Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

"Special relationship" exposed for what it is by US official

A senior American official has spoken of "the myth of the special relationship" between the United States and Britain, arguing that Tony Blair got "nothing, no payback" for supporting President George W Bush in Iraq.


Bush and Blair at the G8 summit at St Petersburg when their private conversation was overheard
Kendall Myers, a leading State Department adviser, suggested that Mr Blair should have been ditched by Labour but the party had lacked the "courage or audacity" to remove him.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, was "shrewd, astute" to have distanced himself from America.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3RGOZONMDHV31QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/11/30/wusuk30.xml

Not that this should be news to the immense majority of us of course. But there are still a few people out there- including one or two in this very forum- who still speak proudly of the so-called special relationship with the US government and want to keep things as they are.

The sooner we raised to fingers to the White House and stand for ourselves, the better.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blair is, hence the stern report
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    These are the views of one person, I've no idea as to the background of this Kendall Myers but it wouldn't surprise me if he's an isolationist Irish American Democrat.

    Many Americans particularly in the Republican Party do feel a special and unique sense of friendship and closeness with Britain. Culturally and economically the links are undeniable. Britain is the biggest foreign investor in the US and the US the biggest foreign investor in Britain. There is a huge amount of respect in the US for Lady Thatcher and Tony Blair. In Britain Bill Clinton recently addressed the Labour Party conference and John McCain the Conservative Party conference; Clinton is admired within the Labour Party and in the Conservative Party there is huge admiration for Reagan and these days, John McCain.

    The special relationship is ingrained in the structure of the State; in opposition I have no doubt that Tony Blair and the Labour Party would have led opposition to the Iraq War - but in power with the infrastructure of government and the responsibilities of it the special relationship's evident existence influenced Blair and were one factor in leading Blair to stick with the US on Iraq. However, what everybody is forgetting that in spite of any 'special relationship' those that supported the Iraq War fundamentally supported it because they believed it was the right thing to do, it wasn't about 'following' Bush.

    In practice the special relationship can sometimes seems less evident; there is no formal tangible document encompassing the principles of it making it non-biding. However, the evidence for it is in the economic ties, the intelligence sharing of our security services, the political friendship and the shared values of two great nations.

    Interestingly our other close relationship is with the EU and many of the most vehement critics of the special relationship with the US who proclaim how little we get out of it conveniently forget how little we get out of the EU - subsidising French farmers, allowing the Spanish to fish in our waters and sponsoring bridges and tunnels in Greece hardly seem a great privilege.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tell me Dis: what exactly does Britain get out of this 'special relationship'?

    We agreed to extradite our citizens while they refused to honour their part of the agreement for years. We let them use Britain as an advanced post for their stupid Star Wars defence shield even though we won't even be covered by it. They call us great friends and cousins while imposing tariffs and restrictions on our goods. They take our money to build advanced fighters but won't let us have a say in the design or even supply us with the weapons systems technology used on the aircraft. We do as they say and back them up in their illegal wars and imperialistic Crusades for no apparent reason.

    Some special relationship that is... Special as in special olympics, perhaps.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you William Hague's aborted twin?Disillusioned you certainly are on every subject that you longwindedly and drearily give your right wing,rehearsed and I think stolen opinions on.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think there's any need to insult another user so dismissively Johnny, please bear in mind we're looking for debate on the ideas discussed not your views on other users.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Tell me Dis: what exactly does Britain get out of this 'special relationship'?

    Whilst I believe the special relationship is in Britain's interest our benefit is not the sole factor. Britain has for a long time shared many of the values and principles of the US; whether you support Tony Blair or not his world view happens to be closer to that of President Bush than Jacques Chirac.

    We benefit from close relationships with all of our allies; having close ties with the world's superpower inevitably benefits us economically and politically.
    Aladdin wrote:
    We agreed to extradite our citizens while they refused to honour their part of the agreement for years.

    This 'they' you speak of was not the US federal government. President Bush and his representative, the US Ambassador to Great Britain wished to see that treaty ratified sooner. Unfortunately for them the Founding Fathers stipulated that the Senate must ratify treaties. The aggressive lobbying of Irish American groups put a lot of pressure on the Senate hence the delay. If Britain had clearly stated that the treaty would only come into effect reciprocally – i.e. following Senate ratification the whole thing could have been avoided. You can't really blame the President for the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the constitution.
    Aladdin wrote:
    We let them use Britain as an advanced post for their stupid Star Wars defence shield even though we won't even be covered by it.

