Key Goals of the State Visit
The
goals of President Bush's state visit should be to:
- Demonstrate a united Anglo-U.S. front on
Iraq,
- Strengthen U.S.-British cooperation in
the war against terrorism,
- Formulate a joint position on dealing
with rogue states, and
- Provide
reassurances to Washington regarding NATO and the European Security
and Defense Policy (ESDP), as well as the European
Constitution.
The
President should emphasize that Britain is America's most important
ally and thank the British people for their sacrifice and support
over the Iraq issue. Critically, he should state that the
Anglo-U.S. alliance will remain the cornerstone of U.S. strategic
thinking.
In
his meetings in London with Prime Minister Blair, the President
should also discuss the future direction of Europe. President Bush
should raise U.S. concerns over the European Constitution, stressing that further
European integration will doubtlessly have consequences for the
special relationship. He should also raise the issue of the desire
by some member states of the European Union to develop the ESDP as
a competitor to NATO and its possible impact on the future of the
alliance.
Iraq
Britain played a major role in the war to remove Saddam
Hussein from power, deploying 45,000 combat troops to the Gulf. It
was the largest British military deployment since the Second World
War, representing over a third of the nation's armed forces. Over
10,000 British troops remain in Iraq, and the British currently
administer the southern region of the country, including the city
of Basra. During the deployment, 53 British servicemen have been
killed, including 22 in combat.
Britain's continuing involvement in Iraq
will be critical for the country's transition. The British Army
brings with it years of highly successful experience in
peacekeeping in a wide range of theaters of operation, including
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Northern Ireland.
The British possess an in-depth knowledge of Iraq and the region
and have close diplomatic and historical ties with much of the Arab
world. The President should urge the Prime Minister to continue his
long-term political and military commitment to the future of
Iraq.
Tony
Blair should also be encouraged to play a more high-profile role on
the international stage with regard to post-war Iraq. Blair was a
pivotal figure before the war in developing the case
internationally for taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein
from power. He played a crucial role in building the broad-based
international coalition of the willing that liberated Iraq.
Washington was heavily dependent upon London in generating
diplomatic support in Europe, which ultimately included Spain,
Italy, Poland, and over 15 other European nations.
While the Iraq war was a huge military
success, the strains of post-war administration and reconstruction
have placed both the U.S. and British leadership under immense
pressure. Since the end of hostilities in Iraq, the White House and
Downing Street have faced mounting criticism over their handling of
intelligence information in the lead-up to the Iraq war, as well as
growing impatience over the pace of political reform and economic
progress in Baghdad. There is also growing unease domestically,
both in Britain and in America, over guerrilla attacks on coalition
troops serving in the country and the growing cost of rebuilding
the country.
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair
must remain focused on the continuing hunt for Saddam Hussein and
terrorist insurgents, as well as the establishment of a stable and
free Iraq. The U.S. and U.K. should present a common front in the
face of growing international criticism of the coalition
administration of Iraq. The two nations must remain united in their
determination to establish a secure, representative, and
self-sustaining Iraq. The state visit to London will provide a
valuable opportunity for London and Washington to renew their call
for greater international support for the reconstruction of
Iraq.
The
White House and Downing Street should also formulate a joint
position on the Iraqi debt question, advocating debt forgiveness as
opposed to debt restructuring. The U.S. and U.K. should formally
call upon European countries (primarily Russia, Germany, and
France) and Arab countries (including the Gulf states and Egypt) to
forgive the huge debts owed by the Iraqi government. It would be an
opportunity for Europe and the Arab world to make a historic
contribution to the economic development of post-Saddam Iraq and a
major gesture of support for the Iraqi people. If the Iraqi debts
are not forgiven, the Iraqi people will be financially crippled for
a generation--perhaps even generations.
The War on
Terrorism
Since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in
September 2001, Britain has stood steadfastly with the United
States in the war against terrorism. The U.K. was the first country
to join with America in launching military strikes against the
Taliban in Afghanistan, and the British Prime Minister played an
outstanding role in helping to build the international coalition in
the fight against al-Qaeda. More than 1,500 British troops served
with the International Security and Assistance Force in Kabul,
which was led for the first six months by the U.K. A further 1,700
Royal Marines served alongside their U.S. counterparts in the hunt
for remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
As
Vice President Richard Cheney has described it, Iraq has now become
the "central front" in the war against terrorism. U.S. and British
special forces continue to launch search and destroy missions
against Baathist guerillas as well as foreign insurgents operating
inside Iraq. To stem the flow of international terrorists flowing
into the country from neighboring Arab states, the U.S. and U.K.
must coordinate efforts to pressure Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran
to cease their support for terrorist groups and hand over Baathist
leaders who may have sought safe haven in their countries.
Intelligence gathering will be critical to
winning the war against terrorism in Iraq and internationally.
While increasing their coordination of anti-terrorist measures,
London and Washington should enhance intelligence cooperation
between the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Britain's MI6.
Britain and America should continue to share intelligence through
the Echelon electronic surveillance system while excluding other
European nations, in particular France and Russia, both of whom
provided Iraq with sensitive intelligence ahead of the coalition
invasion. Echelon
should continue to be shared only by the United States, the United
Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
While the war on terrorism has brought
even closer cooperation between the United States and Britain,
there are potential pitfalls for the special relationship. The
thorny issue of Europeans held by the United States on suspicion of
involvement in al-Qaeda terrorist activities is likely to be a key
issue of contention between the U.S. and British leaders when they
meet. Tony Blair will be under intense pressure from his own Labour
Party to secure the suspects' return to Britain. Over 200 British
Members of Parliament have called for the United States to
repatriate British Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United Kingdom.
(Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has also been critical of the United
States' handling of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo.)
While addressing British concerns over the
continuing detention of European suspected terrorists at
Guantanamo, President Bush should be wary of making immediate
concessions. The fact that it will be extremely difficult for
British or European courts to secure convictions against any of the
suspected terrorists carries with it serious implications for the
global war against terrorism. This would not serve the interests of
the United States, Great Britain, or other European allies. Indeed,
while Prime Minister Blair will need to demonstrate concern over
the plight of British detainees, it is by no means clear that he
would relish their return to Britain.
Rogue
States
The forthcoming meeting between President Bush and Prime
Minister Blair offers an excellent opportunity for Washington and
London to coordinate an effective policy on dealing with rogue
regimes. A joint stance by Britain and America will place added
pressure on the U.N. Security Council, the European Union, and
other international bodies to take action against regimes that pose
a threat to international peace and security.
Britain and America must jointly increase
pressure internationally to isolate North Korea and Iran to prevent
them from developing and proliferating weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. and U.K. should pressure other international powers such
as Russia and China to end nuclear and military cooperation with
rogue states.
The
White House and Downing Street should call upon the United Nations
to play a more constructive role in helping to disarm dangerous
rogue regimes. Instead of acting as a glorified debating society,
the U.N. should be an effective multilateral body for addressing
threats to international security, including the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. Over Iraq, the U.S. and British leaders
displayed outstanding world leadership at a time when the United
Nations demonstrated a lack of fortitude and a blatant
unwillingness to enforce no fewer than 17 resolutions calling for
the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Europe
In his meetings with the British Prime Minister, the
President should speak frankly about U.S. concerns over the
European Security and Defense Policy and the European Constitution.
Both issues may have major implications in future years for both
Anglo-U.S. and U.S.-European relations.
European Gaullist efforts to establish a
European defense identity separate from and in competition with
NATO continue to gain ground. Berlin-Plus, the March 17, 2003,
agreement reached between the U.S. and the EU that was designed to
definitively resolve questions of compatibility between the two
institutions, has
been called into question by Franco-German efforts to set up a
wholly separate EU planning structure.
During the height of European opposition
to the U.S. stance on Iraq, the viability of Berlin-Plus was called
into question by France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Belgium. These
four countries advocated the establishment of an independent EU
military headquarters at Tervuren, Belgium, with an independent
planning capacity. Beyond the obvious operational drawback of such
an institutional arrangement leading to unnecessary duplication
with NATO, the political ramifications of such an outcome are
clear. The independent EU command would be wholly autonomous from
NATO and would function effectively as the institutional expression
of Franco-German efforts to lessen the American role in Europe.
Ambassador Nicholas Burns, the U.S. representative to NATO, rightly
sounded the alarm, calling such an outcome "the greatest threat to
the future of the alliance."
President Bush should strongly support the
Berlin-Plus agreement and put an end to the seemingly inexhaustible
efforts of European Gaullists to scupper American efforts to
establish a complementary military arrangement between the U.S. and
the EU in which NATO continues to remain the preeminent
transatlantic security institution. For the sake of the continued
vitality of the alliance, he must echo Ambassador Burns's comments,
making it clear that the duplication of planning by the new EU
command is not remotely acceptable to the United States. Only by
taking such a firm stand can the President finally bury this
recurring threat to NATO.
At
the same time, the President should convey the message to Prime
Minister Blair that the White House is also concerned by the
potential impact on U.S.-European relations of the European
Constitution. He should express the view that the establishment of
a politically centralized Europe run by supranational institutions
could fundamentally alter the relationship between Europe and the
United States.
President Bush should also seek assurances
that the Anglo-U.S. special relationship will not be harmed by
British commitments to a future constitution. A common European
foreign and security policy that prevents Britain from standing
alongside the United States when it wishes to do so would be a
nightmare scenario for planners in Washington.