Anti-United States Sentiment in England



Anti-United States Sentiment in England

Prepared for

Bruce Lusignan

By:

Blake Holler

In the late 1700’s when the United States first became independent from its motherland Great Britain, the rapport between the two countries could not possibly have been worse. After another war some thirty-five years later, the two countries began to establish relations and commerce with each other, creating a somewhat strong bond. Since then, the United States and Great Britain have become very close in international relations and share very similar viewpoints on most topics. Both countries trade a vast amount of good and services with each other, and have given aid in times of crisis. They came together in World War I and World War II to help fight for the freedom of Europe and the rest of the world. Now, present day 2003, there was another conflict in which the United States called upon its great friend and partner, Great Britain to help: Operation Iraqi Freedom. President George W. Bush was very ardent about abolishing terrorism and states that harbored them after the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He formed a coalition of small countries and asked the British to help once again. The Prime Minister of Great Britain Tony Blair, after much deliberation and turmoil, sided with Bush and sent troops into Iraq to help the United States. Since then, Blair and Bush have both received heavy scrutiny from the media and citizens of their respective countries. No country, however, has openly opposed President Bush in the media as much as the British have. British media has heavily bombarded the Bush administration with hundreds of articles and hours of footage pertaining to his political shortcomings and his foreign policy, as well as nearly blaming his administration for the attacks on September 11th. Moreover, during the war in Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair has also resituated his focus on the war and has been trying to make the best of a politically bad choice on his part.

One of the first topics the British media focused upon was the protests that have taken place against the war and President Bush’s policies. Many people in England feel that the war in Iraq is a cover for trying to steal the nation’s oil and use it to power our economic machine. In The Mirror, a British newspaper, it states, “Blair’s culpable silence is imposed by the most dangerous American administration in a generation. The Bush administration is determined to attack Iraq and take over a country that is the world’s second largest source of oil. The aim is to get rid of America’s and Britain’s old friend, Saddam Hussein, whom they no longer control, and to install another compliant thug in Baghdad.” Another popular topic of protest is the lack of United Nations support for the invasion of Iraq. “There is no mandate in any United Nations resolution for this invasion. It will be as lawless as the Nazi invasion of Poland, which triggered the Second World War. Indeed, it may well trigger a Third World War, drawing nations of the region and beyond” (The Mirror). The lack of substantiated evidence is also a key factor in the sentiment of the British people and their views of the war. Before the invasion began, no weapons of mass destruction were found, and many Brits feel that US intelligence has been telling lies for some time. “…so much of this government “spin” during the “war on terrorism” has been a farrago of lies and half-truths provided by an American intelligence apparatus seeking to cover its failure to provide warning of the attacks of September 11” (The Mirror). This complaint regarding the US intelligence is due to the fact that it differs so much from the British intelligence. England boasts one central intelligence agency which funnels its information directly to the higher powers, whereas in the United States, there are several intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.) that give information to the White House and can be very competitive. In a BBC (British Broadcast Corporation) News anti-war article one woman makes her voice heard, saying, “The USA and Britain say Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. But the real weapons of mass destruction are held by the West who have already used sanctions and bombing against Iraq.” The Mirror article closes with a strong voice that is supposedly speaking to President Bush for the British people as a whole saying, “Not in our name. Bush and Blair must be stopped from killing large numbers of innocents in our name – a view, according to the polls, shared by a majority of the British people.” (The Mirror) As a whole, the British people feel very strongly against the war in Iraq and also the somewhat unreliable intelligence and rationale for invading the country.

Along with protests, another very popular topic in the British media is the Bush administration’s lack of political savvy and his aptitude for running the country. Before the war in Iraq, several British media organizations such as The Observer scrutinized his platform and how it changed since he was elected. “Among Bush’s election promises was, for example, to put a ‘lock box’ on the social security fund. In reality, he has raided the trust fund to pay for tax cuts.” (Vulliamy) In this same article that ran on June 23rd 2002, it also talks of his policies on child care and big business, and the problems therein. “He pledged he would ‘leave no child behind’…In office however, Bush has frozen money for the popular ‘Head Start’ program for children in poor districts, and all funding for child care.” Information pertaining to big business has also come to light. “Corporate sleaze – highly unpopular after the Enron scandal – is becoming a hallmark of the Bush presidency. More companies emerge as closely entwined with the administration and Bush’s own policies, after it was revealed the national energy plan was drafted entirely as a kickback to big oil and power companies which had backed Bush for the White House” (Vulliamy).

