Posted on 04/02/2010 6:27:55 PM PDT by GOPGuide
After decades of playing second fiddle to the U.S., Britain, like other U.S. allies, is prepared to chart a more independent course. It's about time.
A British parliamentary committee has reported that the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States is over. It is tempting to dwell on the responsibility of President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for having brought this about, but the end of the “special” relationship is actually very good news for both countries. Having been abused past the breaking point before and during the Iraq war, the U.S.-British relationship was bound to change, and the only regret either nation should have now is that the change did not come sooner when it might have done more good.
The way is now clear for building a balanced, reciprocal relationship based on shared interests rather than sentimental attachments, reflexive support, or nostalgia for a Roosevelt-Churchill or Reagan-Thatcher partnership.
In practice, the “special relationship” has for several decades meant that Britain endorses and aids U.S. efforts and military actions abroad while it receives little or nothing in exchange. Until the end of the Cold War, a close connection with America was useful to Britain. It helped offset Britain’s international decline while strengthening its position in Europe, where Britain worked to prevent any single power from dominating the Continent. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the peaceful reunification of Germany, and the increasing consolidation of the European Union, these concerns grew anachronistic. Like other alliances defined by the crucibles of WW II and the Cold War, the “special relationship” has lost its old purpose while the “Global War on Terror” has failed to supply a new one.
Britain’s constancy has allowed Washington to take its support for granted. In turn, Britain’s automatic support has enabled Washington to behave abroad far more recklessly than it could feasibly have done all on its own. It is much harder to imagine an American domestic political consensus in support of the Iraq war had Britain not supported it, and Britain’s absence from any "coalition of the willing" would have engendered greater opposition to the invasion from European governments.
On the other hand, had Britain been a more reluctant ally, it might have dissuaded the previous administration from making its worst decision, saving years of needless warfare and loss. That would have been best for America, but it would have served Britain’s cause as well. As the committee report explained, Britain’s close identification with reckless U.S. actions has harmed British interests elsewhere in the world.
If the Iraq war confirmed that the “special relationship” had gone horribly awry, the recent controversy over the Falkland Islands was in some respects the last straw. Britain has long resented U.S. neutrality in Britain’s territorial dispute with Argentina. But when Secretary of State Clinton recently expressed support for negotiations over the status of the territory, it appeared that neutrality had morphed into back-stabbing opposition. Clinton’s comment may have stemmed more from clumsiness than policy—until sheep become strategic assets the Falklands will remain a low priority at the State Department. But for Britain, the episode encapsulated the one-sided nature of the relationship.
Whoever forms Britain’s next government following the general election this spring will almost certainly be less deferential. That is a consequence of international politics in general as well as Iraq in particular. Economic growth and democratization have spawned a new generation of rising powers with increasingly assertive and independent foreign policies. In navigating this new terrain, longtime U.S. allies such as Japan and Turkey will exercise greater independence and flexibility. We should expect the same from Britain.
David Cameron, Britain’s Conservative leader and potentially its next prime minister, will likely chart a more independent course than his predecessors. His support for the Iraq war and his appointment of a “pro-American” (and Euroskeptic) shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, notwithstanding, he has repeatedly articulated the view that critical allies make better allies. “We will serve neither our own, nor America’s, nor the world’s interests, if we are seen as American’s unconditional associate in every endeavor,” he said. What’s more, it appears that all three major British parties share this view. So no matter who comes out of the election on top, a more critical, independent ally across the ocean appears all but certain. Friends change. Washington will just have to adjust.
After decades of playing second fiddle to the U.S., Britain, like other U.S. allies, is prepared to chart a more independent course. It's about time.
“that is generally where Buchanan is coming from”
Buchanan never met a Nazi he didn’t like. And that’s where he is really coming from.
How stupid of W to insult the Queen by giving her an iPod, and insulting English-speaking peoples everywhere by asking the British to negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands.
That still doesn’t explain Buchanan’s hatred of Israel and his love of Nazis.
Interesting.
I’m not sure I buy the author’s arguments in regards to Britain, though I do believe generally that the key alliances for the U.S. are changing somewhat. For example, I think it possible that Poland and India will be more important to U.S. interests in the decades to come than France or Germany will.
That’s assuming Obama doesn’t alienate every potential ally in the next two to six years, of course.
Actually our founders wasn’t isolationist. Washington meant not to get involved in the French Revolution also at the time Washington was President, we had little or no military. Before he died he was ready to lead a army against a possible war against France. So he wasn’t isolationist. We tried isolationism in 30’s and it didn’t work. Plain and simple. Plus Obama’s hatred of Israel is why I think that Pat likes Obama..
No one wants France and America to be joined at the knee.
God help the world if that ever happens.
The problem is how the special relationship has affect the UK,not if it was beneficial for the United States,it is a country that is still bitter about America’s late entry in both World wars.
Angered because of a War on terror that has seen so many of their young,under-equipped young men die while American liberals go on about with their movies and other trash.
The British view on Israel is also way too hardline to be comfortable with the American view.
There are other countries in Europe then France/UK.The EU is not necessarly a good thing but it is not the worst Europe has to offer.
Again a special relationship benefits both,which is what makes it special.Not special in a Hank Johnson way but in mututal beneficial way.
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.