WASHINGTON - As America ponders the implications of its “surge,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair withdrawing almost 3,000 of the UK’s 7,100-strong contingent by the end of the year.
This is not entirely surprising and has been on the cards for a while, however, the undercurrents are increasingly pointing towards a deeper possible Anglo-American estrangement.
The main reason behind this decision is that Britain is sticking rigidly to a predetermined timetable. The underlying reason is that prime minister-in-waiting Gordon Brown has no desire to inherit Blair’s Iraq legacy.
Iraq policy has been at the heart of Blair’s troubles, and recently has done little more than slowly bleed away Labour’s lead over the Conservative Party (Blair’s great gift to Labour when he won power in 1997).
The result is that all political appetite for the conflict in Iraq within their Labour Party is gone. What little taste for war that there is, remains entrenched with troops in Afghanistan. Not only is the British army overstretched at the moment, but the political dogmatism and leadership that Blair was able to command are exhausted.
It is clear that heir apparent Brown has no desire to be passed on the Iraqi quagmire. Thus far his overall silence has spoken volumes about his desire to distance himself from a policy that the majority of the British public find abhorrent.
What little he has said about Iraq, has been concentrated on vague criticism about the planning of the war, and on a recent trip to Basra he only pointed out the country must be seen “running its own affairs,” as he pledged in reconstruction aid for the embattled country.
This subtle and detached silence may in fact hide a deeper rift. The truth is that not only is the government that Blair is passing on tainted, but increasingly, the Labour Party Brown is inheriting is a damaged institution.
Spats between the Blair-ite and Brown-ite wings of the party are common, but more recently a Blair aide was arrested, his main fund raiser twice-arrested, and the prime minister himself hauled up for questioning twice before police, all part of an investigation into a “cash-for-honours” scandal (that peerages were being sold for party donations).
The implications of this to the United States are serious. The main effect of the scandal has been to scare off many prominent party donors, and if some press coverage is to be believed, then the only ones left are those who will support Brown and the Labour Party with the proviso that he withdraw from Iraq.
And on top of these grave party financial problems, Brown will faces a population veering towards “anything but Labour” voting. The Conservative opposition has capitalized on this sense, and there is a risk that Brown will have to take more drastic action to counter their appeal.
As prime minister, Brown cannot start to turn on domestic issues: After being Chancellor of the Exchequer for almost 10 years, his fingerprints are all over them. Instead, he is likely to turn abroad to the United Kingdom’s main foreign policy issue: the United States and the “special relationship.”
In a crucial interview that was widely seen as one of the chancellor’s first moves towards assuming Blair’s mantle, Brown declared that the “British national interest” was what he “was about” and that he “would speak his mind” on issues.
This echoed opposition leader David Cameron’s earlier comments about not being “slavish” to the United States, and reinforced the image amongst the British public that British foreign policy under either leader is going to take a bold step away from the United States.
Now Brown has to follow up on what was implicit within this promise. Furthermore, the longer Blair stays in office, the harder it will become for Brown to soften his line.
The implications to the United States are shifting beyond losing a vocal supporter in public for a, but deeper into Iraq policy and beyond that into the attempts to quietly reach out to currently ostracized Middle Eastern regimes through London. The United Kingdom had already taken the lead on approaching Syria and there has been an active push in front and behind the scenes in London to reach out to Iran.
There is little Washington can do about speeding Blair’s departure: In fact, the U.S. should cherish his final moments in power. Nevertheless, careful attention should be paid to managing the previously easy Anglo-American relationship once he is gone. If Washington pushes too hard, it might cause a longer-lasting rift.
Raffaello Pantucci is a research associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
