Bottom Line
Difference of opinion
The recent overnight meeting between Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President Bush at Camp David has demonstrated that they speak different languages on the issues confronting the world. Although the goals are the same, they look at the issues from different perspectives.
Brown went to Washington as part of his trip to the UN, and not solely to meet President Bush. That shows his priority.
Brown made it clear that he was not Tony Blair. He is known to be intellectually brighter than his predecessor, less personally effusive towards Bush's policies than Blair, and looks at global issues with penetrating insight and a critical eye.
The first signal to the White House that Brown was a different person came when his aides indicated that he did not wish to appear in casual dress at a press conference, as Blair did with Bush. Both the leaders wore dark suits. This sent a strong message to the White House that the press conference was business, not pleasure.
The personal chemistry between Tony Blair and President Bush is gone. Brown wanted to be different from Tony Blair because of the political damage that any similarity might bring for him in Britain. Tony Blair suffered because of his closeness to President Bush, and Brown gave no indication that he would replicate that relationship with Bush.
It is noted that Tony Blair was removed not by his parliamentary party but by the people. Labour under Blair was losing popularity in the country, losing local elections, and he had to go. This was the reverse of Margaret Thatcher's exit in 1990, when parliamentary members removed Thatcher, although she did not lose popularity among the people.
What differences of opinion are there?
Brown has avoided using the term "war on terror," and has said that terror was not a cause, it was a crime. The frontline against terrorism is Afghanistan and not Iraq. In Britain, he instructed his ministers not to use the phrase "war on terror," and, indeed, the British officials were no longer to even use the word "Muslim" in connection with terrorism. Probably no political leader has more eloquently made the case that terrorism presents a mortal threat to the West, and to democratic values everywhere, than President Bush. Bush certainly continues to insist that the frontline against terrorism is in Iraq, and that the war on terrorism would continue. His administration has now substituted the term "long war" for "global war on terrorism." While Brown made it clear that the two countries have a strong alliance and common values, he stopped short of a personal endorsement of Mr. Bush's approach to terrorism. President Bush was clearly aware that Prime Minister Brown was walking a fine line, and made a point of saying that Britain was as important to the US, as it was the other way round. Brown made it clear, at a speech at the UN, that his policy was different from that of the US's. Brown listed terrorism alongside other "great challenges" requiring the allies to work together: (a) nuclear proliferation, (b) climate change, (c) global poverty and (d) the Middle East peace process. Brown has called for a "moral" crusade to deliver global pledges to tackle poverty and disease in the developing world. Emphatically, he said: "We cannot allow our promises that become pledges to descend into just aspirations, and then wishful thinking, and then only words that symbolize broken promises." The above policy is far removed from the American strategy of priority of closer engagement with terrorism. The other issues come later. Brown, for the most part, used careful language to describe the global issues, including the threat of terrorism. Brown has sobered up the atmospherics of British-US relations. He has brought to the relationship a new and skeptical eye. About Brown, the Economist says: "Like Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush, he is a Christian, but he seems to see the world more through the economic prism of GDP and jobs than the religious lens of good and evil." A political commentator, Ewen MacAskill, said: "Gordon Brown has established the kind of ambiguity in the relationship that did not exist between Tony Blair and George Bush. Although they may not be joined at the hip, they are still within touching distance." However odd a couple they seem to be, the reality is that Mr. Bush and Mr. Brown need each other. Brown's visit leaves British contribution in Iraq vague but, clearly, the trend is toward withdrawing its 5,000 troops from Iraq. The different languages the two leaders employed on Iraq and Afghanistan stood out. One thing, however, is that Gordon Brown may not have turned out to be the "dour" Scotsman President Bush was expecting.
Brown has avoided using the term "war on terror," and has said that terror was not a cause, it was a crime. The frontline against terrorism is Afghanistan and not Iraq. In Britain, he instructed his ministers not to use the phrase "war on terror," and, indeed, the British officials were no longer to even use the word "Muslim" in connection with terrorism. Probably no political leader has more eloquently made the case that terrorism presents a mortal threat to the West, and to democratic values everywhere, than President Bush. Bush certainly continues to insist that the frontline against terrorism is in Iraq, and that the war on terrorism would continue. His administration has now substituted the term "long war" for "global war on terrorism." While Brown made it clear that the two countries have a strong alliance and common values, he stopped short of a personal endorsement of Mr. Bush's approach to terrorism. President Bush was clearly aware that Prime Minister Brown was walking a fine line, and made a point of saying that Britain was as important to the US, as it was the other way round. Brown made it clear, at a speech at the UN, that his policy was different from that of the US's. Brown listed terrorism alongside other "great challenges" requiring the allies to work together: (a) nuclear proliferation, (b) climate change, (c) global poverty and (d) the Middle East peace process. Brown has called for a "moral" crusade to deliver global pledges to tackle poverty and disease in the developing world. Emphatically, he said: "We cannot allow our promises that become pledges to descend into just aspirations, and then wishful thinking, and then only words that symbolize broken promises." The above policy is far removed from the American strategy of priority of closer engagement with terrorism. The other issues come later. Brown, for the most part, used careful language to describe the global issues, including the threat of terrorism. Brown has sobered up the atmospherics of British-US relations. He has brought to the relationship a new and skeptical eye. About Brown, the Economist says: "Like Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush, he is a Christian, but he seems to see the world more through the economic prism of GDP and jobs than the religious lens of good and evil." A political commentator, Ewen MacAskill, said: "Gordon Brown has established the kind of ambiguity in the relationship that did not exist between Tony Blair and George Bush. Although they may not be joined at the hip, they are still within touching distance." However odd a couple they seem to be, the reality is that Mr. Bush and Mr. Brown need each other. Brown's visit leaves British contribution in Iraq vague but, clearly, the trend is toward withdrawing its 5,000 troops from Iraq. The different languages the two leaders employed on Iraq and Afghanistan stood out. One thing, however, is that Gordon Brown may not have turned out to be the "dour" Scotsman President Bush was expecting.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments