|
UK MPs say time to reconsider 'the special relationship'
Chapter 1,427 in Obama's How To Lose Friends & Influence.British politicians should be "less deferential" towards the United States and more willing to say no, an influential group of MPs urges in a report. The Foreign Affairs Committee says it is time to reconsider the term "the special relationship", which it complains is overused by politicians and the media, serving "simultaneously to devalue its meaning and to raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits the relationship can deliver to the UK." Instead, the MPs conclude, Britain should acknowledge that it has "a" special relationship with the US - as do other American allies, partners and regional neighbours. Britain should adopt "a hard-headed political approach to the relationship and a realistic sense of the UK's limits", and not always assume that America's priorities coincide with Britain's, say the MPs. "British and European politicians have been guilty of over-optimism about the extent of influence they have over the US," said Mike Gapes, chairman of the committee. Certainly the UK must continue to position itself closely alongside the US but there is a need to be less deferential and more willing to say no where our interests diverge." He added: "The extent of political influence which the UK has exercised on US decision-making as a consequence of its military commitments is likely to diminish. Over the longer-term the UK is unlikely to be able to influence the US to the extent it has in the past." The 14-member, cross-party committee says that the perception after the Iraq War that the UK was a "poodle" to America's wishes was highly damaging, and reported dissatisfaction among American generals over the capabilities of British forces gives "cause for concern". "The fact that these perceptions exist at all remains disturbing, given the considerable effort that has been expended and the sacrifices that have been made by British armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan." Sir David Manning, a former British ambassador to the US, told the committee: "The key is to work in partnership with the United States when our interests dictate -- and they will in many areas, although not necessarily on every occasion." But the report also warns the British government to be wary of assuming that British and American military strategy was aligned. Use of British territory for rendition of prisoners was described as "disturbing", and the MPs say that the secrecy surrounding rendition of terrorist suspects by the US through the naval base of Diego Garcia, which is leased from Britain, was regrettable. The publication of the 244-page report comes at a time of apparent cooling in relations between the two countries. The committee heard it was "unsurprising" that President Barack Obama - an American who grew up in Hawaii, whose foreign experience was of Indonesia, and who had a Kenyan father - did not have "sentimental reflexes" towards the UK. Uh... OK. But perhaps what is more surprising is that we have a US President with an apparently inverted perspective of what the US's natural, historic and strategic alliances should be. A cantankerous President who goes out of his way to make trouble for his country's friends whilst 'coo-ey'ing, lace hankie in hand, to the jeering mob of America's enemies. Heather Conley and Reginald Dale from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies told a hearing: "There is clear evidence that Europe (and thus Britain) is much less important to the Obama administration than it was to previous US administrations, and the Obama administration appears to be more interested in what it can get out of the special relationship than in the relationship itself." The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi by the Scottish executive was strongly criticised by the US and the majority in the UK: crass Labour/ScotsNaz contempt for decency and Hillary Clinton's call for Britain to sit down with Argentina to "resolve the issues" around the Falklands was not appreciated in London. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the former ambassador to the United Nations, told the Committee that when the UK has disagreements with the United States in official business, "we play out those disagreements, we argue with the United States, in private. We tend not to argue in public unless public explanation is necessary or we are having a great row about something that cannot be kept out of the public domain," he said. The report's authors note, however, that despite Mr Obama's personal coolness towards the UK, his policies are closer in step with UK thinking than those of his predecessor. Under the Obama administration there is a greater alignment with British policy than with the previous Bush administration -- whose approach to climate change and the "war on terror" conflicted with the view in Britain. So there's more alignment now, but the special relationship is over? The labour dominated committee still can't resist a bit of Bush-bashing, just for old times' sake. The report notes that, according to the Foreign Office, there are few areas of contemporary foreign policy in which the UK and US co-operate as closely as in Afghanistan and Pakistan, whether in diplomatic, military or development terms. The sharing of intelligence between the US and the UK was praised by the MPs. President Obama's recalibrated strategy on Afghanistan showed "a high degree of convergence with the UK strategy presented to the House of Commons in December 2007", they said. The report's authors called for "an honest and frank debate about the UK's role in the world based on a realistic assessment of what the UK can, and should, offer and deliver." With Obama souring old friendships and turning his back to Europe, who is going to lead the civilised world now? There's a clearly emerging vacancy on the top podium that must be being eyed by Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel, (god forbid) - van Rompuy... etc. Posted by: Bulldog 2010-03-28 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=293468 |