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: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
Padfoot       6/29/2007 11:30:32 PM
Speaking of Gordon Brown, it's very interesting to see who is surrounding his government with - Sir Richard Branson will be joined by Amstrad boss Sir Alan Sugar, both agreeing to serve on Brown's new Business Council for Britain. Furthermore, Admiral Sir Alan West, the former First Sea Lord is to become a junior minister in the home office. Sir Digby Jones, the former director of the Confederation of British Industry , Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Brown's adviser on international security issues. All interesting stuff, and good to see Admiral Sir Alan West in there.

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/29/2007 11:34:30 PM

Speaking of Gordon Brown, it's very interesting to see who is surrounding his government with

generally speaking, hows the UK media treating the changeover?  I'm curious as to how Brown is regarded by the general public now that Blairs gone - or is it early days for even perceptions??


 
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       6/30/2007 7:44:05 AM
And where does the UK go from here?
 
-To a incorperated european outlook?
-To a uniquely UK outlook?
-Or to a wider group of close western allies (still primary the US).
 
  Certainly a very critical point and could determin how much influence the US has in that region of the world.
 
  The general vibe I got from the UK is that the EU is an experiment to be waited out. I still think there is enough independant thought and interests to keep the UK fairly seperate from the EU. But if not aligned with either the US or the EU where does it leave her?
 
 Its very interesting to see how this has played out in the UK and Australia. In the UK is caused a rift, a division, in many different ways, mostly away from the US as its now tainted. Leader popularity has suffered.
 
 In Australia its done the opposite and generally bought the two nations even closer together. Leader popularity isn't exactly rising but its certainly hasn't been massively dammaged.
 
 But with the UK-US relationship ending (possibly) will other countries seek closer ties with europe..  
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       7/30/2007 12:41:52 AM
Why would the US-UK relationship end because of Iraq, and the change of 1 prime minister? The reason the UK hated Blair was not because he backed the US invasion of Iraq, but because the British somehow believe that their soverignty is threatened because their Prime Minister is so loyal to his friends across the pond. It is his reputation as Bush's poodle that irks them. It's about pride, not morality. The British would sooner purchase 60 million cyanide capsules than join the European Union, and their relationship with the US is as lucrative as it has ever been. Brown will soon realise the fate of all politicians; to be released at the mercy of a fickle public. He is damned if he does and he is damned if he doesn't. On top of that, I hardly believe that the choice of wether or not to resume the "special relationship" is up Brown, or even the Parliament as a whole.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/30/2007 2:14:00 AM
reports in australian papers today (30 Jul) are that the relationship appears to be even stronger with the changes Brown is making...
 
UK opinions?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Jimme    This Article is crap, I have a better one   7/30/2007 2:50:30 AM
No offense, but the US is going to some how lose its super power status with out a special relation ship with the UK? Sorry I can't take the rest of the article seriously when i read such obvious nonsense like that. Lets be clear, this relationship is of much more importance to the UK then it is for the US. If you don't accept that then you are delusional (most likely means you Adam).

However, this does not change the fact that it is in the U.S.'s best interest to maintain the current relationship with the UK. For from it, UK is the optimal partner for the US. Here is a good article I read in todays NY Post.

                                           ***********************************************

U.S.-UK: STILL SPECIAL

By JOHN O' SULLIVAN

July 29, 2007 -- NEW British Prime Minister Gordon Brown meets with President Bush today. Proceeding the trip was a rash of reports in the British media that the Anglo-American "special relationship" had its last hurrah with Bush and Tony Blair; London will now distance itself from Washington.

The last time the relationship was declared dead was in the early 1990s. The first Bush administration, anxious to distinguish itself from the Reagan team, let it be known that it intended to place greater reliance on Germany than on Britain in its alliance planning. With the Cold War over, geo-economics seemed more important than geo-politics. With a stronger economy than Britain, Germany should be Washington's premier European partner.

This policy enjoyed one important success: the reunification of Germany. After that, the value of the "tilt" to Germany began to fall since it was clear that most future foreign challenges to America would come from outside Europe. Right on cue, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Despite its large economy, Germany was very little use to Washington in the first Gulf War: It had a land-locked army, a constitution that forbade intervention abroad and a pacifist national sensibility. Washington needed allies with armies, intelligence services, strategic mobility and a tradition of upholding international order. Britain had all of them.

Sometimes the Brits were more willing to intervene than Washington. It was over Kuwait that Lady Thatcher issued her famous encouragement: "This is no time to go wobbly, George." Her successor, Tony Blair, similarly pressed a reluctant President Bill Clinton to send U.S. ground troops into action over Kosovo. Success in both endeavors elevated the special relationship in the policy of both nations.

How does it repeatedly survive as an important factor in foreign policy? It is rooted in three enduring features:

* Britain and the United States (and such countries as Australia, Canada and India) share a common language, culture and legal and political traditions. They tend to see the world in much the same way and to support the same policies of free trade, free capital movements, consultative global institutions and international law.

* Both countries are more prepared than other powers to use military force to uphold this international order (and their own interests.)

* Since 1941, Britain and the U.S. (and, again, Australia etc.) have developed habits of cooperation in fields as various as trade, investment, intelligence, military affairs, cultural transmission, peacekeeping and international institution-building.

Sir John Scarlett, the head of MI6, recently told a British parliamentary committee: "The UK agencies' long-developed relationships with U.S. intelligence agencies give them vital access to U.S. intelligence and resources. It is neither practical, desirable, nor is it in the national interest, for UK agencies to carry out [counterterrorism] work independently of the U.S. effort." Intelligence-sharing is a very significant indicator of alliance closeness because of its secret nature. But it is merely one element in a much broader defense relationship.

