The heart of the new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is so impenetrable that analysts are resorting to judging his personal leanings on the color of his neckties. If that’s the standard, then his choice of a blue tie for a meeting with George Bush at Camp David on Sunday says he’s pro-Democrat. George W. Bush’s own was, of course, Republican red.
It’s worth noting that both leaders chose suits for their drive around in a golf cart; a departure from the informal jeans and open-necked shirts or sweaters sported by his predecessor Tony Blair and Bush during their frequent Camp David sojourns.
But, in truth, you cannot judge a man by the cut of his cloth even if — in the case of Brown — there is sometimes very little else to go on.
So what do we know?
Firstly, Brown is a self-styled “Atlanticist”, who describes the British-US relationship as the single most important bilateral relationship that Britain has enjoyed.
The new premier is also a friend of Israel. Indeed, his father, a Presbyterian preacher, apparently visited Israel at least twice a year and one of Brown’s closest personal friends is Britain’s chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks, whose daughter was given a job as adviser to the Treasury.
“We will never compromise our relationship” with Israel due “to political expediency” he told the Board of Deputies of British Jews. So, on that front, Brown and Bush will have much in common.
The good news, however, is that Brown is passionate about a two-state solution and about improving the economic well being of the Palestinian people unlike Bush, who switches his active support for a Palestinian state on and off like a tap depending on how much he wants to be in the good books of the Arab world at any given time.
On Iraq, Brown’s true position is hard to fathom. He makes no apologies for the invasion but he also refrains from trumpeting it or attempting to whitewash his own role.
Speaking to journalists accompanying him on the flight to the US, he studiously avoided the subject of Iraq and, according to the Guardian, he is trying to shift talks with Bush away from Iraq and onto the desperate situation in Darfur, the resurgent violence in Afghanistan, climate change, the dangers of nuclear proliferation and bilateral trade.
With a British election in the offing — probably sooner rather than later — Brown’s fledgling relationship with his American counterpart will come under heavy scrutiny by the British press and public.
At present, he’s basking in what has come to be known as ‘the Brown bounce’. His approval rating among voters has skyrocketed and threatens to leave his Conservative rival David Cameron out in the political wilderness.
The last thing he would want to do is jeopardize this standing by publicly cozying up to George Bush or displaying sycophancy to US positions.
His planned speech to the United Nations General Assembly this week that is expected to concentrate on the importance of a multinational approach to the world’s problems could be construed as a veiled criticism of American unilateralism.
Some analysts believe the trip to Washington was brought forward to calm White House fears after statements made by a senior minister to the effect Brown and Bush aren’t likely to be joined at the hip in the way Bush and Blair were.
Conversely, Brown will not want to be perceived by the Americans as seeking a cooling in relations as there is no doubt the special relationship allows Britain to punch above its weight in the global arena.
For instance, one wonders whether Britain would have been so aggressive toward Russia over its extradition demands in relation to the Litvinenko-Lugovoi poisoning scandal if Uncle Sam wasn’t watching its back in the wings. Britain also largely depends on the US for its own self-defense.
But it isn’t entirely a one-way street. For its part, the US government relies on Downing Street to give credibility to controversial foreign policy strategies that the US public and the international community might otherwise find unpalatable.
The two leaders may have different styles but when it comes to the War on Terror — a term Brown avoids using — they may be somewhat in sync as both possess an authoritarian bent.
Indeed, Brown champions biometric identity cards for every citizen, and wants to extend the time terrorist suspects can be held without charge from the current 28 days up to 56 days. He is also said to be in favor of evidence gleaned via wire-tapping being admitted into court.
On the other hand, he is said to be in favor of the closure of America’s gulag on Guantanamo and isn’t a fan of the controversial US detainee renditions policy. Whether he is prepared to confront Bush on those issues or twist his arm over climate change has yet to be seen.
In reality the only indicator of the true Brown-Bush relationship is body language and smile-count. Will Brown retain his usual dour expression throughout or will Bush’s Texan ‘charm’ succeed in breaking through that ingrained British reserve?
Will Bush miss his rock-star political poodle now consigned to the Middle East and resent his heavy-duty, not to be pushed around, replacement?
One thing’s for sure. Carefully penned speeches and tight-lipped interviews will yield few answers to those questions. Turn on the TV, study their faces and judge for yourselves.
It might not be scientific but it’s all we’ve got to go on.
