Airstrip One

The Securocrats back Blair

Who knows what hold the security services hold over the Blair administration or vice versa? The nature of their relationship is opaque; the damage that it causes is clear. There is no need to recount the recent reportage that has suggested the politicians engineered the 'legal advice' they required in order to go to war, converting the position of attorney general into apparatchik. Whilst the incompetence of their approach is the hallmark of New Labour policy, the evidence suggests that they misled Parliament whilst ignoring the traditional role of the executive in conducting foreign policy without legislative participation.

The Independent on Sunday has reported that Blair may have decided to go to war in 2002 following a meeting with Bush. Whilst such a promise may have been made, the documentary evidence needed to substantiate this assertion is not the smoking gun that the IoS makes out. Seeking legal advice for possible actions is not the same as a memo stating that Britain would go to war against Iraq by XXXXX. The revelation indicates that the invasion of Iraq was a consideration. Quelle surprise!

A ruling by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, seen by the IoS, says the Government sought advice about the legality of a possible invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2002 as the result of "statements made in a particular press release".

Of greater concern is the executive's reaction to the leaks that have taken place so far. Special Branch have attempted to conduct interviews with the staff of Charles Kennedy, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Adam Price, the Plaid Cymru MP leading the campaign to impeach Blair. This is an indication of the gravity with which the government considers these leaks:

Special Branch detectives interviewed senior staff in the office of Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, and Adam Price, the Welsh nationalist MP, in an investigation ordered by the Cabinet Office into the leaking of highly confidential Foreign Office papers on the war in Iraq.

Mr Price, who has led efforts to impeach the Prime Minister for allegedly lying to Parliament over the war, said he had refused to answer the police questions, believing the approach raised significant constitutional issues about Parliament's independence.

The Plaid Cymru MP said he was told by the police the leak had caused "seething anger at the highest levels".

Adam Price has the honour of being the only opposition politician targeted by the Labour Party, who are singling out his constituency instead of defending a marginal. For once, all parties should stand behind one man standing up to Blairocracy.

Mr Price said, "I see this as a tribute to Plaid Cymru's hard work. We have sought at every turn to expose the lies of Tony Blair. He and the rest of the New Labour government are complicit in a crime that has cost the lives of 100,000 people. We have campaigned to impeach the Prime Minister and will continue to do so.

"If we allow Tony Blair's actions to go unchallenged, a precedent will have been set that the Prime Minister can deceive the public and Parliament and get away with it. We cannot allow this to happen. Who knows what country they will choose to invade next and who could believe any justification put forward by either leader for any such invasion?"

Is that Poodle becoming a Dobermann?

Just as certain parts of the Left can only view the role of Britain as an airstrip and nothing more, there is increasing evidence that the assertiveness of Germany in foreign policy over recent months may have been unrecognised due to the mystique wrapped around France's key role and Schroeder's media-prescribed role as Chirac's bag handler. This perception may be quietly changing if we do not take Schroeder's call for other channels of transatlantic communication apart from NATO. Critics immediately viewed this as support for the Paris-Berlin axis where foreign policy flows through the European Union.

An alternative viewpoint, corroborated by Germany's campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council (Not for the European Union), is that Schroeder was calling for Germany to take a greater role in transatlantic diplomacy, a role drowned out by the emnity of France and the loyalty of Britain. This is a role of greater independence, distanced from the United States and channelled through the European Union though the potential of bilateral ties and independent action lie within its scope:

In his Feb. 12 speech (delivered by German Defense Minister Peter Struck because the chancellor was ill), Schroeder said NATO was "no longer the primary venue where trans-Atlantic partners consult and coordinate strategic ideas. The same applies to the dialogue between the European Union and the United States, which in their present form do not correspond to the increasing weight of the (European) Union nor to the new demands of trans-Atlantic cooperation."

Germany's own perception of its role in international affairs had changed too, he went on: "Germany today considers itself as co-responsible within the European framework for stability and international order."

In the transcript of the interview, the same tone of minimal substance, maximum verbiage that has guided Bush throughout his visit to Europe remained very clear. No doubt the feelgood course of action on technology and climate change proved more productive than recriminations over Kyoto. (This may be a pointer to a post-Kyoto treaty based upon technological transfer and incentives for poorer countries to shift away from fossil fools as the emissions model has failed).

The only firming up on the diplomatic front was Germany's agreement that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. Even this was not accompanied by a promise to refer the case to the Security Council. All in all, a charm school without content.

Going Forward

The breakfast meeting that Prescient Bush held with Mr Blair reads as if it were a holdover from the past, a final declaration of what had been achieved rather than looking forward to new endeavours. Whatever the 'special relationship' portends, if anything, it is possible that Britain's use as an active ally for the United States is ended under Bush's Second Presidency. As a reward for past endeavours and as a pragmatic response to the death of Arafat, Bush has provided some support for Blair's Middle Eastern Conference. Perhaps Blair also wished to downplay their friendship in the phoney war before the electoral declaration.

