Mail an article...

Interview with Tony Blairâs foreign policy guru

A glimpse into the mindset of a tranzi mastermind. Opinion, not news, but important as this man has Blair and the EUâs ear. Slightly EFL.
If there is one man who can explain why Tony Blair went to war in Iraq, sent troops to Afghanistan and wants to join the euro, it is a tall, cultured man in Brussels called Robert Cooper. He is the foreign policy guru who, on secondment to No 10 in the years before the September 11 attacks, influenced much of the Prime Ministerâs thinking on international affairs. It was also Mr Cooper who, five years ago, persuaded Mr Blair to push for a European military capability. Then, presciently, in the months before the World Trade Center attack, he started badgering the Prime Minister to think seriously about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

When the war on terrorism began, he was made Britainâs special representative on Afghanistan. Later, with military action against Iraq looming, he argued for a new form of imperialism, based not on territory but on western values such as human rights, democracy and Coca-Cola. Now he has been posted to Brussels as right-hand man to Javier Solana, Europeâs foreign and security policy supremo. But he retains close links with Downing Street, where his ideas are held in great respect. In Whitehall and beyond, he is valued for his independence of mind. Unusually for a civil servant, he has a licence to print as well as to think: next week he is publishing a book, The Breaking of Nations, that sets out his ideas.

Some are horrified by his influence on Mr Blair; Tam Dalyell, the Left-wing Labour MP, once described him as a maniac. But the Prime Minister greatly values his ability to "think out of the box". "I am an idealist," he says, as he stride towards a Brussels cafe. "I still have my Sixties instincts. I do not understand why people would want to fight each other - or sometimes why they would not."
Unusually, Iâm with Tam - heâs a fool or a maniac.

Snip - some twaddle about "disaffected people in the world", Europeâs 9-11 being inevitable, and how Cooper "was astute enough to see the danger that the power vacuum in Afghanistan posed to the wider world." (Well, he certainly earned his Xmas bonus with that revelation.)

"You stop [a European 9-11] by spreading civilisation, by creating good government. We have to try to put ourselves into the situation where there has been another major terrorist incident - using biological weapons in a European city, for example. Imagine what you might do, then do it in advance."
Like nuke Tehran? I think he means: invade Iraq.

Although he rejects the analysis that there is a "clash of civilisations" between Christianity and Islam, he thinks the West has still not sufficiently understood the new threat. "In the Cold War, we were dealing with a civilisation which was very similar to ours. The people we are dealing with now are much more foreign. Maybe we need more anthropologists."
Patronising, evasive and advocating an ludicrously inappropriate waste of taxpayersâ money: youâd never guess this was a flower-powered civil servant.

The Cooper theory is that there are three types of country: pre-modern, defined by chaos and lack of state control, such as pre-war Afghanistan; the modern nation state within clear boundaries, such as Saddam Husseinâs Iraq; and post-modern, in which the nation state is collapsing into a bigger order - the European Union for example.
The "Cooper theory" blends the blatantly obvious with the fantastic. The "collapse of nation states into a bigger order" has happened before, many times. Never worked satisfactorily where people were anything like as diverse as those of the EU.

The post-modern world, which prefers diplomacy to war, must realise that pre-modern countries are dangerous not because they are strong but because they are so weak that they can become ciphers for people such as Osama bin Laden. It must also understand that the modern and pre-modern worlds operate in different ways. "You cannot treat people like Saddam Hussein the way you treat your neighbours," Mr Cooper says. "If we have a problem with France and Germany, we negotiate. But there are leaders you cannot negotiate with."
Riiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhht. So let me get this straight - Bush and Chirac must be bosom buddies communicating on the same wavelength, whereas Chirac and Saddam must have regarded each other as coming from Venus and Mars, respectively. No negotiating possible there, then.

He could be right about the post-modern state. But he's making the assumption that France is in fact a post-modern state by his definition. Iceland, Denmark, and Germany might be, but France demonstrably isn't...

He argues that the attack on Iraq was justified to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups. He still thinks that such weapons may be found. Even if they are not, he says, "I find it difficult to regard the fall of Saddam as a bad thing".
Well he gets 1 point for Basic Rationalizing Abilities.

As an aside, Mr Cooper has an interesting theory that it is particularly difficult for oil-rich countries to become democracies. "If you have a state that does not have to raise taxes because the money flows out of the ground, it can survive without democracy."
Because such countries are ruled by thug law, and always have been. Iâm sorry, is there something profound to this? What about Venezuela?

Oil is a sticky substance. It's difficult to keep it off the fingers, which also become sticky. There's a lot of money to be made being the autocrat of an oil-rich nation...

It was the realisation that the chaos of the pre-modern world could so easily destroy the order of the post-modern one that prompted Mr Cooper to develop his ideas about a new imperialism. "Decolonisation left the world with a lot of weak states," he says. "For a while they lived on the capital that had been left behind then survived because the Cold War gave the superpowers a reason to prop them up. But now we have seen states collapse and in Afghanistan we saw how dangerous that can be. If you want to avoid havens for terrorists, you have to bring these countries back under control."
Wow, imperialism. Isnât only what bad Yankees do?

