising strategy for dealing with the ‘Axis of Weasels’ (France, Germany, Russia)

Since the basis of their informal ‘alliance’ appears to be the shared concern about the vast amounts of money each is owed, then would it not constitute a masterful stroke in the machiavellian art of ‘divide and conquer’ to ensure that one or more gets reimbursed while the other is told to take a hike? Then sit back and watch while the gang breaks apart and they start turning on each other.

To me, this was a screamingly obvious manoeuvre. And not just to me because I note that Brian Micklethwait has made a similar suggestion in one of his comments below:

What if an “illegitimate” world just cries all the way to the bank? – leaving France as the only one in step, and broke?

For all the reasons discussed here (and there) I think the Americans could break such a strike, indeed are already starting to.

Indeed they are, Brian. No sooner had I finished reading Brian’s comments, and marvelling upon how they echoed my own thoughts on the subject, than I notice this article in the Financial Times:

The difference in approach was evident on Friday in a newspaper interview in which Tony Blair, prime minister, said the failure to secure a second UN resolution had put British soldiers’ lives at risk.

Downing Street believes that Mr Chirac’s threat to veto such a resolution made difficult negotiations with countries such as Russia and Germany “impossible”.

Meanwhile Condoleezza Rice, the US president’s national security adviser, was reported this week to have said that France should be punished, Germany ignored and Russia forgiven as the US readjusts its relations with European allies.

The world, and it would appear the French in particular, is about to be reminded of an old axiom: to the victors go the spoils.

By the way, if any influential members of the US Government happen to be reading this, let me just say that the Samizdata Team are available to provide free-lance consultancy on International Relations. Please e-mail us for a resume.