Posted on 06/29/2002 4:59:26 PM PDT by Pokey78
When I interviewed Dr Henry Kissinger during his trip to London in April, the former American Secretary of State said that President Bush and his colleagues needed what he described as a clear "concept" in their strategy for the Middle East. "I do not think they have yet settled on what the precise concept is," he added, in that wry, unmistakable baritone.
Perhaps the President's speech on Israel and the Palestinian Authority last week will have answered Dr Kissinger's implicit question. The "concept" is simply this: the Palestinians can have a viable state, as far as America is concerned, but they cannot have Yasser Arafat. Period. Contrast Mr Bush's position now with what he told Sir Trevor McDonald in a television interview in April. "It's up to [the Palestinians]," the President said then. "Far be it from the American President to decide who leads what country." Not that far, as it turned out. Mr Bush has not quite claimed the right to oust Arafat himself. But he has let the Palestinians know - in what Gordon Brown would call "clear and unambiguous" terms - that he expects them to rid themselves of their discredited leader, and fast.
Mr Blair did his best last week not to contradict the President directly. "It is up to the Palestinians to choose their own leaders," he declared weakly through his most diplomatic rictus. What he did not say - conspicuously so - was that Mr Arafat had to go. In the Commons, Jack Straw let the cat of division out of the Blairite bag. "If President Arafat is re-elected by the Palestinian Authority," he said, "we will deal with him." Downing Street described the gap between Washington and London as one of "different language"; that is, what the rest of us call "total disagreement".
"Since September 11," one Foreign Office minister said to me recently, "we've always maintained complete solidarity with America in public, and complete candour in private." Last week, that system finally malfunctioned. As we report today, furthermore, there are increasingly open grumblings emanating from the Prime Minister's office about the US military's conduct in Afghanistan. Chinks are opening in the partition between public and private. Even so, I think it is easy to exaggerate the significance of this division, or the likelihood that it will tear open into something beyond repair. The synchronisation of Anglo-American diplomacy since September 11 has been hugely impressive, and it is unthinkable that Mr Blair, a man who heals rifts for a living, will allow this one to fester long. If you think the Prime Minister has permanently detached his shoulder from the President's, think again.
Labour's party managers, I was told last week, have already decided to impose a three line whip in the Commons vote on war with Iraq which they anticipate next year. The whips expect at least 50 MPs to rebel, and are already discussing just how ruthlessly to deal with such dissidence. Mr Blair may disagree with the President over Arafat. But he is about as likely to surrender the status that comes from being Mr Bush's First Friend, as David Seaman is to invite Ronaldinho on his next family holiday.
What is certainly true is that the Prime Minister is finding it hard to reconcile this role with his self-image as the spokesman for Europe in trans-Atlantic relations. In Downing Street, they love to describe Britain as a "pivot" between America and the European Union. It would be more accurate to describe Mr Blair's present position as that of a circus performer trying to ride two horses veering in radically different directions. Outside of the Gaza Strip, there are few people more enthusiastic in their support for Arafat than the EU's commissioners and officials, who describe the Palestinian routinely as "an indispensable partner for peace", and have ensured that billions of dollars of EU aid have filled the coffers of his Ramallah stronghold. Conflict with the US over steel tariffs and the stock market turmoil over WorldCom have made Mr Blair's counterparts on the Continent even less disposed to share his enthusiasm for America's economic achievement, let alone its claim to the moral high ground in the war on terror.
Forced to choose - something he hates - Mr Blair will almost invariably stay on the American stallion rather than the highly strung European thoroughbred. Yet his refusal to back the President's call for Arafat to be ousted revealed, once again, that Mr Blair's loyalty to Mr Bush, and the special access he is undoubtedly granted to the President, are not the same as identity of opinion or shared world-view.
For Mr Blair and his colleagues, the strategic model for the war on global terror has always been the Ulster peace process. Downing Street said last week that the cardinal rule of that process had been that each "community" should choose its leaders. Martin McGuinness might have been a brigade commander in the IRA, this argument runs, but so what? If the Republicans choose him as their negotiator, that's their business.
