Is there a special relationship between the US and UK?

[Duke of Gloucester]

This is an interesting thread. The idea that the relationship between the US and the UK is not that special an old one. I, like BG, see it as case of the British deluding themselves about how well the US regards us rather than the Americans acting in an unfair way. There are ties involving shared history, language (sort of) and culture, but that doesn't stop the US acting, as it should, in its own interest. America is a good ally, but an ally is not the same as a friend.

Since the US is much more powerful than we are, they can and do ignore us and sometimes push us around. Obviously we resent this. However we should not forget that it is in our interests as well as the interests of the US to maintain friendly relations.

There are some myths on this thread that need busting:

• Lend-Lease was a way of exploiting the British - wrong. It was in fact unprecedented and very generous support for a belligerent country from an officially neutral one.
• The US forced the UK to dismantle the British Empire - no. We held on to an empire for as long as it gave economic benefits. Once it became too expensive to hold on to, once it cost more than it provided we dismantled it. After all we are a nation of shopkeepers.
• The US "got rid of Hitler" - wrong again. If any one nation could claim this it would be the Russians (and even they would be wrong - it was a joint effort).
• We shared technology with the US in the expectation that they would share back and they went back on the deal - no. Any technology we "shared" with America was done out of necessity.
• The US failed to help the UK in the Falklands War - wrong. The US was friendly to both countries and technically should have been even handed. However the intelligence and logistic support they provided to Britain was essential in mounting the re-invasion. Had they wanted to force Britain to back down they could have done. They chose not to.

Over the last 60 years or so two things do stand out where the UK could feel the US was less supportive than it should have been. Firstly the Suez crisis and secondly the some support of the IRA both in terms of allowing funding from organisations like NORAID to flow unchecked across the Atlantic and refusing to extradite Irish terrorists.

What interests me about this thread is that I always thought that the British believed in the "Special Relationship" and the Americans realised it was all about mutual self interest and that the UK was just another of its allies. If, as the comments on this thread seem to suggest, Americans believe that they are being very generous to us and get upset if we suggest they could be better allies, then mutual disappointment will probably increase, possibly to a point where there is a big falling out. Perhaps the UK/US relationship will come to resemble the Franco-American hostility.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

• Lend-Lease was a way of exploiting the British - wrong. It was in fact unprecedented and very generous support for a belligerent country from an officially neutral one.
• The US forced the UK to dismantle the British Empire - no. We held on to an empire for as long as it gave economic benefits. Once it became too expensive to hold on to, once it cost more than it provided we dismantled it. After all we are a nation of shopkeepers.
• The US "got rid of Hitler" - wrong again. If any one nation could claim this it would be the Russians (and even they would be wrong - it was a joint effort).
• We shared technology with the US in the expectation that they would share back and they went back on the deal - no. Any technology we "shared" with America was done out of necessity.
• The US failed to help the UK in the Falklands War - wrong. The US was friendly to both countries and technically should have been even handed. However the intelligence and logistic support they provided to Britain was essential in mounting the re-invasion. Had they wanted to force Britain to back down they could have done. They chose not to.

1. True, but we only finished paying back the post-war dept last year.

2. True but the US was jumping with glee as we bankrupted ourselves in both wars and irrc we had to give up several trade monopolies to them afterwards. I also suspect that between wars in particular the US fostered resentment in the colonies. If they didn't provide some form of support to various rebel groups I would be very surprised. America became a Power after WWI and despite the way they treated the blacks in their army* they went on and on about how evil our Empire was.

3. True

4. It wasn't technology they paid for, which they could have, and we didn't get anything back. So it was a gift freely given which was not reciprocated.

5. True.

None of this however changes the events of the last ten years or so, which is what most Brits are upset about.

[Don Corleone]

I don't think anybody is diagreeing that we couldn't be a better partner, DG. That's not what got me upset. Hell, the American government is doing a crappy job representing the interest of Americans right now, how on Earth could you expect them to represent yours?