    The Independent said there are plans for it to cover Britain. With the likes of Iran around it's a good idea.
    Aladdin wrote:
    They call us great friends and cousins while imposing tariffs and restrictions on our goods.

    Well I'm not going to defend protectionism; US trade unions and isolationist Democrats still have influence - so what? Anyway we've had minor trade disagreements over the years with lots of our allies. However, you're conveniently forgetting that our EU membership prevents us from negotiating individually with the US and benefiting from our special status with the USA.
    Aladdin wrote:
    They take our money to build advanced fighters but won't let us have a say in the design or even supply us with the weapons systems technology used on the aircraft.

    And an Irish American Congressman is to blame. Lol, you might have guessed but a lot of Irish Americans really don't like Britain. The US constitution makes Congress very powerful; whilst our own legislature is a rubberstamp to a PM with a sufficient majority Congress can yield tremendous power.
    Aladdin wrote:
    Some special relationship that is... Special as in special olympics, perhaps.

    It's not perfect but we don't have perfect relations with any of our allies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    johnnny wrote:
    Are you William Hague's aborted twin?Disillusioned you certainly are on every subject that you longwindedly and drearily give your right wing,rehearsed and I think stolen opinions on.

    Uhuh. Well I won't insult your intelligence, your other posts state enough.

    But anyway, agreeing with an individual on something does not equate to plagiarism. (Meanwhile, although I might agree with Tony Blair and William Hague on some aspects of the special relationship I doubt I would be in complete agreement).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whilst I believe the special relationship is in Britain's interest our benefit is not the sole factor. Britain has for a long time shared many of the values and principles of the US; whether you support Tony Blair or not his world view happens to be closer to that of President Bush than Jacques Chirac.

    We benefit from close relationships with all of our allies; having close ties with the world's superpower inevitably benefits us economically and politically.
    Does it really? I don't see much economic benefit. There might be a very small percentage of US travellers who might be more inclined to come to England because of our 'valued ally' status, but to be honest the kind of people who think that way tend to be the kind of people who don't leave their country much.

    As for political benefit, far from being good for the country it has caused incalculable damage to Britain's reputation in the world- not to mention becoming an international laughing stock.


    This 'they' you speak of was not the US federal government. President Bush and his representative, the US Ambassador to Great Britain wished to see that treaty ratified sooner. Unfortunately for them the Founding Fathers stipulated that the Senate must ratify treaties. The aggressive lobbying of Irish American groups put a lot of pressure on the Senate hence the delay. If Britain had clearly stated that the treaty would only come into effect reciprocally – i.e. following Senate ratification the whole thing could have been avoided. You can't really blame the President for the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put into the constitution.
    I can certainly blame the US government and political system as a whole.


    The Independent said there are plans for it to cover Britain. With the likes of Iran around it's a good idea.
    The plans for covering Britain were included as an afterthought, after there was widespread outrage at the immense arrogance of the US requesting to install missiles and radar stations in British soil (thus making Britain the very first target in any plans to attack the US) for a system originally designed to protect the US only.

    The system will not work in a million years though. But it would still make Britain the first target of any attack directed at the US. A very beneficial move for the country eh?


    Well I'm not going to defend protectionism; US trade unions and isolationist Democrats still have influence - so what? Anyway we've had minor trade disagreements over the years with lots of our allies. However, you're conveniently forgetting that our EU membership prevents us from negotiating individually with the US and benefiting from our special status with the USA.
    You also forget that it is usually the EU that has to defend our interests every single time Uncle Sam decides to stick two fingers up its closest ally.


    And an Irish American Congressman is to blame. Lol, you might have guessed but a lot of Irish Americans really don't like Britain. The US constitution makes Congress very powerful; whilst our own legislature is a rubberstamp to a PM with a sufficient majority Congress can yield tremendous power.
    As I said earlier it all still boils down to the government and seats of power in one country treating another with utter contempt.

    To be fair it is Britain that is to blame the most in here. If it had any shred of dignity it would start reciprocating instead of rolling over and being a good boy for as long as our 'cousins' wants us to.
    It's not perfect but we don't have perfect relations with any of our allies.
    Then again none of our other allies take us for a ride and think of us as little more than a useful idiot.

    I'm still to hear or see any concrete benefit of this special relationship...

    It really would do Britain a world of good to stand up and start looking after its interests, instead of basking in empty feelings of 'closeness' and 'friendship' that get abused by our friends across the Pond.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The US is the biggest investor in Britain and Britain the biggest investor in the US. Consequently British and American interests frequently coincide naturally spawning a special relationship.

    Then there is intelligence sharing and defence considerations; the security that NATO has historically provided seems a good thing to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But would those trading links be severed or affected significantly if Britain were to stand up for itself and stop saying yes to everything the US government did? I doubt it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But would those trading links be severed or affected significantly if Britain were to stand up for itself and stop saying yes to everything the US government did? I doubt it.

    What I meant was a lot of the time the interests of the US and UK coincide; indeed the same could even be said between the EU and the US - the disagreements you highlighted earlier are not typical and are the exception. In the WTO and other bodies there is a lot of co-operation.

    And it's not about the UK saying yes to the US - it's about the fact that the UK frequently simply happens to agree with the US.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It stinks of propanda and spin, sorry. On the one hand it criticises blair and the other says how 'shrew' David Cameron is? :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be fair to the 'special relationship' every other Prime Minister has seen its not just a one way street, and you don't always have to follow the US eg Wilson over Vietnam or Thatcher over Iran. It's current failing is that Blair can't decide whether to be slavishly obedient to the EU or to the US and thus decides to follow the worst of both worlds and be obedient to both.

    I've yet to hear a good argument for remaining in the EU, but we're still in it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've yet to hear a good argument for remaining in the EU, but we're still in it.

    Increased specialisation and trade leading to supply-side led growth. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Increased specialisation and trade leading to supply-side led growth. :)

    and trade wouldn't have happened without the EU? Anyway surely that's an argument in favour of the original EEC anyway, not the EU.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've yet to hear a good argument for remaining in the EU, but we're still in it.
    The millions of Britons living abroad who'd be forced to come back to the UK? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The millions of Britons living abroad who'd be forced to come back to the UK? ;)

    Hardly a good argument for the EU that if Britain leaves France will and Spain will start to cleanse Brits from inside their borders. Sounds a bit like Idi Amin's Uganda (do what we want or we'll expell all the British living peacefully here).

    In fact even I'm not that anti-EU to suggest that they would think of doing something so self-defeating....

    Spain would already loose enough cash with the UK withdrawing without deciding to scupper another source of foreign investment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually it might be quite an argument for the EU. I cannot see many members being happy at the UK wanting to enjoy all the benefits EU membership brings (free unrestricted travel, residency and property ownership amongst others) if it pulls out.

    It's supposed to be a community thing. You put some things in, you get some other things out of it. Nobody should expect to get a free ride.

    Perhaps if Britain pulled out some people would finally realise being a member is a good thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Actually it might be quite an argument for the EU. I cannot see many members being happy at the UK wanting to enjoy all the benefits EU membership brings (free unrestricted travel, residency and property ownership amongst others) if it pulls out.

    It's supposed to be a community thing. You put some things in, you get some other things out of it. Nobody should expect to get a free ride.

    Perhaps if Britain pulled out some people would finally realise being a member is a good thing.

    But it would be highly economically damaging for those countries who did it. Certainly I wouldn't want the UK to start throwing out the French, Italians etc. But if fear of bullying by other European countries is the only thing keeping us in...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and trade wouldn't have happened without the EU? Anyway surely that's an argument in favour of the original EEC anyway, not the EU.

    There would be trade, but being part of the EU means trade tariffs are 0 which means trade goes through the roof. The only exceptions are cigarettes etc. Currently 49% of all Britains exports go to the rest of the EU....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There would be trade, but being part of the EU means trade tariffs are 0 which means trade goes through the roof. The only exceptions are cigarettes etc. Currently 49% of all Britains exports go to the rest of the EU....

    Er we actually did a lot of our trade and had free trade with EU members before the EU. See Flashman's earlier comment regarding the EEC.

    As of 2005:

    Exports: US 15.1%, Germany 10.5%, France 8.9%, Ireland 7.3%, Netherlands 5.5%, Belgium 5%, Spain 4.4%

    Imports: Germany 12.8%, US 8.7%, France 7.1%, Netherlands 6.6%, China 5%, Norway 4.7%, Belgium 4.6%, Italy 4%

    Quite clearly, the US and European countries are important trading partners. As you said earlier, removing tariffs increases trade - therefore wouldn't it make sense for Britain to become a true bridge between Europe and the US and join NAFTA? By getting out of the EU we could negotiate our own free trade agreement with EU members which suits our needs - as well as suiting the EU since we import far more from EU members than we export - as well as doing more trade with the US/Canada/Mexico. Surely Britain becomes a lot more attractive place for foreign businesses and investors when it has free trade agreements with EU members and the US?
Sign In or Register to comment.