Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Will the Special Relationship survive under Brown?
AdamB    6/28/2007 9:07:31 AM
After Blair Will the special relationship survive? National Review By Nile Gardiner June 27, 2007 Far from being America's "poodle", Britain is very important for the United States Tony Blair’s departure from Downing Street potentially marks the end of an era in U.S.-British relations. His extraordinarily close partnership with President Bush since the 9/11 attacks defied all expectations and provided the engine for the global War on Terror. In the past six years, the alliance between the United States and Great Britain rose to its strongest point since the days of the Cold War bond between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Today, more than 12,000 British troops fight alongside their American counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and London and Washington are cooperating on dozens of counterterrorism operations across the globe. The enduring strength of the alliance is the envy of the free world, and the French president or German chancellor can only dream of the kind of direct access to the White House that is the preserve of the British prime minister. The special relationship is, however, under threat, and stands in a precarious long-term position. There are major challenges on the horizon, including the stunning rise of anti-Americanism in Britain, growing attempts by the al Qaeda network to break the alliance, as well as the continuing loss of British sovereignty in the European Union. The relationship cannot be taken for granted, and protecting and defending it should be a top-level priority for the U.S. government. There is growing public animosity in the U.K. toward the alliance, and widespread disillusionment with American global leadership, across all political parties, social classes, and age groups. In a September 2006 Financial Times/Harris poll, a striking 33 percent of Britons surveyed described the United States as "the greatest threat to global stability."(Just 21 percent named Iran, and 10 percent, North Korea.) Nearly 70 percent of Britons questioned in an October 2006 Guardian/ICM survey stated that U.S. policy had made the world "less safe" since 2001, and 75 percent agreed that President Bush was “a great or moderate danger to peace”, more than the 62 percent scored by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the 69 percent by Kim Jong Il. In a June 2006 Daily Telegraph/ YouGov poll, 77 percent of those polled disagreed with the view that the United States was “a beacon of hope for the world,” and 58 percent supported the description of America as “an imperial power.” Sixty-seven percent of respondents expressed “little or very little confidence” in “the ability of the United States to deal wisely with present world problems,” and 65 percent supported the view that U.S. policies made the world “a somewhat or much worse place to live in.” A July 2006 Guardian/ICM poll found that 63 percent of Britons thought the UK was “too close to the USA,” and just 9 percent of British respondents in a March 2007 YouGov poll agreed with the proposition that "Britain should continue to base its foreign policy on its close relationship with the United States." If these poll findings are cemented over the next few years and become part of an irreversible trend, the ramifications for future British policy toward the United States will be immense. They reflect a commonly held, though hugely unfair view among the British public that Britain under Tony Blair has become America’s “poodle,” receiving nothing in return. Blair’s unyielding support for President Bush perversely weakened the prospect of future British leaders standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States. His successor, Gordon Brown, will be heavily dependent upon the traditional socialist Left of the ruling Labor party for support, and will be under pressure not to emulate the close Bush-Blair partnership. A frequent visitor to the United States, Brown’s instincts are far from anti-American, but those of his party certainly are. He will undoubtedly seek to create some distance between Washington and London, and will prioritize ‘soft’ issues, such as international development, foreign aid, and global warming. The high-profile, flashy public press conferences that were a regular feature of the Washington political scene when Blair was prime minister, are likely to replaced by low key, but tougher behind the scenes negotiations, with Brown cutting a far less dashing figure on the world stage. While there is no prospect of a British withdrawal from Afghanistan — in fact more troops are arriving every day — a further deterioration in the security situation in Iraq and a significant loss of British troops would greatly increase the pressure on Brown to withdraw Britain’s remaining 5,500 soldiers from the country, unilaterally if necessary. It will certainly be the goal of Tehran to force the British out of Shiite-dominated southern Iraq, breaking down the international coalition, and increasing the pol
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
EssexBoy       8/1/2007 3:46:24 PM
"I think the childish response is "if we can't be equal, then we won't be friends at all!"
That would indeed be a childish response. My point was that the American posters did not appear to be concerned about how the change in Primeminister would affect the "special relationship" and that we should stop kidding ourselves as to our importance to the US.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private    Reply   8/1/2007 3:55:53 PM




Perhaps it is because my own country Scotland is already ruled from a different nation’s parliament that I find all the talk about losing sovereignty to be a mute point. As long as we get strong representation within the EU (and other than Germany the UK’s voice is the loudest) I see no problem with further integration, only benefits.


I also have no objection with the UK having a close relationship with the US as long as it’s from a position of strength from inside the EU than its current Junior/Senior partnership.




Scotland has a much better degree of representation in Parliament than England does, in terms of MP per voter, votes in some some Scottish constituencies are worth 3 or 4 times as much as mine, on top of that Scotland has its own Parliament, over which the English have no say. Rationally someone living in England has more worries about sovereignty than someone living in Scotland surely? Just out of interest if I moved up to live in Scotland, would I then be Scottish to you or English?

