[A-List] UK state: unhappy with US

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Cracks show in US-UK relations
by Arthur Neslen in London
Saturday 24 January 2004 10:25 PM GMT

A strange thing happened when David Johnson, the US embassy's Ministerial
spokesman addressed the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Chatham
House last week.

The distinguished diplomat was barracked.

Chatham House is the epicentre of the British establishment, as famed for
its associations with the security services as for its gentlemanly rules of
press access. An autographed portrait of the Queen hangs in its oak-panelled
entrance.

Yet Johnson, who had come to try to mend fences with stealth-bomber sceptics
in London, was left shaken by a string of critical questions.

At one point, he was reduced to accusing a member of the institute of
anti-Semitism, for asking if the US was willing to stand up to its "Jewish
lobby" (not Israeli lobby) and impose a peace in the Middle East.

Deplorable slur

A retired diplomat in the audience won a thunder-clap of applause when he
countered that it was "absolutely outrageous" to equate criticism of Israel
with anti-Semitism. "I deeply deplore the slur you have cast on my
colleague," he said.

Many would find it equally outrageous to equate all Jews with Israelis. But
the one-sidedness of US policy on the Palestinian question has long-acted as
a lightning conductor for wider discontent.

And above the Atlantic calm of US-UK diplomatic relations, there is
certainly electricity in the air.

It is nine months since the fall of Baghdad, and British diplomacy has yet
to win the release of the UK's Guantanamo prisoners, or hold President Bush
to his war-time promise to pursue peace in the Middle East.

It has also proved unable to win much in the way of business contracts in
post-war Iraq.

Fundamental change

Underlining such demonstrations of British powerlessness, is a fear that
Iraq may not mark the end of unilateral US foreign policy adventures, but
the beginning of a whole new phase. In this regard, Johnson's words were not
reassuring.

"We must bring about a fundamental change in the human condition in the
Middle East," he said. "When people realise that freedom is their
birthright, terrorism can be defeated and a safe world can be created for
all its citizens."

His sentiment was echoed by the US vice president Dick Cheney two days later
at the World Economic Forum in Davos, even as his administration was
straining every sinew to prevent an early ballot in Baghdad.

World safer?

But is the world any safer now that the US is projecting its political and
military power into the Middle East?

No, says Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford University.

"One of the major reasons that Al Qaida staged the September 11th attacks
was to draw US combat troops into a guerrilla war in Southwest Asia,
particularly Afghanistan," he told Aljazeera.net.

"They failed because they didn't bargain on the US using the northern
alliance as its ground troops.

"But as it has become clear that Iraq, a key Arab nation, will be a client
state with major US military forces there for a long time, the Al Qaida
belief has grown that this will be good news for their strategy. In the long
term, they believe it plays into their hands."

Vital national interest

So why, ask the foreign policy wonks, has Britain gone along with it? What
is the vital national interest which requires the commitment of thousands of
British troops and billions of British Pounds?

According to Rogers, it is not primarily about oil because Britain is
self-sufficient. But that won't "last forever," he qualified.

"Privately, the British know full well that the US is in the Gulf for at
least the next 30 years just because the region is so incredibly important."

Even taking this account though, Rogers argues that the UK's interests are
higher in Iran than in Iraq, and points to British engagement with Tehran as
evidence.

'Poodle-like' behaviour

Dr Charles Tripp, an author on Iraq and reader in Middle East Studies at
London's School of Oriental and African Studies, argues that the real reason
for what he calls Blair's "poodle-like" behaviour is a shameless pursuit of
power.

"It is the belief of most British prime ministers that it is important to be
at the top table, even if you are there as an invitee of the Americans," he
told Aljazeera.net.

"Among the Whitehall establishment, it has become a conventional wisdom that
it is better to be first among the US's allies than lumped in with Old
Europe, even if that sometimes involves being put in a rather humiliating
position."

And there lies the rub. Tony Blair's apparent ceding of an independent
foreign policy has not won him any tangible concessions from the US. But it
still rankles with many of his supporters and, Paul Rogers says, a
significant minority of the establishment itself.

Exit strategy

The situation is not helped by the lack of an articulated exit strategy from
Iraq.

"If the Americans decide they want to get out," Tripp said, "for whatever
reason, then the British will have to go along with them. You couldn't
envisage them staying on after the Americans had gone. That would be very
weird."

"But it's also very unlikely that the Brits would get out before the
Americans because that would look like Tony Blair was pulling the plug on
the Alliance and he certainly wouldn't want to do that."

All of this leaves the gentlemen and women of Chatham House stuck between a
rock and a hard place. Tripp believes that the War on Terrorism may prolong
the tensions in the "special relationship" between Britain and America for
some time to come.

"It really is a strange war," he reflected. "Because if, as President Bush
says, it is one which will never end, then how will we be able to tell if
we've won?"

Aljazeera
By Arthur Neslen in London
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9908A673-065B-47DA-B299-306D81089654.htm