Time and again, the question posed in Britain about Bush’s trip is deceptively simple: Why? Why is Bush in London at all? Why would a British prime minister want to be associated with him? Why is Tony Blair such a poodle?
It’s all the same question, and all the same problem. And in spite of appearances, the problem isn’t the 43rd president of the United States or his foreign policy. The problem is Britain.
Behind all those why questions lies the uncomfortable, even distressing feeling that is widespread across the Europe. Why does a country like Britain have to follow the United States? Why is Blair the junior partner to someone like Bush? Why does such an irresponsible country and uncultured president have to lead the world?
The answers may have been obvious for half a century, but that doesn’t yet make them easier to digest in London or elsewhere in Europe. What the protestors in London are complaining about is American power, and their sense of powerlessness. Other presidents enjoyed similarly powerful positions, but none rubbed it in the faces of the Europeans quite like George W. Bush.
In fact, compared to their European neighbors, the British protestors should count themselves lucky. Tony Blair has been wholly successful in carving out his niche as the most trusted, most influential ally of the Bush administration. In that sense, the British have far more power with the world’s only superpower than any other nation.
Before anyone emails me about how outrageous this is–the very notion that the Europeans should be grateful for a sliver of influence in Washington!–let’s be honest. Blair’s assessment is fundamentally correct. The United States is powerful enough to do whatever it likes in foreign and defense policy. It’s far better for Britain and Europe if Blair can work with Bush along the way. Whatever the realpolitik, it’s still been costly for Blair in political terms. When asked what Blair has to show for his alliance with the United States, the president’s aides are nothing if not direct. “The U.K. matters,” says one senior administration official. “In the 1950s, British power appeared to be ebbing. Now British power seems to be growing. The Europeans who have sided with us have managed to put their countries on the map as global powers. I question the whole basis that Blair hasn’t gained anything. He’s gained a tremendous amount.”
Granted, that’s still not easy to digest. Not after the glory days of the British Empire, not after centuries of cultural achievement, not after all those wars. And it may be hard to digest the sight of Queen Elizabeth II inviting an American president to stay at Buckingham Palace. However, there are precious few protests when Blair (or any other European leader) is invited to stay at Camp David or the president’s ranch in Texas. Far from it. They are actually delighted (and boosted politically) when the White House extends its hospitality in the other direction. In fact, if Blair failed to get such an invitation, he would be treated as a downright failure in world affairs.
The British perception of Blair’s achievement is so distorted that you have to wonder what else is going on behind the scenes of British politics. Blair started out as Bill Clinton’s buddy and successfully won over a deeply skeptical Republican White House. The British prime minister overcame his wide personal and political differences with Bush to establish a close and effective partnership. The protestors might not like Bush’s foreign policy, but it’s Tony Blair’s policy too.
That counts for something. Like winning American support for the reformist European approach to Iran. (“That is something where faith in Tony Blair has caused us to have more confidence in the French-British-German approach,” says one senior White House aide.) Or pushing the president to release the Roadmap towards a Palestinian state. (“We might have done the Roadmap anyway, but it was the British who said now was the time,” the aide says.)
To be sure, there are differences of opinion, and conflicts over policy. The White House is alarmed at Blair’s warm noises about the French and German idea of a common European defense initiative, including a command and planning structure that could undermine NATO. And for its part, Downing Street is alarmed at Washington’s support for Ariel Sharon’s hard-line position against the Palestinians.
But as British officials never cease to whisper, they prefer to keep their disputes in private. A poodling position? Maybe. Yet it’s also the most realistic one available to a serious world leader in a European capital today.
Judging by the email response to my last column about Europe and America, there is a long way to go before either side accepts the status quo. Many emailers were dismayed, even angry at Europe’s anti-American feeling, as illustrated by a recent European Union poll. Others were equally dismayed with what they consider the arrogant, dismissive approach of the Bush administration.
It may be unfashionable, even uncomfortable, to stand in the crossfire between such polarized views. But as Tony Blair has proved, it’s the only position that makes any sense if you want to achieve anything as a world leader. This is, as the French would say, a unipolar world of American power. It’s time Europe got over it. And it’s time Bush returned to the kind of foreign policy he said he wanted during the 2000 presidential campaign: strong, yet humble.
