bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Peter Kammerer

US President George W. Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair are united in their resolve to effect political change in Iraq, but the strength of their alliance is being tested.

Disagreement over post-Iraq policies will soon force Mr Blair to make some tough decisions. His level of insistence will determine the future of the coalition.

Chief among the potentially damaging issues is the role of the United Nations in Iraq's future, the democratisation of the Middle East and the road map for Arab-Israeli peace.

Mr Blair, who sees himself as a bridge between the US and Europe, is also coming under increasing pressure from his European Union (EU) partners. They want to participate in reconstruction and humanitarian work, but are being mostly frozen out of the process by the US.

The crux of Mr Blair's looming dilemma is the UN. His belief in the world body's value puts him at odds with Mr Bush.

The British leader is said to be seeking a resolution in the UN Security Council to ensure the UN's participation in a post-war administration.

The main difficulty is that even the US seems confused about what role it might play. US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the EU during a visit to Brussels last week the world body would be asked to assist, although he was unclear on such a role.

Observers say a lack of co-operation by key security council members France, Russia and China in backing a resolution for war last month has hardened an already-deep distrust of the organisation. With the military effort being spearheaded by the US and Britain and to a lesser degree Australia, they believe the coalition should determine and manage the post-war work.

British analyst Nile Gardiner, an expert in European security with the right-wing Heritage Foundation in Washington, said Mr Blair has to choose between his US and European alliances.

'He'll have to make some hard decisions in coming weeks about where his loyalties lie,' Dr Gardiner, once a foreign policy adviser to former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, said.

He disagreed that Mr Bush was directing Mr Blair. Rather, the British premier had been in the driving seat and had so far got his way on Iraq, even to the point of convincing Mr Bush of the need for a second UN resolution.

But Dr Gardiner said he believed Mr Blair was underestimating the level of hostility in the Bush administration of any role for the UN other than a humanitarian one. It would be a strategic error to push the issue because it would be rebuffed.

'Compromises have to be made along the way, but the Bush administration must stay firm and the UN should not define the fate of the Iraqi people,' Dr Gardiner said. 'The UN lacks the moral standing and the capability to effectively run Iraq after the war.

'It's not just an issue of whether or not we like the UN - it's one of can the UN do the job and I think the answer is no.'

The view that Mr Blair faces a dilemma is not shared by Columbia University professor Edward Luck, the director of the Centre on International Organisation.

He said relations between Mr Bush and Mr Blair were not in trouble, even though the matter of another UN resolution would be messy.

Because both countries were united in the war effort, they had a bond and would jointly work towards bringing in other members of the international community to help, he said.

Britain would push faster and further than the US, Dr Luck suggested, but in a sense that had been its traditional relationship in being a bridge between the US and continental Europe.

'I see differences, but I don't think it will be a fundamental divide,' he said.

'Both capitals have supported each other up to and through the war and I don't think they're about to have a divorce after the war is over.'

Mr Blair was highly supportive of the American president after the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001. For his loyalty, the US - against its better judgment - had supported his need for a second resolution on Iraq at the UN.

'Each side gives something to the other and there will be differences about how post-war Iraq should be handled, but I don't think this is something that is going to be a fundamental divide,' Dr Luck said. 'I don't get the impression of any particular personal problems between Mr Blair and Mr Bush. The chemistry seems to be good.'



Blair and Bush clash over their vision for post-war Iraq