and

A personal perspective

by

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are fond of referring to the "special relationship" that exists between the United States and the United Kingdom. It's a relationship that took some time to develop, and still causes much discussion.

In fact, the United States is actually older than the United Kingdom. It's something a lot of folk don't realise. When Britain's American colonies declared their independence in 1776, there was no United Kingdom as such. The Act of Union of 1801 brought together Great Britain and Ireland as one sovereign nation. This lasted until 1921 with the partition of Ireland into the Irish Free State and pro-British Northern Ireland.

This first little history lesson is intended primarily to show British (maybe I should say "UK") people that the special relationship between these nations is not something that we can take for granted. There has always been a tendency for "Brits" to see themselves as the senior partners in the relationship. Certainly, the USA were formed from colonies populated mainly by English-speaking emigrants. It's also true that there was a considerably large group of people in the New World in July 1776 that did not want independence.

We shouldn't forget that it wasn't much until the end of the 19th Century that America began to emerge on the world stage. Back in 1812, British troops attacked Washington DC and burned the Capitol. If there was a "special relationship" then, it must have been a rather strained one!

Many countries are bound together with ties of culture, language and religion. German-speaking Austria, for example, shares many of these things with her larger neighbour, yet remains fiercely independent. The one attempt that was made to unite those nations by Hitler came eventually to nought.

Twenty-five years ago, a personal and very special relationship between Britain and the USA was formed when I married a lady from California. We share a growing family today, yet my wife remains as American as the day she was born. We've had quite a few "1776's" and "1812's" since we were wed, but for both of us it has been a very successful partnership.

Until I met and married Lurline, all I knew about America came from books, films, television and the people of that country I had served alongside in the Royal Air Force with NATO. When I left the air force, Lurline and I went to live in the USA. There I discovered a markedly different attitude on the part of Americans towards the British as the other way round. Growing up in the UK, I had been conscious of a prevailing sense of jealousy on the part of many older people towards America. Perhaps it was part of the post-war reconstruction and the realisation that the days of Empire were coming to an end. Many British folk had experience of American troops coming to our country at a time when food rationing was in force, with seemingly endless supplies of things we hadn't been able to buy for years.

On the other hand, almost all the Americans that I met were especially fond of talking about Britain in terms of great affection and awe. Our history and traditions were always held in great respect. For me, used to living abroad in the services, I found my welcome in the USA extremely warm. It did not take me very long to discover just why the United States has become the richest and most powerful nation on the planet.

I think the first great impression that I had was just how hard Americans work as a people. Having been used to four weeks holiday (vacation) a year, it came as quite a shock to find out my employers only gave me one week, and that I had to stay with them for 20 years before I got three weeks! The work ethic was different too. Loyalty to the company or organisation was expected and freely given. At that time, Britain was plagued by strikes and general industrial unrest. My US colleagues belonged to a trade union, but there was no "us and them" division like I had been used to at home.

Not very long after my arrival in California, I realised that I should have become a lawyer! The concept of "freedom" is so fundamental to the American way of life that it pervades almost every aspect of their daily round. Perhaps the rush with which Americans go to their lawyers at the drop of a hat defeats British logic. I see the "litigation culture" slowly seeping into the UK and I have to admit that it disturbs me somewhat.

One of the other surprises for me was to find that there are also poor Americans. Very little is ever heard about the disadvantaged outside of their home neighbourhoods. The image of America put out by the PR people has no room for such unpleasant truths. The pursuit of the "American Dream" is considered "de rigour" and nobody has much time for failure. On the other hand, in the UK we are very much more used to looking after those who don't make it. Our welfare and health care systems are far more generous than those across the Atlantic. We put more store into "playing the game" than in actually winning the game. Americans don't. That's why they are on top. QED.

"Two countries separated by a common language" is a well-known quote that is particularly appropriate at the turn of this new century. I don't know whether I'm related to Noah Webster (of dictionary fame) but he did make some valiant attempts to make the English language more appropriate. Brits might not like the fact that most foreigners have adopted American spellings more readily than British ones. With the rapid expansion of the Internet, and the American lead in Information Technology, it will not be very long before that common language becomes even more common! As a writer, I am all in favour of anything that makes our language easier for people to learn. This article is written in British English, but that's only because I'm too lazy to change the keyboard settings. Force of habit does come into play a little too!

As far as the political and economic relationship between the two nations goes, the very nature of "globalization" (using the American spelling) means that it could very well change in the years to come. Many Britons are uneasy about the country's standing within the European Union. A strong band of opinion favours closer links with the USA and Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Britons generally have an affection for tradition and don't take kindly to their laws being overturned by European ones. Americans too are sometimes uneasy about the increasing role of the federal government and the subsequent loss of individual State's rights.

Whatever the future, I am personally convinced that the special relationship can only grow closer as the world becomes culturally smaller. We've largely lost the fear of global warfare, and replaced it by the fear of global warming. Both nations need to warm their relationships with all other countries most of all in this new century.

UPDATE - NOVEMBER 2001

Eleven months ago, as you see above, I wrote that "we've largely lost the fear of global warfare", yet, in a few short hours on September 11th of this year, things have changed....

Editors, by their very nature, are always conscious of re-avaluating what they have written in the past when something cataclysmic occurs that challenges them to "think again".

I have read my original article over again. I am not changing a word, but merely adding something. War on a global scale as we know it is finished. I speak as someone with a military background who has been through the "Cold War" and experienced direct attack by terrorists. A new kind of war is however now being fought today. It does not easily respond to traditional forms of defence. The war is still between ideologies and religious faiths, and (sadly) between races. The new and worrying difference is that it is being fought under new rules.

Britain and the United States are both countries with cosmopolitan populations. Both have a reasonably clear differentiation between "church" and "state". Other nations have problems with that differentiation. You can't easily win a war against another country, if that country can call upon the support of others across the world based solely upon religious beliefs. As well as the need to protect everyone against the vicious acts of misguided people, there is a need for tolerance and understanding as never before.

I believe that the people of the USA and Great Britain will rise to this latest challenge to our ideals of freedom. People of goodwill, regardless of their professed faith, will always find a way to compromise. God assures us of that. Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Children of God." As we stand ready to defend our rights as free people, let us strive also to be peacemakers.

UPDATE: FEBRUARY 2003

Peace is always gained at a price. For 12 long years, the people of Iraq have yearned for freedom from an evil and determined dictator, Saddam Hussain. He should have been removed from power at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, but the Allied troops stopped before reaching Baghdad. That mistake has cost many tens of thousands of Iraqis their lives.

At this time, thousands of American and British fighting men and women are amassing on the borders of Iraq. Alone in the world, only America and Britain are standing up to take action against a regime that threatens world peace and is murdering its own citizens day by day. Only the American and British leaders are prepared to face down criticism amongst their own people, many of whom are opposed to a war with Iraq under ANY circumstances.

Millions of people took to the streets to protest against the looming war. Millions more (far more millions more) stayed at home and didn't. The anti-war protestors get more media coverage than the supporters, because they are the more radical. It is, once again, the mainly silent majority who place their trust in their elected leaders who need to be heard.

The protestors claim that they are in the majority. They are not. A variety of polls have been published in newspapers and broadcast on TV. All of them show different results. A Parlimentary vote showed a large "rebellion" by Labour MPs opposing the government line. Still, it was insufficient to defeat the government from its course of action. Polls in the United States show a higher number of people in favour of war, because it is once again the United States that is showing the lead.

I believe that the United Kingdom must support the United States and use military force to overthrow Saddam Hussain, with or without a firm mandate from the United Nations for such action. If this is not done, Iraq will continue to develop weapons of mass destruction and one day release them against other nations. If this is not done, many more thousands (even millions) of Iraqis will die at the hands of their tyrannical overlord. If this is not done, the United Nations will have lost all credibility as a world body.

War is a terrible thing. War must always be avoided unless there is no other option. All other options in the case of Saddam Hussain have been played out. They have all failed. We have to go to war - I wish it wasn't so.

UPDATE: JUNE 2004

Any writer, especially a writer who comments on political matters, must always be careful to look to the future. When I wrote my last update in February of 2003, I was convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Although the evidence of such weapons has not yet been discovered to the degree that most critics of the invasion of Iraq demand, I remain convinced that the Saddam regime had biological and chemical weapons in sufficient quantity to present a threat. I believe that, given the opportunity, Saddam would have developed and deployed nuclear weapons. The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom has suffered considerable strains by the Iraq affair. With the usual opportunism that is so very typical of politicians, many MPs of all parties in the UK are now pretending that they were in some way forced to vote for our participation in the invasion of Iraq by undue influence of Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The Prime Minister presented his reasons for going to war against Saddam on the basis of military and political intelligence available to him at the time. It is claimed by many that he simply followed the dictates of his ally, US President George W. Bush. This is patently ridiculous, since Mr. Blair is nobody's "poodle". One does not become the political leader of the United Kingdom by blindly following the dictates or desires of others. This page was originally supposed to be a "one-off" article. It must now develop with further updates as that special relationship moves forward in this new political century.