US think tank calls for Tory-GOP relationship to be restored

Washington's Heritage Foundation has just published a paper by Dr Nile Gardiner and John Hulsman entitled "Britain's Conservatives Must Reclaim the Anglo-American Special Relationship".  The paper recognises "that the Conservative Party has returned as a force to be reckoned with" since David Cameron's election and it also notes Tony Blair's decline:

"Blair’s days as Prime Minister are numbered, and the British Government’s pro-American outlook may not last beyond his premiership, which could end as early as 2007. In addition, it should be acknowledged that Blair made several major errors of judgment on the international stage, including his support for the European Constitution, a blueprint for a federal Europe that threatens both U.S. and British interests."

It calls on the Bush administration to take some risks in developing links with the new Tory leadership:

"The Bush Administration must increase its dialogue with British conservatives, despite the likelihood of strong opposition from both Downing Street and the Foreign Office. It will be a delicate balancing act, but nevertheless one that must be implemented. There should be regular contact between senior officials at the National Security Council, Pentagon, and State Department and the Conservatives’ foreign policy team. In addition, the President and other senior administration officials should meet with the new Conservative leader at the White House.  A recent precedent was set by the February 2003 visit to Washington of then-German opposition leader Angela Merkel, who met with the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser, and several key senators. In July 2005, the President met Merkel’s leading foreign policy adviser, Wolfgang Schauble (now interior minister) in the Oval Office. A high-level trip to the United States will be an important opportunity for David Cameron to present himself as a potential world leader."

Gardiner and Hulsman believe that "the appointments of William Hague as Shadow Foreign Secretary and Liam Fox as Shadow Defence Secretary bode well for a renaissance in the transatlantic conservative alliance".  The authors hope that a dialogue between the two, once close, centre-right parties will be mutually instructive...

• They hope that the Conservative Party will "send the message that further political integration in the European Union poses a huge strategic threat to the Anglo-American alliance."  They note that George W Bush held "a confused U.S. policy on Europe that came across as favorable to the idea of further political integration in Europe".

• They also hope that a dialogue will firm up Mr Cameron's foreign policy views.  This blog has already wondered aloud about the Tory leader's neocon credentials.  Gardiner and Hulsman describe his views as an enigma: "He has said little about long-term British policy with regard to Iraq or the threat to Western security posed by rogue regimes such as Iran and Syria. Nor has he outlined a coherent conservative strategy for waging the war against al Qaeda."

Comments

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

The US political spectrum is a sizeable jump to the right of the British one, and both the major American parties are right-of-centre by any meaningful British standard. For every fringe nutcase on the left of the Democratic Party there is at least one on the right of the GOP.

The Conservative Party has much in common with both the Democrats and the Republicans, and given the wide-open status of the next Presidential election if Cameron wants to reconstruct a transatlantic alliance he needs to be building bridges with both.

He must also be extremely wary of spend-and-spend Dubya, who appears to be no fiscal liberal, and is extremely unpopular here even with Conservative voters.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

The view from "across the pond" that "that the Conservative Party has returned as a force to be reckoned with" has to be welcomed. This may well allow the paty and then Britain to play an even more important role in world politcs.

Having lived in the States and having family out there it always "amuses" me to hear Republicans wax lyrical about what a good friend Tony Blair is. The Conservative party is well placed to take over the role of being the good friend to America. We must remember that friends are the ones who can ofetn tell us things others cant - including letting us know when we are wrong.

[wasp]

I'm a very pro-US Tory but I'd be very uneasy about Cameron cuddling up to the Republicans.

Bush has about a 16% approval rating in the UK so there is nothing to be gained from being photoed with him.

[Mark Fulford]

Wasp's right - there's more in this for them than there is for us. Our relationship with the US should be just closer than arm's-length.

[James Hellyer]

"...spend-and-spend Dubya, who appears to be no fiscal liberal"

No fiscal conservative surely?

[Editor]

You guys are looking at it very politically.

The world is a better place when Britain and America are close.

It was true in WWII, throughout the Cold War, during the Falklands campaign and now in the war on terror.

If we Conservatives hope to be in office in three or four years' time we need to avoid the point scoring that Howard displayed in his White House relations.

A wise David Cameron will be building relations with tomorrow's leading US players....

On the Republican side that probably means Rudi Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Condi Rice.

On the Democrats side I would highlight Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh.

[malcolm]

I thought you would know your history better Editor.America adopted a very self interested position towards Britain both during World War 2 and more suprisingly during the Falklands.Both Chuchill and Mrs Thatcher were hardnosed people who understood the US position well and did not rely on 'personal chemistry' as Blair does when batting for Britain. The 'special relationship 'was strained both in WW2 and in 1982 but it survived.Blairs 'poodle' approach has resulted in widespread anti-Americanism here,unprecedented in my lifetime I think as it stretches far beyond the usual lefty rabble.
Cameron will have to tread carefully in his relationship with the US.Bush is a completely busted flush amongst the British electorate and is probably finished as a political force in the US too if things get any worse in Iraq.If I were in his shoes I would see how the mid-terms go and then seek to build relationships with the leaders of both parties not just the Republicans.

[Tory T]

I'm with our editor. There is an enduring tie, in terms of party and country. We're not going to invite W to campaign in the local elections but this is a positive sign. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hilary follow suit...

[Selsdon Man]

When Bush the UK, I heard Karl Rove speak to Republicans Abroad. He said that the Bush administration regarded the relationship with Blair as special. He was dismissive of Michael Howard and said that they would deal with the Conservatives through the International Democratic Union. We should tell Bush to stuff his special relationship up his backside.

[Damian]

"He was dismissive of Michael Howard"

Yeah, but Howard - unlike Blair - was swinging all over the place on Iraq, according to where he thought the opinion polls were pointing at the time. Right at the time of the White House cold shoulder, he was cosying up to the anti-war vote. You could hardly expect Bush to be unaware of that, and you could hardly expect that he'd like it.

[Jaz]

Careful, careful here.

We need to ensure our relationship with Hilary Clinton is good...She is quite high in the bets to be the next democrat president. Rudi and Condie are good bets for the Republicans, but they might be a long way off... The Tory party is more inline with Americas left wing democrats, the right-wing republicans are frankly too right-wing.

[jaques d]

This would be an absolute disaster. Cameron would be mad to align himself with the Americans when the new world order will be led by the Europeans. American idiocy is the root and cause of all our current foreign policy problems. Idiots like Rumsfelt and Pearle would never have been allowed any further than middlesex poly had they been born this side of the pond. Americans = THICK THICK THICK

VIVE LE FRANCE

[Tory T]

Jaz says, "The Tory party is more inline with Americas left wing democrats" Er, no we're not. Have you actually MET any left wing democrats, Jaz?

They are utterly revolting. Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, etc, etc. They are rotten with anti-western hatred.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Moore, Dean and Sharpton are no more representative of the Democratic Party than Pat Buchanan is of the mainstream American right.

The mainstream of the Democratic Party is firmly in the centre-right of the British political spectrum, and I don't think the Conservative Party should put itself in a position where relations with a future President of either Party might be compromised.

[Jaz]

"Jaz says, "The Tory party is more inline with Americas left wing democrats" Er, no we're not. Have you actually MET any left wing democrats, Jaz?

They are utterly revolting. Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, etc, etc. They are rotten with anti-western hatred."

Excluding the odd distateful person, our political stances are more in line with the democrats. The republicans are very open-market, anti-welfare party. Ideally, yes they are the most conservative party, but then our current policy and stances are more like the Dems centre-right on our scale.

[Sean Fear]

I think there's a fair amount of common ground between Conservatives and *Right* wing Democrats - the Left wing Democrats are off the wall (a bit like Jacques above).

The USA actually provided quite a lot of useful intelligence at the time of the Falklands War, and, once attempts to broker a deal came to nothing, came down on our side.

[Chris Palmer]

"Excluding the odd distateful person, our political stances are more in line with the democrats. The republicans are very open-market, anti-welfare party. Ideally, yes they are the most conservative party, but then our current policy and stances are more like the Dems centre-right on our scale." - Jaz

You have seriously been watching too much BBC News!

Cllr Iain Lindley is right. The Conservative party needs to forge links with both parties, as either side may field the next US President. It would be foolish of Cameron to only side with the Republicans or with just the Democrats.

[John Hustings]

I wonder what people think are the ideological difference between US Conservatives and British Conservatives?

Aside from abortion, I can't think of that much (at least ideally). It seems to me that the main difference between them is that US Conservatives are just alot more successful.

[petersmith]

Selsdon, Howard was utterly stupid in his relations with the Whitehouse and deserved to be shunned.

The Editor is absolutely right: forget small-scale politics, our relationship with America is bigger and much more vital. And American Conservatism is expecially important - without it, there is no anchor to hold us from a rapid drift into leftist bureuacratic managerialism (whence DC is heading at great speed).

[Ed R]

Our relationship with America is important. Our relationship with the GOP isn't. In fact, while the GOP is being controlled by a government-happy, extremely socially conservative agenda, I think Cameron should keep a wide berth. I think the Bush presidency has been an example of what I consider the worst side of conservatism -- there's not the bravery on the economy of Margaret Thatcher, nor the inspired leadership of Ronald Reagan, just a lot of social conservatism to an extent I find distasteful (especially over issues like gay rights) and a war so poorly planned and so thoroughly botched that it has utterly discredited hawkish politics at a time when it may soon become important for people to support action against truly dangerous countries such as Iran.

[John Hustings]

"just a lot of social conservatism to an extent I find distasteful (especially over issues like gay rights)"

You find it distasteful even though George Bush was speaking for the majority of the American people?

[Selsdon Man]

Why should the Conservatives form a relationship with an administration of liars and torturers?

[Editor]

Malcolm: "I thought you would know your history better Editor.America adopted a very self interested position towards Britain both during World War 2 and more suprisingly during the Falklands."

You're half right Malcolm. In both cases the US was slow to come to Britain's side but US involvement in WWII was vital for victory (and thereafter to keep red Russia in check). The intelligence the US provided once British troops were in the South Atlantic was also vital in reversing the Argentinian invasion of The Falklands.

I'm not saying that the US-UK relationship is always easy but we needed America in WWII, they provided security for W Europe during the Cold War, provided significant help in the latter stages of the Falklands conflict and were the only nation capable of military action against the terrorist regime in Afghanistan.

***

Jaz et al are too kind on the Democrats. This is a party that doesn't like tax cuts, are fully signed up to quota politics, are hopelessly divided on all questions of national security and are in the pockets of producer interests and teacher/ welfare state unions.

I accept as I have already commented that Tories should be talking to Hillary et al in case the Democrats take the White House in 2008 but the Republicans on welfare reform, tax cuts, zero tolerance policing and national security are better inspirations for us.

The GOP is not perfect - not least in its recent record on spending - but the party of Reagan and Bush is preferable to that of Carter and Clinton (particularly if you're a social conservative like me!).

[Chris Palmer]

"The GOP is not perfect - not least in its recent record on spending - but the party of Reagan and Bush is preferable to that of Carter and Clinton (particularly if you're a social conservative like me!)." - Editor

Well said (and the rest of the post too.) I would agree.

[petersmith]

Selsdon: "Our relationship with America is important. Our relationship with the GOP isn't."

I agree that the GOP isn't so great right now, but then again the Conservative Party hardly represents the true spirit of conservatism either, does it? But conservatives in the UK and the US are bound to centre on those parties.

[Selsdon Man]

Clinton's record on spending was much better than Bush's. You can't trust the GOP.

[Ed R]

John: Yes. I think the portion of their population that support him on these issues are wrong too. Just as I believe that those people advocating centre-left policies (some 60% of the voting electorate judging by election results over the years) are wrong.

[Jaz]

There was nothing wrong with the Clinton administration in its time. To be honest, most UK people would be appauled with how the Bush adminsration is operating, where inequality has skyrocketed (I admit that some inequality will always exist, and there is a case fo reduction..but simply I see no reason why it should be extended). The budget deficit is a mess..

We must have a stable relationship with both parties..but Cameron will likely come during the dems time in the whitehouse.

Moreover, we also need strong European relationships... Merkel is probably set to stay for a pretty longtime IMO, We have good relations with the CDU regardless. I have no idea what relationship we have with the French...Or the Italians (and their disaster of an economy recently)

[Stephen A.]

