1.05.2005
The Bush-Blair Alliance and the 2005 British Election
Janelle Osmann
05 January 2005
«The Power and Interest News Report»
The September 11 attacks and the consequential growth of security measures on the international political scene worked to reemphasize the longstanding alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States. The continuation of such an alliance has caused unrest among the constituents of the United Kingdom who have openly expressed their strong resentment toward extended British participation in the U.S. intervention in Iraq. Much of this anger has been directed at British Prime Minister Tony Blair who has worked closely with U.S. President George W. Bush on a number of policy initiatives that are considered highly controversial by the U.K. population. Nevertheless, with Blair expecting to call parliamentary elections in the spring of 2005, strategic timing and international diplomacy efforts may play an integral role in his reelection.
Shared U.S.-U.K. Interests
Despite the U.K. public's antipathy for President Bush, as well as growing pressure from the United Nations and European Union to conduct international affairs using a multilateral approach, Blair has repeatedly confirmed his belief in the legitimacy of the United States' intervention in Iraq. When asked about the reasoning behind his alliance with President Bush, Blair bluntly reported to the press that the U.K. and U.S. "share the same interests."
Due to the energy resources found in the Middle East, both the U.K. and the U.S. have aimed to keep the region stabilized, a condition that was potentially threatened by Saddam Hussein's expansionist tendencies in Iraq. Both the U.K. and the U.S. -- in addition to all of the European states -- have much to lose from the threat of global Islamist militancy, a condition that fosters uncertainty in the global economy in which much of the world is integrated. The goal of the United Kingdom, and of Blair, has been to act as a bridge between the United States and Europe, fostering dialogue between the two power blocs in the hopes of preserving the Atlantic alliance that has survived for 60 years.
While the U.K. and the U.S. share these interests, they are also shared with the other states that make up the European Union. The difference in the relationship between the U.S. and U.K. is that many of the other European Union states -- led by France and Germany -- do not believe that these interests are best pursued by a unilateralist-leaning United States. Much of this belief is grounded on the fact that a unilateral United States means less influence for the Europeans to sway U.S. foreign policy. This concern is also held by the British, but while France and Germany attempt to obstruct the United States in its attempts at pursuing these interests, the British have taken a more involved approach, working with the United States in the hopes of gently guiding its power.
One of the issues that Blair attempts to guide the U.S. on is the matter of pushing for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Blair hopes that his support in Iraq will translate into America's agreement to expedite a lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, an issue the British and European people alike have pressed as important. Since Britain is set to begin tenure of the European Union presidency in July 2005, it is also in Blair's best interest to demonstrate his credentials as a world leader and establish himself as a peacemaker, beginning with a lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus, by coordinating American efforts with E.U interests, Blair is aiming to narrow the trans-Atlantic gap and thrust himself back into the good graces of international diplomats.
In addition to his own motivations, mounting numbers of war casualties from the intervention in Iraq has resulted in members of parliament and Labour Party executives pushing Blair to pressure President Bush to make some tangible changes in the administration's Iraq plan since the present one has resulted in unexpected casualties and a mounting insurgency. Consequently, the first Iraqi election is scheduled to be held in January 2005, just prior to the expected parliamentary elections in the U.K.
If Iraq's elections are successful, it should shed a favorable light on U.K. involvement in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Furthermore, this single event stands to provide indication of significant advancements in the stabilization of the Middle East, a condition that Europe desperately seeks. However, there stands an equal possibility that the British public will choose to focus on the instability of Iraq, becoming concerned over the continued rate of casualties or any political stumbles resulting from the January elections. Continued violence at a time that should testify to the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein's ousting would solidify British and European reservations regarding Blair's support of American attempts to build a democracy in the midst of armed uprising and foreign military occupation.
Blair Straddles Both Sides of the Atlantic
As the European Union grows in size and political clout, so does the strain on Blair to loosen his American binds, and strengthen those with whom he will assume the European Union presidency in 2005. This sort of positioning would enhance Britain's clout with E.U. power states Germany and France by allowing it to serve as a proponent of their agenda -- topics relevant in other E.U. states, such as the Kyoto Protocol, E.U. expansion, and the Middle East peace process -- and less of President Bush's initiatives. Potentially, a stronger alliance with the European Union could feasibly bolster the U.K.'s influence in Washington by providing the backing of 25 other countries along with it. This reason partly explains why the Franco-German combine is trying to bring the U.K. further to its side.
However, Blair also could have much to lose by siding more heavily with the European Union states, led by Paris and Berlin. Presently, by aligning with the United States on many issues, Blair is able to prevent the U.K. from being dominated by the Franco-German combine. British ties to the United States allow London to pursue a more independent foreign policy, exempt from many of the E.U.-enforced restrictions that face other European states.
