When US Senator Edward Kennedy warned this week that the crisis in Iraq may be turning into "George Bush's Vietnam" he sent a shudder down the spines of Americans for whom a defeat and 55,000 US deaths remain a national trauma.
As British Prime Minister Tony Blair heads for New York and Washington this week -- amid stern declarations of unflinching solidarity with US President George W. Bush in Iraq -- a similar challenge faces him.
So far Blair has been lucky in the timing of the latest surge of fighting. Now on holiday, the prime minister might have been expected to speak out as the conflict flared inside Iraq. But parliament is in recess until next Monday, giving him breathing space to assess the position and reshape policy.
On Friday that opportunity began to look like a problem. As reports of more hostage-taking and fighting came in from Iraq, Blair was on the first day of his trip to the British territory of Bermuda. His departure -- leaving UK Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott in charge -- came after a week in which ministers have been notably absent from the airwaves.
That same day, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw appeared on BBC Radio 4's The World At One to admit that the coalition faced the "most serious" threat since the end of the war. Some detected a new, more critical tone towards the US military's approach to the insurgency. Ceasefires, not confrontation, are the way to moveforward, he seemed to be saying.
Straw's appearance came amid increased concern in Downing Street that the government's position was being damaged by its apparent silence as critics of the war took to the airwaves. The government is anxious to avoid the impression that it is running scared.
Yet the picture for Blair is more complex. In Britain -- unlike the US where the election campaign is under way -- Iraq has not become a dividing point between the main parties. The latest critical foray on the airwaves last Thursday of former UK foreign secretary Robin Cook, who resigned over the decision to go to war, is the worst No. 10 has endured so far. There is no equivalent of John Kerry, the Democrats' candidate for president, after Blair's job.
Like the ardently Bushite former Tories leader Iain Duncan Smith, opposition Conservative leader Michael Howard is pro-US and believes the overthrow of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was justified and will be vindicated. He cannot attack Blair too much without being called opportunistic and has pulled his punches.
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy's position is more similar to that of Kerry, albeit without his Vietnam vet's chestful of medals. But Kennedy must tread a narrow line between legitimate scrutiny of government mistakes and charges of ignorance or disloyalty. He too sounds muted.
Labour's Donald Anderson, chairman of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, just back from Washington, confirms that Blair's stock remains very high in the US capital and that doors open to British members of parliament as a result; less so for what are seen as the crypto-pacifists in coalitions across what is dismissed as "old Europe."
But the price in terms of domestic popularity and trust is high and may be getting higher. It is no longer impossible to imagine that Bush will lose the presidency on Nov. 2 and Blair be forced to stand aside for his heir apparent before Britain's own election.
Little wonder that Downing Street has not organized a press plane to follow Blair to see UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the UN on Thursday night and on to the White House the next day. The two leaders talk regularly by phone -- as they did last Wednesday -- but need private "face time" occasionally.
This is not a "crisis" summit, aides stress. The trip was set for spring or early summer, not too close to the Democratic and Republican conventions in July and September. Wisely or not, Bush wants his jamboree close to Sept. 11.
It's understandable that Blair does not want too much made of his trip. Jose Maria Aznar's defeat in Spain is not an encouraging omen. British voters have a chance to kick Labour in local and European elections on June 10.
Nor can Bush's closest Iraq ally be seen to be other than strictly neutral in the US campaign, whatever the private views on the best result for Blair which commentators -- on little or no evidence -- ascribe to him. As he showed in 2000, Blair is nimble-footed enough to adapt to either outcome; as ever, London will seek to remain the EU-US bridge.
But what will his friend Tony feel able to say to Bush? Aides stress the on-message determination not to be forced out of Iraq and to stick to the June 30 deadline for the handover of power.
It is likely that Blair will gently seek to impress Britain's hard-won experience at counter-insurgency and low-intensity urban warfare, hoping to render the US approach more subtle and more acceptable -- in Iraq and beyond.
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
RSS