.Clouds hang over special relationship Blair's pledge of allegiance masks worry and anger over US approach Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor, Julian Borger in Washington and Ian Black in Brussels Friday November 9, 2001 The Guardian Tony Blair famously pledged only hours after the attacks on New York and Washington to "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the US. Mr Blair, on his visit to Washington this week, still lined up enthusiastically with the US president, George Bush, but there was a gap visible for the first time. Significant differences are appearing over how the war should be fought and how Muslim opinion should be won over. Central to all this are the issues of the Middle East conflict and Iraq. Mr Blair returned from his Middle East trip last week convinced that there has to be a move towards resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is frustration in Whitehall that Washington does not share this sense of urgency. A Downing Street spokesman insisted yesterday: "It was very clear from the conversations that the prime minister had with the US president yesterday that they [the Americans] are also absolutely committed to doing what they can." But another civil servant disagreed: "The US focus is on Afghanistan, not the Middle East." The other big difference is over Iraq. Some in the US administration are pushing for an all-out war on any state that harbours terrorists, with Iraq lined up as the next target. British ministers react to this with horror. There are differences too over the prosecution of the war. The British position, shared by the military and ministers, is that ground troops should be used as quickly as possible and that a bridgehead be established around the strategically vital city of Mazar-i-Sharif, as the bombing campaign creates hostility in Muslim countries across the world. The use of cluster bombs and "daisy-cutters" also risks turning British public opinion against the war. This underpins concern about the lack of total commitment by the US towards the impending humanitarian crisis. Britain would like the US to demonstrate that the coalition is more than cosmetic and to provide a real role for the military of other countries. A British official cautioned that it would be unrealistic to expect harmony, but the problem is that the dividing issues threaten to become more serious. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict One British minister complained this week about the delay by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, in making his long-awaited statement setting out the US position on the Middle East conflict; one that would make a historic shift in the US balance towards support for a viable Palestinian state. That minister will have been even more exasperated to learn that a state department spokesman has now dashed expectations that the speech will be made at the UN general assembly in New York. Parts of it are believed to be included in President Bush's address to the assembly tomorrow, but it was unclear last night whether that speech includes mention of a Palestinian state. Since September 11, Mr Blair has made several trips to the Middle East, conscious that the divide between the Palestinians and the Israelis is one of the biggest causes of resentment towards the US in the Muslim world. Mr Bush has not demonstrated the same urgency. There is a strain of thinking within Washington that to try to resolve the Middle East conflict by switching from its traditional backing of Israel, would be seen as a reward for terrorism. Mr Bush has not met the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat since becoming president: he can correct that this weekend. Such a meeting would be symbolically important for the Arab world. Iraq Opinion within the US administration is divided, with some, such as the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, keen to take the war to Iraq and finish off Saddam Hussein. Attempts have been made by supporters of this strategy to make a link between Bin Laden and Saddam. The New York Times yesterday ran a lengthy piece quoting two Iraqi defectors as claiming the Iraqi government ran a secret camp to train Muslims to attack targets in the US and Europe, including hijack training. Such pieces help establish a context in which it will be possible for the US, if it successfully completes its actions in Afghanistan, to turn then to Iraq. In contrast with the mixed signals from the US administration, the British government is solidly opposed to any extension of the war beyond Afghanistan. One British diplomat said that Iraq was a "red line which Britain will not cross" unless there was solid evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam, even if it was established that Saddam had spent the last few years preparing weapons of mass destruction. Military British military commanders are frustrated by US tactics and an apparent determination to "shut out" allies, as one defence source put it yesterday. While Washington has repeatedly said it wants military help, it is reluctant to acknowledge it, let alone use it, official sources say. "You're not the only ones. You may have said you want us but your body language says you do not", a well-placed defence source said yesterday referring to Washington's approach. He said it was "remarkable" that not a single non-American officer had appeared at public briefings held by General Tommy Franks, the US commander. Seventy British military planners, as well as a smaller number of French, German, and Italian, are assigned to his headquarters in Tampa, Florida. Tony Blair was reported as pointedly telling friends that 4,200 British armed forces personnel in the Gulf committed to the campaign had been made available "so that they can be used". It is thought that more than 100 SAS soldiers are deployed in or around Afghanistan waiting for an assignment. Unlike US special forces, which rely on quick raids, the SAS are trained to stay on the ground for long periods. Washington, according to British sources, insists that the next raids must be carried out by US special forces. These have been delayed as a result of the failure of the raid by US Rangers on positions near Kandahar on October 20. British defence officials also believe the US has not paid sufficient tribute to air-to-air refuelling and reconnaissance operations carried out by the RAF. Though cautious as a breed, British military commanders are increasingly impatient about the reluctance of the US to commit more special troops on the ground as the Northern Alliance has shown little sign of having much effect. British views on how the war should be fought have support from military strategists inside the Pentagon, who have been pressing Gen Franks to take a more radical and innovative approach less reliant on bombing. However, the institutional resistance represented by generals like Franks is considerable. They remain steeped in the Powell doctrine(named after the former chairman of the joint chiefs, and current secretary of state), which emphasised the use of overwhelming force, air power in particular, as a means of achieving goals with minimum casualties - in a word: "overkill". Humanitarian effort The British and European governments, appear to be more engaged with the potential humanitarian crisis than the US. Part of the reason the British government has been pushing for the bridgehead is to create 'safe havens' for refugees escaping from the harsh Taliban government, the bombing and starvation. The US is proving reluctant - fearful that 'safe havens' could be infiltrated by the Taliban. The British are credited in US military circles for reminding US central command on the need for taking the humanitarian effort as seriously as the bombing campaign. Coalition In Washington, the US state department shares the British concern over the White House's tone deafness to Arab sensitivities. The blunt objection by the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, of a pause in the bombing for Ramadan was seen as unnecessarily offensive by many US diplomats. Britain's approach to the crisis involves another potential transatlantic difference - the European Union's role. British officials said one of Mr Blair's objectives was to persuade President Bush to take up other EU members - notably Italy and Spain - on their offers of military help. There is mounting concern about the difficulty of maintaining EU support for a long war, especially one that includes continued bombing. Smaller countries, notably Portugal, Greece, Belgium and the Netherlands, have been offended by the way the big member states, led by Blair, have undermined EU attempts to forge common policies. While Mr Blair understands Mr Bush's need to avoid a Kosovo-type situation in which target lists have to be approved by 15 member states, the US also needs to keep at least France, Germany and Italy on side, and the others broadly supportive. This is where there could be a tug between the US and the EU for British loyalties. _________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki Phone +358-40-7177941 Fax +358-9-7591081 http://www.kominf.pp.fi General class struggle news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geopolitical news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________
