ark og ulands

 

 

 

 

 

Blair's whisper

Now concerning the question of the split within Europe - exemplified in the debate about "Old Europe vs. New Europe" which Donald Rumsfeld provided us with in the spring. I would suggest that it's very curious to see Great Britain, under a Prime Minister who is the most left-wing they've had for 25 years, cooperating so closely with an American president who is arguably the most right-wing leader that the US has had for the same period of time. That you've seen a re-forging, some would suggest, of the 'Special Relationship'. Is that true? Has Great Britain chosen to side with the other side of the Atlantic and will that be a permanent feature of the international landscape? 

DH: Well, Blair's relationship with Clinton was much better than it is with Bush, so it wasn't that he decided just at the time of 911 to reforge the partnership. The British have long had their own choices, which they try to avoid: do they choose bilateral partnership with America over deeper cooperation within Europe, or do they seek to enhance overall British influence, including with America, by becoming a more serious European partner? In the 90s, many argued that the British would be much more influential in the world – and with the United States -- if they were fully and strongly part of Europe. 

Is that your evaluation as well? 

DH: I think September 11th convinced Tony Blair that that was not on. That simply becoming more a part of Europe when the United States had faced an existential threat, wasn't the way the British were GOING to have much influence in Washington. So the Europe-project I think for Tony Blair simply faded: it didn't provide any prospect of greater global influence. He returned to the more standard British approach, and my analogy is the simple one again: he embraced George Bush so tightly, because he hoped that at critical moments he could whisper in his ear about the things he needed to do. Whereas the Chirac-approach - the French approach - is to publicly, loudly show where the differences are - and in that way they have influence with the United States. And in each approach the end goal is to influence Washington - the means, of course, are very different. 

But is there a cultural factor as well? I am certain that 9/11 made a deeper impression on the British when it took place in New York than it would have if it had taken place in Amsterdam.

DH: Could be. Many British were killed, of course. Again this point: the British suffered - I think 200-250 British citizens were killed. I believe they did feel that. They have had reason since then to believe that, you know, they are also a target - the ricin for example [traces of the poison ricin was found in a raid in North London in January 2003, and more found in March in Paris. It is 6000 times more powerful than cyanide, ed.].

They have had a number of real episodes in London that have been uncovered: this is not just fantasy, this is real stuff that they have had to deal with. They've also of course had the experience of terrorism, as you indicated, for decades.

FIRST PAGE

   NEXT

PREVIOUS

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Illustrationsfoto: The White House (Tina Hager)

Portrætfoto: American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, The Johns Hopkins University