News & Politics - UK-US relations under new pressure

Lexis · 07-27-2006, 08:52 AM

Quote:

The so-called special relationship between Britain and the US was already under intense scrutiny as a result of the current Middle East conflict.

New pressure on the special relationship
So revelations that America is using Prestwick airport as a staging post for flights delivering bunker busting bombs to Israel could not have come at a worse time.

And public protests from Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett that she is "not happy" with the US and that proper procedures may not have been followed have done nothing to calm widespread anger at the revelation.

Scottish Nationalist leader Alex Salmond has deplored the move, saying it is further evidence that Britain is being used as America's "aircraft carrier".

And he has insisted that, even if the correct procedures had been followed, the flights would still be objectionable on principle.

"I think we should be saying no, but of course that would require an independent foreign policy as opposed to merely acquiescing in everything that the US chooses to do," he said.

Peace conference

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell has joined the attack, saying it was further evidence that Britain was being "taken for granted" by the US.

Beckett has only complained about procedures
And Sir Stephen Wall, a former foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair, has written in the News Statesman magazine that Britain has lost moral authority because of the prime minister's belief he "has to hitch the UK to the chariot of the US president".

What has made all this criticism particularly sharp is the claimed failure of the Rome peace conference after Britain stood alone with the US in opposing a call from 13 other countries and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for an immediate ceasefire.

While the two countries insisted such a call would have been pointless unless the conditions for such a ceasefire had been agreed, others claimed they had given Israel a green light to carry on what they believe is a campaign to defeat Hezbollah once and for all, whatever the casualties.

And, of course, the row comes after that famous overheard conversation between George Bush and Tony Blair which saw the president greeting the prime minister with "Yo, Blair" and appearing to dismiss his offer to visit the region himself.

Iraq war

Some have seen Mrs Beckett's publicly-expressed anger at America as an attempt to show some independence.

The airport said it provided logistical support to military flights
And it is right that, under agreements dating back to the Second World War, US flights have been allowed to stop-off in the UK.

But, following the on-going row over rendition, it is this agreement that has been questioned rather than whether the US followed the right procedures.

And the affair has only added to pressure on the prime minister, on the eve of a visit to see the president in Washington, to put some distance between London and Washington.

But, thanks to the prime minister's stance after 11 September and his support for - and involvement in - the Iraq war alongside the US, most believe he is inextricably bound to President Bush.

And, in any case, the prime minister has never shown any signs of doubt that the relationship is the single most important one for the UK to sustain.

He is unlikely, therefore, to allow the row over the use of Prestwick to undermine that.

BBC NEWS | Politics | UK-US relations under new pressure

Yeah, I'm getting a little sick of my country getting treated like an extension of the US. Seriously - the Prime Minister is summoned with a "Yo Blair!" by President Bush.

indium · 08-06-2006, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexis

BBC NEWS | Politics | UK-US relations under new pressure

Yeah, I'm getting a little sick of my country getting treated like an extension of the US. Seriously - the Prime Minister is summoned with a "Yo Blair!" by President Bush.

I wouldn't mind living in the 51st state if we got the benifits as well as the bad bits. give me a green card and i'm happy for them to have thier extraordinary rendition flights.
Seriuosly though, given our dodgy politic here in scotland i'm suprised that teh staff at prestwick airport haven't simply refused to deal with US military flights. I'd think that that would out of government control. Force them all to go through an RAF airfield.

AlexEvans · 08-06-2006, 10:22 AM

I'm deeply disappointed by these reactions in the UK, and especially from the foreign minister. Wanting Israel disarmed is an alarming reaction, and one that hardly permits a benign interpretation.

As for the UK being taken for granted, remember the whole "second UN resolution" fiasco? That was Blair, and it wasn't the only time his view prevailed upon Bush. In Bosnia, Blair was clearly the senior partner to Clinton. I think Blair was wrong in several instances, but I have no objection to US Presidents taking and following advice from British PMs, and I'm grateful when the UK follows our lead.

Lexis · 08-06-2006, 01:15 PM

Blair senior partner to Clinton? Possibly in Bosnia - it was a problem in our backyard and was a big deal here in the UK. Furthermore, it helped his image to be seen as a man who take the lead when required.

Since I'm not an American, I did some Googling to check the US response.

Quote:

Sending 20,000 American troops to Bosnia as part of a NATO-led peacekeeping contingent to enforce Dayton took real political courage. There were widespread predictions that it would fail, and there was opposition from most of Congress and the foreign policy elite. In a poll at the time, Clinton's decision was supported by only 36 percent of the American public, who expected heavy U.S. casualties. As it turned out, that expectation was misplaced; in the 10 years since Dayton, no -- repeat, no -- American or NATO military personnel have been killed by hostile action in Bosnia. It is a mark of the respect in which NATO -- that is, the United States -- is held.

This was Clinton's most important action in regard to Europe -- an action opposed, incidentally, by most of his political advisers. It was a classic commander-in-chief decision, made alone, without congressional support and with only reluctant backing from the Pentagon. But it worked: Without those 20,000 troops, Bosnia would not have survived, 2 million refugees would still be wandering the face of Western Europe, a criminal state would be in power in Bosnia itself -- and we would probably have had to pursue Operation Enduring Freedom not only in Afghanistan but also in the deep ravines and dangerous hills of central Bosnia, where a shadowy organization we now know as al Qaeda was putting down roots that were removed by NATO after Dayton.

Was Bosnia Worth It?

To my mind, neither Clinton or Blair dominated each other to any more extent than their relative strength and position in the world demanded. Clinton was an important part of the whole Blair/ Labour re-brand. The Labour party, seeing how the Democrats got back into power after 12 years on the wane, took lots of the Clinton strategy and used it to get Blair elected. Clinton was the master of the whole Third Way strategy that Blair would later make "New" Labour.

Beckett didn't say she wanted Israel disarmed - she simply expressed the opinion that the US should respect our laws and regulations. As she represents us, the British people, I don't think that's unreasonable.

As for the UN (I'm assuming you're referring to the Iraq debates), Blair needed political back up. He had to at least try as a large slice of society were going nuts here about the idea of getting tangled up in Iraq.

Furthermore, the fact that Bush is seen as a bad joke by a lot of society, the fact that Blair seems to willing to hitch our wagon to his horse really disturbs people.

indium · 08-07-2006, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexEvans

I'm deeply disappointed by these reactions in the UK, and especially from the foreign minister. Wanting Israel disarmed is an alarming reaction, and one that hardly permits a benign interpretation.

would you care to elaborate on this please?:-) personally I think Isreal should have been disarmed a long time ago, or at least had an arms embargo imposed to prevent it buying more.Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | What we still don't understand about Hizbollah

AlexEvans · 08-07-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indium

would you care to elaborate on this please?:-) personally I think Isreal should have been disarmed a long time ago, or at least had an arms embargo imposed to prevent it buying more.Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | What we still don't understand about Hizbollah

Israel has been constantly attacked throughout its history. These enemies claim their objective to be genocide.

The current conflict is the result of attacks on Israel. We only pay attention when Israel fights back, but it needs to be understood that these attacks have been ongoing from the very beginning.

Supporting an arms embargo against Israel would result in more civilian deaths, if not a complete victory for its enemies - who are also the enemies of Britain and others. I expect a Foreign Minister to be fully informed of what's going on and exercise better sense than to impede weapons being sent to Israel.

As for the article, look at the history.

Israel went into Lebanon to defeat the PLO, which was committing terrorism from Lebanese soil.

Iran created the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah to conduct further terrorism against Israel. Hezbollah also killed more Americans than any terrorist group except Al Qaeda. Lebanese Hezbollah is now supported by Syria as well as Iran.

Iran was never occupied, and part of Lebanon was occupied by Israel only because it had become a terrorist base. Israel withdrew entirely from Lebanon, but Hezbollah continued its attacks. Hezbollah never fought Syrian occupation of the entire country.

Saying Hezbollah was created in resistance to foreign occupation is absolutely absurd, and can have no basis in rational and informed thought.

The actual weapons in question are precision bombs, which Israel needs in order to continue its efforts to minimize Lebanese casualties while it fights to defend itself. Hezbollah continues to seek to maximize both Israeli and Lebanese casualties.

indium · 08-07-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexEvans

Israel has been constantly attacked throughout its history. These enemies claim their objective to be genocide.

snip
Hezbollah continues to seek to maximize both Israeli and Lebanese casualties.

thanks:-)
i'll support a UN resultion about the current situation when israel follows any of the other UN resolutions to get back to its 1967 borders. when they do that and the rest of the middle east is still flinging ammunition at them, then i might have some sympathy.

AlexEvans · 08-07-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indium

thanks:-)

Any time. And please dont take my frustrations with the Guardian as aimed at you.

That isnt the first article of theirs Ive seen that has driven me nuts.

Um, anyone know why I cant use apostrophes? When I tried it opens up this thing at the bottom of the window that says "Find." Im using Firefox, but I have been for a while and usually can use apostrophes, but every now and then this happens.

indium · 08-07-2006, 12:59 PM

well i'm on firefox to and my apostophes are ok. not come across that problem actually and it was from yesterday's Observer- despite what the caption says!

Lexis · 08-08-2006, 02:51 AM

I know nothing about Firefox - maybe you could ask someone on the webmasters or Q&A board?

**sum1** · 08-08-2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indium

thanks:-)
i'll support a UN resultion about the current situation when israel follows any of the other UN resolutions to get back to its 1967 borders. when they do that and the rest of the middle east is still flinging ammunition at them, then i might have some sympathy.

The UN resolutions requested that Israel return land as part of land-for-peace negotiations. Israel has been prepared to do that since 1967, they have not had cooperation from the Palestinian leadership (but with Egypt Israel has HAS returned land -Sinai). Israel has repeatedly tried to negotiate with the Palestinian leadership and has repeatedly had no success. Last time Israel offered Arafat the best deal yet and in return Arafat restarted the intifada. Israel has done what the resolutions required of it, it has tried to negotiate return of land as part of land-for-peace deals.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > UK-US relations under new pressure