Obama, Cameron and oil spill

Obama continues to put pressure on Cameron

In brief: New problems and global solutions to these problems still remain number one issue for Britain and the U.S..

So now we have a statement of the president Barack Obama. His anger at the situation with BP does not have a nothing personal. Just business. In a conversation held with British Prime Minister, David Cameron, the American president said that his obvious desire to find the one who “Pour on the first number in BP, totally not a manifestation of anti-British sentiments. The president’s words, of course, encouraging. But the situation with BP was a sad reminder that for the widely advertised “special relationship” between the U.S. and Britain hidden mutual hatred, ready to boil over at the first emergency.

Not that talk about “special relationship” was utter nonsense. At certain times of the Anglo-American relationship can truly be called a deep and tender. Suffice it to recall Tony Blair’s rapturous reception in Congress in 2003. However, when between Britain and America, building tension, the two countries re-raises a number of negative stereotypes. Americans are spoiled and duplicitous Brits a nation of snobs. (To simplify the identification of a Hollywood villains often a British accent.) For a typical British stereotype of Americans – a fat maniac, armed to the teeth. A scene from the movie by Richard Curtis ‘Love Actually’ when the British prime minister (played by Hugh Grant) said the U.S. president, which should go to shows about the hidden feelings of humiliation because of the inequality of power between the two countries. When, in a recent issue of the British newspaper the Daily Mail headline appeared, reading “Defend your country, Mr Cameron, it seemed, he demanded that the long-awaited execution of real scenes from the movie” Love Actually “.

The British may have begun to feel that the situation with BP takes shade of xenophobia, when an American professor, in an interview to a radio program on the BBC Today (mandatory for the morning listening to the British elite) to contemptuously said: “This Tony Hayward, head of BP, Lord, he or Duke or Knight? However, evidence that members of the U.S. administration can afford to “beating” the British, in fact, quite small. Often quoted by the fact that Obama was named the company after British Petroleum, even though more than ten years, it is known as BP, in its essence, is not evidence of a violent antipathy towards the UK. But, taking into account the problems of the British Financial Centre City and fight the Government with a huge budget deficit, the last thing the UK is a threat to the collapse of the country’s largest companies because of lawsuits from America. BP presented a substantial amount in every major UK pension fund. In an interview with The Times, former Foreign Minister Malcolm Rifkind said that “angry rhetoric of U.S. President is excessive and threatens to result in significant differences between the U.S. and Britain. British journalists accused Obama of hostility because of the colonial experience, his father Kenyan. It is much more obvious explanation for the behavior of the U.S. President is sincere anger, as well as the fact that politically expedient to direct public anger at BP.

Disagreement between Britain and America had happened earlier – for example, during the Falklands War and the Kosovo crisis. Typically, they pass. However, it is likely that the situation with BP will have a more lasting effect. The reason is that some of the foundations of a “special relationship” is already a bit loose. Eric Idelman, a former senior officer in the Pentagon, argues that “the sharp attacks” on the issue of security, which is crucial for the relations between the two countries, “sounded on both sides of the Atlantic.” In particular, he notes a reduction in the cost of the British defense industry, which makes the UK less useful ally for the United States. During the reign of Bush’s attitude of British society to America was much less positive. Until recently, Obama represents a person that can revive the love of Great Britain to the United States. However, the British overlooked the fact that Obama, unlike his predecessors, has no special cultural or emotional ties with Britain. The ratio of Ronald Reagan to the United Kingdom was established during the Second World War, Bill Clinton studied at Oxford, received the Rhodes Scholarship, both Bush Sr. and Jr., were members of the East Coast establishment, which traditionally has close ties with its Transatlantic counterparts. Obama grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. He calls himself “the first president of the Pacific” America.

As for Cameron, he is the first prime minister to Tory in Britain after the war in Iraq. At the beginning of his tenure as party leader, he expressed the view that Britain’s relationship with America is sometimes too “obsequious”. In truth, he never tried to concretize the idea, but in Washington, his words are not forgotten. Once a week ago in a situation with BP scheduling another nasty turn, Cameron was in Afghanistan, which extolled the bravery of British soldiers. I think he – a supporter of continuing activism. However, society is tired of Afghanistan, and the stress on public finances, and so very important. To many, this war is presented as a struggle on the order of the Americans, despite the fact that Britain is under greater threat of South Asian terrorism than America. Cameron, of course, will not withdraw British troops from Afghanistan in response to developments with BP. Such a piecemeal or a direct reaction is excluded. But zakisanie Anglo-American relationship will inevitably change the attitude of the British to the Afghan war, especially in light of the fact that other European countries have already withdrawn from the country’s troops.

Ukrainian Globalist
2010-06-29 19:16, Economics.

News on: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post a comment