Does Britain Have its own Foreign Policy ?

[Freedom06]

A few days ago Tony Blair was parroting the old Bush line of "staying the course'-in fact he was the only person left that seemed to think that no new thinking was necessary.

Now, coincindentally a few days after it becomes clear that Bush has given up on the old 'stay the course' rhetoric and is preparing for the Baker Commission report which is likely to recommend engagement with Iran and Syria-Blair happens to give a speech calling for a suprisingly similar approach. Fancy that. Why do we have to wait for an american change in climate before we state the obvious? Why do we constantly play the poodle-I for one am getting tired of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6144996.stm

[Stolly]

After this debacle, i suspect many British governments in the future will be happy to have a little bit more distance between Washington and Whitehall.

[XShipRider]

A few days ago Tony Blair was parroting the old Bush line of "staying the course'-in fact he was the only person left that seemed to think that no new thinking was necessary.

Now, coincindentally a few days after it becomes clear that Bush has given up on the old 'stay the course' rhetoric and is preparing for the Baker Commission report which is likely to recommend engagement with Iran and Syria-Blair happens to give a speech calling for a suprisingly similar approach. Fancy that. Why do we have to wait for an american change in climate before we state the obvious? Why do we constantly play the poodle-I for one am getting tired of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6144996.stm

Could it be because both countries are losing good soldiers in A and I?
It only makes sense to have a cohesive strategy for whatever the
future course is to be. If it's a pullout it needs to be carefully
executed by all players.

Churchill and FDR certainly tried to keep the parties together
strategically throughout WWII.

[mas-36]

Could it be because both countries are losing good soldiers in A and I?
It only makes sense to have a cohesive strategy for whatever the
future course is to be. If it's a pullout it needs to be carefully
executed by all players.

Churchill and FDR certainly tried to keep the parties together
strategically throughout WWII.

There are other nations involved in A and I, but no one seems to care for their input, probably one of the reasons why their forces are dwindling or being pulled out.

As for FDR and Churhill, they certainly kept things nice and cozy on the surface, but underneath they were clearly pulling opposite directions on many issues. A good book I've read often called "Allies at War" by Simon Betheon. A good read which exposes a lot of the distrust and bickering between leaders

A question for the British members: Do your media/government officials/fellow Britons often invoke Churhill or talk about him? I wonder, because it would seem he's the only Britisher most Americans have ever heard of after the Queen. Especially in the right-wing elements of the US, Churhill is refered to in so many instances, whether on television, newsprint, or radio talkshows.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

A question for the British members: Do your media/government officials/fellow Britons often invoke Churhill or talk about him? I wonder, because it would seem he's the only Britisher most Americans have ever heard of after the Queen. Especially in the right-wing elements of the US, Churhill is refered to in so many instances, whether on television, newsprint, or radio talkshows.

Churchill does seem to get quoted a lot over here and when politicians like Blair want to look tough they try to imitate him. Although Churchill made many mistakes he was a towering figure and his 18 June 1940 speech to the nation is IMHO the finest piece of political rhetoric ever. He makes Bliar and Bush look like the sad pathetic wannabees they really are.

[Lazy Lob]

No we don’t have our own foreign policy. We don’t even have a proper government. What is appalling is that Antoine doesn’t discuss this with his own parliament but runs off to Bush.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

No we don’t have our own foreign policy. We don’t even have a proper government. What is appalling is that Antoine doesn’t discuss this with his own parliament but runs off to Bush.

Yeah Bliar is so far up Bush's arrrsehole you can't even see the soles of his shoes.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

After this debacle, i suspect many British governments in the future will be happy to have a little bit more distance between Washington and Whitehall.

About 50,000 miles distance would be nice.

[Freedom06]

Could it be because both countries are losing good soldiers in A and I?
It only makes sense to have a cohesive strategy for whatever the
future course is to be. If it's a pullout it needs to be carefully
executed by all players.

Churchill and FDR certainly tried to keep the parties together
strategically throughout WWII.

I never questioned the fact that good soldiers are dying-I respect all our men and women in uniform. However there is a big difference between co-operation between the two militaries on the ground in Iraq and larger srategic thinking on the ME.

The irony is that in keeping in lock-step with the US, Britain has now come full circle back to where it always used to be: a pragmatic foreign policy based on engagement, focus on peace in Israel/Palestine and operating within international institutions-we have been marched up the hill and back down again, have lost a lot of respect and credibility world-wide-and that includes the US..who likes a poodle?

Blair is no Churchill, and the problems we face in the world today bear little resemblance to WW 2.

