Content provided in partnership with
Leading article: The special relationship must consist of more than
Independent, The (London), Feb 23, 2001
THE DESIRE to be at the front of the queue of supplicants is undignified. Tony Blair is delighted that he is the first European leader to meet the new US President. Not that he will be the first leader of any country to shake George Bush's hand. Jean Chretien, the Canadian Prime Minister, has already been to the White House, and Mr Bush has already been to Mexico to see Vicente Fox, the Mexican president.
In any case, if Britain really did enjoy a special relationship with the United States, it would not matter if Mr Blair were the 17th to troop into the Oval Office after the Finnish deputy foreign minister. The emphasis on being first speaks volumes for the strange insecurity at the centre of Mr Blair's being. The Prime Minister was so keen to get in first to see the Russian president that he paid Vladimir Putin a state visit while he was still running for office, on an electoral ticket written in the blood of Chechens.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
Now the British are supposed to be grateful that the special relationship has survived the departure and disgrace of Mr Blair's fellow traveller on the Third Way, Bill Clinton. But there is a touch of obsequiousness in Mr Blair's posture - as there is in our continuing subsidiary role in bombing Iraq.
Uncritical support for whatever the President of the United States does, whoever the President is, does little for this country's belief in itself. If Mr Blair calculates that being the first to lick Mr Bush's Texan boots is on balance in this country's interest, he should share his reasoning with the rest of us, on whose behalf such tribute is paid.
And, in fairness, the case for close relations is easily made. It rests primarily on defence co-operation. The Falklands war could not have been fought without US help, nor could this country currently maintain a nuclear deterrent. For some on the left these are undesirable objectives, and for some on the nationalist right, dependence on the US fatally compromises our sovereignty. But for most Britons the cost-benefit analysis favours the alliance.
However, that will not always be so in all possible circumstances. On trade issues, Britain's interests often lie with Europe against America: as in the disputes over unlabelled US genetically-modified soya and over Europe's post-colonial responsibilities to Caribbean banana producers, to take just two examples.
One of the dangers in Mr Bush's plans for a national missile defence system, the so-called Star Wars II, is that it separates the interests of the US and Europe. The isolationism of Americans can only be strengthened by the illusion that their nation alone is protected by an invisible anti- missile umbrella. Mr Blair's willingness to allow his new special friend to use North Yorkshire as an early-warning outpost of a system that will do nothing to protect Britain is unwise.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with Mr Blair's ability to claim a special relationship with all manner of international leaders, as he has with Bill Clinton, George Bush, Gerhard Schroder, Jose Maria Aznar, Jacques Chirac (but not Lionel Jospin), Romano Prodi, Vladimir Putin, Zhu Rongji and a host of others. But the point of charming people is to advance this country's interests. It is not an end in itself, to which Britain's interests should be subjugated. Even if Mr Blair has not conceded anything of substance to Mr Bush, appearances do matter, and it does neither Mr Blair nor this country any good for the Prime Minister to look like the President's loyal lapdog. Britain's interests will sometimes conflict with America's, and Mr Blair does not have to go down the French route of prejudiced anti-Americanism to earn some credit by saying so.
Copyright 2001 Independent Newspapers UK Limited
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.
