Site Presented By
Tuesday, Feb 9, 2010
To some, he is a skilled power player. Others call him Bush's poodle. In the make-or-break weeks ahead, he could shape history -- or become its victim.
Jan 23, 2003 | Fielding questions at his monthly, American-style press conference last week, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair spent an hour defending his firm alliance with President Bush on the possible need to wage a preemptive war on Iraq. Blair's controversial stance, along with his commitment to sending 40,000 troops, has dominated the public debate in Britain in recent weeks, with increasing signs that his staunchly pro-American position is exacting a political price at home.
Speaking from the podium, Blair tried to say all the right things, soothing British anxiety about the war by stressing it was not inevitable -- "of course, no one wants conflict" -- yet at the same time holding firm on the goals. "Disarmament," he said, "is inevitable."
Blair talked and talked and talked, responding thoughtfully to 26 war-related questions. Yet despite all the talk, and especially for someone who sees himself as a master communicator, Blair is not scoring many debating points. He still faces a jittery British public, most of whom, according to a recent survey, think the real motivation for war is to seize control of Iraq's oil. Longtime allies France and Germany have just abandoned him by coming out strongly against the war if weapons inspectors cannot uncover obvious proof of Saddam Hussein's misdeeds. And worse for Blair, there's a rebellion brewing within his own Labour Party, including some of his own cabinet members who fear that British involvement in Iraq would prove catastrophic for the party, not to mention the country.
"This war may be a bigger test for Tony Blair than it is for George Bush," says Simon Henderson, a London-based adjunct scholar of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
For now, Blair is hoping that arms inspectors will be able to deliver clear proof of material breach and prompt the U.N. Security Council to pass a second resolution authorizing war against Iraq, and that a sizable international coalition will then sign off on the military efforts.
"If that's the case, the war opposition at home will sit on its hands," says Martin Kettle, columnist for the Guardian, a liberal London newspaper. British polls, like those in the United States, show a vast majority want clear U.N. support for war before the country agrees to fight -- especially since Blair has committed most of Britain's army to the war effort.
The worst-case scenario for Blair, though, features the U.S. opting to go it alone against Iraq without the U.N.'s blessing, thereby forcing Blair to make perhaps the most difficult decision of his political career. "He'd be a fool to go along," says Kettle. But if he did, "I think it'd be the beginning of the end for him."
That grim possibility grew much more vivid this week when France and Germany announced they were united against the war and might block any attempt by the White House to win an authorizing resolution at the U.N. By using their power on the Security Council to block U.N. approval, both countries could put Blair in a terrible bind and create real havoc for the White House.
Blair represents the linchpin for the United States' hopes of building an international coalition for war. Even with Blair onboard, the U.S. so far has not mustered much of a coalition. The Security Council -- including permanent members Russia and China -- appears overwhelmingly opposed to military action at this time, based on the current evidence against Saddam. Turkey, usually a reliable U.S. ally, is balking, and most governments in the Arab world have warned that hasty action could have dire repercussions. If Britain bails, the White House cannot even pretend to have the backing of an international alliance.
That's why if there's anyone outside Bush's inner circle who might actually have veto power over the war today, it's Blair. Polls show that a strong majority of Americans badly want allies to support a U.S. strike on Iraq. If in the coming weeks Blair, feeling immense political pressure at home, were to emerge from 10 Downing Street and announce he could not support a war with Iraq or, specifically, the timetable the U.S. was using, the decision could have historic repercussions.
"If Blair pulled out of military action, the U.S. would find it very hard to go to war," says Nile Gardiner, a former foreign policy aide to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. "America would have to go to war without any allies, and I don't think Washington has public support for that. In a way, Blair holds the key to the war."
Given Blair's stated determination to maintain Britain's "special relations" with America, longtime Blair-watchers doubt the prime minister would back out on Bush now. But for those anxious about an invasion who are trying to piece together a scenario where war could be averted, Blair's role holds some tantalizing possibilities.
Even though he's a philosophical soul mate of Bill Clinton who also moved his left-leaning party to the middle, Blair's staunch loyalty toward America's conservative Republican president on Iraq has caught some by surprise -- including a large chunk of his own party.
But listen to Blair long enough and it's obvious that, like Bush, he's convinced that if Saddam is not disarmed, the Persian Gulf dictator will pose a grave threat to the West for years to come. And Blair, a man of strong Christian beliefs, also seems determined to help liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyrannical grip.
Get Salon in your mailbox!