[ando]

"Does Britain Have its own Foreign Policy "


Yeah the goverment has its own,the people have theres.But like always we are left to pay with our pockets for there fcuk ups.Blair and two jags have there heads up bush's ass,Its all corrupt

Why i never know




P.S Watch churchills body guard thats a good insight! :)

[XShipRider]

Blair is no Churchill, and the problems we face in the world today bear little resemblance to WW 2.

Certainly I wasn't comparing the war to WWII, I was only comparing
the fact that two leaders with somewhat disparate views of how to
conduct the war held things together (at least on the surface). They
most definitely put on a unified front, for the cameras anyway.

Not a direct comparison of either leader to Churchill or FDR either. Just
the public conduct, as far as that will carry me in this thread.

[Atlantic Friend]

No we don’t have our own foreign policy. We don’t even have a proper government. What is appalling is that Antoine doesn’t discuss this with his own parliament but runs off to Bush.

Would Tony be, to quote Churchill's own words " a sheep in sheep's clothing" ?
p-)

(I must say, Churchill's wit was way wicked, bordering on inhumanely cruel. "Mr Churchill, if I was your wife, I'd serve you poison !" "Well, Madam, if I was your husband, I would drink it !"

[AK74]

teh simple answer to your question:

NO.

[Freedom06]

teh simple answer to your question:

NO.

What's teh complex answer?

[Some Dude]

Freedom06, I know it often is the case that the British follow America's lead in our foreign policy ventures. But consider this: How much less legitmate (and believe me, it could be seen as even less legitmate) would Iraq seem if the powers there did not have the eloquence and determination of one Tony Blair? It was Tony Blair who addressed our nation's legislature after 9/11, and whose pledge of steadfast support helped a shaken nation feel a little more secure. Yes, the partnership between America and Britain needs to become a little more equal. But America can hardly do anything in the world without the legitmacy that having Great Britain on our side affords. Cheers.

[bluffcove]

I cant see your point?

If Bush wants an illegitmiate war, he can have one. It is not the British Electorates duty (represented through TCB) to lend credibility to the perverse ideas eminating from the whitehouse.

[Freedom06]

Freedom06, I know it often is the case that the British follow America's lead in our foreign policy ventures. But consider this: How much less legitmate (and believe me, it could be seen as even less legitmate) would Iraq seem if the powers there did not have the eloquence and determination of one Tony Blair? It was Tony Blair who addressed our nation's legislature after 9/11, and whose pledge of steadfast support helped a shaken nation feel a little more secure. Yes, the partnership between America and Britain needs to become a little more equal. But America can hardly do anything in the world without the legitmacy that having Great Britain on our side affords. Cheers.

But that's the point, we in Britain (I use the 'royal we') feel like we are just being used to 'rubber stamp' americas' foreign policy and add a little bit more eloquence and legitimacy-simply beacuse Blair believes that to show any gap between us and the US on anything will lead to the Universe imploding.

Anyway, thinking about it-would the US prefer constructive criticism a la Thatcher and perhaps avoid a few more foreign policy disasters-or a 'yes man' a la Blair? Truly..

[Lazy Lob]

Freedom06, I know it often is the case that the British follow America's lead in our foreign policy ventures. But consider this: How much less legitmate (and believe me, it could be seen as even less legitmate) would Iraq seem if the powers there did not have the eloquence and determination of one Tony Blair? It was Tony Blair who addressed our nation's legislature after 9/11, and whose pledge of steadfast support helped a shaken nation feel a little more secure. Yes, the partnership between America and Britain needs to become a little more equal. But America can hardly do anything in the world without the legitmacy that having Great Britain on our side affords. Cheers.

Eloquence without substance. The pricks lied through their teeth and pimped out MI6, spinning hubcaps and all. We generally appreciate you Yanks but you overestimate our political class.

[Freedom06]

Eloquence without substance. The pricks lied through their teeth and pimped out MI6, spinning hubcaps and all. We generally appreciate you Yanks but you overestimate our political class.

This is soooo true. Whatever the faults of america they seem to produce politicians of higher class ( with obvious exceptions) than seems the case over here. They are generally all idiots.

EDIT: leave the foreign policy to the unelected civil servants and the foreign office.

[oldsoak]

Well I'm going to disagree with the general drift and say, yes, we do have our own foriegn policy. Its pretty obvious if you know where to look.

[Stolly]

Well I'm going to disagree with the general drift and say, yes, we do have our own foriegn policy. Its pretty obvious if you know where to look.

Perhaps you could educate us as to which of the moments pressing issues the UK stands apart from the US ?

[oldsoak]

Perhaps you could educate us as to which of the moments pressing issues the UK stands apart from the US ?

