Parting ways?
As the Anglo-American aggression on Iraq enters its final phase, distance between London and Washington appears to be growing. Alistair Alexander reports from London
Having spared the US the embarrassment of invading Iraq with no significant military ally, Tony Blair will be hoping that the so-called "special relationship" between Britain and the US will pay dividends for him as well as for Bush. Increasingly, however, all too visible cracks are appearing in the alliance.
Causing particular alarm in London is Washington’s recent sabre rattling with regard to Syria. "The Syrian government is making a lot of bad mistakes, a lot of bad judgements in my view," US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, apparently with the enthusiastic approval of his president.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was unusually blunt in his response: "I have made it clear and I repeat that Syria is not ‘next on the list’."
Over the course of the last few months the British government has been assiduously courting Bashar Al-Assad after years of giving his father the cold shoulder. He is an Arab leader with whom Britain can do business – even while Washington remains coolly hostile – and an important partner in the war against terrorism. The relationship appeared to bear fruit following 11 September, when Syria was believed to have supplied vital intelligence on Al-Qa’eda.
Perhaps most importantly, however, Britain regards Syria as a key player in any new peace talks with Israel. Small wonder then that the British government has balked at American threats, going so far as to arrange for a minister to visit Damascus this week.
While officials in Washington ominously refer to Syria as a "live issue", whether the United States is really prepared to strike Syria remains to be seen.
The US claims that Syria is harbouring chemical weapons and members of Saddam’s regime are dubious at best. More likely, the Americans are looking for Syria to reign in Hizbullah to head off Israeli objections to the US Roadmap.
Nevertheless, the prospect of American threats spiralling out of control is one that the British government will be hoping desperately to avoid.
But American warnings are not limited to Syria; Iran has attracted equally sharp comments from the Pentagon.
Again, Straw was humming a very different tune: "We want to see good neighbourly relations with Iran and we are grateful to the Iranians for the support and cooperation which they gave during the course of this military conflict."
Iran is something of a pet project of Straw’s after years of enmity between the two countries. The British Foreign Office was hardly likely to react positively to months of diplomatic work being laid waste by the US penchant for megaphone diplomacy.
In another public break with Washington, British Defence Minster Geoff Hoon was less than enthusiastic over US weapons inspections teams now scouring Iraq in place of UN weapons inspectors.
Having claimed with such certainty that Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was the legal basis for the war, the British government needs to discover some fast. And in order for the discoveries to be credible, they would need to be independently verified, ideally by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).
Though unnerving for the British government, the US administration feels no such urgency, with banned weapons having all but dropped off the US news agenda. For many Americans, it appears that the staged toppling of a statue of Saddam in front of the media’s Baghdad hotel was justification enough – certainly the White House thinks so. But as the pressure to produce illicit weapons diminishes in the United States, the pressure increases for Blair.
With distance between Britain and the US appearing to grow, the chasm that opened between Britain and France now appears to be narrowing.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw met his French counterpart Dominique de Villepin last week. Although France was lambasted for its refusal to support a second Security Council resolution, the mood appears to have warmed markedly.
"It would be very boring if friends always agreed," Straw told the press. In Washington, France appears to have only narrowly averted replacing Iraq in the "axis of evil". But in London, repairing relationships in Europe is far too important to neglect, despite American disapproval.
Having differed so starkly on military action, the British and French governments are far more aligned with regard to the post-Saddam Middle East. Both want to see a central role for the UN. And both want to see progress on the Middle East roadmap. Tony Blair also still harbours hopes for adopting the euro, although in the current European political climate that would appear to be wishful rather than strategic thinking.
So far these diplomatic developments are hardly dramatic, but they do suggest a decisive adjustment in Britain’s position towards the US. Having stretched the relationship to the breaking point in attacking Iraq, Tony Blair knows that he can no longer offer the US unconditional support and retain any authority at home.
For reasons best known to himself, Blair had hoped that following regime change in Iraq, the Bush administration would be more conciliatory. But, predictably, it appears to be having the opposite effect. Having demonstrated its military power in Iraq, the United States appears to be actively maintaining a state of belligerence with the Arab world to impose its will.
Furthermore, with weapons of mass destruction still eluding discovery and the US military occupation looking more brazen by the day, Iraq could well turn into a political liability for Blair.
If that turns out to be the case, Blair’s strategy will almost certainly be to keep as much distance as possible from Washington – making sure that any further setbacks are seen as those of the US alone.
Differences between the US and the rest of the world will once again come to a head at the United Nations if the US makes good on its assurance that it will seek a further UN resolution on rebuilding Iraq. Could Britain side with France, Germany and Russia on the UN role in the Security Council? It sounds almost laughably implausible now, but it might just be the only feasible option for Blair if the Bush administration continues to hold the UN in conspicuous contempt. And despite their dismay at Blair’s support of Bush, France, Russia and Germany would be certain to welcome Britain back into the fold.
Pro-war newspapers in Britain are somewhat optimistically talking of Tony Blair’s "Baghdad bounce", a leap in the opinion polls after being "vindicated" for attacking Iraq. Maybe.
But, as a march of up to 200,000 people in London last Saturday suggested, not everyone in Britain is so easily persuaded. The march was probably smaller than expected. But, as it was billed as a march to stop the war when the war appeared to be petering out anyway, it was far from discouraging. "No Occupation of Iraq" posters were hastily produced and many Britons are clearly angered by the chaos that had swept through Iraq under the noses of the British and American forces. If the plight of the Iraqi people does not improve soon and American aggression is not reigned in, for Blair, distance from the Bush administration will not just be a matter of expediency but a matter of survival.
