The differences between Brown and Bush

Brown might be pro-US, but he is no Blair.

The world media still seems to be buzzing about the meeting between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President George Bush. While they seemed to agree on many points, their disagreements — no matter how subtle; often on big issues — are coming to light. Bush views Iraq as the central front in the United States-led 'war on terror', whereas Brown sees Afghanistan as where the real battle against terror is and should be.

Iraq is no doubt full of terrorism, but only because of sectarian violence and foreign occupation. There are many factions, and so many battles. Terror networks via militia exist in both Afghanistan and Iraq and reach even to the national level (e.g. allegations of Saudi Arabia and Iran fueling some groups). But Afghanistan is the original site of the GWOT and the occupation there has the backing of the UN and NATO. Iraq, on the other hand, is much less straightforward and, contrasting with the reality of the occupation in Afghanistan, one can make the case that foreign soldiers being there does little in the fight against international terrorism.

Iraq is becoming a hotbed because of the war (blowback) — both the civil one and the one started in 2003 by the US and its allies; Afghanistan would be a terrorist haven regardless. Some view this blunt difference in priorities as Brown's way of appeasing Britain and wider Europe, vehemently opposed to the Iraq war.

Also on Iraq, Brown said that the United Kingdom will stick to plan and withdrawal troops regardless of whether the United States stays. However it does plan to stay there until the job is done. While the leaders are stressing unity, the fact that Britain intends to go its separate way from the US in Iraq is major. The British PM also opposes the language of a 'war' on terror and thinks a military fight against terrorism is not enough. I agree.

Another good move (away from Bush) Brown made was on terrorism. He rightly described terrorism as a "crime", compared to Bush's view that it is an act of pure evil and we must stop it even if we destroy the constitutional foundation of America in the progress and kill many. Brown is not the politicizer of terrorism his Atlantic counterpart is famous for being; I believed he handled the attempted attacks in Britain earlier this summer well, from both a political and a policy viewpoint. He also is right to be worried and want to take action on climate change; Bush couldn't care less.

In politics message, and thus language, is everything. Bush and Blair managed to illustrate their contrasting views pretty well without looking like they oppose each other absolutely.

[Bush and Brown's] words subtly illustrated, not policy differences, but their own policy priorities and approaches.

President Bush's language was, as always, full of phrases like "the war against extremists and radicals" in Iraq and around the world.

Prime Minister Brown deliberately described terrorism as a "crime", in an effort perhaps to demystify it and make it easier for everyone around the world, Muslims included, to oppose it.

And he tried to paint a more complex picture of Iraq by differentiating the factions - the Sunni/Shia split, the "involvement of Iran", the "large number of al-Qaeda terrorists".

However, as Mr Bush said, both agreed that this was "akin to the Cold War".
...
He called Afghanistan the "front line against terrorism," an honour normally assigned by Mr Bush to Iraq.

The British prime minister also referred a couple of times to the issue of "climate change". Mr Bush did not.

The point about Iraq and Afghanistan is that these are policies that Mr Brown inherited. This relationship has not yet been tested in the development of new ones.

The most difficult one could be Iran. Further sanctions are expected to be discussed at the UN in September but if there is no progress in getting Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, there could be pressure within the Bush administration for military action to be taken before the president leaves office in January 2009.

That would indeed be a test to see if the US and UK stayed together.

Brown also seems to be much more serious on humanitarian issues like Darfur than Bush, who limits his action on such issues to mere rhetoric (unless such issues might relate to his fight against terror, like in Somalia, then he'll even agree to indirectly work with/help the dreaded North Korea). Brown takes a special interest in world poverty and the plight of many in Africa; Bush cares only if terrorists may be involved, and even then the focus is not on the possible source of terrorism support: poverty, plight, and insecurity. Africa has plenty of that, and the Islamist extremists are taking advantage of that.

With all this talk of unity and strong ties, the leaders of America and the UK seem to have plenty of issues on which they disagree.

Bush-Brown Camp David accords

Britain's static post-Blair foreign policy with the US: same old thing (?)

