GET THE BELFAST TELEGRAPH NEWSPAPER DELIVERED TO YOUR DOOR EVERY DAY

Belfast Telegraph

  • nijobfinder
  • nicarfinder
  • propertynews.com
  • Classified

Why Britain has always been at the beck and call of America

By Eamonn McCann
Thursday, 16 July 2009

Jeremy Paxman wondered “Why are we in Afghanistan?” on Newsnight on Monday. The answer is, “Yo, Blair!”

Why have Britain’s nuclear weapons been excluded from the review of defence funding announced last week? Again, “Yo, Blair!”

Brown’s refusal in January to call for an end to the Israeli assault on Gaza? “Yo, Blair!”

And so on.

“Yo, Blair!” was folksy slogan with which George Bush signalled the nature of the US/UK relationship at the G8 meeting in St. Petersburg in July 2006.

It will be recalled that Bush continued to munch a bap (or bread roll, as they are apparently known in G8 circles) while Blair stood behind him, feet shuffling, hands clasped, manic grin glazed to his face, offering to travel, “if you’d like”, to the Middle East to “prepare the ground” for a possible diplomatic offensive by Condoleezza Rice intended to isolate Hezbollah.

If he failed, no matter. He’d take the hit. ‘Connie’, on the other hand, couldn’t afford to be seen to fail. Thus the Prime Minister of Britain, pleading for a chance to act as human shield protecting a US Secretary of State from political flak ...

“Has any British Prime Minister ever compromised his position in such a supine way?” asked the Daily Mail, reasonably.

Bush took a rain check on Blair’s bid for the position of political mudguard and, without further ado, gave Israel the green light to storm into Lebanon to crush Hezbollah. Instead, Hezbollah gave the Israelis a hammering.

This wasn’t the first, nor was it to be the last, “Yo Blair!” moment.

A Guardian/ICM poll published on Tuesday suggested that a majority of the British people, far from wanting £20bn spent on updating the Trident nuclear system, would rather see the country’s nuclear arsenal scrapped. But how come Britain has and wants to keep (that is, the Government wants to keep) nuclear arms anyway?

It has never had much to do with deterrence, always a lot to do with keeping onside and abreast of the US. Attlee’s Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, returned from an official visit to the US in 1946 convinced that he’d been treated with less respect than he deserved on account of Britain’s lack of a Hiroshima-type device: “I don’t want any other Foreign Secretary ... to be talked at as I have just had in my discussions with Mr. Byrnes. We have got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack flying on top of it.”

Thus the decision that Britain should become a nuclear power. But the bloody Union Jack atop the Bomb didn’t give Britain parity.

Suez in 1956 saw the last spasm of foreign policy independence from the UK. The Eden Government had convinced itself that a decisive strike against Egypt in retaliation for Nasser’s nationalisation of the canal would reassert Britain’s position as a global power in its own right. The Americans, he had complained, “want to run the world ... want to replace us in Egypt.”

So the British, with the French and the Israelis, hatched a cunning plan. Israel, unprovoked, would attack Egypt. The Egyptians, naturally, would hit back. Britain and France would invade to keep the peace, with a view to keeping the canal ... The cunning plan was put into operation.

Upon hearing of this cheek, US President Eisenhower ordered the British and French out, and forced Israel to hand back the Sinai Peninsula.

The French responded to the humiliation by closing US bases and developing an independent nuclear capacity, the British by accepting their reduced status and opting for the purchase of Polaris from the US rather than pursuing the dream of an independent British bomb.

The British Government, as historian John Newsinger put it, “had reluctantly come to realise that while Britain still had global interests, the British state no longer had the power to protect them. Only the US had the necessary economic and military resources. Consequently, the keystone of British foreign policy became its alliance with the United States.”

“Yo, Blair!”

Four years ago, the former British ambassador in Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, in his memoir ‘DC Confidential’, described the obeisance of New Labour ministers towards their US counterparts in cringe-making detail. Jack Straw “intimidated and tongue-tied” among the power-brokers along the Pontomac, John Prescott holding forth to State Department officials on the situation in “the Balklands”, Blair “seduced by the proximity and glamour of American power”.

Meyer was denounced for revealing tittle-tattle which would better have been kept secret. What he’d more importantly revealed was the key to understanding why British soldiers were sent to kill and die in Iraq, and continue to be sent to kill and die in Afghanistan.

Blair acknowledged the fact of the matter in July 2002 after Straw had expressed reservations about the given rationale for the planned invasion of Iraq.

Blair’s response was not to argue that Straw’s concerns were baseless but to remind his Foreign Secretary that a refusal to join in an invasion led by the US “would be the biggest shift in foreign policy for 50 years.”

Quite correct.

