LONDON, 14 November 2004 — Three years ago, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking at the British Labour Party’s annual conference just shortly after the horrors of Sept.11, had a clear vision of international responsibility and world order that remains inspiring. “When Milosevic embarked on the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo, we acted . . . If Rwanda happened again today as it did in 1993, when a million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral duty to act there also. . . We can’t do it all. Neither can the Americans. But the power of the international community could, together, if it chose to.”
On Friday, Tony Blair was in Washington for talks with George Bush, the first foreign leader to meet with the American president since the latter’s re-election and itself a recognition of the close ties between the two, especially over Iraq. At a joint press conference at the White House, George Bush praised Tony Blair as a “visionary leader”, adding that they would work together to win peace in the Middle East.
It is doubtful, however, whether Bush’s recognition of Blair’s “visionary” capabilities extends to an acceptance of the UK prime minister’s ringing declaration three years ago that international solutions require international cooperation, and that the Americans cannot do it all themselves. Indeed it has to be asked whether Blair believes it. His decision to join in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, despite the unmistakable opposition of most of the international community, put him firmly in the unilateralist camp. It was a kick in the teeth for the multilateralism he claimed to support.
In the days before he flew to Washington, there was much speculation in the UK media that what Blair wanted from Bush was payback for taking a course of action unpopular with many British people, with many in his party and even with some in his Cabinet. He needed something that would help him silence his critics at home — that “something” being a reactivation by the US of the Middle East road map, with a fresh conference in London, plus an American commitment to being less unilateralist, and another one on global warming.
There is no doubt that Bush wants to give his trusty lieutenant some comfort. He needs to keep the UK on-line — and Friday’s press conference announcement that the US and UK will work together to promote peace in the Middle East and also that President Bush will shortly tour Europe, suggest that he has been listening to his friend. But there is little reason for optimism. Bush cannot — will not — seriously deliver on any of these fronts. On the Middle East, although he would probably love to pull off a deal, for him it must be one that the Israeli government approves — and Ariel Sharon is not going to agree anything approaching the just settlement demanded by the Palestinians. In any event, Bush is almost certain to insist on the emergence of a new Palestinian leadership before undertaking any new initiative. Behind the guise of movement, the reality will be inaction. On multilateralism, too, there is no reason to believe that the Bush administration has changed it spots.
Of course there is no doubt that the president would love to have the support of the international community, but he wants it to dance to his tune; there is not a shred of evidence that he is prepared to join in its.
As for global warming, Bush is not going to suddenly embrace the Kyoto agreement which the UK supports. Inevitably, then, payback will be an illusion. Blair will leave with nothing more than crumbs of comfort, although his well-oiled media machine will try to blow them into triumphs.
Ultimately, the relationship is one-sided. It is all British give and American take. Blair has the American president’s ear but it is because he has supported Bush in war. The minute he disagrees with US policy, however, the minute he questions or criticizes, the privilege will vanish. Washington will become the closed door it is for French President Chirac. This makes it, from Britain’s point, a most insubstantial alliance.
