When BritainAndAmerica covered the first Brown-Bush summit we were a little more positive than most commentators. Most commentators noted how Britain's new Prime Minister returned none of the personal warmth that George W Bush had attempted to show to him (eg Nick Robinson). It appears that most of the other commentators might have been more right than this website.
The well-connected British journalist Fraser Nelson writes a devastating critique of UK operations in Basra today (unfortunately his News of the World column is not online) but most interestingly he writes this:
"Blair used to speak to George W Bush about Iraq every week. But I'm told Brown hasn't spoken to him since they met five weeks ago."
If true this is very worrying. Without communication at the highest level misunderstandings can become serious tensions. Recent criticisms by US generals of UK operations in southern Iraq and by British military leaders about US war planning mean that it is even more important that Downing Street and the White House are in close touch. Otherwise the bureaucracies below them will start taking key decisions.
The Tory-GOP relationship is already cool. Neither the current not previous Conservative leader have visited Washington (whilst at their party's helm). It is now the longest period since WWII that a British Conservative leader hasn't visited Washington DC.
If John Howard loses the forthcoming Australian election President Bush will have lost the last major ally who stood with him at the time of the invasion of Iraq.
Teenagers looking for away to end a relationship will often stop speaking to their girlfriend and this is a surefire way of saying "I don't want to be with you" With a general election in Britain looking likely I think Mr Brown is definately trying to end things with Mr Bush. Business of state will of course continue, but in cordial manner.
On the question of Tory-GOP relations, I can see things returning to normal post-Bush. David Cameron has good relations with Rudy Guiliani and John McCain. The Bush/Blair dynamic has been a blip in relations. That will end with both men out of the frame.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 11:30 AM
“I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents.”
- Sir Winston Churchill
Let’s not be too hard on old Gordy. After all he is merely reflecting the alleged will of the majority of Britons seeking communion with Eurabia is he not? Leaders of the ilk of Bushie and Blair – able to withstand the media-fed tempest of “public sentiment” – are rare indeed. As Lady Thatcher observed, “Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus." Bush, Blair, Thatcher, Churchill - Brown ain’t! At this point in history, so much the worse for England.
Cheers,
Charlie
www.churchillsparrot.com
Posted by: Churchill's Parrot | September 02, 2007 at 01:18 PM
They've both been busy; Dubya has had to deal with a hostile Congress and some of his leading allies have resigned; Gordon Brown has had the issue of Foot & Mouth and a Crimewave to deal with on the home front, and environmental problems.
I imagine that the White House and Downing Street are still communicating, with aides speaking and documents being transferred between them and if something requiring a conference between Dubya and Brown came up they would pick up the phones, it is probable that they have spoken but that it just hasn't been announced that they had.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 01:18 PM
I think we'll find that many people will soon stop talking to Bush.
Posted by: mr chips | September 02, 2007 at 02:03 PM
When Bush and Blair talked "once a week" who called who? Is Bush phoning Brown only to get a busy signal? Perhaps Bush is giving Brown space because he knows of his own unpopularity in Britain. I find it hard to believe that either men would refuse to take a call from the other. So something mutual must be going on.
Posted by: bundyfan | September 02, 2007 at 04:14 PM
I hope the "mutual" thing is severance.
Let Britain go with Eurabia.
Mark Steyn is right. America Alone.
Posted by: atheling | September 02, 2007 at 06:56 PM
Yet another anon, I hope you are right. That could be possible.
Atheling, I can't help but wonder if it will end up that way. It might be as Charlie says. :-(
Posted by: Denise | September 02, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Lucky Bush. If Brown would just shut up when in England we could all get on with serious matters.
Iraq is not the only game and I think Frau Merkel is more important to Bush than Brown, and Sarkozy, because they have a headwind and it is not just the USA that has a 2008 Presidential Election but Russia too........Washington has to think globally; Brown is constrained by Scotland
Posted by: TomTom | September 03, 2007 at 06:07 PM
"I think we'll find that many people will soon stop talking to Bush."
Cute comment, but the clash of civilizations will still come regardless of who's in office and regardless of what you think.
Then again, maybe you're already thumbing through a Qur'an and have given up pork chops, the better to get along with your future Wahabi masters.
Posted by: MarkJ | September 03, 2007 at 07:01 PM
"I think we'll find that many people will soon stop talking to Bush."
Cute comment, but the clash of civilizations will still come regardless of who's in office and regardless of what you think.
Then again, maybe you're already thumbing through a Qur'an and have given up pork chops, the better to get along with your future Wahabi masters.
Posted by: MarkJ | September 03, 2007 at 07:02 PM
"I think we'll find that many people will soon stop talking to Bush."
Cute comment, but the clash of civilizations will still come regardless of who's in office and regardless of what you think.
Then again, maybe you're already thumbing through a Qur'an and have given up pork chops, the better to get along with your future Wahabi masters.
Posted by: MarkJ | September 03, 2007 at 07:02 PM
Fact o' life. Bush is in the "lame duck" phase of his presidency and people are going to be less interested in talking to him. Blair was just the same a few months ago. People are just reading too much into the whole situation.
Posted by: billm99uk | September 03, 2007 at 07:48 PM
MarkJ:
"Then again, maybe you're already thumbing through a Qur'an and have given up pork chops, the better to get along with your future Wahabi masters"
Personally I'm eating pork every chance I get, while it's still legal! *yum* >:)
Posted by: Simon Newman | September 03, 2007 at 09:07 PM
Well, if the Brits "go wobbly" when push comes to shove in Iran, perhaps the French will take a turn.
Posted by: chazunga | September 04, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Brown is trying hard to be different to his predecessor, but 5 weeks appears a tad long. I do believe that Howard is history down under, not that I am happy about this.
Posted by: Ottavio at American Interests | September 05, 2007 at 11:45 AM