On Sunday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown traveled to the United States for a meeting with President George Bush at Camp David. This if the first official meeting between Brown and Bush; it's hard to forget how close Brown's predecessor, Tony Blair, was to Bush. Today Brown will address the United Nations in New York — but the bigger news, of course, is how his relationship with the US is shaping out. If it is any indicator of the possible unchanging rhetorical lip-service policy that carried over from Blair to Brown, Brown stated last night that, as the BBC reported, 'the world owes a debt to the United States for its leadership in the fight against international terrorism'. (Who exactly is the US leading?) Superficially nothing much seems to have changed, except Brown wearing a suit as compared to Blair's Chinos; policy-wise it gets more complicated.

There has been plenty of speculation lately about the shift in relations between Britain and America. A report that the UK had been basically used for questionable activity by the US in its 'war on terror' had many, including me, talking about whether the signals of the end of the "special relationship" are valid. The BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, pointed out the lose-lose issue of Brown placating both the US and his electorate (from above BBC article):

Analysts will be looking for signs of the Brown regime distancing itself from the US during the trip.
...
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Brown was "walking a tightrope" in his dealings with America. ["He's doing all he can to signal to people at home that the Brown/Bush relationship will be very different to the Blair/Bush partnership, whilst striving to reassure the Americans that nothing fundamental has changed.
...
"The Americans are likely to seek reassurances about Gordon Brown's plans for the country that dare not be mentioned."]
He needed to reassure Mr Bush of his commitment to the Atlantic relationship as well as convince British voters that links between the US and the UK would be different to those maintained by former prime minister Tony Blair, our correspondent said.

So will Brown try harder to please voters, or please the American government? Considering what he's spewed out so far, it appears he is following Blair by pursuing the latter option: kiss up to the superpower, act like the 'war on terror' is a really good thing, point out all the things going right, ignore those going wrong, and let people know how lucky we are to have a nation like America in the international community (if only America gave back... diplomatically, that is; I'm not denying that the US doesn't do a lot of good, but it does do plenty of bad).

Will Brown be frank and serious about issues like the closure of Guantanamo, Britain's role in Iraq, and the unfair (to the UK) one-way treaties his predecessor dared not speak about with his American counterpart? Probably not, but we'll see. The Guardian offered an editorial/leader on the need for Brown to 'send the right signal'. There is no need for Brown to be irrational and anti-American like, worryingly, a good amount of his fellow Britons are becoming, that's not going to happen anyways; it would also be bad for him to be exultingly pro-American, failing to put the US in its place when it strays, and giving it the upper hand in nearly all aspects of their transatlantic relationship.

On at least one issue, Iraq, Brown is following lock-step with his predecessor's stubborn, possibly in-independent view. However the UK is not in nearly as much muck there as America. Today Brown said he agreed with Bush that the UK had "duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep" in Iraq. He then moved on to talk about moving "control to the Iraqi authorities", but failed to specify, as usual, roughly when or how. Bush seems to be testing the (Brown) water, i.e. trying to gauge whether Brown will be nearly the ally Blair was.

I agree with the shadow foreign secretary that Brown really needs to make his policy on US-UK relations clear, rather than letting confusion reign. It does appear, however, that Brown's attitude towards the US and his own government differs from his predecessor's. For one thing, he is to wear a suit to the meeting at Camp David; Blair often was more casual and brought his wife along. "Sofa" government has been thrown out with Blair, it seems, and Brown is hoarding less power from the parliament he is a member of compared to Blair's often unchecked power. Parliament should have such power; the prime minister provides leadership.

'Special relationship' breakup imminent?

Britain's "special relationship" with the US looks like it's heading into another rough patch.

BBC News:

British concerns did not appear to "materially" affect US actions in its "war on terror", the UK's intelligence and security committee has said.

The committee, which reports to the prime minister, was probing possible UK involvement in rendition flights.

It said America's "lack of regard" for UK concerns had "serious implications" for future intelligence relations.

In response, the UK government said the countries' intelligence relationship was "close" and "must continue".

The committee said it had found no evidence that the UK was directly involved in rendition flights - the transportation of terror suspects to foreign prisons where they could face torture.

But Britain's security services had "inadvertently" helped in one case after the US ignored caveats placed on supplied information.

It looks like bad boy America is further corrupting its English-speaking ally across the Atlantic with its 'war on terror'. These 'extraordinary renditions' — in certain cases confirmed by the Bush administration — are legal black holes: the CIA places terror suspects in secret prisons. To do so it must transport them. It has been revealed that the UK is one of many European nations helping America in this controversial program, breaching international and national law even inadvertently so. As if the US's involvement wasn't enough in the many programs of the 'war on terror' that have tarnished its image; third parties are assisting in this mass disregard of human rights.

Under Tony Blair, the UK and US were quite close, especially in going to war in Iraq and engaging in a 'war' against terror. Steadily many Britons got fed up with the relationship their nation shared with America, leading some to call Blair Bush's 'poodle'. However with the arrival of Gordon Brown as the new prime minister relations have cooled, no matter how much Brown's administration denies it. There have been conflicting statements by high-ranking cabinet members about a change, or lack thereof, of the UK's foreign ties to the United States.

The Brown government's ultimate reaction to this new report might serve as an indicator of how much 'war on terror' cooperation with the US — or as some see it, exploitation by the US — Britain will tolerate. Will Gordon Brown and his foreign minister, David Miliband, move beyond the rhetoric and institute a fair but open relationship with America, or will they continue to insist things haven't changed. Things have changed and Brown must decide whether to try to continue the foreign policies of his predecessor or adapt to the new reality.

Brown's cabinet shuffle

The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has named his cabinet today. The major changes include two different education secretaries, no deputy PM, and a mix of old and new people.

The commons leader is Harriet Harman, after being elected on 24 June to the position of deputy Labour Party leader; Alistair Darling is chancellor; the fairly young David Miliband will serve as foreign secretary (previously he was the environment minister); Jacqui Smith as home secretary; Alan Johnston for health (previously education); Jack Straw for justice (previously Commons leader; Hilary Benn for environment (previously development); and Des Browne will continue his job as defense minister in addition to a new role leading the Scotland office. There are a total of 22 in Brown's Cabinet.

This is a pretty major revamp, although some, including the fussy Liberal Democrats, have stated they view this as not enough change.

Miliband is not as supportive of Israel and America as Blair was; he also wants strong action to be taken on the issue of climate change. In addition, might his family's background play a role in how he serves in the Foreign Office?

David Miliband's Jewish background will be noted particularly in the Middle East.

Israel will welcome this - but equally it allows him the freedom to criticise Israel, as he has done, without being accused of anti-Semitism.

The biggest issue facing him will be Iraq, with three British soldiers killed there on the day of his appointment.

He is reckoned to be in favour of getting British troops out as soon as possible, consistent with Gordon Brown's declared policy of withdrawing when conditions allow.

Diplomats are wondering whether, as foreign secretary, he will become a blogger - recording his thoughts in an online weblog - as he was in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

I liked the fact that he blogged. When officials not only show their human side but allow their constituents and others to chime in on their policy-related opinions, it assists the transparency and flow of a democracy. It also allows statements and announcements at a less official level than, say, press releases. Policymakers' blogging creates a more open, two-way line of communication between public and government. Miliband got much attention — both positive and negative — for his 'eDemocracy'.

Exit Blair, enter Brown

As scheduled, Gordon Brown has taken over as leader of the United Kingdom. He immediately promised change in British politics — a promise we can only hope he can keep (not just in rhetoric). He has already spoken with a number of world leaders; US President Bush said he's looking forward to "working closely" with Brown government — hopefully not nearly as closely as he worked with Blair. Brown is quite the intellectual, but he will have to make up for some of his weak points, especially in comparison to his charismatic predecessor.

