Daniel Larison
Andrew Moravcsik briefly summarizes the
thesis of Guy Arnold’s America and Britain: Was There Ever a Special
Relationship? for Foreign Affairs:
Arnold argues
that the contemporary Anglo-American relationship is a bit of a sham: it
demands British loyalty and subservience without securing any consistent
American quid pro quo. The United Kingdom would be better served, he contends,
by charting a more independent path: establishing closer links to European
countries, engaging more with China, reaching a détente with Russia,
withdrawing from NATO, reducing British involvement in military interventions
around the world, removing U.S. bases from British territory, and increasing
British support for global organizations such as the International Criminal
Court.
Whether or not one agrees with Arnold’s policy recommendations, his description of how the “special relationship” between the U.S. and U.K. works seems accurate.
While the U.S. and Britain should have a strong and constructive relationship, the relationship that our governments have had over the decades, and especially during the last fifteen years or so, has been a largely one-sided and destructive one for both countries.
It has been worse for Britain in that it has imposed unnecessary costs on them while leaving them with virtually nothing to show for their troubles.
At the same time, the very “loyalty and subservience” that the relationship requires from Britain has been bad for the U.S. by making it somewhat easier for the U.S. to embark on reckless military interventions.
As we saw in Libya, it also sometimes leads the U.S. to join wars that Britain (unwisely) wants to fight but cannot wage without U.S. support.
Rather than simply being allies committed to mutual defense, as they could have been, the U.S. and British governments have spent the better part of the last two decades egging one another on to enter or start wars that were in the interests of neither country.
If the British military keeps shrinking, perhaps the relationship could become more normal and less harmful for both countries.
Whether or not one agrees with Arnold’s policy recommendations, his description of how the “special relationship” between the U.S. and U.K. works seems accurate.
While the U.S. and Britain should have a strong and constructive relationship, the relationship that our governments have had over the decades, and especially during the last fifteen years or so, has been a largely one-sided and destructive one for both countries.
It has been worse for Britain in that it has imposed unnecessary costs on them while leaving them with virtually nothing to show for their troubles.
At the same time, the very “loyalty and subservience” that the relationship requires from Britain has been bad for the U.S. by making it somewhat easier for the U.S. to embark on reckless military interventions.
As we saw in Libya, it also sometimes leads the U.S. to join wars that Britain (unwisely) wants to fight but cannot wage without U.S. support.
Rather than simply being allies committed to mutual defense, as they could have been, the U.S. and British governments have spent the better part of the last two decades egging one another on to enter or start wars that were in the interests of neither country.
If the British military keeps shrinking, perhaps the relationship could become more normal and less harmful for both countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment