It's amazing how easily we have come to accept the dominance of the US film industry. Almost nine out of ten cinema visits in the UK are to movies which are either made, or funded, by American producers.
On TV the influence of US production is so strong that, anecdotally, when British children are asked which telephone number to dial in an emergency, they are as likely to reply "nine-eleven" as to give the correct answer "999".
It must have something to do with us speaking English - other European countries, particularly France, pay much more attention to the tide of American cultural product which is now crossing the Atlantic in such volume that the deficit in Europe's audio-visual balance of trade is now estimated to be $10 billion. That's a lot of movies coming one way, with practically nothing going in the other direction.
Not that they are all bad movies, mark you. One of the reasons for America's success in film-making is that our US cousins are very good at it, not least because standards in the industry are maintained by a workforce that is almost 100% unionised in the East and West coast production centres.
As regular readers will know, we are now building stronger links with those US union colleagues, principally in the IATSE technical and craft union whose President, Tom Short, came to our conference this year.
Despite the dominance of their industry on the global stage, IATSE's leaders are dealing with us as equals, addressing the problems our members face in a spirit of cooperation, and paying respect to European concerns about preservation of national cultures.
The exact opposite, in fact, of what President Bush seems to be doing. As the murmurs of anxiety around the world about war on Iraq turned into a steady roar, the US president chose last month to announce the most profound turnaround in American foreign policy for 50 years.
Under the new National Security Strategy the Bush Administration plans to ditch the principle of "no first strike", and replaces the successful concept of deterrence with an ordnance of pre-emptive punishment against any nation which is seen to be a threat.
Gone too is any vestige of lip-service to the United Nations and international law: "We will be prepared to act apart when our interests require", said Bush.
This really is very scary. George Dubyah has been characterised previously in this column as a self-appointed world policeman, blundering across the globe with a mixture of good intentions and venal concern for the US oil industry. Now we have a nuclear Judge Dread.
Most telling is Bush's analysis of the 20th century, an era when US military strength shaped world politics. Apparently it ended with "a decisive victory for the forces of freedom", according to the world's most powerful man.
Well, if victory consists of malnourishment for 40% of the global population, more conflict and war casualties in 100 years than in the previous 1,000, and less than half the world's states operating as recognisable democracies...I'd hate to see a defeat.
Of course it's true that no one has "gone nuclear" since World War Two - depending on your point of view this is because of...or despite of...the fact that it was another US President that pressed the button then. And the post-war reconstruction of Europe and Japan, sponsored by the US, was a remarkable exercise in something they now call "nation building".
However, that period began with the Truman doctrine - an acceptance that the wider international community, especially the UN, actually mattered. There was also the counterweight effect of a second world superpower, the USSR.
Bush's assertion that the sole superpower has the right to act alone is dramatic and new - his security strategy could mark a watershed in world history.
It's now more important than ever that we work together with colleagues in the US labour movement who have the courage and imagination to reach beyond the walls of Fortress America, united in the belief that guns and bombs should, as far as possible, be confined to the movies.
Tony Lennon
October 2002
