The Other NATO

When Chretien's aide called Bush called a moron at the NATO summit a few months ago I think she spoke for millions but most especially the heads of state who were present at the meeting. I had the sense then that this push to attack Iraq and the implications of it would cause a rift that could not be healed, at least not easily and certainly not by the dunderheads in the Bush administration. Presently Murdoch's Times is reporting 'old' Europe's draft for a EU military presence as a blow to NATO, while the Independent reports it as a natural progression of old intentions and the timing of yesterday's meeting as an embarrassment for France and Germany.

I wonder if Blair privately would agree that Bush and his representatives have a lot to learn when it comes to diplomacy. So far he seems to be a willing player doing a balancing act between puppet and visionary who represents the best interests of his people. Bush sees himself in a red, white and blue vaccum protected by an intimidating military power and the gullible Americans he can convince with his lies to follow him [ in some cases] as he leads them into global isolation and great peril. He'll always be followed [or perhaps routed into action] by those Americans who think we should be pushing everyone else around.

This doesn't minimise the fact that Blair is very much in keeping with this new reorganisation of global boundaries and seems perfectly willing to take the abuse not only from the Bushies but his own people in order to get the job done. What he doesn't have is sound footing in his own government and I'll be interested to see what the next elections bring. I've about lost hope there will ever be a 'free' election in the U.S. again.

I asked a few people a while back what they thought [Americans] would do if the rest of the world told us to kiss off, because I think that is what will occur and we're seeing the first implementations of it. As well, I can't imagine that China doesn't think SARS is an American/CIA intervention [not that I necessarily agree] and its appearance will probably cement the ties they've been formulating with Russia, or that they're not very concerned with obvious attempts on the part of the US to utilise NATO as their own personal police force.

And while Blair might hope to ride this out and in the end position the UK as an equal partner in this US bid for world domination, certainly he's had a taste of what the real future holds with the rebuilding contracts thus far awarded going only to a few US companies. He will always be nothing more than a kissing cousin to these guys, as Australia it would seem has already figured out.

What should the people in Africa be thinking? That these worries are coming to the fore?

Update: Apparently Murdoch's publication is mirroring the Bushie's reaction.

The United States and NATO criticized the accord among countries recently derided as "old Europe" by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Both said NATO needed more and better weapons, not new command structures.

The four leaders insisted at a news conference that their initiative -- more symbolic than substantive -- was not anti-NATO or anti-American but aimed at strengthening the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance.

"The aim is not to decouple European Union and Atlantic Alliance defense efforts. This contribution should enable European defense to make a quantitative leap forward," French President Jacques Chirac said.

Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the four countries had created "some sort of a plan to develop some sort of a headquarters."

"What we need is not more headquarters. What we need is more capability and fleshing out the structure and the forces that are there with the equipment that they need," Powell said.