Kerry is on course to become president in January. That does not mean that he will succeed, but it does mean the possibility should be taken more seriously. Blair, one suspects, contents himself with the reflection that the US election is a win-win for his government. If Bush is re-elected, then it is business as usual. If Kerry prevails, then the congruence of values and interests means both sides will be strongly motivated to make the new partnership work.
Around Blair it is fashionable to say that a Kerry victory would make little fundamental difference to the international situation. In important respects that is true. Kerry would be conservative in the Middle East, as Democrats generally are, and would not have many new options in Iraq. Welcomed though his election would be in Europe, he is unlikely to persuade any more European nations to help drag the US out of the post-invasion mire.
Strategically, though, this is another repeat error. When Bush came in, Blair catastrophically underestimated the extent of the change - and he still does. Now he appears equally insensitive to the new mood that would be triggered by Bush's defeat. Not all of his colleagues, however, are so relaxed. When I asked one senior cabinet minister last week whether he was hoping for a Kerry victory, he replied in just one word: "desperately". If the polls are right, he may yet get his wish.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1269980,00.html It seems that the public face of Labour is hiding a true desire to oust the chimp. I wonder how exactly relations will change once Kerry's sworn in?
Will Blair be able to survive if Kerry repudiates the chimp's stances after his election?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
