'Special relationship' not so helpful to Blair

WASHINGTON - Nine days after George W. Bush's re-election, Tony Blair was in Washington, dining on smoked duck with the American President at the White House and standing beside him at a press conference.

The British Prime Minister was the first foreign leader to meet Bush after he won his second term. Britain's status as America's best friend and most dependable ally was underlined for all the world to see.

But what is that status worth?

At first glance, the "special relationship" thrives. Next to the US, Britain is the most significant member of the coalition in Iraq.

The ties between the two countries - from language and culture to military co-operation and the pooling of intelligence - eclipse those between America and any of its other partners.

But a truly lasting relationship requires a roughly equal flow of benefits between the parties - and here the strains are showing.

For Bush, the advantages have been especially evident this year.

Blair's support gave some credence to the President's claim that the US was leading a genuine alliance in Iraq, rather than - as Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry put it - "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed".

It enabled the President to bask in the reflected glory of a foreign leader who is not only more popular in America than in his own country, but who is - according to one poll last year - more highly regarded than Bush himself in the US.

And what has Blair received in return? Nothing, it is tempting to say, but trouble.

Iraq may be turning into a nightmare, but Bush this year secured the great prize of a second term. As 2005 begins, he stands at the summit of his authority and power.

Now the Prime Minister faces an election soon.

But Bush will not be rushing across the Atlantic to stand at his side.

In Britain as in Europe, the "toxic Texan" is precisely that, environmentally and politically.

With the election behind him, the President swiftly turned from campaigner into statesman, promising to reach out to disaffected Europeans with a visit.

But a mid-December poll for the Associated Press shows that he faces a huge task.

Europeans were uniformly dismayed by Bush's victory - seven out of 10 people in France, Germany and Spain, six out of 10 in Britain and Italy. More alarmingly, anti-Bushism is now fuelling a broader anti-Americanism in many countries. Bush, it seems, is not going to London on his visit of reconciliation. Blair advisers believe that a reminder of their man's closeness to the President would be a sure vote-loser in the election.

Making matters worse, the dislike is mutual.

For every European intellectual who considers Bush to be The Ugly American writ large, an American opinion-leader holds Europe to be effete, spineless and irredeemably anti-Semitic. The opposing prejudices are mutually reinforcing.

Officially, on both sides of the Atlantic, the talk is of hatchet-burying, of how Europe and the US must work together to tackle the world's problems.

But the fundamental disagreement over Iraq persists, and might yet poison everything.

It will also take skilful diplomacy, and a give-and-take so far lacking on both sides to prevent other rows

In the case of Iran, for example, the US is visibly impatient with the EU trio of Britain, Germany and France and its determination to use negotiation to persuade the Islamic regime to abandon its quest for a nuclear weapon.

Differences over Iran could spill over into a fight over a third term for Mohamed El Baradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who has incurred Washington's ire with his veiled criticism of the Iraq war and his gentler approach to Iran.

Other bones of contention abound.

Kyoto and climate change, the International Criminal Court, the future of the dollar - any or all could have Europe and America snarling at each other.

In the middle, uneasily, sits Britain. Blair likes to talk about the UK serving as a bridge between the rivals, but there is no sign that Europe or the US sees it in this role.

Britain tells Europeans that by publicly supporting the US, they gain influence in private.

To the Americans, Britain claims that if given something to work with, it can bring Europe around.

But it has little to show for its pains on either front.

The acid test will be the search for a Middle East settlement, which Blair insists is crucial if terrorism is to be purged from the Islamic world.

But for all his urgings, the Bush Administration has devoted only sporadic attention and platitudes to the problem, sheltering behind its refusal to have truck with Yasser Arafat.

Arafat is now gone. Perhaps Bush will deliver on his promises, leaning on the Israelis as Britain and the Europeans lean on the Palestinians to secure a deal.

A huge opportunity beckons - but will it be seized?

The answer will speak volumes about the future of transatlantic relations, and particularly that "special relationship" between London and Washington.

- INDEPENDENT