Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

04-13-03

Bush and Blair: Allies With Different Goals

"We are all internationalists, whether we like it or not," declared British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a speech in Chicago four years ago. He has frequently called for strengthening the United Nations, for pursuing the environmental strategy of the Kyoto accord, for the establishment of a permanent international tribunal for the prosecution of war crimes suspects, and for an impartial settlement of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

To all of these positions, President Bush and his neo-imperialist advisers strenuously object. They want America to lead and set the policy agenda for the rest of the world. They apparently will rather do without allies than subject the United States to opposition in the United Nations, to an international court, to ecological controls, or justice without the death penalty.

Worldwide, the internationalists are upset about the uncompromising unilateralism of the Bush administration. Tony Blair, however, remains an optimist. He, like most Europeans, respects America too much to give up on the Atlantic Alliance. When the friends of Sharon at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue decided that the forcible ouster of Saddam Hussein was more important than peace in the Holy Land, Tony Blair decided that, since he could not change the President's priorities, he would join him in his determination to get rid of Saddam. After all, most world leaders despised the Iraqi tyrant but disagreed only over how he might best be contained.

Upon Blair's prodding, Bush reluctantly agreed to ask the U.N. Security Council to approve the use of force against the Iraqi regime. When Russia and France refused to go along, Blair decided that joining in the American initiative was necessary and right, even though it met with strong opposition among the British people.

Siding with the U.S. administration, however, gave the prime minister the opportunity to ask the President for political concessions, particularly on his reticence to prod Israel's rulers into ending the oppressive occupation of Palestinian lands. Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, explained that "there is real concern that the West has been guilty of double standards-on the one hand saying the United Nations' Security Council resolutions on Iraq must be implemented, on the other hand, sometimes appearing rather quixotic over the implementation of resolutions about Israel and Palestine."

Prime Minister Sharon responded instantly when he heard that Blair had persuaded Bush to draw a "road map" toward achieving Middle East peace. The British ambassador to Israel was called in and told that recent British statements are "worrisome and outrageous." After all, Sharon had been publicly gloating over the rift between the Bush administration and the Europeans, particularly Russia, France, and Germany, who have long pleaded for more American evenhandedness in the Middle East.

When Blair committed British troops to aid the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he never turned his back on the dissenting Europeans, notably President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder. While Bush pouted over their refusal to do his bidding, Blair stayed in touch with both. He clearly wants to maintain his leadership role in the European Union, in a Europe "of free, independent sovereign nations who chose to pool sovereignty in pursuit of their own interests and the common good, achieving more together than we can achieve alone." In Blair's view, this Europe ought to be a "superpower but not a superstate."

In sharp contrast to Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Blair is not a Europhobe who looks at Germans and Frenchmen as perennial problems rather than as equal partners. Like Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Blair is a friend of America. But unlike Mrs. Thatcher, he represents political views that clearly differ from those currently dominant in the White House and Congress.

With a friend like Tony Blair, President Bush surely is in for some valuable discussions on the proper course of the world to come.