The New Anglo-American Relations

Brown and Bush project a united front, but it's difficult to believe that U.S./U.K. relations will be as cozy as they have been since Blair took office and allied himself with Clinton and Bush. The war in Iraq certainly took their toll on Blair, and Brown seems prepared to not make the same mistake. At the same time, he recognizes the need to stay close to the U.S. As the global power dynamics shift from Old Europe (U.K., France, Germany) to New Asia (China, India) in the coming decades, the U.K. will have to stay close to the U.S. to maintain any significant global influence. The U.S. needs the U.K. as an ally in Europe, as the Old World becomes more and more resentful of the U.S.'s hegemony. A few interesting things from the article:

Mr. Brown, who has eschewed the use of the phrase “war on terrorism,” nonetheless hailed Mr. Bush’s leadership in his campaign against terrorism. “In this century, it has fallen to America to take center stage,” he wrote. “And let me acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this struggle.”

This is an important point which is often lost in the discussion over Iraq. Only the U.S. has the global military capabilities to truly fight terrorist organizations and control rogue states. And the U.K. (and perhaps France and Germany) face a much stronger terrorist threat than we do. If we decide to just let everyone fend for themselves, it could happen at the detriment of the U.K. and Europe.

On the flip: the U.K. faces more exposure to domestic Islamic terrorist threats than the U.S. does, but that also gives them more opportunities to gain intelligence on global networks which threaten Western democracies. The U.S.'s opportunities are essentially limited to Iraq and Afghanistan, and those gains have (obviously) been limited. Indeed, we might be making the situation worse for ourselves in those places. Keeping Europe on our side in the struggle against terrorism is essential, and the U.K. is uniquely positioned to do that.

Elsewhere:

But even the opinion article pointed up subtle differences, for instance with Mr. Brown referring to the acts of such groups as Al Qaeda as “a crime,” and citing the importance of law enforcement in combating terrorists.

During the 2004 presidential race, Mr. Bush and his re-election campaign had leveled harsh criticism against his Democratic opponent, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, for referring to law enforcement action against terrorism, saying it proved Mr. Kerry did not view the threat seriously. Mr. Bush usually refers to terrorist attacks as acts of war.

Asked today whether Mr. Brown’s approach to terrorist groups represented an underlying difference of philosophy, Mr. Bush said it did not and acknowledged that law enforcement tools are part of the fight against terrorism.

This is the biggest wedge between the U.S. and the rest of the Western democracies. They (rightly) view terrorist actions as international criminal activity, like drug smuggling or arms sales. Obviously, if a specific foreign nation directly subsidizes such criminal actions, then they may be treated as acts of war (e.g. Afghanistan). But to the extent that these actions are being conducted by individual, multinational, private groups, they should be treated as crimes rather than acts of war. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between Europe and the U.S. They view Gitmo and the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the denial of Geneva protections as ridiculous abuses of power, and they are right. Bush views them as necessary (and, supposedly, temporary) actions in a time of indefinite war. Bush's thinking is fundamentally flawed, for a number of reasons which I won't bother going into during this post. Needless to say, he comes across as an authoritarian, and Europe likes nothing less than that. They learned their lessons w/r/t executive abuses of power in the 20th century. That, along with the chip on their shoulder which comes from being second-rate powers now, will preclude them from buying whatever America is selling without asking questions.

The next U.S. president will an immediate opportunity to ingratiate him/herself with the rest of the world: He can formally apologize for Abu Ghraib, close Gitmo and send everyone there to an international tribunal or trials in their own countries, present legislation to Congress to revoke the Military Commissions Act, proclaim that the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" ended with the Bush administration, and reinstate the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Hillary Clinton won't do any of these. Neither will Giuliani or Romney. McCain might do a few. Obama is probably the best chance for a severe straightening of our legal system w/r/t detainees. In the linked article, Bush said that the U.S. and U.K. remain strong allies because "We have common interests throughout the world, but it’s an important relationship primarily because we think the same: We believe in freedom and justice as fundamentals in life." The rest of the world isn't buying it for obvious reasons. The next U.S. president will have the chance to change that perception.