Stephen VasciannieAS I write, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are having their informal summit at the Texas ranch owned by the former.
At this meeting, Bush and Blair are no doubt adding further layers of cement to the putative Anglo-American "special relationship", and will be deepening the personal bond that appears to have developed between the two leaders. At a time when the Mideast is in flames, and President Bush's perception of Iraq remains unchanged, both Bush and Blair will have pressing points for consideration coming out of their weekend meeting. The political basis for the Anglo-American special relationship is not difficult to fathom. Though notable matters of taxation, Boston Tea and self-determination once shattered the relationship between the colonists and the Mother Country, both countries have graduated to an era of steady co-operation in investment, trade and cultural matters.
Joined almost at the hip by language and by history, the United States and Britain also see common cause in their defence of particular goals. These goals include promotion of plural democracy, individual initiative, the rule of law, and stability in world affairs. To be sure, neither country has been consistent in the pursuit of these goals; good Lord, we can all find instances of American and British hypocrisy in international relations, and sometimes both countries stray from their stated goals in order simply to promote their national self-interests. In fairness, though, this criticism is applicable to most, if not all, major powers; and at least in the case of the Americans and the British, one has the sense that wayward state actions are usually subjected to the pressure of democratic scrutiny from various interest groups and from within Government itself.
That said, the talk of the Anglo-American special relationship is interesting, because it raises the question as to how the American and British administrations actually benefit from their very public friendship. Or, in other words, what's in it for them?
AMERICAN INTERESTS
From the American perspective, the link with Britain is important because it helps to foster the image that the sole surviving superpower or as it is now being described, the hyperpower is not wilfully unilateralist in its approach to international affairs. Both before and after September 11, one of the challenges of American foreign policy has been how to encourage other countries to see things in the American way, without, simultaneously, gathering unto itself the reputation of throwing its weight around.
This is not always easy: in recent times, the American perspective has carried considerable influence in the areas of trade and investment, and with respect to State use of force, very little now happens unless the United States is on board. But, with respect to the Law of the Sea Convention, the Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Convention concerning the environment, the American position has not endeared itself to most States in the international community. America, therefore, has had to develop policies that encourage the perception that it is prepared to co-operate with various nations: hence, perhaps, the new aid initiative announced at Monterrey a few weeks ago, for example.
In this context, the United States benefits from its clear association with Britain. The friendship emphasises that what Madeleine Albright called "the indispensable nation" is not alone, and thus implies that American policies are meant to reflect interests that stretch beyond the Potomac to other countries. This friendship is particularly important today: in the aftermath of September 11, there was considerable symbolic value in the fact that Pr-ime Minister Blair was present at the Ca-pitol to hear President Bush's initial response to al Qaida treachery. And, now, as the Middle East cauldron overflows, the American position will benefit from British support: this is so not least because various European countries now view American actions in the Middle East with great scepticism.
HIGHER LEAGUE
But what is in this for Britain? From the standpoint of realpolitik, the Anglo-American alliance allows Britain to play in a higher league than its current military and economic strengths would suggest. Britannia, it is true, was once the ruler of the waves, but today, that degree of mastery has clearly passed to the United States; and other countries, including Germany, France and Japan, now have economic claims to power that can stand beside the British position. Britain still has considerable influence through its Common-wealth links, though, as the Zimbabwe confusion suggests, that influence may be waning, particularly in Africa. It also has influence through the reputation of its institutions, its activities within the European Union, and its historical trading and investment connections.
But, arguably, the things that keep Britain in the top league of political importance are its permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council, and its special relationship with the United States. The special relationship allows Britain the opportunity to convey proposals and perspectives directly to the American leadership, and thus, to influence the pace and direction of American foreign policy. These are no small matters in the world of power.
In her latest book, Statecraft, Margaret Thatcher emphasises ways in which her friendship with Ronald Reagan helped to shape the course of world events in the 1980s. This is readily understandable, for, amongst other things, Thatcher and Reagan were ideological soul mates at a time when the Cold War delineated the boundaries of international discourse.
Interestingly, though, this type of ideological connection cannot be assumed for Bush and Blair. The former is described by some critics as a hard-line conservative, representing essentially the interests of the wealthy; and the latter is the leader of New Labour, a party which, though pragmatic in orientation, retains at least a modicum of liberal activism at its core. Bush and Blair are, therefore, not natural allies. Perhaps Bush and the British Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, would share the same philosophical approaches to politics. Perhaps, too, Blair's natural ideological partner is former President Bill Clinton. And yet, despite the possible ideological dissonance between Bush and Blair, both leaders are prepared to hold fast to their alliance, an axis of convenience that strengthens both sides.
Stephen Vasciannie, a UWI lecturer, is Visiting Fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge University in Britain.
