Bright's Blog

24 comments from readers

Beyond New Labour
12 August 2008 at 17:33

What a load of nonsense.

You seem to think that diplomacy should be carried out in the media and if it isn't then nothing is going on.

Sarkozy is the EU President and thats why he was involved, what would be the point of having 27 heads of state all turn up.

I think you are the one with a foreign policy blind spot.

Martin Bright
12 August 2008 at 18:09

Glad you are so trusting. I'm sure they have our best interests at heart. Jim Murphy probably has all the answers anyway.

Paul Pettinger
12 August 2008 at 20:04

Rubbish. The UK was not best placed to mediate between both sides, as we are evidently supportive of Georgia, and rightly so. This was a role for France.

the orange party
12 August 2008 at 21:40

Do try to keep up. Brown and Miliband kept their heads down because they know the background to Blair's meeting with the Georgian president in London last year. After all Brown was there too.

As I reveal here:

http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/blairs-key-ro...

BegbiesEvilTwin
12 August 2008 at 22:43

Paul & BNL: Are both of you denying the central point of Brighty's article that Labour is paralysed?

Orange Party: Why did you use the colour orange? The only two political movements in the UK that I know of that are orange are our very own fascist movement known as Ulster Unionists (which support the United Kingdom) or Vince Cable's orange book.

Martin Bright
12 August 2008 at 22:46

My point is about the internal politics here, not who is best placed to act as intermediary. Leadership can express itself in many different ways, but here we have had none.

The point about the meeting in London last year is an interesting one. It is more than likely that Georgia believed its actions were sanctioned by the West.

Ronnie
12 August 2008 at 23:05

Well, lets go with it and imagine what would have happened if we actually had a government. What would Robin Cook, our last credible Foreign Secretary, have done? I think he would have supported what Sarkozy was doing, on behalf of the EU. So, what's your point Martin?

the orange party
12 August 2008 at 23:06

BegbiesEvilTwin asks the Orange Party why the colour orange?

Sorry to rain on you parade but:

The UUP doesn't use the colour orange - you are confusing them with William of Orange and all that. The LibDems party colour is yellow.

The Conservatives have highjacked both blue and green (greedy).

And it's still red but a little more mellow red these days under New Labour.

Black's a bit too scary.

Orange? Well, I like it and there are not many colours left to choose.

BegbiesEvilTwin
12 August 2008 at 23:49

The overlap between the Orange Order and the Ulster Unionists seems fairly significant. But I take your point about there aren't many other colours to choose from And the Scots have stolen a large part of the spectrum with the various tartans. Have you thought on Mauve? Only kidding!

Apropos the UK involvement in the former USSR, have you read Rob Blackhursts "The sad decline of the policy wonks" published in 2005?

Read here: http://www.newstatesman.com/200501310024

BegbiesEvilTwin
13 August 2008 at 00:00

Ronnie: I don't think there's enough evidence to support your assertion.

My assumption (and it is nothing more than that) is that he would not have started from here. Most likely Cook would have attempted to develop democracies and work with the other key players. It would seem utterly stupid to alienate it's neighbours thereby threaten Georgia's future security.

In fact that last sentence doesn't sound too dissimilar from Cook's usual rhetoric.

the orange party
13 August 2008 at 00:27

BegbiesEvilTwin: Thanks for the suggestion on Rob Blackhursts book - I haven't read it yet but I will.

BTW: Mauve really isn't my colour!

Ronnie
13 August 2008 at 07:54

Hi BegbiesEvilTwin (Does that mean that you are from Edinburgh?)

I think Georgia's neighbours have been alienated for quite some time and that won't change soon. That's why I think Cook, or any other properly-functioning Foreign Secretary, would concentrate on ending the war quickly as a first priority.

Beyond New Labour
13 August 2008 at 10:06

I think commentators are too quick to label anything Brown does as a failure.

If he and Miliband we working behind the scenes with the EU, UN and US and allowed France to front the peace mission (as it would look hypocritical and, because of our relationship, counter productive if we did it). Then they did the right thing.

There is no point jumping up and down in the national press and "appearing tough". People were dying and getting the Russians to hold back should be the main concern.

"The Government is paralised"? I am yet to see an real evidence that this is the case and all you are basing it on is that they weren't jumping up and down in public.

If they made no phone calls, had no conference calls and didn't work this through with our allies, then you may be right, but I don't think that is the case.

Had he come out to condemn them etc, you'd probably be criticising him for overreacting and trying to muscle in to take the heat away from leadership speculation.

I am not the biggest PM Brown fan, but this is criticism for criticism sake.

BegbiesEvilTwin
13 August 2008 at 14:53

BNL says: "'The Government is paralised'? I am yet to see an real evidence that this is the case and all you are basing it on is that they weren't jumping up and down in public"

You certainly make a good point when you say that commentators are being too quick off the mark to write Brown off. In fact he seems to be getting blamed for heaps of issues that he could never in all fairness control. And you're right about behind the scenes diplomacy is also fair but in the context of the initial article and the subsequent thread doesn't add up in the current climate.

And that's as far as your comments have any weight.

NL has been suffering terribly in the polls and the projections look even worse.

Combining the polls with the flaccid articles from members of the NL leadership in the NS recently indicate an attempt at a fight back. Yet the fact that they are unable to make a credible case between them suggests something worse than paralysis. It makes it look like they're drowning.

Your remarks look more like the oft-used method of dwelling on one or two valid points to distract from the central thesis -thereby misdirecting a discussion thread. In fact it looks very Paul Anderson.

BegbiesEvilTwin
13 August 2008 at 14:56

Ronnie: I'm from that neck of the woods but I moved down to the big smoke a while ago.

BegbiesEvilTwin
13 August 2008 at 15:35

At the risk of taking us completely off-topic has anyone read Monday's FT?

Whispers of a Watergate for Bush

By Clive Crook

Published: August 11 2008

"The response in the US to startling new allegations that the White House directed the forgery of evidence to support its case for the war in Iraq has been surprisingly muted so far. The charges may be false, of course, but if they are seriously examined and turn out to be true, this is - or ought to be - a Watergate-sized scandal..."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c6225f8-673a-11dd-808f-0000779fd1...

Does anyone think this could further damage NL's credibility?

writeon
14 August 2008 at 08:08

The politics of the Caucasus, rather like the Middle East and the Balkans, are intensely complex on many levels, unstable and steeped in competing and contradictory mythology and histories.

The oversimplistic attitude that it's all the Russians fault and plucky little Georgia is a beacon of democracy that's been violated by an aggressive and tyranical neighbour, is a powerful narrative, but inaccurate.

Georgia and the entire region are merely squares and peices on a giant chessboard on which rivalizing great powers are playing a great game for control of the collosal energy reserves of the Caspian Basin. Georgia is seen as our gateway to central asia and is, in reality, little more than a vassal state.

It's important to understand that the current regime in Georgia has initiated a substantial military build-up over the last few years; arms supplied and payed for by the United States. It is inconceivable that the Georgian attack on South Ossetia could have happened without American support and prior knowledge. Seen from a Russian perspective they were attacked by an American proxy or mercenary army. Given the violence of the initial attack on South Ossetia, it's also inconceivable that the Russians could have simply allowed themselves to be humiliated and defeated on their own doorstep. A Russian non-reaction to a direct military attack would have signalled that Russia was still on its knees and probably encouraged other breakaway regions to adopt a similar strategy.

But I'm moving towards a level of complexity that's beyond the scope of a mere comment, sorry. What's clear though is that Russia has made a decision. It's no longer prepared to be "pushed around" by the United Sates and is now pushing back in the Great Game. There are no simple labels here, no good guys and bad guys, only rival states sparing with each other over vital resources, control and influence.

Personally I really don't want to have to choose between rival "imperialist and aggressive" states, I prefer to remain neutral and watch from the sidelines as we have absolutely no influence over the course of events being played out in the region.

Make no mistake, there is trouble ahead and this current "skermish" is just the beginning of an historic struggle for control and access to the resources of the Eurasian heartland, probably the last great untapped storehouse left on the planet. As such the importance of this region cannot be overestimated, and the great powers understand this, which is why they are competing with one another. The United States has already moved into the area in great force to secure the oil reserves of the Middle East and it is expanding its sphere of influence continually, only now, for the first time in twenty years it is meeting resistance from a resurgent Russia, that, seen from their perspective, doesn't really have a choice. The US empire only has two real models for relations with other states; they are either vassals or enemies.

Bhatti
14 August 2008 at 13:40

It would have been fantastic for a member of the British Government to turn up and tell the Russians to respect the Sovereignty of Georgia.

Serosch
14 August 2008 at 14:15

Georgia and Afghanistan are the gateways to Central Asia, the Georgian gateway has just been closed and it won't be long before the Afghani gateway is closed as well.

The UK/US media continue to blame Pakistan for allowing the Taliban/Alqaida into Afghanistan, yet completely fail to mention that the vast majority of fighters are coming into Aghanistan from the North, via the old Soviet republics.

BegbiesEvilTwin
14 August 2008 at 19:51

I found these two articles to be quite interesting.

The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power

By George Friedman

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balanc...