The Junior/Senior partnership is a fact of life. The US is 9 or 10 times our GDP. Having said that we get a huge advantage within the EU by being so close to the US. Germany, France Italy and the rest would sell their grandmas for our relationship with the US, "special", "lapdog" what ever you want to call it....


I think you are skipping over the fact there’s 533 English MP’s (not to mention 40 Welsh) and only 59 Scottish MP’s. Not that I’m saying this is unfair given the population differences, but it is clear who can stand on whose toes. If you’re worried about Scots voting on English and Welsh legislation then don’t bring English and Welsh issues to Westminster, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, get your own parliament, to raise these problems.

You are wrong, it is unfair, English votes are still worth less. The English are being victimised by the Scots here.

The Eastern region of England has a slightly larger population than Scotland, but only has 55 MPs. Does the rest of the UK stand on Eastern England's toes as much as it apparently can on Scottish toes?

You're original post was that Scotland was ruled by a different nation's parliament, my point here is that in fact Parliament is more Scottish than you would expect.

I would quite happily see an English parliament gain control over much of these issues



  • the National Health Service in England;

  • schools and teacher training;

  • further and higher education;

  • local government finance and taxation;

  • land-use planning and building control;

  • the environment;

  • passenger and road transport;

  • economic development and financial assistance to industry;

  • civil and criminal courts;

  • much of criminal and civil law;

  • prisons;

  • police and fire services;

  • food standards;

  • certain areas of agriculture and fisheries;

  • the arts;

  • sport;


The EU on the other hand is not dominated by any single nation and it quite fluid. As I have already said the UK is extremely well represented and it is incredibility difficult to get anything done without British consent.

"not dominated"; "fluid"; "incredibly difficult to get anything done with

 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private    Reply   8/1/2007 4:09:40 PM

"I think the childish response is "if we can't be equal, then we won't be friends at all!"

That would indeed be a childish response. My point was that the American posters did not appear to be concerned about how the change in Primeminister would affect the "special relationship" and that we should stop kidding ourselves as to our importance to the US.

 

 

It would, didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of being childish.

My point was that I wouldn't expect a thread on the US board unless it was started by a UK poster, nor would I expect the converse.

Our importance to the US is over blown (often by the sodding Daily Mail*), both countries are ultimately out for their own interest, otherwise what is the point of being a country at all?

But their is a danger in swinging too far the other way and believing that we are therefore of no importance, that would be childish. On this board you hear nice things said by US posters of the UK more than you do of for instance France, Germany, Luxembourg... etc.

*The Daily Mail is the only organ i've ever seen that managed to make a hypocrite of itself in a single sentence...

 
Quote    Reply

ProDemocracy    US value on UK alliance   8/2/2007 10:08:37 AM
I think it's easy for UK citizens to underestimate the value the US puts on the alliance.  As mentioned in this and previous threads, it was Blair who pushed Clinton into action in Kosovo (after saying "Never again" in Rwanda), it was Thatcher who bolstered Bush Sr in the face of Saddam Hussein.  The UK definitely brings a significant value to the table.
 
Having said that, the average US citizen naiive about world affairs would typically not understand the dynamics of this friendship.  Post 9/11, that has changed.  US citizens no longer have the luxery of putting the international pages at the back of the newspaper.  We are more informed and aware...sometimes misinformed but at least we are trying to pay attention.  One thing most Americans who may never have paid attentioni before can definitely agree on is our appreciation for an ally that sticks with us through thick and thin.  And most Americans would agree that our most important bilateral relationship is that which we share with the UK.  Outside of Australia (another valuable ally), what other countries are as willing as the US and UK to back up words with their fists?  America needs an ally with that same willingness to go to the mat to protect our interests (which overlap so much). Notice I said "needs" - we need the UK - not as much perhaps as the UK needs the US, but the relationship is one of equals.
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private    The Daily Show's Take on things...   8/2/2007 1:58:54 PM
Made me larf anyway.

h*tp://www.guynews.tv/2007/08/brown-meets-bush.html


 
Quote    Reply

Asymmetric    Armchair reply   8/6/2007 5:11:47 AM
 

Armchair reply

On the EU

I am heartened by the fact that your “only” criticisms of the EU are operational ones. It is not in any European nation’s interests for the EU to be a bureaucratic state run by technocrats. Any reform that that streamlines the running of the 27 different participators in the EU process while increasing democrat accountability is to be welcomed. Saying all this, I would be surprised if you could not level many of the same criticisms at the British establishment i.e. the House of Lords, the Monarchy, etc…

On Scotland.

There is no way the Scots could ever give the English a “poll tax,” past, present or future.

On the Daily Mail.

Yes, it is Britain’s No1 ill-informed bigoted paper.
 
Quote    Reply

SGTObvious       8/6/2007 10:48:11 AM
 
"The deafening silence on the US boards tells us how special this relationship is to them. Time we grew up and realised we're just a handy medium-sized ally and not a partner to the world's superpower."
 
