The symbolic kiss the casts a shadow over Blair s talks with Bush

KISS, as the movie Casablanca put it, is just a kiss. But when the kiss is planted by the lips of the Iraqi representative on the cheeks of the Saudi representative at the Arab summit in Beirut, as happened last week, a kiss is no longer just a kiss. It is a major political statement which casts a shadow over this weekend’s meeting between Tony Blair and George W Bush at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas.

That kiss was a symbol of Iraq being allowed back into the Arab fold. It was a signal from the Arab world that Iraq should not be attacked by the US and Britain. And it was a clear message that whatever the crimes of Saddam Hussein, Arabs want the Baghdad regime to be left alone. Arab governments friendly to the US, including the Saudis, Egypt’s Mubarak, and Jordan’s King Abdullah, all fear that any attack on Iraq by America at a time when Israel is reoccupying huge swathes of Palestinian land, could provoke such a backlash on the streets of Cairo, Amman and Riyadh, that their own regimes would be swept from power. It is a very real possibility. It should provide plenty to talk about as Blair and Bush attempt to re-fashion the world over their Texan barbecue. Any attempt to get rid of Saddam which destroyed Mubarak, the House of Saud and the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan would rank as one of the most disastrous diplomatic mistakes in history.

The Blair-Bush summit will produce more of the routine British speculation about the so-called special relationship between the two leaders. British diplomats will roll their eyes to heaven. America, British diplomats never tire of repeating, has a special relationship with Britain, yes. But also with Israel. And with Mexico. And Canada. And with Japan and South Korea. There is even a special relationship with Saudi Arabia. But what distinguishes the relationship with Britain is its depth and complexity, rooted in a nuclear and military alliance, intelligence-sharing, and trust.

An American official responsible for briefing President Clinton in the lead-up to a meeting with John Major once told me that he had to prepare briefing notes on more than 20 subjects. A presidential meeting with the leader of France, Italy or Germany would involve briefing notes on perhaps just seven or eight topics. The totality of the relationship between Britain and the US, the American diplomat told me, is just so much greater than the totality of the relationship with anyone else. This is much to the benefit of both countries.

And it means that even if this Texas meeting between Blair and Bush is supposed to be about the war against terrorism and Iraq, it will easily expand to take in Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, and the Palestinians. It might go on to Yemen and Somalia, plus other wars against terrorists in the Far East and Chechnya. You could even imagine events in Zimbabwe and Northern Ireland forming part of any wide-ranging after-dinner conversation.

Then in the background officials may discuss the nastier trade problems between the US and Europe, steel tariffs, the complicated politics of the airline business. Add to all this relations with China and Russia, defusing the tension between those two nuclear powers, Pakistan and India, Star Wars, the war on drugs, Bosnia and Kosovo, plus limiting weapons of mass destruction. You begin to see why British prime ministers and American presidents rarely have time for small-talk over the ribs and coleslaw.

President Bush likes to listen to a range of policy opinions, and he clearly enjoys Tony Blair’s advice well beyond the necessities of diplomacy. Despite the perennial cliché of Britain’s political Left, none of this makes Britain America’s lapdog or poodle. Because Britain is generally publicly supportive it means that privately Mr Blair can be robustly critical of US policy without jeopardising the core relationship.

But the crunch issue remains the same. However despicable Saddam Hussein may be, however dangerous his pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Arab governments believe an American-led attack would be more of a danger to world peace and stability than anything the Butcher of Baghdad may be planning. Unless new and compelling evidence against Saddam is produced, the kiss in Beirut looks like the kiss of death to a policy of bombing allied troops all the way to Baghdad.

However despicable Saddam Hussein may be, however dangerous his pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Arab governments believe an American-led attack would be more of a danger to world peace and stability than anything the Butcher of Baghdad may be planning. Unless new and compelling evidence against Saddam is produced, the kiss in Beirut looks like the kiss of death to a policy of bombing allied troops all the way to Baghdad.

Dream on, Gavin.

It's quite humorous, actually, looking back at what has appeared in the EU-UK press:

First, the attacks on the WTC were going to force the US to be "more multilateralist". We were going to ratify Kyoto and the ICC, to appease the EU.

Then, we weren't going to attack Afghanistan, because we needed the UN's permission and we were too scared of the "Arab street"

Then we were going to forget about NMD because Russia would not allow us to leave the ABM treaty, for fear of starting a new arms race.

Afghanistan was going to be a quagmire.

And so on.

They continually print their wishes as undeniable fact, and then they throw tantrums when we don't behave as they "knew" we would, eg, Kyoto, the ICC, etc.

Saddam was behind this latest explosion on Israeli/Palestinian violence. If Sharon had just taken the assault and sucked it up, then we could have smashed Iraq. Clearly, Sharon did the right thing by invading, he's found all sorts of weapons, including dozens of suicide bomber belts, and he's made a huge number of arrests.

But when the kiss is planted by the lips of the Iraqi representative on the cheeks of the Saudi representative at the Arab summit in Beirut, as happened last week, a kiss is no longer just a kiss. It is a major political statement....

Maybe the Saudi representative just had the hots for ol' Saddam. No big deal.

I can't say I'm really surprised by the cowardly Arab leaders of so-called "moderates" like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan. I will say fear and the nutcases that run loose throughout their society are the real leaders. They're all in denial because sooner or later they will attempt something anyway. No amount of fear and inaction against murderous, threatening tyrants like Saddam Hussein is going to stop the terrorists they allow to continue their destructive path in their own countries. There is no argument about what Iraq is doing and the obvious attempts at becoming a destructive force again with building its weaponry up. Why are they building weapons of war when it's obvious their actions with past and current behavior show that is the cause of all their problems? And that should not be accepted, that Iraq be allowed to obtain weapons of war because they're no doubt attempting to destabilize the world. Britain has to realize they'd be just as much of a target. And down the list to others if those loonies get their hands on certain weapons. Blair seemed to understand that just after 9/11. I hope he and Bush haven't forgotten.

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.