These two alternate strategies that the United Kingdom can pursue explain why its interests are best served by straddling both sides of the Atlantic. Some of its recent foreign policy decisions show how the Blair administration has been able to successfully perform this maneuver. In the case of Iraq, the Blair administration was unwilling to join France and Germany in full resistance to U.S. plans, for that type of opposition could have easily damaged U.K.-U.S. relations. However, as seen through the situation in Iran -- where London, Paris and Berlin joined together to work on a compromise deal with Tehran at the expense of the U.S. approach -- the U.K. has also been willing to ally with France and Germany and distance themselves from the policies of the United States.
Currently, as America's counterpart, a stronger, united Europe is a natural reaction to U.S. unilateralism as Washington pursued interests that were no longer synonymous with those of the European Union. The United States has vowed preemptive measures toward any state that may threaten U.S. security, regardless of global support. This decision was possible due to the strength of the United States. Likewise, the disapproving European Union has embraced multilateralism as its primary political mantra because such an approach restrains some of the U.S.' power and therefore increases the power of the E.U.
However, after the intervention in Iraq exposed the limits of U.S. military power, Washington may be faced with the possibility of a diminished capacity to engage unilaterally across the globe. Until the insurgency in Iraq is subdued, the conflict will continue to drain U.S. political, economic and military resources, effectively placing restraint on Washington's further international ambitions. The European Union, led by France and Germany, has recognized this newly exposed weakness and has been pursuing a more independent foreign policy in light of it.
Conclusion
Because of this situation, Blair is constantly facing the difficult choice between pursuing U.S. and E.U. interests. He appears to be just barely straddling the Atlantic, trying to appease both sides. If Blair is effectively able to bridge the trans-Atlantic divide, he will have the ability to assert influence over both the world's remaining superpower and the Union that is arising as a second possible power center.
Contrastingly, if Blair submits to British and European pressures to liberate himself from American ties, he will be able to operate an E.U. agenda, but will lose influence in the United States while also weakening his ability to act independently of the Franco-German combine. If Blair adheres to U.S. pressure at the expense of supporting E.U. interests, he will lose his ability to act independently of Washington and will become heavily dependent on its good graces.
Blair's reelection to parliament is widely believed to be a foregone conclusion as the Tory Party's candidate, Michael Howard, lags in approval ratings. Regardless of whether Blair chooses to maintain his current strong ties to America, or begins to favor the European Union, he will need to exert influence over both entities in order to serve as a prime minister who continued to act as the historical arbitrator between the United States and Europe. This will depend not upon with which side of the Atlantic he aligns himself, but how much political clout he can establish by continuing to sway in the middle.
Report Drafted By:
Janelle Osmann
05 January 2005
«The Power and Interest News Report»
The September 11 attacks and the consequential growth of security measures on the international political scene worked to reemphasize the longstanding alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States. The continuation of such an alliance has caused unrest among the constituents of the United Kingdom who have openly expressed their strong resentment toward extended British participation in the U.S. intervention in Iraq. Much of this anger has been directed at British Prime Minister Tony Blair who has worked closely with U.S. President George W. Bush on a number of policy initiatives that are considered highly controversial by the U.K. population. Nevertheless, with Blair expecting to call parliamentary elections in the spring of 2005, strategic timing and international diplomacy efforts may play an integral role in his reelection.
Shared U.S.-U.K. Interests
Despite the U.K. public's antipathy for President Bush, as well as growing pressure from the United Nations and European Union to conduct international affairs using a multilateral approach, Blair has repeatedly confirmed his belief in the legitimacy of the United States' intervention in Iraq. When asked about the reasoning behind his alliance with President Bush, Blair bluntly reported to the press that the U.K. and U.S. "share the same interests."
Due to the energy resources found in the Middle East, both the U.K. and the U.S. have aimed to keep the region stabilized, a condition that was potentially threatened by Saddam Hussein's expansionist tendencies in Iraq. Both the U.K. and the U.S. -- in addition to all of the European states -- have much to lose from the threat of global Islamist militancy, a condition that fosters uncertainty in the global economy in which much of the world is integrated. The goal of the United Kingdom, and of Blair, has been to act as a bridge between the United States and Europe, fostering dialogue between the two power blocs in the hopes of preserving the Atlantic alliance that has survived for 60 years.
While the U.K. and the U.S. share these interests, they are also shared with the other states that make up the European Union. The difference in the relationship between the U.S. and U.K. is that many of the other European Union states -- led by France and Germany -- do not believe that these interests are best pursued by a unilateralist-leaning United States. Much of this belief is grounded on the fact that a unilateral United States means less influence for the Europeans to sway U.S. foreign policy. This concern is also held by the British, but while France and Germany attempt to obstruct the United States in its attempts at pursuing these interests, the British have taken a more involved approach, working with the United States in the hopes of gently guiding its power.
