Belmont Club has a couple of fascinating entries that mesh well with my last post on the tranzi menace. Collect the set!
I was particularly struck by the Club’s take on the immediate post-9/11 tranzi reaction:
The curious antipathy of the Germany and France towards unilateral American action following September 11 was driven not by a sudden revulsion for American culture, but by the loss of something they deeply coveted: the means to exercise supranational police power under the aegis of international treaties. In the days following Osama Bin Laden’s attack on New York, hopes ran high in Paris, Berlin and Moscow, that America in her grief would deposit her strength in the hands of the “international community” who, thus armed, promised to put a stop to terrorism and uproot its causes. To provide the violins, the capitals of Europe expressed the utmost sympathy for the American loss and deluged embassies with flowers and letters of support. “We are all Americans now”. For a moment, matters hung on edge, the most critical instant in modern history. Then the haze passed, and America shook the expectant, extended hand and said “I’ll take care of it myself”. The response was immediate and incandescent. The internationalists rounded on America with as much hatred as the sympathy they had professed mere moments before.
As always, Belmont Club’s full analysis of the prospects for the future shape of international order are worth pondering. The Club posits a bottom-up New World Order founded on common law that contrasts sharply with the top-down command-and-control vision of the transnational progressives.
I think you’re right!
I do too, Giorgia. What’s more, it now becomes clear that that is exactly what Tony Blair’s game was, too. After it all began to go wrong, from the tranzi point of view, Blair thought he could still swing it by working from the inside, which is why he stuck by the US. By the time he realised it was all running out of control, the president was going to go ahead and invade Iraq regardless of Chirac’s great thoughts, it was too late to back out without losing face.
Blair is a tranzi since way back. And look at how fast Jacques and Gerhardt welcomed him back into the fold after the war. They knew he’d done his best.
I believe we should have supported the American decision and I’m proud that we did. Blair got it right for all the wrong reasons.
Ha ha! I had read those posts by Wretchard at Belmont Club, copied the permalink and came directly here to post them in the Comments! I was scooped!
Belmont Club says it all. I really don’t have much to add. I hope he’s right. An international Common Law of liberty for all would be something I sure would be a lot more comfortable with.
Common Law makes a lot of people nervous though. It looks like the whim of the Judge sometimes, and not real law – and sometimes that’s all it is. There’s nothing written down, no “contract” – just some general principles.
Luckily for the nations who have decides to embrace common law they’ve come to realize that it has a better chance of self-correcting than Civil law. Once something is in the Code, it’s very hard to get rid of. But if a Common Law judge makes a bad decision, the others can just ignore him. The results are more uneven, but more likely to make the leap of imagination required to find justice.
I’m confused by the accusation that Blair is tranzi, how is uniting with America different with France/Germany ?
Blair’s geopolitical posturing is no different from American “New World Order” concepts, and over-rules the decisions made when considering Europe. I can only see Blair joining the EU once the financial considerations sway in our favour, not just for the sake of any continental love-in like a typical tranzi, you may provide evidence against that however, if you can.
I’m no fan, but Blair fought the good fight, for whatever reason.
Unable to get us to join the rest of the EU flushing their economies down the tubes, Blair is determined to ram their absurd “constitution” through without a referendum by lying to the electorate (it’s just a tidying up exercise; don’t worry that it abrogates all previous EU treaties; trust me) at which point the euro becomes moot. In other words, he is to sign away British sovereignty forever, without consulting the British people, and make us part of a country called Europe. Even the French are getting a referendum on this. Blair was a rabid CNDer – not as an idealistic kid; as a married man – and he is a big fan of the UN and the ICC and every other tranzi organisation in the world. Blair is a one-worlder and it amazes me that you think he has the faintest interest in Britain’s economic interests. He’s one of those “we must be at the heart of Europe” tranzis. He never explains why we should be at the heart of a failing continent.
To say he is expecting to get a big kiss and a reward from Jacques and Gerhardt is to severely understate the case. He is expecting to be made either the (unelected, ca va sans dire) president or the unelected to-be-created foreign minister. Blair is not a friend of democracy.
‘I’m confused by the accusation that Blair is tranzi, how is uniting with America different with France/Germany ?’
I don’t belive the US has ever claimed the authority to regulate your economy,your curruncy,your education system and standards,your weights and measures,your national legal system or social arraingments.
I would say that is very different.
As for wretchard,
i hope he’s right,but I think he’s optomistic.
Where do you find Blair as a “rabid CNDer”, and I personally see more evidence of patriotic distrust of tranzi organisations then support.
Blair joined Old Labour when they supported Unilateral Disarmament, but they were also anti-Europe, so you can’t have that both ways either.
As far as the transzi are concerned, the only connection Blair has with the ICC is when he ends up in the dock.
Blair and Cherie were CNDers until they realised that membership was rendering them unelectable. Turns out Cherie was unelectable no matter *what* principles they ditched, but she got the consolation prize of having a husband who rammed the totally unnecessary “human rights” law undebated through the British parliament. By coincidence, she’s a “human rights” lawyer.
Two things; The Belmont Club (got there initially from the “Three Conjectures” article, but there’s loads of other good stuff) is now on my list of ‘must reads’ along with denBeste, Rantburg and this fine blog. Secondly, as for Blair, I totally agree with Verity that he did the right thing for all the wrong reasons.
Wrechard’s analysis of the European response is spot on. Whether he is right about future trends is of course an open question — though I am cautiously optimistic.
Let me also agree that Belmont Club has been almost unbelievably good recently. Truly a brilliant blog.