Europe South Asia Asia Pacific Americas Middle East Africa BBC Homepage World Service Education



Front Page

World

UK

UK Politics

Business

Sci/Tech

Health

Education

Sport

Entertainment

Talking Point
On Air
Feedback
Low Graphics
Help

Tuesday, November 17, 1998 Published at 16:39 GMT


London shoulder to shoulder with US

Standing together on Iraq

Of the five permanent members of the Security Council, only Britain has given the United States unqualified support during a series of stand-offs with Iraq. Diplomatic Correspondent, Barnaby Mason, examines why:

The instinctive reaction of any British government is to back Washington in a crisis.

That goes back at least to the alliance of World War II when the two countries stood together in the face of tyranny. The relationship is backed up by a common language and a habit of co-operation in many fields, not least the sharing of intelligence.

In one crisis, at Suez in 1956, Britain took military action AGAINST the wishes of the United States, and that ended in a humiliating climb-down at Washington's insistence.

In contrast, the instinctive reaction of any French government is to take a different line from the Americans, though less stridently than under General de Gaulle.

Shared ideology


[ image: A warm reception for Mr Blair at the White House]
A warm reception for Mr Blair at the White House
Now, the traditional Anglo-American bond is intensified by the warm personal relationship between Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. They have hit it off in a way not seen since Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Their thinking on social and economic policy is also close - Mr Blair described it as the politics of the radical centre.

A similar warmth has been seen in meetings between the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, and the British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, with some effusive words of praise on each side.

A balancing act

Also important in the confrontation with Iraq is Mr Blair's desire for Britain to play a leading role on the world stage, not just in the European Union. Working with the United States is a way for a medium weight power to make its voice heard; the professionalism of British forces is a valuable asset.

Over Iraq, the European Union has previously been unable to agree on and pursue a coherent foreign policy. Britain has been reluctant to join in the thankless task of trying to pin down President Saddam Hussein to a workable deal which does not fully implement UN resolutions.

Historic responsibilities

There are other factors too. As a nuclear power Britain is particularly sensitive to the dangers of a ruthless leader getting his hands on weapons of mass destruction. The Labour government is also aware that, under the previous Conservative administration, Britain played a large part in the West's arming of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

In opposition, Robin Cook was prominent in Labour's attacks on the Conservative cover-up of the arms-to-Iraq affair.

Britain's historical relationship with the Gulf perhaps provides a final reason for its hard line on Iraq. The British administered or gave protection to a number of Arab sheikhdoms in the past.

The lingering sense of responsibility for their stability is reinforced by hard economic interest in Gulf oil supplies and the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia and other states on a huge scale.



Advanced options | Search tips




Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage |




LATEST NEWS

ROAD TO THE BRINK

FORCES AND FIREPOWER

DECISION MAKERS AND DIPLOMACY

TEXTS AND TRANSCRIPTS

HAVE YOUR SAY

INTERNET LINKS





In this section

Saddam Hussein: his rise to power

Butler: Iraqi hate figure

Kofi Annan: Man with a mission

The Iraqi opposition: A simple guide

The UN's Mandate

US Interests In The Gulf

London shoulder to shoulder with US

Iraq: the French connection

Russian MPs brand Clinton 'sex maniac'