At long last we are reaching the final act of Labour's disastrous foreign policy. Today's evidence from Tony Blair, Labour's best-rehearsed performer, to the Iraq inquiry will be a pivotal moment in answering a question millions of British people are still asking themselves: why did we participate in an illegal invasion of another country?
But as the Chilcot Inquiry reminds us once again of all the tortuous twists and turns of that fateful decision, there is a risk that a much larger question will go unaddressed: namely, why have successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, chosen to make British foreign policy subservient to the interests of the United States?
Related Articles British Iraq troop exit announced Career civil servant the new chief of MI6 Nick Clegg unveils Lib Dem plan to make Britain energy independent Lockerbie bomber: Libya broke promise over hero's welcome, says Scottish justice minister Gordon Brown under fire over Lockerbie silence after congratulating cricket team
Ever since the Suez crisis, the British political establishment has operated on the principle that the "Special Relationship" is sacrosanct. Tony Blair himself spelt out the stark consequences: "They [the US] need to know, are you prepared to commit, are you prepared to be there when the shooting starts?"
I am a strong believer in the value of the transatlantic relationship. It is obvious that Britain's interests on everything from terrorism to climate change and banking regulation to military procurement are heavily influenced by the policies of the world's leading superpower. I would never advocate a churlish rejection of our historic alliance with the United States. But an alliance must be balanced by the interests of both parties. It must not be a one-way street. Where Britain's interests diverge from those of the United States, we must have the freedom and self-confidence to say so.
Yet the reality is that, on far too many is
By Nick Clegg Published: 6:42AM GMT 29 Jan 2010
Comments 26 | Comment on this article
At long last we are reaching the final act of Labour's disastrous foreign policy. Today's evidence from Tony Blair, Labour's best-rehearsed performer, to the Iraq inquiry will be a pivotal moment in answering a question millions of British people are still asking themselves: why did we participate in an illegal invasion of another country?
But as the Chilcot Inquiry reminds us once again of all the tortuous twists and turns of that fateful decision, there is a risk that a much larger question will go unaddressed: namely, why have successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, chosen to make British foreign policy subservient to the interests of the United States?
Ever since the Suez crisis, the British political establishment has operated on the principle that the "Special Relationship" is sacrosanct. Tony Blair himself spelt out the stark consequences: "They [the US] need to know, are you prepared to commit, are you prepared to be there when the shooting starts?"
I am a strong believer in the value of the transatlantic relationship. It is obvious that Britain's interests on everything from terrorism to climate change and banking regulation to military procurement are heavily influenced by the policies of the world's leading superpower. I would never advocate a churlish rejection of our historic alliance with the United States. But an alliance must be balanced by the interests of both parties. It must not be a one-way street. Where Britain's interests diverge from those of the United States, we must have the freedom and self-confidence to say so.
Yet the reality is that, on far too many issues, Britain has acted as a passive satellite state for American interests: Tony Blair and Gordon Brown remained shamefully silent about allegations of torture at Guantánamo Bay and extraordinary rendition; neither the Conservatives nor Labour are prepared to question the case for the like-for-like replacement of Trident, a Cold War system dependent on Pentagon support.
Both parties were mute during the disproportionate military operation by Israel in Gaza a year ago, for fear of contradicting US policy in the Middle East. When George W Bush proposed locating the forward stations for his ill-judged missile defence shield in Yorkshire, the Government immediately agreed to make British facilities available, rather than dare to question the wisdom of the scheme; and crucially, we pursued a hopelessly under-resourced strategy in Afghanistan for eight years because of the Bush-Blair obsession with fighting an unjustified war in Iraq instead.
So the decision to invade Iraq is not the only example of subservience by default to the White House. It is simply the most dramatic. Meanwhile, the world is evolving fast in ways that make the sacred status of the Special Relationship ever harder to justify. The rise of China and India as the new superpowers of the East heralds an emerging world order in which power and influence are more dispersed. A world-view based on the pre-eminence of a single nation over all others will make less and less sense in the decades ahead.
Most telling of all is the attitude of the United States towards Britain. At the height of the Cold War, Europe was the stage upon which the great ideological conflict between capitalism and communism was played out. The world order was organised around the Berlin Wall. At that time, Britain logically stood out as the most important ally for the United States – a partner in Western Europe that could be relied on to hold the line against the Soviet Union's influence in a way that France, Germany and Italy could not. The United Kingdom was the stable bridge across the Atlantic, cemented by the Nato alliance, that allowed the United States to confront Moscow – and win.
Now, however, Europe occupies an entirely different place in the strategic calculations of President Obama and his administration. Now the challenge to US power comes from Beijing and Delhi, not Moscow. Now there are a host of other European countries, especially those released from the yoke of Soviet rule in Central and Eastern Europe, who are just as willing as the UK to promote and defend US interests.
In other words, President Obama does not need to cherish one relationship in Europe above all others in the way his predecessors did. Indeed, he has made it crystal clear that the value of the United Kingdom to the United States these days lies in our ability to foster greater coherence within Europe, so that America can increasingly deal with Europe as one. This is a simple point, but one entirely lost, it seems, on the Conservative Party.
The way in which Europe was sidelined by a deal between the US and China at the Copenhagen summit last month illustrates a new, brutal reality: Europe will only count for something in the new world order if it becomes the sum of its parts. A divided Europe will be swept aside.
So Britain has a simple choice: do we persist in believing that a limpet-like allegiance to the Special Relationship will serve our interests? Or do we drop our sentimental attachment to a world which no longer exists, and pursue our own interests by standing tall in our own European backyard? My answer is clear: it's time we repatriate our foreign policy, for the good of Britain.
