Open marriage on the international dance floor
by Max Wind-Cowie
This weekend several MPs decided to pronounce the UK/US ‘special relationship’ dead. They appeared to believe that this was, in some way, a story that belonged in the newspapers – unfortunately the newspapers broadly agreed.
But what on earth are we declaring dead? The US and the UK’s friendship is enduring because it is not a relationship that requires a great deal of work to maintain. It is not ‘special’ because we bend over backwards for one another (that wouldn’t really be special at all, it would be subservient) it is special because, on a broad range of issues, our interests have tended to coincide over the last 100 or so years. They coincided in opposing Nazism, they coincided in contempt for Communism, they coincide now in our vulnerability to terrorism. The fact that we broadly share a system of government, legal coda and an approach to civil rights and obligations means that we have always had similar enemies and, therefore, a relationship of mutual reinforcement and respect.
What the ‘this parrot is dead’ brigade have misunderstood is the difference between ‘special’ and ‘exclusive’. Our interests sometimes lie with the US – because of all the commonalities of culture, language and history that bind us – but sometimes they do not. Other relationships will occasionally come between us, be it America’s love affair with Taiwan or our own (sometimes tempestuous) affair with continental Europe. If this is a marriage it is an open one – the key to making it work lies in our ability to ensure that we’re not the needy partner. Recognising the rules of this game means acknowledging that whilst we have affection for our American cousins, may even sometimes be cousins of the ‘kissing’ variety, they’re by no means the only partner on our dance card and nor we theirs.
So before we declare this relationship dead, perhaps we ought to consider it for what it truly is. There is much to celebrate in the enduring friendship between our two nations – be it the liberation of Europe (not once, not twice but thrice) or the securing of peace in Northern Ireland (assisted deeply by President Clinton) – let’s remember that and do it justice in our attitudes and our actions. Above all, let’s avoid the bitterness that so often clouds misunderstood friendships and unrequited affairs of the heart and keep repeating, over and over – ‘we’ve not been dumped, we were never an item’.
Will Davies
I'm racking my limited historical brain to think of the third US liberation of Europe... you don't mean 1989 do you?
Max Wind-Cowie
James and Will, thank you both for your comments. James, if the committee didn't want the relationship to be declared dead then they probably shouldn't have released it to the press with that message - but your point is well taken.
Yes, Will, I do mean 1989 when the US, in collaboration with western Europe and the UK, helped to liberate millions in eastern Europe and central Asia from effective occupation by the Soviet Union - not a view of history shared by all, I know, but mine nonetheless.
James Cameron
Thanks for your response, Max. I don't agree that it was the Committee's intention to put out that message to the media. The press notice can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee/facpn280310.cfm
The reaction of the press pretty much proved the Committee's criticism that "the British media’s pre-occupation with... the state of the ‘special relationship’ is frequently at the expense of coverage of the more substantive aspects of the relationship".
James Cameron
The accusation that the report declared the relationship "dead" can be dealt with by reading the fourth paragraph of the conclusions and recommendations: "We further conclude that there is nothing wrong in acknowledging the undoubted truth that the UK has 'a' special relationship with the US, as long as it is recognised that other countries do so also, including the regional neighbours of the US and its other key strategic allies and partners."
I think the point the report was trying to make was that UK foreign policy should not be based on a romantic view of the past or a conflation of means and ends. Whilst Britain and the United States have agreed on broad ends, there were considerable differences over means during the Second World War (e.g. the timing of the second front) and the Cold War (Vietnam, the Strategic Defence Initiative). So whilst we share ends, we may not always agree on means and that in the past ten years those differences have not been voiced strongly enough; I think this was what the Committee was trying to say and media coverage has missed.
The relationship will take an ever greater "deal of work to maintain". Churchill spent a good deal of time maintaining it through his personal correspondence with Roosevelt, even when the UK brought far more to the table than it does today. The unpalatable truth is that the UK is a much smaller player than it was seventy or even twenty-five years ago. The broad view has to be focused how to maintain a presence in Washington - and Washington's presence here - without trading candour where means and interests diverge for the sense of being "at the top table". This is a vastly more difficult issue than arguing about whether a special relationship exists or not, which is probably why most of the coverage has ignored it.