Tony Blair has felt unable to pick up his US Congressional Gold Medal of
Honour for four years partly because the ceremony would reinforce the
prejudices of those convinced he was “some sort of poodle”, says Sir David
Manning, Britain’s Ambassador in Washington.
The Prime Minister’s 1,351-day delay in collecting the medal from President
Bush has long been a source of puzzlement in both Washington and London.
Downing Street insists that it is still being designed.
But as Mr Blair prepares to leave office, Sir David told The Times in a rare
interview that the Prime Minister “always had inhibitions” about being
handed a medal that was awarded shortly after the invasion of Iraq at his
triumphant address to both houses of Congress in July 2003.
Sir David — who was Downing Street’s chief foreign policy adviser in the
run-up to the invasion — seeks to tackle perceptions about Britain’s
relationship with America and that between the two leaders, whose place in
history is likely to be defined by the Iraq war.
“For those who are convinced that the Prime Minister is . . . some sort of
poodle, it does not matter what he does,” says Sir David, who will finish
his four-year stint as Ambassador this autumn. “You reach the point where if
he had collected the medal, people would say that proves their point. But
it’s a much better — a much more complicated relationship — it’s a two-way
street.”
Speaking from his Lutyens-designed residence in Washington, he says the
relationship between the two countries has not “become more unequal” in
recent years, because since the Second World War, America has been the
world’s pre-eminent power” while Britain has had to learn to “operate as a
medium-sized power”.
But he accepts that anti-American sentiments have been fuelled by events that
serve to undermine the sense of shared values between Europe and the US. Sir
David says when he arrived in Washington, “my impression was that the
politics was still very much the politics of 9/11”.
But that changed with November’s midterm elections when the Democrats were
swept back into power on Capitol Hill. “What we have now is a very different
Congress and a very different political debate — not everything is about
national security and Iraq. Of course in 2008, Iraq will be a central issue
but politics is back in America after being anaesthetised for a four or
five-year period.
“I think that is healthy and a good thing that will play into perceptions of
the US overseas. The debate they are going to have will be much more
recognisable to European public opinion.” He is troubled by the rise of
anti-American attitudes, saying it “would just be folly to turn away from
the US” and try to tackle global challenges alone.
“It does scare me and I hope that it will correct itself the further we get
away from post-9/11 politics and the co-operative multilateral relationship
reasserts itself.” Such comments might be interpreted as suggesting that
Britain’s ability to wield influence in Washington has been hobbled. That
perception appeared to have been confirmed earlier this year by Kendall
Myers, a US State department official, who described the relationship with
Britain as utterly one-sided where Mr Blair’s views are routinely ignored.
But Sir David insists that the Prime Minister, because of Britain’s long-term
interests, would “have had to work closely with whoever was in power” — as
he did with President Clinton. Indeed, the Ambassador says there have been
many occasions when Britain has made plain its differences with the Bush
Administration. He cites America’s detention of terror suspects at
Guantanamo Bay and its scepticism about scientific evidence for climate
change, as well as Mr Blair’s commitment to a Middle East peace settlement
and his multilateralist view of the world.
“What is crucial in the relationship is that when we take different positions
it does not affect overall co-operation,” he says. “There has been a subtler
process of engagement across a range of issues — how do you handle
proliferation, particularly that of Iran? How do you handle climate change?
“These are not necessarily easy issues in this country but, by having the
debate I have no doubt we have influenced them.” He suggests that what
Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, is now doing with the latest
Middle East peace initiative involving Arab countries “is very much what we
would be urging them to do”, while there has also been a “slight shift” in
Mr Bush’s attitude on climate change “where we have had influence”.
The “cartoon-like interpretation of Bush in some quarters” clearly irritates
Sir David, who says the image of the President as a unilateralist who
ignores other countries is based primarily on the experience of Iraq. This,
he says, ignores more recent efforts by the Administration to work closely
with the UN and Europe, as well as China and Russia, on tackling nuclear
threats posed by North Korea and Iran.
A small, bespectacled and softly spoken man, Sir David is held in huge esteem
within Washington where — both as Mr Blair’s foreign policy adviser and as
ambassador — he is probably the best-informed witness of the two leaders’
relationship.
For critics of the Prime Minister, this appeared to be summed up by last
year’s embarrassing “Yo, Blair” moment at the G8 summit when neither of them
realised a microphone had been left on as the President appeared to dismiss
out of hand Mr Blair’s offers of help on the Lebanon crisis.
Sir David rejects such interpretations, saying: “The President has own joky
way with people . . . he is naturally ebullient. I think it was like a Texan
saying ‘Howdy’.”
So what is it really like when they meet in private? “It’s frank, very plain,”
he says. “Both of them know what they want to emphasise and where they want
the conversation to go. They have become comfortable about dealing with the
difficult things as well as the easy things.”
If people could have seen him in those meetings, “I don’t think they would
have found him to be a hand-wringing supplicant,” says Sir David. “The Prime
Minister is listened to — but it’s not like pulling the handle of a fruit
machine. That is not how foreign policy works.” Can the relationship between
American President and British Prime Minister ever be the same again? “Not
initially,” he replies. “Personalities take time to get to know each other.
No one can have the same relationship that Tony Blair has had with the
President but I think there will continue to be an extremely close
relationship.” He says the challenges facing both countries in dealing with
terrorism and the consequences of globalisation “do not change because the
people in office change — there will not be some dramatic shift”.
But there is a sense that, even in the instances cited by Sir David as
examples of where Mr Blair has exercised influence, the results have been
intangible. On the Middle East peace process, he does little to conceal his
personal frustration that ten years after he left the post of British
Ambassador to Israel, “we are still trying to make progress”.
Mr Bush once promised to devote as much time and effort to this peace process
as Mr Blair had to that in Northern Ireland. “What happened,” says Sir
David, “was that the Administration lost faith in Arafat. We did not get the
follow-through.”
When Arafat died, “there was a new opportunity . . . but things are never
straightforward,” he adds wistfully.
It was a similar story in the build-up to the Iraq war when the Prime Minister
persuaded Mr Bush to exhaust the diplomatic options in the UN until “the
bitter end”. He “did have an effect”, says Sir David, even if “alas, the UN
route failed and we didn’t achieve our goals”.
Mr Blair’s medal, awarded by Congress for his support for American foreign
policy, has become an unfortunate symbol — a heavy burden around his neck.
Sir David says that Mr Blair has always been reluctant to accept any award
while still in office and predicts that he will receive the medal “when he
is a private citizen”. That day is looming and it has come earlier than it
might have done were it not for the closeness of his relationship with Mr
Bush.
Tony Blair, 2007 “The relationship with America is what opens lots of
doors everywhere”
Bush, 2003 “America is fortunate to call this country [UK] our closest
friend in the world”
Bush, 2001 “We have no greater friend than Mexico”
Bush, 2002 “We have got no better friends than Canada”
US State Department official Kendall Myers, 2006 “There never really
has been a special relationship or at least not one we’ve noticed… We
typically ignore them and take no notice. We say, ‘There are the Brits
coming to tell us how to run our empire. Let’s park them’.”
US President Ronald Reagan on Margaret Thatcher “The best man in
England”
Thatcher on Reagan “The second most important man in my life”
Probable origin of the phrase, Winston Churchill 1946 “The fraternal
association of the English-speaking peoples. . . means a special
relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United
States.”
See me...feeeeel me..touch me, heal me. Listening to you...
Dan , council bluffs, ia,
Why? Brits can’t seem to answer the question of why would a labor Prime Minister side with the most evil, stupid, red-neck low life, Mchitlerchimpy President in the history of the US?
It’s one of the most interesting questions concerning the Iraq war but the British press doesn’t seem to even want to consider answering it.
Instead we get juvenile name calling.
Rich Banner, Fujian, China
to peter Collins Washington sorry peter but the second
world war was not fought for the same reason as the
Iraq war read your history books, we also in the UK
understand the need for oil and gas but raping nations is
not on the agenda the western world needs to rethink
its strategy on as we enter the 21st century not all
Muslims are fools either. Hitler invaded Poland by the way.
george william taylor, hull, uk
Tony Blair is basically a decent bloke out of his depth. He, like all other PMs, fall for the twin evils of 'influence' and 'special relationship'. The US in WWII pursued its own interests, including driving a wedge between Churchill and De Gaulle that resonates to this day. As it was the Soviets that defeated Germany had not Hitler declared war on the the US, it would have had to in order to prevent a Soviet Empire from sea to shining sea.
The idea of influence is that of war being diplomacy by other means.. The British Army has too few assets to be independant (that word again) so it fights alongside the US one.
Unfortunately, General Sir Mike Jackson was wrong in thinking you can fight alongside someone and not like them. US culture is far too agressive both civilian and military. That agression has created problems in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The whole idea that UK derives influence through the US is flawed. Piick up the medal, there is nothing else to show for 10 years as PM.
eddie reader, birmingham, uk
With apologies to Lewis Carroll
I thought I saw a lapdog
gnawing at a chair.
I looked again and saw
it was a grovelling Tony Blair
acting just like Bush's poodle
with its taill up in the air.
Phil Linehan, Mexico City, Mexico
Whatever the makeup is of the United States, every ethnic group in this country has a relationship with the UK. Hispanic Americans, like any other American, comprise a significant percentage of taxpayers contributing to the UK-US-Iraqi alliance. The USA received English immigrants who were homeless and unemployed in the UK. As a Native American with 3/4 Europaen ancestry, this war alliance format in both Afghanistan and Iraq are inexcusable; were entered into with Blair blasting his horn instead of playing it; and needs complete strategic rethinking. Maybe Mr. Blair won't receive a medal.
Patrice Bernier, Norwich, CT USA
George William Taylor, if you want to assure the people of the USA that we're not stupid can I suggest you do it in a way that reduces your grammatical errors and that uses correct (or even just some) punctuation?
Rod Munch, Northampton,
Winston Churchill has it right. Even so, one can't please all the people all of the time.
I think it would be right to pull our troops out of Iraq. It makes no sense to have our troops be a visible target. The terrorists need to be beaten at their own game by silent , yet effective action on our part. We pose no suprise and are least effective as sitting ducks in plain view in my opinion.
And as for immigrants in English speaking countries, show some respect and learn the language. I think it is rude for those who converse in foreign languages and make no attempt to speak English in our country. I wonder if anyone else feels the same way...
J. Cotton, Cincinnati, US
Iraq was so simple:
You depose Sadam, you remove the most brutal and sycophantic heads of the civil service and military, you hold UN run elections one year later and withdraw, leaving behind an intact, nonsectarian, flourishing democratic confederated Iraq.
So why did the Americans refuse to do this?
Because then there would be no perpetual war on terror.
And no doubling of war expenditure/octupling of profits.
And no quadrupling of oil prices/octupling of profits.
And Dubya's family & friends wouldn't be on the pigs back.
Duh.
Rewi Kemp, Auckland, NZ
Bush and Blair.. Scary combination.
Kim Righetti, Upland, Calif. USA
Unfortunately, the reality here among my American compatriots is that the average American is Ignorant of world affairs. My fellow citizens are not as enlightened as they should be regarding world affairs and also regarding our British friends. Dear fellow Americans, have you ever parsed the constant phrase that is always repeated by Tony Blair and the British Government. As stated above and I quote "But Sir David insists that the Prime Minister, because of Britain’s long-term interests, would “have had to work closely with whoever was in power”. what are the long term interests? Simply put, the British own the United States. They have purchased everything of value and relegated the left overs to the Japanese. For example, Visa and Master card are British owned. Every time a card is used we pay royalties to the British. Now that the British recently paid of their debt to us for expenses incurred during WW 2, the British may become a World Super Power once again. Watch out.
Niwa, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Andy in Ecuador
If you're going to post on a UK newspaper website, please have the decency to know the difference between England, Britain and the UK. England never went to war against Argentina in 1992. For a start, the war was in 1982, it was against a jumped-up military dictatorship (something that seems to be quite popular in your end of the woods) and it was prosecuted by the British Army, Understand? That includes Scotland and Wales and as the UK, Northern Ireland. Don't sully the English exclusively with your vitriol.
Good comment about the US saving the UK in WW2 from the horrors of the German language. I totally agree. We couldn't have defeated Nazi Germany without them. Nor without the French, Polish, Dutch, Soviets, Canadians, South Africans, Kiwis, Aussies, Indians, Greeks.........
As for the notion that the US is the only Superpower, I think the Russian Federation and China might have something to say about th
Invicta, Chatham, England
The USA in certain areas is probably the most disliked nation in the world, and we can't be far behind either so in fact we are both" Billy No Mates" the difference being the US as the money and power to rent a few friend's we don't anymore.
Bas, Nottingham, England uk
Jay Stranahan, Dan from Council Bluff and M.Fernandez you need your heads examined.
John , Farnham, Surrey
Jay Stranahan, Sacramento, CA, US, it's time to lose that almighty chip off your shoulder, bud! Look, we're grateful for all that America has done for us. For giving us Churchill (through his mother). For helping us out in the war (even though we fought alone for two years while America was hedging its bets). For giving us the burger (and never mind the obesity). Now we see the likes of Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, the Patriot Act, and the imposition of a quasi dictatorship through the mad junta of neocon tricksters, and we worry, we really do. The Stamp Tax is the least of your worries right now. Belatedly, Blair realises how wrong he was, even though he won't actually say "sorry", so the last thing he will do is draw attention to himself once more by showing up for the medal, which would go down over here like accepting a poisoned chalice. Anyway, Blair is done and dusted. The new kid on the block is one Gordon Brown, though not for long.
Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England
I'd like to point out that the medal Mr. Blair might receive from the Congress IS NOT our (military) Medal of Honor. They are two different awards. The medal from Congress is gold, sizable and sits on your mantlepiece or in a museum. Our (military) Medal of Honor sometimes erroneously called the Congressional Medal of Honor is smaller and suspended around one's neck when worn. Great acts of valor in combat are required to earn it, like the VC. It is awarded by the President "in the name of Congress", hence the colloquial mistake of calling it the "Congressional" Medal of Honor..
Carl T. Sahlin, Annandale Virginia, USA
I would not like to be in Tony Blair's shoes. As an Oxford graduate in Law, he knew full well that the American invasion of Iraq was a totally illegal violation of the UN Charter. Yet he had to go along with it. Why? The logical explanation is as follows:
When he became Prime Minister he went to Margaret Thatcher, a distinguished and long-serving ex-Prime Minister, for counselling on the nature of the job, since although she herself was a Conservative, it was a long, long time since Labour had been in power. You can bet your bottom dollar that she advised him to preserve the Atlantic Alliance at all costs. My guess is that the cost in this case, in following George Bush into the illegal war against Iraq, was his own conscience as a lawyer. We'll see what he says in his memoirs when he leaves office.
Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England
Interesting... It seems by many of the posts that the 'special relationship', which initially was brought about by shared cultures and history, has been transformed into centering on their total loathing of their political leaders.
Misery loves company!
Jack G., Lisle, USA
Bush can plead diminished responsibility. What's Blair going to say? "I fell in with the wrong crowd."
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan
>> Please get over the "Yo, Blair" thing. That by no means is a put down in our culture.<<
Bush: "Yo, Blair"
Blair: "Alright, mate?"
No, doesn't really work, does it?
Matt, Guildford,
With friends like Bush, who needs.............?
Peter Day, Doncaster, UK
Many reports have indicated how Blair is awed and intimiated by the trappings of Washington, superficial as they may be to many others. He demonstrated his pitiful poodlehood with the Clintons and worse with Bush. His association with Bush impaired his credibility and lessened Britain's earned position as a world leader. The American people have a fond regard and respect for the British people, not the present Prime Minister. We hope they share similar sentiments for us and the existing holder of our highest office. We look forward to new leadership on both sides of the pond and working together as equals.
Deborah B. Luyster, Jacksonville, USA/Florida
You Brits (and Americans, and Australians) who are endorsing the view that Tony Blair is Dubya's "poodle" must not have read the article, You are endorsing Ambassador Manniing's comment that such a view of Bush/Blair is cartoonish.
As the Ambassador (and writer) make clear, the relationship is much more complicated than that.
But no, you critics just want to indulge your emotions and believe that slop that mass media on both sides of the Atlantic feed you.
If we, the USA and Britain, have the GUTS to stick it out in Iraq and the Middle East generally we will have changed the course of history, as we did together in World War II.
Peter Collins
Washington, DC,
Peter Collins, Washington, DC
Kevin Sutherland from Belfast got it right. More honesty please. Blair is not as big a fool as Bush but a more accomplished self deceptionist.Great pair of world leaders. Not.
John , Farnham, Surrey
America is too often spoken off as if its people are a single homogenous group, like the Japanese, Chinese, Russians or others. It is not. It is a country of immigrants. Some have been there for generations, others for just a few years. The UK has no 'special relationship' with most of these ethnic groups. Are we really expected to believe, for example, that Hispanic Americans know or care anything about the UK? Each ethnic group is the USA has its own international affiliations and US foreign policy seems to reflect the power of these groups within the US political structure. Maybe once there was a European/Anglophile lobby in the States, but I suspect there isn't much of a voice these days.
Regarding the Medal of Honor, could it be that the collection of this has been 'monetarized' into a forthcoming lecture/book release/whatever tour that our PM has planned? I think most people in the UK would regard that as pretty plausible.
Charles, London, England
The policy disaster that is Iraq won't be over when Mr Bush goes. He has crippled America's ability to enlist support for years to come.
Mark Aronson, Sydney, Australia
Please get over the "Yo, Blair" thing. That by no means is a put down in our culture. Rather its an address that means a good friendship, based on a relationship thats open and close. Its used when getting the attention of a pal...not like summoning a waiter for more water like your press has made out. Remember in the movie Rocky..."Yo, Adriane"?
I guess that raises a question. Why do you knock us?...when even still...you really don't know us.
Murph, Madisonville, KY/USA
Lets face it, 'Great' Britain lost its identity years ago - we might as well be Americas lap-dog as anyone elses! We only have ourselves to blame.
Rod Munch, Northampton,
From the comments in the article which make no mention of the disastrous impact on humanity that Bush and Blair are responsible for, it would be easy to surmise that Sir David Manning is also a poodle. By making excuses for both Bush and Blair, he is effectively running off to fetch Blairs slippers in order to make his leaving No 10 somewhat more comfortable. By implication he is also looking after his own interests on his way to Dulles airport. Hopefully Tony will reward him with a nicely furnished Kennel in Brussels.
M Jeffs, Bucks, UK
I would like to reassure the people of the u.s.a. that we
the British are no pushover or stupid anybody with a brain
could workout it would take a lot more than 45 minutes
for a missile to get from Iraq or Iran and believe me if
margaret thatcher had still been our our prime minister
Baghdad would have been in the history books,remember
your forefathers where British and we are no pushover,
but we still lead and unlike sheep don't follow.
george william taylor, hull , uk
The medal is "still being designed"? I guess that means they are not sure whether to depict Blair with his little tail clipped as per Crufts recommendations
Ken Charles, Todmorden, UK
So Blair is nobody's poodle, he's a man of conviction who makes up his own mind and acts not caring what anyone thinks. If this is the case why doesn't he go and pick up his medal? He could use it as an opportunity to ram hom ehis own version of events.
Mark, Newcastle,
To Jay Stranhan of Sacramento, CA
George Bush has about as much chance of being awarded a Victoria Cross as Osama Bin Laden has of being invited to a Buckingham Palace tea party!
Oh, and and where was Dubya when during the Vietnam war??
Joe, London,
Mr. Shipham, you do realize that those two statements ("no truer friends") aren't mutually exclusive don't you?
C Heathcote, Brick, USA, NJ
As an American, I personally appreciate the British point of view on American geopolitics. With the Internet, more smart Americans are going to the major British Newspaper websites to get a balanced foreign perspective in English on our own culture. Sadly our own media has failed us. Now that the BBC is available via our public broadcasting, we really wonder about our own media's underreporting of world events. There is no greater friend to America then the British and your collective commonsense perspective on America and world.
