Analysis: State of the ‘special relationship’
Cameron is trying to start a new chapter in Anglo-US relations. But can he conquer Obama’s indifference, or the British public’s distrust of America?
By Ian Dunt
Tony Blair always used to remind his aides that a ‘Love Actually’ moment, as he put it, would only present good headlines for a week, while its damaging effects would last much longer. Adopting a critical approach to the US might be satisfying to British pride, but it would harm British interests – or so he believed.
There are two truths in that statement. The first reveals the British need for a strong American alliance so it can maintain its international influence. The second concerns British resentment of the ‘special relationship’.
While British warmth towards America was never as simple or as easy as many commentators now pretend, its real turning point came during the Iraq war. It was then that many Britons concluded that if influence involved sending their children to fight in a war most people considered illegal and immoral, they could probably do without it. British attitudes towards America never really recovered.
The event which helped reconcile these emotions best – the election of Barack Obama – has turned into something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, Britons considered the new American president to be intelligent, civilised and inspiring. On the other, his casual disregard for the UK, and his explicit interest in the Pacific, rather than the Atlantic, alienated many of those in the UK who had admired him. The gift exchange with Gordon Brown symbolised the inequality of the relationship. The prime minister carefully selected a pen holder from the timbers of the sister ship of the one the White House desk is made from and a first edition of a seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill. The president reciprocated with a DVD collection that wouldn’t play in British DVD players. It was just as offensive as George Bush’s casually disrespectful “Yo Blair”.
Today, as David Cameron lands in Washington for his first official trip to see the US president, a new chapter in Anglo-US relations opens up. In his article in the Wall Street Journal today (Cameron has a habit of writing articles in foreign newspapers as he arrives for summits or meetings abroad), the PM pointedly ignored the resentful attitude on this side of the Atlantic. His opening sentences, about the over-analysed special relationship, give the impression that Britons are still desperate for American approval. “There is a seemingly endless British preoccupation with the health of the special relationship,” he writes. “Its temperature is continually taken to see if it’s in good shape, its pulse checked to see if it will survive.” In truth, this preoccupation is far more relevant to the British press than it is to the public, which has come to be disinterested, and even resentful, of America.
But Cameron gets his ‘Love Actually’-lite moment in there too, in a manner calculated to minimise any negative consequences. “We are a strong, self-confident country clear in our views and values, and we should behave that way,” he writes. “In a world of fast-growing, emerging economies, we have a responsibility to engage more widely and bring new countries to the top table of the international community. To do so is pro-American and pro-British, because it’s the only way we will maintain our influence in a changing world.”
By affirming a new British hard-headedness, and then following it with an argument for multilateralism, the PM is trying to associate UK independence with policies that Obama is a known supporter of. The passage raises the prospect of expanding the UN security council and cementing the role of the G20 as the dominant international economic body.
These are wise issues to focus on. Brown’s decision to promote the G20 over the G8 at the height of the financial crisis was not only analytically cogent, it was warmly welcomed in international circles – and especially among Obama’s aides and officials, who are of a more multilateral disposition than their predecessors in the Republican party.
Cameron’s decision to admit that Britain is the “junior partner” is also carefully included. It allows Cameron to portray his newfound hard-headed approach as simple honesty. On the one hand we are honest about our limitations; on the other, we are honest about our pride – or so the message goes.
The prime minister has been much praised for his tone in recent weeks, the ability to adopt the right manner during important political moments such as the Bloody Sunday inquiry. It’s in the tone that his ability to navigate this tricky balancing act will emerge. If he gets it right, he can please the audience back home with a detached, confident approach while not alienating the Americans by being too hostile. The Wall Street Journal article reflects that balancing act.
But the possibility of things going wrong is substantial. A British prime minister committed to adopting a more critical approach to the US than his predecessors is about to have his first visit with an American president naturally suspicious of the UK. This could be the start of a much more distant relationship than the two countries are used to. Only Afghanistan, the war which both countries now plainly regret but cannot extricate themselves from, acts as a fail-safe barrier to that eventuality. That, and Cameron’s ability with tone and presentation. He’ll have to make full use of his abilities to avoid the epic PR dangers of an Anglo-US meeting in front of the cameras.