Meanwhile, outgoing PM Tony Blair is to become a Middle East envoy for the Diplomatic Quartet consisting of the US, EU, UN, and Russia. Considering all the troubles of the Mid-East — Israel/Palestine, the growth of terrorism, Lebanon, Iraq's civil war, Iran's nuclear program — Blair has quite a job ahead of him. Just hours after he resigned as UK prime minister... I guess he cannot resist working with Bush on, um, helping the Middle East. The White House is sad the "special relationship" between leaders Bush and Blair has effectively come to a close. Funny how America mourns the lost of the British leader as the UK is, for the most part, glad he's leaving.

technorati tags: UK, britain, united+kingdom, politics, news, bush, blair, brown, gordon+brown, tony+blair, prime+minister, middle-east

Blair's last day

Tomorrow, 27 June, will be the day Gordon Brown takes office as the 52nd Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He will be asked by the Queen to form a government tomorrow. Brown is currently Blair's chancellor of the exchequer and fellow Labour MP, and has been so since Blair has been Britain's leader.

Blair handed over the party leadership to Brown a few days ago (24 June) following his promise at the Labour Party conference last fall he would step down as party leader and prime minister before the next conference. He announced his departure in May. Since the announcement there's been much analysis in retrospect of the 10 years Tony Blair, the current prime minister, has been in power.

Considering the important position he currently fills and the even more important one he will have tomorrow, relatively little is known of Gordon Brown. We know he was actually supposed to become prime minister if Labour won the 1997 election, which it did, but the charismatic Tony Blair ended up getting the gold. Brown has been waiting years for the top job — and less than 24 hours it will be his.

I personally am a bit excited not only because a change in leadership means a change in politics (i.e. more news coverage and more blog posts), but mainly due to the 'war on terror' and fiasco in Iraq Blair has lost his edge. His best accomplishments were helping the economy, reducing poverty, increasing education, lowering crime, continuing the good policies of his Conservative predecessor John Major on making peace in Northern Ireland and achieving that peace, including with the IRA, and helping the NHS — though that was one of his failures too. Blair's worst characteristics were his civil liberties-restricting anti-terror policies and following the necon Bush administration into Iraq.

Expect Brown to distance himself from George Bush. The White House will likely feel the sting of a very different relationship with its English-speaking ally across the Atlantic. However on Iraq Brown is expected to roughly maintain the status quo. A cautious person from what I've read, he will not want to run the risk of pulling UK troops out immediately and being blamed for making the conflict there worse. He has spoken much on Africa and poverty, being at the forefront of aid and debt initiatives.

Brown shares the general viewpoint of many fellow politicians on the threat of global warming — remember he was the one who commissioned the Stern report on the economic impact of climate change. He is a calculated, practical man and has shown to be tough on terrorism — is that good or bad? — and very interested in international affairs, such as the Darfur genocide in Sudan and the Israel-Palestine conflict. We can guess he'll be more 'liberal' than Blair foreign policy wise, but to what extent is not really known.

Here are some links useful for learning more about the PM-in-waiting:
Wikipedia article
BBC News article on his known foreign policy views
Prospect article (year-old) on Brown's foreign policy
Profile by The Economist
10 Downing Street (PM's office) homepage
Guardian Unlimited profile
BBC News profile

And here's some good news to start Brown off on a positive note tomorrow:

Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will take office this week with his Labour Party ahead of its Conservative rivals for the first time in eight months [i.e. since October], a [Ipsos-Mori] poll showed today.

The poll, in the Observer newspaper, put support for Labour at 39 per cent and the Conservatives at 36 per cent.

Forty per cent of voters believed Brown would make a more capable prime minister, compared to just 22 per cent who prefer his Conservative rival David Cameron.

Still, an early election might not be the best of ideas for Brown. Spring 2009 is the expected time of the next general election. The Conservatives have been doing well for a while now, and it's only recently that the political pendulum appears to have swung in the way of Labor. The Liberal Democrats seem to be proving more stubborn towards Brown than the Tories, demanding a snap election so that Brown can prove himself legitimate.

So who will Brown be governing with? Justice Minister Harriet Harman was elected deputy party leader on Sunday in a surprising win of 1% over Alan Johnston. From the BBC Question Time deputy leadership debate I watched, she seemed a reasonable candidate. She strongly disagrees with Blair's Iraq policies as well as his media spin — something both he and his American counterpart Bush have mastered. Even during the Blair-Brown transition has the government been accused of burying stories. Brown has expressed hopes for a cross-party cabinet, although a Lib Dem has already turned him down after being offered the position of N Ireland minister.

Blair sets date for departure

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced he will leave office on 27 June.

He acknowledged his government had not always lived up to high expectations but said he had been very lucky to lead "the greatest nation on earth".

He will stay on in Downing Street until the Labour Party elects a new leader - widely expected to be Gordon Brown.

In an emotional speech, Mr Blair said he had been prime minister for 10 years which was "long enough" for the country and himself.

He thanked the British people for their support and apologised for when "I have fallen short".

(See also speech in full.)

Blair has done a lot of good, Northern Ireland and living standards come to mind, but also a lot of bad, namely by buddying up with the Bush administration in its 'war on terror' and passing questionable anti-terror laws as well as entering the Iraq war. One thing arguably good or bad was his reforming of the Labour Party.

Blair is a charismatic, intelligent leader, who seems to believe what he enacts. The UK's National Health Service has not been made much better, one of the major domestic hot topics that has faced the Blair occupation of No. 10 this past decade. The economy is doing better and education has seen some noticeable changes. He brought transparent, democratic government initiatives such as the Prime Minister's Questions, which I personally like immensely, but Blair also brought about some civil liberties crushing anti-terror reforms following the attacks on 9/11 and 7/7.

Labour has suffered defeat lately in local elections, especially in those of Scotland — a rebuke to the Blarite leadership? The fact of the matter is he's needed to leave for a while now, and his announcement today comes as no surprise.

As historians point out, Tony Blair has political savvy, he did work towards ridding Afghanistan of al-Qaeda, but he also brought the power of the PM to a "presidential" level.

What happens next?

Current Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown is likely to take over.

These days Mr Brown likes to talk about Britishness, which he sees as the fount of shared values that can bind society together. It often sounds a bit stilted. But of one thing Mr Brown is convinced: like him, the British care passionately about fairness. If he is right, and if he can find the words to express it (both big ifs), the voters may in time decide that there is something in this strange, clumsy, powerful champion of social justice that they find, if not likeable, at least admirable.

How long he will last is another question, but he is certainly qualified. Blair finally endorced Brown earlier this month for the job, and no serious contenders within Labour seem to have arisen.

Brown is an interesting man nonetheless. For one thing he is Scottish, which worries some English nationalists and xenophobes.

The not-so-conservative David Cameron, Conservative Party leader, is the greatest threat to Brown. On one hand he does not want to call a general election so soon (the last one was in 2005; they are generally five or so years apart), and by the way Labour is going Brown would probably loose. On the other hand he doesn't want people to look at him as a dictatorial-like successor to Blair, especially as the conservative media has labeled him "Stalinist" after his latest budget.

Rightfully, Blair has admitted the "blow-back" from Iraq. There has also been blowback at home from his Middle East excursions. Hopefully Brown will keep a more independent, yet international and liberal/centrist, foreign policy.

Farewell Tony. The end of the Blairite New Labour era — with all its ups and downs — is nearing. As Labour is down in the polls and the UK faces a number of important issues, a new, strong political leader is needed. Hopefully Brown will be able to step up to the plate. He has waited long enough.

technorati tags: tony+blair, downing+street, gordon+brown, david+cameron, labour+party, united+kingdom, blair+PM+resignation, prime+minister, news, iraq

When will we be rid of Tony Blair?

There was a good analysis (BBC) of British politics the other day relating to Tony Blair.

Whatever else happens in 2007 one thing seems certain, at some point Britain will have a new prime minister - even two, if David Cameron gets his way.

The single biggest political event of the year will almost certainly be the retirement of Tony Blair and the selection of his replacement.

And today we read more (Guardian) about the Blair hopefully soon-to-be-over leadership, and his most likely successor, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.

