Allies, not buddies
Watching from a distance, we pored over the words they chose, the body language, even why George Bush took Gordon Brown for a spin in Golf Cart One. But what did the White House press corp's finest make of the prime minister's first visit to the United States? Could he match the affection in which much of American public opinion held his predecessor?
Not quite. The tone of most of the American newspapers, networks and blogs is respectful. But are not falling over themselves to praise Gordon Brown.
The Huffington Post, one of the leading liberal blogs says there is 'no kinship' between the Bush and Brown compared to 'the kinetic Blair'. , talking from the other side of the political spectrum says there was 'no daylight' visible between the two men on George Bush's priority, fighting terrorism.
But they note that Gordon Brown went way beyond discussion of things Mr Bush could do anything about, by setting out a long term agenda that will involve the NEXT president of the US, not the man who was standing at the Camp David podium beside him.
There's relief reported in many outlets that Gordon Brown said there were 'duties to discharge' in Iraq - no sign of decision on pulling out troops in Iraq before the US General Petraeus reports in September.
But although, as reported, the two men worked to present a 'united front', many American commentators remark on a 'coolness' between Bush and Brown - very different to the 'George' and 'Blair' relationship of the last few years. No doubt the men both know the importance of being strong allies, but US observers don't think there's much chance of them becoming best buddies.
I'm 
Comments
President Bush wasn't well informed or best advised, and the new dynamic encouraged by Prime Minister Brown does help get a grip on the present while looking to the future. I'd be a little slow in dismissing President Bush out of hand. He's still a serving President and can play a useful role. We all make mistakes and experience difficulties, and Iraq is the mother of all mistakes and difficulties, but getting a grip, fixing things, and looking forward seem to be in hand.
By setting a better lead in the West, I'm hoping this will encourage leadership in the Middle-East and people on the ground to switch focus to something more positive and constructive. There's a distinct lack of quality leadership and general social cohesiveness in the Middle-East, and shifting focus will help encourage leaders and public to pull things together. It's not going to happen overnight but the long-term potential is there. I just think people need to wake up to that.
It's the same deal with business and communities locally and elsewhere. Arguing and finger pointing doesn't do much for Parliament, the feral media, or business. It's a big distraction and just gets people worked up. On a personal level, I've found less obsessing and worrying about things helps. No label is wholly accurate, so the pluses and minuses of comment are merely that. Things work out as they work out, and it's going just fine. It's already a solved problem in my mind.
Once the fire is lit, the rice is already cooked.
Bush has a REAL Scot to deal with this time, not like the wishy washy one thats no longer dictating to the world at the expence of our Military Personnel.
The *Canny Scot* will not be sending our troops away just to keep favour with an American fanatic.
Gordon Brown will weigh things up for himself, he`s there for the good of Britain/world, not *kinship*.
This is surely very good news indeed for Brown.
The "Huffington Post" - that wouldn't be Arianna Huffington (nee Arianna Stassinopoulos) - ex president of the Cambridge Union and ex girlfriend of Bernard Levin? Describing her as a leading "liberal" just goes to illustrate the differences between UK and US politics - wouldn't she be in the Cameron/Conservative mainstream if she were back in the UK?
Interesting that Brown immeadiatly started swinging his arm's like Bush and Blair before him!
Then on to the UN to do what the son of a minister of the Kirk would do, Missonary work! Well thats what it sounded like.
To Ian, Skye:
Your points might have some validity if Brown had not been the second most influential person in the British government for the last 10 years. We do not live in an autocracy. Whatever decisions Blair had to make about taking the country to war it is certain that the then Chancellor would have had to have agreed to in order for those decisions to happen. You imply this 'Canny Scot' will stand up to Bush where 'wishy washy Blair' wouldn't. But why, when the Cabinet was deliberating over this matter in 2003, and before, didn't this 'real Scot' stand up to Blair then?
Brown will be an excellent PM, I'm sure, but one cannot separate his Premiership from the 10 years previous - however much Brownites would like to. He was just too integral to the Blair administration for a clear separation to be made.
Yes, it is indeed the same Arianna.
After expending many of her ex-husband Huffington's millions (he annouced he was gay shortly after the marriage failed) when he ran for US Senator as a Republican, she indeed transformed herself into a flaming liberal (US-style) and darling of the leftwing.
Of course about 30 seconds googling would have revealed all to you.
She even ran for Governnor of California after the Gray Davis recall.
Personally have little use for her but she has a strong following in US.
Gordon Brown cannot be described as poodle but give the impression that he is leading the world with his forthright views on fighing Poverty and islamic terrorism.I see a parallel with Mrs Thatcher and Raegan of 1980's with standing of Britain in par with USA and not playing second fiddle.
I get the feeling that GB is preparing the ground for the new US president (almost certainly Hilary Clinton). While he keeps on the good side of George Bush, he appears to be giving the impression that all is not as well as during the Blair years.
Either that or he was suffering jet lag!
I have often wondered if the relationship between Bush and Blair was really as portrayed by the media. Having worked with a lot of American clients over the years I am very well aware that they can be extraordinarily "pally" between the bouts of serious business. Distractingly so.
It is a kind of relationship that we do not have in this country, and often do not understand. Watching Blair and Bush over the years I can see the very Southern jokes cracked by the president misfiring over the heads of the British Press - the toothpaste one is typical and is very much American humour. It means nothing clever except to say "we will do good business."
American friends of mine have often found the interpretation by the British press quite strange. Though the American Anglophobes (which you get by the bucket load on the internet) will use any bit of misinformation to "Kick the Brits." You notice them from time to time on the Have your say forum.
Blair's strength was to be able to ride out Bush's Bon Amie at the lectern, but get back down to business when the cameras were off, or someone asked a question which didn't beg for a glib reply. I think Brown will find that less easy, and hopefully, for his good natured manse upbringing, the President will modify his exuberant ways a touch.
But Brown is sharp and clever, as is Blair, and if he doesn't have Blairs natural charm, he does have his wit, and Brown will find his own way to cope.
In the end, it matters less than many realise. The special relationship has never truthfully been built on politics, or foreign policy, but on business, tourism and most of all, Entertainment. If you want to highlight the real special relationship, well the fact that Madonna married a Briton and lives much of the time here says it all.
To John Hickmott,
"Interesting that Brown immeadiatly started swinging his arm's like Bush and Blair before him!"
I did notice! I thought I was seeing things, but I am glad that you confirmed that I am not-yet going insane. Anyway, this is bad news then...will he be a poodle or a Scottie dog(no pun intended) to Bush? I hope we have the guts to stay clear from the yanks...
It would interesting to compare Blair's first meeting with Bush to that of Brown's. Perhaps Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú could publish the analysis of that? I seem to remember analysts saying that the Blair/Bush relationship wouldn't work either.
It is very difficult to believe that it's actually within Brown's power to really decide what to do in terms of the US. We are dictated to in perhapse less obviouse terms, but we are certainly whipped into a way of thinking.
We elect and they serve us locally, but when it comes to world politics then even the President of the US is powerless. Am I stating the untold truth or am I deluded? I seriously hope the latter. Cup of tea anyone? I cant wait for the Rugby world cup. Allez les Rouge. So tell me who's mother will cry today?
The problem for Gordon is that in world terms he can have more influence by cosying up to the USA than by trying to influence the snakepit of European politicians.
In reply to Charles E Hardwidge:
Hang on one second. This is too funny to pass up. You liken Gordon Brown to 'some loser in a ghetto'. Forced to make the choices by the environment he was surrounded by. I'm not sure that the 'loser' chose the ghetto but GB chose politics. You ask if I would like the past to follow me around 'like a bad smell'. No! Of course I wouldn't, and neither does our new PM. What you're essentially saying, I think, is that everyone should disregard the fact that he had unprecedented influence as the chief finance minister of the last administration. I didn't get your stuff about putting him in a box - he was central to the last government and that's a fact not a categorisation.
My main focus was the underlying principles, not necessarily Gordon Brown or your own view. They're just vehicles to illuminate a point of view from a Buddhist, Daoist, martial arts perspective. Politics, people, and spirituality interest me for their strategic lessons.
I'm just flying a flag up the flagpole. Don't agree? Test it in your own time. Discovered some time ago that arguing and personalising things was a waste of time. All you can do is lay things out and let people discover things in their own time. It's less hassle for everyone.
Anyway, thanks for the interest. Nice to see someone reads this crap.
To Charles E. Hardwidge:
I'm challenging your thesis, not your personality. You write:
'Discovered some time ago that arguing and personalising things was a waste of time. All you can do is lay things out and let people discover things in their own time.'
Essentially what you're saying is "I'm the guru of all knowledge and I have to wait for you less knowledgeable inferiors to catch up". Love it!
Jonathan, the original point of view was clear enough and impersonal, but you're arguing and personalising it. If you wanted to understand and be less competitive you would and this discussion would be different. It's why love and learning are key principles of Buddhism.
As for the guru thing, I eat my own dog food, hence the Buddhist dictum that "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him". Reality is the best teacher and final authority. Its why arguing and moaning is a waste time. The only test worth anything is doing it yourself.
It is often said and I think true that nations do not have friends, they have interests. It doesn't matter whether or not there is personal amity or enmity between leaders, if they are rational, they puruse the policies which best attain their nation's goals and serve its interests no matter what. That does not change when leaders are replaced. America and Britain are allies when and where their interest coincide. To call Tony Blair "America's poodle" was a crass and stupid remark repeated over and over by the British. Had Blair not believed the invasion of Iraq was in Britain's interest, no amount of persuasion on the part of an American President could have forced him into it. In truth the facts say just the opposite as America held up its invasion for six months while it and the UK tried to get another declaration from the Security Council to give Blair political cover. Not only did that effort fail, it was counterproductive since it gave opponents of the invasion political ammunition when no such declaration was needed, the invasion perfectly legal on the grounds that Iraq had failed to comply with the cease fire accords suspending military action in 1991.
Charles E Hardwidge #1; opponents of the invasion have distorted every aspect of it, of the aftermath, and of its signifigance. Far from being "the mother of all mistakes" as you put it, the invasion of Iraq was more likely the best possible course of action rattling every Islamic cage from Algeria to Zanzibar right to their roots. The cost has been wildly exaggerated in terms of both money and human life to the coalition forces, the UK's casualites in 4 years of war being less than the lost of life in a single mid sized commuter flight crashing such as the one which killed 200 people in Brazil last month. The UK still has the strongest economy in Western Europe, stronger by far and the envy of those who did not join the invasion such as France and Germany. As for the US, It lost about as many troops killed as people killed in car accidents in the US in a month, as many wounded as are injured in car accidents in 4 days, and less than 1% of GDP. In return, The US is now a major military presence in the heart of the Arabian peninsula able to strike Iran on the ground if necessary on two broad fronts not to mention the ability to easily strike Syria. Those pieces are very well positioned on the world chessboard for what will likely be needed done in the not too far off future.
And, Mark, the UK's losses have, thankfully, been about one half of those in the Falklands Conflict.
As this latter was due to a failure to stand tall when facing Argentinian diplomats in the '80s it was a governmental failure.
Mark (#20), I was a big opponent of the war as I never bought the pitch and better alternatives existed but the largely unreported picture is changing so my mind has changed with it. There's too many pluses and minuses all over the place to bother with but some consensus and shifting of emphasis seems to be taking place.
The UN is coming back onto the scene, there's better leadership in the military, and the politicians are working deals. Perception lags reality so it might take a while for the knee-jerk peaceniks and neo-cons to get on board but it seems more likely than not.
The rice is cooking. Stomachs will be full soon enough.
Would someone please explain to me, (a white Englishman), in simple terms, the benefits of the so-called Speial Relationship between the UK & USA ? Can I apply for a Green Card ? No. Do I get special treatment from US Immigration ? No. What do I get ? What does anyone get ?
That the British and emerging Japanese Empires were a restriction on Americas Atlantic and Pacific expansion is a historical fact. Germany's failed jolly was a convenient upsetting of the game. We have enough US troops on our soil to count as an occupation force. America never fully pulled out of Japan after WWII either.
A few get rich, like the traitorious CEO of Lucas Industries and various CBI wannabes. The rest of us suffer under the grind of the heel like pre-independence India. It's not all bad. Some stuff does flow back, like investments, technology, and trade. They're guilty of some things but some more domestic self-confidence would be helpful.
I don't think the relationship of Brown and Bush would be different with that of Blair and Bush,because Brown is quite an integral part of Blair's government for 10 years;and the Blair's decision is a collectively taken by all his cabinet including GB i think.