BASIC MEDIA ADVISORY

TUESDAY 7 JUNE 2005

U.K. Prime Minister’s Visit to the White House: No Longer Shoulder to Shoulder?

U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair is visiting the White House today for the first time since his Labour Party’s election victory last month. While U.S. President George Bush will have the chance to offer formal congratulations to Blair on his continued leadership and discuss plans for sustaining a strong foreign policy partnership, the Prime Minister’s latest agenda will not be as easy for the President to accept as those of the past four years of the U.S.-U.K. ‘special relationship.’

The Prime Minister’s Labour Party won the May General Election, but not without losing seats because of his strong support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The recently-leaked Downing Street memo authored by the Prime Minister’s advisor, Matthew Rycroft, revealed a prior intention on the part of the Blair administration to support and take part in an invasion several months before the U.N. Security Council was given an opportunity to discuss the option as well as a lack of willingness to exhaust a full line of diplomatic options for avoiding war. It also underlined a level of secrecy in foreign policy that has generated mistrust within the British electorate. During the election campaign the government denied that the Iraq conflict was of great interest to the public, yet after the vote, several government representatives expressed regret that the war had made such an impact. The opposition Conservative Party’s attempt to focus on Blair’s honesty did not noticeably bring them support, but it did harm the reputation of the Prime Minister.

Relieved to move on after the election, the Prime Minister is now focused on capping-off the United Kingdom's G8 Presidency in July with the two headline policy goals of helping Africa and slowing climate change. The Bush administration has long been skeptical about actions to reduce global warming. More recently, the President expressed doubts regarding Blair’s proposals for providing more economic aid to Africa via an International Finance Facility that would provide up to $50 billion each year to the continent. Yet both issues of impeding climate change and action for Africa also have important implications for U.S. security in the Twenty-first Century. In addition, Blair and Bush are likely to discuss Iran as another critical security issue that holds potential disagreements for the two staunch allies.

AFRICA
The Prime Minister is likely to argue that unless Africa receives greater attention and assistance, and the problems of development are not tackled directly, then poverty will probably increase, the global economy will be harmed, and conflicts will develop that could have deleterious consequences for international security. The Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit has for two years been studying the issue of fragile states, and in February this year published a report, Investing in Prevention: An International Strategy to Manage Risks of Instability and Improve Crisis Response, that contained significant recommendations to prioritize conflict prevention across government departments and reverse some policies that drive conflict or reward parties involved in conflict. The report could become a powerful tool for approaching the problem of fragile states in Africa.

In particular, the report focused upon the role of ‘predatory elites’ who hamper development and create conflict. The report also addressed the financing mechanisms that spark or entrench such conflict. In the United Kingdom there has been a growing awareness that current development models that impose market solutions can cause deep trouble, including motivating organized criminal networks to use violence to gain market access or exclusive rights to resources. During the election, the government announced that it is to drop its requirement for attaching market liberalization to bilateral aid, a source of some conflict between Hilary Benn, Blair’s International Development Secretary, and the Bush administration. These initiatives are motivated by a desire to improve the effectiveness of intervention, address the concerns of the influential U.K. development lobby, and to draw the sting from the tail of criticism regarding the Iraq conflict.

The United States has proposed more aid to Africa during the Bush administration, but it would rather stop short of the latest U.K. proposals. The New York Times reported this morning that a compromise will be announced later today with the White House agreeing to release $674 million in aid for Africa, but the move may be seen as a way to tamp down Blair’s lobbying for more aid to the continent. Also, in response to the problem with the so-called “post-conflict phase” (for lack of a better term) in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has tried to improve its ability to coordinate peace operations, an effort highlighted by the formation of its new Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization within the State Department. Because of greater popular opposition to the Iraq War and overall interest in conflict prevention within Europe, however, the U.K. trajectory for dealing with conflict is moving more rapidly in the direction of prevention. Furthermore, the U.K. government will have a much harder time going along with U.S. plans if the Bush administration decides to take a more militarily aggressive approach to future potential conflict areas, such as Iran.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND OIL
While the Bush administration has demonstrated opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and other multilateral initiatives on climate change, there is no shortage of advice on environmental dangers that have enormous implications for the United States. An October 2003 Pentagon report looked at some scenarios that suggest that climate change could not only dramatically reduce the carrying capacity of the planet through drought and storms, but also could lead to severe economic collapse and global conflict over key food, water and energy sources. The Prime Minister’s Chief Scientific Advisor has already stated that climate change is a bigger threat to global security than terrorism, a position that for all intents and purposes has become the official position of the U.K. government. It is unclear whether the policy divergence between the governments are down to differences in perception, or differences in the political will to respond to the threat.

Adding to the urgency in addressing this problem is the global peak of oil production, projected by many oil geologists to be imminent. With demand for oil mirroring the expansion of economies, notably in China and India, the price of oil is likely to increase dramatically in the near future. Knock-on impacts will be felt throughout the global economy, with implications that go far beyond the rising cost to U.S. citizens who drive motor vehicles. Oil is already a key strategic resource and a source of tension involving the United States. Challenges to the present arrangements for U.S. access to oil will only grow.

IRAN
The relationship between the United States, the European Union and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program and specifically its enrichment activities has been a delicate one. Iran and the EU3 (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) agreed to an extension of the suspension of enrichment on May 24, pending detailed proposals from the EU to be offered in negotiations to be held in late July. This gives an important deadline to the EU and United States to agree on a package of measures to be offered to the Iranians. The preference on the EU side is clearly to avoid any form of military engagement while offering significant incentives to Iran to avert their development of proliferation-related activities. The United States, on the other hand, is keen to play a strong hand with the Iranians and maintain the threat of force behind any negotiations. Because of the sensitivity of these talks, and the implications for the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States, it is probable that Iran will be a focus of discussion between the two leaders. The Prime Minister is likely to communicate all he has done up to now to stay behind the United States’ agenda, but to remind the President of the political cost he has already had to endure as a consequence of actions in Iraq. (For more background on the Iran nuclear situation, see the BASIC/Oxford Research Group Briefing on Addressing the Challenge of Iran and the BASIC Statement on the EU-Iran talks in Geneva: http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Press/050524.htm.)

For more information, please contact:

Paul Ingram, London
e-mail: pingram at basicint.org
tel: +44 207-324-4686

Chris Lindborg, Washington
e-mail: clindborg at basicint.org
tel: +1 202-546-8055, x102