Bollocks to all that

In the (current) US view, our role is to be subservient. To open our markets to their goods, while not complaining about their subsidies and trade barriers. To send our soldiers to fight and die for them whenever they demand it. To back them in any international dispute, even putting our credibility on the line for them (as Colin Powell put his on the line in front of the UN Security Council). In short, to sacrifice our mana for the hegemon.

None of the above is in our interests. None of it. Which is why I'm with Jim Anderton in saying "bollocks to all that".

Rather than being an obediant little proxy for the US, we should be advocating for our interests. For the past fifty years we've stood up for a multilateral international order, for universal human rights, for peace and (more recently) free trade. We should continue to do so. If this annoys the current US administration, then we should tell them where to go, just like we did in 1984. Governments change, long-term interests don't. Bush will eventually be replaced by someone less mean-spirited and petty, and at that stage we may be able to mend some fences. But until then, a US administration that demands total submission is simply not one that we should deal with.