Tony Blair's silence over the manner of Saddam Hussein's execution until he faces questions in parliament on Wednesday was developing into a test of his personal authority last night.

Downing Street was bounced into issuing a statement criticising the execution as "wrong and unacceptable" yesterday to defend the prime minister's decision not to comment. The trigger came when the chancellor, Gordon Brown, used an interview on the BBC's Sunday AM programme to join a chorus of ministers in describing the events surrounding the execution as "deplorable".

The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, later accused Mr Blair of running a "dysfunctional government".

Mr Brown set out his future vision, which included giving greater power to parliament - such as having the right to vote on going to war - and encouraging people to become active in local politics.

The interview, which would normally be expected to be given by Mr Blair as a curtain raiser to a new session of parliament, focused on how the chancellor wanted the country to develop, including a warning to George Bush that he would be "frank" in defending Britain's interests.

Assuming Gordon Brown succeeds Tony Blair as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (that's the UK's full name, you know), he's letting Britain and the world know that he plans to no longer be President Bush's lapdog — as Blair has often been pointed out to be on Iraq and other "war on terror" issues. The ruling Labour Party, which Blair heads for know as PM, is likely to see Brown as its leader by fall 2007 (that's this fall for all you who have not gotten your calendar bearings yet).

Blair came into power with a sweeping Labour party victory in 1997 and was reaffirmed as the former superpower's head in 2005, however, I am honestly sick of him and his neo-liberal economic, hawkish military New Labour ideology. I feel much more comfortable about Brown, but is he too boring? Brits seem to respond better to John Reid as though but charismatic. However the chance of Reid, a fellow Blair cabinet member with Brown, becoming the next prime minister are minuscule; Reid has stated that he will not attempt to take the reins — at least not for now.

Blair's tenure as head of the United Kingdom has included the important topics of economics (EU- and workforce-related) and the NIH (Britain's government-fun public health service) reform as domestic issues and Iraq and the Middle East (including Afghanistan) in general as well as national security (after the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks) as other topics. Blair has helped the economy some, but the NIH is in as much trouble as ever with its computer debacle, national security is being supposedly brought or is just a guise for taking away civil liberties, and Blair has been far too close to Bush in his worsening of the Middle East.

Here are some of the points (Guardian) Brown made about what he plans to do assuming he becomes the next UK PM:

· Parliament to gain powers under 'servant state'
· Plans for frankness with the US and cull of advisers

How Gordon Brown intends to transform government

Whitehall
· New independent commission to run the NHS to improve delivery of healthcare
· Examination of a similar education commission to supervise delivery of education
· Review of role of Department of Trade and Industry

Parliament
· Parliament to get power to vote on whether Britain goes to war
· Government agencies, including police and security services, to be made directly accountable to parliamentary select committees
· Much tougher pre-scrutiny of legislation to ensure that fewer mistakes are made in law-making
· Reform of the Lords might be delayed

Local government
· Local police chiefs to be made accountable to local citizens' boards

Political advisers
· Cull of the old "Labour party apparatchik" political advisers, particularly in No 10 where they will be replaced by mainstream civil servants
· End of "sofa-style" government and strengthening of role of cabinet committees
· Abolition of special advisers' power to order civil servants to take action

To see the full Brown interview, broken down by topic, see this BBC News article.

Keep in mind, the centre-right Conservative Party (Wikipedia), the largest rival to Labour, has gotten the friendly, likable, and not all too conservative David Cameron as their head. Hell, he even convinced the party of Thatcher to change their symbol to a tree!

There is also the relatively minor opposition of the centre-left Liberal Democrats (Wikipedia), which holds 63 House of Commons seats compared to Labour's (Wikipedia) 354 and the Conservative's 198. (See how the Political Compass charts each party's ideology.)

technorati tags: tony+bliar, blair, brown, reid, david+cameron, analysis, commentary, ideology, party+politics, prime+minister, gordon+browne, united+kingdon, britain, british+politics, UK+politics, politics, news, in+the+news, current+affairs, conservative+party, liberal+democrats, labour+party, new+labour