NEW BRITISH PM ADMIRES AMERICA

British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown is charting a new path in foreign affairs but no one should construe that be the end of the “Special Relationship” between the United States and Britain. It simply mirrors Brown’s private statements and conviction that, as the Bush era comes to an end, he must respond to a resounding global clamor for change.
He also wants to distance himself from his predecessor, Tony Blair, who was so closely linked to the Bush White House and the war in Iraq that by the time he left office in 2007 he was a very unpopular figure. His closeness to President Bush may well prove to be the factor that discourages EU leaders from giving him the job he covets, namely to be the first president of the European Union.
There is, however, one thing the new PM and Blair have in common and that is their shared admiration for the United States and its people. Gordon Brown often holidays in Cape Cod and is known to have good relations with leading democrats. He has more than once declared that he will not radically alter the historic relationship between Britain and America. Nevertheless, he has also expressed a desire to manage his foreign policy in a way that places greater emphasis on diplomacy and less on the need to use force, or the threat of force, something he believes has defined the Bush White House.
On issues like Guantanamo and the rendition of terror suspects to secret prisons, or to intelligence services in countries like Syria, Morocco and Egypt, Brown has distanced himself from the President Bush. And, when it comes to relations with the UN, the new PM has been supportive rather than confrontational, arguing that it is the most important diplomatic body on the globe. He is more pro-European that Blair and believes Britain needs to form better relations with its European partners.
In respect of Iraq, he was keen from the moment he took office to get British troops out of that country. He angered the White House by not discussing troop withdrawals with General David Petraeus. Instead, ploughed his own political furrow and announced his plans for troop withdrawals from Basra when it suited him. On the matter of Afghanistan, he has not seen eye to eye with the US, believing as he does about most conflicts, that economic aid and major reconstruction policies should be at the top of the agenda for defeating terrorism. In particular, he has placed greater emphasis on British troops in Afghanistan forging better links with the locals and where necessary arming militias to fight the Taliban. His Afghan policy has led to tough exchanges between London and Washington. It could be said of his foreign policy that he approaches many international issues with the eye of an economist; a position that has not endeared him to those who think he needs to be tougher in projecting military options. Some defense experts think he is oblivious to the need for Britain to spend more of its GDP on its military and on counter-terrorism agencies. Those same experts warn that his tendency to see the war on terror through the prism of economics could be his undoing and could have dangerous consequences. They also argue that he lacks serious foreign policy experience and could find it hard to respond to a major international crisis in the Middle East.
One thing is sure. He is a difficult person to read. As Britain’s longest serving Chancellor of the Exchequer under Blair, it was no secret that he and Blair had a rocky relationship. Their private disagreements were often tabloid fodder. Former Conservative PM, John Major is on record saying he is not one of the only six people in the world who really know Brown. Most observers would agree he is a difficult person to read but, while he may be dour compared with the ever smiling Blair, he can be ruthless in his pursuit of what he wants. He has a formidable intellect and has little time for the cult of celebrity that Blair embraced. His energies are singularly devoted to his job, thereby allowing for few distractions.
There is a perception in some circles that when Blair was PM, Brown cleverly kept his fingerprints off the Iraq issue by never confronting his boss when there were major disputes in 10 Downing Street and even resignations by Cabinet colleagues. Brown tended to concentrate on economic issues and it now difficult to determine if he did that out of a desire to stay out of the political firing line or because the Blair government was compartmentalized, with each Minister focusing only on his or her own responsibilities. Blair certainly loved the global spotlight and was happy to keep his Ministers off the international stage when it came to issues like the Middle East. He also refrained from being critical of US Middle East policy and Washington’s stance on other prickly issues. Perhaps, in an effort to distance himself from the Blair legacy Brown has begun to separate his foreign policy from that of the Bush White House. His supporters say he is merely waiting on the arrival of a new US president to jump start the London-Washington relationship and put it back in shape. In the meantime, it is agreed by most observers that he will not do anything to undermine the US or to fracture the alliance. His posture will be more of a wait and see strategy.
He has lost no time demonstrating that he intends to build better relations in Asia, especially with India and China. He has talked of restructuring the UN rather than attacking it, which was a familiar tactic of the Bush White House. For example, on a recent trip to India he pleased the leaders of that nation by arguing that he will champion their request to expand the UN Security Council’s Permanent Five of Britain, Russia, France, the US and China to include not only India, which is on course to be an economic superpower, but also Brazil, Japan, Germany and at least one African nation. He made it clear however that any expansion of the Permanent Five would not accord India, or other new members, veto powers. In other words, he was in favor of a more representative Security Council as long as it did not weaken the veto power of Britain and the other four members of the present UN quintet. During his Indian visit, he received praise in the newspapers there and in China when he said he believed it was also vital to include India in the G8 and to add other nations like Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and China. From his perspective, it is about championing free markets and greater openness in the financial sectors, especially in countries like China. His embrace of India mirrors a desire by foreign policy planners in Washington to forge closer links with India, which could well outpace China in economic growth in coming decades. That is a policy the Bush White House has promoted so maybe Brown and Bush have more in common than even they know.
When all is said and done, Brown’s professed admiration for American history and its people, as well as his close links with leading US politicians, will never take him too far from the “Special Relationship” even though, between now and the arrival of a new president in the White House, he may go it alone on many foreign policy issues. In general, his style was always going to be different from that of Tony Blair but recognizes, as did British leaders before him, that the alliance with the US is one of Britain’s strengths no matter how close Britain moves towards an ever expanding Europe.