COVER -> DAY ONE
 |
There is a temptation amongst commentators always to think that they are wiser than those about whom they write; or, to put it another way, they too often fall into the temptation of thinking that those they write about are stupid. So Mr. Blair was stupid for receiving Putin and leaving himself open to charges of, once again, breaching the tenets of his ethical foreign policy.
It might be fanciful, but my surmise is that the two sets of talks were not primarily concerned with bilateral trade but with nuclear weapons.
Blair would not have agreed to see Putin unless there were very pressing reasons and the current status of nuclear weapons negotiations are very pressing indeed, with Russia making the concessions and taking the moral high ground. Meanwhile Congress dreams of Reagan's 'Star Wars' adventurism, ballistic Viagra. You really would think that legislators could discover better ways of wasting money. Surely it would be better to spend it on surveillance which has potentially huge benefits for science and business.
We know, after all, where all the 'rogue' nuclear powers are and we ought to know where most of their nuclear weapons are kept. I could be wrong; Blair and Putin might have been talking about trade, a new bilateral science institute, the world price of gold, a bipolar approach to China, the expansion of NATO or any number of more or less pressing topics but the key point is that I don't know what they were talking about and am not meant to; and that goes for all the journalists who were covering the talks.
It seems to have crossed none of their 'minds' that the two leaders might have been discussing very important matters which they wished to keep secret. One of my less welcome suggestions is that journalists should spend a couple of hours a week looking at newspaper coverage of events fifty years ago and comparing it with the best contemporary historians with access to the official papers.
I only ask for a little humility and proportionateness. I should not think there is much chance of my call being heeded. Hysteria seems nowadays to be taken for granted as if it were no more to be remarked upon than indifference.
I have in mind the coverage of the custody case of Elian Gonzalez which, let us face it, doesn't matter in the least to anyone but his direct family members, some of whom have become emotional and foolish. No matter, people often behave badly in custody cases. It is, however, absurd to tie this up with Washington's irrational and counter-productive attitude to Cuba and it is simple hyperbole to think that there is anything in this case worth reporting publicly to anyone.
I suppose one could just about make out a 'human interest' angle for American coverage but I do not see why we in Europe should be burdened by our broadcasters and newspapers with blanket coverage.
Incidentally, before I leave that subject, it might be instructive to ask ourselves why those the United States has reviled most in the crumbling Communist world seem to have lasted the longest.
In Europe we have just entered upon a very grave bout of hysteria but over refugees in general rather than one in particular.
The story began with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the East/West thaw. More latterly, numbers have escalated with the war in Kosovo. Governments are surprised and do not have adequate procedures for judging issues of economic self interest and humane asylum. People are outraged that anyone should want to leave shattered tenement blocks and fields where horses still drag the plough in exchange for the booming West.
Newspapers, mimicked even by public radio and television, talk about their particular country (coverage of contiguous states is rare) being over-run by gypsies and ne'er-do-wells; and, of course, although people hardly dare say this aloud, the darker their skins, the worse they are.
In Britain the hysteria is much worse than elsewhere because, as an island, we have been accustomed to controlling immigration with a firm hand and a high mind; but now that the firm hand is weakened by uncontrollable migrations the high mind has evaporated with unsurprising speed. On an immigration per capita of residents basis, Britain is ninth in the European league table but thinks that it is being "swamped" and no politician in office or seeking it dare say otherwise.
Britain is also thought to be a "soft touch" for "bogus" refugees. Setting aside the mad notion that putative refugees read the welfare benefits regulations of 15 countries from which they choose Britain, there are some simple facts that are ignored.
- First, Britain's welfare settlements are much lower than those for most European countries. We are forever telling our fellow Europeans to learn from us, to dilute their "social model", to be as flexible with their labour markets and as unflinching in their public callousness as the United States. Pour encourager les autres we give our political asylum seekers food vouchers for which change can't be given.
- Secondly, as an island which is not party to many European treaties of mutuality on control free borders, illegal immigration to Britain is much more difficult than to many land-locked, open border countries.
- Thirdly, if prospective immigrants know as much as it is claimed, they should know that the labour market is tighter in Britain than almost anywhere in the world.
The facts, of course, don't matter.
It would be much better for us all if development assistance to countries exporting refugees were greatly increased as the most humane and efficient way of stemming the distressing migration from poor to rich countries.
That would certainly be better than filtering out the enterprising and learned immigrants, thus exacerbating the divide between exporting and importing countries.
Perhaps Blair and Putin were talking about this alternative, perhaps they were talking about little Elian and Mr. Gore's fervent wish that the little blighter had not managed heroically to cling on to his inner tube; but I doubt it.
Whatever the truth, it would be helpful, I think, if we were to discuss the comparative merits of nuclear defence and development assistance just to see whether my preference for the latter is as rational as I am pleased to think. After all, I can't see nuclear weapons stopping asylum seekers.
