No place for yes men in special relationship

I've pondered that question for several days and the only conclusion i can come to is... just how important is it to you and the rest of the people in your country? Speaking for myself, i've always held the isles in very high regard, but that is just me!

"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests .” - Lord Palmerston, British PM 1859-65

The Americans never sought to undo the British Empire. At most, they (unsuccesfully) tried to seize a territory from it (British North America) and huffed and puffed a bit about it. That's not the same thing as actively seeking the end of the empire as a whole, which implies they were doing some concrete thing intended to bring about the end of the empire.

It's Britain itself that decided to end the empire, and it did it in stages. Around the turn of the century, they decided that they could have all the fun and profit of empire without any of the bother, since British business dominated the economies of all the colonies. They could reap the profits without having to get involved in any of the mess by devolving political power to the colonies and forming the Commonwealth. Which, in the end, Britain decided to destroy as well, by dismantling as an economic union.

If the Commonwealth was empire, then Britain quit so it could hang out with its EU buddies. If Commonwealth wasn't empire, then Britain dismantled the empire for its own reasons with the Statute of Westminster. Don't blame the Americans.

…all perfectly valid points with truths in all of them, yet, it should be noted that despite all these aspects of UK-US relations, the ‘special relationship’ endures, sometimes more successful in one era than another, but prevail it does……the Muslim’s in Britain do have a voice and it is heard, and yes, there is a large body of anti-British sentiment coming from the United States, but, as can be seen in my very first post, Britain and the United States are once again outlining their future foreign policy, and on the (public) face of it, they are pretty much still in tune with each other like I said though, behind the scenes, alternative views may be discussed …a recent study argues that  ‘It is important to distinguish the ‘special relationship’ as a policy and the ‘special relationship’ as a state of international interaction. ‘Special relationship’ as a policy has always been almost entirely a British affairs’ (John Dumbrell, A Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq second edition  (Hampshire, 2006) p.12)..that is quite true…but for the sake of Anglo-American unity, the relationship is portrayed by both as being a valuable one, because, despite any differences, over all, it is!!!…

…sorry, this is quite lengthy, but by using some primary sources, it kind of gives the story a degree of depth….but to give just one example, there was huge public opinion here in Britain against American foreign policy in Vietnam, we have all seen the footage from America of anti-war protesters and the fervour with which they pushed their objections, but it is easy to forget that the same kind of protests were a regular occurrence in Great Britain…and I think it is too easy to not fully appreciate the intensity of the period regarding the conflict, foreign policy and the potential damage that could have been infected in Anglo-American relations….during that period, anti-American sentiment from Britain was strong indeed, yet, Anglo-American ties once again survived…..even political opinion within the British government was opposed to American actions ….In September 1967, George Brown (Foreign Secretary) reiterated: “The Government did not support the war. They deplored its escalation. They condemned the continued bombing on North Vietnam.” (Cabinet Conclusions, CAB 128/42/Part 2, CC (67) 57^th conclusions, 28^th September 1967, The National Archives)…

……and Prime Minister Wilson refused consistently to entertain the Churchillian philosophy of an Anglo-American affiliation……it was in Harold Wilson’s interest to play down the connotations of a ‘special relationship’ with the United States in order to safeguard and promote Britain’s position as a mediator in the Vietnam War….the Prime Minister preferred instead to maintain a ‘close relationship’ based on “a common purpose, common objectives, and as far as can be achieved, community of policy. A relationship based not on condescension or on a backward looking nostalgia for the past, but on the ability of both parties to put forward their strength and their own unique contribution to our common purpose.” (‘Anglo-American Relations: A Special Case.’ Speech given at University of Texas in April 1971, cited in John Baylis, Anglo-American Relations since 1939 (Manchester, 1997) p.165)…

….and yet, despite having this knowledge, despite  insisting that no there would be no British military commitment, despite huge political and public pressure, despite President’s Johnson’s repeated request for military assistance, and against every Labour fibre in his body, the PM still alluded to the idea of a special relationship by giving some political support and conceding to some American expectations…..and it was appreciated too….a personal telegram in October 1967 from Johnson to the Prime Minister referred to the war in Vietnam…..the President wrote, “I think you understand how much it matters that the Government of the country which means most to me, aside from my own, is lending its support for what we all know is right, despite the storms around us.” (Prime Ministerial papers, Johnson telegram to Wilson shortly after the Scarborough Labour Conference, 5^th October 1967. The National Archives, PREM 13/2459)…

