The world stage
New York: We're heading home from the Big Apple after a fascinating two days in America. Today at the United Nations, Gordon Brown looked passionate where yesterday at Camp David he looked ill at ease.
He goes home confident that both days were a success. George Bush declared that America's most important bilateral relationship was with Britain, even a Britain not led by Tony Blair. He showed himself willing to re-make that relationship by, in the words of one Brown aide, donning a tie.
Today at the UN, he signalled that he believed foreign policy is about much much more than how well you get on with the US president.
He has, Team Brown believes, established himself on the world stage.
I leave here though wrestling with many contradictions. The man who's shunned the phrase "the war on terror" has now accepted that there it is a battle and can be called a war. The man who signalled that British troops are on their way out of Iraq insists that British policy has not changed. The man who didn't utter a word in praise for George Bush nevertheless spent many many hours alone with him in what both sides say were productive meetings.
Quite a lot of what we've seen here is about positioning - both at home and abroad. The test in foreign affairs more than anything else is how you respond to events.
PS. Click here to watch my interview with Gordon Brown.
I'm 
Comments
Darfur Conflict - 200,000 dead, 2.5 million in dire need of humanitarian aid.
Gordon Brown's solution - send in 20,000 UN troops with a strong mandate.
Iraq Invasion - 700,000 dead, 8 million in dire need of humanitarian aid.
Gordon Brown's solution - ??????????
We are still waiting for a clear and concise response!
Don't you think you're trying just a little too hard? Since it became clear that Brown was a shoe-in to replace Blair you media chaps have been repeatedly telling us (perhaps as a way of trying to convince yourselves) that his arrival would see a 'split' from the US, or at least from the current US administration. With no real split emerging you seem to be straining at the leash (and straining your own credibility) to find something to justify your own predictions/hopes. The more you stretch, the more the cracks between reality and ´óÏó´«Ã½-reality are beginning to show.
Er, how has he established himself on the world stage? By insulting Bush in his backyard? That is hardly a great start.
"Er, how has he established himself on the world stage? By insulting Bush in his backyard? That is hardly a great start."
That would be the view from America, then. (Insulting Bush counts as a great start everywhere else on the planet.)
The so-called "war on terror" is nothing new. It's just another storm in a teacup, a moment in a bigger moment. The "war on terror" was old when the Tao was young. It's how things are. While politicians seek to control events and pundits explain them, control and perspective are just so much feebleness and wind.
Most people like Gordon Brown, myself included, tend to focus on abstracts and personality tends not to be a factor. It's why Gordon Brown can crack a deal while sitting next to a man he might dislike. President Bush is his equal and opposite. Cracking a deal under those circumstances is very, very hard. I know, I've been there.
As for the positioning, you can chuck that book in the bin. Our character type can't give a rats ass for positioning. Goals, getting people on board, and achieving outcomes is primary even at the cost of self-sacrifice. Steve Jobs, Ieyasu Tokugawa, and Baroness Young of Scone are the same. Think quality and no man left behind.
Your conclusion is interesting but a little murky. But you're right, people do like simple answers and the fuzzy nature of the world can be problematic. And yes, again, how we deal with things is important, as it's key to how we change, how we influence the world, and the outcomes that flow from that.
Most people tend to equate principle with absolute values. Independence while aligned, getting out while staying, shunning war while embracing war look paradoxical. How can this be principled? The rule is right until the rule is wrong. Clinging too hard to principles can undermine them. Best get real and let go.
In summary, what you've described and your response it is the essence of Zen Buddhism. I don't know if this comparison is deliberate or if I'm reading things in that aren't there. It may be a bit of both, or neither. Who knows? Who cares? All one can do is remain open, relaxed, and allow experience to accumulate.
Update:
Great interview, Nick. I like the considered questions you asked and that you gave Prime Minister Brown sufficient time to answer them. That ticks both intellectual and social boxes for me, and is a big improvement over earlier efforts. Loved it, sweetie.
There is a justified fear that Prime Minister Brown's effort is an exercise in generating paper but I get the sense he's fully behind driving this project forward. By setting a focus and drawing people in, this helps shift the fashion to something credible and popular.
The Iraqi issue was telling in that his answer seemed strong and heartfelt, that he is putting honour before difficulty. I expect this will go down well in Iraq and send a better quality signal to other leaders in the region.
Helping America regain face, supporting Japan, and letting China take a bigger role may be the future. It's a little premature but, I think, this "grand alliance" will help create better foundations for the world economy, societies, and growth moving forward.
Me is in paradise. *swoon*
Whilst Mr Brown's rousing speech showed his upbringing listening to sermons, it is very important that as BRITISH PRIME MINISTER, not the Pope, not the Head of the UN, not the President of the African Union, that he remembers that his PRIMARY role is to govern the United Kingdom.
There is far too much poverty in the UK for him to be hectoring the world about it, without him demonstrating generational improvements at home first.
There is far too much societal dysfunctionality AT HOME to justify him preaching about how to solve global problems.
And there is far too much short-termism in THIS COUNTRY for him to be preaching long-term solutions, unless he can demonstrate a shift away from that here in this country over a 20 year period.
