From the United States perspective, Washington’s relationship with the United Kingdom is like a stool with three legs. The first leg represents the strong intelligence and military assets and capabilities that the United Kingdom has long brought to the table. )Dempsey, 2015(
The military and intelligence ties with the United Kingdom are still valuable for United States officials. As Nicholas Burns, the former United States ambassador to NATO and the State Department’s third-ranking official said: “Until recently, United Kingdom has been the most trusted, credible, and most capable ally.” (Dyer, 2015)
The importance of British intelligence cooperation with the United States government is so far as President Barack Obama has announced in his recent visit to the United Kingdom that: “Intelligence sharing between American and British spies wouldn’t be affected by the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.” (Hope, 2016)
Over the past years, it has been revealed that the British secret service has been working closely with the United States National Security Agency (NSA). The British intelligence agency, known as the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has gained access to a huge amount of sensitive data through controlling the network of cables carrying telephone and Internet information and shares such data with the NSA. The GCHQ has attempted to carry out an operation called Tempora by which it would buffer most internet communications that are extracted from fibre-optic cables for thirty days so that such information will be processed and analyzed at a later time. The United Kingdom’s technical capacity to tape into telephone cables of Government Communications Headquarters to store data has turned the country into a superpower in this field. (MacAskill and others, 2013)
The former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the British government’s communications headquarters has been monitoring the bookings made by diplomats and government delegations in more than 231 hotels across the world. In fact, the British intelligence service has been informed of diplomats and country delegations through a highly confidential program called the “royal concierge” by which reports had been providing on a regular basis. This program can automatically copy email addresses and hotel reservations and purposefully identify the email addresses that belong to the governments that have the gov suffix.
London experts claim that the total data (metadata) produced by the British Government Communications Headquarters is much more than what the United States National Security Agency can produce. Perhaps this is why Edward Snowden describes the United Kingdom as being “much worse than the United States.” In fact, comparing to the United States intelligence agency, the British intelligence service applies fewer restrictions on its spying activities.
The point is that, according to United States law, the NSA cannot collect data of United States citizens unless it obtains authority from the court that oversees information activities abroad. Even this consent is issued only when an individual or non-American group is involved. The Tempora Project in cooperation with the British Security Service has paved the way for NSA to circumvent the law.
The British intelligence service’s cooperation with the United States authorities has not only gone beyond the common technical measures regarding data and information but also the scope of these activities has been expanded in a way that spying on key objectives also would be included in this field. A clear example is the documents disclosed by the WikiLeaks website; according to the documents, the British University of Durham in coordination with the authorities in London has given some research and information about Iran to the United States Department of State in exchange for receiving secret funding.
In 2009, the designers of the project had officially invited Iranian prominent academics and authorities to exchange political and cultural experiences in Durham. The project was initiated under the pretext of establishing communication with people who are called “sympathetic Iranians.” The type of questions that had been posed and the people who had been invited were more like a planned program for purposes other than academic education. The above-mentioned documents show how Durham University registered in the United States Department of State’s $100,000 program in 2008 to implement proposed projects in an attempt to communicate with various Iranian NGOs, academics and authorities. These documents shed some light on how the Durham University due to its academic credentials has gained political access to the fields which the United States Department of State cannot enter. (WikiLeaks, 2008) These documents indicate that the United States Department of State looked at this university as a tool for expanding its influence in Iran.
According to the same document, the WikiLeaks website, based on the Department of State’s correspondence list, reports that: the United States Department of State has offered $300,000 to Durham University to hold seminars under the title of “Durham University School of Public Affairs” in Iran. The history of such correspondence dates back to April 2008, in which the effectiveness of this project is mentioned especially given the close relationship of the University of Durham with the officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran and it is called an “appropriate political coverage.” (WikiLeaks, 2008)
Military Equipment and Capabilities
When a military intervention is to be carried out by the United States, the British forces would engage in not for mere military purposes but rather they would attend the battlefield to pretend that there is an “international coalition” through which only the United States and its “loyal partner” are seriously interested in carrying out the operation. (Curtis, 2013: 149)
James Rogers, a professor of European security at Baltic Defence College and senior editor of the European Geostrategy Magazine, says that “this cooperation has geographic dimensions; the United States is strongly dependent on England for achieving its global geostrategic goals, and this is not limited to depending on British military facilities in areas such as the Diego Garcia Naval Base. At the same time, Washington is considering London as an ally in terms of bringing security to the world’s shipping lanes.
Indeed, the United Kingdom-United States alliance sits at the heart of the Euro-Atlantic structures, not least NATO. Without it, NATO would lose its salience, as far as the United Kingdom provides a second center of strategic decision making (after the United States) that goes above and beyond anything provided by other European powers. And without NATO, the European Union would likely deteriorate, due to the simple fact that NATO provides the benign security environment in which the European Union can function and grow. (Dempsey, 2015)
The British troops later proved that they are doing very much for the Americans in outbound operations, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. One British soldier blaming the Americans on the work of the British in this area tells the Guardian:
“The British public has a higher tolerance for casualties than the Americans, that’s my understanding.”
Also, during the country’s presence in Afghanistan, some British forces while criticizing the United States intelligence agency for not knowing al-Qaeda strongholds and exploiting the British troops as proxy forces, stated that:
“They didn’t have a clue so they sent us in to find out.” (Carrol, 2002)
Having Extensive Influence on Institutions (International Organizations)
The third major function of the British government to continue the United States-led domination system in the current century is playing a role in regional and international organizations. As a result, the British think tank, Chatham House, in its 2013 report, while examining the special relationship between Washington and London, stated that:
“The United Kingdom brings three principal benefits to the United States: a) a voice in the European Union with similar interests, agendas; b) assets (military, diplomatic, intelligence and economic among others); and c) a different perspective in terms of recognizing the challenges. These three principles are of high importance for the United States.” (Dormandy, 2013: 9)
Pierre Vimont, a senior member of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, concurs with this view and says that” the two resolutions on the Yemeni war and the policy of imposing sanctions against Russia due to its actions in Ukraine and the Libyan crisis, were adopted in the United Nations Security Council because of the endeavours and lobbies of Washington and London. (Dempsey, 2015)
This United Kingdom’s key position for White House officials has prompted President Barack Obama in his last official visit to the United Kingdom to persuade the British people to stay in the European Union:
“As your friend, let me say that the European Union makes the United Kingdom even greater…the European Union doesn’t moderate British influence – it magnifies it… a strong Europe is not a threat to United Kingdom’s global leadership; it enhances United Kingdom’s global leadership. The United States sees how your powerful voice in Europe ensures that Europe takes a strong stance in the world, and keeps the European Union open, outward-looking, and closely linked to its allies on the other side of the Atlantic. So, the United States and the world need your outsized influence to continue – including within Europe.” (Obama, 2016)
Obama, while rejecting allegations by anti-European activists accusing him of interfering in British politics, stated that the British withdrawal is against the United States’ national interests and a threat to the stability and prosperity of the West. He argued that:
“British departure from the alliance would not just be bad for the United Kingdom, but would run contrary to the national interests of the United States, threatening stability and prosperity in the Western world at a time of turmoil.” (Liptak and Collinson, 2016)
United Kingdom’s support for the United States in the framework of the United Kingdom’s role in international and regional institutions has enabled the United States to achieve its goals easier. In the issue of Iraq, even after the United States announced that it would attack the country with or without the United Nations authorization, it seemed that the British have persuaded the Bush administration to pretend to act in accordance with the United Nations resolutions. In this case, Blair’s government was playing the role of Bush’s public relations advisor. (Curtis, 2013, 15)
Perhaps this is why the United States Congress, in its 2013 summing up of the Washington-London relationship, portrays the future of the special relationship as follows: “Most analysts agree that the United States-United Kingdom political relationship is likely to remain intimate; that the “special relationship” will remain strong on many vital issues in which the United Kingdom is a crucial United States ally; and that the two countries will remain key economic partners. Observers also assert that the main dimensions of the United States-United Kingdom relationship are deep and assertions about an impending break-up of the “special relationship” tend to be exaggerations.” (Mix, 2013: 13)
Conclusion
Using the “hegemony” theory of Gramsci, this paper tries to describe, explain, and analyze the actions of the British government in order to show the United Kingdom’s efforts for maintaining and sustaining the United States-led domineering system. Hence, we have tried to explain the components of the power of the British government and elaborate on the way that the American system was disseminated and Washington’s intellectual leadership was justified through public diplomacy, media diplomacy, and diplomatic relations. In addition, it has been mentioned that British troops and security services as well as the material capabilities of this government are reinforcing and strengthening The United States’ domination.
Finally, we argued that the position of the United Kingdom in regional and international institutions and organizations is in line with the continuation of the United States’ domineering power.
In the field of ideas and doctrines, while taking advantage of the media tool, public diplomacy and diplomatic relations, the British government takes steps within the framework of its soft power and towards strengthening the intellectual and ethical leadership of the United States.
It should be noted that British public diplomacy has a tangible relationship with the soft power of the country, as it has invisible and indirect effects on the culture, values and mental attitudes of citizens of other countries. On the other hand, the British ministers and officials are practically acting as American diplomats; therefore, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was identified as George W. Bush’s poodle.
Likewise, in the field of the media, the British editors have been continually struggling to show the necessity and legitimacy of the United States military actions. It should be noted that what is not reported in the United Kingdom media about the United States is as important as what is reported; hence, during the United States wars in the region, the United States-favored propaganda distributed by the British media has been far more important than its military assistance.
In addition to utilizing the software capacities for strengthening The United States’ domination, United Kingdom uses hard and semi-hard powers as material capabilities along with other parts of its power indicators in the military and intelligence fields, as United States officials acknowledge that they still consider the intelligence and military relationship with the United Kingdom as valuable and significant.
One of the common functions and actions of the United Kingdom government is that apparently, it assumes a role in any military intervention with the presence of the Americans whereas, in reality, the United Kingdom engagement in the war is to pretend that there is an “international coalition.”
In terms of playing a role in institutions, the United States alliance with the United Kingdom may sit at the heart of various structures, including the NATO, Security Council and the European Atlantic relations. For this reason, Barack Obama, before the referendum on Brexit was hold, had considered British withdrawal from the European Union to run contrary to the national interests of the United States and a threat to the stability and prosperity of the West.
It is important to note that, there is no agreement with respect to the success of the United Kingdom despite the existing consensus on the complex function and specific position of the British government in maintaining the domination system in the present century. Although some believe that the United Kingdom has played a successful role in maintaining the hegemonic power of the United States in the international arena, yet others such as Zbigniew Brzezinski points to the “death of American hegemonic power.” Brzezinski, a former United States national security adviser in 2013, speaking at the Johns Hopkins University, emphasized the death of the hegemonic power of The United States and said “The United States’ hegemony seems to be drowning and its domination (The United States) is also unattainable. The United States’ control over the world in the last thirteen years after the Cold War, has come to an end.”
Another issue that the opponents of the hegemony of the United States are addressing is the phenomenon of the Islamic Revolution and the discourse that is promoted by such ideology. In fact, the triumph of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in the twentieth century, and the sustainability of its discourse in the present century as the most important current that is standing up against the United States hegemony, confirms the belief that, despite the United Kingdom’s affiliation with and engagement in the system of hegemony, the idea of American hegemonic power is never being fully implemented in the realm of reality.
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments