Special Relationship between Britain and the US - Case Study Example

To what extent is the 'special relationship' between Britain and the US based on common interest? The United States and the United Kingdom share more than just English as a common language. Importantly, the United States and the United Kingdom share a history of non-interference in the domestic affairs of one another since the American Revolution overthrew the British imperial crown from the shores of the Americas (with the exception of Canada, of course). Importantly as well, there are a variety of factors which contribute to the special and unique relationship shared by the United States and the United Kingdom. While a common history and a common language are probably the most obvious examples of the common bonds shared by these two important world powers, the United States and the United Kingdom also share mutual interests in maintaining a world order in which a Western Anglo-Saxon worldview remains supreme. While much has been made about the decline of the United Kingdom as the world’s hegemonic power since the Second World War and the ascendency of the United States to the helm of the international system, these two political parties share a common interest in maintaining the status quo in international political affairs. While the United Kingdom has been unceremoniously usurped by the United States as the most powerful nation on earth, the UK has done so graciously and understands that an international political system headed by the United States of America can serve to further its interests as well. Looking at the role of the international neoliberal capitalist system, perpetuated both at home and abroad by both the United States and the United Kingdom, we will demonstrate how mutual interests have shaped the international affairs of these two countries (Keohane, 1989 201) . Looking at the US decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent British decision to join the war effort, despite opposition in the United Kingdom, will demonstrate that geostrategic political concerns in London influenced the decision to join a War which was unpopular throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. We now turn to an introduction to the roots of the “special relationship” between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Introduction The British colonial enterprise was one of the largest and most successful making the British Empire one of the largest known empires in human history. Colonialism has had a lasting impact on many countries of the developing world but also paved the way for the establishment of modern democracies such as the United States, Australia and Canada. While few countries of the world were immune to colonial penetration, the enduring influence of the colonial legacy can be found in the underdeveloped as well as the developed regions of the world today. Stretching from the Western North American shores, down to the Caribbean, through the Middle East and into Asia, British colonialism was unmatched at its height in sheer global supremacy. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been an economic powerhouse for centuries and as the “dominant industrial and maritime power of the 19th century, the UK has played a leading role in developing parliamentary democracy worldwide” (Tripp, 2003). Accordingly, the Britain imperial legacy in places such as the United States, Australia and Canada includes the spread of democracy, the English language and a multitude of Anglo-Saxon values and virtues. Importantly, the UK did impart liberal democracy and establish democratic traditions in the countries encompassing the British Empire; whether they have retained that democratic tradition is another matter. We now turn to another important interest both the United States and the United Kingdom share: the promotion of global capitalism. Global Capitalism & Neoliberal Economics Capitalism is arguably the most well-known model of economic development and growth and is responsible for the globalization of international trade, foreign capital and the growth and development of much of the Western world (excluding Cuba and including Australia, which is commonly included in economic analyses of the “West”). Capitalism advocates free market economic principles of development and believes in deregulation, a belief in the invisible distributive hand of the markets and the promotion of a market-oriented society. From this perspective, the role of the state is to promote economic development through policies which are beneficial to market-oriented economic growth. Capitalism has propelled the advent of economic globalization and the strong economic growth and development exhibited in the countries of the West. It is currently being embraced as a development model by the formerly socialist countries of Eastern Europe (former states of the U.S.S.R.) and is responsible for tremendous economic growth on a global scale. While the origins of capitalism are often under debate, the British colonial experience undoubtedly contributed to the remarkable spread of this form of economic development throughout the far reaches of the empire. Importantly today, the United States is at the helm of a global economic system in which capitalism reigns supreme (see Strayer, 1998). Globalization, as it exists today, rests largely on the shoulders of neoliberal economics and the global entrenchment of capitalism as the dominant economic system in the world. Inspired by Realist ideological doctrine, neo-liberalism is the belief in laissez-faire economics and its early proponents were Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States in the 1980s. US President Ronald Regan famously remarked “government was not the solution but the problem” (Hobsbawm 1994, 199). Neo-liberals put all of their faith in the distributive capabilities of the invisible hand of the free market, and believe that business was inherently good and that government bad. The government was longer interested in the provision of welfare but existed to stimulate the capitalist economic market. The United States under Ronald Reagan was thus described as the “greatest of the neo-liberal regimes” (Hobsbawm 1994, 204). Accordingly, The essence of neo-liberalism, its