Blair’s gold medal dilemma has two very different faces

The Prime Minister is seen as a visionary hero in the US, but as a naive and vainglorious fool in Britain.

TONY BLAIR arrives in Washington today for talks with President Bush. They will discuss Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, but the Prime Minister will once again leave without the Congressional Gold Medal awarded to him three years ago for his steadfast support of America after 9/11.

This is no mere oversight. Although the US Administration publicly insists that the medal is still at the design stage, senior Washington sources now acknowledge that Downing Street is deliberately dragging its feet over receiving the honour.

Aides working for Senator Elizabeth Dole, who was one of the sponsors of Mr Blair’s award, have told The Times that the problem is at the British end. It certainly does not take more than a thousand days to mint a medal: Nelson Mandela received his award in 56 days.

Mrs Dole’s spokesman said that although No 10 had approved long ago the image of Mr Blair that will appear on the front side of the medal, it was blocking agreement over the design for the obverse, which usually includes an emblem and some form of quotation.

The dispute is an appropriate symbol of the two entirely distinct images of the Prime Minister’s relationship with America since the terrorist attacks of 2001. In the US he is still seen as a clear-eyed braveheart who swiftly recognised 9/11 as an historical turning point that had profoundly affected the American psyche, and then — better than anyone, including Mr Bush — articulated the case for war.

In Britain, however, he is more often regarded these days as a naive and vainglorious fool, the poodle who loyally followed the President and has, consequently, tainted his own premiership with alleged falsehoods and failure.

It is this second image, the reverse side of the same coin, that lies behind his reluctance to be photographed receiving his medal from Mr Bush and why, according to friends, he is unlikely to pick up the award until after he has left office.

The decision to award the medal was marked by Mr Blair’s triumphant speech to both houses of Congress in July 2003. But that moment is now badly tarnished in his memory; a few hours later he was informed that David Kelly, the government scientist named as a source for damaging stories on Iraq, had killed himself.

That visit to Washington was the seventh in only 20 months after 9/11. Since then the frequency of such trips has plummeted, along with the popularity of both leaders.

Today will be the first time that Mr Blair has set foot in the American capital in almost a year, but British viewers will have to stay up late if they want to see the President and Prime Minister give a joint press conference scheduled to begin at 12.30am tomorrow.

One explanation for this is that the two leaders, both deeply unpopular and nearing the end of their time in office, no longer stand “shoulder-to-shoulder” but look more like two lame ducks. Downing Street is instead putting emphasis on a speech that Mr Blair will deliver at Georgetown University tomorrow.

He will seek to set the Iraq war in the context of a “value-based foreign policy” that encompasses the well-meaning military interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, as well as the broader humanitarian goals of his policy towards Africa, climate change and the peace process in the Middle East.

He will set out his belief that world problems can best be tackled by strengthening global institutions ranging from the United Nations to the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Speaking only days after his return from Baghdad, Mr Blair will reiterate forcefully that now is the time for the world community to come to the aid of Iraq’s fledgeling democratic Government, rather than to abandon it to the insurgents.

In his talks with Mr Bush, he also plans to discuss how to secure UN sanctions against Iran, issues such as the peace process and Darfur, and the new-found aggression of a Russia led by Vladimir Putin..

But Mr Blair knows that for all the effort he has expended in such discussions with Mr Bush over the past 4½ years, he has secured little that is tangible. The US President has backed Palestinian statehood, for instance, but Palestine is not yet a state.

The Prime Minister has said, however, that those wanting him to do a Hugh Grant impression and provide a “Love Actually moment” by taking on the American President in public will be disappointed. It is too late to start picking a fight with Mr Bush.

Instead, his speech is intended to correct what he regards as a misleading impression of him both in the US and at home. He never was a neoconservative from the same mould as much of the Bush Administration. He arrived at the same place but from a different and much more liberal direction. Indeed, his disproportionate and sometimes disfunctional emphasis on Iraq’s supposed arsenal of WMD before the war was intended to protect multilateralism by securing UN authority for invading, rather than undermine it, as he was subsequently accused of doing.

Nor, however, was he the craven fool taken for a ride by Mr Bush that critics back in Britain believe him to have been. Indeed, the US Administration believes that Britain has re-emerged as a genuine global power in the past few years.

It is typical of Mr Blair that, like his Congressional Gold Medal, he has two faces, neither of which he believes to be true images of himself.

PEAKS AND TROUGHS

The main meetings between Tony Blair and President Bush

Feb 23, 2001 Meeting at Camp David, discussed plans to impose sanctions on Iraq. Nicknamed “the Colgate” summit. Blair’s approval rating: 48 per cent

July 18-20, 2001 Bush stays with Blair at Chequers before travelling to Genoa with him for G8. Rating: 55 per cent

September 20, 2001 Blair visits New York after September 11 attacks; joins Bush in Washington. Rating: 67 per cent

November 7, 2001 Meeting in White House. They insist that they will win War on Terror. Rating: 64 per cent

September 7, 2002 Meet at Camp David to discuss international coalition for Iraq invasion. Rating: 42 per cent

March 16, 2003 Azores summit, widely regarded as the end of diplomatic negotiations with Iraq and hope for a UN second resolution. Rating: 43 per cent

March 27, 2003 War summit in Washington. Rating: 43 per cent

June 9, 2004 G8 summit in Georgia. Bush and Blair discuss Iraq and say that there will be no deployment of Nato troops there. Rating: 30 per cent

November 12, 2004 Blair is first leader to meet Bush after his re-election. After Yassir Arafat’s death they discuss peace process in Middle East. Rating: 32 per cent

July 7, 2005 Bush and Blair meet at G8 in Gleneagles, but the event is overshadowed by London bombings. Rating: 44 per cent

September 15, 2005 Bush and Blair meet at UN millennium event. Rating: 31 per cent

All ratings according to MORI polls

Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.