Thursday, March 06, 2003
What's in it for Tony?
In my morning review of the blogosphere, an entry in Daily Kos took me to this news story about the Prime Minister of Great Britain. In still another baffling move Bush-ward, Tony Blair apparently will let neither public opinion in his own nation, nor rising opposition in Parliament within his own political base, nor (now) the likelihood of deeply considered and deeply felt Security Council vetoes to deter him from plastering himself and his country’s fortunes firmly to parts-unmentionable of Dubya.
It doesn’t make sense that what once appeared to be an erudite, progressive, thoughtful man, leading Britain with firm hand into a peaceful international community, has turned into this. In the United States, the leadership transformation is (unfortunately) perfectly explicable—subtract Clinton and add Bush, and raving-lunatic hell breaks out. But Blair was PM then and is PM now, with much the same cast of characters in his Cabinet at 10 Downing, and I suspect that 90-95% of today’s Labour MPs are the same people who were in Parliament three years ago. So what has changed?
A friend of mine at work, a close observer of Anglo-Irish relations (and thus, of the British political scene), suggests that the explanation must fall into one (or more?) of four possibilities:
a) Bush has promised Blair and/or England some sort of huge reward for participating in his war. The nature and extent of this reward would have to be truly monumental—even control of a significant portion of Iraqi oil doesn’t strike me as a sufficient inducement.
b) Blair anticipates a triumphal entry into Baghdad, arm-in-arm with Bush, as the whole world applauds. What better to cement his status as a great world leader, as the savior of the people of a sovereign nation, and the steadfast partner of the world’s greatest power? Think of deGaulle entering Paris… Of course, this scenario requires both successful operation of a rapid and nearly-painless military campaign (see this and this for cogent examination of the chances that that’s going to happen) and a massive outpouring of support and approval by the people of Iraq. Nothing hurts a triumphal entrance more than the lack of cheering throngs. Somehow, though, it’s difficult to envision great public enthusiasm from the citizens of Baghdad right after Shock-and-Awe has laid waste to their beautiful and ancient city.
c) The United States has evidence of some sort of Blair misdeed, and is using that to blackmail him. I don’t hold much stock in this one, simply because this is too big an operation to be based solely on covering up one man’s, or one family’s, misdeeds. Also, if it was that big, someone, somewhere would have leaked it.
d) The United States has let it be known that Blair will be killed if he doesn’t cooperate. This one holds a bit more water than option c, at least if one were in the shoes of the living and breathing Tony Blair. I suppose it’s extortion more than blackmail. Still, that sort of thuggery would be beneath even the most rabid of the Bushies, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it?? (I deeply need to be reassured of that). Once again, it doesn’t seem possible that this sort of naked threat could be completely hushed up for very long. Also, it makes Blair sound like a vastly weaker man than, say, Saddam Hussein, who has been working under pretty much this very scenario ever since Dubya began rattling his cage.
***
Do any of those scenarios make sense? If not, is there some other way to explain Blair’s insistence—despite the evidence that it is likely to destroy him as Prime Minister—on staying the course with George W. Bush’s crusade?
↑ Close ...
Posted by N in Seattle on 03/06 at 05:17 AM
(0)
Comments •
(0)
Trackbacks •
Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
