THE END OF A BEAUTIFUL FRIENDSHIP?

The end of a beautiful friendship?

I watched some of the post BREXIT coverage on CNBC on Sunday evening- it was quite interesting to get a US perspective on some of the consequences of the referendum. The gist was that the US elite was not happy (to put things mildly) with the Brit elite over the BREXIT result largely because the US had effectively lost its inside man in the EU tent. 

The Brits had pushed the EU into imposing economic sanctions on Russia because of Russian interference in Ukraine. Obviously with the Brits on their way out of the EU they are now irrelevant diplomatically within Europe as far as the US is concerned. So basically the US was now seriously going to ramp up its diplomatic contacts and efforts with Germany - in an effort to maintain the sanctions against Russia. 

Incidentally while European (and UK) farmers suffered as a result of the sanctions against Russia over the occupation of the Crimea and Russian support for the unrest in eastern Ukraine, the US farmers upped their production to access the potential new market, clearly true friends indeed. On another matter I wonder how long it's going to be before the next UK PM gets their White House lawn photograph.

IT’S BEEN A LONG TIME COMING…

When it comes to politicians lying, it’s bad enough to lie over things like expenses, the economy, etc – but to lie to generate support for a war has to be entirely unacceptable. To send our service personal into harm’s is one thing, something that should cause much thought before the deed. However, to send them into harm’s way on the basis of a concoction of lies and mistruths is surely tantamount to a criminal act.

I personally think that it is important that the Chilcot Inquiry does not prejudice the possibility of any criminal prosecutions of those responsible for the production of the dodgy pre war dossier that helped to make the case for the war. Those individuals who auctioned the lies and made that decisions should have their day in court, if not here then perhaps in The Hague.

It’s time for the plain truth; people need to know the truth about events leading up to that decision to go to war. Plaid Cymru rightly contends that all relevant and pertinent information be published.  Any failure to do so will lead people to assume that this enquiry has been a waste of time and public money, not to mention cheapening the sacrifices made by our service personnel and their families.

The beginning of a beautiful friendship?

The fudge over the release of the edited highlights of the raft of documentation relating to Tony Blair’s conversations with President George W Bush in the run up to the Iraq war I suspect will surprise few people.  The Iraq war was and is likely to remain deeply controversial for some time. No matter how much spin was spun to add weight to the reasons for the invasion, the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the occupation of Iraq it is impossible to avoid the idea that the then New Labour leader Tony Blair lied to the House of Commons and the rest of us.

It should be alarming that it has taken four long years for the Chilcot Inquiry to get to this point. In June 2009, the then New Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown established an inquiry to learn the lessons of the Iraq conflict. The then PM wanted witnesses to be questioned behind closed doors (to protect national security and so they could be free to speak). Understandably all hell then broke loose and Gordon rapidly caved into pressure from the opposition, former government officials and ordinary members of the public - many of whom wanted public hearings.

At the time the PM was pretty clear about the pressing need for openness when it came to the release of secret papers to the inquiry. He stated that: "No British document and no British witness will be beyond the scope of the inquiry. I have asked the members of the committee to ensure that the final report will be able to disclose all but the most sensitive information - that is, all information except that which is essential to our national security" – let’s hope that this inquiry finally delivers the plain and simple truth.

DID HE REALLY SAY THAT?

When someone you have convinced yourself is your best friend (and you believe has your best interests at heart) says something truthful but hurtful about you that can be upsetting. However, when they say it publically for all to hear then it’s twice as hurtful and if you had any sense you might be well advised to question the value of your so called friendship. The former US defence secretary, Robert Gates has said that cuts to the UK's armed forces will limit the country's ability to be a major player on the world stage. And that the spending cuts would mean the UK could no longer be a full [useful] military partner of the US.

Under the current Con Dem Coalition government’s plans, by 2020 the Army will have lost some 20,000 personnel, with the Royal Navy losing 6,000 and the RAF some 5,000. Despite the cuts the MOD was quick to point out that the UK still has the fourth largest defence budget in the world. However, when interviewed by BBC Radio 4's Today programme (16.01.2014) Robert Gates noted that - for the first time since World War One - Britain did not have an operational aircraft carrier.

