Summit success
There'll be no Colgate moment, no movie with the wives, no chinos that are - in the words of the British Ambassador at the time - "ball crushingly tight". This first Camp David summit between Prime Minister and President will not, must not, be the same as the last first summit.
Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking - or, even of hoping - that there will be a chill in the Maryland air simply because George's close friend Tony has gone and Gordon has arrived in his place.
Some predicted just that after Bill Clinton - a more natural political ally for Tony Blair - left the political stage and George Bush stepped on to it. People have been predicting as much again and again over the decades. Again and again, though, the occupants of Downing Street have followed the same approach to the President - whoever the holder of that office is. They "hug them close". Why? Not just because of the shared history and the values which Gordon Brown waxed lyrical about on his way here but also because Prime Ministers need Presidents to get done the things they want to get done and Presidents have, over the years, found British Prime Ministers can be pretty useful too.
For their own different reasons Brown and Bush have a shared interest in making this summit a success. Gordon Brown - who has spoken endlessly of change since coming to office - knows that Iraq is one area where change cannot be delivered quickly. He did not enter Number 10 carrying a secret plan marked "withdrawal". He's aware that simply changing the mood music will not satisfy those who demand more change than simply donning suits and ties. He wants, above all, to change the trans-Atlantic agenda - to move beyond Iraq. George Bush - under enormous political pressure at home - needs to ensure that his voters cannot say that now even the Brits are deserting him. He will know what it is that his visitor needs to go home happy and he will want to deliver it.
Key to that is a war - not the one which Britain and America started but one which they hope to help stop - the war in Darfur. Both men are backing a UN resolution this week which will not merely establish a 19,000 strong peacekeeping force in Darfur and will not only back a peace process between the warring factions but will also offer Sudan a package of long term economic support if it agrees to co-operate - a carrot to accompany the sanctions stick.
For Gordon Brown this would prove that something can be done to tackle what he calls the greatest humanitarian crisis the world faces. For George Bush it would prove that America is willing to act on the world stage to build and not just to destroy.
Behind the scenes, of course, the two men will talk of THAT other war - the one which Gordon Brown failed to mention in the lengthy statement issued as he travelled to America. They will talk about the problems of remaining and, perhaps the even greater problems, of withdrawing. What they agree - or even disagree - about is unlikely to emerge for some time to come.
This summit, you see, has to be a success. Not the backslapping, gag cracking, occasionally wince-inducing kind of summit success we've grown used to. This - as Downing Street has made clear - is NOT that kind of summit. But it will be a success nonethless since George and Gordon wouldn't have it any other way.
I'm 
Comments
If it is not "that kind of meeting" then why have it at Camp David, the President's retreat?
As soon as Brittish voters hear the venue then they assume it is exactly that kind of meeting.
Surely Gordon has to talk nice for the cameras but in reality he only has to put up with GWB for little over a year. By Jan 2009 a new president will be in office and he'll have to deal with whomever that is. Bush is an unpopular lame duck so there can be no benefit to Brown (or the UK) in stayng too close to him - just close enough to be on good terms with US in general. It's a difficult balancing act.
How disgusting that people die as a result of the horse-trading between politicians which buys them the cosmetics they need to cover up their naked ugly deeds.
Same US lead, different UK dog!
Nick, the current Brown bounce is caused by fickle voters who are just as likely to jump to Cameron in the future if told to by the equally fickle press.
However, if Brown wants to attract the hundreds of thousands of lifelong labour supporters who have deserted the party because of Blair's disastrous leadership, and his own failure to speak out against the illegal invasion of Iraq, he can praise America all he wants but he must stay away from Bush and the likes of Rupert Murdoch. Nor should he be tempted to implement right wing policies such as those proposed by Blair and supported by the sycophants who are still in the cabinet!
The assertion that 'Prime Ministers need Presidents to get done the things they want to get done' is false. It may make it easier, but other European countries do not feel the need to suck up so blatently to such appaling people as George W Bush. Our country is a member of the EEC, not the USA.
Incredible. The very relationship that was the contagion for Tony Blair's problems is with a country that we should, we are directed, be grateful towards.
I assume that Gordon was so busy making plans to move into number 10 that he forget to pay attention to the fact that most Western Countries will be doing a merry jig when Bush finally rolls off the world stage.
This will do nothing but harm to domestic perception of him in the UK.
The first couple of paragraphs are historically a bit sloppy. There have been at least two moments where British premiers have had a rather cooler relationship with US Presidents on a personal level - first, Heath's relationship with Nixon, which was correct but quite unlike Wilson's almost fawning relationship with Johnson and Nixon. (At the time Wilson was constantly criticised for this; the achievement of keeping British troops out of Vietnam is one that has achieved a lot more attention in retrospect.) The second is Major's relationship with Clinton, which was never as warm as the one with G. H. W. Bush, largely because the Clinton camp suspected Major of favouring Bush in the 1992 campaign.
Your comment that US Presidents find UK Prime Ministers 'pretty useful' says it all, Nick. Proves that Bush will patronize Brown as much as he did Blair. Paint it any colour you want, there will be no change.
Is it my imagination, or does Mr. Brown have that same look on his face (Alfred E. Newman), that is permanently etched on GWB ? Has the UK picked another geniuse ?
Summits are media events. They are nothing more. All the really hard work is done behind the scenes and GWB and our Prime Minister simply 'act out', for the benefit of the world media, a meeting. All tightly controlled to give the right impression that there is work being done. I bet Gordon Brown just can't wait to get back to his family and to his office.
Brown says it's our most important "bilateral relationship". Does he know what the word bilateral means? It's certainly not the one sided relationship we currently "enjoy"
I agree wholeheartedly with Marcus West's comments, and would argue against Nick's reasons for UK Prime Ministers 'hugging US Presidents close'.
Looking back, even Wilson pandered to the US by sending in 'military advisers' to Vietnam before the Americans arrived, by making, storing and then delivering Agent Orange to the US to use in Vietnam, and by arranging for the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons if needed. Every PM since the war has embraced the USA's foreign strategy and even Mrs Thatcher accepted the US invasion of our territory (Dominica) - in spite of fighting a bloody war against the Argentine for doing the same in the Falklands, with no practical help from the USA.
The conclusion is inescapable: in return for US support in WW2, we must have agreed to support all the US' foreign adventures sine die.
91Èȱ¬ television news said yesterday that All The Presidents Men in the USA had been forensically inspecting Gordon Brown's recent utterances endeavouring to find out what he and therefore Great Britain thinks of them post Blair.
Our closest ally cannot just ask Number 10 Downing Street?
Remind me how close this relationship is meant to be?
Two countries - multiple audiences. Yes Brown will want to set his stamp on US-UK relations, but no he can't afford to make anything like a unilateral decision to withdraw from Iraq - or much else. That's because those 'multiple audiences' have already judged the UK as being so close to the US that, whatever he says, he'll still be a lap dog. Were he to withdraw troops tomorrow, those same people would judge it as part of a US-UK scenario for Iraq.
The big play for Brown would be to pick a fight - any fight - with the US administration and stand his ground, from 'No, you can't have access to UK-based bases in perpetuity' to 'No you can't have our support for the next UN resolution you press...'
The footage of Bush driving Brown around in his golf cart is hilarious. It seems like Bush is playing a prank on behalf of his pal Tony Blair. Brown looks decidedly humiliated.
#16 I have'nt seen that footage but the metaphor would be painfully obvious to Brown i.e. we (America) are in the driving seat.
A bit of recent history is always very useful when dealing with Americans.
For example, in both World Wars, roughly three years in, we were clean out of money and had to go cap-in-hand to the Americans.
They are only too willing to oblige, but always want something in return i.e. post-WW1, oil from 'our' sources in South America and post-WW2, huge loans, which were finally repaid only last year.
Bottom line, the Americans are pretty ruthless at geting what they want.
They do 'need' us, but more for political purposes than anything else as we no longer have much military or economic clout.
Just being realistic, something 'our' politicians seem to struggle to do vis-a-vis America.
A solid piece of reporting, Nick. There's nothing immediately flash or exciting about it but the cooling of public comment on Iraq and the raising of Darfur's profile looks interesting.
While mistakes were made and difficulties have helped drag the Iraq War on, the chain of command and action on the ground has reformed around a promising way forward. Dealing with the big villains and investing in basic welfare is a sound strategy in war or peace. Taking out ringleaders and helping people feel comfortable solves many problems.
Darfur is a bit of a mess that's been in need of attention for a while. I haven't been following that story but am a keen supporter of Napoleonic style intervention where individuals, organisations, and nation states are concerned. Asking nicely and dropping a big bribe will help grease the wheels, allow order and harmony to be restored, and sound civic life to develop.
Overall, both strategies are smart and knit well together. It allows the Iraq situation to cool, politicians to get a grip, and agencies on the ground to get the job done. Darfur is a useful distraction that can help develop a better model of international politics, resource contribution, and shared success. When that severe learning experience has run for a little while it may help raise the overall quality of discussion with respect to Iraq. Win-win.
Can't say I care much for the "forensic" media nit-picking and public frothing. These things have their place but are a poor default position. Too much discussion is just so much obsessing and whining. Not only that, it can have a political and military impact that's counter-productive. In any case, perception lags reality. The big decisions seem good enough. Things change. Look forward.
Perhaps the Prime Minister will learn that he cannot allow the agenda regarding the laws preventing terrorism to be hijacked in the UK by the poet-soft ultra-liberals in his own party, and their agenda of defeatism. If he gets this then it will be a successful summit.
What else is new. Wrote to Nick about his and the 91Èȱ¬'s bias reporting and editorials yesterday...yet..no posting.
91Èȱ¬ "tell it like it is"..yes, if all agree's with their agenda.
On my trips to England , my friends in England and other news sources in Great Britain, I will continue to expose you all.
Nick...if you can not take the heat (yes..it is hot here now) stay out of the kitchen. Stay home and spread your sarcasium. Did you know that is used when there is nothing intelligent to say?
Don't come here. There is no admiration for you or your reporting or your blogs. No one reads them anyway. I do because I am closely connected with many of the people of Great Britain.I must consistently point out your bias along with "Matt's" and the reason behind the 91Èȱ¬ no longer being a truthful and reliable news source. Beware British citizen's. You do not build up your country, you harm it.
Colleen Benedict..NEW YORK
Why do we have an extradition treaty with the US rattified in only one direction? I am not anti-US at all but cannot understand why T Blair rattified it one way and that this has not yet been rectified. A missed opportunity, G Brown.