For London, then, the special relationship has practical advantages that no other alliance could replicate. It would be strategic self-mutilation to abandon it. Washington, meanwhile, gets a dependable ally with high diplomatic and military skills and worldwide influence.

Now, it's déjà vu all over again. Two relatively minor figures in the new Gordon Brown government have expressed modest doubts about the value of the relationship to Britain, one of them suggesting that the U.S. and the UK would no longer be "joined at the hip."

Brown has already disavowed these doubts. Popular discontent is du

 
Quote    Reply

Asymmetric    Dead? No. Damaged? Yes.   7/30/2007 12:57:51 PM
 

There is a bitter after taste left in the British public’s mouth from the Bush-Blair relationship. It is only natural that Brown will distance himself from the USA. There is certainly a new younger generation of brit’s who believe the “special relationship” has been irreconcilably damaged. Despite the UK’s lacklustre enthusiasm for the EU it did agree to the mending treaty and has made steps towards further integration. Brown walks a fine line courting the EU’s and the USA’s favour when there is such strong condemnation at home for any close ties with either of them. Without the strength for the UK to go it alone on the world stage, he is faced with a stark dilemma. The British public doesn’t like Brussels but is even less keen on Washington; it is this that drives the UK further into the EU. With the Commonwealth but a relic we simply don’t have an alternative.

 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       7/30/2007 5:43:25 PM
"We should acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for it is leadership in this fight against international terrorism."  --Gordon Brown
 
 
Hey!...Don't go telling the truth! You'll ruin everything!
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       7/30/2007 6:05:12 PM

 

There is a bitter after taste left in the British public’s mouth from the Bush-Blair relationship. It is only natural that Brown will distance himself from the USA. There is certainly a new younger generation of brit’s who believe the “special relationship” has been irreconcilably damaged. Despite the UK’s lacklustre enthusiasm for the EU it did agree to the mending treaty and has made steps towards further integration. Brown walks a fine line courting the EU’s and the USA’s favour when there is such strong condemnation at home for any close ties with either of them. Without the strength for the UK to go it alone on the world stage, he is faced with a stark dilemma. The British public doesn’t like Brussels but is even less keen on Washington; it is this that drives the UK further into the EU. With the Commonwealth but a relic we simply don’t have an alternative.



I've not seen any distancing yet, merely the use of the media to imply a distancing when non has actually occurred. Though this will await an appropriate test.

I really don't think that the 'younger generation's views can be summed up so easily, anti americanisim is fashionable, that's all, it's not exactly backed up by heavy weight intellectual thought (see a certain poster beginning with A). The next generation will rebel against this orthodoxy too.

The EU progresses in the UK solely due to lack of interest and information, if the population knew how many UK laws (the majority now) were made by the EU they would be less happy then they are already. The first few examples of british people being indicted by european courts for activities in the UK that are not crimes here, but never the less come under the aegis of the pan european arrest warrant thingey may be a shot in the arm in that respect.

The 'mending treaty' is de facto the constitution. (The Irish Prime Minister says that 90 percent of the constitution remains in the treaty and the Spanish Foreign Minister says that 98 percent remains, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing says that more than 90 per cent. remains and Jean-Luc Dehaene, the former Prime Minister of Belgium, says that the figure is 95 per cent. The President of the Commission has said that it will usher in "the world's first non-imperial empire" - which is either a poor translation, an oxymoron, or a scary example of double speak....!)

Frankly I'm not at all convinced by your supposition that washington is detested more than brussels - maybe by the current public sector metropolitan elite it is. But by the public in general?

Also the treaty has not been ratified by the UK - hence talk of a referendum - which would be lost.

Which is why the same metropolitan elite doesn't want to have one. 

nice huh?

 
Quote    Reply

Asymmetric    Armchair reply   7/31/2007 12:41:19 PM


I've not seen any distancing yet, merely the use of the media to imply a distancing when non has actually occurred. Though this will await an appropriate test.
 

True, but I would be surprised if you saw them with the same kind of “intimacy” that Blair and Bush had. Nor would I expect Brown to be as uncritical as his predecessor of Washington. Whether all this would just be blustering for the cameras to reassure the public or whether it would mark a change in policy, as you say, only time will tell.


I really don't think that the 'younger generation's views can be summed up so easily, anti americanisim is fashionable, that's all, it's not exactly backed up by heavy weight intellectual thought (see a certain poster beginning with A (I hope this wasnt a referenence to myself)). The next generation will rebel against this orthodoxy too. 
 

Anti-Americanism is fashionable and you know what, its increasing. It is truly shocking the extant public perception have has changed in the last 10 years of the US in Britain. My own generation (mid twenties and down) have no memory of World War 2 or the struggle against the totalitarian Soviet Union and do not recollect in fondness the part the USA played in these victories. Instead we have been brought up on a diet of events like the Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, Kyoto, etc….. Whether you believe these events right or wrong is irrelevant, they have been divisive.


The EU progresses in the UK solely due to lack of interest and information, if the population knew how many UK laws (the majority now) were made by the EU they would be less happy then they are already. The first few examples of british people being indicted by european courts for activities in the UK that are not crimes here, but never the less come under the aegis of the pan european arrest warrant thingey may be a shot in the arm in that respect.

I’m not sure if I buy the “lack of information” argument. The Eurosceptic press (thank you Mr Murdoch) in Britain have a much wider circulation than any even vaguely pro-European media. And they are well versed in the art of scaremongering

 
The 'mending treaty' is de facto the constitution. (The Irish Prime Minister says that 90
percent of the constitution remains in the treaty and the Spanish
Foreign Minister says that 98 percent remains, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing says that more than
90 per cent. remains and Jean-Luc Dehaene, the former Prime Minister of
Belgium, says that the figure is 95 per cent. The President of the C
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics