‘Europe’s Got To Be Involved’

Afghanistan remains a good war for Tony Blair, whose approval rating is a robust 64%.

He should be thankful: the railways are a mess, his government now admits it needs higher taxes to fund health care, and a U.S. war with Iraq remains a possibility.

Last Wednesday, Blair sat down with a group of TIME editors at Downing St. to explain his foreign policy:

TIME: You’ve said repeatedly since Sept. 11 that the world community should tackle poverty, global warming, inter-faith understanding, peace between Israelis and Palestinians and many other ambitious reforms. Aren’t you in an awkward position wanting to remake the world but really depending on the U.S. to make that happen?
BLAIR: It’s not just America that has to be involved. Europe’s got to be involved too. We’ve got choices. We can do it or not do it. But the reason I believe we should do it is because I believe it’s important and in our self-interest.

TIME: But Bush’s goals appear to be a lot less ambitious than yours.
BLAIR: [It’s natural that] for America, where this atrocity occurred, these issues of getting Osama bin Laden, shutting down the al-Qaeda network, making sure the homeland is secure, are huge dominating issues. But Americans are providing 80% of the humanitarian aid [in Afghanistan], they hosted the first reconstruction conference, they’ve been extremely helpful in making sure the Northern Alliance agreed there had to be a broadly based regime.

TIME: In your conversations, does President Bush say, “Tony, I’m coming to your big agenda, just let me get Osama bin Laden first”?
BLAIR: No, but what he does say, unprompted, is that the humanitarian mission in Afghanistan is important, and we need to make sure that Afghanistan is left in a proper state.

TIME: After Sept. 11, is unilateralism dead in the U.S., in the Republican Party?
BLAIR: It’s important to look at this on an issue-by-issue basis. Look, America has got its position on the Kyoto Protocol. I happen to take a different position, but America can’t be expected just to say, “Well, we’re giving up our positions on these things.” Let’s be clear: a lot of people in Europe thought [on Sept. 11] America would launch strikes that night, it didn’t matter where. That’s not what happened. It wasn’t me or anybody else, it was President Bush’s decision. I never found any difficulty arguingwell, I didn’t even have to argue the case for an international coalition. It was there in the American Administration’s mind from the word go.

TIME: By being so prominent in the fight against global terrorism, have you made Britain more vulnerable to attack?
BLAIR: They went after America because America is the big power. But they were trying terrorist acts in Germany and France the year before. I’ve got no doubt at all they would try to do something in Britain if they could. Of course there will be some who will worry, but I think most people say, “The answer is not to hide away from this but to get out there and sort it.”

TIME: Your wife chaired a press conference about the bad treatment of women in Afghanistan. What about Saudi Arabia? Do you approve of the way women are treated there? Do you think Christians should be able to worship freely there?
BLAIR: There are positions taken there that are not the positions I take here in my country. I’m not going to get in the business of attacking the Saudi system.

TIME: But you do attack the Afghan system.
BLAIR: Yes, but we’re in conflict with the Taliban regime. There are changes happening [in Saudi Arabia] that I think are of interest in terms of attitudes … At the present time I don’t think it’s very helpful for us to tell the Saudis how they should live.

TIME: You have met Yasser Arafat many times. Did President Bush ask your advice about his refusal to meet Arafat at the United Nations General Assembly?
BLAIR: No . . . Of course we discussed the Middle East, but I’m not in the position of giving advice. We will have discussions. He will say things to me, and I will say things to him. By the nature of those discussions, you shouldn’t talk to journalists about them.

TIME: Will America’s relations with Europe be threatened if it strikes Iraq? If it goes into Iraq, will it be alone?
BLAIR: These are questions the Administration should answer for itself. But the international coalition is a coalition against terrorism. People want to proceed according to evidence and according to a strategy that delivers what we’ve set out to deliver, which is to end international terrorism in all its forms. We haven’t finished in Afghanistan yet. We’ve got other issues we have to tackle, but we’ll do that in a deliberate, considered way.

TIME: If President Bush were to call you tonight and ask your advice, what would you say?
BLAIR: I’d wait until he made such a call.

TIME: You advocate a new U.N. resolution to get weapons inspectors into Iraq. Do you think that will help slow down the push to take the war to Iraq?
BLAIR: I think it is necessary to get a new resolution. We’ve been working on that for a long time, and I think we will get that.

TIME: Can you realistically imagine Afghanistan becoming a normal country that doesn’t need constant attention from the international community?
BLAIR: Looking at the Balkans 10 or 15 years ago, people would have said that was impossible [too]. What all of the countries of the region want is a stable partner. I think it’s possible to get a broad-based regime, provided there is reconstruction work going on and some stability. In the end I believe that the vast majority of people the world over don’t want to fight all the time, they want to get on with their lives.

TIME: Can you imagine British troops contributing to stability through long-term peacekeeping?
BLAIR: No. You can’t determine exactly the precise moment when our role ends, but it’s not our job through troops to reconstruct Afghanistan.

TIME: Given the stable, sizable majority of Britons against joining the euro, why are you so confident you can win a referendum on the euro in this Parliament?
BLAIR: If the economic tests are met, then I think it’s the right thing for the country to do economically. Some say to me, “Why are you raising the euro issue, why bother? You have public services to sort out, you have a very weak Conservative opposition, why are you even bothering to raise this when obviously it’s a difficult question?” The answer is, because there are certain issues upon which as a Prime Minister your duty is to say, “This is what I think.”

TIME: But aren’t you arguing against your own success in managing the economy, since Europe is doing much worse than Britain?
BLAIR: You do it if the economic-convergence assessment says it’s to your benefit. Different economies in Europe do well or badly at different points in time. It’s true that in the next year, we will have the strongest growth of any G-7 economy. But that can swing and change round again. We’re in a single market with the rest of Europe now. In a few weeks’ time, 12 out of the 15 countries in the E.U. will be using this currency. Places in London will be using it. But I’ve always said that it’s only worth doing if the economics go the right way.

TIME: You argue that Britain has repeatedly lost influence in Europe by joining its institutions late. Since the euro and the European Central Bank are already launched, haven’t you missed this boat?
BLAIR: Four years ago, our economic indicators were in a completely different position from the rest of Europe’s, so it’s important that the economics are right. I think the rest of Europe would regard us as taking a backward step if the economics are fine but we decided for political reasons that we just weren’t going to be part of Europe.

TIME: Has Britain’s role since Sept. 11 been diminished because you’re not in the euro?
BLAIR: No, I don’t think that’s true at all. Since Sept. 11, I think we’ve obviously played a very strong role in Europe as well. On the other hand, that is in part because people in Europe regard us as being good partners, since they regard the reasons we’re not in the euro as economically based.

TIME: Doesn’t it make more sense for a British central bank to set interest rates according to British conditions? What’s logically implausible about continuing that practice?
BLAIR: There’s nothing logically implausible. The question is, you have to make a judgment in the end if the benefits of currency stability, terms of trade, investment and the fact we’re in a single market with the other countries outweigh the lack of flexibility you then have in your exchange rate by having a single currency.

TIME: What were your first thoughts after hearing the news on Sept. 11?
BLAIR: Shock and outrage and anger, really. I never had any doubt for an instant what the right thing was to do, what we had to do and get others to do. When 4,000 people are murdered in New York in the middle of the day, I honestly don’t understand the argument of people who say we shouldn’t have done anything about it.