I should state from the outset that I detest New Labour, and especially Tony Blair. I am also strongly against attacking Iraq.
Even so, for a long time I was prepared to believe that Blair was attempting to save the world by acting as a moderating influence on Bush. Perhaps without Blair, Iraq (and possibly many parts of Western cities) would already be rubble.
Now I’m starting to think that it has more to do with Blair chasing the job of EU president. If he can’t deliver Britain into the Euro any time soon, he needs to get something else impressive on his CV. Whenever the issue of the appointment of a president of the EU is raised, it is invariably stated that we need a single leader that the President of the USA can call to discuss world issues. Is the President going to want to talk to Tony, or to the “axis of weasels”?
I suppose there is also the possibility that Blair simply agrees with Bush. Surely Blair is more intelligent than that though?
A few months ago, London_Calling answered a similar question with a credible theory (forgive me if I paraphrase this wrongly): Blair knows GWB’s going to go to Iraq anyway; the alliance allows him to temper US unilateralism - to persuade the hawks to go to the UN. Blair also sees himself as the bridge between Europe and the US, attempting to thaw and repair relations between the two continents; finally, it’s a beneficial situation for the UK economy to have the ‘special relationship’ underlined.
He is also probably acting on some personal moral terms, given the massive undermining of his popularity that’s going on - very un-Blair-like to allow that to happen.
Problem: He acted much the same way when Clinton was in office. So for this to be true, we have to assume he agreed with pretty much every one of Clinton’s policies, and pretty much every one of Bush the Younger’s policies. :dubious:
I don’t know quite what he’s up to, but the strategy seems to be to go along with the US on all foreign policy matters, and not just in the case of Iraq.
This sounds very plausible to me; Blair must realise that his support for Bush is not winning him any popularity contests either at home or in Europe, and he is too good a politician to let his ego blind him to his own self-interest. (I loathe the man, but I will admit he has some functioning brain cells.)
My guess is that Blair wants a British voice in the reconstruction of Iraq and in whatever realignments of the region take place after Saddam is destroyed. Frankly, though, I think he’s on a hiding to nothing … whatever opposition there may be to Saddam in Iraq, the general population there are not going to welcome a US invasion as glorious liberation; realistically speaking, the country will be a disaster area for decades as factions fight it out for control. (And, however grateful Bush may be personally for Blair’s support, he is not going to support British economic interests if those might in any way clash with those of America - which they likely will, if oil is involved.)
I’d second Steve Wright here in that the UK has a serious interest in being involved in a post-Saddam settlement. (I would also say it has a serious interest, along with the whole civilized world, in getting rid of Saddam.)
I think Blair is playing this brilliantly. He’s ignoring public opinion - that’s fine. You can’t form foreign policy through opinion polls. He has poured a ton of cold water on Franco-German designs to run Europe, and on the whole, absurd idea of a single “European” foreign policy. If my reading of this is right, he is disputing the trendy Euro idea that the world needs a counterweight to the US. He’s saying “the status quo is fine - the US is a force for good, and they will listen to a little constructive criticism from close friends.”
I have long wondered why Tony Blair seems so obsessed with kissing Bush’s ass, even when the vast majority of British people oppose Bush’s invasion of Iraq. It makes no sense. Blair must have some personal agenda here, such as membership in the elite club of world-dominators (Cheney, Carlyle Group, Bush Sr., etc.) or something else equally vile.
Then last night in conversation with my father, I learned that Blair is apparently some sort of “born again Christian,” just like Bush (apparently), such that he may actually believe he is engaged in some apocalyptic war of good v. evil.
I really have no idea, but I hadn’t heard the religion angle.
A plurality approve of war, provided we get the blessing of the UN first. It’s true that only 9% approve of war without UN approval, but to say that most people disapprove of war in any form - which seemed to be implied by your post - is just plain wrong. Of course, that article seemed to want to make the same inaccurate point as you, which is why you have to dig if you want the actual numbers.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled Blair-bashing.
Jeff
I think jjimm has the gist but let me have another stab:
FWIW, I think there are two main strands to this;
Initially, Blair was doing what all UK PM’s have done since Churchill (exempting Wilson on Vietnam, dopey bollocks on Suez and a couple more instances…), which is to play sidekick to US foreign policy initiatives. That’s the great unspoken central plank in UK foreign policy – it works, IMHO, for a number of reasons and PM’s of all complexions seem to have been convinced of its value enough to sustain the principle even, at times, in the face of considerable personal cost (not to mention ridicule).
I suppose we can get into the details of the policy in other posts….but essentially, having the American ear makes the UK a main player, punching way above its station on the world stage… I think perhaps of the most vivid demonstrations of this was an interview I heard a while back in which an African delegate to the UN said if his country wanted the help of the US they wouldn’t go to them first. They’d firstly go to the Brits and let them take it to the Americans…Sure the UK holds a veto but not everything goes through the UN…That’s really but one simple example of a pretty sophisticated (and very long term) policy / strategy.
