Friday, Oct 29, 2004
Why Blair wants Bush back
By Hasan Suroor
If now George Bush is thrown out it would deepen Tony Blair's isolation and make him politically more vulnerable.
WITH BARELY days left for the United States presidential election, the prospects of a regime change in Washington is said to be giving British Prime Minister Tony Blair nightmares even as the bulk of his party and much of Britain is rooting for a Democratic win.
A move by the Labour Party's left wing to send a "good luck" message to the Democratic nominee John Kerry is reported to have left Mr. Blair fuming. He has made clear that nobody in the Government or the party should take sides over the issue in public. Ostensibly, the idea is to observe strict political neutrality vis-à-vis another country's elections, but the real reason - it is believed - is that he does not want to upset George W. Bush, his political ally and friend when he is fighting against odds to retain the tenancy of the White House.
Critics dismiss the neutrality argument as a "load of nonsense" and point out that it has been a Labour tradition to support Democratic Party at election time. Indeed, it was under Mr. Blair's leadership, that it openly and enthusiastically cheered Bill Clinton's re-election bid in 1996. He might claim that the party was then in the Opposition and could afford to be demonstrably partisan, but what about the last election in 2000? Then, as now, Labour was in power - and Mr. Blair was Prime Minister. Yet, the party came out in support of Al Gore, the then Democratic nominee. And when he lost because of the Florida count scandal, Labour leaders made no attempt to hide their dismay.
So, what has changed? The answer is: nothing as far as the party is concerned. It is still firmly behind the Democrats and, apparently, every time Mr. Bush's poll ratings slip a huge cheer goes up in party circles. As in the past, it even sent a fraternal delegation to the Kerry convention. The problem is Mr. Blair. Deep down, he does not want to see Mr. Bush lose and according to a senior political commentator, he is "determined to stop anything that might appear to undermine President George W. Bush."
Mr. Blair is acutely conscious that a Bush defeat would be interpreted as a rejection of the Bush-Blair Iraq doctrine, and increase the pressure on him in the build-up to his own re-election campaign ahead of a general election next year. With the bigger partner in the "crime" gone, it will make it harder for Mr. Blair to continue justifying his Iraq policy, which is expected to dominate the British elections.
Two of his "war-time" allies - the Prime Ministers of Spain and Poland - have already been voted out of power in an emphatic show of no-confidence in their pro-Anglo-U.S. Iraq policy. If now Mr. Bush is thrown out it would deepen Mr. Blair's isolation and make him politically more vulnerable. As one Blair-watcher put it: "Blair is a very, very nervous man, and if he had a vote, I have no doubt he would put a cross against the name of Bush."
Mr. Blair is seen to have psyched himself into believing that his own political fate is dependant on what happens to Mr. Bush, and efforts to convince him that, far from helping his cause, his identification with the Bush White House is actually hurting him have failed.
"There are many compelling reasons, urged on him by his own people, for Tony Blair to think of himself as much better served, home and abroad by regime change at the White House. But when I ask his closest advisers whether the Prime Minister has been persuaded of this, they hum and haw," according to Andrew Rawnsley, author of an authoritative book on Mr. Blair's prime ministership and considered close to Downing Street.
There is frustration among Labour ranks and party's sympathisers that Mr. Blair refuses to see the advantages of being freed from the shadow of the Bush presidency, and, finally, becoming his own man. They believe that a "Bush-free" period before next year's general election could help Mr. Blair reconnect with the electorate and regain some of the confidence he has lost because of his association with the American policy on Iraq.
They also argue that given Mr. Kerry's pro-European credentials, his victory can be expected to lead to better transatlantic relations, badly damaged during the Bush presidency, and such a development would be particularly helpful to Britain at a time when it is poised to take over the presidency of the European Union and chair the G-8.
But clearly, Mr. Blair is not persuaded, and according to those who claim to know his mind he genuinely believes that without the muscle-flexing Bush administration the world would be a more dangerous place. He is reported as saying that "whenever Bush weakens in the polls, they start mucking about" alluding to countries such as Iran and Syria which he and Mr Bush want reined in. Whatever be the outcome, right now it is as much about Bush versus Kerry as it is about Blair versus Britain.
Copyright © 2004, The Hindu.