• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The [UK-US] Special Relationship is dead

commandlinegamer

Philosopher
commandlinegamer
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
9,688
Location
Mazes of Menace
Claims the ever-strident Daily Mail.[1] Other newspapers tend to concur but with a bit more measured analysis.[2][3] I think the term is overused and has little relevance today. I feel there is a cultural relationship between the US and UK which runs quite deep; politically not so much.

[1] - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1261422/Our-special-relationship-U-S-dead-say-MPs.html

[2] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-to-reconsider-the-special-relationship.html

[3] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/28/uk-diplomats-dislike-special-relationship
 
id go to war to defend Britain. I got over the War of 1812...a looooong time ago.
 
commandlinegamer said:
I feel there is a cultural relationship between the US and UK which runs quite deep; politically not so much.
Click to expand...
The thing is, the term doesn't refer to a cultural or political relationship: It refers to a diplomatic and global-strategic relationship.

And to be honest, I think the relationship is a good thing. It's not the kind of alliance a lot of countries enjoy. It's not the kind of thing to be given up lightly, or easily replaced. If it's truly dead, I'm sad to see it go. It's not like France or Russia or China or Brazil is in a position to offer a similarly long-lasting and valuable relationship to replace it, to either country. About the next-best thing the US has is Japan; and the UK's main options are Canada, Australia, or casting their lot with the rest of the EU--an alliance that puts the "special" into Special Relationship, if you know what I mean.
 
From the article

A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It doesn't really matter whether someone calls it the "special relationship" or not. What matters is that the UK's relationship with the U.S. is unique, and uniquely important to protecting our national security and promoting our national interest.'
Click to expand...

I think the perceived lapdog Bush/Blair thing damaged it for a lot of UK people. It will recover.

Not sure what the US take on it all is though?
 
parky76 said:
id go to war to defend Britain. I got over the War of 1812...a looooong time ago.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that most people in the UK have never even heard of it. Even at the time, it was a side-show to the main event in Europe.
 
Darat said:
Why - what did she say that was a "betrayal"?
Click to expand...

You live in the UK, I can't believe you haven't heard the arguments. And it's a betrayal because there was no reason for us to take the position she did to undermine the UK's position. We have no direct stake in the outcome, Argentina is less important to us and less friendly than the UK, and negotiations are NOT the right course of action. The Falklands are UK territory, full stop. Unless the people of the Falklands want to change that (and they don't), that should be the end of the story, and Argentina can go pound sand.
 
Ziggurat said:
You live in the UK, I can't believe you haven't heard the arguments. And it's a betrayal because there was no reason for us to take the position she did to undermine the UK's position. We have no direct stake in the outcome, Argentina is less important to us and less friendly than the UK, and negotiations are NOT the right course of action. The Falklands are UK territory, full stop. Unless the people of the Falklands want to change that (and they don't), that should be the end of the story, and Argentina can go pound sand.
Click to expand...

I am totally bewildered - what "position" did she take that was a "betrayal"?
 
Darat said:
I am totally bewildered - what "position" did she take that was a "betrayal"?
Click to expand...

That the status of the Falkland Islands is something which should be negotiated. It isn't. It's UK territory, full stop, and the UK is right to ignore any demands for negotiations. It would be like Mexico demanding negotiations for the status of California.
 
How is that different from the 1980s when Argentina was preparing and then invading the Falklands and the USA were actively trying to persuade the UK not to resort to military action and was trying to get the two side to negotiate?

ETA: For a reminder of the USA position at that time: http://www.naval-history.net/F16diplomacy.htm

...snip... Over the next four weeks, America's attempts to be even-handed were not appreciated by Mrs Thatcher, although in US terms, having to choose between Latin American friend and main European ally was no easy matter.

...snip.... Haig Shuttle Diplomacy - Concerned about the prospect of war, ...snip... The basis of this and all later peace plans were threefold - both side's forces to withdraw from the Falklands, an interim administration set up, and a long term settlement negotiated.

...snip...

US Support - By the last day of April, President Reagan had come to accept there was little chance of a settlement and declared American support for Britain. He offered military aid and announced sanctions against Argentina. Mr Pym now returned to Washington as an ally, but still committed to the search for peace, and as he did, proposals were independently launched in the UN and by Peru. Both proposals were similar, but as events in the South Atlantic escalated from the first day of May and Britain's military options became less with the onset of winter, neither had much chance of success. The torpedoing of the cruiser "General Belgrano" lost Britain much of her support, especially in the EEC and as by now the Task Force was bombarding the Falklands, the last chances for peace had realistically gone.

...snip...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
id go to war to defend Britain. I got over the War of 1812...a looooong time ago.
Click to expand...

Well, we were pissed at both the French and the English. And we already had all those nice propaganda posters against the English made up in 1776. So hey, why change that, right?
 
Darat said:
How is that different from the 1980s when Argentina was preparing and then invading the Falklands and the USA were actively trying to persuade the UK not to resort to military action and was trying to get the two side to negotiate?
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming it is different.
 
funk de fino said:
I think the perceived lapdog Bush/Blair thing damaged it for a lot of UK people. It will recover.

Not sure what the US take on it all is though?
Click to expand...
I remember when the UK was deliberating on how much to support Dubya's war, some people here were saying that since they're our allies, they should go along with the U.S. no matter what.

I find a bit of the same thing with the U.S. attitude* toward Israel from the other point of view: no matter what they do, they're the good guys.

I'd say that's a special relationship--where being an "ally" or a "friend" transcends ideology or even morality.

*I don't mean that most Americans have this attitude either--or the one with the U.K. Just that these attitudes exist here. I think in both cases, it's a position held by fewer and fewer people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom