Blair begins to loosen the bonds with Bush
FRASER NELSON
ON FRIDAY, Tony Blair and George Bush may meet for the last time. The presidential elections take place in November - and the Prime Minister has decided that he won’t be back in the White House until the race is over.
Normally, Mr Blair has a penchant for interfering in foreign elections. But this time, he brought forward a June visit to Washington on the ground that this was uncomfortably close to November. He is treating the American election with antiseptic gloves.
The Blair-Bush relationship is at its bleakest point since the start of the war on terrorism. The saving grace of their summit this weekend is that the two are united, above all, in a desperate search for what to do next in Iraq.
It is an open secret that the early resignation of Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Mr Blair’s envoy to Iraq, was triggered by his frustration over the conduct of L Paul Bremer III, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Sir Jeremy and other British diplomats believe that Bremer is now refusing to listen to his Iraqi officials, military or his allies - and is focused only on the political calendar in Washington.
Now back in London, Sir Jeremy says nothing about his reasons for deciding not to see the job through. But the fury of his diplomats is filtering through Westminster: the Brits believe the Americans are losing the peace through brutal policing tactics.
The solution: more troops, which will make the US Army less overstretched - and less likely to respond to uprisings in a way which British diplomats argue is now alienating Iraqi allies and recruiting enemies.
It was always argued that, while the US excels at winning wars, Britain excels at peacekeeping. This has gone beyond jingoism: senior figures in the Foreign Office are close to despair, and have decided not to replace Sir Jeremy with a heavy- hitter.
It does not necessarily follow that Mr Blair will pass on the grievances of his diplomatic corps. He has, by now, worked out that few forces on earth can change the mind of an American president on the election trail.
In fact, Mr Blair has not done very well at changing the US president’s mind about anything - and, if Mr Bush loses this November, this will be the biggest single failure of the transatlantic alliance.
It’s not just the US steel tariffs or the Kyoto Treaty. What Mr Blair needed more than anything else was to see the US pushing forward the Middle East peace process - and ensuring that a "road map" was be rolled out.
British diplomats have long believed that they lack the power to do anything alone. "Think of it as football: when it comes to clout, America occupies the entire Premier League and Britain is simply top of the First Division," said one recently.
The road map has been hopelessly stalled. Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of Israel, arrives in the White House today - seeking a quid pro quo for taking the first step in the process: pulling Israeli settlements out of the Gaza Strip.
Never mind that he agreed to do this anyway. He’s asking Mr Bush for a free hand in the West Bank in return for this move which he needs to make anyway, simply because having 20,000 Israeli troops guard 7,500 Jewish settlers doesn’t make sense.
For Mr Blair, the coincidence of the two visits is painful. He has repeatedly claimed success in persuading the White House to be tougher with Israel - arguing that, through the war, Britain has brought Washington round to its way of thinking on the Middle East.
This didn’t seem to be the case a fortnight ago, when a United Nations resolution criticising Israel for assassinating the leader of Hamas was vetoed by Washington on 11 to one. London could only abstain. Mr Blair is now facing accusations of being taken for a ride by Mr Bush, who has failed to honour what London understood to be a deal. This embarrassment will only be accentuated by the Bush-Sharon summit today.
Back in London, a gentle retreat away from the Bush administration is under way. Several ministers are speaking of a "disengagement" that brings a period of "neutrality", which will apparently begin as soon as Mr Blair gets back to London.
It is being stressed that a Labour government could work just as well with the Democrats. It is almost as if ministers believe they can make more headway in both Iraq and the Middle East with a President John Kerry.
This can only be based on blind hope. When asked last week what he would do differently in Iraq, Senator Kerry said only: "I’m not the president, and I didn’t create this mess, so I don’t want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven’t made." In other words: to get there, I wouldn’t start from here. Not much of a policy - but this could well be what is causing such excitement in London. If he does become president, the fewer ideas John Kerry has about Iraq, the more likely he is to take British advice.
Right now, that advice would be: more troops and arrange matters so that it looks as if the United Nations has a greater role. And this will be the agenda for Mr Blair’s first meeting - in the offices Kofi Annan, UN secretary general, tomorrow.
There is considerable scope for consensus. Mr Annan doesn’t want the role of peacekeeping in Iraq - it’s the devil’s own job, and the blue berets aren’t up to it. No amount of persuasion could persuade Annan to take on the task.
And Mr Blair doesn’t want to give it to him. He remains mindful of the disasters which have occurred under UN watch, from Somalia to Kosovo - hardly a qualification for taking on a project as vital to world peace as Iraq.
But both agree that the UN should be seen to be doing more, no matter how deceptive this image may be. There’s a new Spanish government to assuage, and world opinion to win over. Something must clearly be done.
It now looks as if this something will take the form of a fresh UN resolution. Mr Blair’s mission will be to persuade Mr Bush to back this in time for the handover of power to the Iraqi Governing Council on 30 June and involve the blue berets a little more.
Mr Blair is too good an actor to betray the sense of "disengagement" his ministers speak about in London. But it says enough that he plans to leave Washington without collecting the Congressional Gold Medal, awarded to him with such fanfare last year.
The Prime Minister has learnt the lesson about taking sides in American elections. With so much to do in Iraq - and such little progress in the Middle East - he has every reason to stand aside and let Mr Bush fight this battle alone.
news.scotsman.com |
