Blair told not to offer blind support to U.S.

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, SEPT. 13. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair's offer of blanket support to any U.S. retaliatory action against suspected terrorists has caused widespread unease and he is being urged not to commit Britain to a course of action that might not be in its long-term national interests. There is also a strong view that rather than tagging along with anything that Washington might choose to do to hunt down the perpetrators of Tuesday's carnage, Britain should play a restraining role.

Mr. Blair's own party MPs have expressed serious concern saying Britain runs the risk of getting sucked into unknown territory by giving a ``blank cheque'' to the U.S. President, Mr. George W Bush to retaliate without being able to influence his actions. Any British support, according to them, must take into account the nature and extent of the U.S. response and its implications for Britain's own interests. While two Labour MPs, known for their close links with the Arab world and their strong views on U.S. policies in West Asia, have publicly criticised a ``carte blanche'' approach, there is believed to be considerable silent opposition in the party to an overtly emotional response. A debate in Parliament tomorrow is expected to be marked by dissenting views and calls for restraint.

The two Labour MPs who have gone public with their views are Mr. George Galloway who has been campaigning for lifting the economic sanctions against Iraq; and Mr. Tam Dalyell, who has influential friends in the Arab world. Mr. Galloway believes that any disproportionate U.S. response would further fuel the strong anti-American sentiment in much of the Arab world and be counter- productive. Britain, by associating itself with such a response, would make itself vulnerable. Mr. Dalyell said he had been ``pleading'' for restraint. ``When I hear President Bush and others saying we must attack those harbouring terrorists, the collateral consequences are really unimaginable again,'' he said, adding that he would support retaliation only if ``you make sure you hit the right people''.

There were concerns that Mr. Blair's ``blind'' endorsement of U.S. retaliation could bring it into conflict with some its European allies who have been traditionally wary of tying themselves too closely with Washington. His offer to stand should-to-shoulder with the U.S., it was stated, did not mean that Mr. Blair should automatically agree to whatever Mr. Bush might order. ``We must stand, as he said shoulder to shoulder with America in outrage at Tuesday's events. But to stand shoulder to shoulder with whatever America does next is contrary both to their interests and to ours,'' The Guardian said. It pointed out that some of Mr. Blair's comments over the past two days were ``potentially very unhelpful in crafting a good international policy response to what has happened''.

Meanwhile, there were fears that ``hundreds'' of British citizens might have been killed in Tuesday's terrorist attacks and Mr. Blair said this meant that ``in a very direct and real sense, the interests of our countries (Britain and U.S.) are engaged''. Mr. Blair spoke to Mr. Bush on Wednesday amid reports of attempts by Western nations to form a grand coalition to fight terrorism. Experts warned against immediate reprisals of the sort the U.S. resorted to in the wake of earlier attacks on U.S. interests.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : China calls for wider consultation
Next     : U.N. defers session