| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| UK MPs say time to reconsider 'the special relationship' |
| 2010-03-28 |
| 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 |
| #28 ed, I don't really agree with your assessment - I don't think FDR should have HAD to do an end-around to fight Hitler. Of course, if Chamberlain et al had faced Hitler down in the first place, a lot could have been avoided. Or maybe Stalin would have conquered all Europe and not lost millions of soldiers in the process. I dunno. I do agree with your second paragraph. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-03-28 21:39 |
| #27 Joe, 6000 years ago the Turks weren't living in the Mediterranean; they were living in Siberia north of the Altai mountains. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-03-28 21:33 |
| #26 Glenmore, Roosevelt was not only shipping arms and ammunition to Britain but was trying to goad Germany into war since 1940. The US Navy was in an undeclared war with the Germans months before Pearl Harbor in violation of US law. There were no US interests at under threat. It was to keep alive a sometime US ally - Britain. W/o the undeclared war against the German navy already under way, there was no reason for Hitler to declare war against the US after Pearl Harbor. Even then, the Germans could do little to the United States. With a slightly different policy, the US could have avoided the European war, and the 300,000 American dead, altogether. Whether you agree w/ my assessment or not, don't you find it the height of arrogance of the British Left to declare the "special relationship" is over because of 500 British deaths while the US intervention saved British asses twice and the Left's object of throbbing desire, the Soviets, once? |
| Posted by: ed 2010-03-28 20:57 |
| #25 WAFF > ARTIC claims that IRISH MEN are descended from TURKIC + OTHER MEDITERRANEAN EMIGRES from 6000 Yarns ago, via "Y" Chromosome study. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-03-28 20:38 |
| #24 I'm looking forward to the day when the British ambassador says "You know, we have a lovely bust of old Winnie that would be perfect for that corner over there" and President Palin says "We'd love have it, you betcha!". |
| Posted by: SteveS 2010-03-28 20:16 |
| #23 ed, WWII was OUR war as well as Britain's, and they lost almost as many as we did (way more, as a fraction their population) to win it. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-03-28 20:12 |
| #22 but just how do explain Besoeker, President Obama does not care about his African cousins, he needs to be seen caring about Africa. The only people he actually cares about, besides himself and his womenfolk, are the transnational UN types whose good opinion he craves, and he doesn't actually care about them, only about getting (not earning) their good opinion. He only joined that church to get the votes, as so many other things he has done in his life, and he likely only paid enough attention to the sermons to be able to spout the cant as needed. He didn't need to be taught that, he'd learnt the lessons of hatred long since at the knees of his mother and grandparents. In my opinion. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-03-28 20:01 |
| #21 The Brits preferred Obama 4:1 over McCain and did many things, some underhanded, to influence the American voters. So excuse me if I don't feel much sympathy for hurt egos? Over 400,000 Americans have died fighting Britain's war in the past 100 years. That's around 1 million today taking into account the larger population. How may British died fighting in America's wars? Around 2500? The largest in Korea. That's the only unequal relationship that matters. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-03-28 17:02 |
| #20 Our list of allies grows thin. /Elrond |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2010-03-28 16:04 |
| #19 Crypto-communist? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-03-28 14:21 |
| #18 The current president is not Afro-centric, Besoeker. trailing wife on the other computer Forgive me TW, but just a couple of points, there are countless others....but just how do explain over twenty years of listening to Wright spew his white hate and Black Liberation Theology every Sunday, a spouse that has only recently been proud to be an American, a total indifference to Israel, and daily mentoring from members of the Black Congressional Caucus? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-28 14:19 |
| #17 An Afrocentric Obama The current president is not Afro-centric, Besoeker. He is, as lex points out, vaguely for little brown people everywhere, but actually against everything the West stands for, so long as he can do it from the comfort of a Western standard of living. He's a classic reactionary Parlour Pink, essentially unchanged since the 1890s. George Bernard Shaw would not have written him into his plays, as -- barring the achievement of power to do the things he and his little friends have been pontificating about for generations -- he is entirely unoriginal and uninteresting. |
| Posted by: trailing wife on the other computer 2010-03-28 13:53 |
| #16 If you wanted to destroy the west what would you do differently? I'd not marry Michelle. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-03-28 13:27 |
| #15 If you wanted to destroy the west what would you do differently? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2010-03-28 12:50 |
| #14 Bulldog: 'Obama would happily surrender authority to the UN: does that mean the US has "severe psychological problems"?' Well, yes. But that doesn't make England any saner. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-03-28 12:10 |
