Opinion - News Analysis   

A rancid relationship

Richard Norton-Taylor

Britain's close alliance with the U.S. has become one-way traffic.

A SENIOR British military commander in the invasion of Iraq said the other day that Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Defence Secretary, should be tried for war crimes. He was speaking in private and, I assume, did not mean to be taken literally. But there was no mistaking the anger in his voice.

It reflected a deep fury at the decision to disband the Iraqi army after the invasion, a decision that was the formal responsibility of U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer, but, according to British officials, was actually taken by Mr. Rumsfeld — and is now regretted even by the neocon warriors in Washington. It also contradicted orders given by British military chiefs to their commanders in the field.

This resentment — shared by senior officials in all key British government departments — is compounded by warnings from British officials to ministers well before the invasion that the Bush administration had no post-invasion strategy. That these warnings were made is clear from leaked documents. They also show that, despite Mr. Rumsfeld's claims, the U.S. did need British help. "The U.S. saw the U.K. [and Kuwait] as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical," a secret record of a Downing Street meeting noted on July 23, 2002.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair agreed that Britain would take the lead in eradicating the opium harvest in Afghanistan, the origin of 90 per cent of British heroin. In his new book, State of War, James Risen quotes a CIA official as saying: "The British were screaming for us to bomb those targets because most of the heroin in Britain comes from Afghanistan. But they [the U.S. military] refused." He writes: "The Pentagon feared that counter-narcotics operations would force the military to turn on the very warlords who were aiding the United States against the Taliban and that would lead to another round of violent attacks on American troops."

Mr. Risen refers to a meeting between Mr. Rumsfeld and Afghan commanders where the message was: help fight the Taliban and the U.S. will leave the traffickers alone. British troops are now preparing for a "nation-building" mission to counter insurgents and narcotics in southern Afghanistan. It could take 20 years, according to a leaked Ministry of Defence briefing paper.

What is Washington doing in return for all Mr. Blair's help? Mr. Bush has blocked a billion-dollar deal with Rolls Royce to build engines for the proposed joint strike fighter — which Britain wants for its two new aircraft carriers — despite repeated lobbying from Mr. Blair. The U.S. still refuses to share advanced military technology with us. It is refusing to let British agencies question terrorist suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged September 11 mastermind; it won't even say where they are being held.

Is it in Britain's national interest to be so closely allied to a U.S. that takes Britain for granted, to an administration that sets up Guantanamo Bay — where the treatment of prisoners led a high-court judge to remark that "America's idea of what is torture is not the same as ours and does not appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations?" —

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

(Richard Norton-Taylor is The Guardian's security affairs editor.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Turning outrage into applause
Common ground against Gyanendra
A terrorist organisation rises again
New American moves in Asia
Corrections and clarifications
A rancid relationship
Persisting myths about Russia-U.S. ties
Hope for patients of Alzheimer's disease
Sonia's resignation
She had no option
A mockery
Exploiting adversity
Water privatisation

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu