 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Analysis: U.S.-U.K. Differences Deepen
Washington, (UPI) Jan 24, 2005 Immediately after President George Bush's re-election Prime Minister Tony Blair said he expected the president to pursue a more "consensual" foreign policy in his second term. Now the British Labor Party prime minister is engaged in trying to make sure his theory was right. As part of this exercise, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is expected in Washington in an attempt to narrow differences between Europe and the Bush administration over how to stop Iran's nuclear program. The Europeans want to negotiate further with the ayatollahs, following Tehran's recent agreement that it will suspend uranium enrichment while trade talks continue. What the Bush administration wants is not entirely clear. European observers say that understanding U.S. intentions on Iran has not been helped either by Bush's strongly interventionist inaugural address - or by remarks about Iran last week by Vice President Dick Cheney. In his address, Bush declared that the United States would support democratic movements and institutions throughout the world, "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The speech caused concern overseas because its lack of specifics suggested more Iraq-type interventions. It came after Cheney said ominously in an interview that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of potential trouble spots. He said the United States favored a diplomatic solution, but "the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards." Israeli officials have on more than one occasion denied any such plans. Blair's unwavering support for Washington in the Iraq war cost him dearly in both popular and party support. On Feb. 26, 2003, the British prime minister faced the largest parliamentary rebellion in over a hundred years. Some 120 members on the Labor benches voted against the government's policy of supporting U.S. military action against Iraq. With an election looming in the early summer, Blair is trying to reassure the rebellious left wing of the party that Britain will not be dragged into any more armed interventions by the Bush administration. His hopes of reaping some political benefit from Britain's support of the United States in Iraq are mainly pinned on being able to persuade the Bush administration to get serious about rekindling the Middle East process. Significant progress with the Middle East "road map" would help repair the rift with the British Labor left. But just as Blair acted out of personal conviction in backing Bush on Iraq, he also seem to genuinely believe that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is crucial to bringing stability to the Arab world, and he is pressing Bush to use American influence in the region, in particular with Israel, to expedite a lasting peace. The impact on the British elections of progress in the Middle East is one consideration, but there is more, according to analysts in London. In June 2005, Britain assumes the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union, and it is in Blair's interest to demonstrate his credentials as a peacemaker as well as a wartime prime minister. Every EU country tends to concentrate its presidency on advancing a major issue. The word is that a re-elected Blair would want to make a lasting resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with coordinated American and EU efforts as the centerpiece. On the U.S. side, Washington objects to the EU's plan - which Britain supports - to lift the arms embargo against China. The ban on arms sales was imposed in 1989 after the Chinese regime suppressed pro-democracy protests in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, but the Europeans want end it, once certain safeguards are put in place. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted in Beijing Monday that there was a divide on the issue between Washington and Brussels. But he added that U.S. and EU officials would have to "manage these differences" in the next few months. All rights reserved. Copyright 2004 by United Press International. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by United Press International. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of by United Press International. Community Email This Article Comment On This Article Related Links SpaceDaily Search SpaceDaily Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express Space Analysis and Space OpEds
The Dream Palace Of The Space Cadets
Honolulu HI (SPX) Nov 24, 2005I spend some time lurking in many online discussion groups concerned with space travel. From this I have learned that these opinion columns have made me something of a bete noir to the pro-space community. People attribute all kinds of sinister motives and bizarre behaviors to me, just because I try to take a detached and skeptical view of manned space flight. |
|
|
| The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2006 - SpaceDaily.AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA PortalReports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additionalcopyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement |
