The rewards of friendship
Many countries are getting hush-money for siding with the US over Iraq. Britain's gains are not so obvious, but they are considerable, writes Randeep Ramesh
Thursday March 6, 2003
There is little debate that America's war is also Britain's. Equally, little is said about the rewards of such a position. With some nations, the cost of building alliances and the price of friendship is highly visible.
Take the billions offered to Turkey, or the loan guarantees Israel has asked for to cover the black hole at the heart of the nation's finances. Or the request by Poland, a staunch US ally, that its companies get a slice of the oil action after Saddam is toppled.
No opposition seems principled enough to resist the lure of lucre. America has dangled enough cash in front of Russia to cover the $8bn (£5.3bn) it is owed by Iraq since the last Gulf war. The US public should worry about this trend. A billion here, a billion there, and sooner or later you are talking real money.
The mask of noble gestures and fine diplomacy has disappeared to reveal a rather unappealing emotion: greed.
Britain's status as Most Trusted Ally will prove expensive. The chancellor estimated the costs of the conflict at £1.75bn, and the government is sending a signal to the public that sacrifices might have to be made. And there is the transformation of the nation into giant US aircraft carrier, replete with a state of the art radar system in North Yorkshire, Fylingdales, and American B52 bombers flying in before blitzing Iraq.
So what will Britain get in return for its unswerving support of the Bush administration? Britain, having lost an empire, is in search of another. The United States, conceived as an anti-imperialist project, is now engaged on remaking the world order. This requires allies, like-minded friends who will change the way the globe is ruled and regulated. It is these thoughts which, perhaps, lurk behind Tony Blair's moral case. The idea of finding yourself on the opposite side to America, a nation with a history, of wrecking global treaties and disregarding international law, must be terrifying.
The reward for supporting America will be a prominent role in world affairs. This will come about in the remaking of the multilateral structures, which the US is planning for once Saddam has been eliminated. Of course, this supposes that victory will be quick and clean, the Middle East will not explode, and oil and financial markets are not so spooked that the world is plunged into recession.
Mr Blair's bet is things will not fall apart and Britain's gain will outweigh the pain. How this translates into policy depends on what the world looks like in the next five years. Britain's influence is already recognised as useful. South Korea's new president, Roh Moo-hyun, thinks Mr Blair could restrain US acts of aggression over his northern neighbour's nuclear arsenal. But shouldn't the US be cleaning up its own mess in East Asia, rather than getting Mr Blair to do it?
The real prize for this government is likely to be found in Europe. Gone is the hotline put in place between Berlin and Washington after the wall came down - Germany's hard opposition to the war has not gone down well in the US. France, too, has incensed the Americans enough to provoke threats of economic sanctions. Idle or not, such warnings are not made lightly. Mr Blair's position as leader of the eight nations of the continent into the American camp, will see London, not Brussels, become the city Washington calls first when it wants to deal with the European Union. A trade war between the EU and the US, such as the looming one over $4bn worth of illegal US subsidies, might see Washington make an exception for British goods.
The most conspicuous advantage for Britain might be in the United Nations, paradoxically the body Mr Bush is willing to ignore to go to war. Reform of the security council is likely to be an American priority as it sketches out a new constitutional order.
Discussions for the past nine years on how to expand the size of the security council have yielded little. The US will get involved if it thinks it can remould the decision-making body of the international community in its image. This might see no place for Germany, a big UN donor, on an enlarged council, but one for Japan, which signs large cheques. If there were to be just one representative from Europe, then Britain would get US backing over France. Of course, such changes would need consent - unlikely to be given up easily. This means the present arrangements need to be undermined and Mr Blair, unashamedly, is playing his part.
guardian.co.uk |
