Round The World

New Delhi, 26 June 2007

US-UK TIES SET To CHANGE?

By Saroj Kumar Rath

School of International Studies, JNU

The international politics of recent years have seen a resurgence and refashioning of the US-UK 'special relationship'. Widely seen as likely to expire with the end of the Cold War, the relationship revived following the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001 on the United States. The longevity, sustenance and warmthness of the US-UK 'special relationship' has always had a direct bearing on the personal rapport of the heads of the two countries. The easy and understandable factors of this special relationship include simple inertia and the subtle effects of shared culture.

With the US President George Bush about to enter the phase of a lame duck President in the coming session of the Democrats-dominated Congress and with Tony Blair having retired on 27 June last as British Prime Minister, the future of the US-UK special relationship again comes into the domain of public debate.  The anxiety about the future of their inter-personal relationship has already surfaced. In retrospect, Reagan and Thatcher raised the level of understanding between the two countries to an undisputable level during the 1980s. But in the subsequent period the US-UK relations cooled perceptibly under Prime Minister John Major and President Bill Clinton.

Their personal chemistry was adversely affected when damaging reports revealed Major's support for Bush's electoral bid for a second term in the 1992 Presidential election. Further, the Conservative Party's role in influencing the elections in his favour by disclosing unfavourable details about Clinton's life when he was a Rhode scholar at the Oxford University. Relations deteriorated over the issue of Northern Ireland in what was perceived to be US interference in an internal matter of Britain.

Clinton's decision in 1994 to grant a 48-hour visa to the Sinn Fein leader Garry Adams to visit the United States strained Britain's relations with the US. The American decision was taken overriding intense efforts by Britain to persuade Clinton against it. The visit went ahead and attracted considerable publicity, discomforting London greatly. The visa issue once again became a bone of contention in 1995 when Adams applied for another US visa. Once again, Britain went through the painful process of lobbying hard to prevent Clinton from granting a visa only to taste defeat yet again

Relations improved only after May 1997 under Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bill Clinton. With the passing of time both the leaders once again reaffirmed the special relationship. Like Thatcher and Reagan, Blair and Clinton clicked on a personal and political level. The members of Clinton's campaign team helped Blair in the run up to the 1997 UK general election and later the pair collaborated on Northern Ireland, the Balkans and Kosovo. Blair was also a friend to Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

After the strength of Blair's relationship with Clinton, many thought the election of George Bush would mark a downturn in Anglo-US relations. But Blair refused to bad-mouth Bush saying that people should not underestimate his intelligence. The "special relationship" in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks operated in a radically changed international environment. Both Bush and Blair endorsed the "special relationship" in no uncertain terms. London was quick to stand shoulder to shoulder with Washington after the 9/11 attacks and this stance has continued with Blair throwing his weight fully behind the US Administration in pursuing the attacks against Libya, the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq war.

Blair's demitting the office marks the end of an era in U.S.-British relations. His extraordinarily close alliance with Bush defied all expectations and has been a major force on the world stage post the 9/11 attack. Blair's successor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, is an uncharismatic, somber figure who is unlikely to set the world alight it seems. The special relationship will continue under Brown, but it will be a low-key affair with a greater emphasis on behind-the-scenes negotiations than high profile public displays of unity.

As Bush will be shortly entering another election year, he may prefer not to undertake any risky international project with Prime Minister Gordon Brown. While Blair was loved by an adoring American public, Brown will struggle even for name recognition across the Atlantic. Blair leaves behind a strong British stamp on the world stage, with his country playing a major role along with the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and enjoying the fruits of economic growth domestically.

Blair's steadfast support for the US in the four years since 2001 and his key role in building the international coalition demonstrated principled leadership as well as vision. He rubbished the argument that growing terrorism in the West was because of the presence of US-UK troops in Iraq. According to him the 9/11 attacks predated the deployment of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Under Blair's leadership, over 45,000 British military personnel participated in the liberation of Iraq, by any measure a huge contribution for a nation of Britain's size. More than 7,000 British troops are still based in southern Iraq and 148 soldiers have sacrificed their lives. More than 5,000 British troops are engaged in military operations against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and a further 1,500 are due to be deployed this summer.

That apart, Blair’s Government failed to demonstrate to the public that the Anglo–American alliance had brought tangible benefits to the country and operated as a two-way street. He could do little to stem the tide of anti-Americanism among the public, which became increasingly disillusioned with his support for U.S. foreign policy. The rise of anti-Americanism is not a temporary phenomenon but a dangerous long-term trend that will have far-reaching implications for both the special relationship and America's ability to project power on the world stage.

Today, Britain is a hornet's nest of Islamic militants, with 400 to 600 al-Qaeda terrorist suspects in the U.K., some of whom have been trained in camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Blair's misguided belief that Britain could be both America's closest ally and part of a politically and economically integrated Europe was a key foreign policy failure. Roughly half of British laws now originate in Brussels, a shocking state of affairs that Brown may like to reverse. It will be up to future British Governments to ensure that UK regains its position as a fully sovereign nation and the long-term future of the special relationship will depend upon it.

Nonetheless, Brown is unlikely to fundamentally transform the nature of the Anglo–American alliance as they stand on a firm foundation. With a large support base of the left of the Labour Party for the Democrats in Washington, he may not emulate the close friendship that Blair has developed with Bush. Nor is he likely to win the kind of adoration from the American public that Blair gained after 9/11. Clearly, there may be no repeat of the extraordinarily successful Bush-Blair partnership that has defined the U.S.-U.K. relationship since 9/11.

Brown's approach may be less sentimental than Blair's, based on a sharper-edged analysis of what he defines as the British national interest. This policy of Brown may lead to greater confrontation with Washington over issues such as international development assistance, poverty reduction, trade, and global warming. Brown has called for "a modern Marshall Plan for the developing world—a new deal between the richest countries and the poorest countries."

Brown is less likely than Blair to spearhead international efforts in the war on terrorism and will be under pressure to bring home British troops fighting in Iraq. His views on some of the biggest issues of the day, such as the Iranian nuclear programme, are unknown, and it is uncertain whether Brown will back Washington's hawkish line toward rogue states such as Iran and Syria. If the US were to use military force against Iran's nuclear facilities, there would be no guarantee that a Brown-led Government would provide military, strategic, or political support. ---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)