Log in

View Full Version : Special relationship between UK and US is over


Sapphire
March 28th, 2010, 04:16 AM
The UK government needs to be "less deferential" towards the US and more willing to say no to Washington, a group of MPs have said.

The Commons Foreign Affairs committee also said it was wrong to speak of "the special relationship" with the US, as it was fostering other alliances.
However, the MPs did agree that the link between the countries was "profound and valuable".
The Foreign Office said the two nations share a "unique" bond.
The committee said the phrase "the special relationship" did not reflect the "modern" Anglo-American relationship.
It was originally coined more than 60 years ago by Winston Churchill.

The committee said although Britain and the US still had close ties, the UK's influence had "diminished" as its economic and military power had waned.
"The use of the phrase 'the special relationship' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided," the committee said.
"The overuse of the phrase by some politicians and many in the media serves simultaneously to de-value its meaning and to raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits the relationship can deliver to the UK."
Three Labour MPs and two Conservatives voted unsuccessfully for the recommendation to be dropped but were over-ruled.
The committee said that the relationship was more associated now with the perceived support Britain gave to President George W Bush over the Iraq war.
"The perception that the British government was a subservient 'poodle' to the US administration leading up to the period of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath is widespread both among the British public and overseas," it said.
"This perception, whatever its relation to reality, is deeply damaging to the reputation and interests of the UK."
The committee also said US President Barack Obama had taken the same "pragmatic" attitude as it was recommending now since entering the White House in 2009.
It said: "The UK needs to be less deferential and more willing to say no to the US on those issues where the two countries' interests and values diverge.
"The UK's relationship should be principally driven by the UK's national interests within individual policy areas. It needs to be characterised by a hard-headed political approach to the relationship and a realistic sense of the UK's limits."
Committee chairman Mike Gapes said: "We must be realistic and accept that globalisation, structural changes and shifts in geopolitical power will inevitably affect the UK-US relationship.
"Over the longer-term, the UK is unlikely to be able to influence the US to the extent it has in the past."

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said the British media's "preoccupation" with the state of the relationship was often at the "expense of coverage of the more substantive aspects of the relationship".
"It doesn't really matter whether someone calls it 'the special relationship' or not," she said.
"What matters is that the UK's relationship with the US is unique, and uniquely important to protecting our national security and promoting our national interest."
Sir Winston had first coined the phrase during his famous "Iron Curtain" speech in March 1946.
He had been inspired by the countries' shared struggle against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
And throughout the Cold War, cultural and historical similarities, diplomatic consultation and defence and nuclear co-operation meant that Anglo-American relations were particularly close.

- Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8590767.stm)

Tiberius
March 28th, 2010, 02:19 PM
I think that it's a good thing for the UK to say no when it's against their interests or is beyond their limits, but it is sad that our relationship won't be as close anymore.

Kahn
March 28th, 2010, 11:17 PM
I think that it's a good thing for the UK to say no when it's against their interests or is beyond their limits, but it is sad that our relationship won't be as close anymore.

It's funny really. 214 years ago we had just separated from the UK (Britain) and we were the ones that had decided to say no to them, but now they are the ones that need to know when to say no.

Whisper
March 29th, 2010, 02:22 AM
I wish Canada had balls
that'd be nice
they're to busy bickering amongst themselves to even care tho nvm try


In the end its a governments job to look out for its own citizens and their interests not cater to another nation

CaptainObvious
March 29th, 2010, 02:27 AM
I wish Canada had balls
that'd be nice
they're to busy bickering amongst themselves to even care tho nvm try

Having not followed America into Iraq, Canada has a lot less soul-searching to do on this topic than the UK.

Kahn
March 29th, 2010, 08:21 AM
Having not followed America into Iraq, Canada has a lot less soul-searching to do on this topic than the UK.

I agree, but Canada would never go to war. :P They don't have the man power.

CaptainObvious
March 29th, 2010, 08:34 AM
I agree, but Canada would never go to war. :P They don't have the man power.

I'll assume that was a joke and refrain from pointing out our involvement with the entirety of the War in Afghanistan. :P

Kahn
March 29th, 2010, 08:40 AM
I'll assume that was a joke and refrain from pointing out our involvement with the entirety of the War in Afghanistan. :P

Twas a joke. They followed us to Afghan though!

nick
March 29th, 2010, 10:20 AM
I think the decision by Tony Blair to join in with the Iraq war left a lot of people in this country feeling as though he would do anything just to stay in favour with the US administration. Ultimately this has damaged the relationship rather than strengthened it as there is clearly now a feeling that the UK government needs to retain a little more capacity for independent thought.

I would add that such things as using UK air bases as staging posts for "Extraodinary Rendition" have done little to help.

Whisper
March 29th, 2010, 05:33 PM
Having not followed America into Iraq, Canada has a lot less soul-searching to do on this topic than the UK.
Not officially anyway, we have had troops serve in Iraq on "exchange" programs so to speak with US soldiers, that happens allot its part of one of the many defense agreements we have, something to do with training and integration so that our two forces can work seamlessly together when the situation arises.

I agree with you tho, but you have to remember that was under an entirely different administration.
not the current one who prorogues parliament on a whim to get out of explaining torture accusations, erugh.

Harper runs things a lil different
especially in regards to international policy (and our democratic process...)


I just read the article I haven't looked in more detail into the US UK relations as of late in regards to decisions
but it sounds to me like its just allot of political posturing to maintain votes/support

Tiberius
March 29th, 2010, 06:18 PM
I agree, but Canada would never go to war. :P They don't have the man power.

Canada supplies a good chunk of the U.N soldiers...

Kahn
March 29th, 2010, 11:06 PM
Canada supplies a good chunk of the U.N soldiers...

It was a joke Chris.