No, the deafening silence is the utter lack of anything controversial worth arguing about.   This was not a "Shall we stand together as brothers in war?" visit, this was a "Have you tried the Chili-Dogs?" visit.
 
SGTObvious
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Jimme       8/7/2007 2:48:06 AM

"I think the childish response is "if we can't be equal, then we won't be friends at all!"

That would indeed be a childish response. My point was that the American posters did not appear to be concerned about how the change in Primeminister would affect the "special relationship" and that we should stop kidding ourselves as to our importance to the US.

 

 

If us Americans don't appear too concerned, its because we don't believe there is much to worry about. Our special relationship makes too much sense for both of us. I said the relationship is more important to the UK because the only other option is what? the EU? Exactly. How many other super powers are around for the UK to ally itself with. Also like th article I posted points out, despite the nonsense about UK being a US vassal, the UK actually has major influence over the US which it has utilized going back to WWI & II . Now having such huge influence over both sides of the Atlantic is a major deal that the UK would be foolish to relinquish.

So basically our whole lack of concern stems from the fact that the Idea of the UK being anything but our number one partner is quite absurd. Since grade school in the 80s I have been taught that the British are our staunchest allies.

 
Quote    Reply

ProDemocracy    Options - Jimme   8/7/2007 4:16:30 PM




"I think the childish response is "if we can't be equal, then we won't be friends at all!"



That would indeed be a childish response. My point was that the American posters did not appear to be concerned about how the change in Primeminister would affect the "special relationship" and that we should stop kidding ourselves as to our importance to the US.



 



 



If us Americans don't appear too concerned, its because we don't believe there is much to worry about. Our special relationship makes too much sense for both of us. I said the relationship is more important to the UK because the only other option is what? the EU? Exactly. How many other super powers are around for the UK to ally itself with. Also like th article I posted points out, despite the nonsense about UK being a US vassal, the UK actually has major influence over the US which it has utilized going back to WWI & II . Now having such huge influence over both sides of the Atlantic is a major deal that the UK would be foolish to relinquish.

So basically our whole lack of concern stems from the fact that the Idea of the UK being anything but our number one partner is quite absurd. Since grade school in the 80s I have been taught that the British are our staunchest allies.



And for that matter, what other options does the US have?  We both have nuclear deterrants so no country would attack either one of us...but if the US needs an ally that can actually field competent conventional military forces, english speaking helps, consistent loyalty toward common goals and willingness to use military force to protect mutual intersts, then who else could the US turn to?  Austrailia?  They are a staunch ally also capable of fielding first class forces, but their size prohibits them from having the projection and size that Britain can field.  Canada?  See Australia. 
Regardless of the overwhelming nature of our military power, no country wants to "go it alone" when engaging in military action...even if we do have a preponderance of power.  So as Jimme seemed to imply, the relationship is one of equals...the UK does have significant influence on the US and vice versa.
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       8/8/2007 6:00:40 PM

 

Armchair reply


On the EU


I am heartened by the fact that your “only” criticisms of the EU are operational ones. Operational,  philosophical, practical and moral objections I'd have said.

It is not in any European nation’s interests for the EU to be a bureaucratic state run by technocrats. Any reform that that streamlines the running of the 27 different participators in the EU process while increasing democrat accountability is to be welcomed. I agree, where are these reforms though? The truth is the Constitution is presently doing the exact opposite.

Saying all this, I would be surprised if you could not level many of the same criticisms at the British establishment i.e. the House of Lords, the Monarchy, etc…

Go on then?

On Scotland.

There is no way the Scots could ever give the English a “poll tax,” past, present or future.

ID cards anyone?

If the Poll Tax is a tool of we evil English (Surely we can be even more specific and say the Poll Tax was a policy of those evil Lincolnshire-ites or amoral Grantham-iams as that was where Thatcher was from???) then ID Cards are the fault of the Scottish.


On the Daily Mail.


Yes, it is Britain’s No1 ill-informed bigoted paper.

The Daily Heil

You don't appear to have answered any of my other numerous points.

The US has many faults (and many, many positive points) but it is not currently trying to do an unelected, not-voted-for, un-mandated power grab in the UK, and influence that the US has, (no matter how great) is merely that - influence.

So, someone tell me why it is that anti-americanism is fashionable amongst those "mid twenties and down" and anti EU feelings are seen as solely as the preserve of sad old Little Englanders?

Could it be that for instance the Beeb the Grauniad and the rest are really, really, really biased? Maybe, in fact just as biased as the Daily Mail so judiciousley mocked above, just in the opposite political direction? 

If you are a democrat of any stripe residing in the UK then frankly worries and concern about the US should be heavily secondary to worries about the EU.

If on the other hand you think the project is so grand, important and wonderful that its worth hiding the truth, that the little people can't be trusted to know enough to vote the right way in areferendum, then fine.  But please don't call yourself a democrat, or a  liberal, or progressive or "left wing"or  anything like that.

You're a believer in Oligarchy.


 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics