We're the Warmongers; What Legacy?; Rag Traitors, Heroes and Swine; Blair Bobbles the Vote
Claus Von Bulow | [Taki](#taki) | [Toby Young](#young) | [George Szamuely](#szamuely)
What Legacy?
It has been raining for months in London. This inspired the Almeida Theatre to stage Shakespeare's The Tempest as an aquatic ballet. Prospero, Ariel and Caliban were gyrating like Esther Williams in some old Busby Berkeley movie. Ghastly. The Almeida is normally one of my favorite theaters. It is now being renovated and moving temporarily to premises next to King's Cross Station. The first play there will be the notorious Lulu, and, since the neighborhood is famous for its prostitutes, the director may be tempted into putting Wedekind's tragic femme fatale in an unusually verismo setting!
The reopened Royal Court Theatre is going from strength to strength with new plays. Mouth to Mouth by Kevin Elyot (who also wrote My Night with Reg) is both funny and sensitive. At the minuscule Bush Theatre I saw an adaptation of Albert Camus' Les Justes, a timely reminder of Camus' rejection of Stalinism, which provoked such anger from Sartre and other trendy fellow travelers. One is reminded of the rage of many American journalists when Nixon had the temerity to prosecute Alger Hiss. I have not to date seen any of those brave hacks utter an apology now that Soviet files have revealed the guilt of Hiss as a traitor.
The Hampstead Theatre is another of those gems New Yorkers would call Off-Off-Broadway. The current production is Feelgood by Alistair Beaton, which had such unanimous rave reviews that it is now transferring to a big theater in the West End. This is just as well, since I want every friend of mine and indeed every voter to see it before the impending general election in June. It is a brilliantly funny satire of the image-conscious, slogan-obsessed, shallow Blair government.
An even more important political message is delivered in a splendid and moving revival of Pfitzner's Palestrina. The action takes place during the Council of Trent in the middle of the 16th century, when the composer Palestrina was commissioned to write a new Mass. Incidental to the main opera we are shown the endless quarrels and intrigues among the members of the Council. Yet every delegate was a highly educated cardinal or bishop, all of them speaking the same language, Latin, and all of them united with fervor in the same faith. We must despair at the naivete of those politicians who want to create one European superstate out of more than a dozen multilingual, multicultural nation-states. We know what happened to the Tower of Babel?indeed we know what happened in the breakup of the Soviet Union.
One of the most evocative photographs from World War II was the one of London's St. Paul's Cathedral surrounded by smoke and flames. After the bombing, Sir Christopher Wren's great church stood majestically alone amid the rubble. The then-Labor government missed a unique opportunity for creating a great piazza in London to compete with Rome's St. Peter's and the Concorde in Paris. They put up a lot of shabby offices instead, which in turn have now fallen down. Once again St. Paul's stands alone with breathing space around it. Every visitor should hurry to see it and to marvel. It is, in my view, the best show in town.
Of course the present Labor government is as philistine as the former one was. Instead of profiting from this second chance for a great space in the center of town they blew 750 million pounds on a Millennium Dome in a suburb, which nobody could be bothered to visit. It was not a fortuitous error. The government is committed to eradicating anything to do with history. Therefore millennium celebrations did not refer to a date 2000 years ago, which happened to be the date for the birth of Christ. The teaching of history has already disappeared from the state school curriculum, and a recently published government report recommends that studying Shakespeare be optional for high school students. With no heroes in literature or history there will be no one tomorrow's young voters can compare their government ministers with. The spin doctors have read Huxley's Brave New World. Dumb down the voters with inane television.
Even the BBC is abandoning its principles of political independence. They are fairly careful not to break the law that requires news programs to be politically unbiased, but the governors of this great institution are shamelessly engaging in a ratings war with the most popular of the commercial networks. America is fortunate to have PBS, which receives both government and private support, and which is unashamedly elitist and educational in its programming. I remember a time when PBS would broadcast the best from the BBC, like Masterpiece Theater, Kenneth Clark's Civilization and Bronowski's history of science, The Ascent of Man. Since the tv screen will undoubtedly be the principal means for communicating with this and future generations, I have a treasure of old videocassettes of such former BBC programs, which I hope, perhaps in vain, that my grandchildren will one day watch. It will show them what their grandmother and I watched together, and what we loved, and it will therefore tell them a little bit about what we were like. It could be the most important legacy. Everyone encounters adversity, loss and hurt in their lives. I have found that when that happens, only faith and the love of some works of great beauty will sustain one. I am a little melancholy as I write this, as I have just come from the funeral in Switzerland of a friend of more than 50 years: Balthus, the great painter.
Magazine editors, especially those of glossy monthlies, are not known for their patriotism?in fact to the contrary?but last week one of them did something that would have made John Wayne stand up and cheer. Jill Brooke, Avenue editrix, refused to cover the fashion show of Ilona Rich, Mark and Denise's little dividend, because "Ilona is the daughter of a traitor?and a lot of other people feel the same way I do." All I can say is, Bravo, Jill, you won one for the Gipper, and for every American who still believes that honor, country and duty still count. I know, I know, it's corny and all that, but better corny than a traitor any day, and there is no bigger shit and traitor than Marc Rich.
It may be wishful thinking on my part, but the mega trader-traitor might just have outsmarted himself by buying the pardon from the crook. If only Jill Brooke's reaction starts a trend. No more publicity for scum. Alas, Vanity Fair is planning a big shoot with Denise, and perhaps there will also be a movie. (How I Traded with the Enemy, Screwed the Country that Gave Me My Break, and Laughed All the Way to the Bank would be an appropriate if somewhat long title.)
So-called socialites like Liz Cohen and Casey Johnson catwalked for the fashion show, which doesn't surprise me. Why should a little fraud, tax evasion and trading with the enemy stand in the way of a mention in "Page Six"? And, after all, a daughter cannot be held responsible for her father's crimes, even if it's his ill-gotten gains that earned her the spotlight. Still, Jill Brooke is my heroine for the month, and she is my choice to hand Vanity Fair the Jane Fonda prize for publicizing Denise Rich.
I know I've been banging on about Rich lately, but I simply cannot stay away. Clinton and Rich, what a combo. In Talk, a friend of the traitor by the name of Mary Thomajan describes him as "a very elegant, assured man." Just above the blurb is his picture. He's wearing a ghastly dinner jacket, more Las Vegas than St. Moritz, with a clip-on bowtie and trousers that are far too long for his stubby build. If that's elegance, I'm Monica Lewinsky. The know-nothing vulgarian Geraldo Rivera is a friend of Denise. Here's what he had to say about her: "If anything, she wants to be Gertrude Stein. She doesn't want to be Machiavelli. She wants to be someone whose salon is the venue for the popular culture to parade through." Oh, I see. I wonder if Rivera knows that Gertrude is the estranged wife of Dennis Stein, once upon a time a fiance of Elizabeth Taylor. And that even I knew she doesn't want to be a Machiavelli. The Bensonhurst flash may be a good fielder but he's a lousy hitter.
The best comes from James Kaufman: "If this guy was such a good Jew, why is he doing business with Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi?" Hear, hear. But Kaufman then blows it when he says that "By mixing with the [Clintons, Denise Rich] could get what she didn't have, which is respectability..." How was that again? The Clintons mentioned in the same breath with respectability? Even a lowlife like la Rich should have known better.
And speaking of lowlifes, the Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, has said that the European Union should boycott Italy if, as expected, the right-wing coalition wins the elections next month. Louis Michel is a typical socialist politician, a lunch-bucket pilferer and smiling wallet-lifter par excellence. Michel is particularly exercised, as are many Euro politicians, by the fact that the leader of the Northern League, Umberto Bossi, will enter government. Bossi, according to the body snatchers, is a fascist, which is a name given to all those who do not like socialists and Marxists. Bossi is nothing of the kind; he simply believes in a Europe of the regions and not in a superstate. The Belgian is self-important, bossy and thinks he knows what's good for the rest of us.
According to the wallet-lifter, the same treatment should be meted out to Italy as was given to Austria last year when Haider's party took part in the ruling coalition?even though that caused the Danes to support the right-wing People's Party and the Swiss to vote against the European Union altogether. (Incidentally, Umberto Bossi is widely deemed a fascist in Euro circles because he opposes the adoption of children by homosexual couples and supports traditional family values. Which means most of the rest of the world is also fascist, unexpected good news for Benito Mussolini, wherever he may be as of this writing.)
And finally for some good news. My old National Review editor Priscilla Buckley, sister of the great William F., has written a memoir of New York and Paris, String of Pearls. It is a real gem, pun intended. Was there anything more pleasant than to be young in New York City and Paris during the early 50s? I was, and no, there wasn't. Priscilla evokes the period like El Papa's Moveable Feast. In an NR review, Jeffrey Hart, a Dartmouth prof who has written about the same period (when the Going was Good) writes: "The grim years of the Depression were gone. The war had been won. The great musicals were on Broadway, and sophisticated jazz was in the air. Yet to appear were Elvis, the Beatles, the Kennedys, Abbie Hoffman, Barbra Streisand and Charles Manson." And, if I may, Marc and Denise Rich, the Clintons, Louis Michel and Geraldo Rivera. Still, Priscilla and I will always have Paris.
For enemies of Tony Blair, last week contained the first bit of good news since the resignation of Peter Mandelson, the secretary of state for Northern Ireland, last January. On Mon., April 2, Blair announced that the local elections scheduled for May 3 had been postponed until June 7, due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. This means that the general election, which he'd wanted to hold on May 3 as well, has also been put back and will now almost certainly be held on June 7. For opponents of New Labor, this is a medium-sized victory.
One of the perks of being a British prime minister is that you can call a general election whenever you like, provided it takes place within five years of your being elected. The Labor Party won its victory on May 1, 1997, so Blair can choose any date between now and April 30 of next year. Nevertheless, he had his heart set on May 3 because Labor has such a commanding lead in the opinion polls. According to the latest polls, Labor is on target actually to increase its majority at the next general election, a remarkable achievement given how large its victory was at the last one. By postponing the date of the election, even if it's only for a month, Blair risks not doing so well.
William Hague, the leader of the Conservative Party, has been urging the Prime Minister not to hold the general election on May 3 for several weeks now. Naturally, he wants to delay it for as long as possible to give his party a chance of recovering in the polls?though he's been claiming that his only concern is for Britain's poor, beleaguered farmers. To hold the election on May 3, he's argued, would be to cynically ignore the foot-and-mouth outbreak, a national emergency that requires the government's full attention. Only after the crisis is over should the Prime Minister think about calling a general election.
At first, Hague's argument fell on deaf ears?it was too obviously based on self-interest. But it was gradually taken up by other, less partisan leaders, culminating in a plea from Dr. David Hope, the archbishop of York, asking for the election to be put back until next autumn. The Anglican Church has been in the forefront of coping with the fallout from foot-and-mouth, and the Archbishop was echoing the sentiments of churchgoers around the country. In truth, there isn't a great deal Tony Blair can do about the outbreak, but by plowing on regardless he would have seemed like a coldhearted politician. By putting the election off for just over a month, he now looks as though he's taking the disease more seriously.
Blair has only reached this decision with a great deal of reluctance. He'd made up his mind to hold the general election on May 3. We know this because The Sun, Britain's biggest-selling daily newspaper, has been confidently predicting that May 3 would be the date for weeks. The consensus among Fleet Street's political hacks is that The Sun was tipped off by Blair's press secretary, Alastair Campbell, as a reward for announcing that it would be throwing its considerable weight behind Labor during the campaign.
In fact, The Sun was the first paper to carry the story that the election had been postponed. This time around it's thought Campbell gave The Sun the second scoop to keep the paper sweet after leaving it with such copious amounts of egg on its face. Blair will go to almost any lengths to keep the Murdoch-owned Sun on his side. It has a circulation of over 3.5 million and boasts of being able to singlehandedly win elections for whichever party it supports. In 1992 it endorsed the Conservatives and, in a famous headline after the Tories unexpectedly held on to power, claimed "It Woz The Sun Wot Won It." In 1997, it switched its support to Tony Blair and?wouldn't you know it??Labor romped home. Of course, The Sun isn't as influential as it claims, but in Britain, as in America, it's the swing voters who determine the outcome of general elections, so Blair can hardly afford to ignore it.
Rather shockingly, it appears that Alastair Campbell let The Sun know about Blair's decision to postpone the election before the Prime Minister informed some members of his own government. Culture Secretary Chris Smith, for instance, was caught off-guard when he appeared on the radio on the same day that The Sun's scoop appeared and remained "on message," claiming it was essential not to delay the date of the general election in case that sent the wrong signal to tourists worried about visiting Britain. This in turn sent the wrong signal to Blair's closest allies, implying that he values them less highly than a newspaper that still publishes a picture of a topless woman on Page 3 every day.
