The UK-US 'Special Relationship'
Discussion
The lack of public support from the USA in respect of the Falklands demonstrates conclusively that the so-called 'special relationship' is a myth. This has been demonstrated numerous times in the past, but still polititions (British, not American) cling onto the fiction of its existence. Is it time to call b
ks to the whole thing, including:
making the US pay for any of our islands that it occupies (Ascension, Diego Garcia, etc)
kicking out US diplomats who refuse to pay the London congestion charge
renegotiating extradition treaties that currently favour the USA
IIRC the whole 'SR' was invented by Churchill who was looking for a big brother for the UK following the war when the UK stood alone and friendless against the Axis powers. His 'vision' for future security was some kind of alliance of (white) English-speaking nations bound by ties of history and brotherhood. This was in the UK's interest at the time as she was threatened by bigger boys, but it was never true - nations always look to their own self-interests first second and third. The 'SR' was in the UK's interest then. But it no longer is and so its fiction should be acknowledged.
ks to the whole thing, including:making the US pay for any of our islands that it occupies (Ascension, Diego Garcia, etc)
kicking out US diplomats who refuse to pay the London congestion charge
renegotiating extradition treaties that currently favour the USA
IIRC the whole 'SR' was invented by Churchill who was looking for a big brother for the UK following the war when the UK stood alone and friendless against the Axis powers. His 'vision' for future security was some kind of alliance of (white) English-speaking nations bound by ties of history and brotherhood. This was in the UK's interest at the time as she was threatened by bigger boys, but it was never true - nations always look to their own self-interests first second and third. The 'SR' was in the UK's interest then. But it no longer is and so its fiction should be acknowledged.
Ayahuasca said:
kicking out US diplomats who refuse to pay the London congestion charge
renegotiating extradition treaties that currently favour the USA
Boris made the planning permission on the new US Embassy conditional on them paying their cc.renegotiating extradition treaties that currently favour the USA
IIRC the US side of the extradition treaty was implemented equally a few years ago I believe. Not that Gary McKinnon's bunch will let you believe anything it.
Deportation for refusal to pay the congestion charge seems a bit steep.
Seriously, you've said it yourself, Churchill tried to foster a 'SR' when we were hanging on (but not needing to be rescued/not going to be invaded), although in danger of being starved, if the Krauts had really got a U boat blockade going, and unable to take the war to the Germans on mainland Europe (which is why we went on the offensive in North Africa and aerial bombing Germany) we'd have struggled to have ever been able to mount a land operation, without the US, so it precisely it was in our own interest to get the US into the war, as an arsenal of material and later men, although we would not have been alone in the war, what with our commonwealth allies. And of course famously Churchill said after pearl harbour he wrote in his diary that the soundest night sleep he had from the beginning of war was the night of the Dec 7.
Now you can say the US did not need to rebuild Europe after the war, and fund its reconstruction, but it was in their interest to, given their communist threat of a red europe.
So there is not a special relationship, and emphasis on it seems to come more this side of the Atlantic, I'd suggest, US will put it's interest first, however if our interests coincide then you could say there is a mutual (special) interest (relationship), and perhaps our interests coincide more often with the US, than the US with any of our European cousins. It sounds a bit selfish, and perhaps the US does it more than the UK, we perhaps now have a more pragmatic world view, given our history and shrinking influence in the world. It's probably also true we were more self interested when we were the leading world superpower 100-200 years ago when we had the most powerful navy on the seas.
Looking out for ones own interest is something we should be doing, for instance the first responsibility of our government to it's armed forces should be not to commit them (risk their lives) for anything other than the defence (special interests) of this country.
Now you can argue about Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether it was in our interest to be in there, but our government regularly trot out "we're in Afghanistan because terrorism on our streets originates from there."
Now personally we were sold down the river by Blair, and on a lie (whether his or his belief in a GWB's lie) and into a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fight we did not need to do, that has lowered our standing in the world, particularly in the Arab world for it. That's not the USA's fault, thats ours. Would the US do the same on Iraq/Afghanistan position of UK USA reversed, had someone flown planes into Canary Wharfe, and someone blown up a greyhound bus or two in New York, probably not (if you think about the IRA UK mainland bombings, although after buses being blown up in NY, I think they would. First and foremost the US looks out for it's national interest, so should we. And I'd have no problem with that.
We also sit under the US strategic nuclear umbrella we should be grateful for that, although it begs the question why we bother with nuclear rain hat of our own, we couldn't use it without US support and I can't imagine we'd have had time to consult in an East West nuclear exchange.
Seriously, you've said it yourself, Churchill tried to foster a 'SR' when we were hanging on (but not needing to be rescued/not going to be invaded), although in danger of being starved, if the Krauts had really got a U boat blockade going, and unable to take the war to the Germans on mainland Europe (which is why we went on the offensive in North Africa and aerial bombing Germany) we'd have struggled to have ever been able to mount a land operation, without the US, so it precisely it was in our own interest to get the US into the war, as an arsenal of material and later men, although we would not have been alone in the war, what with our commonwealth allies. And of course famously Churchill said after pearl harbour he wrote in his diary that the soundest night sleep he had from the beginning of war was the night of the Dec 7.
Now you can say the US did not need to rebuild Europe after the war, and fund its reconstruction, but it was in their interest to, given their communist threat of a red europe.
So there is not a special relationship, and emphasis on it seems to come more this side of the Atlantic, I'd suggest, US will put it's interest first, however if our interests coincide then you could say there is a mutual (special) interest (relationship), and perhaps our interests coincide more often with the US, than the US with any of our European cousins. It sounds a bit selfish, and perhaps the US does it more than the UK, we perhaps now have a more pragmatic world view, given our history and shrinking influence in the world. It's probably also true we were more self interested when we were the leading world superpower 100-200 years ago when we had the most powerful navy on the seas.
Looking out for ones own interest is something we should be doing, for instance the first responsibility of our government to it's armed forces should be not to commit them (risk their lives) for anything other than the defence (special interests) of this country.
Now you can argue about Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether it was in our interest to be in there, but our government regularly trot out "we're in Afghanistan because terrorism on our streets originates from there."
Now personally we were sold down the river by Blair, and on a lie (whether his or his belief in a GWB's lie) and into a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fight we did not need to do, that has lowered our standing in the world, particularly in the Arab world for it. That's not the USA's fault, thats ours. Would the US do the same on Iraq/Afghanistan position of UK USA reversed, had someone flown planes into Canary Wharfe, and someone blown up a greyhound bus or two in New York, probably not (if you think about the IRA UK mainland bombings, although after buses being blown up in NY, I think they would. First and foremost the US looks out for it's national interest, so should we. And I'd have no problem with that.
We also sit under the US strategic nuclear umbrella we should be grateful for that, although it begs the question why we bother with nuclear rain hat of our own, we couldn't use it without US support and I can't imagine we'd have had time to consult in an East West nuclear exchange.
Northern Munkee said:
So there is not a special relationship, and emphasis on it seems to come more this side of the Atlantic, I'd suggest, US will put it's interest first, however if our interests coincide then you could say there is a mutual (special) interest (relationship), and perhaps our interests coincide more often with the US, than the US with any of our European cousins. It sounds a bit selfish, and perhaps the US does it more than the UK, we perhaps now have a more pragmatic world view, given our history and shrinking influence in the world. It's probably also true we were more self interested when we were the leading world superpower 100-200 years ago when we had the most powerful navy on the seas.
How many nations does the US supply nuclear weapons to? How many nations have the right to use US built bases around the world? How many nations have such strong links with the US military and intelligence service? s2art said:
How many nations have such strong links with the US military and intelligence service?
Yeah, but I watched Spooks (so it must be true because it's on the BBC) and the yank secret service treats our guys as if they were Al Qaeda while they expect us to hand over our intel all the time.s2art said:
Northern Munkee said:
So there is not a special relationship, and emphasis on it seems to come more this side of the Atlantic, I'd suggest, US will put it's interest first, however if our interests coincide then you could say there is a mutual (special) interest (relationship), and perhaps our interests coincide more often with the US, than the US with any of our European cousins. It sounds a bit selfish, and perhaps the US does it more than the UK, we perhaps now have a more pragmatic world view, given our history and shrinking influence in the world. It's probably also true we were more self interested when we were the leading world superpower 100-200 years ago when we had the most powerful navy on the seas.
How many nations does the US supply nuclear weapons to? How many nations have the right to use US built bases around the world? How many nations have such strong links with the US military and intelligence service? Nuclear weapons is a tricky one without context, they gave us a weapon system, minus the warheads, as not only did we have a hand in inventing atomic weapons, were a victorious ally, are a permanent member of the UN security council, we already had our own atomic/nuclear weapon programme, before we purchased polaris, so it wasn't a case of proliferation, and I'd imagine the technology transfer (which probably a tricky passage around US Gov. & Congress) was not massive, thanks to supermac getting chummy with JFK (after the suez debacle was forgotten), and of course in return for Polaris we gave them the use of Holy Loch... Mutual interest again. So yes the only one (officially?) I can think.
Bases surely there is a lot more sharing going on, I'm thinking ANZUS,for a start, most NATO allies, and again an accident of our old empire makes for a greater of number of opportunities to share ours with them and some reciprocity surely...
Intell once again one could say the same US/UK on intell? accident of history, one world superpower replaced by the other.
We have much in common and much mutual interest, but don't kid yourself, if our interests diverge they could go their own way, and could with some inconvenience/expense turn off the taps and go their own way, in a way we no longer could. And it is not a criticism of the US. I wish we'd give up trying to punch above our weight.
Edited by Northern Munkee on Saturday 27th February 18:52
Edited by Northern Munkee on Saturday 27th February 18:54
Edited by Northern Munkee on Saturday 27th February 19:00
The relationship needs to continue but both parties need to go through counselling.
One clearly feels aggreived at the other's recent behaviour.
Though I personally cannot stand Gordon Brown, he deserves to be treated like the Prime Minister of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, the USA's strongest supporter and ally, and not like a third rate oik from a tinpot little country when he goes to visit.
But there is an easy way to fix the issue and just that's to ask the US Ambassador to pop round for a friendly chat and settle it over a couple of G&Ts.
But I suppose if the differences can't be settled in a 10 minute conversation then Gordon Brown can issue the order to withdraw British Forces from Iraq & Afghanistan so they can immediately start patrolling the Falklands.
One clearly feels aggreived at the other's recent behaviour.
Though I personally cannot stand Gordon Brown, he deserves to be treated like the Prime Minister of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, the USA's strongest supporter and ally, and not like a third rate oik from a tinpot little country when he goes to visit.
But there is an easy way to fix the issue and just that's to ask the US Ambassador to pop round for a friendly chat and settle it over a couple of G&Ts.
But I suppose if the differences can't be settled in a 10 minute conversation then Gordon Brown can issue the order to withdraw British Forces from Iraq & Afghanistan so they can immediately start patrolling the Falklands.
Actually, the US just needs to get rid of the "community organizer" who, obviously, has a deep seated personal resentment toward the UK...
...No other US leader, either Democrat or Republican (recent examples Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2) have treated any leader of the UK with the level of disrespect that this one has. You cannot persuade me that his family history (on his father's side) does not impact that.
Just MHO.
...No other US leader, either Democrat or Republican (recent examples Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2) have treated any leader of the UK with the level of disrespect that this one has. You cannot persuade me that his family history (on his father's side) does not impact that.
Just MHO.
GavinPearson said:
Though I personally cannot stand Gordon Brown, he deserves to be treated like the Prime Minister of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, the USA's strongest supporter and ally, and not like a third rate oik from a tinpot little country when he goes to visit.
Conversely winky could try acting like the prime minister of the UK, instead of a dribbling socialist half wit, hell bent on blaming everybody but himself for the problems he's caused. Previous US governments didn’t have a problem with his predecessors, so it either Obama or winky who's letting the side down.AndrewW-G said:
GavinPearson said:
Though I personally cannot stand Gordon Brown, he deserves to be treated like the Prime Minister of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, the USA's strongest supporter and ally, and not like a third rate oik from a tinpot little country when he goes to visit.
Conversely winky could try acting like the prime minister of the UK, instead of a dribbling socialist half wit, hell bent on blaming everybody but himself for the problems he's caused. Previous US governments didn’t have a problem with his predecessors, so it either Obama or winky who's letting the side down.As for US diplomats not paying the congestion charge, fairplay to them, the charge is an unjust envy tax from a corrupt regime and the 'septics' should be applauded for contesting it. Otherwise I agree, the 'special' relationship is not particularly special for us...
Ayahuasca said:
The lack of public support from the USA in respect of the Falklands demonstrates conclusively that the so-called 'special relationship' is a myth. This has been demonstrated numerous times in the past, but still polititions (British, not American) cling onto the fiction of its existence. Is it time to call bks to the whole thing, including:
making the US pay for any of our islands that it occupies (Ascension, Diego Garcia, etc)
kicking out US diplomats who refuse to pay the London congestion charge
renegotiating extradition treaties that currently favour the USA
IIRC the whole 'SR' was invented by Churchill who was looking for a big brother for the UK following the war when the UK stood alone and friendless against the Axis powers. His 'vision' for future security was some kind of alliance of (white) English-speaking nations bound by ties of history and brotherhood. This was in the UK's interest at the time as she was threatened by bigger boys, but it was never true - nations always look to their own self-interests first second and third. The 'SR' was in the UK's interest then. But it no longer is and so its fiction should be acknowledged.
The Wideawake Airfield, the total 3600 acres comprising the base, was treatied to the US in 1956 for no fee. The treaty was renewed in 2003. The Brits negotiated in civil air traffic as well as a BBC station. They did not change the no-fee annual lease. There is no violation. s2art has made a good case on the other thread mentioning this as to why it is actually profitable to the U.K. ks to the whole thing, including:making the US pay for any of our islands that it occupies (Ascension, Diego Garcia, etc)
kicking out US diplomats who refuse to pay the London congestion charge
renegotiating extradition treaties that currently favour the USA
IIRC the whole 'SR' was invented by Churchill who was looking for a big brother for the UK following the war when the UK stood alone and friendless against the Axis powers. His 'vision' for future security was some kind of alliance of (white) English-speaking nations bound by ties of history and brotherhood. This was in the UK's interest at the time as she was threatened by bigger boys, but it was never true - nations always look to their own self-interests first second and third. The 'SR' was in the UK's interest then. But it no longer is and so its fiction should be acknowledged.
On the other matters, especially the Falklands support, or lack thereof, I heartily agree. I know support will be given if needed and that Argentina is being warned behind the scenes while our public neutrality betters our position as a middle broker. However, I say sod that and publicy support who our friends are. I agree.
ErnestM said:
Actually, the US just needs to get rid of the "community organizer" who, obviously, has a deep seated personal resentment toward the UK...
...No other US leader, either Democrat or Republican (recent examples Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2) have treated any leader of the UK with the level of disrespect that this one has. You cannot persuade me that his family history (on his father's side) does not impact that.
Just MHO.
I agree, this is ancestral revenge on "da man" from Treasure Island for all his people did to the Kenyan. Sad indeed. Community organizer/activist....precisely....No other US leader, either Democrat or Republican (recent examples Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2) have treated any leader of the UK with the level of disrespect that this one has. You cannot persuade me that his family history (on his father's side) does not impact that.
Just MHO.
Jimbeaux said:
ErnestM said:
Actually, the US just needs to get rid of the "community organizer" who, obviously, has a deep seated personal resentment toward the UK...
...No other US leader, either Democrat or Republican (recent examples Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2) have treated any leader of the UK with the level of disrespect that this one has. You cannot persuade me that his family history (on his father's side) does not impact that.
Just MHO.
I agree, this is ancestral revenge on "da man" from Treasure Island for all his people did to the Kenyan. Sad indeed. Community organizer/activist....precisely....No other US leader, either Democrat or Republican (recent examples Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2) have treated any leader of the UK with the level of disrespect that this one has. You cannot persuade me that his family history (on his father's side) does not impact that.
Just MHO.
And don't forget his dealings with other leaders, again, I don't think he's cut out for the job. Not that I mind Winky getting put down on that visit to Washington, but Team Obi just didn't seem to understand how you treat leaders of other countries. 25 DVDs was embarrassing.
Amateur.
tinman0 said:
Jimbeaux said:
ErnestM said:
Actually, the US just needs to get rid of the "community organizer" who, obviously, has a deep seated personal resentment toward the UK...
...No other US leader, either Democrat or Republican (recent examples Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2) have treated any leader of the UK with the level of disrespect that this one has. You cannot persuade me that his family history (on his father's side) does not impact that.
Just MHO.
I agree, this is ancestral revenge on "da man" from Treasure Island for all his people did to the Kenyan. Sad indeed. Community organizer/activist....precisely....No other US leader, either Democrat or Republican (recent examples Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2) have treated any leader of the UK with the level of disrespect that this one has. You cannot persuade me that his family history (on his father's side) does not impact that.
Just MHO.
And don't forget his dealings with other leaders, again, I don't think he's cut out for the job. Not that I mind Winky getting put down on that visit to Washington, but Team Obi just didn't seem to understand how you treat leaders of other countries. 25 DVDs was embarrassing.
Amateur.
I think you are all generalizing far far to much. A failing and falling Argentine President desperately trying to drum up votes isn't much of a issue. Hell the Falklands War was nothing more then a skirmish. I know it was the last time you fought for and held a piece of the old empire but that doesn't make it important.
Beyond that you seem to think the S.R. means total agreement. Yet, even a basic look at post-WW2 shows that the US/UK only really worked together and agreed on the major geopolitical questions. Your empire was falling (something to be honest we wanted) and to keep at least a small world presence you worked with us for tactical reasons. You don't have the capacity otherwise.
We had huge disagreement on the lower level regional choices for example we nearly always backed and agreed with independence movements. Heck, the US government never really cracked down on Irish liberation financiers who were the primary money sources for the IRA since it's inception including during the 80's attacks...
But beyond that I think some of the previous posters make a good point. The UK needs to reevaluate if it wants to continue to spend the money to have the physical capacity to engage on the world stage. Most of the rest of Europe as chosen not to... Nothing wrong with being reasonably rich, safe, and ignored.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff