IS THE ANGLO/AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP REALLY OVER?
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5886/pub_detail.asp
”
Britain’s political life is moribund, its identity obscured, and even a change of leadership will not instill much vigor into the body politic. There will always be a relationship with the United States of America, but it is a sad fact that under Britain’s current political leadership, that relationship is becoming progressively less special.”
Exclusive: Is America’s ‘Special Relationship’ with Britain Really Over?
Adrian Morgan
Origins of the Name
The “special relationship” between Britain and America was first popularized in 1946 by Winston Churchill (pictured above with President Harry S. Truman). Three years earlier, Churchill had used the term in a private communication. According to the first edition of John Dumbrell’s book A Special Relationship (2001, page 7), the notion that something “special” existed between Britain and America was first put on paper in July 1940. Edward F. L. Wood, first Lord Halifax, had been Britain’s Foreign Secretary from 1938 until 1940, when he wrote of “the possibility of some sort of special relationship” between the two nations. Wood became Britain’s Ambassador in Washington from 1940 until 1946.
There was considerable difference of between Churchill and Lord Halifax, with the latter associated with Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement towards the Nazi war machine. Despite this, the notion of a “special association” was taken seriously by Churchill, himself the son of an American mother. On March 5, 1946, Winston Churchill delivered a speech at Fulton, Missouri, which he called “The Sinews of Peace.” It is popularly referred to as “The Iron Curtain Speech” as it was within this address that he declared that an “iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe.”
It was within this speech that the term “special relationship” first came to the attention of the world at large. Churchill said: “….I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States.”
The “special relationship” was born out of a mutual suspicion of the intentions of the Soviets. It has suffered fluctuations over its history. The Suez Crisis of 1956, when President Gamel Nasser of Egypt, armed by the Soviets, appeared prepared to increase Russian influence in the Middle East. This development strengthened the “special relationship” and under president Kennedy, the bond was strong. In the late 1960s, after Soviet-supported Arab nations attempted unsuccessfully to overthrow Israel in 1967, the United States of America embarked upon a new “special relationship” with Israel. Initially this led to a cooling of relationships with Britain, which maintained its previous links with Arab nations.
The special relationship seemed to be more intense while there were threats of Soviet expansionism. Though British soldiers fought in the Korean War, and Prime Minister Harold Wilson offered verbal (but not practical) support for the Vietnam War, China did not pose a direct threat to Western European interests. During the 1960s, Britain ceded many of its former colonies, and with its diminished territorial influence, its political and military influence waned. Britain was influential within NATO more on account of its intelligence, rather than its military power. Shared intelligence began during World War II and around 1947 (the year the CIA was formed), SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) agreements had been made between Britain and the U.S., formalizing intelligence-gathering.
In the 1970s, the special relationship between Britain and America seemed to be losing its importance, but at the start of the 1980s, the close bonds between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan ensured a revival of the association. In the 1990s, the rise of the Asian economies and the demise of the Soviet Empire eroded Britain’s strategic importance.
Since the end of WWII, many UK air bases have been used by the U.S. Air Force. During the 1980s, plans were made for some of these to house ground-launched Cruise Missiles. Among these, sites such as RAF Greenham Common, RAF Upper Heyford, and RAF Molesworth are now hardly used for flying. These sites are still remembered for the protests, but with the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the fall of the “Iron Curtain,” their strategic importance is secondary to other American Strategic Air Command sites in Britain and Europe. At Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire, F111E aircraft once thundered above the Cherwell valley, and American airmen mixed well with the local community. In 1994, American occupancy at Upper Heyford finally came to an end.
Bill Clinton took an interest in British affairs, assisting Tony Blair in his attempts to achieve peace in Northern Ireland (where earlier Ted Kennedy had involved himself in divisive factionalism). It was under George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003 that the “special relationship” came once again under the spotlight. The common enemy was no longer the USSR but violent Islamism.
Blair retired from British politics in May 2007. He gave his position to Gordon Brown, who officially became prime minister 12 weeks later. Neither the general public nor his own party voted for Gordon Brown to be premier. On July 31, 2007, when Mr. Brown went to Camp David to meet George W. Bush, I wondered on the pages of Family Security Matters if Gordon Brown would maintain the “special relationship” between America and Britain. In August 2007 I wondered if Gordon Brown’s almost appeasing approach to homegrown Islamist terrorism, so at odds with that of the Bush administration, signaled the “first crack” in the relationship.