Here in the USA, the recent firing of radio shockhost Don Imus over stupid racial comments, FCC proposals to stop allowing so much violence on our television, the firing of a coarse talk show host from the program the View, the proper investigation of the Attorney General over political hires, the increasing vocal opposition to the Bush war by the members of Congress, seems to be indications of better, more sane times ahead here in America. Thank you Brits!
Peter, Kingston, NY
I agree with Jay Stranahan and Dan from Council Bluffs, IA.
M. Fernandez, San Francisco,
What I can't understand is why Blair supported Bush in the invasion of Iraq when Blair was the first to know that Bush was lying. Lap-dog seems to be the obvious answer. The proud British deserve better.
adamsrw, Longwood,
jay,
A draft dodgers being awarded a VC - interesting thought...
stevo, london, uk
I say everyone in the Anglo world name his poodle Tony, crown him with a yellow rose and put nothing but barbecued hamburger and baked beans in his plate.
Eugene, Heidelberg, germany
Sir David Manning is yet another apologist for the Bush/Blair axis of deception!
Kevin Sullivan, Belfast, UK
Sure Great Britain's (England only) PM. is not only a "poodle" of the US. but its pet also.
The UK. should get out of Irak and let those mad factions over there to have their own civil war (obviously after the US. withdraws also).
It's sad to say but I don't know how many decades (many!) ago the UK. stopped being a super power - before WW II...? If it had not been by the US., in England, German would be the official language now - it's true!
England barely defeated Argentina in 1992 at the Falklands war... Did I spell "Falklands" well, because their real name is Malvinas (Islas Malvinas) and as I know they should belong to Argentina...!
I hope that the next president of the US. - the only super power left in the world - would be a Democrat such as Al Gore to help us against the worst threat of all - GLOBAL WARMING!
Andy, Guayaquil , Ecuador
We're sorry. Tony Blair is thought very highly of here and when we say the U.K. is our "closest friend" we should add "confidant", "most trusted ally"...we need you like flowers need the rain.
Dan , council bluffs, ia,
Maybe you should give Tony a medal. He made Great Britain a party to the most terrible mistake in the history of America. Your Prime Minister, our president's poodle, helped sell this disaster to the American public and the world. You should be proud.
c. perry, Boynton Beach, U.S.A Florida
Jay Stranahan. I am unaware of Dubya's glittering military career in the British armed forces......please enlighten further. I am keen to know the reason for his citation for the VC!!
Phil Shipham, Sydney, Australia
American's relish the day that Bush will finally be out of office. His buffoonery has embarassed us and made us the joke of the rest of the world. It is at this low point in American popularity that Blair's decision to "wait" to be presented is undoubtedly a smart one. It would only reiterate the view that Blair is 'Bush's pet', and who wants that on their resume when they are about to start job hunting?
Ian Biggs, Park City, USA/Utah
We're sorry. Tony Blair is thought very highly of here and when we say the U.K. is our "closest friend" we should add "confidant", "most trusted ally"...
Dan , council bluffs, ia,
George Bush 2006 : "America has no truer friend than Australia" Quoted in speech to house of representatives Canberra.
George Bush November 13th 2001: "America has no truer friend than Great Britain"
Do we think he will ever say America has no truer friend than North Korea?
Phil Shipham, Sydney, Australia
I'd like everyone over there to imagine what you would feel if it were openly noised in the New York Times that the reason our President couldn't come over and pick up his Victoria Cross was that his relationship with the PM -- and our relationship with Britain generally -- was seen as such a political millstone about his neck that he had to wait until he was out of politics. I think you'd be insulted and astonished... and you'd also have this eerie feeling that the Yanks were coming unhinged. (Okay, so we're jolly sorry about the whole Stamp Tax thing. What have we done to you *lately*?)
As an Al Gore Democrat, I made my peace with Dubya a long time ago. You lovely, pretty, intellectual, cosmopolitan, so-civilized people over there have no excuse.
Jay Stranahan, Sacramento, CA, US