The Bush-Blair alliance

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who meets with President Bush tomorrow in Washington, has the gift of impassioned eloquence — not that it has done him any favors on his side of the Atlantic. Time and again, Mr. Blair has made the case for war in Iraq and the larger war on terror in his speeches, press conferences and op-eds with erudite determination.

Like Mr. Bush, since September 11, the prime minister has transformed his administration into a single-purpose powerhouse against terror. Such determination has earned him, most unfairly we think, the ire of his own Labor Party, many of whose members enjoy referring to Mr. Blair as Mr. Bush’s “poodle.” As his record shows, Mr. Blair has ignored such insults because he must. Great Britain, and especially London, is directly in al Qaeda’s crosshairs. Unlike some of his European counterparts, Mr. Blair didn’t need the Madrid bombings to grasp the fundamental threat facing all democratic nations. In a recent op-ed for the British newspaper the Guardian, Mr. Blair underscored his conviction: “I have come to believe the only ultimate security lies in our values. The more people are free, the more tolerant they are of others; the more prosperous, the less inclined they are to squander that prosperity on pointless feuding and war.” This from the leader of a party to the left of the Democratic Party.

The prime minister’s visit to Washington tomorrow is therefore an occasion fraught with both practical and symbolic implications. On a strict policy level, although the summit was scheduled before last week, the recent massacres and uprisings in Iraq require a discussion on the June 30 transfer of authority from the coalition to the Iraqi transitional government. But as the president said in his press conference on Tuesday night, that deadline should, and will, stand.

A more important issue facing the president and Mr. Blair is the role of the United Nations in Iraq’s future. Mr. Blair’s party, along with numerous British newspapers, is calling for the prime minister to use the occasion to secure Mr. Bush’s support of a U.N. presence in Iraq. If only because of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s statement on Tuesday that “for the foreseeable future” there will be no U.N. force in Iraq, we don’t expect much to change. Judging from the corrupt U.N. Oil for Food program, however, we don’t particularly believe any sizable U.N. force can improve matters — militarily or administratively — anyway. On the other hand, Mr. Bush has expressed an interest in obtaining a U.N. resolution granting legitimacy for the Iraqi transitional government. Mr. Blair’s visit to Mr. Annan today in New York could prove useful in mediating an agreement on the matter. Questions regarding a NATO presence should also be addressed.

But we believe there is more at stake in tomorrow’s meeting than debating a U.N. rubber stamp or reiterating deadlines. The Bush-Blair friendship is a symbolic alliance as much as a practical alliance, and its continuation is vital to the war on terror. Since September 11— but more so since the invasion of Iraq — the Western nations have been divided on how to prosecute this war against Islamist fanatics. During the Cold War, the West stood fairly well-united against Communism, with states being either free or Communist. As the Madrid bombings proved, however, this “either/or” outline doesn’t account for supposed “non-participants,” as Spain has declared itself, for the war on terror. Such states undermine the appearance of Western strength — a trait the terrorists appreciate far more than many of our allies. Critical to this is the battle in Iraq. As Mr. Blair explained in his Guardian op-ed, “Of course [the terrorists] use Iraq. It is vital to them … They know it is a historic struggle. They know their victory would do far more than defeat America or Britain. It would defeat civilisation and democracy everywhere. They know it, but do we?”

We know that as long as the Bush-Blair alliance holds, the war on terror can move forward with hope.