in

• Issue 2

What will happen to the American-British relationship after Blair steps down on 27 June? After the announcement of his departure date, the UK and US relationship has taken a new turn.

The unprecedented attack of 11 September 2001 showed the true nature of the Atlantic alliance. 

With its commitment to stand solidly behind America, the UK took on a significantly more forceful role in worldwide geopolitics.

But Blair didn't only stand by Bush whether it was right or wrong. During his visit to the US in the wake of the attacks he also marketed a new global philosophy, telling both and America and the world that terrorism is our newest evil.

We were in a new world war, he said, between free democracy and terror.

Whether the "special relationship" influenced Europe's security policies is unclear, but we do know that the US convinced NATO to join the war against terror.

It could be also argued that the refusal of many European countries to continue aid to Palestine after Hamas was elected came down to Europe's unwillingness to burn bridges with the American government - Blair, allegedly Bush's "lap dog", was a major driving force behind EU anti-terror policy, and he was undoubtedly influenced by the US.

Had he stayed in office beyond this year, he may have come to regret selling out European friendships for an American one - but he's salvaged his position in the G8 and will soon be handing off to Gordon Brown.

Brown, for his part, has begun to distance himself from Blair's unflinching support of US policy, causing pundits to suggest that US-UK relations will cool as summer temperatures rise.

The opposite may be the case in France, though, as Sarkozy - who jogs in a New York Police Department t-shirt - is unabashedly pro-American and may be Blair's philosophical successor even if Brown moves the UK back towards traditional European policies.

The bottom line is this: how long will it take the UK government and people to realise that the war on terror will lead them nowhere?

It's just as Huntington predicted years ago in "The Clash of Civilisations", which predicted an ongoing armed conflict between the West and the Islamic world.

Let's recall Hutnington's premise.

"It is my hypothesis," he said, "that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind, and the dominating source of conflict, will be cultural. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."

And that's just what we have now.

US foreign policy, especially towards the Middle East, may have fuelled anti-Western, and in particular anti-US, sentiment in the Muslim world - and is also commonly used by jihadists to justify their attacks.

The UK, or France, could easily find itself in the same position if either nation blindly supports US policy. I don't want the UK (or France) to be put in this position, and I doubt their governments do, either.

But rather than fighting each other, let's stick to boycotts of two countries many Islamists consider to be supporters of terrorism - the US and Israel.

Image source: AP