The so-called “Special Relationship”, has it served the people? Certainly not
The image that pops into my head when I think of “the special relationship” between the US and Britain is of Tony Blair and George Bush wearing tight jeans and windcheaters, walking towards the camera on George Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. The smirk on Tony Blair’s face projects an image of “Look at me, aren’t I great; I am next to the most powerful person on the planet, and we have just decided to pulverise Iraq”.
The British corporate media is obsessed with the “special relationship” and the “personal chemistry” between British prime ministers and American presidents. When the two meet, the body language and every gesture are nauseatingly analysed, seeking reassurance that Britain is still America’s best friend. This clinginess is unhealthy; it leads to unquestioning acquiescence and deference to the senior partner, the US. Special relationships should mean being honest and frank, and saying things your special friend may not want to hear. At least that is what I think it should be.
According to Wikipedia, the phrase “special relationship” was first used in 1946 by Winston Churchill to describe the close political, diplomatic, cultural and historical relationship between the US and Britain. Tony Blair’s interpretation of it is that of grovelling sycophancy towards George Bush culminating in the disaster that was the Iraq war. Whatever Blair’s thinking was about the war, he felt that because of the “special relationship” Britain must act as its cheerleader. This was also the view of most of the British cabinet.
Contrast that with the attitude of France and Germany, who opposed the Iraq war on logical, thoughtful calculations - that the war was unnecessary, illegal and not in the West’s interest.
That illegal war has caused death, injury and suffering to thousands of British and American people, and inflicted enormous suffering on the entire Iraqi people with death and injury to hundreds of thousands if not millions. It has also caused enormous damage to the reputation of the US and Britain, weakened the rule of international law, and the authority of international institutions. It has also invigorated international terrorism. You would think after such a disaster future British governments would be more circumspect in foolishly and slavishly following America in its future wars. Not a bit of it.