Gordon Brown flies into Washington this week a day after the pope does. The timing is unfortunate for the dour British prime minister, whose D.C. visit will be hugely overshadowed by the eagerly anticipated arrival of the far more dynamic Benedict XVI. Whereas tens of thousands of Americans will queue up for a glimpse of John Paul II’s successor, Brown will garner little public attention outside the White House, where he meets with President Bush on Thursday. His predecessor Tony Blair always attracted intense interest on his numerous trips to Washington. But Brown is no Blair.
The new Labour prime minister will no doubt be hoping for a little of the pope’s popularity to rub off on him — as he probably needs a minor miracle to rescue his political fortunes. Brown’s approval rating is
stunningly low — and if a general election were held today, Conservative David Cameron would be the new British prime minister.
Divine intervention might be required to improve the state of U.S.-UK relations, which have deteriorated since Blair left Downing Street last June. While the Anglo-American “special relationship” continues at many levels behind the scenes — from intelligence cooperation to collaboration over missile defense — significant signs of strain are beginning to show over the handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the broader war against Islamist terrorism.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In a disturbing move, Gordon Brown’s government has
dropped the 60-year old phrase “special relationship.” Meanwhile, in deference to the European Union, Britain’s newly unveiled
National Security Strategy points out that while “the partnership with the United States is our most important bilateral relationship,” the “EU has a vital role in securing a safer world both within and beyond the borders of Europe” — putting Brussels on at least equal footing with Washington. Ironically, while Brown has avoided the term, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy used it when he addressed the House of Commons last month to refer admiringly to the Anglo-American alliance.
The Brown administration is likewise leery of any reference to the “war on terror.” The NSS even states that “while terrorism represents a threat to all our communities, and an attack on our way of life, it does not at present amount to a strategic threat” — a staggeringly naive assessment considering that British intelligence estimates that al-Qaeda has at least 2,000 operatives in the U.K. In contrast to Bush and Blair, Brown’s government refuses to acknowledge that Islamist terrorism is out to destroy Western civilization, and instead treats the al-Qaeda threat as a domestic law-and-order problem.
Brown’s government refuses to increase British defense spending, which currently stands at less than 2.3 percent of GDP, its lowest level since the 1930s (the U.S. spends 3.7 percent of GDP). Britain’s military is massively overstretched and under-funded, with huge manpower and equipment shortages, and faces billions of dollars in further cuts over the next few years. The decline in British military power is highlighted by the gutting of the Royal Navy, which has dwindled from 136 ships and 38 submarines in 1987 to now just 75 and 13, respectively. Today, it would be almost impossible for Britain to mount a military operation like the 1982 Falklands War. As U.K. Shadow Defense Secretary Liam Fox has
commented, “Labour has done what none of this country’s enemies have been able to do: bring the Navy to its knees.”
The decline in British military capability is a major concern for the U.S., increasing the global burden on America’s armed forces and reducing the force projection of Washington’s only large-scale military ally.
In the recent battle for Basra between Iraqi security forces and the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army led by Moqtada al-Sadr, the U.S. air force and hundreds of American ground forces were involved in the Iraqi offensive to retake the city; British soldiers stationed outside the city were ordered by their political superiors not to intervene, except for limited logistical and artillery support.