…In addition, in 1965, McGeorge Bundy informed the President that support from the Labour Government was “not only harder get but somewhat more valuable in international terms.” (Memorandum to the President from McGeorge Bundy (Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs) with reference to the British and Vietnam, 3^rd June 1965, David M. Barrett (ed), Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vietnam Papers, A Documentary Collection (Texas, 1997) p.164)…

….Lord Paul Gore-Booth, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office reflected upon the nature of the ‘special relationship’ while he was in office. There was, he said, “a natural closeness of co-operation between people in the American administration and in the machine in the State Department and people doing the same sort of thing in Britain,” adding that “President Johnson entirely understood Mr Wilson’s domestic difficulties,” and was “grateful that…we at least didn’t get pushed over emotionally into an officially anti-American attitude.” (Gore-Booth, 13^th July 1970, cited in Baylis, Anglo-American Relations since 1939, pp.154-157)..

..so, it is possible to see from this example that even though the US was mired in what was perhaps the most important foreign policy action in American history and a conflict that was both militarily and politically damaging… all this and Britain refused to physically support the United States when it was most needed and called for….Anglo-American relations were damaged for sure, but co-operation and close ties between the two countries survived one of the most potentially destructive periods in United Kingdom-United States association…..even when Nixon and Kissinger took their place in the White House they hoped to develop a closer relationship with the British….when Edward Heath became PM, Washington still hoped British membership of the EEC might bring some benefit to the United States…when Harold Wilson returned to power in 1974, you would have thought that Anglo-American relations would be tarnished by the memory of Britain’s role (or lack of) in the Vietnam conflict, but there was a general improvement in the trans-Atlantic relationship…and finally, most know about the closeness of the Thatcher-Reagan era…  

……apart from the answers that Edgewater’s and Pikeshot have offered, I also think perhaps it is precisely that the United States were ‘feverish’ in their attempts to create their own ‘empire’ in all but name, that widespread general criticism from British opinion is not prevalent….after all, it would be pretty hypocritical of British political circles to condemn another powers desire to build an ‘empire’ when the country had done the precisely the same in the past, nor does the statement take into account that there is significant number of British people who object to the country’s colonial history…some ‘objections’ might be there in principle, but it is difficult to find on public record, many government statements condemning United States policy outright….more often than not, behind the scenes, British officials have had to accept United States policy whether they liked it or not, and if they did not, attempts were generally made to modify or moderate Washington’s actions with varying degrees of success and failure…

…anyway, I am sorry for the long reply…I know such posts take a lot of effort to work through…

..all the best…AoO…

In a sense, the US is an empire comprised of loosely controlled vassals rather than outright provinces or colonies. That's the direction Britain was headed prior to WW2, the US simply took up the reigns after Britain proved unable or unwilling to continue holding them.

Definately, it's why I quoted Palmerston. There is no 'special relationship' merely mutual interests that have continued long enough to give that appearance.

The war bankrupted Britain and very nearly did the same to the US. There was no money.

..to be honest, I do not know of any direct sources that give the indication that Britain’s policy in the American war in Vietnam was in part influenced by Washington’s actions during Suez…I would hazard an assumption and say that I am sure there were some British officials who saw Britain’s Vietnam policy as some sort of vindication over the Suez affair, I recall reading some material long ago that certainly suggested that some in the White House believed this to be so….even so, one account observes that later, Nixon and Kissinger would argue that the United States should have backed the British over Suez… (C. J. Bartlett, ‘The Special Relationship’: A Political History of Anglo-American Relations since 1945 (London, 1992) p.78)…

....as for British Commitment and Foreign Policy in Vietnam, Harold Wilson supported the view that Britain should attempt to re-build itself as an influential global power and the method he chose was not to support American military action but to put Britain forward as a political mediator in the Vietnam conflict…Wilson resisted all American pressure to commit ground troops to the fighting and continued to pursue a policy of peaceful conclusion to the Vietnam War…. Britain’s position in 1967-68 was one of conflicting loyalties between continuing Co-chairmanship of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China, and preserving a viable political relationship with the United States….this policy was influenced by the fact that Britain was struggling with its economic situation…..British Ministers were often pre-occupied in looking for options to resolve Britain’s domestic financial difficulties as well as minimising defence expenditure in Europe and elsewhere abroad…..during the latter half of 1967, discussions were already underway concerning plans for the withdrawal of all British military influence east of Suez…… against this backdrop of political and economic difficulties, a commitment of British troops to Vietnam was certainly out of the question….

...however, there is one argument that suggests that Washington applied a rather acute level of pressure on Britain if London supported a policy of total dissociation with American policy in Vietnam… the British Government’s willingness to defer dissociation was influenced by the possible long-term consequences of upsetting the American administration whose future actions could affect Britain’s role and status in Western Europe….. Dean Rusk had indicated that in the event of isolationist sentiment prevailing in Congress, it would be unwise for Britain to dissociate from United States policy in Vietnam. In a letter to the British Foreign Secretary, Rusk warned, “those very senators who are opposing the President’s policies in Vietnam are among the same senators who are pressing for our withdrawal from Europe.” Rusk continued that these politicians “are just as isolationist about Europe as they are about South-East Asia.” (Prime Ministerial Papers, The National Archives, PREM 13/2459, Rusk letter to Brown, September 1967)…

…..George Brown did express fears that if dissociation became public, the present and future American administrations might, “cease to exert themselves at all in favour of British interests,” adding that it would be hard to believe “the United States administration will take a helpful line in respect of our financial, economic and commercial problems.” (Cabinet Papers,, The National Archives, CAB 129/134/Part 1, Brown’s assessment for Cabinet discussion, 15^th November 1967)…

….This last point was particularly central to a British Government that knew devaluation of sterling was imminent. Indeed, practically all the Cabinet meetings in the latter half of 1967 were mainly devoted to the impending reality of the devaluation of sterling, and for the first two weeks of January 1968, the Cabinet meetings were all chiefly concerned with post-devaluation measures and difficulties. (Cabinet Papers, The National Archives, CAB 128/43/Part 1, CC (68), see conclusions for 4^th, 5^th, 9^th, 11^th, 12^th, and 15^th January 1968)…

..there is something else to this story, I seem to recall viewing some Foreign Office documents from the British archives that state, in the early 1960’s, the British government believed the war in Vietnam could not be won by the Americans…..hence, another reason  not to military commit to the conflict, but push forward Britain’s role as a mediator instead…now, I was pretty sure that I had these documents on file, but I simply cannot find them without looking through a vast amount of material, which then makes me doubt my memory(which is easy to do I can assure you!!)…I am quite certain that I have this evidence, but until it surfaces, I can only say the above statement is speculative at best…

…so, there were many practical reasons for British policy in Vietnam, but I doubt that ‘revenge’ over Suez was one of them…it seems that London was more preoccupied with more immediate circumstances…however, I would not be surprised if there was something more revealing tucked away in the archives…

..all the best….AoO..

Deliberate distortion doesn't really assist in that process.

A knee-jerk response. I'm not 'siding' with anyone. You just presume I am because my views on the events that happened don't agree with your imperialist Soviet revisionism. I haven't made any moral/ethical judgement about decolonization or the lack thereof.

You mean Pearson. 

Well if you are aware Independence was always a goal of Britain although I would not deny there were forces opposed to that. 40 years is not a long time and yes countries do plan in many areas over that or even longer timescales.

Note also if referring to me, I did NOT say decolonisation was bad. I said that the RESULTS of decolonisation has been bad in many areas by the actions of those who took power. I quoted Mugabe as an example.

I would suggest to you that basically the British Empire devolved power to the inhabitants (including the original inhabitants) of the various countries from the 1800's on. Some took longer than others some relatively quick. AFAIK the went peacefully in Austrailia, Canada, New Zealand, Fiji, Pacific Islands, Malaysia, West Indies, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Basutoland, Mauritius, Seychelles and others. Troubles there were in Rhodesia and Kenya and lesser troubles in India. However, all gained their independance and remained in the British Commonwealth and were pleased to do so. Many of them have adopted British Parliamentary traditions.

I assume you disapprove very much the way China and the USSR have handled their empires and still do to this day.

 I presume your location as shown has given rise to an assumption you are Cuban. Not unreasonable.

Eh? Desire hasn't got a thing to do with it.

And no, they were not seized of the matter in 1887 ... they had begun to discuss it, because necessity had already imposed several ad hoc instances of more autonomy being granted to colonies. In particular, the reforms of 'responsible government' as it was termed by the British (not me). Apologies for the emphasis, but it's necessary given your style.

I have? I was arguing with him until you jumped in and proclaimed everyone else full of "bollocks" and magnanimously began expounding your brilliant ideas to us clueless imperialist fascist racist nazis.

He - the "imperialist guy" - wrote my words?

Anyway, if you mean nuvolari, you really ought to try reading through threads more carefully. That wasn't his position at all, he was arguing against just that, as you are. His contention was that the US had destroyed the empire, and he was bitter about it.

Well ... it was, in some cases. I didn't say it was always bad. I said some former colonies have had a hard go since independance, because they were made economically dependant and then abandoned.

Immediate wasn't fast enough. Your post got censored because you were calling for killings of a certain ethnic group of a certain nationality. Any reasonable person would understand that such is unacceptable, but apparently, you still don't ... it's all a racist, imperialist conspiracy against you, and we should have just understood that it's your right to encourage mass killings. Right?

It must be lonely for you at such lofty ethical heights.

Indeed.

Then what do you call social security? 

India has a Parliament, right now, as we speak.

Mostly in the 50s. Are these supposed to be rhetorical questions?

I honestly don't think you're going to find that the "true colours" are going to be what you expect or preconceive them to be, and you might expose your own "true colours" in the process, more than you do anyone else's. Which may not be what you expect, either.

Yes ... the fact that Britain built up totally dependant economies in most of these countries, and imposed artificial political systems that did not recognize socio-ethnic realities in these countries, meant that when Britain abandoned them it left most of these countries holding the bag. Their economies collapsed and ethnic tensions broke out, to the degree that most of the biggest conflict fault lines (eg Pakistan/India, Israel, many African countries, etc) are all former British colonies. The French did the same thing, with similar results.

Ethically speaking, the British never should have built an empire in the first place - although that really holds true for any empire (including the Soviet Union), so we might say it's neither here nor there, given that empires were being built by everyone at the time (even native Africans - eg Shaka).

But once they had, once empire was already a de facto reality, there are still things they might have done to benefit both themselves and the world at large. The principles expressed in the concept of a Commonwealth of Nations - a voluntary, cooperative association of sovereign states - could have brought much peace and prosperity to a large part of the world, if those principles had been lived up to. But the only places Britain took those principles to heart was in the so-called "White Dominions" (Canada, Aus, NZ), in practice it treated the rest of the Commonwealth like an empire, and abused it for short-term gain. Had it done in the other colonies what it had done in the White Dominions, they would today be succesful, developed countries. Places like India could have been rich countries with progressive, pluralistic societies, just like Canada (which would have been of great benefit to Britain, incidentally, and could have been realized were it not for their irrational, myopic superiority complex). Instead, they are disaster areas struggling to recover from years of dependancy and abuse.

It needed them; and through force, it made them need it; and then it walked away, once it needed them no more.

Well now, that's fine if you're English. England was around and has its own history, indepedant of the Empire. Not all of the former colonies have a history outside of the Empire, eg Canada, Australia, New Zealand. There were of course native civilizations in these places previously, which some feel a great deal of kinship with and sorrow for. But the societies in those countries today have no history outside the empire.

So you're saying it's wrong to celebrate the Ottomans? 

I'll keep that in mind!

So you're saying it's wrong to celebrate the Ottomans?  I'll keep that in mind!

Bah, smarter people than you have tried that line in the past. By all means, remind this to me if I justify Turkish invasion of Mexico with tales of Ottoman benevolence. If you can't do that you are just a slimy liar, dropping allegations like this.

This is exactly what I am talking about. It is no coincidence that the greatest fans of the British Empire are the ones who think the US is saving the world today. 

Let's see what's going on in the world, shall we? Americans in Iraq killing hundreds of thousands, raping and pillaging and stealing the oil. Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing thousands, raping and pillaging. American weapons and American supported Apartheid regime in Palestine killing thousands. Americans threatening Iran for what? Americans threatening Cuba. Americans raping Africa forcing unfavourable trade agreements on them...

Problems caused by Mugabes of the world are nothing next to the problems caused by your Dubya. 

If you can't apply the same standards you judge others with to yourself, then don't expect anyone with a brain to buy what you're peddling. I would be most surprised if anyone came to your defence here.

No, it is not coincidence at all. It is an imagination brought to us by the magic of pseudocommunist intuition.

I don't care to expand it, those who call for us to do so just want us to march to Dieppe and Gallipolli all over again. No thanks.

If someone wants to emulate us, that's their business. I have no interest in foisting anything upon any other culture by any means.

More petty equivocation! I suppose you fancy yourself clever because you can spit out amphiboly and beg the question. First show me where I said anything of the sort. Or, by default, accept that you were being hypocritical.

I do not subscribe to Manicheaen simplifications. The world isn't black and white.

So true ... just compare the economic policies of Eisenhower vs Clinton ...