pure form, is a more or less thoroughgoing adherence, in rhetoric if not in practice, to the virtues of a market economy, and, by extension, a market-oriented society. While some neo-liberals appear to assume that one can construct any kind of ‘society’ on any kind of economy, the position taken here is that the economy, the state and civil society are, in fact, inextricably interrelated (Coburn 2000, 44). The United States and the United Kingdom share a vested interest in the promotion of global capitalism, a system in which they are in an important position to benefit from the global expansion of this form of economic enterprise. As history shows us, the United States and the United Kingdom share a common bond which during times of crisis remains unscathed by popular opinion. Looking at the controversial decision by the United States and the United Kingdom to invade Iraq – without prior UN Security Council sanction – the following explores a contentious event in US/UK recent political history. The US/UK Invasion of Iraq (2003) The world forever changed the morning of September 11th 2001. The attacks on the World Center represented the most serious terrorist acts ever carried out on US soil. A watershed moment in world history, that fateful morning will forever be engrained in the American national psyche. Although the United States and the United Kingdom have historically been committed to multilateralism, collective decision-making and international rules of law, in recent times the United States has rejected foreign policy precedent and has engaged in direct military action on a unilateral basis. Former US President Woodrow Wilson espoused multilateralism as a cure to the world’s ills and believed that concerted diplomacy, best channeled through international non-governmental organizations like the League of Nations (the precursor to today’s United Nations), was the best way to avoid international conflict and violence. Collective bargaining and international coordination in global affairs has a long and storied tradition in the United States. The same is true in a post-World War II UK which sought to decolonize its territorial possessions and integrate those former colonies into a Commonwealth of nations. Arguing that the rules of the game had changed in the post-Cold War and post-9/11 world, George W. Bush’s famously remarked that “you are either with us or against us” and set the stage for American unilateralism on a global scale (Skidmore 2005, 207-242). The decision by the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 was incredibly controversial throughout the UK as well as on the shores of Europe. Seen by many as an attempt by the United States to exert its global hegemony and dispose of a dictator not for the benefit of the Iraqi people, nor due to the supposed cache of weapons of mass destruction, but to obtain access to the vast oil resources of Iraq, this invasion is arguably the most controversial aspect of American foreign policy within the past quarter century. The US invasion of Iraq was controversial for a variety of reasons, the not least of which was the fact that the invasion did not first receive United Nations Security Council approval: an important condition in international relations which effectively legitimizes decisive political action. Opinion polls, conducted in Europe prior to the invasion by both the British Broadcasting Corporation and global pollster Ipsos Reed, effectively demonstrated how different European perceptions of the War were in comparison to those of Americans (who were divided, albeit less opposed, to the invasion). According to a poll by German magazine Forsa, 57% of Germans felt that "the United States is a nation of warmongers" and only 6% felt that they thought that US President George W. Bush was concerned with “preserving peace”. Pollster Emnid found that 54% of young Berliners (under the age of 30) had a “mostly negative” association with the United States, as opposed to 36% who saw it as “mostly positive”. Russian support for US pre-emptive action stood at just 23% according a Gallup poll. In the United Kingdom, 51% of those polled by the Times Newspaper left that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was a “US poodle” and a more 25% thought that enough evidence of WMD had been uncovered to justify the war. These sentiments, across a diverse continent, adequately sum up European perceptions of US foreign policy in the region (British Broadcasting Corporation 2003). Concluding Remarks The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is deep and complex. A history of non-interference as well as a common history and a language have set the stage for a dynamic relationship which has stood the test of time. While they were once political adversaries, the United States and the United Kingdom share a common interest in maintaining Western Anglo-Saxon geopolitical supremacy on the international stage. The ascendency of the United States to the helm of the international system following World War II changed the dynamics between these two powers but affirmed the commitment that while the international order had changed, Anglo hegemony would remain. The spread of capitalist-inspired neoliberalism and the combined US/UK effort to topple Saddam Hussein epitomise this trend. BIBLIOGRAPHY Coburn, D, ‘Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism’, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 51, no. 1 (2000), pp. 135-146. Hobsbawm, E. (1994). Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991. London: Abacus. Horsley, W, “Polls find Europeans oppose Iraq war”. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003. Last Accessed May 06 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747175.stm Keohane, R.O. International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations. Westview: Boulder, 1989. Simon, S, “The Price of the Surge”, Foreign Affairs. 87:3 (May/June 2008): 57-76. Skidmore, D, “Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy Analysis 1.2(2005): 207-288. Strayer, RW, Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? Understanding Historical Change. New York: I. E. Sharpe, 1998. Tripp, C, Iraq: The Imperial Precedent. Le Monde Diplomatique. January, 17, 2003. Read More