±«Óătv

Well, that's the analysis. And nice it is in theory, but I think Blair's on a hiding to nothing, especially if you subscribe to a Chomskyite reading of the middle east (which I tend to do).

The US have too much invested in propping up Israel to risk weakening their support. They feel need a strong Israel in place to maintain some sort of order in the middle east (a nuclear Israel certainly frightens Iran and the gulf states). A ceasefire and international force would be largely a token gesture to mollify Europe, who, let's not forget, are actually on the doorstep of this whole thing, unlike the US.

The main loser in all of this is Blair, who comes out of this process looking little more than a US cipher to the arab world, and ineffective and desperate to his own nation. Trying to play the 'trust me, I'm an international statesman' card seems to have backfired on him fairly hard.

Will Dick Cheney sit in on their meeting? Cheney's blocked Blair's influence before on foriegn policy matters. Alone with the President, Blair might have chance . . .

Nick,

I've always given the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt when it comes to dealings with the US. I have always thought that he disagrees and holds just a little influence behind the scenes whilst keeping up the solid "shoulder-to-shoulder" image in public.

Assuming that this analysis is partly correct, then this is the moment ... When you can't have an impact on a policy that is clearly wrong in private - and let's face it, even 1 day of a ceasefire is better than none - it's time to say so publicly.

Do you hear any off-the-record rumours from White House staffers about how the relationship works?

So Blair thinks making peace with Hizbollah legitamises terrorism?

I recall Blair saying after 9/11 that the Palestinian problem was at the heart of the unrest in the Middle East and it needed to be resolved. When is he going to do what he said all those years ago?

Bush and Blair have allowed the first democratic Lebanese government for years to be bombed out of existance. I thought their mission was to introduce democracy to the Middle East? The only lesson from this firago is that despots in Syria and Iran are safe while democracy brings terror and strive as seen in Iraq and Lebannon.

No need to worry though, we can all sleep at night because we are assured that it is only "semantics".

Nick - Interesting stuff. I have a feeling that Blair is more likely to yap pathetically at Bush's heals and fetch sticks for him than stand up to him and call for an immediate ceasefire. One can only pity the people of the Lebanon, and the people of the UK who will be facing terrorist attacks as a result of Blair's cowardly support for US policy on this issue.

Hi Nick

Blair, like Bush and Rice (a new 'Middle East') always wants to talk as though somehow he is even-handed in these middle-east conflicts, on the side of the democrats, allowing Israel to defend itself, etc, etc, but it's all absolute humbug!

We in the UK, under Blair that is, and the US are allies in the crime of the current atrocities being committed in the Lebanon and Gaza.

A start to any long-term solution would be for us and the States to butt out (yo and yo). The UN should take over the entire process of bringing peace to the region, and perhaps the soon-to-be super power China could be persuaded to send a couple of thousand peace keeping troops - can't see Israel taking them on!!

There's a sense in which Blair alone holds the key to an end to the suffering in Lebanon.

The position of virtually every other party capable of exerting any influence over the two sides is deeply entrenched. Tony is probably well aware that this will be his last chance to make a difference in the Middle East so the outcome of the meeting could well be interesting.

Even if he does manage to sew the seeds of a negotiated ceasefire, most of the British media will present it as a cynical career move.

Sir Christopher Meyer said on R4's Today that the US only has one special relationship and that is with Israel.
One wonders what impact this visit will have other than further damaging the ozone layer.
I hope someone asks the PM is the 'blood price' he volunteeered in Iraq is good value for the UK.

I believe Tony Blair is doing the right thing in his "hug them close" stratergy and is doing so even though it is making him look like a "poodle" to some people.

How quick do you think Bush would abandon something he believed to be right for the sake of an image problem?

Nick

I would love to believe, as the PM obviously does, that he holds a warm place in the heart of George Bush and that the familiarity with which he is greeted by the American President is another example of the warmth with which he is regarded and the weight which his opinions carry with his 'buddy' in the White House.

Sadly I think its just old fashioned Texan bonhomie for a 'nice guy'..and beyond that Blair's opinions matter not one whit. I would love to be wrong but the White House response, for example, to the Prestwick business could be a scene from 'The West Wing' with Josh Lynam saying laconically 'The Brits are having trouble with the paperwork...it's no big deal!'

Nick,
I think Blair has figured that being seen as a poodle by his electorate is less harmful than being seen as pro-Israel by the left of his party, but I believe that he agrees with Bush. However excessive Israel's actions are, Hizbollah's stated aim is to eliminate Israel, and that, particularly after the rocket attacks on Haifa and the capture of Israeli soldiers, entitles Israel to act. There are two sides in this conflict; one is a state, the other is a terrorist organisation - how can Blair (and Bush) do anything but support Israel over the terrorists. It is not Israel that needs pressuring - although restraint would be preferable - but Lebanon, who has harboured Hizbollah and turned a blind eye to its activities. Once Lebanon tells Hizbollah that they are not welcome and takes positive action against them, then there may be a chance of some dialogue, and a chance of persuading Israel to end the bloodshed.

Why does not having a plan, make it not possible to demand an immediate stop to the indiscriminate killing of civilians, and effective destruction of another soveriegn state whilst a plan is developed?
Israel is venting frustration and taking revenge on people who cannot defend themselves and this has to be some kind of war crime.
I can't imagine a UK government sanctioning the indiscriminate bombing of Northern Ireland to root out the IRA; but of course, the IRA were the ones funded by the US...

Nick,

I agree with your analysis.

However, this isn't a surprise and it is hardly news. We have all observed the succinct canine qualities of our Prime Minister for years and the "yo-Blair" incident merely confirmed our suspicions.

My real interest is this. What kudos does he personally believe he is gaining from all this sycophantic flattery? Is this simply a post-PM strategy being mechanically acted out or is this servile obsession with the American right truly ingrained?

I for one am baffled. I simply do not understand why a man of Mr Blair’s intelligence should embarrass himself (and our nation) like this. I look forward to reading your observations and analysis on the “why” some day.

Nick,

The motive behind the not calling for a ceasefire, as far as I understand it, is that the US wants to give Israel time to defeat Hezbollah (which looks like it's not going to happen soon), it's not because they want to have a "plan" in place before calling for a ceasefire. Why not have a ceasefire while you're thinking of a "plan"? It's not logical, it's just a smokescreen. The problem I think for Blair is that he's a marginal influence on the US, is out of the loop of their decision-making, yet has committed to supporting them.

I do not follow the logic of Blair's policy of refusing to call for a ceasefire on the grounds that he wants to develop a plan to create sustainable peace. How does allowing death and destruction to continue on a daily basis make it easier to develop such a plan? Surely it is better to stop the killing and then continue to work on a plan. It may take a long time to "solve" the underlying problems.
Allowing this war to continue has a number of adverse effects: (i) it divides moderate people; (ii) it unites the forces of terrorism and strengthens their cause; (iii) it kills many innocent people, especially women and children; (iv) it makes achieving a peace plan harder; (v) it destroys the entire infrastructure of a State, Lebanon, causing devastation.
The whole US/UK policy on terrorism plays into the hands of the terrorists. It gives them an opportunity. The terrorists want this war to continue. Al quaeda and Hezbollah want this war to continue. Terrorists thrive on war, death, destruction, hatred, the killing of innocent lives. It feeds their cause, allows them to validate their philosophy and strengthen their numbers. The more innocent lives are taken, the more hatred and terrorism will grow.
And it is the UK that will ultimately suffer. Blair knows there is already a strong terrorist threat in this country. Yet he does not hesitate to associate himself with US policy. Is that in the best interests of this country? Border controls in this country are much weaker than in the US. It is much easier for terrorists to gain access to this country and plot from within its borders. And since terrorists love death, they will not hesitate to blow themselves up and kill hundreds of people - it only takes 1 or 2 terrorists.
So, as in Iraq, this is lack of judgment and total irresponsibility by this Prime Minister. Blair should think more about the interests of this country and less about securing his position on the world stage.

It would be foolish of the American President and the American people to take our 'special relationship' for granted.

It has paid massive dividends to both our Countries to listen and support each other in times of International crisis.

Bush can play the hard man if he so wishes, but the British people will only go so far with the relationship before we start to vote for a change to it.

Blair has all the cards and aces.

Gary

I don't think Blair will achieve anything apart from to make himself look more and more like Bush's lapdog.

From Churchill and Roosevelt in WW2, to Korea, the Suez Crisis and Vietnam, the US has looked exclusively after its own interests and has actively sought to weaken the UK's power. Blair should learn the lessons of Churchill, Eden and Thatcher that no matter how close the bond between the two leaders of the USA and the UK, self-interest will come first for the USA, and its allies are to be used and discarded as it sees fit.

Time and again we have backed the USA, against our national interest, and time and again we have been repaid with debt, humiliation and expensive foreign wars. We should either become the 51st state of the US, or forge our own path. This in-betweening does us no good.

I have to sympathise with the PM. Britain simply has not the power to shape world events. So America's poddle, or only one voice in the Chorus of Europe, both of which seem to be anathema to the British public. What a job huh? Who would want it?

This is the most puzzling and well hidden thing in international politics - what is the real Blair/Bush relationship? Even post-open-mic we don't know where Blair's influence (and personal feelings) begins and ends. Blair is a clever and politically astute guy, and so the image often portrayed of his relationship cannot really be true.

What happens today will give us another glimpse, and we all await your analysis with baited breath.

David

Yo Nick,

Does Margaret Beckett mind the Prime Minister doing her job for her? What is a Foreign Secretary for if her boss does all the talking?
Come to that, what is Parliament for these days?

Nick,

Stupidly, I feel sorry for Blair. I think he must feel like a right idiot after the 'Yo Blair' episode given his image in Britain as an intelligent and practical politician who has efficiently moved Labour away from its 70s-style politics.
But Blair, and his advisers I presume, has made a complete mess of his handling of the various middle-Eastern issues. He followed blindly while encouraging war in Iraq and now refuses to come out and take a moral stance against the Israelis murdering Lebanese and Palestinians.
Both the Israelis and Hezbullah should be held accountable in court for the murder of civilians.
And please stop using Israel (good) versus Hezbullah/Hamas (terrorists) to justify the US-UK position! Mandela was only removed from the US' official terrosrist list in... 2003!
This is a moral issue of preventing deaths of innocent people. The world no longer cares how, just get this war to stop!

Blair is a puppydog enamoured of power and wealth. It fuels his bottomless need to maintain an existentially fractured self-image as a man of moral standing and authority. In reality of course he has no underpinning values that he is not prepared to compromise, no belief that is not contingent on the approval of those who could shatter his distorting mirror. Murdoch understands the man. So do the people advising Bush. He needs a daddy, poor soul.

What has changed since Blair agreed to block the call for an immediate ceasefire? Nothing in objective reality, one thing in Blair's psyche. For once the public outcry has been sufficiently loud to shake Blair's confidence that we mere citizens can actually impact his self-belief in a significant way. Doubt creeps in, knee jerks out. This is nothing to do with politics: Blair's fate is already sealed and the precise moment of its arrival pretty much agreed.

What will happen when Blair stands facing Bush and those around him? Blair will wilt. Faced with a clear disagreement with those he feels to be authority figures he will twist his beliefs a full 180 degrees. Again. The approval of authority is what drives this man.

The miracle is that once back on the plane he will convince himself there was a good reason.

Funny how there's always a good reason, isn't it, Tony?

Could Blair's interest be entirely more self centred than you report? Without US support, Blair wont get the top job at the UN and let's face it the top job at the EU seems a fading prospect. The odd UK soldiers life or UK citizens rights (Muslim and non-Muslim) being so far a small price to pay. We (the UK) are a bit player in the war in Lebanon so what does Blair have to lose in supporting the US to fulfill his personal ambition?

"This does not mean that he has become a convert to calls for an immediate ceasefire. It merely means that he dislikes being portrayed as opposed to a halt in the violence in Lebanon."

Quite a damning statement on Blair - he doesn't mind people being killed, just the impression that he supports it.

