Paul Reynolds: US-UK 'special relationship' not so special anymore
[Paul Reynolds is the BBC's World affairs correspondent.]
Some sharp comments by a former British ambassador to Washington during the Iraq inquiry have again cast doubt on the strength of the so-called "special relationship" between Britain and the United States.
This raises the possibility that the Iraq war will be seen as a moment after which that relationship took a real downturn.
Indeed, it is arguable that the "special relationship" of the second half of the 20th Century and since has been something of a departure from what at times has been an antagonistic one.
The latest signs of what might be a historic decline came when the ambassador, Sir Christopher Meyer - always ready with a quote - said that during the lead-up to the war on Iraq in 2003, Britain failed to make its influence felt on two fronts.
First, it did not insist, as the conditions for its support, on progress in the Middle East peace process and on better planning for post-war Iraq.
Second, it did not get a commercial trade-off. Its demands for changes to an air services agreement and steel tariffs were ignored.
Sir Christopher remarked: "I said to London, 'The key thing now, quite apart from Iraq, is to translate this popularity into real achievements which benefit the national interest', and we failed."
The picture he painted was one in which the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair was very much the junior and perhaps dispensable partner.
Warring allies
And so it also seems with Afghanistan.
British Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, under huge pressure from a relentless procession of casualties and coffins, let slip the other day his frustrations over the slowness of President Barack Obama's decision-making procedures.
This "hiatus", as he put it, the British losses and the Afghan elections, had "mitigated against our ability to show progress".
History, in fact, warns us not to expect too much from this transatlantic relationship.
Dean Acheson, President Truman's secretary of state, is well-known for saying that Britain had lost an empire and not found a role and that the special relationship had "about played out".
But he also had this perspective: "Of course a unique relationship existed between Britain and America. But unique did not mean affectionate.
"We had fought England as an enemy as often as we had fought by her side as a friend."
After all, the relationship began in war in the 18th Century and continued in war at the beginning of the 19th. The "War of 1812" actually went on until 1815.
Perhaps it is confined in its title to one year out of politeness by both sides.
That war was about trade and it was a signal that dealing with the United States on trade matters was always going to be tough. It is.
You can be the closest American ally, yet at the commercial negotiating table you are an adversary, as Sir Christopher experienced...
Read entire article at BBC
Some sharp comments by a former British ambassador to Washington during the Iraq inquiry have again cast doubt on the strength of the so-called "special relationship" between Britain and the United States.
This raises the possibility that the Iraq war will be seen as a moment after which that relationship took a real downturn.
Indeed, it is arguable that the "special relationship" of the second half of the 20th Century and since has been something of a departure from what at times has been an antagonistic one.
The latest signs of what might be a historic decline came when the ambassador, Sir Christopher Meyer - always ready with a quote - said that during the lead-up to the war on Iraq in 2003, Britain failed to make its influence felt on two fronts.
First, it did not insist, as the conditions for its support, on progress in the Middle East peace process and on better planning for post-war Iraq.
Second, it did not get a commercial trade-off. Its demands for changes to an air services agreement and steel tariffs were ignored.
Sir Christopher remarked: "I said to London, 'The key thing now, quite apart from Iraq, is to translate this popularity into real achievements which benefit the national interest', and we failed."
The picture he painted was one in which the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair was very much the junior and perhaps dispensable partner.
Warring allies
And so it also seems with Afghanistan.
British Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, under huge pressure from a relentless procession of casualties and coffins, let slip the other day his frustrations over the slowness of President Barack Obama's decision-making procedures.
This "hiatus", as he put it, the British losses and the Afghan elections, had "mitigated against our ability to show progress".
History, in fact, warns us not to expect too much from this transatlantic relationship.
Dean Acheson, President Truman's secretary of state, is well-known for saying that Britain had lost an empire and not found a role and that the special relationship had "about played out".
But he also had this perspective: "Of course a unique relationship existed between Britain and America. But unique did not mean affectionate.
"We had fought England as an enemy as often as we had fought by her side as a friend."
After all, the relationship began in war in the 18th Century and continued in war at the beginning of the 19th. The "War of 1812" actually went on until 1815.
Perhaps it is confined in its title to one year out of politeness by both sides.
That war was about trade and it was a signal that dealing with the United States on trade matters was always going to be tough. It is.
You can be the closest American ally, yet at the commercial negotiating table you are an adversary, as Sir Christopher experienced...