At least six of the ten years of Tony has been spent at war. Apart from our usual presence in hotspots needing UN intervention, most of our fighting has been done to support America and cement our special relationship with them. Blair had visions of Britain being the bridge between America and Europe: we're tied to the EU but remain America's largest foriegn investor. We're physically closer to Paris than Pennsylvania, but we're culturally nearer to New York than Nuremberg. It made sense for Britain to bridge the gap between the two powers and help negotiate treaties between the two that ensured commonality in purpose.
Unfortunately, the Iraq war happened. Taking sides with America alienated us from our two biggest rivals in the EU, as France and Germany's concerns at the UN were swept aside and ignored. To make things worse, Tony displayed no control over the US -- Bush was going to war despite lack of evidence of any involvement in terror and lack of public support from both sides of the Atlantic, and he was taking us with him.
Rather than help build a bridge between Europe and the US, Blair helped enlarge the divide. And he did so by capitulating to Bush so cravenly that he lost respect amongst his voters, respect from our EU allies. From that momoent, we no longer had a truly special relationship with the States, we were simply at their beck and call.
As Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, Head of the Chatham House think tank, has stated "The post 9/11 decision to invade Iraq was a terrible mistake and the current debacle will have policy repercussions for many years to come," he said. "Tony Blair's successor 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." (see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=C2NMURAQ3TVQFQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/12/19/wpal119.xml
No comments:
Post a Comment