The truth about the 'special relationship'
Published in Student Direct
Delusion is rife in Westminster. With President Obama busily attempting to complete reforms on climate change and healthcare, the British government is convinced that the ‘special relationship’ between itself and Washington is as important as ever. Brown, since the American election last year, has tried to paint himself as a force for ‘change’ in British politics, a hopelessly vague agenda that seeks to please everyone, but actually has resulted in alienating his own party and plunging ratings in opinion polls that now seem irreversible.
The notion of the ‘relationship’ dates back to the Second World War, when British and American cooperation against Nazi Germany become symbolic of their populations’ disgust at Hitler’s fascist policies. Churchill first used the phrase during a speech in March 1946 on the development of the ‘Iron Curtain’ developing between West and East. During the Blair years, Anglo-American partnership in foreign policy seemed solid, with Britain staunchly defending George Bush as he waged his monstrous neo-conservative ‘War on Terror’ campaign. The partnership was also visible between Blair and Clinton during the Kosovo war, with the ‘progressive’ pair promising that Anglo-American attempts to secure an end to the conflict could be the only solution.
But the reality is that Anglo-American relations are spectacularly one-sided. The political changes being wrought by Obama are largely independent of any cooperation or input from Britain. Obama came to power with a promise to look again at the failed policies of the Bush years, particularly in terms of addressing the country’s economic problems. But pressure for an alternative policy on these issues has come from the global community as a whole.
The richest countries are becoming increasingly alert to the devastating effect that global warming is having on the planet. Whilst poorer countries naturally object to more stringent controls on Carbon Dioxide emissions, because of their economic value, there is a growing consensus that climate change is a massive threat to the world’s population. A simple change of government in Australia in 2007 brought about a swift U-turn in policy, with the current prime minister Kevin Rudd enthusiastically signing up to the Kyoto protocol shortly after taking office.
During his election campaign, Obama signalled a desire for increased co-operation with the EU, as a major global financial and political player. At a speech in Berlin, he promised American cooperation in global issues, hinting at an end to American single-track foreign policy so commonly associated with his predecessor. The Obama campaign noted, importantly, that “The Bush administration’s policy of “divide and rule,” splitting Europe into those who were “with us or against us,” has been counterproductive. The United States has an interest in a strong united, and peaceful Europe as a partner in global affairs.”
Obama’s realisation that multilateralism is the way forward in terms of conducting global affairs has laid the building blocks for the development of relationships between Washington and other states in a more meaningful manner than has occurred in the past. With the defeat of the Tories at the 1997 election, Labour embarked on a healing process with the EU, cooperating on the Social Chapter, which deals primarily with social policy and workers’ rights. But this effort was undermined by the critical mistake made by Blair in following a unilateral stance on foreign affairs that strongly resembled Washington’s.
Obama has also signalled a desire to look again at the Middle East crisis and offer a more even-handed approach to the problem, in strong contrast to the staunch support offered by Bush to Israel. But the fact remains that Obama’s desire to broker a deal on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is overshadowed by the virtual impossibility of altering Israeli government policy. The Israeli right-wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has so far expressed strong resistance to American demands that negotiations on the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are a beginning in the process of resolving the conflict.
Michael Heseltine, speaking on the BBC‘s Question Time, condemned the supposed ‘special‘ Anglo-American relationship as “the most naïve delusion fostered on this side of the Atlantic; hardly ever referred to on the other side.” He accurately identified the real relationship of importance: “If America has a ‘special relationship’ it is with Israel. But outside that they have relationships of all sorts of different countries.”
The British obsession with the ‘special relationship’ has caused ruptures within its political parties over the years - the bitter division of Labour party supporters when Tony Blair elected to support Bush on the Iraq war demonstrated that disillusionment with the ‘special relationship’ runs through the political establishment as well as being vented by demonstrators opposed to the American foreign policy doctrine. Whilst the British government is keen to re-affirm its support for the White House, it must realise that in doing so the government potentially ties itself to a political agenda that does not meet British political interests in the long run.
With the general election looming here in Britain, David Cameron and the Conservatives must acknowledge the pitfalls of blindly associating with the White House, whatever Obama’s good intentions. If he wins next year, Cameron must urgently address his party’s bitter divisions over EU membership. Obama is also likely to face trouble, with the Democrats divided between the fiscally conservative ‘blue dog’ camp and the more liberal wing of the party.
These divisions could well derail Obama’s plans to act decisively on global issues such as the Middle East and climate change. His party, long the wet-blanket party of American politics, is incapable of thought or decisive action. The next British government must realise that in the American political establishment, Obama is the exception - not the rule. In aspiring to appease American wishes, the next British government must realise that it runs the risk of further electoral disillusionment. It must acknowledge that the ‘special relationship’ has been exaggerated, and that with Obama’s time in office comes the possibility of increased cooperation on global scale. Neither Labour nor the Tories can afford a cataclysmic internal battle - and adopting compromises with the EU and other major world players such as China and Japan is surely a better key to success than blind faith in Washington.
The notion of the ‘relationship’ dates back to the Second World War, when British and American cooperation against Nazi Germany become symbolic of their populations’ disgust at Hitler’s fascist policies. Churchill first used the phrase during a speech in March 1946 on the development of the ‘Iron Curtain’ developing between West and East. During the Blair years, Anglo-American partnership in foreign policy seemed solid, with Britain staunchly defending George Bush as he waged his monstrous neo-conservative ‘War on Terror’ campaign. The partnership was also visible between Blair and Clinton during the Kosovo war, with the ‘progressive’ pair promising that Anglo-American attempts to secure an end to the conflict could be the only solution.
But the reality is that Anglo-American relations are spectacularly one-sided. The political changes being wrought by Obama are largely independent of any cooperation or input from Britain. Obama came to power with a promise to look again at the failed policies of the Bush years, particularly in terms of addressing the country’s economic problems. But pressure for an alternative policy on these issues has come from the global community as a whole.
The richest countries are becoming increasingly alert to the devastating effect that global warming is having on the planet. Whilst poorer countries naturally object to more stringent controls on Carbon Dioxide emissions, because of their economic value, there is a growing consensus that climate change is a massive threat to the world’s population. A simple change of government in Australia in 2007 brought about a swift U-turn in policy, with the current prime minister Kevin Rudd enthusiastically signing up to the Kyoto protocol shortly after taking office.
During his election campaign, Obama signalled a desire for increased co-operation with the EU, as a major global financial and political player. At a speech in Berlin, he promised American cooperation in global issues, hinting at an end to American single-track foreign policy so commonly associated with his predecessor. The Obama campaign noted, importantly, that “The Bush administration’s policy of “divide and rule,” splitting Europe into those who were “with us or against us,” has been counterproductive. The United States has an interest in a strong united, and peaceful Europe as a partner in global affairs.”
Obama’s realisation that multilateralism is the way forward in terms of conducting global affairs has laid the building blocks for the development of relationships between Washington and other states in a more meaningful manner than has occurred in the past. With the defeat of the Tories at the 1997 election, Labour embarked on a healing process with the EU, cooperating on the Social Chapter, which deals primarily with social policy and workers’ rights. But this effort was undermined by the critical mistake made by Blair in following a unilateral stance on foreign affairs that strongly resembled Washington’s.
Obama has also signalled a desire to look again at the Middle East crisis and offer a more even-handed approach to the problem, in strong contrast to the staunch support offered by Bush to Israel. But the fact remains that Obama’s desire to broker a deal on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is overshadowed by the virtual impossibility of altering Israeli government policy. The Israeli right-wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has so far expressed strong resistance to American demands that negotiations on the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are a beginning in the process of resolving the conflict.
Michael Heseltine, speaking on the BBC‘s Question Time, condemned the supposed ‘special‘ Anglo-American relationship as “the most naïve delusion fostered on this side of the Atlantic; hardly ever referred to on the other side.” He accurately identified the real relationship of importance: “If America has a ‘special relationship’ it is with Israel. But outside that they have relationships of all sorts of different countries.”
The British obsession with the ‘special relationship’ has caused ruptures within its political parties over the years - the bitter division of Labour party supporters when Tony Blair elected to support Bush on the Iraq war demonstrated that disillusionment with the ‘special relationship’ runs through the political establishment as well as being vented by demonstrators opposed to the American foreign policy doctrine. Whilst the British government is keen to re-affirm its support for the White House, it must realise that in doing so the government potentially ties itself to a political agenda that does not meet British political interests in the long run.
With the general election looming here in Britain, David Cameron and the Conservatives must acknowledge the pitfalls of blindly associating with the White House, whatever Obama’s good intentions. If he wins next year, Cameron must urgently address his party’s bitter divisions over EU membership. Obama is also likely to face trouble, with the Democrats divided between the fiscally conservative ‘blue dog’ camp and the more liberal wing of the party.
These divisions could well derail Obama’s plans to act decisively on global issues such as the Middle East and climate change. His party, long the wet-blanket party of American politics, is incapable of thought or decisive action. The next British government must realise that in the American political establishment, Obama is the exception - not the rule. In aspiring to appease American wishes, the next British government must realise that it runs the risk of further electoral disillusionment. It must acknowledge that the ‘special relationship’ has been exaggerated, and that with Obama’s time in office comes the possibility of increased cooperation on global scale. Neither Labour nor the Tories can afford a cataclysmic internal battle - and adopting compromises with the EU and other major world players such as China and Japan is surely a better key to success than blind faith in Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment