It’s that old classic love story. Boy meets Girl. Boy and Girl become infatuated with one another. Boy leads Girl into a series of illegal wars in the Middle East. You know the rest. (In the interests of gender equality, I should point out that you are more than welcome to switch around the genders in this analogy.)
But now, this one sided relationship has a new twist. Girl has said no to the Boy’s latest attempts to lead her into another bombing campaign, and Boy is angry. Boy storms out, and jumps back into bed with an old flame from a distant past. Girl is left to ponder on what might have been.
The real question here is: should we be concerned about this? Does it actually matter? Many in Government seem to think so, particularly Phillip Hammond, who has been very vocal on the issue. Indeed, there seems to be an assumption that this so-called ‘special relationship’ must be protected at all costs, and we are warned of the dire consequences that would befall us if it does not endure. But there must surely come a point where enough is enough. If the best argument in favour of getting embroiled in a messy civil war that we really do not know much about is that it will keep the US happy, then it is a truly worrying state of affairs in which we find ourselves.
Of course, other reasons have been given. Ultimately, however, there are far too many factors here that simply do not add up. The fact that people have been affected by chemical weapons seems now to be beyond any reasonable doubt. But whether it was the fault of the Assad regime or the rebels, or even a stray rocket ploughing into a chemical weapons factory, is still up for debate. We are told that there is strong evidence to support the theory that the Syrian government was behind the attacks, but we have been here before. The British public will no longer believe any government when they tell us to trust them that the evidence exists: we want to see this evidence and scrutinise it ourselves.
Besides, even if we are to believe these claims, what will this ‘targeted bombing campaign’ actually achieve? If we assume that we know where these chemical weapons factories are (which is a huge assumption), sending missiles to blow them up sounds like a monumentally stupid thing to do. Where else would we target? Government buildings? If they would indeed be the targets, it would make a mockery of the US Government’s claim that the intention of the intervention is not regime change. Without detailed information on these points, the British public was never going to get behind an attack on Syria.
This relationship that we have with the USA has been one-sided for too long. It was not in our interests, or the interests of the Syrian people, to intervene in a military capacity. Therefore we should not concern ourselves with what those on the other side of the pond may think of us. We rejected their advances over Vietnam, and rightly so. We have done the same over Syria, which is nothing to be ashamed of. If this is the end of our special relationship, then let’s start enjoying life as a singleton.
* David Gray is a musician, actor and writer based in Birmingham. He is a a co-director of Keep Streets Live
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
There really is no getting out of this fiscal corner
Former sheriff candidate to face trial for allegedly registering cats to vote
Our West End ward surgeries #dundeewestend
Reform u-turn after tasting reality of power
Craig Levene
David Evans
Simon R
Jenny Barnes
Tristan Ward
18 Comments
Love Actually already said this…
There are reports emerging of ongoing joint US / Israeli ballistic missile tests with a “trajectory ……………. from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea towards the eastern part of the Mediterranean coast”.
I suggest that this speaks volumes on where the true “Special Relationship” lies. As young(ish) settler states, the USA and Israel possess shared experiences, which forge a world view that we (and most of the rest of the planet) will never share or understand.
There is a modicum of sense in the article, but from the title alone we may guess that Daniel hails from the arts and not cold IR theory:
“Opinion: Even if this is the end of our ‘Special Relationship’, there is no need to mourn its passing”
Really?
We should merrily wave goodbye to an unparalleled intelligence and research relationship with the world’s only superpower, one with whom we share a host of common aims and expectations arising from our shared social and cultural history!
And what would we use to fill this yawning chasm so suddenly opened up across the landscape of British National interests? Good will from all and the swelling bonhomie of mankind…
No relationship is worth pursuing at any price – a fact I have often noted about our membership of the eu – but that is not really and argued that has been made and you certainly haven’t addressed yourself to the actual worth we derive from our partnership with the yanks.
Day jobs, great things.
Whether as individuals we like it or not (and that’s not what I want to talk about with this post), the UK and US share a depth of military and intelligence cooperation in locations all around the world. They are still going to want to use their bases in the UK, British Indian Ocean Territory and so on for whatever purposes they use them.
Paradoxically, next time there is a military adventure and we do go with them, we bring more credibility to it than we otherwise would have, as we have now shown we don’t always do what the Americans want.
Remember that behind the scenes the USA gave intelligence support and hardware for the Falklands war. There are times when the politicians say one thing but the friendship at the working level keeps going.
Hi Jedibeeftrix. I was not suggesting that we go out of our way to cut ties with the US. But as you rightly point out, no relationship is worth pursuing at any price. The price of engaging in military conflict is one of the highest that it is possible to pay, and as such I believe we were right to put our perceived obligations towards the US aside in this issue in order to do the right thing for both Britain and Syria. No doubt we will remain allies of the US, but if the fallout from all of this results in a slightly looser affiliation with the US Government, and therefore less pressure to involve ourselves in future conflicts, then that can only be a good thing in my eyes.