This past weekend, on Sunday, March 28th, a report was published in Britain. Compiled by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, a panel of Members of Parliament from all major political parties, the message of the report was stark and depressing. According to the report, the “special relationship” between America and Britain, at least in the manner in which it is understood, is now dead.
The Report
The entire report, entitled “Global Security: UK-US Relations” can be read in either pdf format or via subject-related HTML links. In the official press notice Mike Gapes (Labour MP for Ilford South) stated: “The UK needs to adopt a more hard-headed political approach towards our relationship with the US with a realistic sense of our own limits and our national interests.”
He added: “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. In a sense, the UK foreign policy approach this Committee is advocating is in many ways similar to the more pragmatic tone which President Obama has adopted towards the UK.”
Gapes admitted that a “close and valuable” relationship still existed but warned that the actual term “special relationship” is “misleading and we recommend that its use should be avoided.”
Gapes argued that any special relationship that exists must also be shared with other countries, but the report suggests (section 6, para 210) that the Obama administration itself is behind much of the cooling of the special relationship.
Heather Conley and Reginald Dale, from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, were called to give evidence. They are quoted as saying: “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.”
When Gordon Brown went to the United States in 2009, many organs of the British press grumbled that President Obama appeared to be making snubs toward the British prime minister. Certainly there seemed an imbalance in the exchange of gifts. Obama gave the UK premier a boxed set of 25 DVDs of classic movies, movies that could be bought off Amazon or in a video store. Brown gave Obama a pen-holder carved from timbers of HMS Gannett, a ship built in 1878 to protect trade and combat slavery.
The Daily Mail stated that “oak from the Gannet’s sister ship, HMS Resolute, was carved to make a desk that has sat in the Oval Office in the White House since 1880. Mr Brown also handed over a framed commission for HMS Resolute and a first edition of the seven-volume biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert.”
During George W. Bush’s tenure of the White House, a bust of Winston Churchill, carved by American-born sculptor Jacob Epstein, had been displayed in the Oval Office. Worth a mint on the art market, it had been on long-term loan since 2001. The fact that Obama formally handed back the bust, despite being encouraged to keep the object for four years, was perceived as the biggest snub of all. As noted by Newsweek, the London Times newspaper assumed Obama associated the bust with Churchill’s 1952 order to crack down on the Mau Mau rebellion. Hussein Onyango Obama, grandfather of the president, had been interned as a subversive for two years. Whether Hussein Onyango Obama deserved jail or not is debatable – but Churchill could not be held personally responsible. H.O. Obama was jailed in 1949, three years before Churchill ordered a crackdown.
The returning of the bust of Churchill – first proponent of the “special relationship” was seen in Britain as an insult to that relationship. Toby Harnden of the Telegraph newspaper, reporting on the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report, sees the Obama administration as indifferent to the special relationship: “Ask an official in the Obama administration about the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom and the response will be at best a roll of the eyes and at worst an unprintable epithet.”
Justin Webb, a BBC correspondent in Washington, sees little American enthusiasm for the special relationship. In March 2009 he wrote that “the truth is that the special relationship or special partnership or whatever we call it now is not that important to the modern Americans who will shape the future of this nation and whose families hail from Mexico or China or Sudan or wherever else.”
Webb, who in January 2010 delivered a lecture on the subject of the special relationship, also gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. He told the committee: “I think there genuinely is a sort of carelessness in the (Obama) Administration about this special relationship, indeed almost a neuralgia about the term, which co-exists with the fact that a lot of them are Brit-educated and very knowledgeable about the UK. Phil Gordon, the Assistant Secretary for Europe at the State Department, couldn’t be more knowledgeable or linked into the UK, so these things can coincide…”
“…In preparation for coming to see you, I asked someone in the White House to take a minute or so with a senior Administration official the other day and have a quick word on the current feeling. He said that he had 30 seconds: the Administration official said, ‘Get out of my room. I’m sick of that subject. You’re all mad’. There is a sense in the Obama press office that we obsess about this. I was speaking to another Administration official about the bust of Churchill and the way in which it was rather unceremoniously taken in a taxi to the British Embassy, and the fallout, particularly in the British press. He said, ‘We thought it was Eisenhower. They all look the same to us’. They like and admire us in many ways, but they don’t want to be dealing with this kind of moaning — not from you and certainly not from Downing Street or from the Leader of the Opposition’s office, but from the press.”
Robert E. Hunter of the Rand Corporation, a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, wrote (page 172 of the report) that the special relationship “still exists as between the United States and the United Kingdom, and is regularly honored by US leaders, but it has changed — and diminished –significantly over time…”
President Obama and members of his administration may seem to be aloof towards Britain, but Britain has done little to assert its importance either economically or politically. For the entire duration of Mr. Obama’s presidency Gordon Brown, a man regarded even by his own supporters as lacking in charisma and communication skills, has been the British premier. The Labour Party, which Brown heads, has been at the forefront of Britain’s diminishing influence.
Labour created regional “parliaments” for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, effectively lessening the Westminster parliament’s hegemony. Some embarrassment ensued when the Scottish government decided to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi from custody. Megrahi had been convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988, which killed 270 people. He had been suffering from prostate cancer. His release on compassionate grounds on August 20, 2009 enraged many in America (the plane carried many U.S. civilians).
Robert Mueller, head of the FBI condemned the Scottish government’s decision. In a letter addressed to Kenny MacAskill, Scottish Justice Secretary, he stated: “Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world.” Brown’s powerlessness to intervene showed how small his political stature, even within the “United” Kingdom, had become.
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan dictator, had declared that Megrahi’s release had been part of a trade deal, a claim denied by Lord Mandelson, Britain’s Business Secretary. In January this year Alex Salmond, head of the Scottish parliament, claimed that in May 2007, Tony Blair had included Megrahi’s release in trade discussions with Gaddafi. This deal, made in Libya, had taken place while Blair was still prime minister. Alex Salmond asserted that Blair had kept close colleagues in the dark about the inclusion of Megrahi. The Libyan trade deal was confirmed in December 2007, when Brown was prime minister.
On December 13 2007, Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty (pdf document), which was designed to make administration of the expanded European Union (EU) easier. The EU now has 27 member states. In 2004, European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC (PDF) was introduced, allowing free movement of EU nationals between states, and also restricting rights to deport individuals from EU nations. That came into law in 2006. The Lisbon Treaty (see PDF document) is regarded by some as a “constitution” and Brown had promised a referendum before any European “constitutions” were signed. No time was given in parliament to fully discuss the treaty before Brown committed Britain to its aims. The Lisbon Treaty introduced another tier of legislation that further diminishes EU member states’ autonomy. The consequences of the rushed legislation of the Lisbon Treaty are still being felt; in March 2010 Brown and Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, argued over the need for further changes in the treaty’s financial clauses.
While British politicians have signed away Britain’s rights to decide its own destiny, the nation cannot be seen to have the same importance that it may have had in the past. The recent report by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee suggests that on issues of global affairs, the U.S. and Britain share similar goals. The report suggests that there is concern that funds for Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) may be cut.
The Future
When Churchill first publicly employed the term “special relationship” Britain was one political entity, with one seat of democratically elected power. Since 1997, Britain has been split with Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales having national assemblies, with only England lacking regional representation. This division of the country has gone hand-in-hand with Labour policies of encouraging multiculturalism. Instead of forging one unified and multiracial society, Labour’s support for multiculturalism has encouraged the ghettoization of society.
In October 2009 a former government adviser claimed that Labour had relaxed immigration rules. Andrew Neather claimed that “mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
In 1946, there was virtually no drug problem. Nowadays, most people in Britain are concerned that neighborhoods have become swamped with illegal drug use. Strains of cannabis that used to be smoked recreationally by people like Jacqui Smith (former Home Secretary) have been replaced by far stronger varieties such as “skunk,” grown illicitly in greenhouses. Though cannabis is one of the few drugs that appears to be dropping in popularity, use of other substances such as cocaine have risen dramatically. Britain is now viewed as the “drugs capital” of Europe. Where Britannia once “ruled the waves,” she now waives the rules.