| #13 Sadly, Besoeker, you're right. Barry's view of the world is essentially that of your average lefty junior college literature prof. The man clearly views the western nations as colonialist usurpers who need to be brought down with insults and stunts like returning the Churchill bust, sending Brown a gift of puerile DVDs, spitting on the Israelis, going out of his way to humiliate the Poles and Czechs (WTF did the Poles ever do to Barry's relatives?), siding with Argentine tinpot thugs vs the UK, etc.... It's really nothing more than Galloway-ism. The enemy of my granddad's enemies-- white imperialists-- is my friend. And every white nation that does not actively oppose or seek to thwart the US is, in Barry's twisted view of the world, an imperialist nation. For him, this is payback time. What an absurd and foolish little man. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-03-28 12:02 |
| #12 An Afrocentric Obama will NEVER embrace western or north European values or culture. Western culture, Christianity, and it's heritate are an anathema to Obama. Separatist, self governing urban communities have been a reality for years and represent a strong political voting base for Obama and the left. Obama's campaign of "social justice" will, through edict and taxation, sweep the rest of the country under his control. This is about Obama Nationalism and power, nothing less. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-28 11:37 |
| #11 THe great irony here is that, at the same time that Barry is dragging this nation leftward and sharply increasing the government's share of GDP-- federal gov't share's going up from 20% to 28% soon-- Sarkozy and other continental European leaders have been REDUCING the tax burden and DECREASING their govts' share of GDP. Likewise, the European populations, especially in northern Europe, are becoming more and more opposed to islamism and multi-culti idiocies. We and they should cease with the grand transatlantic pi$$match and start exploring ways to bind ourselves more, not less, closely together. Starting with a transatlantic free trade agreement. Imagine how much wealthier and more secure we would be if we were to join forces against the Chinese. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-03-28 11:22 |
| #10 Never forget that our president (spit) is half-Kenyan. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2010-03-28 11:14 |
| #9 It may turn out to be the Asian Century, but that still wouldn't mean that the West should allow itself to dissolve in bickering and old-couple spats. We have far more in common with not just the Brits but with every west European nation than we will ever have with India or China. To take one not-so-trivial example, the ideas at the heart of our Constitution came from Locke and Montesquieu. For all the pi$$fests between us and the euros, the differences between our and their concepts of individual-state relations are trivial when you consider lovely Asian traditions such as India's caste system, or China's female infanticide tradition, or a pattern of government corruption that's the norm, not an outlier, in every aspect of governance in those nations. God save us from a century dominated by "asian values." We and the Euros, and especially the Brits, and the Israelis and Aussies, need each other far more than we can imagine. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-03-28 11:14 |
| #8 "First and foremost, their two main political parties are increasingly the same as far as policy is concerned, and both of them are more than willing to surrender sovereignty to their overlords in Brussels. basically true, which is why so many people are only going to vote Tory through gritted teeth. In the last European elections UKIP came second after the Tories - a result which demonstrates clearly how sick the British voters are of the Brussels steamroller. But in our system, as yours, it's usually a case of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. Obama would happily surrender authority to the UN: does that mean the US has "severe psychological problems"? ...like when they tried to destroy us around the close of the 18th century and again in the beginning of the 19th. With friends like that....you know the rest. Wow. Yo! Your knowledge of history, American values is almost as impressive as your POTUS's. Who are the US's natural allies if not the likes of the UK and Israel? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2010-03-28 10:37 |
| #7 Like it or not UK is closer to US Than Europe but Bambi does not appreciate this and wants to be closer to Africa and Asia! |
| Posted by: Kofi Thinese2517 2010-03-28 10:32 |
| #6 No, the "special relationship" refers to the special times in our history... like when they tried to destroy us around the close of the 18th century and again in the beginning of the 19th. With friends like that....you know the rest. |
| Posted by: Yo Adrian 2010-03-28 10:25 |
| #5 England obviously has some severe psychological problems. First and foremost, their two main political parties are increasingly the same as far as policy is concerned, and both of them are more than willing to surrender sovereignty to their overlords in Brussels. Plus, they are now moving against third parties, to lock them out of the political process, so that England's collapse is assured. So it seems that they could use a dose of either Fawkes or Cromwell, to put their house back in order. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-03-28 10:15 |
| #4 The special relationship, as far as I can tell, was supposed to be about a brotherly relationship between nations, with Britain as the elder brother advising brash young America in the use of the power it's acquired as the world's superpower. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-03-28 10:08 |
| #3 Relationship going south; Obama triumphs! |
| Posted by: Highlander 2010-03-28 09:51 |
| #2 There are also things such as elementary manners, Fester. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-03-28 08:50 |
| #1 I always thought "the special relationship" referred to intelligence sharing, not policy, which may shift here and there based on the fantasies of some clueless politician. |
| Posted by: Fester Thaiger8930 2010-03-28 07:39 |