Given the reports from Arab Israelis on PM yesterday, this would appear to be the frontline in the 'Clash of Civilisations' we hear about. The question is, who will (re-)draw the map of the ME: America and Israel (with the UK), or Syria and Iran. That a democratic country is being destroyed into the bargain seems to matter little, since only American backed democracy counts it seems.
That this is the state Bliar has come to, after promising us things can only get better in '97 is the biggest blow to UK politics and democracy I can think of.

Blair's dilemma, is that many in his party want him to prove there was a special relationship with the US. This
by asking the US to dump on Israel as a favour to him. This, they would see as compensation for being in Iraq, as a Blair "favour to the US". But as you noted, Blair really believes in democratic regime change and is co-author of that policy.

The recent actions by Hamas and Hizbollah were to break pressure for either recognition or peace with Israel and cause disunity in the front pressuring Teheran on nuclear
technology development.

Normalised relations with Lebanon and PA government, while government included Hizbollah and Hamas have
independent capability to launch missiles at Israel,is
questionable policy. Are either
now anything but a front for two terrorist groups intent on Israel's destruction?

Goven Iran's intent and the need for a united response - the clearest message that can be sent, is determination to disarm terrorist groups and especially of their missiles. Can anyone imagine what the legacy of any leader would be,
if Iran was to place a warhead on a missile supplied via Syria to Hizbollah in Lebanon and we today had the chance to stop it.

Dear Nick,

I wish Blair all my luck in trying to influence the stance of the Bush Administration on this conflict, but in reality with the hardline the yanks have taken in their 'War on Terror' I doubt their position on Hizbollah will change much. If anything they will just try to water down more UN resolutions, and delay any kind of negotiations towards peace or deploying international forces.

Some aspects of this conflict weigh far too heavily in the US' favour at the moment, inline with current policies of the neo-cons. Not only do they get another country to deal with their 'terrorist' problems for them, but they get a nice boost in arms sales as Israel destroys more Lebanese infrastructure. Quite sad really. Of course consequences of this policy will have dire affects for the US in the long run.

Sorry Blair, but Bush just does not care.

Hizbollah - a terrorist organisation which rocketted Israeli civilians and captured her soldiers

Thanks for pointing that out.

It's important that we keep on repeating this so that people will believe there is only one wrong-doer in the curent crisis.

Haven't all UK PMs been US poodles since the British Empire crumbled? And hasn't the UK known that since at least 1956? In support of this hypothesis, I submit some ±«Óătv analysis as evidence:
Please don't take this to suggest that I think the British Empire was a positive thing, or that I'm thrilled that the US has so much power over the UK. I just wish to point out the obvious. That said, however, it does seem that Yo Blair has taken Poodleship to a vastly higher level, and I'd very much like to know what drove him to do that.

Blair outlined New Labour's craven, supine foreign policy in his speech to Congress in 2003 thus:

"destiny put [America] in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task [i.e. fighting the war on terror] is yours to do.

"And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond, our job is to be there with you. You are not going to be alone."

The Daily Telegraph reports that the Americans have armed the Israelis in the past week and that the air shipments of weapons were rested and refuelled at a British airfield. It seems clear that the American policy is to aid Israel in its destruction of Hizbollah, whatever collateral damage is caused?

In light of the fact that Blair's stated intention quoted above is to go along with America in whatever action it takes in the war on terror, what on earth difference will his visit make to the situation in the Middle East?

I don't see why Blair has to travel to Washington in order to sit on his hands in public. Why doesn't he save himself the bother, save us the air-fare and the embarrassment and agree wholeheartedly with President Bush in private on the phone.

Nick,
I thought the only reason that 'Yo Blair' was going to see Dubya was to engineer his Barbados family freebie

Every single crisis that Mr. Blair's government has had always results in Mr, Blair stating that he will take personal charge and solve the crisis.
Result, he waffles until the crisis reaches the back pages of a newspaper then quietly drops the issue.
He is rather like a knee jerking parrot.
All talk, no action.
The sooner he goes the better off the UK will be.