Peter, I suspect you’re probably right. In public the Obama administration seem to want to paint Britain as being out in the cold as far as they are concerned in order to boost their own image, but in the long term this may well not be the case.
I am not at all persuaded by the case for intervention offered by the government so far, and I am happy with parliaments input on war precisely because I believe it will preserve an acceptance of intervention within the public mind, but at the end of the day someone has to make the hard calls in international politics (not merely sending a bit more aid), and that means we should continue to support the US.
Maybe not now, maybe not this time, but in principle; absolutely.
I agree with your central premise that the “special” relationship, to the extent that it is special to the US, is not a one way street and should not take precedence over our own judgement. Some PMs have appreciated this – Thatcher, when she openly criticised Reagan over the invasion of Grenada. Others have not – Blair over Iraq. In any healthy relationship there should be room for disagreement.
But I think the key issue over Syria isn’t the special relationship. The key issues are first, the genuine concerns (that you raise) about the legitimacy of war against Syria plus second, whether or not we as a country believe in collective security – leaving aside what the US want, do we believe that we should be involved in a war somewhere else in the world in order to protect people solely on the basis of their humanity?
On the first, after Iraq and the way Labour lied to parliament and the country to take us to war, understandably people are sceptical about the evidence. But it looks like it’s becoming clearer day by day that chemical weapons were used Assad used them.
On the second, as a liberal, I believe that collectively we have a duty to act to protect common standards of decency around the world – a chemical weapons attack on civilians to me can’t go unresponded or it will encourage others to do likewise. There is I guess at least a third consideration – what action is going to help? Sadly I think people like Assad won’t respond to anything other than military action.
All in all I’m rather sad about the vote over Syria. A mixture of genuine scepticism, Labour’s cynical party politics playing and UKIP-wing Tories “we don’t care about humans outside the UK” have won the day.
Julie – I am not completely against all forms of intervention. I agree absolutely that we should not adopt the isolationist UKIP attitude, which purely concerns itself with British interests and ignores the suffering of many around the world.
However, particularly with regards to Syria, I have two main problems, even if we accept that it was al-Assad who used the chemical weapons (which is still not proven beyond doubt):
– Who will we be supporting by acting against Assad? Will it end up strengthening al-Qaeda? If so we must think very carefully before going in all-guns blazing. Even ith the best of intentions, we could potentially make the whole situation a lot worse.
– What, precisely, would we actually do in a military strike? We can’t fire at these weapons factories, even if we know where they are, as we would risk releasing the deadly chemicals by accident. As I said in the article, by firing at Government targets, we would effectively be aiming towards regime change. And who knows what an embattled al-Assad will do if he feels he as nothing to lose? Besides, a Western-led coup would just lead to further resentment towards the West in both Syria and the Arab world in general. This would cause untold problems further down the line.
For me, as much as it pains me to stand by and do nothing except offer humanitarian aid when people are clearly suffering, there is simply nothing we can actually do (in a military sense anyway) that will reduce deaths and stem the tide of cruelty that is occurring from both sides. I don’t wish to come across as hard-hearted and nationalistic in my opposition to intervention in Syria – in the long run I feel it will also be better for Syrians if we do not attack.
Jedibeeftrix – I absolutely disagree with siding with the US ‘in principle’ – surely we must view each case on its merits and make individual decisions based on the specific circumstances rather than assume a position of deference to the US government?
Interesting article, but a few points:
(a) It will take more than a parliamentary vote like this to disrupt our relationship (which is deep and broad) with the USA. I do not like to use the word “special” as that is divisive and exclusive. Although John Kerry wanted to sock it to Britain with his reference to France, Barack Obama came back the next day praising the UK and the “special” relationship.
(b) Many in the USA actually respect us more and admire what our parliament did (and I say that as one who was – and is – in favour of the government motion that was rejected). In the highest form of praise (and we know this was not the true motive) the USA is following suit in having Congress vote in military action.
(c) I do agree that our relationship with the USA needs to be re-balanced, ditto that with the EU (both relationships are vitally important for the UK). One of my top priorities is re-balancing our extradition arrangements with the USA. Another is not replacing Trident like-for-like (there is enormous US pressure for us to do this behind the scenes) – it is my contention that we serve the UK, NATO and the world community by having a well trained, flexible military that is able to handle the plethora of security and environmental threats of 21st century and that we can not afford both this and a like-for-like Trident replacement.
Thank you, John Innes. Yet another wise voice against the “independent” British nuclear deterrent. The inverted commas are deliberate, because we know we could never use it without American permission. Well-trained, decently equipped forces are what Britain should be contributing to international peace-keeping, not great power nuclear fantasy.
