Posted on 05/28/2006 12:13:45 AM PDT by familyop
"I hope that isn't the White House telling me they don't agree with that," quipped the Prime Minister when a mobile phone rang in the middle of the speech he gave at Georgetown University in Washington on Friday. "They act very quickly these guys… "
His joke betrayed the nature of the "special relationship": the Bush administration tells Mr Blair what it wants, and Mr Blair does his best to provide it. That appears to extend even to changing the text of the Prime Minister's keynote speeches. In accordance with the usual protocol, the George-town address was discussed with members of the Bush administration.
The Americans suggested changes - and in a break with the usual protocol, Mr Blair appears to have made them. He seems to have watered down his original insistence that "change should not be imposed on Iran" to leave the door open for military action. He dropped his original insistence that the US and Europe give up their monopoly of the top posts at the IMF and the World Bank. He scaled back his plea for action on climate change.
It is only too characteristic of the one-sided relationship between the British and American governments since Mr Blair was elected. Mr Bush always has warm words for Mr Blair, and for good reason: the British Prime Minister has given the American President everything he could possibly want, even when Mr Bush is willing to do without a contribution from Britain. Famously, Mr Bush told Mr Blair prior to the invasion of Iraq that he realised Mr Blair would face insuperable domestic difficulties if he joined in, and that he was willing to go ahead without the British. The Prime Minister refused that offer - with dire consequences for his subsequent political standing.
Beyond warm words, what has Britain received from Mr Bush in return for the Prime Minister's unconditional and uncritical support? If there is an answer to that question other than "Nothing", it is extremely difficult to see what it is. Britain receives no preferential treatment from the US when it comes to economic or trading agreements. The extradition arrangements remain unjust: we hand over British citizens wanted for trial in America, but the Americans have yet to get round to putting their signature to the supposedly reciprocal treaty.
Above all, the occupation of Iraq has not had the glorious results that Mr Bush predicted for it. The country has sunk into violent sectarian strife. The total lack of planning for a post-invasion future has led to anarchy and an inability to rebuild Iraq's shattered infrastructure. American companies have proved themselves unable to reconstruct Iraq. Mr Blair forgot to ask the American President to ensure that British companies were given an opportunity to contribute, so very few of them have been able to.
Mr Blair's ideal of a selfless "international community", led by America, righting the wrongs of the world, has reached its nadir in Iraq. The "international community" has proved to be largely a figment of Mr Blair's imagination: he is its only member. He is the only world leader prepared to embark on foreign military adventures without considering whether they are actually in the national interest. Few other world leaders even bother with such rhetoric. Those that do, always act having carefully calculated their own country's interests first. It may have been loftily noble of Mr Blair to refuse such calculations in the hope of achieving international justice. It was also misguided.
The occupation of Iraq is likely to signal the end of the "Blair Doctrine" on foreign intervention. The hopes generated by the successful intervention against Serbia, which ended Milosevic's genocidal policies in Bosnia and Kosovo, have been erased by the emerging disaster in Iraq. Few now believe that invading a foreign country in the name of protecting human rights is worth the costs in terms of human blood. The threat to our security will have to be direct and palpable for military action to gain majority support: dodgy dossiers and idealistic pronouncements will not be enough.
The slow discrediting of the idea of an "interventionist international community" is Mr Blair's true legacy on the world stage. If it means that Britain's international relations are once again based on the solid foundation of national interest rather than the vapidities of "international solidarity", that may be no bad thing.
Gosh....based upon the threads here on FR the past few weeks, I'm not sure I agree with you.
Every once in a while I see something like this from some small minded Briton, and I am amazed. What I see going on in the world is the flowering of the British empire. All the work of generations prepared to shoulder the "white man's burden" is paying off with English emerging as the lingua franca and growing prosperity wherever it is spoken. In my mind, Tony Blair stands tall and represents the responsibility of the motherland to all those people in an important post colonial way. Too bad that socialism has given too many British a diminished self-image when they have every right to rejoice and be proud.
Britain's foreign policy goal was, is, and will always be its own national interests above all else. Lord Palmerston said this about 160 years ago:
"We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are perpetual and eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow."
What the Telegraph is thinking is that it considers Britain fighting the WOT is serving America's national interests but NOT Britain's. It is dead wrong, in this case America's national interests do coincide those of Britain.
...agreed, and thanks for the history. Here's a related article of interest.
At least 1,000 UK soldiers desert
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1639716/posts
I notice defending of the perceived-results by a Briton over on that thread. Been talking with this gentleman (or lady, I just assume it's a he) for some time, and he is a typical British big C Conservative party hack who doesn't get the big picture. Still he is marginally better than many continental European political hecks like France's UMP or Germany's CDU.
But anyway, the way I see it, I agree that we are witnessing a shift of international balance of power and if the trends continue, all nations that really matter on the international stage in the future will be Asian and the US itself. Your (and our) national interests will become increasingly focussed on our parts of the world, and European nations may go down the route of being a more glorified Sweden. Australia, Japan and India are nations that will matter, Britain probably not much, and Germany...forget it.
...well said.
If you are interested here's an article from NR's Rich Lowry. He explains more fully what I outlined on the post above (I don't think many EUphile Britons will like it though LOL):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1619881/posts
Thank you. I read it, and it changed some of my focus for future study. It was well worth the read.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1619881/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.