White House Tires Of Blair's UN Diplomacy

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 3-14-2003 | Toby Harnden

[blam]

White House tires of Blair's UN diplomacy

By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 14/03/2003)

Hawks in the White House have criticised Tony Blair for his persistence in seeking a new United Nations resolution. The senior officials are urging George W Bush to press ahead with war.

An outspoken attack on Mr Blair's policy at the UN by a Bush administration official reflected growing tensions in Anglo-American relations.

"Blair is hurting himself by dragging this out," the official said. "It's not for Americans to tell British politicians how to behave. But what is he getting out of this? He should just stand up and say: 'We're ready to go.' "

Such hardline comments from a key policy-maker showed that Mr Bush's decision to give Mr Blair another few days to pursue a vote at the UN was made in the teeth of opposition from elements of his administration.

Previously, even the most hard-line aides in the US government had shied away from any sniping at Mr Blair, characterising him as a "stand-up guy" trying to do his best in the face of a difficult domestic situation. But the mood has darkened.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the UN, was singled out as undermining America's position by offering too many concessions in a futile attempt to secure another UN resolution.

"People think that it's not so much Blair we're trying to accommodate as Jeremy Greenstock in New York, who is trying to convince Blair that you can get a UN resolution that he'll accept," the US official said.

"He wants to make more compromises, a longer ultimatum period. This is a position Greenstock's had for weeks."

There was widespread dismay within the Bush administration last week when Sir Jeremy indicated that the March 17 deadline could be extended to the end of the month. Mr Bush is understood to have agreed to a further slippage in the UN timetable after his telephone call with Mr Blair on Thursday.

Having insisted that a vote had to take place by today, Mr Bush's reluctant acquiescence to a vote next week is likely to erode his credibility.

However, there is a growing belief within the Bush administration that even nine "yes" votes will be elusive.

"We're not going to get a resolution," the senior official said. "The French and the Russians will veto. It doesn't matter what changes you make, the question is how long this is going to drag on."

Several sources within the Bush administration have said that the comments on Tuesday by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, that America might have to go to war without Britain, were an expression of frustration and a shot across Mr Blair's bows.

The senior official suggested that the comments had forced the Prime Minister's hands. "In effect, he disagreed with Mr Rumsfeld's notion that Britain wouldn't participate. Well if that's the case what are they waiting for? He gets nothing out of this. This is just masochistic.

"We're just haemorrhaging for no purpose. There's no up-side here other than for Blair. We're being kicked around worldwide. These newspaper stories about divisions and uncertainty are giving Saddam comfort. Just get it over with."

The official said Mr Bush had "gone well along the way of trying to accommodate Blair" and emphasised that "we're only doing this [seeking another UN resolution] for him". It had been a mistake, he argued, to pursue another resolution.

"I just think this is a fool's chase. The whole thing is. What is anybody getting by waiting if you believe Saddam is not going to disarm? Why not just go for it?

"At a certain point here you have to wonder how much more delay, how much more confusion we can have internationally and all the rest of it. The Russians and the French have made it clear they're going to veto, so what exactly are we doing here?"

Another source has said it was "unseemly" for the Americans to bribe and cajole "corrupt" African countries on the Security Council to get their votes. He said this had allowed critics of US policy to accuse Mr Bush of using "dollar diplomacy" to secure a "coalition of the billing" to attack Iraq.

British diplomats have said that differences between the UK and US approaches were more apparent than real and stemmed from a choreographed "good cop, bad cop" routine.

[Adam-ondi-Ahman]

Bush has put a great deal of credibility on the line for Blair.

[DoughtyOne]

Whether we like it or not, Blair has his own credibility on the line. I don't think he'd go to the U.N. if he didn't have to. His own nation, his own party is giving him fits. I don't think we ask our friends to commit harry carry. What good would that do? The only man supporting us would be drubbed out of office. Then what?

[Cacique]

ping

[Dog]

This nonsense must stop..

[blam]

"Bush has put a great deal of credibility on the line for Blair."

Enough already, 3-17-2003, was/is the 'drop-dead' date.

[Dog]

Then Blair needs to Bush he can't go.....and let us get on with this..

[MEG33]

Perhaps the Azores summit will be a "fish or cut bait" meeting.

[Wait4Truth]

I agree with you. President Bush has done all he can for Tony Blair. Blair said awhile back that he did not want to be remembered as the Prime Minister that did nothing about Saddam. He said he was going to do what was right. Now, he is bending over backwards, even consulting with Chirac, in order to save his butt. What happened to doing the right thing? Our President has gone far enough, IMHO. When the Iraqis are dancing in the street, they will be praising President George W. Bush. One would think that Tony Blair would like to be part of that. And he would also be vindicated with his own people. If he does not have a quick change of heart, I think the U.S. will go without Great Britain - and we should.

[Cicero]

Blair's credibility IS on the line. One or two Freepers have suggested that his real purpose is to delay the war.

As background, keep in mind that he is much closer in character to bill clinton than to Bush. He is a Socialist, he has pressed to join Europe, he is strongly pro-abort, and pro-homosexual (having used up a great deal of his political clout a few years ago to lower the age of homosexual consent for minors, going so far as to demolish the House of Lords in the process). He has been more responsible than anyone else over the past couple of years for pressuring Bush to make accommodations with Yasser Arafat and to rein in Sharon.

It's not clear to me whether Blair really wants war with Iraq, or is merely afraid of wrecking the Special Relationship with America. There's no doubt about the courage of the British troops, but I'm not so sure about Tony Blair. Because all these delays are weakening his own position as well as Bush's. If he really wanted to go ahead, they make little sense.

[Wphile]

It better be. This hemorraging isn't helping anybody, least of all Blair. Actually it does seem in some weird way to be helping Bush based on the latest polls. I think people are getting extremely fed up with the UN and the French, in particular. However, that's only because the conservative/republican base is sticking with Bush for the time being. That loyalty is being severely tested, however, with all this haggling going on with and in the UN.

I admit that it certainly isn't impressing me and Bush is looking foolish by setting deadlines and then dismissing them. But, if the war is successful, the French connection exposed, Sadaam desposed, and the UN deemed irrelevant, I can live with it.

[dinok]

Enough is enough...

[Batrachian]

If nothing comes out of this Azores summit but another extension of the deadline and another effort of pandering to the French and the U.N. then Bush's credibility is gone.

[Wait4Truth]

President Bush has been trying to help Blair who has just terrible approval ratings at this point. But now the time has come for Blair to either get fully onboard or pull out. Bush will give him cover. I think we will be at war very soon - with or without Great Britain.

[TLBSHOW]

Blair is a full fledged Socialist that we can do without.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

The prestige of both leaders will peak with a quick victory.

I'd love to see a video of Bush and Blair "working over" Saddam Hussein in an "undisclosed" location.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

"We're just haemorrhaging for no purpose. There's no up-side here other than for Blair. We're being kicked around worldwide. These newspaper stories about divisions and uncertainty are giving Saddam comfort. Just get it over with."

Haven't we been saying this here for the past few weeks now?

Glad to see the administration, or a part of it anyway, see this too.

[this_ol_patriot]

I don't think we ask our friends to commit harry carry

God forbid that should happen.

[chellis]

His credibility is at an all time low. The little boy who cried wolf comes to mind. Bush can not possibly think that one man's political future (either his own or Tony Blairs) is worth more than the safety of our military. This waiting game is not good for them and has allowed SH to prepare for war for months. I was truly hopeing that President Bush would make the hard decisions, do the right thing and not worry about being a one term president when so much is at stake in the world.