President Blair: poodle or attack dog?
There is a
common view amongst British liberals, that Tony Blair, as vehemently supportive
of United States policy as he is in public, is more critical in private. Indeed
it is often argued that the only way for Britain to have any influence over US
decision making, is to appear to agree with everything the US says or does.
That is the only way, the argument goes, that the US would ever listen to what
Britain has to say behind closed doors. And it is assumed furthermore, that
what British representatives do say behind the scenes is always more dovish,
always more reasonable and always more in keeping with the international
consensus than the US. This picture of British/US relations will be familiar to
anyone who regularly samples the ``quality'' ``liberal'' British news media
(the BBC, the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent). It is, however, a
fantasy of quite extraordinary elaborateness for which there is no shred of
evidence beyond government say-so. What independent evidence there is suggests,
on the contrary, that Blair uses whatever influence he might have to smooth the
US’s path to war. He certainly has worked and is working as hard as any US
Government official to ``persuade'' (threaten and bribe) other countries into
supporting US aggression wherever it may strike.
Whence, therefore does the impression of Blair as the restraining influence
come? It emanates, not surprisingly from Downing Street itself, if the trail of
hints and vague references to ``sources close to the Prime Minister'' is
followed. The job of creating the impression falls to the media and, as the
following examples show, it relies on the loyal band of ``political
correspondents'' who make their livings by nurturing their access to these
``sources''.
``He continues to calculate that
leverage over Washington is maximised by being the unswerving ally. That does
not make him an unqualified admirer of this Oval Office. The intellectual
capacity of Dubya is not highly rated within Downing Street. One of Mr Blair's
most influential foreign policy advisers regards George Bush as 'imbecilic', a
global village idiot. The Prime Minister might secretly agree. Even if he did,
he sees as much point hectoring America as there is in heckling a juggernaut.''
Andrew Rawnsley The Observer Sunday February 24, 2002.
``[Blair] asserts privately that he will not be pushed around by the
president'' Hugo Young, Guardian August 01 2002.
``A source close to the Prime Minister said: 'We have far more influence
remaining inside the tent [with America] than outside it.' '' Kamal Ahmed,
Observer, Sunday February 10, 2002.
Downing Street promotes the fantasy, because it acts to silence people who
might otherwise complain that Blair supports policies they oppose. If they can
be reassured that, really Blair is holding Bush back from even worse
excesses of violence and the price to pay is that we must be seen to be
standing ``shoulder to shoulder'' with the US, then they are less likely to
protest.
Another consequence of the fantasy is that the true effect, and true purpose,
of Blair's visible, vocal support for the US is masked. The only thing that can
hold the US back now from attacking Iraq is US public opinion. Control of that
opinion is of the highest priority to the Bush administration therefore and a
key component in the control is the public support of the British Government.
The sight and sound of Tony Blair travelling the world, warmongering on behalf
of the US at every opportunity is very comforting to a domestic US audience
that is actually acutely sensitive to the thought that they might be completely
isolated in world opinion. Reassuring the US public that US policy is supported
``internationally'' is Blair's appointed role in the Empire, and he performs it
with unflagging zeal. No hint of the British media fantasy that Blair is
actually anti-war reaches the US public's ears.
Polls show that the US people would feel much less positive about a war on Iraq
if the British Government didn't support it. We in Britain have therefore an
opportunity and a responsibility. Our anti-war strategy should be to do
whatever it takes to make support of a war on Iraq politically impossible for
Blair. We would then be giving the anti-war movement in the US their best
chance for success.
Fay Dowker
16/10/220
Back to
Fay Dowker’s homepage