Guessing game: Why isn't Tony Blair working more closely with Europe?
What makes him so keen to stick behind the Bush administration as
it pushes the world towards war? So that he can distract attention from the dodgy companies attached to his government? So that he can lord it over the EU? So that he can be given another
standing ovation from Congress?
As the party pr machines begin the job of chopping up those who continue to
argue against war, two politicians, perhaps with greater freedom to say what
they think than their colleagues, make a break for reason.
Boris Johnson, Tory MP for Henley and editor of the Spectator, wants to be
convinced that Saddam must be taken out and that this can be done without a
'revolting' loss of life in Iraq. He wants a clearer articulation from
the PM, the 'Hugh Grant of diplomacy', about what matters in British
foreign policy. And he wants an answer to the question: if Saddam, then why
not Mugabe? The answer's obvious, of course, he realises. America has no direct
interest in Mugabe's bit of Africa. [Daily
Telegraph].
Meanwhile, Mo Mowlam, former Blairite, former cabinet minister, argues that
the Whitehouse hawks are intent on causing mayhem in the Middle East because
they want direct control over the Saudi oil fields. Where does this leave the
British government, she asks: 'Are they in on the plan or just part of the
smokescreen?' [Guardian].
Johnson may be wrong about Zimbabwe. Mowlam may be wrong about Saudi Arabia.
But both their arguments point to a growing feeling that Britain needs to have an independent foreign policy. What's good for General Motors, or for Exxon or Halliburton, may be good
for the majority of Americans and it may be good for some in Britain. But it
shouldn't form the basis for what Britain does abroad.
