Anglo-American Gap

While President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have expertly projected a sense of unity, divisions are deepening over the right strategy after Iraq

By Richard Evans, The Inquisitor's Editor: 4 May 2003

Both before and during the Iraqi conflict, George Bush and Tony Blair presented a united front in the face of criticism and diplomatic impasse. Today, however, there are signs of the first cracks in that united front with senior officials in both the British government and armed forces expressing reluctance to disarm any further rogue nations such as Syria, Iran or North Korea.

This tone of British reluctance was first set by the plain speaking head of Britain's armed services, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce. Boyce, the equivalent of the United States military's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, recently cautioned against Britain taking part in any further joint military operations with US forces. "We would be hard pushed (to take part in) a discretionary operation," he said. "My advice would be there would have to be pretty compelling reasons for doing that."

Admiral Boyce, who will soon retire, surprised many in the press when he admitted to initial concerns as to whether the war against Iraq had been legal. Asked if he believed US and British troops would find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq he retorted: "unless we got lucky and stumbled over it, we will have to painstakingly amass the evidence."

Some of Admiral Boyce's comments have been echoed by Prime Minister Blair, who recently declared in an interview with the Financial Times newspaper that Britain would take no part in seeking to disarm Syria, Iran or North Korea by force. This contrasts to some of the more hawkish statements by the Bush administration, which recently sent US Secretary of Sate Colin Powell to Syria with a list of demands that may include opening that country to US-led weapons inspections.

Further differences between the Americans and British have emerged in recent days. While the White House and Pentagon have both played down the need for independent monitoring of weapons inspections in Iraq, Prime Minister Blair stated in a recent press conference that he sees independent UN verification of any discovered weapons of mass destruction as "absolutely essential" to their credibility. Blair has also disassociated himself from those in Washington who would seek to punish or isolate France for its refusal to endorse the war in Iraq. And he recently visited Moscow in an attempt to re-establish ties with Russia badly damaged by the rift between Blair and Russian president Vladimir Putin over the recent conflict.

Blair's more conciliatory tone will likely go down well in Britain, where his ruling Labour party has been deeply divided by the war. Labour's serious local election losses on May 1 were widely regarded as the result of traditional Labour abstaining in protest over Iraq. Only about a third of the electorate turned out to vote.

While Blair remains a popular prime minister, the British electorate appears concerned that UK support for the US war effort in Iraq will make London and other British cities potential terrorist targets. A recent survey undertaken by MORI, the independent British polling agency, found that two-thirds of Britons believe a terrorist attack is now more likely because of Blair's support for America's military campaign. Some 43% of those polled believe that Britain will be the scene of a major terrorist attack within the next six months.

Two main issues may further divide the US and UK positions in the weeks and months ahead. The first regards the length and nature of the military occupation. While US forces have been involved in a number of bloody incidents with Iraqi locals, British troops have managed, so far, a more peaceful presence in the areas they control. British military commanders are pressing for a relatively brief occupation and Blair is thought to favor the eventual intervention of a UN peacekeeping force. With the US set to create four airbases in Iraq, Washington looks more likely to favor a longer-term occupation.

The reconstruction of Iraq provides another potential sticking point. If too many lucrative contracts go to US companies then the British media and electorate are likely to react negatively. Previous Bush administration announcements that only American firms would be allowed to compete for reconstruction contracts proved particularly unpopular in the UK, with some Labour government ministers expressing dismay that British companies would not be included.