What I'm taking offense to is the tone I'm reading between the lines. IA, I'd love to have a beer with you mate, and if you'd ever care to compare the New Hampshire to the old one, the drinks (and the lobsters) are on me. But this isn't about that either, really. My point wasn't that I can't get along with you or with any of your countrymen in a one-on-one discussion. It has more to do with right now, were I traveling abroad, I would declare myself to be Canadian. It's been that way on the continent for some time, but Britain was always the exception (even more hospitable than Ireland, surprisingly). In the course of this thread, however, I'm sensing a latent hostility that suggests to me were I not already acquainted with an individual, perhaps I would do best to keep to myself.

Why do I say that? It seems like you all have a pre-formed resentment and no amount of evidence presented to the contrary is going to sway you. Such is your right, but it's rather telling. I gave you an example of where we helped you develop technology that outclasses our own. With it, should you desire, you could hunt down and destroy any ship in our Navy, including our Seawolfs (our top of the line submarine). Gawain pointed out that the missile complement your boomers carry are Tridents. I know you've received a lot of Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) technology from Boeing and Northrop Grumman, but that sort of thing is really supposed to be hush-hush. Should I spend some time this morning, I could visit a couple of defense sites and find more examples.

But at the end of the day, I don't suspect it would sway anyone. Your minds are made up. We're a bunch of backstabbing, two-timing theives, and you'll not be convinced otherwise. Could we be better? Absolutely. But it was just 7 years ago you were wishing you had a Clinton of your own, don't forget (not that I'm that fond of him). And here we are, 7 years into a presidency that most people in America have sicked up on, let alone globally, and your answer is its time to sever ties. From that, I'd have to say Banqo's initial postulate is correct, from your perspective at least, there is no special relationship.

[Pannonian]

Don, look at it this way. Britain is too weak to stand on its own. We used to stand alongside the US, but Bush's administration has shown us we can't rely on that. I don't like standing with the EU, but it is a power bloc at least as strong in economic strength (the only one I'm interested in) as any other, and we'll have at least a significant voice in that, which we don't have in the "special relationship" (or at least haven't had those past 7 years).

Given this, what kind of outlook would you expect from us? Even most of the Europhiles feel closer to America than to Europe, but shouldn't policy be based on national interest rather than sentiment?

Also, about the impression that the British call you thieves and worse: you should hear what we call each other.

[JR-]

Don, look at it this way. Britain is too weak to stand on its own.

at what point is the fourth largest economy, paying for the second highest (official) defence expenditure, with a huge global presence/influence, not a nation that i capable of standing on its own?

[Pannonian]

at what point is the fourth largest economy, paying for the second highest (official) defence expenditure, with a huge global presence/influence, not a nation that i capable of standing on its own?

What will happen if the US, China, or other giants decide to start a trade war with us? Don's already cited the example of the steel tariffs, when the US was forced to back down against the threat of a united EU. How the heck would we do that without that kind of muscle? And that was with the US, to whom we are very much alike. Russia's been threatening to cut off the gas, and China will be flexing their considerable muscles as well when it suits them. How do you envisage Britain standing up to them?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Great post Duke except for this part

If, as the comments on this thread seem to suggest, Americans believe that they are being very generous to us and get upset if we suggest they could be better allies,

Where did you get that idea? Its the Brits who are complaining we arent good allies not the other way around. Of course we could use improvement on both sides we always can. I think anyone who lets the war in Iraq destroy such a relationship is silly. Its not like were attacking you and its not like we made you invade with us.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Er, this ...

Wow. Just plain wow. We engage in joint tactical maneuvers. The US and the UK share military secrets on an unprecedented level. We share technology, we have preferential trading relationships. And because you don't like George Bush, you think the UK should turn its back on the US?

and this ...

And oh, by the way, while we're talking about how the UK never gets anything out of the deal, somebody really ought to have a discussion with your admiralty, and determine how it was that this was created... you now have underwater surveliance capabilities that exceed our own (at least for now) and you did it with large numbers of General Dynamics submarine developers on loan to you. I know this because my father and my brother-in-law were two of them.

[Don Corleone]

I think you misunderstand me, DoG. I'm not saying that we've behaved admirably, selflessly and we have no room for improvement. I'm saying that it hasn't been as one-way as some of you would have us believe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What you're missing is that most Brits are not offended by America's conduct but by it's rhetoric.

Colin Powell saying how the US really appreciated the way we stood by them after 9/11, something we hear from AMerican pundits and politicians and then being shafted on the extradition treaty, or being told we might not get the codes for the F-35, or the Hellfire, or the HUD for the Apache.

If the US is a stategic ally it's a good one, but as a friend it's lousy, to say the least.

Yet despite this we still stand by you, look at Lebennon last year. The UK lost considerable credability as a pro-democtratic or humane power in order to support the US.

Then there's the history, prior to WWI we were hardly allies but many Americans, particually on the net, seem to think this "special relationship" goes back to time immemorial and that we should be greatful for America's good will. The less well informed also think the US was always the senior partner and that the current state of affairs between our nations is as it always was.

Beyond all this there is a real distaste for certain American cultural influences and your spelling habits, though I'll grant that you punctuate better.

Then at the root of it all the British will always see America as an upstart colony, a view not helped by the way many Americans present the War of Independance.

I don't have anything against any ordinary American but it irks me when we are told that we're such good friends and then not treated as such.

It offends my sense of fairness.

[Productivity]

But at the end of the day, I don't suspect it would sway anyone. Your minds are made up. We're a bunch of backstabbing, two-timing theives, and you'll not be convinced otherwise. Could we be better? Absolutely. But it was just 7 years ago you were wishing you had a Clinton of your own, don't forget (not that I'm that fond of him). And here we are, 7 years into a presidency that most people in America have sicked up on, let alone globally, and your answer is its time to sever ties. From that, I'd have to say Banqo's initial postulate is correct, from your perspective at least, there is no special relationship.

Let me look at this from an Australian point of view. I don't for a moment regret the relationship that our nations have, because that is a utilitarian relationship. It benefits Australia to be aligned with a powerful nation, it benefits the US to get some strategic positions, some diplomatic credibility everynow and then (ie. more nations backing you up) etc. I'm sure someone with a pol. sci. degree could do a better job of fleshing it out, but essentially it benefits both nations to have a relationship.

What frustrates me is any insinuation that it's an extraordinarily strong or unusually friendly relationship (which we hear from our PM and everynow and then from your President). If that's the case, why do we get the standard one way FTA etc. All the things Pape mentioned. If it was unusually good/friendly I'd expect the US to actually weigh in on Australia's behalf sometimes, when it doesn't benefit them, because we're friends. If the relationship is strictly utilitarian, I don't mind. Just don't tell me it's more than that.

I can wear that Australia in order to closely align itself with the US has to routinely commit to Iraq, Afghanistan etc. with utterly minimal support for our favored causes. The big partner always sets the agenda - that's the way the world works in utilitarian relationships. But if you expect that to generate warmth for America? That's asking a bit much. If America were to turn around and back Australia against the Japanese whaling lobby, then you're going to start to generate the goodwill. As it is, we're just unequal strategic traders, not friends who do things for each other because they are valuable to the other.

That's not to say you will be hated here etc. I work for a large American oil firm and we have plenty of expat Americans and I haven't heard of any one of them ever needing to refer to themselves as Canadian etc. but on teh other hand, Americans aren't going to get everyone running up to them proclaiming our eternal thankfulness etc.

[JR-]

In the course of this thread, however, I'm sensing a latent hostility that suggests to me were I not already acquainted with an individual, perhaps I would do best to keep to myself.

Why do I say that? It seems like you all have a pre-formed resentment and no amount of evidence presented to the contrary is going to sway you.

not from me.

i do recognise what you describe however, and i personally attribute the phenomenon to inadequate brits & euros with too much time on their hands which causes them to seek a scapegoat for the inner voice that whispers the truth of their own inadequacy in their ears.

there are still some sane brits left.