One of the issues that Blair attempts to guide the U.S. on is the matter of pushing for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Blair hopes that his support in Iraq will translate into America's agreement to expedite a lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, an issue the British and European people alike have pressed as important. Since Britain is set to begin tenure of the European Union presidency in July 2005, it is also in Blair's best interest to demonstrate his credentials as a world leader and establish himself as a peacemaker, beginning with a lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus, by coordinating American efforts with E.U interests, Blair is aiming to narrow the trans-Atlantic gap and thrust himself back into the good graces of international diplomats.
In addition to his own motivations, mounting numbers of war casualties from the intervention in Iraq has resulted in members of parliament and Labour Party executives pushing Blair to pressure President Bush to make some tangible changes in the administration's Iraq plan since the present one has resulted in unexpected casualties and a mounting insurgency. Consequently, the first Iraqi election is scheduled to be held in January 2005, just prior to the expected parliamentary elections in the U.K.
If Iraq's elections are successful, it should shed a favorable light on U.K. involvement in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Furthermore, this single event stands to provide indication of significant advancements in the stabilization of the Middle East, a condition that Europe desperately seeks. However, there stands an equal possibility that the British public will choose to focus on the instability of Iraq, becoming concerned over the continued rate of casualties or any political stumbles resulting from the January elections. Continued violence at a time that should testify to the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein's ousting would solidify British and European reservations regarding Blair's support of American attempts to build a democracy in the midst of armed uprising and foreign military occupation.
Blair Straddles Both Sides of the Atlantic
As the European Union grows in size and political clout, so does the strain on Blair to loosen his American binds, and strengthen those with whom he will assume the European Union presidency in 2005. This sort of positioning would enhance Britain's clout with E.U. power states Germany and France by allowing it to serve as a proponent of their agenda -- topics relevant in other E.U. states, such as the Kyoto Protocol, E.U. expansion, and the Middle East peace process -- and less of President Bush's initiatives. Potentially, a stronger alliance with the European Union could feasibly bolster the U.K.'s influence in Washington by providing the backing of 25 other countries along with it. This reason partly explains why the Franco-German combine is trying to bring the U.K. further to its side.
However, Blair also could have much to lose by siding more heavily with the European Union states, led by Paris and Berlin. Presently, by aligning with the United States on many issues, Blair is able to prevent the U.K. from being dominated by the Franco-German combine. British ties to the United States allow London to pursue a more independent foreign policy, exempt from many of the E.U.-enforced restrictions that face other European states.
These two alternate strategies that the United Kingdom can pursue explain why its interests are best served by straddling both sides of the Atlantic. Some of its recent foreign policy decisions show how the Blair administration has been able to successfully perform this maneuver. In the case of Iraq, the Blair administration was unwilling to join France and Germany in full resistance to U.S. plans, for that type of opposition could have easily damaged U.K.-U.S. relations. However, as seen through the situation in Iran -- where London, Paris and Berlin joined together to work on a compromise deal with Tehran at the expense of the U.S. approach -- the U.K. has also been willing to ally with France and Germany and distance themselves from the policies of the United States.
Currently, as America's counterpart, a stronger, united Europe is a natural reaction to U.S. unilateralism as Washington pursued interests that were no longer synonymous with those of the European Union. The United States has vowed preemptive measures toward any state that may threaten U.S. security, regardless of global support. This decision was possible due to the strength of the United States. Likewise, the disapproving European Union has embraced multilateralism as its primary political mantra because such an approach restrains some of the U.S.' power and therefore increases the power of the E.U.
However, after the intervention in Iraq exposed the limits of U.S. military power, Washington may be faced with the possibility of a diminished capacity to engage unilaterally across the globe. Until the insurgency in Iraq is subdued, the conflict will continue to drain U.S. political, economic and military resources, effectively placing restraint on Washington's further international ambitions. The European Union, led by France and Germany, has recognized this newly exposed weakness and has been pursuing a more independent foreign policy in light of it.
Conclusion
Because of this situation, Blair is constantly facing the difficult choice between pursuing U.S. and E.U. interests. He appears to be just barely straddling the Atlantic, trying to appease both sides. If Blair is effectively able to bridge the trans-Atlantic divide, he will have the ability to assert influence over both the world's remaining superpower and the Union that is arising as a second possible power center.
Contrastingly, if Blair submits to British and European pressures to liberate himself from American ties, he will be able to operate an E.U. agenda, but will lose influence in the United States while also weakening his ability to act independently of the Franco-German combine. If Blair adheres to U.S. pressure at the expense of supporting E.U. interests, he will lose his ability to act independently of Washington and will become heavily dependent on its good graces.
Blair's reelection to parliament is widely believed to be a foregone conclusion as the Tory Party's candidate, Michael Howard, lags in approval ratings. Regardless of whether Blair chooses to maintain his current strong ties to America, or begins to favor the European Union, he will need to exert influence over both entities in order to serve as a prime minister who continued to act as the historical arbitrator between the United States and Europe. This will depend not upon with which side of the Atlantic he aligns himself, but how much political clout he can establish by continuing to sway in the middle.
Report Drafted By:
Janelle Osmann