Secondly, it’s very unusual – I’d hazard unique – for US foreign policy to be so way out there that building the usual UK stylie diplomatic bridge between the president and mainstream Europe is, to put it mildly, something of a stretch – Blair needs to thank his God the political cycle has seen right wingers in the Med countries (who have helped him stretch across the very considerable divide): Can you imagine trying to maintain credibility in Europe and with this US administration … rather him than me….
So yeah, I agree with **Steve ** in as much as Blair does want a voice apropos post-war Iraq, but its also consistent with this main plank of UK foreign policy to always have an input on international affairs.
I’d also – so far, the stakes are so damn high just now – agree with Hemlock that Blair has played an absolute blinder in all of this – that’s from the POV of someone trying to be an impartial political observer: I think he always did have very keen political instincts but the experience of Kosovo and working alongside Clinton during that time has turned him into something else … whatever else we might think of him, he’s a very, very class act.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Second Report supports the insightful comments by London Calling:
(d) We conclude that Britain can work constructively with European Union partners on some areas of foreign policy—such as development, the ICC and Iran—while aligning itself more closely to the United States on policy towards Iraq. We recommend that, in the war against terrorism and elsewhere, the Government continue to judge each of its major partners’ policies on their own merits: the experience of the past year has demonstrated the extent to which Britain can work with both the EU and the US, without damaging its relationship with either (paragraph 36).
(f) We fully support the Government’s decision to align itself closely with the United States in the war against terrorism. We conclude that this policy has enhanced Britain’s influence over current policy decisions, and has also helped to foster the ‘special relationship’ in the long run (paragraph 46).
[ Slight hijack ] Reminds me of a story, presumably apocryphal, of a candidate for a post in the UK Foreign Office being interviewed by a pair of senior FO types. “What,” asks one of the interviewers, “do you think are the two most important things in the world?” The candidate thinks thinks hard for a while and says “Love … and Anglo-American relations.” [end of hijack]
Thanks for so many insightful answers, there’s a lot more substance here than you get on Newsnight. It’s interesting that we are generally prepared to think up rational motives to explain Blair’s actions, but Bush we take at face value.
So it looks like the general consensus is that Blair is simply backing whatever the USA does, because that’s what we do. I can’t remember Major or Thatcher doing otherwise. But they never had to deal with such controversial behaviour by the USA - it was never difficult for them to agree.
I’m not sure that influence over post-Saddam Iraq is much of a factor. The easiest way to achieve this would be to do what the French are doing - which I’m sure will be to give their consent at the last minute, reluctantly, in exchange for having a say later.
Popularity isn’t a problem either. As far as the public is concerned the only thing that matters is that Labour are unchallenged by the Tories. Although Blair faces opposition to the war from his own party, there’s nowhere near enough of it to be career threatening. And if he is chasing a career in the EU, popularity is irrelevant.
lout, Blair is indeed more overtly religious than many British politicians - even sympathetic towards creationism which is very unusual here. But he may be too socially liberal for most American-style born again Christians. At least the ones I read about on the SDMB.
For me, Blair’s masterstroke was getting approval for his actions from other European nations, rather than just worrying about France and Germany. At the time of the attack on Afghanistan I remember an apoplectic French politician whining (I paraphrase) “You shouldn’t just go along with what the Americans say, you should just go along with what we say”. This time Blair was able to show that although France and Germany oppose him he still has plenty of support from other parts of Europe.
Whether Blair has “played a blinder” as London_Calling puts it of course depends on what he is trying to do. If he’s trying to prevent a war, while maintaining a good relationship with the USA, I would wholeheartedly agree.
Europe in general does seem to gravitate toward two differant outlooks, the French/German and the UK/US one.
France is seen by the UK as playing Europe mainly for its own national interests without too much regard for the rest of the EU.
I would expect that other EU nations such as Denmark feel the same way about France, since they voted against monetry union.
In some ways there is a game being played here about which outlook will become the one taken up by the EU as a whole, and some EU nations do not like the way France especially tries to centralise all EU matters around itself.
At the moment the France/German outlook is possibly seen as inneffectual, they were pathetic with regard to Kosovo with its clear human rights abuses and somewhat less than helpful as regards Serbia and the wars in central Yugoslavia, they were irrelevant as regards Afghanistan, and in the Gulf war the French seemed to be very reluctant partners.
This outlook is a less interventionist approach, but it never gets the chance to achieve anything because the US and the UK simply go right around it.
On the UN and world diplomatic arena the EU as envisiged by France, is seen as just a talking shop, where no real decisions are made and where there is no real leadership.
France/Germany sees the EU as a major player, but their relctance to either committ militarily or condemn the indefensible, they are actually undermining the future possible role of the EU, meanwhile the UK and other EU nations see this, and go where the real decisions are made.
Tony Blair seems top have decided that the US view shopuld be the UK view, and that action rather than waiting is the only way to address the despots of the world.
His influence at the UN is all the greater for it, I doubt that any despotic ruler pays much attention to the goings on the the EU, but when Blair speaks they have to listen.