There’s the reason Brown’s Government is allowing Britain to be drawn ever deeper into the bloody and futile Afghan imbroglio.

Which, Jeremy, is why the answer to your question is, “Yo, Blair!”

Post a comment

Limit: 500 characters

View all comments that have been posted about this article

Comment
Your details

* Required field

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.

Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.

Good man Eamon, as always, right the the heart of the matter.

Posted by Sean O Brien | 23.07.09, 15:38 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Is the Pontomac some sort of car?

Posted by Ken | 23.07.09, 15:36 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details


The point is : Britain shouldnt be BIAS towards the USA.

Posted by Mohsin | 21.07.09, 22:07 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

And the point is? The choice is what, go with France rather than the United States? Most likely not.

Posted by Hilling | 18.07.09, 03:37 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Eamonn McCann, I recall some great moments with him , duncan hallas and the mp for derry. ms bernadette, but enuff of trot sentimentallia....la lutte continue

Posted by peterscotty | 17.07.09, 02:26 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

On to Suez:

Eisenhower didn't order France and the UK out - they started a run on the Pound which forced the UK to withdraw, after which France had to leave.

On the subject of the French response to Suez. "Response" suggests immediate action: Suez occured in 1956, French withdrawal from NATO in 1966!

And now Eamonn - if all the US has to ever do is go "Yo!", then how about the UK refusing to contribute to the Vietnam War? Or favouring Europe instead of the US in the Westland Affair? Or refusing to negociate in the Falklands?

Posted by Eamon | 17.07.09, 02:25 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

It must be really nice to be able to write articles just based on assertions and allegations. I guess the best thing about it is that you don't have to do any research.

Eamonn makes plenty of assertions and alegations in his piece - most of which are either patently wrong or twisted.

Let's look at British nuclear weapons. What does Eamonn write:

America has prevented a review of the UK's nuclear deterrent. Really? Any evidence Eamonn?

Britain's nuclear weapons are more to keep the Americans happy than anything else. Really Eamonn? I think the Americans would love to have the leverage of having the UK under their nuclear umbrella.

As for Britain 'giving up the dream of an independent bomb'. Here's some very basic research Eamonn: type "V-bomber" into Google and see what you get.

Posted by Eamon | 17.07.09, 02:21 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Why is Britain such a lackey of the USA? Does Blair have any shame? The US has brought so much suffering to much of humanity with their terrorist actions, such as carpet bombing, defoliage campaigns, massive air bombardments, their support of brutal right military dictatorships. The list is endless. I have been so enraged with Britain criminally supporting the illegal war in Iraq and now they are in the quagmire of Afghanistan. Have they not learnt any lessons from history? Afghanistan is a tribal society. Shame on the USA and Britain.

Posted by Patrick Murphy | 16.07.09, 22:40 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

If only Blair had behaved like Harold Wilson, who refused to take the UK into Vietnam.

Posted by neil | 16.07.09, 21:29 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

A blistering piece of analysis. Absolutely spot on.

Posted by JLM | 16.07.09, 20:47 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Contact details

Columnist Comments

gail_walker

Why we’ve had enough of all the party games

By the time you read this, the chances are that Peter and Martin will have announced ‘Peace In Our Time'.

Columnist Comments

lindy_mcdowell

The UUP’S spin doctor is right to spurn new pact

His may not exactly be a household name. But in unionist politics (small u — and large) Alex Kane has long been a central figure.

Columnist Comments

laurence_white

Why the deal isn’t the final piece of devolution jigsaw

The agreement on the devolution of policing and justice is probably the biggest con since snake oil vendors were in their pomp.

Columnist Comments

robert_mcneill

Why life in the wild isn’t really Garden of Eden

Animals, eh?.... What are they about? We can't live with the big, fierce ones, and we can't live without the little, cuddly ones.

Columnist Comments

eamon_mccann

Take a cue from amazing Grace and slap the cuffs on Tony Blair

What a joy it is in these dour times to be able to exalt the name of Grace McCann. No relation, unfortunately.

Columnist Comments

robert_fisk

Robert Fisk: Israel can no longer ignore existence of first Holocaust

While Israelis commemorated the second Holocaust of the 20th century this week, I was reading the records of the victims of the century's first Holocaust.

Columnist Comments

the_punter

Rafa still has a way to go in sack race

Rafa Benitez is taking a lot of flak and there is no let-up in demands for his sacking at Liverpool.

Columnist Comments

hamish_mcrae

Cost of pay freezes and high taxes was a culture of duplicity, envy and hypocrisy

The Chancellor was right yesterday to dismiss the idea of a High Pay Commission. His phraseology was characteristically mild: he was "not persuaded" of his merits.

TeleToons

TeleToons by Stevie Lee

 

Click here for audio version