Cuba
Israel

hows that for starters ?

[Some Dude]

I cant see your point?

If Bush wants an illegitmiate war, he can have one. It is not the British Electorates duty (represented through TCB) to lend credibility to the perverse ideas eminating from the whitehouse.

Nah, maybe I wasn't clear. I hate the Iraq war. I was simply using it as an example as to why Britain's aide in any conflict is so esstential to America. I do wish the relationship was more equal, I wish we'd helped Britain in the Falklands in the 1980's...they deserved it.

[oldsoak]

Brit foreign policy is seperate from the US, not least because of our colonial past. What a lot of people seize on are things like GW1 and GW2, GWOT etc pointing out that the UK ties in a lot with the US and therefore we "suck up" to the USA. What is ignored is the differing policies on S America, ( the Falkands being a case in point ) the Palestinian question, PRC, Africa etc. What is also ingnored is the horse trading that goes on behing the scenes in trying to reconcile quite different world perspectives at times. There is a lot of quid-pro-quo that goes on, and the apparent closeness of the US and UK often belies the hard nosed deal beneath the surface.

[Freedom06]

Brit foreign policy is seperate from the US, not least because of our colonial past. What a lot of people seize on are things like GW1 and GW2, GWOT etc pointing out that the UK ties in a lot with the US and therefore we "suck up" to the USA. What is ignored is the differing policies on S America, ( the Falkands being a case in point ) the Palestinian question, PRC, Africa etc. What is also ingnored is the horse trading that goes on behing the scenes in trying to reconcile quite different world perspectives at times. There is a lot of quid-pro-quo that goes on, and the apparent closeness of the US and UK often belies the hard nosed deal beneath the surface.

I'm not being funny-but did you see that clip of Bush' n' Blair at the G8 where Putin left the mike on...." I can go out and umm prepare the ground as it were, it's not like I have to succeed" or words to that effect...I don't see much of a difference in the policies on Israel, in fact I often think we could do more good there by being more critical of Israel-we have better ties with arab countries and perhaps could be seen as more reliable go-between if we didn't stick so close to the US.....did you hear Blair on Lebanon-refused to criticise Israel.

[oldsoak]

I'm not being funny-but did you see that clip of Bush' n' Blair at the G8 where Putin left the mike on...." I can go out and umm prepare the ground as it were, it's not like I have to succeed" or words to that effect...I don't see much of a difference in the policies on Israel, in fact I often think we could do more good there by being more critical of Israel-we have better ties with arab countries and perhaps could be seen as more reliable go-between if we didn't stick so close to the US.....did you hear Blair on Lebanon-refused to criticise Israel.

Blair was in a position where he couldnt criticise the invasion without it being compared to our involvement in GWII. Israel had far more cause to invade Lebanon than we had to go after Saddam. Theres a lot of peole who felt we should have done the same thing with PIRA not so very long ago. The Israelis certainly dont see the UK as being anywhere near the same as the US. We wont sell them gear that we we sell othe ME states for instance, and they think we are far more pro Arab than the US.
The US is far more likely to listen to an ally who mucks in than someone who doesnt. It gets as simple as that. Look how much influence France has with the US compared with us. If we want to influence American foreign policy, we have to be close enough for them to consider listening to us. Without the UK backing, Kyoto or its equivalent hasnt got a hope of being considered by the US. After Blair leaves, I'd expect a cooling off of relations with the US - and then we'll get the flip side of the coin. We wont be close and people will be wondering about whats happened to the "special relationship".

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Personally I would prefer to see a very tight formal economic/defence treaty of the Commonwealth. Independant of both the EU and US.

Even with the piss ant African nations the Commonwealth's combined economic stregth is still 2nd in the world.

What's more despite native languages in most countries english is the language of the educated and business classes and many of the countries share similar cultures even with the huge differences of Africa and the Anglo-Saxon nations of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth could become a very usefull counterweight in world politics. Of course there maybe some stigma because of "Imperialism" but that can be overcome easily enough if efforts to develop and strengthen the weaker countries.

[oldsoak]

Personally I would prefer to see a very tight formal economic/defence treaty of the Commonwealth. Independant of both the EU and US.

Even with the piss ant African nations the Commonwealth's combined economic stregth is still 2nd in the world.

What's more despite native languages in most countries english is the language of the educated and business classes and many of the countries share similar cultures even with the huge differences of Africa and the Anglo-Saxon nations of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth could become a very usefull counterweight in world politics. Of course there maybe some stigma because of "Imperialism" but that can be overcome easily enough if efforts to develop and strengthen the weaker countries.

