LONDON, 18 November 2003 — When British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Camp David earlier this year, the newspapers reported the casualness of the meeting: “Sweater mode”, “frequent wisecracks” and “light-hearted jokes”.
“Security” barely made headlines. When President Bill Clinton visited Britain in May 1997, alongside there were suits and ties with the smiles and jokes, but again, security was standard. President George Bush arrives in Britain today on a state visit. Because of the wars he initiated in Afghanistan and Iraq, this visit beats all others hands down as far as security is concerned. The White House has insisted the closure of the entire City of London, one of the busiest in the world.
Air Force One will touch down today and a private helicopter will fly the president and his entourage to an unspecified location in central London. It is known that he will be staying at Buckingham Palace throughout the next three days. For his visit, Scotland Yard has canceled all police leave, there will be last-minute road closures, and assigned armed units and US special agents will guard the streets of London.
What are we to make of this? Does the president’s security service believe that there are imminent terror threats against the president in London, serious enough to close central London entirely? If so, why is the president putting himself at such a great risk?
Or perhaps it is the demonstrators the president is worried about. There is something about demonstrators that he seems to have figured out. When a figure like the president of the United States visits a country that he is said to be in closest alliance with, such as Great Britain, you can expect to see the flags of the two nations flying side-by-side, there will be smiles and endless handshakes.
But President Bush is not entirely welcome in Great Britain. In February this year two million people demonstrated against the war in Iraq. Nine months on, as the president talks of “Iraqi democracy” and as the Iraqis continue to resist his forces, demonstrators are once again gearing up to protest against him. The “Stop The War Coalition” of England condemns the president’s visit on their website, saying, “He will be feted, wined and dined and treated as a great statesman rather than the war criminal that he is.”
When cameras across London and screens across the world capture images of thousands of angry protesters on the streets of London as President Bush’s car goes by, it says something about the US leader, his policies and his visit to London. For those who have still not figured it out, this is what it says:
The special British-American relationship is opposed by a great number of the British people. President Bush has not convinced them that his war on Iraq was successful, let alone justified. Scenes of angry protests against him, in a city like London, would be very damaging to his re-election campaign. Instead, he wants his visit to show that he still has friends and allies across the world.
Bush must therefore be desperate to prevent the cameras from capturing the true image of his visit, and that means doing everything he can to keep the protesters as far away from him as possible. It is no great surprise to find that the Blair government has no choice but to go along with this.
It must go along with it no matter what the consequences for the concept Bush and Blair ostensibly went to war for: Democracy.
