2. did The Global War On Terror Serve To Undermine Or Enhance Anglo-american Relations?

Bush declared a War on Terror following the attacks of 9/11, and although there were elements of enhancement between Britain and the United States, the war primarily served to undermine Anglo-American relations. An example of enhancement includes the fact that Britain and the United States acted together, as an alliance, in regard to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Secondly, Prime Minister Tony Blair worked to strengthen the relationship, as he believed it was the UK s most important alliance. Finally, the continued sharing of intelligence depicts a uniquely close relationship, which suggests Anglo-American relations were enhanced. Ultimately, however, it highlighted the true extent of British military and financial weakness, which thus exemplified her status as a middling power, rather than a superpower. This depicted Britain to be a less favourable ally. Furthermore, there was a considerable lack of domestic support for the Transatlantic alliance following the Iraq invasion. Therefore, upon his accession to power, Prime Minister Gordon Brown distanced himself from President Bush, thus undermining Anglo-American relations.

The historiography surrounding this topic mainly supports the idea that relations were undermined. For instance, John Dumbrell disputes that Britain had over-valued the special relationship in terms of the opportunities it brings for the UK to enhance its global profile. Similarly, Patrick Porter asserts that the War on Terror highlighted and accelerated the process of the eclipse of British power. This weakening of British power is also discussed by David Dunn, who argues that the war left the UK incapable of acting as a bridge between the US and Europe. Alternatively, Alex Danchev discusses how the relationship was similar to that of the Greeks and Romans. He suggests that the special relationship is a subtle case of friendship between foreigners posited on perfection and in fact enhanced relations to a limited extent.

From 1997 to 2007, Blair and his administration were keen to revive the special relationship and they focused intensely on enhancing Anglo-American relations. He believed that the US was a force for good and thought it was in the UK s best interest to have a close relationship with the Americans. Therefore, despite facing large amounts of domestic opposition, Blair joined Bush in his War on Terror. In 2001, with UN support, they invaded Afghanistan, and in 2003, in a US-led operation, they invaded Iraq. This is an example of Blair s efforts to maintain a close alliance with the Americans. Prior to the Iraq invasion, Blair wanted to seek a second UN resolution which would authorise military action in Iraq. This was a political necessity for Blair, and begrudgingly, Bush agreed. This suggests that the two leaders shared a close friendship and that Anglo-American relations had been enhanced. However, this is extremely limited as Blair s successful attempt to gain a second UN resolution was the only notable example of Britain having a degree of influence. In fact, Blair gained a reputation of being subservient, obedient and uncritical of Bush, and was often insulted to be Bush s poodle . In one case, he was referred to as a blind dog , symbolising the lack of British influence in the UK-US partnership. Blair considered himself to possess the swing vote, but Danchev argues that this was certainly not the case and hardliners within the Pentagon viewed Blair to be a rather tiresome irrelevance. So, although they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in a joint effort, there is evidence to suggest that ultimately this served to undermine the relationship, rather than enhancing it.

Perhaps the best example of enhanced Anglo-American relations is the uniquely close bond shared in the arena of intelligence sharing. This can be observed with the US-UK Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty of June 2007. After 9/11, the US became exceedingly cautious with sharing defence technology, and in 2005, tensions arose due to US reluctance to grant waivers to Britain under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Consequently, this meant that at one point it became a possibility that the UK could be denied access to the software codes needed to develop the Joint Strike Fighter. However, progress was made when Bush and Blair signed the Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty. Dumbrell argues that this was one of the few benefits Blair achieved from his loyalty to the War on Terror. Therefore, this close and unique partnership regarding intelligence sharing served to enhance relations. However, this level of enhancement is limited, as the treaty failed to achieve Senate ratification and so despite the two leaders working together to enhance the alliance, ultimately it came to nothing. Additionally, the CIA had misled Britain over the extent of its arrests and treatment of terrorist suspects.

Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in June 2007 and instantly distanced Britain s relationship with Washington. Mark Brown argued that it was unlikely that Brown s relationship with Bush would be joint at the hip , as it was with Blair. The Blair-Bush partnership proved to be domestically unpopular and so Brown strived away from special relationship rhetoric. For example, in November 2007, Brown changed his speech at a foreign policy address from describing America to be, Britain s most important ally , to our most important bilateral relationship. This is significant as, strictly speaking, the UK s relation with the EU is not a bilateral relationship. Brown also referred to the relationship as a partnership for a purpose , which is a distinct difference to the language used by Blair. In addition, Foreign Secretary David Miliband, also spoke of a bilateral partnership rather than the term special relationship . This distancing by the Brown administration is an example of how Anglo-American relations had been undermined due to the War on Terror.

Additionally, the War on Terror left the UK in a position of compliance with American torture and rendition policies, which served to undermine the Anglo-American alliance. American now renounces these policies. Furthermore, there was also disputes regarding America s War on Drugs and their poppy eradication programme in Kabul. The UK wanted to pursue eradication only when there were alternative lifestyles available, and believed it was best if Afghan authorities judged the situation this caused tension with the US. America s use of torture and rendition and their poppy eradication programme left the British in a vulnerable, compliant position, which ultimately worked to undermine Anglo-American relations.

Additionally, there was incredibly low domestic support for the invasion of Iraq, which consequently served to undermine Anglo-American relations. This was evident from large, public protests on the eve of invasion, which was attended by a million people. Furthermore, a 2006 poll in Britain showed that only 14% of people supported closer relations with the US, whereas 45% supported closer relations with the EU. A further poll was conducted in 2008, which recorded that 35% of respondents believed the US to be a force for evil. This showed a significant lack of domestic support for a close Anglo-American alliance. Porter argues that America was beginning to be viewed as a source of insecurity and drain rather than an asset that enhances the national interest . This was a direct consequence of the War on Terror as it denied the special relationship a basis in mass support, thus supporting the idea that relations had been undermined

The War on Terror significantly weakened Britain financially and militarily, which made Britain look like a less favourable ally, and so undermined relations. Dumbrell argues that it caused an unbalancing in an already imbalanced special relationship. It served to eclipse British power in the eyes of the Americans. For example, in southern Iraq, British forces were weak and over extended, and a notable gap began to emerge between British commitments and British capabilities. This encouraged Berlin, and even Paris, to compete in order to undermine London s close proximity to Washington. If the UK was to be replaced, this would considerably undermine the Anglo-American relationship.

Furthermore, the UK s support for an invasion of Iraq alienated its European allies. For instance, France only accepted war as a last resort and Germany openly opposed it altogether. Therefore, tensions arose between Britain and Europe. Consequently, this meant that Britain was unable to play her self-defined role as a bridge between America and Europe. Britain s incapability of becoming closer to Europe meant that she failed to strengthen her role in the special relationship. This is because it made Britain look like a less favourable ally as she could not translate American influence throughout Europe, thus undermining relations.

To conclude, the War on Terror served to undermine Anglo-American relations, rather than enhancing it. There were some areas of enhancement, such as Blairs persistence to strengthen the special relationship, and the continued formal sharing of intelligence. However, there is more evidence to suggest that the relationship had actually been undermined. The activities in southern Iraq particularly demonstrated British military weakness, thus making her look to be a less favourable ally in American eyes. Furthermore, the considerable lack of domestic support for a close Anglo-American alliance encouraged Brown to distance his administration from Washington upon his accession to power. The flaws in the special relationship had been underlined, and therefore the War on Terror served to undermine Anglo-American relations.