Paul Reynolds, the BBC World Affairs correspondent, has written a very one-sided article on the BBC website about the US-UK relationship.
Mr Reynolds swallows the lines put out by Sir Christopher Meyer, former British Ambassador to Washington, in his evidence to the Iraq war inquiry. He quotes Sir Christopher Meyer without qualification:
"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."
In reality, Britain's influence on Washington was enormous at the time. Tony Blair insisted on getting approval from the United Nations for the war. The UN route forced Britain and America to focus on the issue of WMD rather than the odious nature of the Saddam Hussein regime. Regime change is not permissible under 'international law'. The failure to then win UN approval undermined global support for the war from the off.
Reynolds goes on to conclude that "History, in fact, warns us not to expect too much from this transatlantic relationship." He then lists various of the disappointments in the US-UK relationship, only offering this throwaway effort at balance at the end of his piece: "What still counts is a security sharing arrangement and trust, which involves the US giving the UK a nuclear missile." "A nuclear missile?" Margaret Thatcher would agree that it amounted to a lot more than "a" nuclear missile.
I don't want to defend some of the 'downs' in the UK-US relationship. The current White House's behaviour towards Britain on Afghanistan, for example, is unacceptable. But there are 'ups', too, that Mr Reynolds chooses not to mention. Considerable 'ups'.
The whole western world shelters under the umbrella of America's huge investment in defence and intelligence. Without US naval power we would all be paying a great deal more to keep the high seas free of piracy, for example. Without US intervention in the Middle East, despotic regimes would probably be unchallenged and world oil prices would be much, much higher.
During the Falklands War - after a hesitant start - America helped enormously with the conflict against Argentina - especially with submarine detectors, missiles and aircraft fuel. The intervention on Britain's side soured US relations with much of Latin America for many years.
No two nations share more intelligence than Britain and America.
America remains the number one destination for UK overseas investment and the US remains the number one investor in the UK.
It's true that the relationship isn't as special as it once was but a public service broadcaster - like the BBC's Paul Reynolds - should have offered a much more balanced account of it.
Tim Montgomerie
IRA funding, Grenada...
Posted by: anon | November 29, 2009 at 07:10 PM
Anon is right but there are other huge benefits. If you consider the way the US was a bulwalk against communism and it has been a beacon for free market capitalism and democracy - the Tory party used to believe in these things too.
The way the US (with us and others too) has encouraged development through international free trade is remarkable. Although free trad benefits all, it would have been easy for the US to shrink back into protectionism out of frustration with the difficulties it has faced in many quarters, not least the open hostility to many who later found their way into the Blair Cabinet
Posted by: Andrew Smith | November 29, 2009 at 08:01 PM
Good post.
Considering the changes that have taken place in recent decades with the weakening of the UKs power, the relationship between Britain and the United States is still very strong one and a good benefit to both. Whilst Britain may not carry the same sort of weight it once did, it "punches above its weight" as they say.
Whilst i am a huge supporter of the United States there are sadly some people in Britain who do overplay this relationship and think it is the only thing Britain needs. This is not the case, Britain also needs a strong position within Europe, within the European Union able to influence policy and ensure the union only goes down a path we are able to tolerate and works to our benefit.
One of the biggest thing Britain today has to offer the United States and our relationship is the fact we are a member of the European Union with veto power over the EU's foreign policy which we will use to defend our own interests and that of our allies. Sadly some people would isolate us from Europe and give up that vital power making us even less important to the United States.
Posted by: BritishWatcher | November 29, 2009 at 08:10 PM
America's "hesitant start" at the beginning of the Falklands War included banning Britain from having any access to US Military Facilities on Ascension Island - a British colony. President Mitterand, I think it can be said, was instinctively more co-operative.
The United States is also the country that undermined us at Suez, did whatever it could to bring about the end of the British Empire, invaded one of Her Majesty's realms without consulting London and thought nothing about bugging the office of the British Commander of UN Forces in Bosnia.
A friend, yes, but one that we have to be cautious about.
Posted by: Lord Palmerston | November 29, 2009 at 08:30 PM
I would agree with that. Tim has, I think, a propensity to be starry eyed about the friendship that exists between Britain and America which is not always healthy.Our interests do not always coincide and the role of a British PM is to fight for British interests first and last. Mrs Thatcher and Churchill understood that. Blair didn't.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | November 29, 2009 at 08:47 PM
For once I find some sympathy with Montgomerie's argument.
Even so, the Chilcot inquiry, and Jeremy Greenstock's evidence, receive top-but-one politics billing in today's Washington Post. Greenstock was also covered in some depth by HufPo (provoking near-300 comments) and other on-line operations. On the other hand, so far, the New York Times has done five stories on Chilcot: all but one have been attributed to news agencies.
Montgomerie may feel Reynolds is too one-sided, but he skews the argument by matters which are not directly and immediately relevant: how do the Falklands and the Cold War experience apply to the specific context of Chilcot?
Reynolds is more likely to be proven correct once the US main-stream media recognise the significance of the demolition job Whitehall insiders seem intent on. The initial target may be Blair: Blair cannot be taken down without trans-Atlantic fall-out.
Posted by: Malcolm Redfellow | November 29, 2009 at 09:07 PM
"BBC in Bias Row" - not exactly a new headline now is it.
Posted by: Mr Angry | November 29, 2009 at 09:35 PM
America is, and always will be, on America's side.
End of.
We could do worse than take a leaf out of their book once in a while.
Posted by: Paul D | November 29, 2009 at 09:56 PM
We have needed for centuries to secure our national interest within alliances, principally those that have ensured our defence. This has been the case almost since we became a nation state and it is very unlikely to change now.
However the old truism, "There are no such things as permanent friends or permanent enemies; only permanent interests" still applies. So where do we best seek friends in today`s world? All potential allies have interests of their own but those of the USA have more nearly coincided with ours since the beginning of the 20th century; with notable gaps and these seem to have come about when the Democrat Party has been in office, in the Presidency at least. FDR was uneasy with Churchill but allowed himself to be persuaded; however we must never forget the anti-British role played by Joseph Kennedy while US Ambassador here in 1939. We should not be surprised therefore if the Obama Democratic administration starts off lukewarm in its feelings towards us. Even so the US/UK alliance still works.
In Europe our relationships remain ambivalent, mostly nowadays because we refuse to enter Euroland in a full-hearted way. There is a residual resentment voiced by Sarkozy and probably felt by Merkel but not expressed. We will have more friends among the newly-joined members but they lack the power or influence to weigh in much on our part.
We might do well to explore renewed links with the Commonwealth, particularly India, and also see what might be achieved with China, although they are not susceptible to aliances where they cannot dominate.
So for the foreseeable future our links with the USA seem to be the most durable, long-lasting and covering common interests. However we must not take them for granted and we must certainly not be shy of putting our own interest firmly in the frame. Mutual respect is a good background within which to work and the natural anti-US lobbies here might do well to remember that.
Posted by: john parkes | November 30, 2009 at 03:30 PM