Posted on 08/01/2007 1:08:23 PM PDT by mojito
Gordon Brown’s first Washington visit as Britain’s prime minister has prompted tea-leaf reading about the strengths and weaknesses of the US-UK relationship. Momentarily diverting – and probably unavoidable – as the frenzy of speculation is, the real tests lie ahead. Actions ultimately trump semiotics in national security affairs.
Moreover, as contentious and important as Iraq is, it is a mistake to think that disagreements on that issue represent a fundamental change in the US-UK relationship. Tony Blair and President George W. Bush disagreed on global warming, as will Mr Brown and Mr Bush, but in neither case does the disagreement reflect a tectonic shift.
In fact, whether the “special relationship” grows stronger or weaker lies entirely in British hands. Americans across the political spectrum are content to keep it as it is and has been essentially since the second world war. That does not mean that the two countries always agree, nor has it ever meant that Britain is a poodle following America’s lead, self-flagellating Brits notwithstanding.
There are, however, more fundamental questions. Successive UK governments have taken Britain deeper and deeper into the European Union, all the while proclaiming that nothing fundamental about Britain’s status was changing. Britain is not unique in this regard. Europeans advocating an “ever-closer union” continually reaffirm that they are not changing anything fundamental about their sovereign control over foreign and domestic policy.
This attitude has been widespread, but the re-emergence of a European “constitution” – under whatever name – has brought Britain to a clear decision point. The long, slow slide into the European porridge has had few clear transition points. In the aggregate, however, the magnitude of changes in the status of the EU’s formerly Westphalian nation-state members can no longer be blinked away.
Thus, saying that the UK’s “single most important bilateral relationship” is with America, but is not comparable with UK membership of the EU, is a clever but ultimately meaningless dodge. Drop the word “bilateral”. What is Britain’s most important “relationship”? Does Mr Brown regard the EU as a “state under construction”, as some EU supporters proclaim, or not?
The answers to these questions are what Washington really needs to know. What London needs to know is that its answer will have consequences.
For example, why does a “union” with a common foreign and security policy, and with the prospect of a real “foreign minister” have two permanent seats on the UN Security Council and often as many as three non-permanent seats out of a total of 15 council members? France and Britain may not relish the prospect of giving up their unique status, but what is it that makes them different – as members of the “Union” – from Luxembourg or Malta? One Union, one seat.
Mr Brown cannot have it both ways (nor will President Nicolas Sarkozy), in part because many other EU members will not let the matter rest. Of course, the Security Council permanent seat itself is not the real issue – it is the question of whether Britain still has sovereignty over its foreign policy or whether it has simply taken its assigned place in the EU food chain.
Consider also the US-UK intelligence relationship. Fundamental to that relationship is that pooled intelligence is not shared with others without mutual consent. Tension immediately arises in EU circles, however, when Britain advocates policies based on intelligence that other EU members do not have. How tempting it must already be for British diplomats to “very privately” reveal what they know to European colleagues. How does Mr Brown feel about sharing US intelligence with other Europeans?
Finally, there is Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, which will prove in the long run more important for both countries than the current turmoil in Iraq. Here the US has followed the EU lead in a failed diplomatic effort to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. If Mr Bush decides that the only way to stop Iran is to use military force, where will Mr Brown come down? Supporting the US or allowing Iran to goose-step towards nuclear weapons?
I will wait for answers to these and other questions before I draw conclusions about “the special relationship” under Mr Brown. But not forever.
Sorry. That should be “Ambassador Bolton.”
What makes me sad is that they think that cameras on every street corner will replace the Royal Navy.
Would you really want your security to depend on what the French do?
‘What makes me sad is that they think that cameras on every street corner will replace the Royal Navy.’
Waht makes me sad is that people like you think we are that stupid.
We’ve just spent billions on the two biggest aircraft carriers outide the USN, several ultra-modern type 45 destroyers, the entirely new Astute class subs, 50% more Typhoons than the US has Raptors and many JSF’s to replace our Harriers and you’re still not happy!
And what has America done to encourage us to keep our defence spending high? Oh yeah, you elected the Democrats! :(
‘Would you really want your security to depend on what the French do?’
Well America did in 1776. . . . . . ;-)
Why not?
The United States has no clear bf country.
Nor should it.
That could lead to entanglements which don't involve this nation.
 |
Warning: This could be a high volume pinglist. Note: This pinglist covers--but not as much--Eastern Europe. There is already a moderate volume pinglist for that region. Ping if you see a pertinent thread. |
No message is necessary. To get on or get off this pinglist, freepmail here, with the appropriate subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
That each EU state can engage in independent foreign affairs, including military ones, is why the EU states are still considered sovereign states by UN conventions, and why American states are not.
Europe shouldn't have three of the five permanent seats on the UN Security Council, though (Russia included).
Can we stop using the term “Special Relationship?” It sounds like us and the Brits will be going to Fire Island this weekend.
IMO, he was the brightest (only?) star this administration has had. And we had him for such a short time...sad.
Did you ever hear that great spoof of the Chesterfield cigarette advertising tune from a few decades ago? The spoof version was something like "Go to Fire Island, and you'll survey, the very best of faggots in the USA...la-la-la-la....even on a fairy boat you'll find a man, stops and takes big pleasure when and where he can. Ches-ter-fi-ELD!!"
I am sure it was produced in the studio at the same time as the real ad by the same singers and musicians, because it was completely professional with exactly the same sound as the real commercial. This must go back to the 70s, if not the 60s, although I expect it still shows up on "blooper" collections (although it was definitely not a blooper).
LOL! I was born after the era of cigarette commercials, so I missed that one.
Bolton baffles me with stuff like this: “the magnitude of changes in the status of the EU’s formerly Westphalian nation-state members can no longer be blinked away.”
I guess it’s State Department bureaucratese, of which I know little and understand less, but still, Bolton is one of my favorite state department warriors.
Most of the rest are mere insects who should’ve been stepped on and squished back in the Korea conflict.
What Bolton lacked was big irons on his hip, to borrow a line from a long-ago song.
I wish Bolton could have killed more UN dragons during his tenure. Fascist and communist blood running down the walls of the UN would’ve been worth, at least, a medal and a movie: “Bolton the Usurper in the NGO Pits.”
I will translate. The peace of Westphalia ended the 30 years war, in 1648. The basis of the peace was an agreement by the major powers on both sides of the religious wars, to stop interfering in each other's domestic affairs (especially domestic religious affairs) and instead each recognize the others as sovereign over their own people.
Understand that the previous period had been dominated by internal factions in each state, typically representing religious minorities, seeking and getting foreign support, as they sought independence from their kings, or tried to change the royal line to one more to their religious liking.
So, a Westphalian nation-state means the idea of a single representative of a nation that is regarded by all other governments as the sole legitimate representative of all the people of that nation, regardless of their political or religious opinions. And it implies they all stay out of each other's internal "hair", refrain from supporting factions abroad to further their own power, etc.
Bolton is noting that the period of these distinct, vertical states was historically an exception rather than an automatic thing or a law of nature. Before 1648, groupings much larger than nations (whole religious blocks) and smaller ones (factions, minorities, partisans) were at least as important as political actors as the states themselves.
Bolton notices that the same has been true in Europe, increasingly, in recent times. Party allegiance means more than nationality within Europe. Primary civilizational loyalties run to Europe as such, or to modernity, or to secularism, or to social democracy. For that matter, with recent immigrants, it does not run to those things, but to outside ideas. But in neither case does primary loyalty seriously run to, say, Belgium. Within Europe, he is saying, these are all more like local regions or US states, and not the sole representatives of the people within them.
To those who know the diplomatic history, "Westphalian nation-state" is shorthand that means that whole ideal or unified nationalism, as it existed in Europe from say 1648 to say 1945.
I hope this helps...
The news reports I saw said you were mothballing the Navy. Sorry to arouse your ire. Electing Dems should make you worry that you might have to defend us. :)
It is notable that the Prime Minister chose Germany instead America as the destination of his first visit to the foreign. Mr. Brown surely wanted to set a sign in both directions: to the US, that he doesn´t want to be viewed as America´s poodle, and to Germany/Europe that he´s not the EU-opponent as feared/wished by some.
Absolutely NOT—ever ridden the Underground and had 200 kids all with that same incredibly annoying Crazy Frog?
And Euros are so “sophisticated”. My arse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.