UK-US relationship
Star Letter
Dear Sir
Benjamin Shaw expresses concern for the health of the "special relationship" between the UK and the US (Felix, 2 March). He highlights, as an indication of this, America's refusal to release to the UK the source code for the software that runs the Joint Strike Fighter, which means the planes (part of a joint US-UK project) would have to return to America for major upgrades. He claims that the reason for this is US fear that the technology might fall into the hands of the enemy in this "hotbed of terrorist activity and radicalisation". I think the more plausible reason is an economic one - to ensure that the financial benefits of carrying out the work accrue to the US.
In any case, the US-UK relationship is in far more robust shape than Mr Shaw would have your readers believe. I recommend that he, and any of your readers interested in getting to the heart of the relationship, read the books of Mark Curtis. He shows that British planners took a long-term strategic decision in the late 1940's to pursue a foreign policy essentially subservient to that of the US. Britain's position as an imperial power was very much on the wane and she was being rapidly supplanted by the US. Pragmatic, as always, the British saw that the best way to retain significant economic power and political prestige on the world stage was to play the role of junior partner in America's pursuit of its own global geo-political ambitions. Thus, for example, although Harold Wilson was not willing to send significant numbers of troops to Vietnam (although there is some evidence of covert involvement and his reticence had more to do with opposition at home, from both within and without the Labour Party, than any squeamishness on his part) he expressed consistent support for America's strategic aims in South-East Asia and did provide valuable, although more low-key, help where he could. It is also significant that any attempts to discuss civilian casualties were stonewalled in the British Parliament (sound familiar?)
The relationship today is surely as strong as it has ever been, as is evidenced by New Labour's support for Bush's "war on terror", and in particular, the entirely cynical and morally bankrupt invasion of Iraq.
With this supine behaviour, the British are continuing to show their undiminished resolve to support our American allies in defence of the values we both share: the need to keep as much of the world as possible in subjugation to the perceived national economic interests of the US and its British lapdog. That the two unequal partners should have the occasional spat over bananas or cashmere jumpers should not allow the truth of the enduring strength of this sordid relationship to be obscured.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Tajasque
Comments