Do We Need The "Special Relationship"?

 

The relationship between Britain and the USA has shaped world politics since the 18th century. It has precipitated wars, divided continents and revolutionised the political, economic, social and cultural aspects of both countries and their neighbours. But in the aftermath of the Iraq War and Blair's continual sycophancy towards the most powerful right-winger in the world, this transatlantic bond has come under fire. So, will this transoceanic allegiance last for another 200 years, or are we at the point where the rope must snap? In short, is this "special relationship" necessary?

            Certainly there are arguments for this tie to exist. One of which is accountability. Since the Declaration of Independence on 4th July 1776, the Americans have held the British to account over their empire. It was partly down to American pressure that British colonies like Burma and India were granted independence (although in the latter case, most credit must go to Mahatma Gandhi). Whilst hasty withdrawal from Africa left the door open for the dictatorships of Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe (along with Apartheid in South Africa), it had to happen. Without American pressure, Britain would certainly have delayed independence for decades, though it is inconceivable to think that fifty years later we would still have half of Africa under our thumb. In some ways this hastiness by the USA could be blamed for the events throughout the 1960s and 1970s, but it was still necessary.

            Secondly, Britain and America - dubious as it may seem - have so much in common. We both embrace free market economies; and in some part in the twentieth century we have dabbled with interventionism - America with the New Way before World War II, Britain with Keynesian Economics from 1945 to 1979. There is a massive culture clash between Europe and the British isles; concepts like the café mentality (the British drink in pubs, the French in cafés) show a massive social gap between the UK and the continent. Britain's membership of the EU throws these differences up all the time. The controversy over the (entirely justified) British rebate shows how different we British are from the rest - we were the only ones out of the 25 wanting to keep the rebate. Maybe Charles de Gaulle was right in refusing us membership in 1967. Our involvement has opened old wounds, not healed them - at any England v Germany football match, "Don't mention the war" will always be somewhere in the air. Such antediluvian stereotypes exist as strongly as ever, even if, in this climate of political correctness, we only say them behind peoples' backs. On the contrary, since the 1980s America has seemed a lot like Britain. The launch of MTV formed a united market for British and American artists alike, which is still present today. British music has become more successful since the 1980s, so that every band now has the potential to sell more records and win over the States like the Beatles did in 1964. Certainly in terms of music Europe has never matched this.

            Thirdly, there is the question of world influence. Since the mid-19th century America's economy grew so much that by World War I it was outstripping Britain. During Britain's gold standard crisis and financial gloom in the 1920s, Wall Street boomed until the Great Crash on 14th October 1929. At the Yalta Conference in 1945, Winston Churchill was forced to accept that they were no longer a world power, and that the US had surpassed them. He also knew that he, along with his successor Clement Attlee, would have to be allies with America if they were to have any influence on world events. That is why Attlee sent British troops into Korea in 1950 - it split his party and Churchill won the early election a year later, but Britain still managed a degree of international presence, even in a derogatory way. It is thanks to the USA that Britain still commands a position in the G8, in NATO, and on the UN Security Council. From what we have seen in past weeks, Britain has little influence in the EU (not just because of the rebate, but also because of QMV and all the bureaucracy.). Without the US, we would be an island politically as well as geographically.

All these make out that America is great. As John Cleese might have said in Monty Python's Life of Brian, "Okay, but apart from the music industry, the international influence, the strong economy, the transatlantic accountability and the cultural revolution, what have the Americans ever done for us?" But in reality it is not so rosy. A recent survey conducted by The Economist found that there is a 60-40 split between Britons who like Americans and those who hate them. That gap has massively shrunk from the 1960s. Another poll conducted by the same newspaper asked countries to say how favourably they saw the following countries: America, France, Japan, Germany and China. On every list bar India's, America finished in last place. So not only is the special relationship between the USA and UK threatened, there is very little chance of forming one with anyone else if it should collapse (America will have very little interest in India until it gets as competitive as China.).

This climate of anti-Americanism led to the French and Germans refusing to support the Iraq war (wise move) and a failure to pass a second UN resolution to make the war legal - if wars can be. One reason why the special relationship should cease to exist is that the international influence it carries had led spectators to brand us warmongers. Indeed, after Pearl Harbour the US seems only too willing to fight against whomever it pleases - World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), not to mention helping Thatcher out in the Falklands and the Cold War. No other nation outside the imperialists - Britain, France, etc. - has been involved in so many wars in such a short space of time, 64 years and counting. Blair's reputation has been damaged by Iraq and his close friendship with Bush (brilliant), which made him lose 100 seats in the 2005 election (even better). Neville Chamberlain described President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a "warmonger" in 1937 - the smartest move of his career. We have seen the impact that our ties with the USA have had on our image in Europe - the longer we stay allies with America, the harder it will get to offer an olive branch to the continent.

