growing tensions between britain and america over israel and iraq

[Don Rizzle]

Focus: Behind the facade
For all the smiles, strains are growing between the Bush and Blair camps. Tony Allen-Mills in Washington and David Cracknell report
 
 
 
Leaving the White House after lunch with President George W Bush on Friday, Tony Blair drove to the British embassy on Massachusetts Avenue for an afternoon of media interviews and cocktails with diplomatic staff.
As luck would have it, one of his American interviewers was his old friend George Stephanopoulos, a former adviser to Bill Clinton and who now has a television show on the ABC network.

 
 
It was an unexpected reminder of a different age in Anglo-American relations, when Blair and Clinton bonded as champions of centrist policies that proved successful for both. Nobody — least of all Clinton and Stephanopoulos — could have guessed that their British buddy would turn out to be such a loyal supporter of Bush.

The unexpected ties between the Labour leader and a profoundly conservative Republican president have led the pair into an extraordinary position: they must present a united face as they battle to avert failure in Iraq, but behind them their parties and even their aides are increasingly at odds.

In Washington Dick Cheney, Bush’s hawkish vice-president, and Colin Powell, the dove-ish secretary of state, have fallen out so badly over the conduct of American policy in Iraq that they hardly speak to each other, according to a new book. In Britain, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, remains a focus for anti-war Labour MPs: last week he urged Blair to spell out “bluntly” to Bush that “he has got it wrong”.

The two leaders were never going to betray any such doubts in public. Their meeting on Friday was marked by the familiarity that first emerged at Camp David three years ago, when Bush casually observed that he used the same toothpaste as Blair. This time Bush called Blair a “stand-up kind of guy” and ended the event with a mock-solemn compliment: “Good job, prime minister.”

However, behind the practised smiles lay serious concern that a wrong move in Iraq could cost both men their jobs.


THE odd couple’s unlikely friendship was transformed by September 11, 2001, when Blair crossed the Atlantic to express British solidarity for America’s terrible loss. The attack on Iraq further cemented Washington’s reliance on its most loyal ally.

Intelligence sharing vastly improved and British officials took up posts in several key US government departments. Sir David Manning, Blair’s former foreign policy adviser, is now the British ambassador to Washington with close links to the State Department and Condoleezza Rice’s National Security Council.

As one Washington official said: “When a bit of the US administrative machine finds it can’t get its views to the president directly, the first alternative channel it tries is through the British embassy.” Blair can sometimes be persuaded to pass on a message to Bush.

On top of those ties, Blair’s colleagues suggest, the prime minister has come to admire Bush’s straight-talking style.

“He constantly praises Bush’s clarity of vision and points out that he is a lot smarter than people think,” said a Labour colleague last week. Their shared religious convictions and relaxed private demeanours helped to seal a bond that has been forged under rare political stress.

As the bombs and battles in Iraq have persisted, however, signs of strain have begun to emerge. A different mood unfolded when Blair called his senior advisers into his Downing Street den last December to discuss a possible visit to Washington. Although Blair was inclined to go, his advisers were doubtful.

First, they argued, the US presidential election would be looming and some believed Blair should avoid being seen too much with Bush. Not only might he upset Labour’s former friends in the Democratic party, but also Bush was scarcely a much-loved figure for most British voters.

“Remember that some voters here regard the president as a greater threat to our safety than Osama Bin Laden,” one aide quipped, according to a Downing Street source.

Blair was determined to make the trip and the date was set for last Friday. Holidaying in Bermuda before the meeting, he was appalled by reports of friction among coalition members. When Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, acknowledged that the “lid had come off the pressure cooker” in Iraq — implying that the Americans had allowed it to happen — Blair swiftly telephoned David Hill, his communications chief, in London. He ordered a stop to any criticism, implied or overt, of Washington.

For Blair the path ahead was clear. Division could only serve the enemy. Whatever reservations senior officials may have had about their coalition partners, London and Washington were stuck with each other. The only way out was mutual resolve.

Repeatedly in Washington on Friday, Blair drove his message home: “We shall see it through . . . we will do what it takes . . . we will not yield . . . we will get the job done.”

On the ground in Iraq, unity can be a little tougher. Last week one senior military source who has served in Iraq let it be known, off the record, that British officers believe that American troops are heavy-handed and making the situation worse.

“Going in with all guns firing does not yield the results in the long term,” he said. “What would we have done in Falluja (where US forces have reportedly killed 500 Iraqis)? We would have sat with tribal elders and religious leaders, for four hours, four days and finally persuaded them.”

In turn, American officials are suspicious of British dealings with Iran, which some sources in Washington believe are inciting Shi’ite revolt. Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon representative on the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, has criticised British officials for being “too soft” on dissent.

Arguments over military tactics are scarcely new to coalition forces — Britain’s General Sir Michael Jackson and US General Wesley Clark nearly came to blows over Nato operations in Kosovo in 1999. But the festering reports of tension between British and American civilian administrators in Baghdad have heightened the sense of a crisis that could spin out of control.


FOR Blair, the politics elsewhere are also growing tougher. He faces deep unrest within his party over Bush’s treatment of the Palestinians.

When Bush unequivocally backed controversial plans by Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, to keep some settlements in the West Bank, it appeared to take even Downing Street insiders by surprise. “We were not terribly chuffed about that,” one British minister admitted. “It pissed off the Palestinians. There is a difference of view between us and the Americans on this. The US seems to have accepted a position which we do not.”

On Friday Blair managed to skate around the issue by portraying it as a first step back to the long-neglected so-called “road map” for the creation of a Palestinian state. “I think what it does is give us at least the possibility of moving it forward,” he said. But it was scarcely a ringing endorsement of the president.

Tomorrow Blair faces a fractious meeting of Labour backbenchers as the Commons returns from its Easter break. It will be the first time since the latest crisis erupted in Iraq that Blair has had to face his MPs and many are also unhappy with the moves over Israel.

“What Bush has done is reduce America’s credibility as any kind of honest broker,” said Richard Burden, a Labour MP and chairman of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group. He claimed that the president had “set back the cause of peace rather than advanced it”.

Donald Anderson, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said Bush had placed himself “several degrees further to the Israeli cause than what would be the British position”.

However, the biggest problem remains Iraq. Bush faces re-election in November and his poll numbers have plummeted. Senator John Kerry, his Democratic rival, is poised to exploit any sign of failure in the proposed handover of power in Baghdad on June 30.

Blair is also under pressure and cannot afford to see the Pentagon blunder with an excessive show of military force that merely inflames the crisis. Moqtada al-Sadr, the fiery Islamic cleric who sparked the latest uprising, is still holed up in the holy city of Najaf, surrounded by American forces. Yesterday talks appeared to stall, and a US soldier was reported killed in skirmishes. Bush and Blair may have to decide to go in after Sadr — which could spark an even bigger uprising.

“There was a clear and difficult choice on Iraq,” one official said of the Oval Office discussion on Friday. “Either we go in hard to demonstrate our determination but potentially disrupt our political support. Or we hold back and keep our political support but encourage the insurgents to think we don’t have the guts. Finding the right balance was the key item on the agenda.”

For two hours the president and prime minister chewed over how to deal with the Sunnis in Falluja, the Shi’ites in Najaf and what to do with al-Sadr. “If we get it wrong we may make the insurgency self-sustaining,” the official said. “If we are too weak, then the insurgency may take off.”

Late last week British officials affected confidence that the president would order the right balance between military muscle and diplomatic caution. There is no disagreement in the coalition on pressing ahead with the handover; both men agree on pushing the UN to the fore in organising a new civilian regime.

Yet the coming days will be nerve-racking for both Downing Street and the White House, and the extraordinary relationship they have forged. “Suppose the insurgents in Falluja take 10 marines hostage,” said one official. “That would dramatically transform the equation.”

Would Blair be able to stop the Pentagon from marching in, guns blazing? Neither the president nor the prime minister can be sure of controlling events on the ground. Their alliance may yet be sorely tested if the lid is not somehow jammed back on the Iraqi pressure cooker.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1078811,00.html

[infinite59]

Britian can talk about "strained relations" but that's all just talk, behind close doors Bush knows he has Britian in the palm of his hand.