Sarko effectively sinking the PS?

Sarkozy's appointment of Bernard Koucher is striking for many reasons.

For one, it means Sarko may actually be seeking to forward traditionally FRENCH (not Gaullist) issues in foreign affairs: Koucher seems reasonably tolerant of the US, is actively involved in humanitarian prospects, and shares many of his boss's pro-EU opinions. This likely signals that Sarko is dead serious about rising above the partisan fray. Interesting. Sarko even went as far as to include seven women in the cabinet... Well done indeed.

As a subset of Koucher's appointment as FM, it's notable that Sarko would give that post to a member of the opposition -- foreign relations are traditionally the role of the President, while the PM controls more of the domestic agenda. In effect, Koucher position, by design, is kept on a short lease to the Elysee and therefore Sarko effectively retains a direct veto over anything Koucher might do that wouldn't be 100% kosher with the big boss.

Two, look what it's doing to the Socialists -- they've since ousted Koucher, and are practically conceding any hope of a majority in next month's elections to the Assemble Nationale. Ladies and gents, start your engines, because we may be in for an entertaining power struggle when the dust settles. The PS has one very important question it must answer: does it truly embrace the market economy? Where is its Tony Blair, great capitalist modernizer of Labour? Blair made Labour electable, and the PS is clearly not. It might not be too far of a stretch to see the PS fracture into a "Social Democratic" party and some harder lefties...

Bush's poodle?

Tony Blair announced that he would step down on 27 June and finally transfer power to, presumably, the rather anxious Gordon Brown, who has been jumping up and down like an eight year old needing the bathroom for about the last four years as Tony clings to power.

Much of the commentary (for an example, see here) makes reference to Blair being "Bush's poodle". But perhaps he's not, or at least, not out of the ordinary. Post WWII history has shown that, when on the world stage since the disaster of the Suez Crisis, British PM's have traditionally chosen to influence American foreign policy by using their position as a trusted ally to nuance the Superpower's action in the direction of Britain's national interest: Two of the most "special relationships" include Harold Macmillan leaning on JFK to get nuclear missile defense of the UK and Europe, and Margaret Thatcher's heavy influence on Ronald Reagan.

Using this historical precedent, if Blair had independently concluded that invading Iraq was also in the UK's national interest, then he had every reason to support the invasion in 2003. And, more importantly, his influence was heavily present through the entire process, right up to the last days before the invasion when he forced Bush to take his case for war back to the UN for a second resolution.

Let's not jump to conclusions because Blair chose to commit troops to Iraq -- he did so because he thought it was in the UK's national interest, used Britain's historically most successful foreign policy mechanism to achieve his aims, and steered Bush in the direction of multilateralism (even though it was a relatively futile effort).

****

Getting into musical recommendations, check out Wilco's new release Sky Blue Sky... Half way through the first listen, it's a different, more straightforward record, but still up to the high standards of "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" and "A Ghost is Born."