The 'Special Relationship'

[poster342002]

The "special relationship" between the UK and USA is a relatively recent thing. Both countries went to war against each other twice shortly after US independance (I think) and I remember reading an article about how tensions had been rising between the UK and USA between the world wars - the inference being that - had Germany not kicked off again - there was a real possibility of a world-war between the UK and USA. Not that surprising when you look at it: two rival empires competing for dominance, influence and resources.

 

[kyser_soze]

Soulman - London Calling has pretty much answered for me from your original reply to me in post#22...

 

[butchersapron]

It was a response to kyser's statement.

I think it's all tied together and I'm not looking for a particularly simplistic answer because, as with all relationships, I doubt there is one.

It's okay to say there isn't a 'special' relationship but why have successive prime ministers made mention of the UK/US relationship so early in their governance. It goes way back before Thatcher as well.

What? You think there is one?- ok - demonstrate it. And 'successive prime ministers [making] mention of the UK/US relationship' can easily enough be seen as PR guff.

What do you think this 'special relationship' consists of then? What makes it 'special'?

 

[London_Calling]

Calm down, Mr Apron. He's not saying there is a special relationship, he's saying there is a relationship and he's trying to understand it.

 

[kyser_soze]

The most obvious is that UK and US both speak English. This as opposed to French.

There are the military and spook ties - not just the nukes either.
There is the trade, altho as anyone who bothers checking for a minute will find, the UK's biggest trading partner is the EU.
The relationship of the 2 European and Asian wars in the C20th.
And UK PMs toady because they know they have to - the true nature of the relationship (altho under Bush/Blair it's been far abusive/supine than even with Thatch, who at least had a go at Regean over Greneda) is one of benefactor and supplicant, as it is with all EU nations when they stand on their own.

 

[butchersapron]

Calm down, Mr Apron. He's not saying there is a special relationship, he's saying there is a relationship and he's trying to understand it.

The OP is pretty clear IMO, but fine, i'll let him clarify before making any further assumptions - no probs. The floor is yours soulman.

 

[soulman]

Calm down, Mr Apron. He's not saying there is a special relationship, he's saying there is a relationship and he's trying to understand it.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. 'special relationship' is in quotation marks for a reason Mr. Apron.

 

[fela fan]

I think the answers lie scattered between several posts.

And the inverted commas you used soulman help answer your query!

It's not just britain who toady up (to use the word already in this thread) to the US. Probably the politicians of most countries do. They're after reflected power (never mind business deals they can grab money from). Anybody that wants power will do all they can to get onside with anybody they perceive to have more power than they do: it's an obvious way of upping one's own amount of power.

Bearing in mind that a person only has power while others are there to recognise and accord it to them.

As for britain, it most certainly suits those with power to have a 'special relationship', even if only in their heads. And they share the same language. And the US is little more than an extension of the British empire.

So largely this special relationship is for large egos who want power any which way they can get it.

From the US direction, they often find that if they flatter their UK counterparts then the UK will back up and take part in the thuggery that the US carry out routinely. The UK kind of legitimise US elites' thuggery, thereby helping 'persuade' the US electorate that they are acting for the right reasons.

It's a mixture of bullshit, perceptions, power, and egos.

 

[meurig]

Some people like to think of them as a Rome to our Greece iyswim.


The analogy doesn't hold under close scrutiny though

I believe it was Macmillan that first said that wasn't it?

I can't see a future Byzantium emerging in London from the future remnants of a US empire though.

 

[soulman]

The most obvious is that UK and US both speak English. This as opposed to French.

There are the military and spook ties - not just the nukes either.
There is the trade, altho as anyone who bothers checking for a minute will find, the UK's biggest trading partner is the EU.
The relationship of the 2 European and Asian wars in the C20th.
And UK PMs toady because they know they have to - the true nature of the relationship (altho under Bush/Blair it's been far abusive/supine than even with Thatch, who at least had a go at Regean over Greneda) is one of benefactor and supplicant, as it is with all EU nations when they stand on their own.

Well yes, but then NZ and US both speak English.

I thought the nukes thing was interesting because it's not something I had even give a second thought.

As you say the major trading partner is now the European Union, not the US.

 

[DotCommunist]

I believe it was Macmillan that first said that wasn't it?

I can't see a future Byzantium emerging in London from the future remnants of a US empire though.

yeah, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it was a politico that said it. It has a pleasing ring to it but is in essence bullshit, as with most politicians soundbites

 

[david dissadent]

The "special relationship" between the UK and USA is a relatively recent thing. Both countries went to war against each other twice shortly after US independance (I think) and I remember reading an article about how tensions had been rising between the UK and USA between the world wars - the inference being that - had Germany not kicked off again - there was a real possibility of a world-war between the UK and USA. Not that surprising when you look at it: two rival empires competing for dominance, influence and resources.

In the imediate aftermath of WWI many assumed the UK and US would square up and fight it out. However before the rise of US naval power in the 20th centuary there was a tacit agreement of sorts that the UK would look after US interests, from a naval stand point through the late 18th centuary allowing America to remain largely a western hemesphere power and still be able to trade beyond there. There were obvious flash points and tensions but Londons refusal to back the South when it could have entered the war and pretty much broken US power for ever is worth noting.

After WWI the Anglophnic powers decided to negotiate a world order rather than do what the UK had done to Spain, Holland, France, Germany and every other challanger at sea, destroy there sea power. They produced the Washington Naval treaty to set in place an international strategic arms limitations treaty and to effectively devide up the world into spheres of influence.

Post war the special relationship was very real, but like every international relationship far from harmonious. They often cosponsored coups (Iran notibly) and worked hand in glove in many key areas, accessing intelligence at levels that are normaly far beyond the pale for allies (allegedly). UK airpower and sea power was all but an extention of the US armed services in defending the GIUK gap.

Those who argue against the special relationship perhaps fail to appreciate the Falklands war where a US ally dicatator was hung out dry in front of the entire of South America by the US in order to back the UK. It was not a popular move in the eyes of many western hemesphere types in the US and did a certain amount of damage to US credibility.

The UK co-owns an ENLIT satalite with the US that it get (I think) 1/3rd access time to.

Who else has ever sold an entire ICBM to another country? Not IRBM or other rocket artillary but a full blown submarine based missile system?

Doesnt mean they wont fuck each over from time to time.

 

[fela fan]

I thought the nukes thing was interesting because it's not something I had even give a second thought.

It is an interesting connection. And for the same reason we can bring australia into the equation. Although they don't particularly claim a 'special' relationship, they seem to have a more overt one based on what one sees in the country. It has more americanisms and american ways of life in its society than even britain.

And, this is the crux on this topic, yorkshire in england has fylingdales, and somewhere in australia (i think queensland, but can't remember) they have pine gap.

And both places are essential to the US nuclear defence shield. My thoughts have often been that like it or not, the politicians in both UK and Oz have to have this 'special' relationship, precisely because of this situation.

 

[Idris2002]

I found the link below while looking for something else. I haven't had time to read it, but it looks like it might be relevant to this thread. It's a PDF file, btw.

http://www.twq.com/01spring/rachman.pdf

Butchers, you said that sections of the UK ruling class were talking about pursuing an independent imperialist line, i.e. independent of the US. I'm afraid that one passed me by - have you got any links?

 

[soulman]

It would be interesting to know if the relationship between Australia and US has changed in any way since the 2007 elections.