The West must share the blame for war in Georgia

by Bruce Anderson

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/bruce-ande...

writeon
14 August 2008 at 22:12

The reason the government has shown admirable caution in involving itself in the current crisis in the Caucasus is that the situation is so incredibly complex and dangerous. Rushing in recklessly is hardly a prudent course under the circumstances. Perhaps some lessons have been learned after the foreign policy debacle that was Tony Blair?

Miliband was allowed to blow his little trumphet momentarily, but thankfully there was no charge to follow, thank heaven for small mercies!

If mighty Miliband agrees with the Bush administration that violence and force between states is passe in the 21st century, then some progress has been made. But does this only apply to Russia? What about the use of massive force by Georgia in attacking South Ossetia, surely the same logic and standards apply to them too, or do we apply different or double-standards in relation to our allies?

taghioff.info
15 August 2008 at 11:07

I think that Martin has a point. New Labour is supposed to be all about coming to terms with Globalisation, but is unable to grapple with the international politics that underpin their big idea.

It is fine when in is a Kantian progressive liberal internationalism where we all stand shoulder to shoulder, but since Iraq the darker, confllictual side of Geo-politics has reared its ugly head, and the third way, Giddens and New Labour have little by way of analysis to help them deal with this.

The big opportunity for the left is to start to frame their ides within a sense of how Geo-politics works. That way the so-called "pragmitism" of New Labour

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10...

could be based in the world that we actually live in, rather than this wierd sense of a Global Machine that runs on automatic (Gidden's Globalisation Leviathan.)

Beyond New Labour
15 August 2008 at 18:00

"Conservative leader David Cameron is to visit Georgia, the BBC has learned."

OK, my blind faith in Brown's quiet diplomacy was probably slightly misplaced, I was hoping to here this from the PM, but not to be.

It was possible that he was doing it right behind the scenes, but your probably right that he can't mange to do anything right for one reason or another.

It seems Cameron has yet again wondered into the gaping hole left by Brown's leadership.

writeon
16 August 2008 at 21:40

What I rather like about Gordon Brown is his inability to lie convincingly, unlike, for example, Tony Blair who had the "quality" of the pathelogical liar, the ability to convince oneself that the words flowing out of ones mouth at that particular instant were true.

What's also depressing about Britain is the press, which has been lousy in its coverage of the crisis in the Cacausus. It's a real pity that more British people don't have knowledge of foreign langauges. If they did and could read Spanish, French, Italian or German newspapers, people would encounter views about the crisis that they'd find enlighting and very informative, and an alternative to the anti-Russian bias of most of the British press. Often it seems like there's just one newspaper in Britain, with a pile of supplements all virtually saying the same thing but with their own twist and style. The style is different, but the content exists in remarkably narrow framework.

Let's just look at one country - Germany, maybe it's because the Germans have been involved in so much catastrophic warfare that they are cautious about getting involved in more of the same. The militerism and jingoism that exists in Britain is simply not found in Germany.

Angela Merkel didn't go to Georgia like Dave Cameron to catch the latest wave, she went to Moscow and didn't apportion blame for the fighting, she appeared neutral and unwilling to drown her influence in anti-Russian rhetoric.

OK one can argue that Germany is reliant on energy supplies from Russia, but Germany has been sceptical about the nature of the regime in Georgia and what their policies might lead to for some time. Germany is also nervous about the direction exstreme nationalism is taking Poland and the consequences this might have for Germany's security. Polish nationalism is both virulantly anti-Russian and anti-German. This is one reason the Germans are building a pipeline from Russia to Germany that goes around Poland under the Baltic Sea.

Talking of Poland and democracy, opnion polls show over and over again that most Poles don't actually want to place American rockets in Poland that will make the country a potential target in any conflict between the United States and Russia. But the right-wing nationalists in charge of Poland don't really care about democracy, only power.

What's also interesting about the new bi-lateral agreement between Poland and the United States is that in reality it circumvents NATO and undermines any restraint that other NATO members might have on the US and Poland in a conflict situation. Poland specifically wants a "hair-trigger" response in relation to a conflict with Russia, negating negotiation and preventing other NATO members from putting the breaks on any "reckless" action by the US or Poland. Perhaps this wouldn't matter so much if Poland didn't have such strong, nationalist and hostile attitude to Russia.

East European nationalists could drag us into war with Russia, and I believe this is what they really want, as do right-wingers in the US. What's certain is the US wants any conflict or war to take place in Europe and they believe they can protect the continental United States out of the firing line. This strategy is deeply flawed, probably impossible and close to insane, yet that's where we might be going.

And what of the UK, is anyone talking about this or debating it? No, are socalled leaders prefer to look the other way and muddle through once again. Yet, when the stakes are so high, is that really an option, isn't it a form of moral and criminal cowardice on a truly historic scale?