The difficulty will be the presence of the UK. While the dominions might see us in a favourable light being essentially Anglo-Celtic cultures with roots in the UK, the Asians or the Africans might see us as attempting to be in control once again the moment disagreement arises. A better link up would be to dissolve the commonwealth, and create another group such as CAUKANZ where we have similiar goals and aspirations. Only on meeting criteria such as
democracy, human rights etc would ex commonwealth countries be invited to join.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Commonwealth should remain. Apart from Zimbabwe it does do a good job in helping assist the 3rd World.

The key point to emphasize is that the UK is not the leader. But is equal amongst the members.

[Jobu]

Why is it so difficult to accept that quite often our two governments agree on what needs to be done?

We have a shared history, many shared interests, etc.

[Lazy Lob]

Why is it so difficult to accept that quite often our two governments agree on what needs to be done?

We have a shared history, many shared interests, etc.

Depends on what the cooperation is based on. If it’s lies then both electorates lose.

[Jobu]

Depends on what the cooperation is based on. If it’s lies then both electorates lose.

It's not a lie to want a change in the Middle East. The status quo was not exactly working.

If you're talking about the WMD claims, you're talking about nearly every intel agency on Earth. Being wrong is not the same as lying.

[Lazy Lob]

It's not a lie to want a change in the Middle East. The status quo was not exactly working.

If you're talking about the WMD claims, you're talking about nearly every intel agency on Earth. Being wrong is not the same as lying.

If only it was just "being wrong".

[N-G-F-O]

Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil. And who gets to skim off the top. WMD's my arse. Regime change, again with my arse. Money, or rather greed drives this war, plain and simple.

[Freedom06]

Here's one answer I guess, what we knew all along anyway:

Britain's special relationship 'just a myth'

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/30/wusuk30.xml

[oldsoak]

Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil. And who gets to skim off the top. WMD's my arse. Regime change, again with my arse. Money, or rather greed drives this war, plain and simple.


Exactly - the very factors that made the Empire !

[oldsoak]

[QUOTE=Freedom06;2120704]Here's one answer I guess, what we knew all along anyway:

Britain's special relationship 'just a myth'

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/30/wusuk30.xml[/QUOTE

If we expected the UK to lead the US, then I think we were kidding ourselves and thats a factor for EVERY pm since, including Churchill. However, we did benefit from being allied to them. We have access to their stealth programmes at levels no other NATO partner has, we have access to intel that is USUK only etc etc.

[Freedom06]

[QUOTE=Freedom06;2120704]Here's one answer I guess, what we knew all along anyway:

Britain's special relationship 'just a myth'

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/30/wusuk30.xml[/QUOTE

If we expected the UK to lead the US, then I think we were kidding ourselves and thats a factor for EVERY pm since, including Churchill. However, we did benefit from being allied to them. We have access to their stealth programmes at levels no other NATO partner has, we have access to intel that is USUK only etc etc.

Are you sure that we get priveledged intel. these days any more than other european countries ? I agree that militarily we seem to benefit from close co-operation but otherwise I don't see much evidence of us gaining a whole deal..not to say I think we should adopt a confrontational stance.

[oldsoak]

We do. We've had situations where the US passed info to us that we could not share with other NATO allies who were in the same TO as us. A bit embarassing to say the least. We dont get everything, we just get more.
Our problem is we want to stick to the "Great" in GB. No pm is willing to have the UK become a country with less influence on the world stage than France or Germany. We could save ourselves a mint by cutting back our armed forces and commitments and become a nuetral country. We could have an armed forces the size of Sweden - quite adequate to defend the UK. Which pm would do that ? Cameron ? Brown ? Campbell ? Hardly. The Tories will need the "special relationship" with the US as much as any other party would if they were in power. Too many vested interests rely on it.

[Freedom06]

We do. We've had situations where the US passed info to us that we could not share with other NATO allies who were in the same TO as us. A bit embarassing to say the least. We dont get everything, we just get more.
Our problem is we want to stick to the "Great" in GB. No pm is willing to have the UK become a country with less influence on the world stage than France or Germany. We could save ourselves a mint by cutting back our armed forces and commitments and become a nuetral country. We could have an armed forces the size of Sweden - quite adequate to defend the UK. Which pm would do that ? Cameron ? Brown ? Campbell ? Hardly. The Tories will need the "special relationship" with the US as much as any other party would if they were in power. Too many vested interests rely on it.

Combining these comments with the whole 'veil' debate and other issues confronting us it does seem like Britain is facing a real crisis of identity with no clear path... Tories are no longer Tories, Labour is no longer labour, and america is increasingly looking to 'New Europe' or itself in danger of being overshadowed by China in the future. Uncertain times.