Mr Gates, who served under presidents Obama and Bush, singled out cuts to the navy as particularly damaging. He said; "With the fairly substantial reductions in defence spending in Great Britain, what we're finding is that it won't have full spectrum capabilities and the ability to be a full partner as they have been in the past." Incidentally, last month the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, warned that the UK could be left with the "spectre" of a hollowed-out force. While this latest American  intervention probably won’t reverse Cameron’s defence cuts it will wound the UK's pride and may shatter a few still held illusions or possibly delusions.

The not so big secret to the UK’s so called ‘special relationship’ with the USA dates back to the dark days of the Second World War is that the relationship is not that special. The UK was dependent on aid from the USA well before Pearl Harbour brought the Americans into the war. Our history (or more like our spun history) tells us that ‘lend lease’ saved us, what’s not said is that ‘lend lease’ was more like ‘cash and carry’ i.e. they take our cash and we do the carrying across the broad U Boat filled Atlantic even after America came into the war.

By the war’s end Britain was pretty much broke (or at least financially challenged) and stretched pretty thin militarily (in terms of manpower UK and Commonwealth forces peaked out in the autumn of 1944|). The Empire and with it ‘imperial responsibility’ unravelled surprisingly rapidly in the post war years. Britain walked from Palestine and Greece, and India, Pakistan, Burma and Sri Lanka gained their independence, despite this the delusionary myth of Imperial greatness and the ‘special relationship with the USA remained.

The reality was that the USA since the early part of the twentieth century had been one way or another pretty much determined to break up the British Empire. Any delusions that the ‘Brits’ had about their position in the world, should have evaporated during and after the Suez crisis when an irate President Eisenhower, told Britain’s Prime Minister Anthony Eden bluntly to halt the military invasion of Egypt or face up to the economic and political consequences. Britain and France found themselves up against it in the face of US economic and political power and interests in 1956 and both lost.

The French decided to maintain an independent foreign policy, which if it coincided with US interests was all well and good, but if not then no matter. The Brits made a different choice, they decided never to oppose US interests again, at least not publically, from 1956 onwards US interests would be British interests requardless. Under continual pressure from the US the remainder of the Empire vanished far more rapidly than it was acquired, being mostly gone by 1964.

The Brits pretty much never stepped out of line again, unlike the French, who retained control of their own foreign policy. Now all this may be slightly delayed fallout from the so called Westminster elite’s failure to secure a majority in the House of Commons for military action over Syria. With the ‘Brits’ making the awkward transition from useful ally and friend  to potential liability people may well be forgiven for wondering where does that leave the so called ‘special relationship’?  

THE WAR OF THE WORDS

The war of the words, despite last evenings vote against military action without parliamentary approval, continues, while the war on the ground in Syria (and body count grows ever higher). Clearly the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan weighed heavily on MP’s minds in Westminster yesterday. Whatever the merits of the intervention or not with regard to the conflict in Syria are, we are all somewhere different to where we were in 2003. The fact that Blair favoured intervention swung some of my relatives to a position of opposition to intervention. Armed intervention in Syria with or without UN approval (which is unlikely with the Russian and Chinese veto) would be a risky business.

The Syrian situation is far more complicated than was the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan – in theory Saddam could have fled to exile, but, Assad has nowhere to go and neither does his constituency of support amongst the sizeable (and well armed) Alawite minority.  Last evenings vote of Westminster MP's against military intervention in Syria may send sizeable shock waves through the Obama administration. Whereas previously the Brits have tended to march in step with the US, this rejection of President Barack Obama's argument may well upset the special relationship for some time to come.

It can be argued this key event has been a long time coming, and save for Harold Wilson’s refusal to commit UK ground troops to Vietnam in the 1960’s (which was duly punished) it has largely been avoided (at least since Suez). Certainly before last night’s vote, the US administration appeared relatively relaxed about David Cameron's problems and any delays in the Brits joining the new collation. Now in the cold light of day things may be different, it may to too early to say whether or not the Brits have finally cast of their adoptive mantle of Uncle Sam’s poodle.

The trigger for any intervention has been the alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians by the Syrian regime, the latest of possible 14 instances of chemical weapons use,  may yet trigger a US-led military response. The UN route may be blocked with Russia and China very publically opposed to any military action, which means that the UN Security Council will be unable to give its backing to any intervention which may raise some questions about the legal basis for military intervention.

Any desire for intervention may relate more to Syria (and the strategic situation in the Middle East) than it does to the use of chemical weapons as such. They have been used before (on some scale) by Saddam Hussein, against the Iranians (during the Iran – Iraq war) and later against the Kurds. On both occasion the Western Allies (and the USA) said next to nothing as Saddam was their boy - he was only to become a problem later when he invaded Kuwait (triggering the first gulf war back in 1991).

