Comment

In relegating the UK to 'the back of the queue', Obama has belittled Britain's military sacrifices

British troops in Basra 
British troops  in Basra Credit: Getty

Picture the following scenario - the opening premise of which should not require too much imagination. The year is 2020, and America is once again embroiled in a messy war in the Middle East. As usual, it is not particularly of its own making, but controversial nonetheless, and the White House is seeking foreign allies to join the fight.

Now here’s the twist. During a visit to Washington, David Cameron's successor is asked by the White House press pack if Britain will help. The new PM grips the podium and shrugs. 

Britain, he or she says, has a lot on its plate at the moment, what with patrolling the Med for people traffickers and keeping  the Russians out of Scotland, which left Nato after getting  independence. America is welcome to ask for troops, but frankly, they'll have to join the queue. At the back. Sorry, what was that? The special relationship? What, all that stuff about how you guys saved our backsides in World War II. Yeah, yeah, whatever...

If any British PM was as off-hand as that during a visit to Washington, it wouldn’t be surprising if Homeland Security withdrew their visa, or at the very least their invite to dinner in the White House. Yet this isn't far off how Barack Obama came across during his visit to London at the weekend, when he said that if a post-Brexit Britain wanted a trade deal with the US, it would have to go "to the back of the queue".

The queue's over there - Barack Obama
The queue's over there - Barack Obama Credit: Bloomberg

 

He was trying to say that America prefers to deal with big trading blocs like the EU rather than individual countries. But it came across as extremely dismissive. Britain, in Obama's eyes at least, appears to be a not a major trading nation and long-time US ally, but just another tinpot nation seeking a cut of America's economic pie, like Guatemala wanting a banana deal or Burundi trying to flog them coffee. Take your ticket and wait your turn guys, no special favours here.

If that's how Mr Obama sees it, fine. As has been pointed out, if the time comes when a post-Brexit Britain does seek a new deal with the US, he'll no longer be in office anyway. But as a way to a treat a country that has been America's staunchest ally in the messy 15 years of the War on Terror, it’s hardly gracious. 

During the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain was one of the few countries to give Washington unwavering support, while the rest of Europe was either openly critical, refused to take part, or played only a token role in the mission. Britain led the way in contributing blood as well as treasure, and that alone ought to count for a lot more than trade deals. 

Yet this isn't the first time that Mr Obama has taken the UK for granted. In 2012, he also struck a distinctly cool tone over another issue precious to Britain, saying he was "neutral" on the question of who owned the Falklands, and that he looked forward to Downing Street and Argentina "being able to continue to dialogue on this issue." This despite the fact that as far as Britain is concerned, there is not, has not, and never will be any need for talks on the matter.

The Falklands or Las Malvinas? Mr Obama is "neutral" on the matter.
The Falklands or Las Malvinas? Mr Obama is "neutral" on the matter. Credit: Heathcliff O'Malley

You don't need to a be fervent supporter of the Falklands remaining in British hands to appreciate much this irritated London at the time. Luckily for Obama, Mr Cameron did not decide in response to be "neutral" on the question of whether the Taliban should run southern Afghanistan, and kept British troops there alongside America's.

True, Mr Obama would no doubt point out - as he often does - that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were not wars of his making (though nor were they entirely of George W Bush's either - a certain 9-11 incident played its part too). But all US presidents inherit legacies - just as they also inherit the special relationship, which, like any friendship, should not simply be switched on and off depending on the mood of whoever is in the Oval. 

Still, if Mr Obama wants to persist in his view that Britain is only worth caring about as long as it's part of the EU, let's imagine how his successors will fare if they ever have to seek the support of continental Europe for that rough, messy war in 2020.

Fellow streetfighters - British troops served alongside Americans in Iraq
Fellow streetfighters - British troops served alongside Americans in Iraq Credit: Julian Simmonds, Telegraph

How confident would a US leader feel, for example, relying only the Germans and the Italians in the event of a Saudi-Iran punch up, or a square-off with Vladimir Putin in the Baltics? After all, in an increasingly pacifist EU, Britain is the only European country other than France with nuclear weapons and a substantial army. Not to mention leaders who actually still have the stomach for warfare and the political costs that it brings. Would America really want Britain at the back of the queue into the White House then?

Luckily,  the special relationship is usually sufficiently strong to overcome these occasional glitches - most of which, like this, come when domestic politics are at play. Yet if Mr Obama's intention was to help Mr Cameron win the Brexit debate, he may well have done the precisely the opposite.

For while many Britons may be divided on the benefits of remaining in the EU or out, one thing they certainly don't like is a succession of statesmen telling them that their country is now so unimportant that it can't survive on its own.

It's an insult to the very patriotism that America makes so much of. And when it's said in the condescending tones that Mr Obama used, it may just have the reverse effect.

License this content