Moreover, behind the scenes, Blair was left in no doubt about the concerns of the United States if the EU embargo on China were lifted. Perhaps the words "Joint Strike Fighter" were mentioned, since our dependence on the United States for military equipment, leaves us extremely vulnerable if such links came rapidly to an end. To which, Europe is no substitute:

The prospect of a public dispute with Mr Bush is deeply embarrassing for Mr Blair. While No10 is happy to play up divisions over matters like climate change to emphasise the Prime Minister’s independence, a split over a crucial security issue is far from welcome.

Other than brief remarks congratulating Mr Bush on his commitment to Middle East peace, Mr Blair made no public comments in Brussels yesterday. That left the Prime Minister’s spokesman to confirm that Mr Bush had registered his displeasure over China. He added: "We are working to address their concerns."

The Common Atlantic Home

President Bush shared a short press conference with Chirac following their dinner. With so little to share in policy terms apart from Syria, they had to fall back upon platitudes and values, especially Chirac:

Now, President Bush and I have always shared very -- always had very warm relations, which, in fact, translate, to a certain extent, of relations -- of warm relations that have always been characterized -- the links between our countries and the relations, be they bilateral or transatlantic ones, which have always been excellent between France and the United States.
Indeed, we have struggled for some two centuries, 200 years now, to uphold and keep alive these values which we share, and which our people share and hold very dear to their hearts, and which we are very attached to.

The consensus in the press was that unity of tone did not disguise the differences in substance, as this quote [translated by Expatica] from Liberation demonstrates.

"Once again France and America share the same goal of getting Iran and Syria to stop destabilising the region ... but to get there Bush still seems willing to contemplate the big military stick rather than the diplomatic carrot that France and its diplomatic partners are offering," it said.

The only note of substance was a shared condemnation of the murder of Rafik Hariri and a call for an investigation into his death by the United Nations. However, Chirac was demoting NATO today, in order to show that substance remained.

Campaign for Democracy

President Bush explored the areas of mutual interest between the United States and the 'European dimension' of NATO. Without offering any concessions, Bush used the triumph of elections in Iraq to promote a paradigm of democratic reform in the Middle East, Europe's 'Near Abroad', where both continents joined in a campaign of values. The 'crusade for freedom' now trumped the 'war on terror', demonstrating the hallmark of Bush 2005 as the thirst for action against Al-Qaeda abated. In this, Bush remains the poster-child of neo-conservatism, if its objectives are now pursued in ways that the original pundits neither foresaw or supported.

How sincere was Bush? With lines like these, one is tempted to by a certain sceptical cough:

That's why we'll continue to advance the Doha Development Agenda, and bring global trade talks to a successful conclusion. We should all pursue fiscal policies in our nations -- sound fiscal policies of low taxes and fiscal restraint and reform that promote a stable world financial system and foster economic growth.

However, the major olive branch was offered on Palestine, where the death of Arafat is proving fortunate for both Blair as well as Bush. The latter provided some timely support for British interference by pushing its weight behind the donors' conference, that Blair had promoted with irrevelance for some time:

Next month in London, Prime Minister Blair will host a conference to help the Palestinian people build the democratic institutions of their state. President Abbas has the opportunity to put forward a strategy of reform, which can and will gain financial support from the international community -- including financial support. I hope he will seize the moment. I have asked Secretary Rice to attend the conference, and to convey America's strong support for the Palestinian people as they build a democratic state. And I appreciate the prominent role that Prime Minister Blair and other European leaders are playing in the cause of peace.

As noted elsewhere, Bush's strong support for Europe was also a clear indication of the defence identity that the United States prefers. There was fulsome praise of national allies acting through the structure of NATO; there was no support for an EU common security policy, nor fulsome praise for Brussels, beyond an acknowledgement of Solana's role, in tandem with national governments, during the Orange Revolution. This was a clear call that the United States works with national partners through NATO rather than a common European home.

As Martin Walker documented, the EU expended more energy during the infighting of the 'protocol wars' to host the esteemed President, than on the issues that he raised in his speech. As he addressed the assembled panjandrums tonight, Bush knew where power lay:

Bush and his advisers know this, but nonetheless the decision has been taken to put an end to the open rows. In the words of the old Sinhalese proverb, the Americans have recognized that you cannot pluck tail feathers from a turtle; the European Union is not going to become a serious politico-military player in the future but can be either a useful ally or a diplomatic nuisance. The Bush team has decided - in the face of considerable evidence - to treat the EU as an ally, while not expecting too much.

Above all, the White House has decided that considerable EU goodwill can be bought quite cheaply, simply getting Bush to repeat what every American president has intoned since 1948; that the United States supports European integration and unification, and that it would prefer to have Europe as a strong partner - the phrases that Bush will utter this week in Brussels. Such kind words cost nothing and make the protocol princelings of Brussels feel better, which is a sensible thing to do after all the broken crockery in European-American relations over the past three years.

Except that the US is beginning to get cold feel about integration.