Correspondent: Is it time for a rethink on Iraq? Britain and America [seem to be] standing sort of isolated on it.
Tony Blair: I can never understand how people can look at the history of Saddam and come to any other conclusion than that he is an extremely dangerous man, probably the most dangerous ruler at the present time anywhere in the world. If he is allowed to, he will visit terror on his own people and indeed is visiting terror on them…. What you’ve got to do is go back and say, well, why have we got a no-fly zone? Why is it important that we are trying to prevent him developing these weapons? Why is it important that we take the steps that we’re doing to limit his power and capability? When people go back to the arguments and think them through, I think they come to the same conclusions that we do.
But how do you and the Bush administration convince your allies that this is the proper thing to do, because it seems that you’re alone on it?
I think we’re less alone than it seems on this. I think people sometimes understand that we’ll be the ones that act but I think that if you were to talk to any of our main allies privately, [they would support our position].
How do you feel about suggestions from Bush administration officials that they may reduce peacekeeping troops in the former Yugoslavia?
I think its perfectly natural for some Americans, [who are] thousands of miles away, to wonder when those troops are coming out. But the force is one-third of what it was four or five years ago. The whole of the Balkan region is immensely more stable and has a brighter future as a result of [Yugoslavian president] Slobodan Milosevic going and [because of] the new regime in Belgrade. That would never have happened without the allied action in Kosovo. That of course then has an impact on the requirements for troops there.
Americans may be much more comfortable with technology than Brits are, and Europeans in general. Americans are not afraid of genetically modified food, of mobile phones … Is there something you can bring back from the Americas [to combat Britain’s] fears, its health scares?
It’s important to understand that what has happened here, particularly after the [mad-cow] debacle, is that there’s a loss of faith in science, and in the politics of science, and the interaction between politics and science. I think that it is possible to overdo that very greatly…. But I think that it is a very necessary debate to have. As I said the other day in a speech, we must distinguish between two quite different things: one is the role of science in inquiring into facts and the other is the judgment we make as a society as to how we use those facts. But what we shouldn’t do is stop science making the inquiry, because that seems to me to be a dubious way of proceeding.
What do you see as the future of American-European relations?
It is a disastrous misjudgment either to push the [European Union] or America apart or to try and tell Britain that we should choose between America and Europe. The reason I call it disastrous is that it is essential for the stability of the world that Americans and Europeans have a common understanding. Sure, there will be differences that arise from time to time on trade or on how we handle some of these defense questions. But what unites us is formidably more important than what divides us. The only people who rejoice around the world when Europe and America don’t get on together are bad people-to put it in blunt terms. What would the Saddam Husseins of this world think if they could pull us apart on these issues? Or dictators in different parts of the world? Or organized criminal gangs, which have got tremendous power now? Or people trying to develop nuclear weapons when they shouldn’t be? These are the people that benefit from Britain and America or Europe and America being pulled apart. Whether it’s on defense or on trade or on general approaches to foreign policy, we have so much in common. I think it would be tragic to try and say, look, Britain’s got a choice here: it either is a partner in the European Union or it is a big buddy of the United States, but it had better choose between those two. It is so important that Britain help Europeans understand America and Americans understand Europeans. We have in that sense a very, very important role to play.
How do you think that the fact that you were so close personally and politically to President Clinton will figure in your relations with President Bush? Will it make it more difficult?
I don’t think so, because I think everyone understands that you form friendships with people and Bill Clinton was a close friend of mine. He’s a close friend and always will be. But it’s important for the president of the United States and the prime minister of Britain to have a close relationship. You can be close friends with more than one person.
Are you going to have time to call your friend Bill Clinton when you’re in America?
Well, no doubt we … I mean, I’m going to see President Bush but, as I said, [Clinton’s] a friend of mine and will remain so.