I would be more impressed if he shut his trap for 5 years about global issues and spent a bit more time solving those at home.
It's like parents working 16hr days when their children are 0-9, then wondering why all their hectoring does not make their offspring successful adults.......
I'm not against his speech, I just think he needs a little reminder of his role and responsibilities.....
So, Nick, you have detected contradictions in the stances and utterances of Gordon Brown. Wow, you are really on the ball!
You'll be telling us next that New Labour engaged in spin, news management and weapons of mass distraction.
I'm sure Gordon was disappointed to have an interview dominated by Darfur when he could have been cross examined on his position on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.
Nick,
You have obviously hit a major political point/ blow with the personal comment George W Bush
made to you with regards to your "sun protection"
As you may know this is a comment made only by those who are really weak, and afraid. He knows you are right, and he's wrong.
Brian
Brian W T Plunkett
Trichologist
Why is Brown swanning off abroad, talking about problems in Africa when we are still dealing with the aftermath of the floods?
Did you see that Nick? A few words from Brown to the U.N. about their incompetence and intransigence towards poverty in Darfur, and hail, they all agree with Brown's proposals and are ready to go (26,000) strong Nick. Now did we ever have any P.M. to do that before? NO. Usually we go with what America suggests, so all the media's hype about whether U.K. will continue or not to be America's poodle has all been transformed into dust.
Presumably the media will now learn and grow up, because this man means business, just like he meant business when he wrote off the debts to poor countries and the others had to follow in his footsteps!
How can us ex tories go back to the fold with a leader the likes of Cameron.
'Interventions' need to be chosen very carefully if they are to succeed.
Darfur is a suitable candidate because the Sudanese military is relatively weak and the neighbouring countries will not interfere significantly.
Plus it is the UN going in, not some 'coalition of the willing' with a noble aim, essentially to stop black Muslims being slaughtered by Arab Muslims.
So much for 'religion' which patently in this case, cannot overcome the colour of ones skin, but I digress.
A bonus, which is generally overlooked, but not, I'm sure, by some of the 'interested parties', is that there is a significant amount of oil in Darfur.
All-in-all, a win-win situation, genocide is stopped and there is oil to be had for an energy hungry world.
Brown very carefully calibrated this move.
I can't help thinking looking back on Brown's less than 100% honest and frankly machiavellian record that in getting Sarkozy's help for Darfur, Nicolas may just have got something in return, perhaps a committment from Gordon to not have a referrendum on a certain European constitution/treaty.
You never know though I could be wrong and Gordon may realise those red lines have suddenly been crossed as the tories and the opinion polls force him to back down. I don't think so though, at heart I think he is more interested in European friends than easily manipulated electorates.
"He has, Team Brown believes, established himself on the world stage."
And what as, exactly? Just another Toady to a widely-despised American President? Hardly an encouraging start.
How about a grain of imaginative, independant thought as regards either foreign or domestic policy?
No. Thought not.
Well done Gordon Brown. I like you, and your First Lady. "Washington Post" summarised him as "a bulldog, not a poodle." We had a US poodle prime minister for too long. Let Gordon put "British Bulldog" back into Britain.
Nick, I find your conclusions a bit odd at times. I watched almost all the footage I could of the trip and the mix between what I saw/heard and the interpretation seemed odd?
I was taught not to be rude but I feel I have to say that I feel this often on your reports. It is as though you have decided what you want to say and then try to interpret the facts to fit into that. Even when there is absolutely no cohesion. The classic of this kind to me were your interpretation of Cherie's comments to a press she disliked. Your take on it? Proof that Tony was forced from office. Eh?
I also did not see the tension and discomfort you report on the Presidential meeting. It seemed very balanced and relaxed to me actually. Did you reporters see things we did not get televised?
However, reading the politicised conclusions and fantasies of many commenters - it seems to be a very common trait indeed.
Nick, I didn't see this so-called 'distancing' between Bush and Brown either.
I think it is more wishful thinking on parts of the liberal, anti-Bush, anti-war press in this country.
The emphasis was different and there was less back-slapping than with Blair, but the central policy and struggle remains the same - and so it should.
And for people to describe Blair as a 'poodle' is absurd and ignorant. Blair was for regime change in Iraq when Bush was an isolationist Governor of Texas. He was hawkish on Kosovo compared to Clinton, he was against Guantanamo, and he quite rightly stood by Israel when it was attacked (again).
It seems if you don't support the ridiculous Guardian-George Galloway view of foreign policy, then you are denounced as a 'poodle' or 'lapdog'.
Pathetic.
Have to agree with N John. Blair was NEVER a poodle - but since you're talking about the use of language, that's what it's all about. Language, its use and the perceptions that it leaves. Brown, and anyone else who has to follow The Master's ability with the spoken word, knows this. It's easy to get an undeserved label hung around one's neck. So Brown has made sure that he has a different label from Blair. Better to be tough on Bush, and on the causes of Bush, even if in reality, nothing much will change. Soon, we may know if there will be faster withdrawal from Iraq than Blair had already instigated. But even here it's all about perception. And a lie gets half way round this crazy world before the truth ... well you know the rest. Go to YouTube and search for "It was "Yeah, Blair - not Yo, Blair" to see what I mean.