This week President Bush met his new “best friend” in the shape of Gordon Brown, the man who has replaced Tony Blair as British premier. Despite careful efforts to manage the postencounter press conference and photo calls, it is clear from the mood music and carefully chosen words that the prime minister is no longer prepared to write Washington a blank check in Iraq.
Where they could agree on the threat of global terrorism, the Darfur crisis and nuclear proliferation, the two leaders went out of their way to demonstrate their accord. However, on Iraq, it is clear that there was by no means a complete meeting of minds. British officials highlighted Brown’s anticipation that UK Coalition forces would be moving as quickly as possible toward a “watching” brief, which to some minds indicates a serious disengagement if not actual withdrawal. In his first weeks in Downing Street, Brown has been busy ditching many unpopular Blair policies.
Brown was clearly much happier yesterday when he addressed the UN General Assembly and focused on his long-standing ambition to tackle world poverty. His speech made clear some of the things he had told Bush the day before. He accepted the use of “hard policies” — military intervention — in certain circumstances but he extolled the virtues of the alternative “soft power”. He spoke of the need to work on a broad and inclusive front, seeking dialogue and cooperation instead of confrontation. Such an approach is the antithesis of the way in which the Bush White House has sought to impose its jaundiced and inaccurate perceptions on the world around it.
The UN received the Brown speech warmly. The Americans had perforce to applaud him too but it seems very likely that they appreciate they are now dealing with a far more questioning and less malleable ally. It would be a mistake however to imagine that Brown’s arrival signals a rupture in the Anglo-American alliance. The two countries have extremely strong links, not least in intelligence. Nevertheless, Brown, who on present opinion poll showings looks set to win a snap general election expected in the autumn, is clearly taking the long view. Bush may have 15 months of office left but the US establishment is already looking to the next incumbency.
Brown probably, therefore, felt he could afford to rein in British support for Bush in Iraq without disrupting the underlying alliance. It is unlikely that the British premier urged any new approach to the occupation. He, like many, including an increasing number of Americans, sees the whole enterprise as a disaster, not least for the Iraqis. Unlike Bush, Brown, though the real No. 2 in the old Blair government, can pretend that he has no political face to save. He has room for maneuver. Bush has none.
By adding his statesmanlike UN address on world poverty to his US trip, Brown has been able to distance himself from Bush on Iraq while setting out a worthy global moral agenda.
