Once Again, Tony Blair

[Annie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...on23.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/23/ixworld.html

'We would have been close even if 9/11 hadn't happened'
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 23/04/2006)

Tony Blair had just finished a video conference with George W. Bush when I arrived to meet him at Downing Street. Their conversation, inevitably, had been mainly about Iraq. "Every week, we have a video conference to catch up on things," he explained. Compared with the fresh-faced young man who swept into Downing Street in 1997, the burdens of high office, together with the relentless attacks on his judgment and integrity, had undoubtedly taken their toll.

Bush and Blair
Blair on Bush: 'He is extremely courteous and straightforward'

We met in his private room at the back of Downing Street, a spacious, elegant drawing room with large sofas and an imposing marble fireplace. Unlike the president, who had exuded supreme self-confidence when I interviewed him a few weeks earlier, there was a wariness in Blair's manner, as though he sensed that whatever he said, there were still large numbers of people who would not believe him.

His approach, too, was more businesslike than the president's. There was little small talk and, after serving tea in delicate porcelain teacups, he indicated he was keen for the interview to commence. I began by asking him the question that I had asked the president, namely how it was that he had managed the transition from being a close political ally of President Clinton to becoming President Bush's most important supporter.

"It is always sensible for a British prime minister to have a good working relationship with the president of the United States," said Blair. "The relationship with President Clinton was very much about setting a progressive agenda for international politics and how to change and reform in order to be able to govern. But what was a harbinger of the relationship I was to have with President Bush was when I did Kosovo with Clinton. I had always taken the view that we should be prepared to be very strong in the assertion of democratic values and that rogue nations should not be allowed to do what they want. After September 11, of course, all this became even more important. So it may not be as surprising as it first seems."

How easy was it to establish a good working relationship with Bush after Clinton?

"Even those who most strongly disagree with President Bush in the international community would say that he is both extremely courteous and very straightforward. I suspect it would still have been a good, close, working relationship if September 11 had not happened, but obviously that redefined the relationship at every single level. If you look at the joint press conference we gave after meeting for the first time in February 2001, I was talking about the whole issue to do with proliferation, of nuclear and biological weapons, of terrorism, because I had become increasingly concerned about it.

"By 2001, before September 11, I was already in a pretty tough mode towards global terrorism or the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [I was] becoming increasingly alarmed at the number of terrorist incidents and also that this terrorism seemed to be aimed at creating the largest number of casualties."

From a very early stage in Blair's premiership, he seemed determined to have a close working relationship with the White House. How much was this down to the influence of Baroness Thatcher and the other people he conferred with when he first became Prime Minister, and how much was it his own judgment that Britain's defence and security needs were best served by having a close alliance with the US?

"Yes, it's true a lot of people expressed that view. But I had come to the conclusion before we came to office - and even more so afterwards - that the transatlantic alliance was crucial to the security of the world.

"The American relationship is absolutely central. I run our foreign policy on the basis that Britain should have strong alliances in Europe and maintain its pivotal alliance with America. I would not have committed this country to conflict simply on the basis of the American relationship."

Irrespective of who the president is?

"Absolutely. Irrespective of who the president is."

Clearly this was very much in your mind when 9/11 happened. You were straight out there…

"Yeah."

Standing shoulder to shoulder, there's no daylight between us?

'I never had a moment's doubt about this. Because 9/11 for me was, 'Right, now I get it. I absolutely get it.' This has been building for a long time. It is like looking at a picture and knowing it was important to understand it, but not quite being able to make out all its contours. And suddenly a light was switched on and you saw the whole picture. It was a defining moment. We stood shoulder to shoulder with America because my belief then, and my belief now, is that America was attacked not because it was America - but because it was the repository of the values of the Western world, and it was the main power embodying them. It was an attack on all of us. And I don't mean that in a sentimental way."

By the time of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration had settled in. Bush was proud that he had strong personalities filling key positions in his administration, people like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Immediately after 9/11, some of them were talking about taking military action against Iraq. What influence did Blair bring to bear on the formulation of Washington's policy immediately after 9/11, and how difficult was it for him to have his voice heard above these powerful figures?

"I have never really found this a problem because of the very direct relationship I have had with the president. My view straight away was that we had to deal with Afghanistan, the training ground [for al-Qaeda], that we should deal with it by way of an ultimatum, that we had to concentrate on that for the moment, and, on the issue of Iraq, which I was certainly very exercised about myself, we should not rush our fences."

So when was it precisely that the Prime Minister first discussed Iraq with the president after 9/11? Immediately after the attacks?

"Yes. My view was that we could no longer, post-September 11, just say, 'Well, look, it doesn't matter whether they [the Iraqis] are in breach of UN resolutions or not. There has got to be some enforcement.' Now that is a long way off saying you agree to take military action. But certainly, for me, September 11 was part of the picture in relation to Iraq. But there was an agreement then that what was essential first off was to deal with the issue of Afghanistan."

Were there any significant differences of approach between the Prime Minister and the president during that period? There were many people in Washington who gave the impression they did not want outside assistance. Their view was that, as the world's only superpower, the US was quite capable of responding on its own.

"Well, I never came across that problem with these particular individuals. But I was very clear. You know, this is an attack on all of us, we'll build a coalition to deal with it. But it is important to build a coalition, to put in place the ultimatum, and get the UN behind it. That is a sensible approach. One of the things about President Bush is that he did not, as other presidents might well have done, send the fighter planes to Afghanistan on September 12. Actually, it was not until November, after he had gone through a whole process, that action was taken. Again, that gives the lie to some of this sense that this was a trigger-happy reaction."

After the overthrow of the Taliban, the coalition moved quickly on to Iraq. But, four years later, British troops are being redeployed to Afghanistan to assist the coalition effort to clear up the remnants of al-Qaeda. Did this mean the military campaign in Afghanistan was not completed in 2001 because of the rush to go to war in Iraq in 2003?

"No. My view of this has probably evolved since September 11. My view is that the origins of these security problems - with their mixture of secular dictatorships, religious fanaticism, failed nation states, governed, in every sense, by oligarchies - are the Middle East. This is a struggle that will only be won when, across the whole of the Middle East, there is a place for greater democracy, human rights, religious toleration and so on…"

That makes you sound like a neocon, you know that?

"Yeah, but I think spreading democracy and human rights is very progressive. I can't quite get this idea it is supposed to be neocon."

The neocons, I pointed out, originally came from the Democrat wing of American politics.

"I just go with my instinct. But I keep saying to people: one of the greatest failures of progressive politics in my lifetime has been that, in the anti-American parts of the progressive Left, we have ended up on the wrong side with someone as evil as Saddam. Even now, when we have been there with a UN resolution, we are on the wrong side of the battle between terrorism and democracy. I can't understand how progressive people can be on the wrong side of that argument.

"It's not, unfortunately, as simple as saying, 'Deal with Afghanistan and leave Iraq for a bit.' You've got to deal with the whole element. That's why, when I spoke to the American Congress [July 2003], I tried to outline an agenda that would encompass Afghanistan, Iraq, the spread of democracy across the Middle East, the resolution of the Israeli-Palestine problem. All of these things are major factors. But the one thing I know for sure is, we are never going to get anywhere by showing weakness. You can see this in respect of Iran now, where I think it is very important that the world gives a strong signal. This is why, in respect of Afghanistan, it was never going to be over in two or three years. But what is the alternative? To let al-Qaeda be and continue to inflict misery on the people. I have never found it very difficult to justify removing the Taliban."

For the Americans, it had been official policy to effect regime change in Baghdad since 1998. What about Blair? After all, he seemed to be suggesting that regime change was a good idea if you could get away with it.

"No. Our position was that you have to do it according to the enforcement of UN resolutions. Because of the nature of the regime, it was always going to be difficult to accept any assurances and to get cooperation. We didn't get cooperation and, therefore, you were justified in terms of UN resolutions, and, in a sense, you could do so with a clear conscience. Our security lies in the spread of values, which it would be false to say are Western values. They are universal values and it is our job, in our own interests, to help people achieve democracy. It is a moral role and, ultimately, it will help us achieve real security. You cannot have real security when there is an unstable dictatorship. This particular global terrorism has been a product of its people being brought up in societies where they are taught at a very early age religious extremism and fanaticism, and they don't have the ability to express themselves politically in a democratic way. Let's be clear, this whole business has been exported out of a perversion of the faith of Islam and is now a global movement. Now that movement has taken root in many countries, including my own, here. That is why, for me, defeating terrorism is necessary for our security. It is also a cause in which I believe."

Even so, the Prime Minister had suffered enormous political damage because of his staunch support for Bush. Would it not have been better to have accepted the president's invitation to withdraw British troops from the coalition in March 2003 when it became clear a second UN resolution was not forthcoming?

"Look, you either believe in it or you don't. And if you believe in it as strongly as I do and think that it is the right thing for the country, you can't just hide away. What we cannot have is a situation where we say to America, 'We want you to be engaged in the world, but we are not prepared to be there with you. When the going gets tough, you are on your own. You've got the armed forces, you've got the people who are capable of doing this. You go and do it. And we'll speak up for you when it is convenient for us to do so. But we want you to stay engaged as well. We don't want you to pull up the drawbridge and go and look after America.' No, we can't be like that. An alliance is an alliance, and if the alliance is attacked, which is what I believe fundamentally about September 11, then it is the job and the duty of the allies to stick together. And if they don't stick together, then there is a very simple solution for people in America - to say, 'Well, let's look after ourselves.' This idea that when the going gets tough, you just walk away and leave them to get on with it, I just don't like it. And I had made up my mind I was going to come with them. I thought it was the right thing to do.

"Look, I would have liked a second resolution. Of course I would have. It would have made life a lot easier for me. But we couldn't get the second resolution, not because the objective had changed in Iraq, but because there was a political disagreement. So, then, you had to decide: are you going to do this thing or not do it. To have walked away at that point would just have been a real failure of courage."

If that is your argument, what do you say to people who say that Britain has got little in return for its support of the US since 9/11?

'One way to answer it is to go through all the things where Britain and America, by working closely together, have fashioned policy together. For example, the ultimatum in respect of Afghanistan, the whole process to do with the UN on Iraq, what we have been trying to do in the Middle East. All these things. Global poverty. Whatever. But actually all of that is based on a complete misunderstanding, which is that it really is not in our interests to stand by America after 9/11, and, unless we get something back in return for it, we shouldn't be doing it. The whole premise of that is one I disagree with."

But, I repeat, this argument is frequently put.

"Of course it is. But occasionally it is best just to stand out against these things. And the fact of the matter is - what was September 11? It was an attack on America as the most powerful country in the Western world. And I have no doubt at all that any of us are vulnerable to this kind of attack. I meant what I said when I said it was an attack on all of us. And if it was an attack on all of us, it was in our own interests to stand up. I haven't done this because I believe it is in America's interests. I am not elected in America, I am elected in Britain. I've done it because I believe it to be in Britain's interests. Now I know that is fiercely disputed by my critics, and there it is. But this war against terrorism is happening now, and it affects all of us. And we should stand together to fight it."