The brokering of the Good Friday agreement - in which Mr Blair's awesome charm and genius for "constructive ambiguity" papered over many differences - was one of the formative experiences of this Government. In the war on terror, the Prime Minister has never shied away from military action when necessary. But, to a much greater extent than the President, he believes that the "Muslim street" can be won over, that diplomacy is as important as deterrence, that sleepless negotiation conquers where armies fail. He is not ready to turn his back on Arafat because he is not one of nature's back-turners. Eleven years ago, in the prelude to the Gulf War, George Bush Sr offered to "go the extra mile for peace". Mr Blair, no doubt from the noblest of intentions, would run a marathon.
The President and Prime Minister have a most curious relationship: they have agreed on almost everything that matters in this war, for almost completely different reasons. Mr Blair is a Gladstonian, a liberal internationalist, who believes that the apprentice terrorists of the madrasahs can be persuaded by moral argument to think differently. Mr Bush is a Disraelian, a practitioner of realpolitik, committed only to hunting down America's enemies and those who harbour them. Mr Blair dreams of a grand settlement in the Middle East, a diplomatic triumph to dwarf the dress rehearsal of the Good Friday agreement. The President is simply not prepared to waste time on a Middle Eastern summit: he wants to get on with the destruction of Saddam Hussein's poisonous regime, and refuses to allow the impasse in the Middle East to obstruct that objective.
Most people on this side of the Atlantic have yet to understand fully the strength of the President's will, and the determination of the American people to vanquish those they see as their foes. We do not live (or not yet), as Americans do, with the daily threat of "dirty bombs", closed airports, anthrax scares, and rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction with which they hope to kill people in Ohio, and California, and New York. This is one feat of empathy not even Mr Blair can pull off. And that's the funniest thing of all: he will probably go along with the war against Iraq, when it comes. But, to borrow Dr Kissinger's term, he will endorse Mr Bush's action, without fully understanding the "concept".
Very, very astute observation.
This reminds me of what Winston Churchill wrote about hearing of Pearl Harbor...Silly people, and there were many, not only in enemy countries, might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They woule fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand bloodletting. Their democracy and system of reoccuring elections would paralyse their war effort. They would be but a blur on the horizon, Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of the remark Edward Grey had made to me more than 30 years before--that the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once a fire is lit under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate." Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.
The thought in the first place that this could be an issue is frightening - but born out by the liberal conniption fits to Bush's speech over one issue - Arafat. They are addicted to him. Perhaps because he was a lefty revolutionary icon in the 70's, when these same Euro leaders were becoming politically formed. In ways, their foreign policy looks childish.
Finally...someone on the other side of the pond..."gets it".
(The author might want to send a copy of his article to the French.)
Maybe Blair has some more Kosovo bailouts in mind. After all we have this 'close relationship'. Only problem to wonder who is bending over?
he believes that the "Muslim street" can be won over, that diplomacy is as important as deterrence, that sleepless negotiation conquers where armies fail.I wonder if Neville Chamberlain would have stood up to Hitler more if he had someone like Bush in the White House instead of Roosevelt. I ask this because I am starting to suspect that if Blair had someone like FDR in the Presidency now instead of Bush, that the appeasement of the terrorists would be breathtaking in its magnitude.
And now that who the modern Neville in Britian is becoming clear, I am wondering who the modern Churchill over there is.
Most people on this side of the Atlantic have yet to understand fully the strength of the President's will, and the determination of the American people to vanquish those they see as their foes.
How does this square with the triumph of the McGovernites over the policy of an overwhelmingly re-elected U.S. president who was determined to vanquish the North Vietnamese by repetitions of the Christmas bombing of 1972 -- something that was rudely interrupted by a Democratic Congress that used the strawman of 'Watergate' to make damned sure that the U.S. did not vanquish the North Vietnamese ?
...Mr Blair will almost invariably stay on the American stallion rather than the highly strung European thoroughbred.
The biggest opponent Dubya has is Blair's wife, just as LBJ's biggest opponent proved to be MacNamara's wife, who persuaded the hubby that cutting bait in Vietnam was the best policy.
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.