[continued from previous message] 
  
 something. And that is all that most of Blair's bourgeois critics want. They 
 do not offer a different policy, merely a call for a harder bargaining 
 stance in Britain's dealings with Washington. 
  
 The question that haunts them all is just how far they can take such 
 horse-trading with the US, given Britain's subordinate position in 
 relation to its transatlantic partner. There are many within the 
 British bourgeoisie who nurse their petty resentments towards the US and 
 pride themselves on Britain's diplomacy and statesmanship when compared 
 with the "Ugly American." But ever since the 1957 Suez debacle, 
 they have understood that it is the US that ultimately calls the shots. 
  
 Just prior to Blair's trip to Washington, Kendall Myers, a senior 
 analyst with the US State Department's Bureau of Analysis and 
 Research, gave a lecture to the School of Advanced International 
 Studies at Johns Hopkins University. In it he stated that Blair got 
 "nothing, no payback" for supporting Bush in Iraq. Blair should have 
 been ditched by Labour, he added, but the party had lacked the 
 "courage or audacity" to remove him. 
  
 The Bush administration, he continued, took little account of what 
 Britain said: "We typically ignore them and take no notice. We say, 
 `There are the Brits coming to tell us how to run our empire. Let's 
 park them.' It is a sad business and I don't think it does them 
 justice." 
  
 But Myers did more than embarrass Blair. He declared that the "special 
 relationship" between Washington and London was always a "myth": "It has 
 been, from the very beginning, very one-sided. There never really has been 
 a special relationship, or at least not one we've noticed." 
  
 Such candid remarks will strike a resentful chord within the British 
 establishment, but resentment and dissatisfaction alone cannot produce a 
 major shift in foreign policy. For this, significant layers within ruling 
 circles would have to conclude that their strategic task is to build a 
 series of alliances within Europe as a counter-force to the US. And to 
 date, the European bourgeoisie has proved itself militarily incapable of 
 offering such an alternative power base and lacking the necessary 
 political will to mount such a challenge. 
  
 Despite their obvious desire to profit politically from the reversals 
 suffered by the US, they are constrained by a belief that a defeat for the 
 "world's policeman" in Iraq would be politically 
 disastrous--bringing in its wake a mass radicalisation of the working 
 class not only throughout the Middle East, but also in the US and 
 Europe. 
  
 The British bourgeoisie fears such an outcome more than any other. 
 Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom, 
 wrote on December 7 in the Telegraph of the greatest challenges ever 
 faced by the Anglo-American special relationship, noting, in 
 particular, that "anti-American views are now as widespread, or 
 perhaps even more prevalent, in the UK than in some continental 
 European countries with a far deeper tradition of public scepticism 
 toward the US." 
  
 A "weakening of the Anglo-American alliance," he warned, would mean 
 "the further loss of national sovereignty, the diminution of British 
 global power and influence, the loosening of defence and intelligence 
 ties, and a weakening of the close-knit financial, trade and 
 investment relationship... In times of international crisis, the US and 
 the UK stand together, and the world is a safer and better place for it." 
  
 In reality, US imperialism faces a major loss of its economic power for 
 which its aggressive military policy could never compensate. Far from 
 being a factor ensuring stability and peace, America has become the major 
 destabilising factor in the world situation. 
  
 As a result, British imperialism's alliance with, and continued 
 reliance on, Washington is at the very heart of its own mounting 
 difficulties. 
  
 Whether under Blair or whoever succeeds him as Labour leader, Britain 
 will continue as America's chief partner-in-crime in Iraq. Like the 
 debate in the US between the Democrats and Republicans, and within the 
 Republican Party itself, the debate over Britain's foreign policy 
 takes place between factions whose concern is how best to advance 
 their predatory imperialist interests in the Middle East and 
 internationally. Such an agenda not only demands continued bloodshed in 
 Iraq, but must also pave the way for worse atrocities in future. This 
 must provoke mounting domestic opposition that can find no outlet within 
 the official political spectrum. 
  
 Equally, any sharp shift in the political situation in America, 
 whether due to events in the Middle East, the worsening situation 
 facing the US economy, or a movement in opposition to the gutting of 
 living conditions and the erosion of democratic rights, will have 
 grave consequences for Britain. 
  
 Copyright 2006 World Socialist Web Site. All rights reserved. 
  
                                 * 
 ================================================================ 
  NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems 
            Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 
  Search Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/htdig/search.html 
  List Archives:   http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ 
  Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr 
 ================================================================ 
  
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) 
  
 iD8DBQFFfYWaiz2i76ou9wQRAr2OAJ90hVNbhuqVZjpKfeT7YKGxMzr4uwCgu+GI 
 Ud8HcOvCVfVnR8+JFQPVDIk= 
 =lyiO 
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)