LONDON -- My God, the shame of it. Prime Minister Tony Blair is a poodle, yapping obediently when U.S. President George W. Bush snaps his fingers. This bitter vein of comedy runs through the thin political culture we have at the moment. But perhaps, muse the bitter critics, this British subservience to the United States will at least convince more people of the value of belonging to the European Union. The firm opposition of Germany to any involvement in attacking Iraq provides a sort of leadership for other EU countries, and this would be a more honorable alliance for Britain than being dragged along as "America's staunchest ally."
The counter to this harsh hostility to Britain's foreign policy is that Blair is uniquely placed to stand against the gung-ho bombers who, to the outside world, currently run the U.S. State and Defense departments. And, they believe, he has stood against careless and vainglorious belligerence. If he had not, the U.S. would even now be pulverizing Baghdad.
The flaw in all these arguments is the illusion that individual politicians can change the course of history according to the strength of their individual beliefs or their individual characters. This is rarely true at home. It is even less likely to be true of foreign policy that is notoriously resistant to the sort of policies that elected politicians might come up with. Just as notoriously, changes in foreign policy in particular are made in response to crisis and under the pressure of crisis. At all other times, the actions of state departments bumble along doing what they have always done, shaped by the patterns and structures of the institutions that are themselves closely allied with other economic and political forces. "Other forces," of course, include mega-corporations and the quiet insistence of domestic consumption.