The reason this is such good news for Blair's opponents isn't simply because it gives the Tories another month to improve their standing in the polls. It also makes the Prime Minister look like a ditherer, someone prone to changing his mind at the last minute. It adds to the general impression the Prime Minister gives of falling apart in a crisis, making him the opposite of Winston Churchill. Best of all, though, by postponing the election now, after Hague has been demanding it for weeks, Blair looks as though he's doing the Conservative leader's bidding. For the leader of the opposition, who's scarcely scored a single point off the wily Prime Minister all year, that's a major result.
Milosevic did not instigate the wars in the Balkans. On the contrary, his record throughout the decade was that of a man eager?probably too eager?to accept any peace settlement going. Who was really responsible for the wars? Those who insisted on secession without waiting to settle outstanding issues like final borders, the status of minorities or the disposal of state property and debt? Or those who, in accordance with international law, insisted that secession could only be "legal" if it was accepted by the seceding state and the seceded-from state?
There is no question that Milosevic will be transferred to the Hague. After a ridiculously unfair trial he will be convicted of "war crimes," "genocide" and "crimes against humanity" and sentenced to life imprisonment. With this conclusion the purpose of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia will have been fulfilled. The real instigators of the wars in the Balkans will have been absolved of any responsibility.
The Balkans today are littered with tiny, weak NATO protectorates whose domestic and foreign policies are shaped down to the last detail by the U.S. and its junior EU partners. This was an entirely foreseen consequence of U.S. policy in Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. There is no truth whatsoever to the legend that the United States wanted to keep Yugoslavia together but was thwarted in this noble endeavor by the machinations of the Germans. In February 1990, nearly two years before the villainous German Chancellor Helmut Kohl supposedly muscled in on the Balkans by recognizing Croatia and Slovenia, Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger was already telling the Slovenians that Washington would accept Slovenia's secession provided it was done "peacefully and democratically." The Slovenians did not need another signal. Even so, in October 1990?eight months before Slovenia declared independence, one year before war broke out in Croatia?Congress passed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriation law barring any U.S. loans or credits for Yugoslavia unless the assistance was directed to a republic "which has held free and fair elections and which is not engaged in systematic abuse of human rights." This was an extraordinary piece of legislation. According to Washington then, Yugoslavia had ceased to exist. The U.S. government was henceforth to deal with the "republics," entities with no international legal standing whatsoever.
In the days leading up to the secession of Croatia and Slovenia, U.S. officials would make pro forma declarations opposing unilateral declarations of independence. Then they would warn the Yugoslav army not to use force to stop the republics breaking away. It was a policy of accepting de facto independence. Moreover, it was revealed in the London Observer last year that, contrary to the publicly proclaimed Western policy of neutrality, the British were in fact secretly selling arms to Slovenia days before its declaration of independence. Since Britain is merely America's errand boy on such matters, one can be fairly certain that this was a Washington-initiated policy.
The carnage that was to come in Bosnia was entirely the consequence of a ruthless and cynical U.S. policy. In March 1992, after seeing the bitter fighting that followed the secession of Croatia, the leaders of Bosnia's Serbs, Croats and Muslims sat down in Lisbon and hammered out a partition plan of Bosnia. According to a 1993 New York Times story, European Community "mediators who brokered the agreement argued that partition was the only way to contain the ethnic rivalries. But the Bush Administration was pushing the Europeans to recognize Bosnia as an independent country, with a Muslim-led Government in Sarajevo." When the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic returned to Sarajevo, U.S. Ambassador Warren Zimmermann called on him. "'He said he didn't like it,' Mr. Zimmermann recalled. 'I told him, if he didn't like it, why sign it?' But after talking to the Ambassador, Mr. Izetbegovic publicly renounced the Lisbon agreement."
By April the United States had managed to bully the Europeans into recognizing the state of Bosnia, thereby setting in train the carnage to come. The U.S. subsequently sabotaged the Vance-Owen partition plan as well as the Stoltenberg partition plan. The fighting finally came to an end with a U.S.-sponsored partition plan at Dayton. We got what we were after all along. Bosnia was turned into a colony.