February 11, 2009	Wednesday	Safar 15, 1430

Archives Write to Mr. Irfan Husain

As I see images of a snow-bound Britain, and read about the sub-zero temperatures there, I am more grateful than ever that I am avoiding the severe winter by being on the beach in Sri Lanka. But if there is one downside to my slice of paradise, it is that I do not get any foreign newspapers here. The local press, alas, is simply awful. So I am pathetically grateful when visitors bring a stack of magazines and dailies from Pakistan or England. Although I have access to BBC World, CNN and Al-Jazeera, being a news junkie, I do not think the day is complete without ploughing through a couple of dailies.

I followed Obama’s inauguration with great satisfaction: eight years of Bush were eight years too many. So let me share this joke that came my way via the Internet recently: an old man walks up to the White House and says to the marine guard at the gate: “I would like to see President Bush.” The marine explains that George Bush is no longer in residence as he is not the president any more. Next day, the man returns and makes the same request. Patiently, the marine repeats his earlier answer. When the guy comes back the third day and asks to see Bush again, the marine is a bit exasperated: “Sir,” he says. “Don’t you understand that George Bush is no longer president, and therefore does not live in the White House now?” The man replies: “Oh, I understand, all right. It’s just that I love the sound of those words.” The marine snaps off a smart salute and replies: “See you tomorrow, sir!”

The fact is that the rest of the world loves the sound of those words, too. Whenever a new American president is sworn in, leaders of friendly countries try to position themselves as closely as possible to the new resident of the White House. However, no other leader is as anxious as the British prime minister to forge close links with the incoming American president.

Ever since the days of Winston Churchill, the British have cherished what they call their ‘special relationship’ with America. But over the years, this relationship has frayed as British power and influence has declined. Nevertheless, politicians cling to this mythical bond between the two Anglo-Saxon, English-speaking nations. Tony Blair used it constantly to justify in part his decision to take Britain to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush paid lip-service to this concept as Blair was the only major leader to toe the neo-con line. But the reality of the ‘special relationship’ was laid embarrassingly bare when a live microphone picked up Bush’s “Yo, Blair!” summons to the British PM at a conference in Paris.Currently, there is some concern whether Obama will need Britain as much as his predecessor did.

As Martin Kettle writes in the Guardian of January 30: “If he [Obama] seeks an effective global partner for his efforts on Iran, the Middle East, climate change or the restructuring of financial institutions, he will not look first to Britain – whatever the Downing Street spin machine would have us believe. He will look to the EU, of which Britain is a part…”

But this is the problem: although the UK has long been a member of the European Union, its leaders have always looked to Washington, not Brussels. Indeed, General de Gaulle had many reservations about inviting Britain to join the European Union when it was first formed as he considered it to be an American proxy. Since then, few British governments have pretended to be anything else. Reluctant to accept its diminished role on the world stage, Britain has consistently sought to ‘punch above its weight’ in world affairs. This has involved tying its foreign policy to Washington’s agenda.

As a result, British leaders have often taken unpopular steps to stay on the right side of the American government of the day. Witness the humiliating contortions Blair put himself through to ingratiate himself with Bush. Although millions of Brits opposed his Iraq policy, and despite the political risks it involved, Blair still sent thousands of troops to Iraq. Gordon Brown publicly supports Washington in issuing a blank cheque to Israel despite the widespread anger over the atrocities Tel Aviv has committed in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

And yet, this ‘special relationship’ comes at a high price. In order to support American armed interventions in distant hot spots, Britain is forced to maintain a nuclear strike capability, a blue water navy with submarines and aircraft carriers, and an air force that can operate in different theatres. All this costs a lot of money, and a lot of manpower. As the Economist said in an editorial on 31 January:

“The air force’s transport fleet is in a poor state and the navy is shrinking, but the army is worst off. It was not designed to fight two protracted wars, and the strains are made worse by shortages of men and equipment… A billion-pound hole in the budget for military equipment means new systems have to be scaled back, delayed or hollowed out…”

These problems take on a new dimension in the current economic meltdown. With growing unemployment, banks teetering on the verge of collapse, and factories closing down every day, the government will have to husband its shrinking resources carefully. As Obama increases the number of American troops in Afghanistan, he is bound to ask allies to do more as well. But apart from the stress the British army is under, the public is going to ask why they are supporting soldiers thousands of miles away when their taxes would be better spent at home. As the recession bites harder, the opposition might well join the populist bandwagon.

For years, Britain has struggled to match its global aspirations with its shrinking resources. While its size and economic power can no longer sustain its ambitious foreign policy, it attempts to ride along on American coattails. However, it might discover that Obama will now talk to it through the EU, rather than seek to keep the old special relationship alive.