Last evenings cross-party amendment on Syria called for legal evidence and UN inspectors reports to be presented before any decision is taken on military action are taken, something that most reasonable people would probably agree with as a reasonable and rational response to the crisis. Judging by the look on David Cameron’s face last night as the debate concluded in a government defeat there may be trouble ahead and the one sided ‘special relationship’ may be on hold for the foreseeable future. 

Perhaps finally the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq may have sunk in and days of the UK  strutting the stage and over extending itself by pretending to be a global player are over - it may be too early to say. That said, something needs to be done to bring an end to the increasingly bloody conflict in Syria – doing that will require UN approval (which is unlikely) and a plan (which may well be nonexistent if recent experiences in Iraq are anything to go by).  

So as the war of words continues in the West, the war on the ground will continue in the Middle East, the refugee crisis will get worse and the body count will grow ever higher. There was as far as I could perceive last evening only as slight if faint whiff of Munich wafting through some of the MP's in the House of Commons last evening - perhaps prompted by some of the friends of Syria (Assad); that said  the vote should not be an excuse of inaction or indifference to the plight of the people of Syria, as something still needs to be done. 

HOW SPECIAL A RELATIONSHIP?

The beginning of a beautiful friendship?

Putting the desperate desire for 'special relationship’ related photo opportunities to one side, there are two or three pressing issues bubbling away in the background to David Cameron's visit to the USA. He arrives today to spend a few days, he will take in a ball game, a state dinner, the much prized photo shoot on the White House lawn and no doubt some pre-meetings before the NATO summit in May.

Whether or not this puts the so called ‘special relationship’ back on track is open is open to question. The US is certainly talking the relationship up at the moment and I have no doubt that Cameron will bask in the limelight. Whats not open to question is the continuing problem of the very public slaughter in Syria, which should provoke some debate about what to do next?

Yet, despite this for some UK Prime Ministers the special relationship can work both ways, it was disastrous for John Major (who's Conservatives activists actively campaigned against Bill Clinton), pretty good for Tony Blair and George Bush at least until the quagmire of Iraq began to undermine his premiership (strangely enough he took a long time to collect his Freedom Medal). The less said about Gordon Brown’s relationship with the White House the better. Yet from where David Cameron is currently sat, the ‘White House Photo opportunity' is practically priceless.

No doubt Iran is also going to be fairly high on the agenda. Benjamin Nethanayu (the Israeli PM), was in Washington last week and there can be little doubt that there is an already existing Israeli plan to deal with the Iranian nuclear sites. How much of a role that the UK and the USA will play in the event of any conflict will also no doubt be much discussed?

The ongoing crisis in Afghanistan will also be high on the agenda, with one war unfinished, the prospect of starting another one might (you would expect) raise more than a few eyebrows. While I have serious concerns about nuclear proliferation I do think that both the US and the USA have ‘ramped up the rhetoric’ over the possibilities of Iran developing nuclear weapons for their own reasons. Certainly in mid February, Foreign Secretary William Hague was busy talking up the possibilities of a ‘new cold war’ with Iran.

The ‘special relationship’ such as it is passes through phases of warmth and uncertainty, certainly, with the mainland Europeans, from an American perspective are beginning to look decidedly flaky on Iran. The US will have a pressing need for ‘special friend' who happens to live on an unsinkable aircraft carrier (and who coincidently just happens to have leased you a pretty useful base in the India Ocean (Diego Garcia)) and may be willing to put some boots on the ground.

Historically from a ‘Brit’ perspective, it may well be all they have left – having lost the Empire, having effectively ditched the Commonwealth and almost but not entirely failed to get into the heart of Europe. If the first world War seriously damaged and undermined Britain's economic and political position in the world, then a combination of the second world war and US diplomacy (between the 1920’s and the 1950's) effectively did for Britain as a world power.

For Dave, it may well be worth the risk of an Iranian adventure, because the pictures and television footage that the media opportunity of the Prime Minister and the President (at the White House) represents is potentially an electoral goldmine. No doubt the Downing Street strategists should have identified by now that both ethnic minority and women voters are the two key groups of voters that David Cameron has simply got to win to secure a parliamentary majority in 2015 and they will also have noticed that polling tells them that both groups absolutely lionise President Obama.