In normal circumstances, when serious differences over policy arise between Britain and America, the issues are thrashed out behind closed doors. During the build-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, former prime minister Tony Blair’s insistence on trying to secure a second United Nations resolution caused much resentment within the Bush administration. Many senior officials, such as Donald Rumsfeld, the then defence secretary, argued that Washington did not need anyone’s permission to tackle former president of Iraq Saddam Hussain, and that the US military was perfectly capable of toppling the dictator with or without Britain’s military support.
More recently, there was much unhappiness in America in 2012 over the decision by Theresa May, the British Home Secretary, to block the extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon to the US, even though he was accused of trying to access top-secret military computers. Eric Holder, the attorney general, was said to have been so angered that he seriously considered blocking intelligence-sharing operations between London and Washington. No matter how heated these exchanges might become, though, protocol always dictates that any disputes are resolved in private, not before the world’s media.
So the fact that Ashton Carter, the US Defence Secretary, has gone public with his concerns over Britain’s “disengagement” from the world, should serve as a serious wake-up call to the government that the “special relationship” between Britain and the US is now in serious jeopardy. Carter, like many other senior American officials, is becoming increasingly worried about the effects the government’s apparent obsession with cutting the defence budget is having on the war-fighting capabilities of Britain’s armed forces. US President Barack Obama raised the issue when he last met British Prime Minister David Cameron in Washington this year, while other senior administration officials and military officers have made their feelings known.
To date, these representations have been made in private with the expectation that, if enough members of the administration express criticisms, the message will eventually get through to Whitehall that any reduction in the effectiveness of the British military has implications for the US, as well as Britain. Yet, the government refuses to change tack, arguing that decisions on future defence spending, including whether Britain keeps it at the 2 per cent of gross domestic product level required by Nato membership, must await the outcome of this autumn’s spending review. There will be many, particularly on the Tory back benches, who believe that Britain’s national interest is far better served by establishing a less-dependent relationship with the Americans, particularly after all the allegations of poodleism that characterised the Blair era. Others will point out that it is a bit rich for the Americans to criticise Britain for withdrawing from the world stage when the Obama administration is actively pursuing its own policy of global retrenchment.
But if Obama’s preference for “leadership from behind” when responding to global security issues has attracted criticism, the US is also — and with good reason — increasingly preoccupied with protecting its interests in the Far East, particularly now that China has indicated it will be adopting a more offensive military posture in the decades ahead. After all, Carter’s comments lamenting the possibility that Britain would no longer be able to “punch above its weight” were made during a visit to Asia, where his primary focus was to reassure regional allies that Washington aimed to play a “pivotal” role in maintaining the region’s peace and prosperity. Under such circumstances, it is understandable that Washington should want to see like-minded allies, like Britain, take up the slack by providing firm leadership on other global issues, such as the continuing threat posed by Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).
But, as Carter pointed out, it is not just in the realm of defence that Britain is in retreat. Under Cameron’s premiership, the UK has also lost its appetite for providing firm leadership in world affairs. “I’d hate to see that go away,” he remarked, “because I think it’s a great loss to the world when a country of that much history and standing takes actions, which seem to indicate disengagement.” Nor is Carter the only high-profile figure to have drawn the American public’s attention to this depressing trend. Last week, Sir Peter Westmacott, Britain’s Ambassador to the US, was obliged to appear on CNN to refute claims made by Fareed Zakaria, the network’s foreign policy specialist, that the UK had all but resigned as a world power. If Cameron really believes Britain’s security is better served by scaling down its historic ties with Washington, then he should think again.
At a time when he wants a more detached relationship with the European Union, maintaining strong ties with Washington is vital to safeguarding Britain’s long-term interests. Otherwise, if Britain loses its standing in Washington, as well as its ability to defend itself, then the bitter truth that it is a power in terminal decline will be apparent for all to see.
— The Telegraph Group Limited, London, 2015
