Downing St left embarrassed after President Obama scales down 1st meeting with UK PM

[cacruden]

I ran into this news story just after spending the day talking to my friend here in Japan, and she basically said that Obama had embarrassed PM Aso - basically making it look like he was unimportant - scaling back the contact etc. I was thinking at the time whether it was the lack of understanding on how you are suppose to treat the leader of the other country (or other VIP) - basically a cultural thing. Then this morning I see this posted in the UK paper with a similar reaction in the UK. I am beginning to wonder if Obama's advisors are not properly advising him on protocol - or - whether he is just to stubborn to listen - or - whether he just wants to damage relations with other leaders.....



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cial-relationship-America-Britain-strain.html

"Mr President and the PM, the best of acquaintances: Is the historic special relationship between America and Britain under strain?
By BENEDICT BROGAN
Last updated at 10:56 PM on 03rd March 2009

Comments (202)
Add to My Stories


Barack Obama lavished praise on the 'special relationship' between Britain and America last night - but only after giving Gordon Brown a distinctly muted reception.

The Prime Minister's first official meeting with the new President fell short of the lavish welcomes laid on in recent years.

After intense negotiations with the new administration, Mr Brown got some warm words on the historic links between the U.S. and UK."

 

[cacruden]

oops, should probably be in politics ...

 

[CDL.TO]

oops, should probably be in politics ...

I agree. Moved.

 

[TOinTO]

Same reaction here in Canada to the brief 'airport' visit.

It's nice to know that other countries have the same childish need for American attention as us. On the other hand, its one less defining Canadian characteristic.

Obama is a busy guy. His economy is falling apart, he's got 2 wars to worry about and he's still hiring staff.

 

[Tewder]

Yes, but in comparison to the UK's 'audiance' Obama's visit to Canada was enormous. Lets not lose sight of that.

 

[cacruden]

Relationships are important, showing respect is important, failing to properly develop them is often a problem - if Obama does not do better - then how can he expect to follow through on developing better relationships. If he is going to do a half-assed job - then he should just not visit.

 

[Tewder]

It's too early to pronounce on Obama that severely. His visit to Canada was very respectful and very successful.

 

[digi]

Relationships are important, showing respect is important,

they weren't important to the US for the past 8 years, why now?

 

[cacruden]

they weren't important to the US for the past 8 years, why now?

Yes and No.

He developed a good relationship with China, with Mexico early on (the congress sometimes made it more complicated), but not as much so with "old Europe".

But President Obama was elected on change and rebuilding relationships - and someone on his team is messing up on such a simple level. It is not messing up on hard political decisions (that I know of) - just proper protocol. The problem is that relationship building is much more important with asian countries. Luckily, with PM Aso at 11% popularity - which means that he is not likely to be in that position very long - most japanese are probably going to assume the failure on his side.... but hopefully President Obama learns before that change occurs (and does not fail in that area with too many more countries).

 

[Peepers]

Its funny how the British have their knickers in knot over this PERCIEVED slight. They lament the loss of the "special" relationship that they had with the war criminal George W Bush ! What exactly did that special relationship with George W get them?? How about 179 DEAD British soldiers KILLED in an illegal war with Iraq.

 

[kEiThZ]

Methinks the Brits doth protest too much. They still have their special relationship. Anybody who does anything remotely for the government knows that the relationship between the UK and the US is far more important to the US than the Canada-US relationship. We are trading partners with them. The Brits share intelligence, more often than not share foreign policy objectives, etc. The special relationship is not dead it's just back in the closet where it was before Blair decided to make it public.

 

[afransen]

Methinks the Brits doth protest too much. They still have their special relationship. Anybody who does anything remotely for the government knows that the relationship between the UK and the US is far more important to the US than the Canada-US relationship. We are trading partners with them. The Brits share intelligence, more often than not share foreign policy objectives, etc. The special relationship is not dead it's just back in the closet where it was before Blair decided to make it public.

Yes. The UK can get away with it in a way that is not politically possible for Canadians. We are justifiably concerned about our sovereignty and independence, to the point where we do rather independent-minded things (landmine treaty, pushing for marijuana decriminalization, accepting draft-dodgers, etc.).

Besides, I don't think Canada needs to be the clingy girlfriend. If the US wants to go out with their British friends we shouldn't feel threatened.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes. The UK can get away with it in a way that is not politically possible for Canadians. We are justifiably concerned about our sovereignty and independence, to the point where we do rather independent-minded things (landmine treaty, pushing for marijuana decriminalization, accepting draft-dodgers, etc.).

Besides, I don't think Canada needs to be the clingy girlfriend. If the US wants to go out with their British friends we shouldn't feel threatened.

Yeah, we do a lot of independent minded things. We simply don't follow through with too many of them. R2P comes to mind. The only thing that has brought us buy in anywhere lately in Afghanistan, the very mission that most Canadians are either ambivalent or opposed to. We'll keep clinging to the myth of the peacekeeper while the rest of the world moves on. That being said, it does not in any way mean that we should kow-tow to the US, of course. But we should stop mistaking opposing every American initiative for 'independent' policy. Case in point our attempts to maintain a 'balanced' middle east perspective by equating Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah's actions.

Canada is only big in the minds of most Canadians. In the grand scheme of things we don't matter much in the world. We're the girl who everyone thinks is nice and nobody really wants to go out with it. That's reality. We're the girl with the nice personality and the plain looks.

 

[afransen]

I'd rather Canada stayed out of Middle East politics.

I suspect some of the opposition to the Afghan war is that Canadians see it as us fighting a war the US started, then walked away from to turn Iraq into a basketcase. Regardless of how we got here, I think we owe it to Afghans to help them put their society back together. I frankly don't understand much of the opposition--it seems fashionable.

The real problem with R2P is that Canada doesn't have the resources to act on it, and doesn't have the diplomatic clout to drive it. The foreign service is in shambles, as it has been totally undermined by our present government. Canada fell off the radar of much of the world. I doubt Harper would have chosen to go into Afghanistan on R2P grounds. The only wars I think he would commit Canada to are those which would curry favour with the US (his motivation for supporting Iraq, for instance).

 

[kEiThZ]

I suspect some of the opposition to the Afghan war is that Canadians see it as us fighting a war the US started, then walked away from to turn Iraq into a basketcase. Regardless of how we got here, I think we owe it to Afghans to help them put their society back together. I frankly don't understand much of the opposition--it seems fashionable.

I strongly agree. In fact, Jade_Lee and Mot are perfect examples of the opposition to the mission that I come across. Not principled well reasoned opposition, just a general sense that because the Americans are there, we shouldn't be.

The real problem with R2P is that Canada doesn't have the resources to act on it, and doesn't have the diplomatic clout to drive it. The foreign service is in shambles, as it has been totally undermined by our present government. Canada fell off the radar of much of the world. I doubt Harper would have chosen to go into Afghanistan on R2P grounds. The only wars I think he would commit Canada to are those which would curry favour with the US (his motivation for supporting Iraq, for instance).

I may view the Harperites a little more favourably than you but on this point I will agree. Even I think, we are cozying up a tad too much to the Americans. It's pretty sad to see the foreign service take a hit...though in my opinion they did bring a lot of it on themselves. I was pretty sad to see things like the sale of the High Commissioners house in London. It was a nice property on Grosvenor Square. And I do consider our backsliding on aid commitments to be inappropriate (albeit CIDA is deplorable at doing anything effective with their budget). I would have liked to have seen at least some Mulroney type independence that pushes the US to action (acid rain, South Africa, etc.) rather than blind acceptance of Uncle Sam's policies.