Trouble in the Trans-Atlantic Romance

Published in ABC
(Spain) on 6 May 2010
by RAMÓN PÉREZ-MAURA (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Robert N. Cory. Edited by Catherine Harrington.
One outcome of this election that hasn't drawn much attention is the likely rift with the United States that will develop from a growing trans-Atlantic divorce. Some facts seem quite obvious: first, there has not been in the history of Great Britain a head of one of the major political parties as anti-American as Nick Clegg, the star of this comedy. What's more, never has the leader of the Conservative Party distanced himself as far from Washington as has the present Tory candidate. The nearest comparison would be Harold Wilson, who strained the bilateral relationship more than any predecessor in the 20th century.

The question, without doubt, is how much of Cameron's bilateral skepticism is pure show and will dissipate once he arrives at 10 Downing Street. It is probably mostly show. But the problem remains in so far as the reasons for this skepticism won't change in the next few months. What Cameron wants — in evoking Clegg — is a relationship that is not subservient. This is seemingly what Obama has not wanted to concede because the bilateral problem is Barack Obama, and that wasn't addressed in today's polls. Obama is the least NATO-oriented U.S. president since James Monroe in 1820. For Obama, the main political axis is not the Atlantic but the Pacific. And the United Kingdom, as such, is geographically out of the picture.

There is a protagonist these days who is the best witness to Obama's apathy toward the United Kingdom and who is the most NATO-oriented of all: Gordon Brown. Obama has "snubbed" Brown, denied him bilateral meetings, and treated him to disdainful acts of protocol. And this from a president who was going to improve relations with Europe, where the United Kingdom is the closest North American ally, and with Brown and Obama being ideologically in tune.

It is difficult to predict today's poll result, but after the new government tackles its most urgent anti-crisis measures, then it better figure out what to do about Washington.


Uno de los fenómenos de esta elección al que menos atención se le ha prestado es el probable alejamiento de Estados Unidos que resultará del creciente divorcio transatlántico. Algunos datos parecen muy evidentes: el primero es que no ha habido en la historia de Gran Bretaña un jefe de uno de los partidos principales que sea tan anti norteamericano como lo es Nick Clegg, la estrella de estos comicios. Pero no es menos cierto que nunca un líder del Partido Conservador dio tantas muestras de distanciamiento respecto de Washington como el actual candidato tory. Sólo podría comparársele con un primer ministro laborista, Harold Wilson, que tensó la relación bilateral como nadie antes que él en el siglo XX.

La pregunta, sin duda, es cuánto del escepticismo bilateral de Cameron es pura fachada y se disipará si llega al 10 de Downing Street. Y es probable que bastante. Pero el problema reside en que las razones para ese escepticismo no van a cambiar en los próximos meses. Lo que Cameron pide -evocando a Clegg- es una relación que no sea de sumisión. Y eso es lo que parece que Obama no ha querido conceder. Porque el problema bilateral es Barack Obama, y eso no lo arreglan las urnas hoy. Obama es el presidente menos atlantista que ha tenido Estados Unidos desde James Monroe en 1820. Para Obama el eje de la política no es el Atlántico sino el Pacífico. Y el Reino Unido no puede encajar en él.

Hay un protagonista más de esta jornada que es el mejor testigo de la indiferencia de Obama hacia el Reino Unido y que es el más atlantista de todos: Gordon Brown. Obama ha «esnobeado» a Brown, le ha negado encuentros bilaterales, ha tenido gestos protocolarios de desprecio hacia él. Y eso que este presidente era el que se iba a llevar mejor con Europa, que el Reino Unido es el mejor aliado de los norteamericanos y Brown y Obama son ideológicamente afines.

Es difícil predecir qué resultado darán las urnas hoy, pero cuando el nuevo Gobierno logre afrontar las más urgentes medidas anti crisis, deberá después pensar qué hace con Washington.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Nepal: The Battle against American Establishment

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Poland: Jędrzej Bielecki: Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory*

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Topics

India: Peace Nobel for Trump: It’s Too Long a Stretch

Ecuador: Monsters in Florida

Austria: It’s High Time Europe Lost Patience with Elon Musk

Singapore: The US May Win Some Trade Battles in Southeast Asia but Lose the War

Ethiopia: ‘Trump Guitars’ Made in China: Strumming a Tariff Tune

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

China: 3 Insights from ‘Trade War Truce’ between US and China

United Kingdom: We’re Becoming Inured to Trump’s Outbursts – But When He Goes Quiet, We Need To Be Worried

Related Articles

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Spain: Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Spain: King Trump: ‘America Is Back’

Spain: Trump Changes Sides

Spain: Narcissists Trump and Musk: 2 Sides of the Same Coin?