Hasan Suroor: The Myth of the U.K.-U.S. “Special” Relationship
[Hasan Suroor writes for The Hindu.]
Perhaps some 60 years too late, as one commentator noted, but at last Westminster has got round to recognising the reality behind the myth of Britain's much-vaunted “special relationship” with America though even now it is not certain that the British government will bite the bullet.
In arguably the most frank assessment of British-U.S. relations to come out of Westminster in a long time, an influential cross-party parliamentary committee has said that there is nothing “special” about this relationship and the government should stop using the term because it doesn't reflect the real state of play between London and Washington and is “potentially misleading.”
In a hard-hitting report, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Labour MP Mike Gape, says that the phrase “special relationship” has come to be identified too closely with British-American invasion of Iraq and conjures up the image of a “subservient” Britain behaving like an American “poodle.”
“The perception that the British government was a subservient ‘poodle' to the U.S. administration leading up to the period of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath is widespread both among the British public and overseas. This perception, whatever its relation to reality, is deeply damaging to the reputation and interests of the U.K.,” the report points out.
Arguing that the idea of a special relationship, envisaged by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in the Second World War, is dead in the waters, the committee says “The use of the phrase ‘special' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving U.K.-U.S. relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided. The overuse of the phrase by some politicians and many in the media serves simultaneously to devalue its meaning and to raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits the relationship can deliver to the U.K.”...
Few other “special” relationships have been as unequal as the one between Britain and America. To most Britons, the term reminds them of Tony Blair slavishly taking orders from George W. Bush , and Gordon Brown chasing Barack Obama through the United Nations kitchens last autumn to catch his attention after the U.S. President reportedly turned down no fewer than five requests for a bilateral meeting.
Americans — ever the pragmatists with little time for sentimentality — have never really cared how the relationship is characterised so long as they get the Brits to do their bidding. To keep visiting British prime ministers in good humour, their American hosts go through the motions of referring to the “historic” ties between their two countries and invoking the “spirit” of Churchill-Roosevelt partnership but that is where it ends....
Judging from the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, the penny appears to have dropped finally. And though — as John Charmley, professor of modern history at the University of East Anglia, pointed out in The Times — it has taken British MPs “60-odd years” to realise the myth of Britain's “special” relationship, better late than never.
Read entire article at The Hindu
Perhaps some 60 years too late, as one commentator noted, but at last Westminster has got round to recognising the reality behind the myth of Britain's much-vaunted “special relationship” with America though even now it is not certain that the British government will bite the bullet.
In arguably the most frank assessment of British-U.S. relations to come out of Westminster in a long time, an influential cross-party parliamentary committee has said that there is nothing “special” about this relationship and the government should stop using the term because it doesn't reflect the real state of play between London and Washington and is “potentially misleading.”
In a hard-hitting report, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Labour MP Mike Gape, says that the phrase “special relationship” has come to be identified too closely with British-American invasion of Iraq and conjures up the image of a “subservient” Britain behaving like an American “poodle.”
“The perception that the British government was a subservient ‘poodle' to the U.S. administration leading up to the period of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath is widespread both among the British public and overseas. This perception, whatever its relation to reality, is deeply damaging to the reputation and interests of the U.K.,” the report points out.
Arguing that the idea of a special relationship, envisaged by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in the Second World War, is dead in the waters, the committee says “The use of the phrase ‘special' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving U.K.-U.S. relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided. The overuse of the phrase by some politicians and many in the media serves simultaneously to devalue its meaning and to raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits the relationship can deliver to the U.K.”...
Few other “special” relationships have been as unequal as the one between Britain and America. To most Britons, the term reminds them of Tony Blair slavishly taking orders from George W. Bush , and Gordon Brown chasing Barack Obama through the United Nations kitchens last autumn to catch his attention after the U.S. President reportedly turned down no fewer than five requests for a bilateral meeting.
Americans — ever the pragmatists with little time for sentimentality — have never really cared how the relationship is characterised so long as they get the Brits to do their bidding. To keep visiting British prime ministers in good humour, their American hosts go through the motions of referring to the “historic” ties between their two countries and invoking the “spirit” of Churchill-Roosevelt partnership but that is where it ends....
Judging from the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, the penny appears to have dropped finally. And though — as John Charmley, professor of modern history at the University of East Anglia, pointed out in The Times — it has taken British MPs “60-odd years” to realise the myth of Britain's “special” relationship, better late than never.