@ john – ” it is my contention that we serve the UK, NATO and the world community by having a well trained, flexible military that is able to handle the plethora of security and environmental threats of 21st century and that we can not afford both this and a like-for-like Trident replacement.”
Why on earth not?
You do appreciate that defence spending represents only 2.0% of gdp, an amount we are honour bound to spend via nato, and within which both the power projections aims laid outing the sdsr and the successor deterrent are funded.
Furthermore, defence spending, which has fallen from 3.5% at the end of the cold war and 2.6% at the sdr98, represents a mere five percent of total government spending (operational spending being different from the core budget).
The only way these twin objectives are not achievable are if enterprising lib-dems are casting a beady eye on the defence budget as the source of funding for yet another worthy social cause du-jour.
Should we maintain the 2.0% spend, John?
I agree with every point John Innes made.
I’d also like to pick up something David said: “What, precisely, would we actually do in a military strike? We can’t fire at these weapons factories, even if we know where they are, as we would risk releasing the deadly chemicals by accident. As I said in the article, by firing at Government targets, we would effectively be aiming towards regime change. And who knows what an embattled al-Assad will do if he feels he as nothing to lose?”
– The chemical weapons are actually destroyed by fire/explosives, so blowing up the bases where the weapons are stored is quite possibly a great idea. There’s also a decent chance that a paranoid police state that distrusted everyone would have built its chemical weapon sites away from prying eyes, so it might even be possible to target many of them without endangering civilians. That’s speculation on my part – I don’t know where they are, but I’m sure neither does anyone else commenting on this blog.
– What would an embattled Assad regime do? Well, we can hazard a guess… It’s spent the last 2 1/2 years demonstrating to the world that it sees its choices as ‘anihilate all opposition – peaceful as well as militant’ or die. Certainly it has demonstrated that it views any form of diplomacy as nothing more than cover to allow it to go on killing.
“What we lacked was a set of precise and achievable objectives. In the limited context of the chemical weapon attack the West may well have the capability to destroy all of Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles”
and @Jonathan Brown
“The chemical weapons are actually destroyed by fire/explosives, so blowing up the bases where the weapons are stored is quite possibly a great idea. ”
For info, esponsible destruction of toxins is difficult. It’s perfectly achievable to destroy toxic chemicals safely via incineration or chemical means and we have (and provide access to) the technology, but it’s quite an intensive process. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooele_Chemical_Agent_Disposal_Facility as an example, or http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/world-war-2-mustard-gas-shells-toowoomba-destroy/804296/. Yes, fire destroys, but many fires are not destructive enough – you need temperatures near to that of the Dresden firestorm , so thermobaric weaponry, white phosphorus, etc.
That said, lots of money appears to have gone into bombs that you really could use to destroy chemical stockpiles. There’s an overview of relevant technologies here http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/165580-destroying-chemical-weapons. Still doesn’t look like these approaches should appear in the best practice guidelines just yet, especially if the weaponry is stored in populated areas!
Scuse typo: responsible.
Thanks daft ha’p’orth. I’m by no means en expert on these weapons. I’ve seen lots of reports recently though saying that chemical weapons have to be delivered in ways that minimise the size of the explosion relative to the intended effect – to minimise the chances of the exploding warhead destroying the chemicals before they can disperse.
This is definitely one for people with more knowledge than me!
ahem, i think not:
http://lindleyfrench.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/is-special-relationship-dead.html
as part of my post holiday reading:
“the true foundation of the special relationship is first and foremost the relationship between the armed forces of the two countries. As retired US Army Four Star General Jack Keane said this week of the proposed Syria operation, “We operate side by side with the UK and we know who our closest ally is. We certainly would much rather do this with the UK side by side, that’s how the military feels,[and] I really think the leaders of the country feel”
@Jonathan Brown
The articles you’ve read are right in that they are discussing the maximisation of fatalities. To a terrorist, state-sponsored or not, a non-fatal dose of toxin would represent a disappointment, but non-fatal doses can still be very bad news. For example, doses of sarin too low to cause physical symptoms may be teratogenic (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2761973/). Other chemicals, such as mustard gas, are carcinogenic and mutagenic. Not much use to a terrorist, since in several months to several years’ time the immediate relationship between their actions and the effect will not be easily proven, but it would not be good news to the person who ends up breathing a cocktail of miscellaneous toxins. One can balance relative harm, for example, in the event that the material is on the verge of immediate deployment -if the choice were cancer/birth defects tomorrow versus suffocation today, you’d take the risk of long-term issues. Where the situation is not so immediately clear the local population density would be a key element in deciding a strategy (stored in remote desert, risks are low; stored in city centre, risks are high), but where immediate risks to the population from that destruction mechanism are higher than that of leaving the material in situ, the ideal would be working very hard to find a safer solution than either of those options.
Or so I surmise. I am no expert either – just making use of access to uni libraries.