Although he appears to share some of the American neo-conservative views, he rejects the idea that there is an "axis of evil" that must be neutralised one country at a time. Iran and North Korea should be dealt with in different ways, he says.
Saying things like this, is really impressive in Brussels, apparently.

The fact that they're members of the Axis of Evil doesn't mean they have to be dealt with in the same manner. It simply means they're evil and have to be dealt with. They could even be dealt with diplomatically and politically. Stop being evil, and you're no longer a part of the axis, are you?

Mr Cooper believes that cost will limit the number of imperial adventures. "In the old days, the imperialists used to exploit people; now they pay for them. The temptations of imperialism are very limited as a result."
The forriners are too expensive to enslave nowadays, do you mean?! WTF is all this imperialism stuff?!

Mr Cooper is concerned by Americaâs global dominance. "I would be more comfortable in a world where power was less concentrated," he says.
And this is why...he wants the collapse of nation states and a pan-continental European government. Mad.

It doesn't sound like he's thought that through. We used to have a world in which power was less concentrated. Competition between nation states is what gave rise to Holy Alliances and Axes. We fought two world wars and a cold war because power was less concentrated. What he's actually worried about is that the United States will misuse its power. If you buy the America as World Bully Boy theory, he could be right. If you buy the theory that our own post-modern currents are pushing us toward the same kind of world view as Europe and Canada, he's wrong. Left to its own devices, I think we'd have seen more of the Europe-Canada movement, rather than the raw projection of power we've seen in the past two years. Had Binny waited another ten years we might have been far enough down that road that our reaction wouldn't have been the same as it was in 2001 — big mistake on his part. The big mistake on Cooper's part is that his world view doesn't include enough Vandals and Visigoths and Avars and Huns...

Mr Blair, caught between Europe and America, is in an awkward position.
Blair holds European transnationalist/imperialist views, but respects the power of American authority, and the ability to change things for the better. Something Europe canât. Trouble is, he doesnât realise that this is not because America wants to change the world, only that American influence is a byproduct of her economic and political success. Europe, obssessed with ever increasing government and deliberate socialistic paternalism will never equal America.

Unless America goes down the same post-modern path, of course...

"He finds himself as the main advocate of Europe in the United States and that is unhealthy for him and it is unhealthy for the US. I think Blair is a European basically."
Heâs one of us or one of them. Either/or. Fundamentally different. You cannot be a good European and pro-American. European federalism is all about opposition to the United States. That canât be stated often enough.

Blair, I believe, has made the decision to take the U.S. at its word. Europe, under Chirac's leadership, won't do that. Chirac, in the same position as Bush, would be looking out for France's interests rather than an abstract good. Chirac, I am sure, regards Bush (along with those of us who share his opinions) as naive...

The transatlantic tensions over Iraq, Mr Cooper argues, can be explained by the fact that, as a post-modern concept (Post-Modernism? How passe!), the EU is based on multi-national negotiations and the rule of law, while the US, a modern state in his definition, sees the world in terms of power. That is why the Americans have less time for the United Nations than does Europe.
...the EU is based on multi-national negotiations and the rule of law. Bureaucracy, bureaucracy, government interference in the minutiae of daily life, and bureaucracy: thereâs the EU. And the US - doesnât respect the rule of law?

It's that individual liberty thing. It's a concept that's viewed with discomfort in Europe. You never know what people might do, y'know...

While the US would benefit from taking the rule of law, symbolised by the UN, more seriously, the EU also "needs to think a bit more in terms of power," he says. "We cannot just sit back and leave the rest of the world to America."
Because Europe has treated the world so well in the past. Canât possibly let the world fall victim to the US — that would be terribly neglectful.

That is why he supports the idea of a European defence force as a support, rather than a rival, to Nato. The Americans are far from happy about the idea.
Because itâs not intended to support NATO. Itâs intended to do the exact opposite.

Mr Cooper, foreign policy guru first in Britain and now in Europe, says with candour: "Influencing foreigners is really difficult."
Depends on how you do it, and whether those people want to hear lectures from an idealistic transnationalistic socialist, or someone else...

The Telegraph have a leader piece criticising Cooper in the same paper today. Hereâs an excerpt:

"Like Mr Blair, he makes a fetish of the UN and of treaties, whether on nuclear proliferation, landmines or global warming. The two men see themselves as part of an internationalist tradition that, at its best, is a noble one. Yet it brings problems of its own. Without the nation-state, it is hard to see how governments and other organisations can be properly accountable. A world where well-meaning technocrats made the rules - whether through the UN, the EU, the International Court or whatever - would leave little space for democracy."

Itâs charitable to refer to "well-meaning technocrats". Historyâs full of "well-meaning" authoritarians. Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Kim Jong-Il, Mao, Mohammed... and their "well-meaning", usually transnationalist, philosphies. Itâs amazing how many people learn squat from history, and also from the stark realities of the world around them. Politics as religion.
Posted by: Bulldog 2003-10-25

http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=20331