![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
laur10s.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
usxuk Sep. 22nd, 2009 06:50 pm)New US Ambassador Louis Susman calls for a stronger 'special relationship'
And the following article:
LONDON — The U.S. ambassador to London said Tuesday that the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi has not hurt relations between Britain and the United States.
Ambassador Louis Susman, who was sworn in two months ago as President Barack Obama's envoy to London, told the BBC that the diplomatic fallout from the release of al-Megrahi last month has been negligible and that the so-called "special relationship" between Britain and the United States remained unscathed.
"Friends don't agree on anything and we don't agree on the position that was taken on Mr. (al-)Megrahi," Susman told the broadcaster. "And I will tell you unequivocally though that while it's a serious position, it does not damage the special relationship."
Al-Megrahi is the only man convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, an atrocity that killed 270 people — most of them American. Although al-Megrahi has always claimed innocence, the former Libyan intelligence agent was found guilty by a special Scottish court in 2001 and sentenced to serve at least 27 years in prison.
He was released last month on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, a decision that disgusted U.S. families of the victims and drew outrage from the U.S. government.
Susman said Britain and the United States shared too many interests, including Afghanistan and intelligence matters, to let al-Megrahi's release poison the atmosphere between the trans-Atlantic allies.
"The relationship is too strong," he said.
(The Associated Press)
I thought this might brighten your day :D
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Oh, do you have a link to the original article?
From:
no subject
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqTTLSZxfqZHCi2uQ6PCK64TqL1AD9ASK7F82
And the title I gave is from another one:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6843738.ece
From:
no subject
The second link made me smile. |D
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I actually don't think the special relationship has been in much danger in recent months. It's typical media 'the sky is falling.' They really do treat these two countries like a Hollywood couple! (Gasp! Did you hear some US staffers were difficult to get in touch with at the G8 summit. Clearly the end of the special relationship.) It's kind of hilarious when you think about it, but it's also a bit frustrating.
Most of the problems that have arisen have... essentially been fall out from the last eight years and what they're trying to rectify there, missteps based on that (on part of both nations) that have ruffled feathers on whatever their opposite side of the pond is. The stuff about Obama not valuing the relationship for example is imho, unfounded, and there's so much to point to the contrary.
One thing to remember about the Lockerbie controversy is that it was a decision on Scotland's part, not the UK as a whole. And over 2/3 of the Scottish population disagreed with the decision (not just U.S. citizens, which the article doesn't point out), so yeah, I don't see it having any long term effects either.
Somewhere America and England are rolling their eyes over all the media hoopla about their tumultuous relationship. While cuddling, of course.
From:
no subject
I squeal at this! Not sure if it's due to the fangirling!idiot inside me or the fact that it's true. 8Db
Our boys are DEFINITELY getting such a hard time from the media!!
LEAVE THEM ALONE PAPARAZZI!!!From:
no subject
YAY! :D
From:
no subject
In Hetalia terms I'd say they're having, well, disagreements. But that's quite usual for them, so... :D
(As for Obama, it's not really about him personally, it's just that him being the President of the USA, his actions, in a way, reflect on the country itself. And as such, the incidents with the Churchill bust or the Brown visit had pretty strong symbolic overtones, even if they were really just honest mistakes.)
From:
Okay, here we go!
I did find the Churchill thing weird, and I didn't get that. But symbolic overtones to the dvd debacle, really? Bad gift choice, yes. But slight? No, that seems overkill to me, and that's kind of what I'm getting at with the sky is falling mentality. But people act is if the guy has just continually knocked the relationship with the UK, when it's very much on the contrary.
As for whether it would be tragic or not. For a lot of citizens, it would be something pretty upsetting.
It all happens on a political level, it doesn't really have anything to do with how say, citizens of both nations view or relate to each other.
Of course. Although speaking in Hetalia terms I actually consider it of equal relevance. Hetalia characters seem to be more about their cultures than anything else.
In Hetalia terms I'd say they're having, well, disagreements. But that's quite usual for them, so... :D
Well I'm sure they're still bickering, but they always do. I don't really think it that relevant, when I consider their characters. I don't think nations have to be in a strained relationship every time their bosses are not BFFs (except when it's something HUGE, and even then I imagine exceptions). And certainly characters are implied to be in different relationships than one would think looking at real life politics. *shrug* I guess they could be having troubles if a fan wanted them to be, though.
From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
"But symbolic overtones to the dvd debacle, really?"
Yes, actually. Diplomacy is partly about symbolic niceties and gestures. Call it a vestige from older times, but it's still very important because making people feel you're disrespecting them and what they represent is not a very good way to impress them. (For example, it may seem completely irrelevant who sits where on a state dinner but it's actually pretty important.) In this case, the entire event was symbolic - it was supposed to be about the ties between the two countries, a formal affirmation of mutual closeness and goodwill.
And it wasn't just the DVDs, it was the entire visit, really. I mean, the President of the USA claiming to be "too tired" to give the PM of Britain a proper formal welcome, to hold a press conference and even a state dinner, and then the DVDs (R-1 at that!)... this is not the sort of welcome one gives to the man who represents one's country's ostensibly closest friend and ally. This is a reception fitting someone way less important. I expect my PM getting this sort of reception, though I think even he would get a state dinner. I'm not saying this means that Obama single-handedly destroyed the friendly relations between Britain and the US because it was obviously not the case. But still, it didn't send a positive message about America's official attitude to Britain. It was a formal meeting of two men who represented their countries. One of them emphasized the importance of their ties while the other was apparently pretty nonchalant about it. Even if he didn't really mean to give that impression, it basically said "sorry, you're not really important." (In fact, this was exactly what a White House official said when questioned about the incident. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4953523/Barack-Obama-too-tired-to-give-proper-welcome-to-Gordon-Brown.html))
Just to be clear, I have nothing against Obama, I'm neither British nor American and I'm not living in either country
damn it allso I'm a complete outsider in this. Still, looking at it objectively, this incident was a spectacular diplomatic fail.From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
Yes, this is definitely true.
I still disagree on the dvds. Of course the PotUS's behavior reflects the nation though, I wouldn't argue against that.
I'm not denying the fail of the visit. Obviously the visit... did not go as well as planned. I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt (until proven otherwise), but yes, fail did definitely occur. But the followup visit in the UK was very solid, from all I read. Lots of really great stories came out of that one.
That article is pretty brutal though, although I'm always wary of articles that don't name sources. For obvious reasons though, they're.... woefully common.
From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
"That article is pretty brutal though, although I'm always wary of articles that don't name sources. For obvious reasons though, they're.... woefully common."
Well yeah, unfortunately political journalism is not like academics... if it were, a lot less information would reach us. ^^;; The article is quite brutal, but then the Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper. Over at the Guardian the reactions were "lol Gordon got snubbed" and "well yes, this is what we deserve."
(I still don't understand why there are no fanfics about the incident, though. One would think the angst and the make-up
sexwould be great fanfic material...)From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
Because with the UK it's fine, but let's face, it, the UK is pretty much our only tried and true stick-to-it buddy (which is greatly our own fault) and it would um, be really nice to be on very friendly terms with other nations as well.
Basically, sorry England, I value your friendship, but I kind of want some other buddies as well. Oh and... I should probably be on better terms with the other major world powers.
Over at the Guardian the reactions were "lol Gordon got snubbed" and "well yes, this is what we deserve."
Yeah and on BBC it seems a fair combination of both.
From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
Well yeah, unfortunately political journalism is not like academics... if it were, a lot less information would reach us. ^^;; The article is quite brutal, but then the Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper. Over at the Guardian the reactions were "lol Gordon got snubbed" and "well yes, this is what we deserve."
lol. The papers quite hate Gordon and take delight in reporting all these stuff about him being snubbed and what the hell. Jesus Christ people, Obama was BUSY. Brown was being a desperate leech for his own personal and party gains. That does not mean the UK/US relations are bad.
Another thing to consider is that...Obama didn't have other bilateral talks to any other EU nation in the summit as well. And its nearly election time for the UK, and Brown and the Labour party is predicted to lose it, so Brown is a bit desperate to have some of the Obama mania rub of on him to boost his chances of winning. Obama wisely did not play into that act.
And yes, America needs to rebuild itself from the damage the past eight years under Bush did. Which is why Obama is building relations with the rest of the world. He HAS to. He already sees eye-to-eye with Britain in key issues such as sanctions on Iran and the economy and nuclear weapons, so there was really no need for bilateral talks at that time as compared with China, Japan and Russia.
Hetalia-wise, I just don't see England being too upset about that. He's probably embarrassed his PM is so persistent.
From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
Well, IMO it wasn't that simple. Opinions on Brown aside (I'm not really qualified to talk about British internal politics), greeting the new president of a country is customary, and going to greet him in person is just natural between countries that share a close relationship. It's pure ceremony. Obama being busy should not have figured into it at all. I mean, think about the reverse: the President of the USA going to visit Britain and not being granted a proper reception because the PM is too "busy" or "tired" to deal with him... there would've been an outrage, and a wholly justified one.
Hetalia-wise, I personally do see England being miffed, especially about the Churchill bust incident.
From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
Also, this is what I get for butting in. orz. I was talking about the more recent "snub" at the UN, not the DVD one.
As for the DVDs, that was just really "eh". The British media really made an uproar on that. I don't think that's enough to cause such an uproar over relations, in truth, or that it's a snub per se (Brown did get the rare honor of addressing Congress), but that was really poor handling on the gifts and reception part. The admin seemed to have improved with the gift giving thing with the G20 Pittsburgh meeting, though.
The "special relationship" is...weird. Like you said, its one that fluctuate a lot (that's politics), and at this moment, while I can't say it's strained (there's been worse times), Britain isn't quite a priority as it was in the Bush admin; it's certainly isn't at its highest point. And I think both Britain and the US, in RL, need a bit of this break to reevaluate the relationship and consider their relations with others. With the recent crisis and changes, it's getting hard to do things without the cooperation of other nations. They'd still work together, but it doesn't hurt to broaden their alliances.
honestly, I don't always equate what's happening RL is always quite true for the Hetalia canon so I'm not overly O_o if the "special relationship" is strained or whatever in RL. It's not so tragic folks, really. /bricked
From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
But I can't see it being more than a tiff, an argument.
Personally what England would have been REALLY irate over lately would have been the Queen not being invited to the D-day anniversary. That was so very tacky, imho. I know it wasn't America's doing, but I could still see him being kind of sour to America over it, although again, not enough to cause some kind of rift. I honestly don't think America would agree with the decision. Hell, I'm not sure France would. Of course, most of his ire would go toward France though.
honestly, I don't always equate what's happening RL is always quite true for the Hetalia canon
Same. And really, I think all of these nations have been around long enough to know that the actions of a boss don't always reflect the feelings of the nation-tan.
From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
And really, it seems they talk a lot, so is a meeting actually necessary?
Well, there's only so much that one can do over the phone and through diplomats and whatnot. But meetings, especially on a Presidential/PM levels are definitely not necessary... that meeting was, though.
From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
At the G20/UN events going on this week? No, I don't think it was necessary at all. It would have essentially been a glorified photo opportunity or PR boost for Brown. Nothing would have gotten done that couldn't have been done elsewhere.
From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
(As for Brown I don't want to get into that because as I said above, I'm not really qualified for that. I know most everyone hates him but well, the previous PM of my country was hated by most everyone, too, but I actually liked the guy and thought he had the right idea, and I'm still angry that the opposition and his own party sabotaged it, so... yeah.)
From:
Re: Okay, here we go!
About Brown. I don't hate him at all, don't get me wrong! If he indeed did throw a fit about the meeting things (which does appear to be a lot of media spin, as is often the case), then I disagree with him though.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I read that yesterday and kept grinning like an idiot.
Ah, the Special Relationship. There's this one book that says that there's nothing quite like it, and its almost indestructible, and there isn't just an adequate explanation why it lasted for so long.
XD
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
and they made me draw a r-18 comic"The relationship is too strong," he said. *_* definitely brighten my day
PORQUE AMO A ESTOS DOS XD! DAMN IT!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
It's so nice!! ^^
From:
no subject
which I seriously needed cuz I was just playing something that scared the shit out of me~