-Caveat Lector-
World dispatch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,897483,00.ht
ml
Poodle power
Far from being the subservient partner in the transatlantic relationship,
many Arabs believe that Britain actually holds the key to preventing a US-
led invasion of Iraq, writes Brian Whitaker
Brian Whitaker
Monday February 17, 2003
The Guardian
Arabs, unlike the British, are not particularly fond of dogs. Kalb! (dog) is
what Arab drivers call other motorists who cut in or pinch their parking
space. Dogs in the Middle East are dirty, snarly creatures and the idea of
cuddling them or letting them lick your chin is thoroughly repulsive.
So while everyone in Britain knows exactly what is meant by describing
Tony Blair as President Bush's poodle, Arabs are usually baffled. There isn't,
in fact, a genuine Arabic word for poodle. One English-Arabic dictionary
(since there's no letter P in Arabic either) suggests al-boodil but adds, for
the benefit of those who are still puzzled, that a boodil is an intelligent
dog with thick curly hair.
It is therefore unsurprising that Arabs have developed their own, rather
different, perceptions of the transatlantic relationship. Many of them
ascribe much more importance to the British side of it than Britons
themselves do: Britain, they believe, provides the brains while the US
supplies the money and the muscle.
In doggie terms, it's as if the poodle were taking Mr Bush for a walk rather
than the other way round. The idea itself is not quite as ridiculous as it
sounds. In the case of Iraq, Arabs point out that Britain plays a key role in
drafting UN resolutions, and it was probably Mr Blair, with some help from
Colin Powell, who persuaded Mr Bush to give the UN route a try instead of
resorting immediately to Lone Ranger gunslinging.
Such examples are certainly important but they don't tell the whole story.
Mr Blair also went off to Washington to demand a solution of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict in return for supporting the US on Iraq, and all he got
was a little bone to gnaw on, in the shape of the Road Map to Peace.
The real nature of the British-American relationship is certainly difficult for
outsiders - and sometimes insiders too - to understand. But it's particularly
important at the moment that Saddam Hussein does not misunderstand it,
since it figures large in his calculations.
Iraq has made no secret of its view that Britain holds the key to avoiding
war. It argues (rightly, I think) that, whatever unilateral action Mr Bush
may threaten, he will not actually attack Iraq without British support.
Iraq's goal, therefore, is to drive a wedge between Britain and the US. Mr
Blair, in turn, is well aware of Iraq's goal and has made sure so far that no
wedge can be driven.
But Mr Blair is now paying the price for his solidarity with the US
domestically. The protest march in London on Saturday - probably a million
strong and certainly the largest anti-war demonstration Britain has ever
seen - must be especially worrying for him.
The participants included the usual leftwing elements but, overwhelmingly,
the protesters were ordinary folk of the kind who elected Mr Blair and are
now troubled by the direction in which the government is moving. A few
days earlier, the government's latest horror dossier on Iraq was deservedly
mocked when it emerged that whole pages had been copied from
academic articles on the internet and passed off as coming from
intelligence sources.
Next came the strange affair of the terror threat, when tanks that most
people imagined were en route to Baghdad suddenly surrounded Heathrow
airport. It is a measure of how Ba'athised Britain has become that, despite
official insistence that the threat was genuine, many people dismissed it as
a crude attempt to put us in the mood for war. Where Iraq and terrorism
are concerned, the British public now treat their government's statements
with the same incredulity that the Iraqi public treat the regime in
Baghdad.
The danger is that these events could easily be misinterpreted by Saddam.
Just because Britain is a democracy (something that Saddam knows little, if
anything, about), it doesn't mean that Mr Blair is going to fall from power
or will be forced to change his policy. He could be punished at the next
election, but that's too distant to be relevant just now.
Even so, there are differences between Britain and the US that Saddam
can exploit in order to save his skin. Britain's primary aim is to disarm Iraq
and it favours removing Saddam by military means only if disarmament fails.
The aim of the US, on the other hand, is the removal of Saddam, with the
weapons issue merely providing legitimacy for his removal. The American
neo-conservatives go even further, regarding regime change in Iraq as the
trigger for toppling other governments in the region.
What this means in practical terms is that effective disarmament of Iraq
would satisfy Mr Blair and thus deprive Mr Bush of
