Blair 'failed to influence Bush'

A new Chatham House Report has examined Blair's relationship with the US vis a vis the war on terror - and the reaction to 9-11 - and has stated "that a more nuanced relationship with the United States will be a requirement for Blair’s successor."

It states:

The post-9/11 decision to invade Iraq was a terrible mistake and the current débâcle will have policy repercussions for many years to come. The root failure of Tony Blair’s foreign policy has been its inability to influence the Bush administration in any significant way despite the sacrifice – military, political and financial – that the United Kingdom has made.

Tony Blair’s successor(s) will not be able to offer unconditional support for US initiatives in foreign policy and a rebalancing of the UK’s foreign policy between the US and Europe will have to take place.

The Report states that Blair's initial term between 1997 and 2000 had been a qualified success in terms of foreign policy, citing his ability to maintain good relationships with Bill Clinton and Europe simultaneously.

It is after the election of George Bush and 9-11 that Blair's scorecard starts to take a beating according to the Report.

"Blair has learned the hard way that loyalty in international politics counts for nothing," said Professor Bulmer-Thomas.

"And his successor will not make the same mistake of offering unconditional support for US initiatives in foreign policy at the expense of a more positive relationship with Europe."

The Report states that the UK had not been able to influence American policy "in any significant way" and that there was no evidence that the UK had managed to apply any pressure that made President Bush accept a two state solution in the Middle East.

Professor Bulmer-Thomas, who steps down as Chatham House director on New Year's Eve, said: "Despite a number of successes, especially in his first term, Tony Blair's time in office will be overshadowed by the disaster in Iraq."

I happen to agree with Professor Bulmer-Thomas. Blair has also had great success in terms of domestic policies; however, his legacy will scream one word: Iraq.

Blair was always a politician that I greatly admired. He would wrestle with doing the right thing and one could almost see the discomfort that he felt as he squirmed whilst working out the right thing to do.

All that changed when he was unable to secure a second resolution in order to invade Iraq. Having already promised Bush that the UK would be alongside, he abandoned all the principles that he once held in order to fulfil that promise.

Having publicly stated that 1441 did not contain "automaticity", Blair - faced with the illegality of a war without a second resolution - now found Saddam to be in breach of 1441 and that 1441 did, indeed, contain "automaticity". It was a shocking U-turn and one that will haunt him even after he has left office.

It is true to say that he has never been the same man since. From that moment onward Blair - the pragmatic man who weighed all the odds - has never reappeared. And the new Blair makes mistakes that the old Blair would have never stumbled into.

And for all his loyalty he has been rewarded with nothing.

Kendall Myers, a senior State Department analyst, has stated:

That for all Britain’s attempts to influence US policy in recent years, “we typically ignore them and take no notice — it’s a sad business”.

He added that he felt “a little ashamed” at Mr Bush’s treatment of the Prime Minister, who had invested so much of his political capital in standing shoulder to shoulder with America after 9/11.

Speaking at an academic forum in Washington on Tuesday night, he answered a question from The Times, saying: “It was a done deal from the beginning, it was a one-sided relationship that was entered into with open eyes . . . there was nothing. There was no payback, no sense of reciprocity.”

Future British leaders will remember the way that Bush has treated Blair. And no future leader, of either party, will ever again be able to offer the US such unconditional support.

The treatment of Blair in many ways signifies the arrogance and short-sightedness of the Bush administration. They have fatally damaged the "special relationship" and made all future British Prime Ministers wary of ever appearing as America's poodle.

The irony, of course, is that Thatcher was far closer to Reagan than Blair has ever been to Bush, but Reagan allowed Thatcher the appearance of influence, which gave the impression that she was punching above her weight. Bush has given Blair bugger all, which has contributed to the impression that he is merely a poodle.

The moment when Bush called, "Yo Blair!" will be remembered as the final straw. The moment when most Brits realised that our relationship with the United States was becoming a national embarrassment.

I've always argued that Bush takes and gives nothing in return. All who have aided him have now gone. Aznar and Berlusconi have both fallen and now even Blair has had to announce that he'll be gone in a year.

However, the real legacy that Bush has carved for the US is that no European country will ever allow their leaders to be so in thrall to an American President ever again.

As Bush memorably mangled, "Fool me once, and you can't fool me again."

All future American Presidents will find themselves paying the price for Bush's arrogance, and they will find a Europe that is far more wary about backing them.

Bush may fancy himself as following in the footsteps of Reagan, but one only has to look at the differences between his relationship with Blair and Reagan's with Thatcher to realise that Reagan had much to teach Bush about how to treat allies. It is a lesson that Bush singularly failed to learn.

Blair paid the price.

Click title for full article.

Read The Chatham House Report here.

tag: Bush, Blair, Iraq war, 9-11, Chatham House Report, , pro-Israeli lobby, US foreign policy, Israel, Palestine