AMERICA'S IMAGE - 2

Here's a real shocker: the American ambassador speaks to the British media.

Well, all right, he didn't say an awful lot, but the administration's new man in Grosvenor Square, Robert Tuttle, at least made the effort, which is more than his racehorse-owning predecessor ever seemed to do. America's PR effort in Britain has been an absolute disaster in recent years. Let's hope things are about to change. Although I can't honestly say the interview makes gripping reading. Tuttle was clearly determined to play it safe on this occasion:

And how would the ambassador describe Tony Blair? I inquired. "Everything I have read about Tony Blair would lead me to believe that he is a conviction politician," he replied.

Well, yes, I think we can all agree on that. Later, the conversation turns to the subject of anti-Americanism in Britain:

The new ambassador, I suggest, will have his work cut out if he is going to effect a radical change in these negative attitudes. Does he understand the depth of the hostility felt towards President Bush and the political damage Tony Blair has suffered as a result of his unwavering support for the Bush administration?

"Look, I am aware of it, but I cannot say that I understand it," he replied. "The president is a man of conviction, he is very serious and he is very committed to the successful conclusion of the war on terror."

Is that kind of boilerplate is going to win over a cynical media pack? There's a huge amount of work to be done.

British diplomats suggest that the absence of an effective American ambassador who is able to explain and defend White House policy has been a major factor in the decline of President Bush's standing in Britain. William Farish, Mr Tuttle's immediate predecessor, whose main interest was breeding horses, kept such a low profile in London in the build-up to the Iraq War that he became an embarrassment on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr Farish returned home last summer, since when the post has been vacant, a situation that was recently condemned in The Times as a "dereliction of duty" on the part of the White House given Britain's military and political support in the war on terror.

Maybe Farish's replacement will turn out to be the great communicator we need. Fingers crossed. Being an eternal optimist, I'm trying not to read too much into this comment:

By his own admission Mr Tuttle does not have much media experience. "When I worked at the White House the media were always after me for information about this and that, but I kept my counsel."

There's more on how ambassadors are chosen in this Newsweek article. Deep pockets often count for more than expertise.

Comments

[jaed]

William Farish, Mr Tuttle's immediate predecessor, whose main interest was breeding horses, kept such a low profile in London in the build-up to the Iraq War that he became an embarrassment on both sides of the Atlantic.

Considering what happened to his predecessor immediately after 9/11/2001, I'm not sure I can blame him for keeping a low profile. Stick your head up and you'll get it blown off (rhetorically, of course), like as not. I don't think giving the press goldplated opportunities to give America that sort of bad publicity is exactly helpful in the PR department.

And no, I'm not sure what to do about it. But recognizing the reality - that no matter what we do, it will be spun negatively and will contribute to even more bad feeling - is where we have to start, regardless of where we go from there.