 |
| ABOUT US | PRACTICE GROUPS | LOCATIONS | CONTACTS |
|
July 13, 2006 Britain doesn't have to cringe Very summer for a number of years I have lectured in London for the People To People Student Ambassador Programme. People To People was founded by the late US President Dwight Eisenhower, and is still run by his granddaughter, Mary. In describing his vision for People To People, President Eisenhower declared: "I have long believed, as have many before me, that peaceful relations between nations require mutual respect between individuals." Thus People To People provides an opportunity for the brightest and best of young Americans to visit the four corners of the earth, so that when they come to play their part in public life the world will not be a closed book to them. It is over 200 years since an American ambassador from the newly liberated states bridled at receiving a missive from his French opposite number which used the verb "demander" - not realising that "demander" means "to ask" rather than "to demand". Even today, the average American's somewhat shaky grip on world affairs leaves him open to the sneers of the bien pensants of the European liberal left, who choose to forget that it was only as a result of America's intervention in the last war that Europe enjoys democracy today. Yet while I am unashamedly pro-American, I am not starry-eyed about the shortcomings of Uncle Sam. America is a young country - yet, despite its youth, its "reach" is truly awesome. The combination of youth and strength in any child presents challenges to its parents; for "child" read "America" and for "parent" read "partner" and you define the tensions of the relationship which exists between America and Britain. There have always been those who declare that the only thing special about the Special Relationship is that the Americans themselves have clearly never heard of it. A better way of putting it might be Benjamin Disraeli's famous remark that "nations don't have friends, only interests". Since the closing years of the 19th century it has been a fundamental tenet of British foreign policy that we will not oppose American policy in the Western hemisphere. That is based on no starry-eyed affection for our former pupils, but on a hard-headed recognition that teaming up with the world's greatest democracy is the best bet for stability in a troubled world. Successful partnerships do not require an equal contribution, but they do require that each should play its part. What America contributes to the special relationship is the firepower available to the most powerful nation on earth. What Britain should contribute is a historical perspective that predates the USA's by centuries. By the time this article is published it is probable that the Prime Minister will have allowed three former bankers to be extradited to America for trial - yet the crimes of which they are accused took place on British soil and involved a British bank, while the evidence of fraud is so tenuous that the British authorities have chosen not to prosecute. This occurs because the Extradition Act 2003 Act unilaterally ratified a proposed extradition treaty with America. The Government was warned during the Bill's passage of the likely consequences. Leading American extradition lawyer Douglas McNab said this week that there had been "great surprise" that the Act allowed people to be sent to the USA for trial without America having to show a prima facie case. "Why the UK did that to themselves," he declared, "I frankly do not understand." Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former Ambassador to the United Nations, describes in his book, DC Confidential, his utter frustration that despite having briefed the Prime Minister on the steps that would be necessary to pacify post-war Iraq - information gained by this country's involvement with Iraq between 1918 and 1932 - the Prime Minister remained absolutely silent on all those matters on which Britain was best placed to make a significant contribution. The aftermath of the invasion of Iraq has been a disaster without equal. The question is not whether Britain will pull out in ignominy, but simply how many British servicemen will die before the date of departure finally dawns. Yes, America must bear its share of the blame, but the real blame, as with the NatWest Three, lies in the Prime Minister's failure to understand that the interests of Britain and America are served by our acting in concert, not by our indulging in repetitive acts of cringing subjugation. Why does Tony Blair do it? Does it just seem easier at the time? Or is it born out of some experience in childhood which renders him incapable of asserting himself in the face of even friendly aggression? Frankly, I have no idea. It is said that Mr Blair is anxious to establish his place in history. Would that he had chosen to do that other than by ignoring the lessons that history brings. | |