The only explanation

Brainwashing.  That's it.  Brainwashing.  That's how The Independent's political editor Andrew Grice explains Tony Blair's support for America and George Bush -- support that has not translated into enhanced British influence.  According to Grice, Blair wields no influence whatever in world affairs.

Tony Blair's "shoulder to shoulder" support for George Bush has been called into question again by claims that he was "brainwashed" by President Bush over plans to pull troops out of Iraq.

The Prime Minister returned yesterday from his seven-nation visit to the Middle East, apparently without achieving any significant breakthrough in the peace process.

That would be the peace process that has been in the works since the 1967 Six Day War.  Or if you'd prefer not to go back that far let's say it began with Henry Kissinger's famous Shuttle Diplomacy during the Nixon administration.  Of course if that seems to exaggerate the difficulty of achieving peace in the Middle East, we can say it began with the Carter administration's Camp David Accord.  Unfortunately that all fell apart after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who implicitly recognized the state of Israel by making his historic visit to Jerusalem in 1977, was assassinated in 1981 by Islamic extremist who took exception.  So it might be better to say it began with the Oslo Accords which were orchestrated during the Clinton administration in 1993.  That makes some sense since the Oslo Accords serve as something of a demarcation.

Up to that time the world had been negotiating the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  By the time the Oslo Accords were negotiated it had been transformed into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  Of course over that time period, the Arab-Palestinian objective remained constant, the elimination of Israel, and no amount of negotiation ever changed it.  Even today Iranian President Ahmadinejad predicts Israel will be wiped off the map, while to nearly everyone's chagrin, except the U.S., Israel, and Great Britain, Israel doggedly continues to exist.  How gauche.

Well it strikes me as odd that Mr. Grice could, seemingly with a straight face, observe that Tony Blair returned from the Middle East without having made a breakthrough in a war that has been going on for nearly 60 years.  While expectations from Mr. Blair's seven nation trip were unrealistic, assessments of British influence over American foreign policy are miles off the mark. 

Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, the outgoing director of Chatham House, said: "Blair has learnt the hard way that loyalty in international politics counts for nothing. And his successor will not make the same mistake of offering unconditional support for US initiatives in foreign policy at the expense of a more positive relationship with Europe."

It was the Chatham House think-tank that came up with a report claiming Mr Blair enjoyed "no significant influence" over the Bush administration in spite of British support for America in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Robert Tuttle, the U.S. ambassador in London, disagrees.

Robert Tuttle, the US ambassador in London, described the Chatham House report as "puzzling and incorrect". He said: "Our relationship is the strongest of any two governments in the world and I think the world is a better place for that relationship."

Mr Tuttle added: "I think that the special relationship is very, very strong ... You have a very strong prime minister who made the commitment [in Iraq] on what he thought was best for the United Kingdom."

Mr. Blair echoed that sentiment, predicting that his successor would also maintain a close relationship with America.

Perhaps Mr. Grice offers the explanations of brainwashing and lack of influence because British foreign policy hasn't gone in the direction he would have preferred.  Maybe if political editors understood that British foreign policy like American foreign policy has winning the war on terror among its most important aims, Blair might not be considered so ineffectual.  The fact is, he's been pretty influential.

Comments

[Ol' BC]

There will never be peace in that part of the world as long as there are Mooooslems whose only goal in life is the eradication of Israel, clearly expressed. Any peace is to regroup towards that end, again clearly expressed. The U.S. may just want to stay out of Israel's way and allow them to clean up that part of the world. Then, and only then, there could be peace.