While illegal drugs use increases, alcohol usage has worsened to the degree that is referred to as a “crisis,” costing the nation £20 billion a year ($30.6 billion). Alcohol causes more than 30,000 deaths a year, with 31 percent of men and 21 percent of women drinking in manners considered hazardous or harmful. Much of the increased use of alcohol has happened under Labour. Between 1987 and 202, annual rates of cirrhosis doubled. In 2005, Labour dropped strict licensing hours and opened the door to 24-hour drinking. During 2008, an average of 1,230 people were taken to hospital every day because of alcohol-related incidents.
Britain is set to have a general election within a matter of weeks. Despite the current unpopularity of the Labour party, the opposition in the form of David Cameron and the Conservative (Tory) party has been lackluster. Since the current Labour administration came to power on May 27, 1997, it has been busy creating new laws, to the degree that most citizens no longer know what is legal and what is not. Labour has introduced 4,300 new laws since 1997, a rate of one new law a day. Some of these laws are superfluous or imbecilic: the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998 makes it illegal to cause nuclear explosions (seriously!). It is now an offense, under the Polish Potatoes (Notification) (England) Order 2004, to import potatoes, where a person knows or suspects that these potatoes originated in Poland. What is disturbing and undemocratic is the manner in which these laws were introduced. Less than half of these were debated in the Houses of Parliament.
Certain laws erode basic rights to freedom and privacy. The Ripa Act 2000 (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) was introduced to deal with terrorism and serious crime. Initially it allowed only nine public agencies to share data – now 795 bodies can share personal data and carry out surveillance upon individuals, for offenses as trivial as dogs fouling the sidewalk. Many of these bodies that can have access to personal data and permission to carry out surveillance upon individuals are unelected. Annually, half a million requests are made to spy on individuals.
Laws that erode rights to privacy, when Britain has no single document that sets out its citizen’s constitutional rights, destroy democracy and undermine trust in government. The current government has presided over the loss of assets that it inherited when it came to power. It is now in debt at levels not experienced since the 1960s. For the very first time ever, government spending makes up more than half of Britain’s economy.
Labour has allowed immigration to rise threefold while unemployment has risen. Only now, faced with an imminent election, is it attempting to address public fears about immigration. After 13 years in power, such measures are mere window-dressing to gain votes, and are not based upon substance. On the matter of immigration, Brown cannot even get his figures right. Britain has a growing population of elderly people, and Brown’s government cannot address how their future care needs will be financed. Nor do Labour policies address the future care needs of the new immigrants it has added to the population.
The “special relationship” is certainly not what it once was. In the past, the relationship thrived when British and American leaders had some semblance of trust and friendship, as with Churchill and Truman, Blair and Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Harold MacMillan, Thatcher and Reagan. President Obama seems relatively unconcerned about affairs in Britain and Europe, and Gordon Brown has little personal charm to win him over. Should Brown continue as prime minister after the election, the special relationship will diminish even further.
Britain will always be an ally of America, but it is becoming increasingly like a poor relative, looking for a handout. When he was chancellor, Brown did not increase spending on the military sufficient to its needs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Soldiers have died as a result of having inadequate body armor.
Maybe Britain is facing that period that every former empire faces – when the barbarians are at the door and there is no national will to fight back and assert its strength. Shakespeare wrote of England (Richard II, Act 2, Scene 1) as “this sceptred isle.” Comic writer Mike Barfield has renamed it “This Septic Isle.” Maybe Britain will never regain what it has lost but one thing is certain: On its current course, led by Labour’s Wise Men of Gotham, its strength as a nation will shrink further. It will become a small province of Europe, a brackish backwater beside the main flow of history. Though I condemn Labour for Britain’s current predicament, I do not expect the Conservatives to perform much better.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is perhaps right to declare that the special relationship is virtually dead. Britain’s political life is moribund, its identity obscured, and even a change of leadership will not instill much vigor into the body politic. There will always be a relationship with the United States of America, but it is a sad fact that under Britain’s current political leadership, that relationship is becoming progressively less special.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan is a British based writer and artist. He has previously contributed to various publications, including the Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Society. He is currently compiling a book on the demise of democracy and the growth of extremism in Britain.
Comments are closed.