            A second and important reason for ending the affair is the political climate. In Britain, we have a multi-party system (yes, the Lib Dems do count), where both the left and the right are present in some way, shape or form. In America there is a two-party system where everyone who's anyone is right-wing. Ralph Nader - the leader of the left-wing Green Party - only won 1% of the vote in the 2004 presidential election, and the New Way was a brief dabbling in interventionism which was little more than a flash-in-the-pan; once the economy recovered in the late-1930s it was abandoned and never seen again. As well as this, there are rich examples in history when either country has refused to help the other out. In the Suez Crisis of 1956, Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden invaded Egypt but the USA did not support him - he was forced to resign and Britain was humiliated. In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President Kennedy and Harold Macmillan were so suspicious of each other, that Kennedy eventually sent the US Fleet into Cuba, only letting Macmillan know the night before. In the mid-1960s, Prime Minister Harold Wilson rightly refused to commit British troops to Vietnam, which enraged President Lyndon B. Johnson so much that they hardly spoke for the rest of the decade. Cambridge historian David Reynolds implies that the two were at loggerheads even as they fought together in 1941 - Britain had grown wary of the prevailing isolationism the USA practised (no chance of that today) that led to their late entry into both wars. History always repeats itself, so we may see many more events like these that will stretch the transatlantic cord to breaking point.

            A third reason is the culture clash. Though much less than that with Europe, there are some things, which we British do, that the Americans just don't, and vice versa. The most obvious example is religion. Britain is a generally secular society, and though the Church has not been vanquished, multiculturalism and cynicism have left the British Isles a wary and stubborn island where the Church of England has little political influence outside of the Archbishop of Canterbury's wise polemics. In stark contrast, the USA is riddled with conservative, fundamentalist Christians, especially in places like the Bible Belt. The power of the Christian right is evident in its prominent intervention in abortion and euthanasia cases, such as the recent Terry Schiavo case. American evangelists like Billy Graham and the creationism that springs from their belief in taking the Bible literally are seen by most Britons are scary to say the least; some of the more liberal Christians see a lot of these people as out of their minds and out of touch. We may embrace The Simpsons but we wouldn’t sit through a televangelism show. This difference will continue as long as church attendance declines and the Christian Right gets more influence in American politics.

            The final reason why the bond must be broken is that it is completely one-sided. The balance of power between the two nations is just like it was in the mid-1960s. Following Harold Wilson's refusal to supply America with troops, Lyndon B. Johnson remarked: "A visit to Washington [by Wilson] would be a serious mistake, since nothing Britain can do will change our position." Bush and Blair are on speaking terms, but the situation could not be more identical. Blair has been aptly described as Bush's poodle, who can only stand by his master and obey. As far as Bush is concerned he can nuke anyone he likes - as if the imperialist, neo-Thatcherite Blair has the courage to stop smiling, step in and stop him. Such a biased relationship cannot be tolerated for much longer and should be destroyed as soon as it becomes clear that equilibrium cannot be restored.

            So, in conclusion, is the "special relationship" necessary for modern Britain? Well to some extent it is, if we wish to remain in some way the shapers of the political, economic and foreign agenda. We need America on our side and under control if we are to have a positive impact on the world. If we seek to intermingle our rich cultures and enhanced knowledge for the greater good, the special relationship will bring economic stability, higher quality arts, media and technology, and as far as our political systems go we may learn a thing or two from each other. Yet deep inside I have an urge to end Anglo-American co-operation for good. America today is so headstrong, paranoid and pugnacious that it is regarded as the school bully of the world, that will never take 'No' for an answer and who has the capacity to destroy the globe if it spent all its money on weapons. Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East all hate America, to the extent that we are the sole ally of the sole superpower. There are things that we two nations shall always disagree on, and these differences new and old will remain divisive as long as we are friends. If America remains as aloof, dogmatic and right-wing as it is now, we cannot expect amiable judgement by historians in 100 years time. In which case I say it is time that we left the USA out in the cold and concentrate on bonding with Europe and even Russia, just to annoy them. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be to win back our international dignity.

            Do you agree?

 

Bibliography

1.      'Not a Revolution, More a Civil War', Richard Holmes, 2003, BBC History Magazine/ The Independent.

2.      'Balance of Power Swings to the West', Martin Crawford, 2003, BBC History Magazine/ The Independent.

3.      'Under Fire', Charles Wheeler, 2003, BBC History Magazine/ The Independent.

4.      'Tony beats the drum for Africa', Volume 375 Issue 8430, 2005, The Economist.

5.      'Pop Go the Special Relations', Niall Palmer, 2003, BBC History Magazine/ The Independent.

6.      'You ain't seen nothing yet', Volume 375 Issue 8432, 2005, The Economist.

7.      'Still not loved. Now not envied', Volume 375 Issue 8432, 2005, The Economist.

8.      'Thrown Together by the Winds of War', David Reynolds, 2003, BBC History Magazine/ The Independent.

 

 

 

Daniel Mumby                                                  Pages: 4 Lines: 145 Words: 2,015

 

Bladerunnerismint@hotmail.com