Looking at it from the other side of the pond, both the Tories and Labour in the UK are both to the left of the GOP, though I must say we Republicans LOVE Tony Blair's principled stand on freedom throughout the Middle East, even though we are always a bit shocked at his party's more looney Lefties.

It's hard to see Bush or anyone else here cozying up to Cameron, boy wonder that he is, since he seems to be tracking leftward in his statements.

We have Republicans in this country who have decided to become Democrats in their spending and social policies. Looks like Cameron's seeking the same approach towards Labour. It may even work, but don't expect it to make conservatives in the US any friendlier.

[Sean Fear]

Clinton would have spent recklessly, had he not been constrained by a Republican-controlled Congress. Unfortunately, Bush believes in something called "Big Government Conservatism" which seems to involve little more than massive increases in public spending.

We certainly can learn from US Republicans in terms of their support for free enterprise, determination to act in their country's national interest (as they see it), opposition to racial quotas, their welfare reforms, and support for traditional family structures. We can also learn from their mistakes (high spending, the incompetence in Iraq, the obsession with "Intelligent Design") and so on.

It's encouraging to see a right wing party that is unashamed to be right wing.

[John Hustings]

"John: Yes. I think the portion of their population that support him on these issues are wrong too. Just as I believe that those people advocating centre-left policies (some 60% of the voting electorate judging by election results over the years) are wrong"

I would sooner have our leaders listening to the people on an issue than listening to small but powerful lobby groups.

On the gay marriage issue, the way I see it, the problem came about because of judges in Massachussets thinking they could create the law rather than interpret it. I think we often face the same problem in this country (either from our own judges, or from European ones). Whether you are for or against gay marriage, you should admit that it is not the position of judges to decide whether it is right or not.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I think there are very strong lessons from the USA about the politicisation of the judiciary. As far as I can see both sides of the political spectrum complain about "judicial activism" or "judges creating law rather than interpreting it", but only when the ruling went against them.

[Deckchair of despair]

Editor:
I thought your post above particularly good, and I agree entirely. The Democrats are pretty awful at the moment. They seem to have tacked to the left quite a lot in the last twenty years or so, and have a lot of activists who are like the loonier end of the LibDem spectrum here. Still, we don't know who will be in the White House next time (or the time after), so it's important for Cameron to cultivate warm, friendly, but not exclusive relations with the leading lights of both US parties. I'm confident that he and his team are very capable of that.

[malcolm]

'There was nothing wrong with the Clinton Administration'-Jaz.How about their unbelievably favourable treatment of Sinn Fein/IRA prior to the Good Friday agreemement? Clinton was a man completely devoid of every principle except that of getting elected.Rather like our Prime Minister circ 1997-2003

[wasp]

We can obviously use back room associations with the GOP in terms of think tanks, policy idea sharing etc.

But I doubt a strong personal relationship between Romney and Cameron is of any use at all.

There is no clear President in the current crop of candidates and whoever wins will work well with Cameron as PM. He's just too cuddly.

[Anatole]

The "special relationship" simply does not exist beyond the requirements of the US, and is not a two-way process. The story of Anglo-American relations over the last century has been characterized by two parallel tracks: first the desire of the US to first supplant British interests and latterly to dominate them, particularly with regards empire; and second for Britain to bend over backwards to accomodate our colonial cousins in a bizarre mixture of patronisation and deference. The US never has, nor will it ever have, the interests of Britain at heart and will never act in our interests to their own detriment - quite the reverse of our own behaviour.

There is plent of historical evidence of both parts of this. For the former I would cite: Wilsonian self-determination, WWI debt issues, the Washington Naval Conference of 1922, WWII funding, Suez, the Falklands, Grenada, Belize, the Balkans, the Hong Kong handover, etc. For the evidence of the latter, I would cite: the Alaskan-Canadian border dispute of 1903, the Washington Naval Conference (again), the post-WWII settlement, decolonization, First & Second Gulf Wars. The only period during which we did not do this was that of the Wilson / Heath government's, and our actions so irked the Americans that LBJ called Wilson "that little creep camping on my doorstep". The whole attitude of Americans towards the British over Vietnam can be summed up in McGeorge Bundy's missive to LBJ saying that "it makes no sense for us to save the pound while there is no Union Jack over Hanoi".

As for the Falklands, the fact is that American support was not forthcoming until Thatcher forced the Reagan's administration's hand by sending a fleet, at which point Reagan could not afford to see it come to disaster. Even then however the Americans (with a few exceptions such as Caspar Weinberger) did not want to lean much towards us because of the fall-out with the Latin American policy. Thatcher and John Nott were rightly infuriated by this "on-the-fence" policy - the Americans were essentially saying that they were willing to see British subjects lose their liberty in order to keep friendly dictators in power. A friend indeed!

[Selsdon Man]

Jean Kirkpatrick, if my memory is right, lead the Republican opposition to the Falklands War. Reagan invaded Grenada, a Commonwealth country, without telling Thatcher or the Queen. Our team will be patronised by the neo-cons who will then go back to their love-in with Blair. Get real!

[R UK]

Cameron knows he needs American support to win an election. Murdoch is pretty crucial sadly with so much media under his control, but his main game, where his big bucks are made is in the USA - his Fox TV empire. To get Murdoch, offering him UK sweeteners Blair style e.g. test cricket recently, is not enough. Murdoch will do America'a bidding, so ensuring that the Republican connection is reliable has to be done - holding nose maybe.

While loosening EU ties and initiating the new grouping extra-EPP, we also need to rebuild our trade ties with the English speaking world and get round the EU tarrif barriers that block us out.

We do 30% of our trade there, while the rest of the EU does half that. Cameron has no choice but to build strong ties to America. We need to reconnect with the world not just the USA.

[Fred Hansen]

If this is supposed to be a debate amongst people who pretend to be conservative than there is no hope of any Tory success in the next election to speak of. This debate with of course a few exceptions reflects all what is wrong about BBC bias inculcated into the British public.
Everybody who keeps up to date with US politics knows that the Democrats have no political programm for their country at all. The party has been highjacked by the angry Left of MoveOn and Howard Dean.
Admittedly the GOP is in a crisis right now and it has to readjust its programm and put in more of Goldwater. But for the next decade there is certainly no alternative to the GOP if we want to remain safe given the permanent threat of islamofascism.

[Anatole]

Fred, if you are referring to the latent anti-Americanism of the postings, I think you'll find that this is far more underlying than anything the BBC can inculcate in the wider public. To a great extent, the BBC and its peers are only reflecting a view which has developed completely organically over the last 15 years since the end of the Cold War.

Of course people in this country don't hate the Americans in the same way that the French might do, but the fact is that there is a strong sense of disapproval from people in this country about the ways across the pond, culturally, politically, militarily - and it is not the preserve of the Left by any stretch of the imagination. The British problem with Americans is that they speak a common language, share a common heritage, and so we expect them to act and think like us. Then every time they don't, we are surprised, put out and even disgusted by these differences.

If you are referring to the anti-Republicanism, I think that is a part of the above, insofar as the GOP is for most of us more associated with "America" than the Democrats. This is mostly because they are in power whilst the Democrats are not, but also because they are responsible for the "bad" bits of US policy (i.e. the bits British people tend to disapprove of such as Iraq) and the comprehension of Clinton and the last Democrats as being "internationalist". This may all be inaccurate, but I don't think it is driven by institutions such as the BBC or press, it is a result of our empirical experiences in the last two decades.

[Ted]

America is a colossus which bcause of shared language, shared values and historic ties impacts on the UK more than most countries (Canada & Mexico probably even more).
This impact will lead to resentment - the US has its own goals and an inherent self belief and isolation. A large number of UK residents do feel anti-american
But we mustn't also underestimate the considerable affection for the place that still exists alongside that resentment. 9/11 was interesting in exposing the near rabid anti-american feelings among some parts of the population but it also showed through many individual responses the ties between individuals that exist.
I visited house with US flags or memorobilia suddenly on show, heard the discussions of shock and outrage (incuding outrage at the BBC progs).
Its not a new thing - I've an Atlas which is of the British Empire & Japan (Its Ally) because at end of 19th century everyone else hated the British (President Kruger feted throughout Europe, the US still fuming over UK support for the South). So we published an Atlas that excluded the rest of the world except for our one supporter.