Comments: 26
A very strange article. You begin by declaring we have surrendered our foreign policy to the wishes of another country, namely the USA and this is a bad thing but then you answer seems to be to do the same but this time to the EU, but in your opinion this would be a good thing. I'd rather be in with the USA, notwithstanding its faults than align with the socialist agenga of the EU. At least the USA turns up eventually - would you want to depend on France, Spain etc when it really matters? Plus the only collective policies they are interested in are the ones that put themselves first!
Much as I hate cliches, the urge to use one in this case is overwhelming ; " You couldn't make it up, could you?" One's mouth hangs open ; one's eyes bulge, and one evinces all the symptoms of ( a possibly fatal )fit of insensate rage. The sort of rage that is, one hastens to add, quite foreign to one's nature, and is reserved solely for the most outrages examples of hypocrisy that one encounters. So, mr Clagg, Cligg, Clegg, whatever your name is, we are to believe that it was wholly unacceptable to defer to the will of the US over Iraq, are we? Perhaps then you would care to explain to us why ( apart from your £60,000 pension from it, that is ) you are so keen on every detail of our public, private, and even intimate lives being governed by the so-called E.U? It is not America that would regulate every detail of our lives, and force us into a homogenised Europe, subservient to officials of your stamp, but the EU. Mind, one has to admire your business acumen slightly more than that of Judas Iscariot, who sold Jesus for a mere 30 pieces of silver. Presumably you believe that £60,000 -- plus perqs -- is reasonable compensation for selling your people into servitude. Self-serving hypocrites of your ilk sicken me to my stomach.
Thank God for NATO. Europe would be ruled by Russia, and Islamic terrorists would be running amok. Stop your whining! God bless America -- with love from Canada.
Thinly veiled Anti-American xenophobia lovingly displayed on an altar of anti-democratic European Federalism. No need to waste further words on the leader of a Party which is utterly irrelevant.
There is no, and never has been, an equal 'special relationship' with the USA. But if you are a vain glorious Prime Minister then the US gives you a world stage to play on. Thatcher and Blair being the most obvious examples. The USA is like an old friend you haven't seen in many, many years. In the meantime has become very, very wealthy. An honest man treats him as he is 'an old friend', a charlatan sticks his head up his ass.
Nick Clegg's knowledge of modern history is not so good. Britain never won anything after 1945. When Communist North Korea invaded the South and the Americans considered an all-mighty nuclear strike, it was British (Attlee?) who begged Americans NOT to do it, as Comrade Stalin made it clear he will attack NATO forces with a nuclear strike of his own. And of course, as the ICBM technology wasn't ready in USSR by 1950, this nuclear strike could be done only by heavy bombers - no prizes for guessing which lone European country, the ally of USA in Korean War, was within reach of Soviet heavy bombers in 1950. And in the times of Suez, Britain's aggression against Egypt was put to untimely end by swift action of two superpowers, USA and USSR (strange bedfellows, huh?) USA brought down British economy by torpedoing the pound; USSR in the face of Nikita Khruschev made it clear that there could be a nuclear strike. I laugh at this "special transAtlantic relationship", it was always one-way, for the benefit of the US.
Clegg overstates his case. Think Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Extraordinary. The hide of the man is breath taking. Mr Clegg, how do you square your call for an independent foreign policy (which I support whole hertedly) with your slavish support for the Lisbon Treaty, common foreign and security policy and all. Lets face it, Lib Dem foreign policy is wehatever Paris and Brussels want it to be.
That's funny, coming from you ------------------------------ Britain definitely isn't the servant of the Americans. However, thanks to you and your ilk, we ARE the servants of the undemocratic, corrupt EU. Of course, I would say that, wouldn't I - being a patriotic British tax payer who's never worked for the EU, never wants to work for the corrupt EU, and so has no interest in selling UK Sovereignty in order to empower the undemocratic Socialist EU quango. .
I think the question is, why have successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, chosen to make Britain allied to the United States at all? It's been all downhill since the war, we should have paid them for the leg up then sent them packing!
an old saying, =there is no such thing as allies only interests, if our interests are the same ,we are allies, if not we are servant and master,as regards AFG we will be discussing the problem in ten years time or longer, and a few thousand casualties as well, the russians must be laughing their socks off, that we inhereted the AFG problem.how can we beat the terrorist at home . with our home grown taliban . and dealing with the ones arriving every day with visas issued by the thousand in pakistan or middle east.the problem is insoluble.how long are we going to put up with the bodies of our lads going through the streets on the way to the graveyard.
The 'poodle' jibe sticks. Excluding NI, nearly every military campaign Britain has been involved in since the Falklands has been America's fight. We did what we were told. We have effectively pimped our military to the Pentagon and become the euro-arm of the US army. And don't get me started on the thousands of US soldiers stationed redundantly on our soil. The government should be ashamed of this subservience, and so should the British media and electorate, which have so conspicuously failed to make an issue out of it. This, not the EU, is the real threat to our sovereignty.
This sort of drivel is the reason why people can't take the Libdems seriously. We are a samll and increasingly insignificant off shore European island. We can either lie down with the Euro superstate, which is what the Libdems would have us do, or we can line up with our long time ally, America. This alliance has become more and more one sided though, and there is a price to pay. The last time we felt we could defy America was in the sixties when Harold Wilson refused to send our troops to Vietnam. We should thank God it wasn't Blair in charge then. But the fact remains that if we don't weant to be isolated or pushed around by our historical enemies, we have to side with America, with whom we have far more in common historically and culturally. This, Mr Clegg, is called realpolitik.
Read Full Article »