As the government gently distances us from Washington, Jack Straw's low-key diplomacy in Iran has become crucial to the future of British foreign policy

Which world capitals has Jack Straw visited most in his four years as Foreign Secretary? Numbers one and two are Brussels and Washington; no surprise there. Three is Tehran. He has been there five times, sometimes on his own and sometimes in with the French and Germans, trying to persuade the Iranian authorities to comply with the strictures of the International Atomic Energy Agency - five times to a country that is top of the US government's latest axis of evil list.

Operation Bush Distance, first alluded to in this column a year ago, proceeds steadily but stealthily. It is not advertised, but on a host of issues the transatlantic symmetry is not what it was. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that London will not be one of the destinations for George W Bush's European tour at the end of February. He will take in Brussels, Berlin and Bratislava in what is billed as a tentative bridge-building exercise with the Germans and the Russians, but not London. Everyone knows the electoral damage the photo opportunity outside 10 Downing Street would do to Blair. No invitation was offered and none was sought.

Blair will see Bush at Nato and EU headquarters, but note the change in tone coming from the PM. Gone is the lofty rhetoric of the two leaders blazing a trail for democracy around the world. Blair's language about the Iraqi elections has been more measured and less bombastic recently. Expectations have been pared to a minimum. Now the word is that a 30 per cent overall turnout would be satisfactory. Blair is already floating the idea of a phased withdrawal of forces. He is desperate to be rid of the issue by the time of the UK general election, the date of which will depend partly on levels of violence in Iraq after the voting there.

(The return of the remaining Guantanamo captives removes another Bush-linked problem.) He hopes that, where foreign policy does feature in campaigning, the focus will be more on Africa and climate change than the errors of the second term.

Drawing grains of comfort from statements in Washington has become a pastime among British officials. Some of it is done in jest. One UK diplomat suggests "outposts of tyranny" is an improvement on "axis of evil", because "it denotes an element of European rationalism, in that at least tyranny is an objective term whereas evil is a biblical subjective one". The inclusion of Zimbabwe on the list is seen as a positive. America's apparent ambivalence towards Robert Mugabe's human rights abuses rankled in London.

In his recent talks in Washington, Straw was keen to play down reports that he was at odds with the US over Iran. But he is, at least with those parts of the administration that are pushing the military alternative on to Bush. Having lost his friend and confidant Colin Powell, Straw now has to reckon with Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state. At least she has influence.

Straw is not alone in his concerns. Peter Hain, in his interview (page 24), reflects widespread misgivings in the cabinet about the prospect of being forced to endorse another US adventure. In this, he and others are putting down a marker for the third term. Straw is personally sceptical as to whether Iran has been gathering nuclear weapons materials.

Blair is keeping his options open, but knows it will be virtually impossible to sell another war on the basis of suspicion rather than proof. The work of the IAEA will not be derided in a way that Hans Blix's inspectors were. The UK-French-German initiative on Iran is now crucial to British foreign policy. It is the most visible demonstration of Europe working together since the ruptures caused by Iraq, and of Britain not seeking to genuflect towards Washington on each issue. It has to be seen to work.

Iran is just one example of the divergence. Straw has been vocal in advocating the end of the EU arms embargo on China. On this, it is the Americans who occupy the moral high ground. The Europeans, pushed by arms companies eager to sell their wares to this huge market, are keen to ingratiate themselves with the Chinese. The Americans see the security implications for the rest of Asia and, whatever the inconsistencies, are right to point to continuing human rights abuses in China. A rejection of Messianic interventionism should not mean a rediscovery of old-school realpolitik.

The government's refusal to publish the Attorney General's legal advice on the Iraq war under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act comes as little surprise. The NS, which revealed the extent to which Lord Goldsmith was persuaded to change his advice on the eve of war, will, in common with others, appeal against the decision. Ministers say this particular exemption does not reflect more generally on their commitment to FoI. They will be judged by their actions rather than their promises.

www.jkampfner.net

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website