THE
SPECIAL
RELATIONSHIP
between The United
States and The UK
JULY 18 2010
For any readers
needing a conventional history reminder on the subject there is plenty
of that here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4885895/History-of-Britains-special-relationship-with-America.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship
The United
States has special relationships with a number of nations. The
countries from which the founding fathers came have a natural bond and,
in the case of Britain, also a rivalry such as that which traditionally
may arise between progenitor and offspring. The bonds due to culture
and language have, however, far outlived the temporary intense
outbursts of hostility which surrounded the breaking of the umbilical
cord and the declaration of independence. The US has a special
relationship with France and with Germany, again for deep-rooted
historical reasons. The special relationship with Israel is perhaps the
most complex of all, in that it is regularly advertised by US
Presidents in office as being unbreakable, to the extent that we are
led to believe it is unconditional, though that remains to be seen. A
special relationship with Japan was forged out of a titanic struggle
for Pacific supremacy. That with Ireland on the high proportion of
Irish families who emigrated to the US. All these relationships, and
some others, are special in that they exceed the norms of formal,
conventional alliance or shared membership.
The special
relationship with the UK is not unconditional because we expect a lot
of each other, but it is also the deepest and broadest in matters of
simple fact, based on many interlocking structures in finance, defense,
security, national interest, philosophy, law and language. Because of
this intimate and complex involvement, the conditionality does not mean
that the relationship can be switched of or on as a whole at the top
political level. However, paradoxically, it is at the highest political
level that the condition of the relationship tends to be analysed. This
is misleading. Equally unenlightening are the views of disgruntled
journalists such as Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail who wrote:
"I
was
once
phoned up by a White House official who had become aware that
I was writing uncomplimentary articles about this. She wanted to brief
me into softening my views. But she wrecked the whole thing by
comparing Bill Clinton's intervention on the side of Gerry Adams with
his involvement in Yugoslavia. 'So', I said to her 'You regard Britain,
your wartime ally, a sovereign democracy with a thousand years of
history, the origin of your own constitution, as the equivalent of
Serbia?' She went very quiet. Because in fact that is exactly how the
White House then regarded Britain, and I should think is pretty much as
the White House regards us now."
Most of us would
quite understand why she went quiet, having discovered too late in the
day that nobody in their right mind would grant an interview to Peter
Hitchens, the only thing to do is keep your mouth shut. The incident
gives me an opportunity to discuss one aspect of the Special
Relationship at this point, the military one. I do not know much about
the military relationship on the Naval side other than there are few
collisions between our respective ships and submarines and one
well-known incident...
During the
closing days of W.W. II it had become obvious that the Royal Navy, up
till then the world's biggest navy, had been eclipsed by the United
States. Admiral Sir James Somerville, who had been head of the British
Naval Delegation to Washington, was on his way home when he received
this signal from Fleet Admiral Ernest King USN, who was no lover of the
RN, "How does it feel to belong to the world's second largest navy?" To
which Somerville replied, "How does it feel to still belong to the
second best?"
Fortunately,
relations between our two military establishments are more relaxed
these days even when tensions run high. The respect is mutual. Our
soldiers get remarkable support and cooperation in the field from their
US NATO partners, support that goes at times well beyond the agreed
logistical support and, when it comes to fighting, no ducking and
diving. At command level, it is evident that communications are good
even though the political and diplomatic channels can get so screwed up
that procedures appear to be failing on occasions. The integration of
high tech equipment in the air and on the ground, while keeping
integrity and security, is remarkable in the circumstances. Yes, there
have been cases of 'friendly fire' casualties but given the number of
operations and personnel involved in US military operations there are
remarkably few mistakes. The policy complications that arose around the
way to handle the militants in the Basra region gave rise to some
disagreements when the British approach did not toward the end get the
results, but there was little chance to have played it differently
earlier with the forces available. I would say that on the military
level the special relationship has never been better, the global credit
crunch notwithstanding.
On the matter of
high-level security, nuclear weapons and research and development, the
special relationship has two interfaces, the technical and the
political. To a very large extent it is the technical that runs the
show for purely pragmatic reasons. Security in these matters is a
matter of technology and human resources. The banking crisis has shown
us the degree to which the technology alone can create scenarios that
run ahead of the ability and understanding of management calculations.
In this case they can can run ahead of political and diplomatic
calculations. The UK has a permanent civil service, but the US appears
to be more open to change of personnel at the administrative helm of
the analytical machinery that generates the options. It seems to me
that due to a general internationalisation of top-level research, along
with the development of ITC and the Internet, a wider special
relationship has developed of which the UK-US relationship is but a
part. It is not diminished by this but can be seen as less exclusive. I
believe this is good and could lead to a better relationship with
Europe, the UK and the US.
In civil aviation there is very special relationship indeed. It has its
competitive elements and that is inevitable. There are all sorts of
arguments as individuals and companies fight for their corner, but we
are interlocked and have been for a very long time. The vital thing is
to ensure that the fall-out from the competition is positive for the
planet as a whole and for the citizens of our nations, not a slugging
match in which the innocent are the victims. This applies to all
commerce, so it is not an issue for a discussion of the special
relationship other than to point out that this relationship is the very
way we can avoid the harmful outcomes.
These are some of the realities. In contrast we are bombarded these
days with a lot of froth such as complaints by some political
opportunists about the BP Oil Leak cock-up - a very big cock-up which
BP (an international company with a Swedish chairman and a British CEO
and many US workers and shareholders) has to pay for, from which all
will learn - and about the decision of the Scottish Minister of Justice
to send a dying prisoner, accused of being one of those responsible for
the Lockerbie bombing, back to Libya. Both of those matters could be
cock-ups, but to be lectured on cock-ups by the United States, who have
made so many more and bigger, we do not need. Nor do we need to 'work
on' or 'repair' what we call the Special Relationship. We could do a
bit more to value it on occasions and to help spread it rather than see
it as exclusive.
Still, why not
read these for alternative views
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/02/down-with-the-special-relationship.html
http://hnn.us/articles/128138.html
And bear in mind
that the most special relationship of all now is the one between the
USA and China. It is not even one of the USA's choosing, just a matter
of fact, driven by the hopes, fears, ambitions and appetites of
Americans and the leaders that emerge from their confused society. We
don't really know what Sarah Palin, who until recently belived humans
and dinosaurs once lived together, thinks about this.
DECEMBER 4th 2010
So, now we have some 'WikiLeaks', from fairly inconsequential
diplomatic players, on The Special Relationship. I have to say I find
an element of truth in them in that the UK media are tedious and yes,
paranoid. As a result the current Tory
leaders appear to have an immature approach to it (particularly Fox and
Hague), but this may be a reaction to the media.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11917398
Files newly released by
the Wikileaks website highlight what is described as the UK's
"paranoia" about its so-called special relationship with the US.
In one cable, a senior US diplomat describes "excessive UK
speculation" after Barack Obama became president.
"This over-reading would often be humorous, if it were not so
corrosive," it says, according
to the Guardian.
I have to say I
agree with that last remark, attributed to Richard LeBaron. The
surprising thing is that any of this stuff had to be written at all, by
anyone, but I suppose it is part of the job to supply a running
commentary. I see on re-reading my original entry in this file I did
not refer to Winston Churchill. This was because I assumed every reader
here would be fully informed of his history. However it is naturally
necessary to be familiar with this and the details of the 2 world wars
to understand where we are now. Those with a knowledge of relationships
at the top level during this period are now mostly dead and
unfortunately the records do not fully reflect the reality. The idea
that Britain was 'begging' the US for support, and to enter the war
against Hitler and Japan is misleading. The problem was for those US
political leaders who understood the situation only too well to
convince the US public and their political opponents to commit lives
and national treasure; and who can blame those who were reticent when
the blood was still drying from WWI. The support was unstinting long
before Pearl Harbour. The return of Winston Churchill's bust to Britain
by Obama was better than removing it to a less prestigious location and
was more a symbolic change from GWB's Whitehouse image than anything to
do with UK/US relations.
All this stuff will blow over. Of far more consequence is the fact that
the USofA are in deep trouble on a great many fronts. That will not
blow over. When a big nation is in big trouble the effects can cause
waves that batter the world. Mr Assange will have stirred the paranoia
pot and in so doing caused more angst in those already suffering. It
will be up to those not with this disease but nevertheless aware and
sensitive to those who are susceptible to calm any wheel-wobble. The US
will need good relations with Britain more than it ever did for many
decades.
nnnn