General David Petraeus reminded us yesterday that the Afghan war cannot be won without Britain’s military contribution. Our shared history is less rosy than we care to admit, but the best of our young men and women are dying daily alongside Americans in distant places. That is where the special relationship that really matters is forged.
So writes Benedict Brogan in the Daily Telegraph. He points out, correctly, that Anglo-American relationships have not always been sweetness and light
In the last century, the narrative of a shared effort against fascism obscured America’s initial indifference to British pleading for support, the financial cost of its help, and the galvanising effect of Pearl Harbour. Washington did much to wind down the British Empire, and pulled the plug on the Aden adventure in 1956. In more recent memory, the Reagan administration initially hedged over Argentina and the Falklands, then omitted to tell London about plans to invade Grenada, while Bill Clinton showed an enthusiasm for giving visas to IRA terrorists.
He claims that Obama wants to repair relationships with the UK now that Cameron is PM.
Iain Martin at the WSJ is less sure
In the Foreign Office it is said that the incoming Tory team are disappointed by the lack of serious attention behind the scenes from the U.S. administration. Despite Foreign Secretary Hague rushing to Washington after he took office, there’s been no love being received back beyond the usual platitudinous statements about the special relationship that American leaders feel the Brits need to hear and the Brits actually find somewhat patronizing.
The UK media is generally still in full ObamaLove mode and there is little awareness of the degree of disenchantment that has developed in the US over their President who is now seen in some quarters as nothing more than a Chicago political hack whose total lack of executive experience has left him floundering in the White House.
He has been damaged by accusations of a lack of leadership over the Gulf oil spill and his reaction has been classic Chicago style – shunt the blame onto BP or “British Petroleum” as he has now decided to call the oil giant.
It’s true that BP has many questions to answer and the public performance of CEO Tom Hayward has left much to be desired. But the bullying, hectoring manner adopted by Obama – talking of kicking ass, saying he would sack Hayward, vague threats of suspending the shareholders dividend etc – are the familiar manifestations of a weak man aware of being out of his depth.
His actions are threatening to undermine the stability of BP. It’s share price has collapsed and this could have repercussions on British pension funds which, until now, have regarded the oil giant as a blue chip investment. There is a growing feeling in the UK that David Cameron, while sympathising with the problems caused by the spill, needs to act a little more robustly and suggest Obama ratchets down the rhetoric.
Tony Blair was constantly being mocked for being George Bush’s poodle. One gets the feeling that many UK pols were mesmerised by the styrofoam pillars and want to be Obama’s poodle. It’s time for a reality check. Obama’s political star in the US is beginning to wane. He might even be facing a Republican controlled Congress after the November elections, robbing him of his massive 2008 mandate.
So it’s time for Cameron to go a little Chicago himself and maybe point out that if BP is attacked much further an outside predator might see the company as ripe for plucking – PetroChina, anyone?
Having already mortgaged the US economy by getting China to finance the US deficit the image of PetroChina drilling in the Gulf and Alaska might not go down all that well with America – even the New York Times would find that a difficult idea to sell…..
