London and Washington: despite wars, special relationship is still trade-led
|
Version 0 of 1. The last time David Cameron’s name came up in a White House daily media briefing, Barack Obama’s press secretary responded by borrowing a quote from a rather better known figure in Washington: local baseball star, Bryce Harper. “That’s a clown question, bro,” said spokesman Josh Earnest, to much amusement among American reporters, after he was asked whether the UK prime minister was right to boast that he was so close to the president that Obama called him “bro”. If true, the salutation is an improvement on President George W Bush’s habit of privately greeting the last British prime minister who boasted of their special relationship with the somewhat less respectful “Yo, Blair”. It is also perhaps less excruciating than Cameron’s previous attempt to ingratiate himself with an American political leader – when he was caught confiding to former New York mayor Bloomberg that the Queen had “purred” to him when he told her the result of the Scottish independence referendum. But the more telling lesson from what the press secretary readily acknowledged was just a teasing response to the “bro” question is that this was the first time Cameron’s name, or the British government, had come up in daily briefings at the White House or State Department for weeks, if not months. Aside from the occasionally needy requirement of the British media for reassurance on the special relationship, this is the reality of what British officials in Washington privately concede is both their greatest strength and weakness. In a political news cycle consumed by foreign policy questions in difficult parts of the world – from violence in the Middle East, to awkward relations with Russia or China – the relationship with London is reassuringly constant and cordial, but perhaps ever-so-slightly boring. This is especially true of relations between Cameron and Obama, which insiders say have definitely warmed over time, but have not been forged in the heat of war or crisis, in the way that the friendships between Blair and Bush, or Thatcher and Reagan were. Even when there are big existential threats on the agenda, such as their current shared fear about lone-wolf attacks by radicalised Islamists following recent incidents in Paris, Sydney, Boston and Ottawa, much of what happens behind the scenes during these bilateral summits is more mundane. “The headlines will all be about national security and counter-terrorism, but the reality is that a lot of what goes on at these meetings is a lot duller,” said one senior diplomat involved in preparations for the latest visit. “The big issue for both sides at the moment is trade. Both Obama and Cameron will be keen to talk to each other about what the remaining political hurdles are to a transatlantic free trade deal. The Europeans want to know whether Congress is behind the president; the White House wants to know whether the Europeans are united behind a deal.” A trade deal matters to both countries, and is not without political controversy itself. Some Democrats in Congress fear the White House will further undermine US jobs. British exporters are keen to use a deal to sweep away onerous regulations that add so much cost to doing business in America. The relative lack of drama is viewed by many in Washington as a good thing too. Although there were fears about Britain’s traditional role as a military ally when parliament voted against intervention in Syria two years ago, many Obama supporters breathed a sigh of relief as it gave the president a window to rethink his own plans too. By changing his mind and also calling on Congress to support a bombing raid on Damascus, Obama may have avoided getting on the wrong side of what ultimately would be war against Assad’s enemies instead. Yet, the incident has contributed among the president’s conservative critics to a fear that the current White House is dangerously isolationist when it comes to foreign policy. That has intensified by recent criticism that Obama did not show enough solidarity with his European allies after the Paris attacks. All of which means the White House will be unusually keen this week to stress the permanence of the transatlantic alliance and the special relationship with Britain in particular. Though Cameron stands to gain domestic credibility in the run-up to the general election by appearing statesmanlike at a time of international tension, for once it may be the US president who will have most interest in reminding voters of their Churchillian antecedents. Obama famously ruffled feathers by removing a bust of the wartime leader from the Oval office and replacing it with one of Abraham Lincoln. But, despite the absence of modern British politics in Washington, barely a day goes by without someone – almost always a Republican – appropriating Churchill to support their cause. On Wednesday, it was a congressman in the House of Representatives who borrowed a Churchill quote to support their steadfast opposition to the tyranny of the Obama administration. But with Paris under attack, and the White House under pressure to prove its Atlanticist credentials, expect to see Obama reminding Americans of the unbreakable western alliance all over again. |