To further influence the public’s opinion of Bush’s policies, The Observer attacks Bush’s foreign policy as well in an article that hit newsstands on February 17, 2002. “What the world has to deal with is not just the administration, but the internal forces that put it there and will continue to constrain the US even without it. Iraq, the continuing defense build-up, disdain for international law and total disinterest in the ‘soft’ aspects of security – aid, trade, health, education, and debt – are now givens in US policy” (Hutton). The same article also admonishes close ties to the United States, fearing that this time we may be on the wrong side of the political fence. “Mr. Blair should be aware. Trying to be both pro-European and pro-American will no longer work. There is a choice and, if he does not make it, ultimately will wreck his premiership” (Hutton). John Pilger of The Mirror attacks bush’s motives for his words of peace pertaining to the Israel-Palestine conflict, “The Americans want a rampant Israel guarding their flank as they attack Iraq and expand their control across the Middle East, whose oil is now more critical than ever to US military economic dominance (Pilger). Touching on the topic of President Bush’s knowledge of foreign affairs and ability to adapt on the global scene, another article by The Observer ran in late May, 2002. It reads, “The President’s lecture tour of Europe and Russia reminds us of how little experience he has of foreign affairs and how recent is his discovery of the history and complexities of issues which have been unquestionably better covered and probably better understood in Europe than in the US.” Speaking on the events pertaining to September 11th and Bush’s push for ending terrorism world wide, the same article articulates, “Eight months on from the 11 September attacks George Bush’s reflection on the grave new world appears to be no more than a couple of slogans deep. The war on terrorism took America just so far…” (Porter). It also states how much the administration lacks the knowledge and brain-power to run the country and a massive military operation. “At the end of this week it is clear that Bush’s administration is showing signs of being disorganized and intellectually under-powered. He returns home to face a group of generals who are in more-or-less open contempt of his plan to launch against Saddam and an intelligence community which is riven with competition and cover-ups about who knew what before the al-Qaeda attacks” (Porter). The British media as well as the citizens of the country are not at all impressed with the disorganization of the Bush administration or the lack of evidence for the invasion of Iraq. When his own generals do not agree with his plan of action, how can other countries be expected to? In a piece that ran in The Observer on February 17th, 2002, Terry Jones offers a sarcasm-laden opinion in mock-support of Bush and his ideas for ridding the world of potential terrorist. “To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I cant think of why no one has thought of it before…. It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital city of any state that harbors them and to drop bombs – preferably cluster bombs.” In closing, the article states, “So, sock it to Iraq, George. Let’s make the world a safer place” (Jones). As is it obvious to see by the many articles that ran in British media, President Bush is not the most favored person when it comes to foreign or domestic policy.

American intelligence, both its discrepancies and internal problems have been exploited by the British media since the dismissal of information that could possible have deterred the September 11th attacks. Up until the day before the two planes crashed and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center, US intelligence had been receiving information from other countries as well as its own sources that a major attack could be foreseen in the near future. Their doing nothing about it led to the scrutiny of US intelligence and even the possibility that it was neglected on purpose. In The Observer, an article states, “From 22 June 2001 the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, was ‘nearly frantic’ with concern and wrote to the national security advisor that ‘a significant al-Qaeda attack’ was highly likely in the near future, ‘within several weeks’. Through the year the FBI and CIA had picked up hard evidence that bin-laden was training pilots and planned a major airborne attack….But in the fiercely competitive US intelligence community none of this was coordinated. The president, meanwhile, was cheerily content to pursue his program of country boy disengagement. Whatever else emerges from the Congressional inquiry into what went wrong on 11 September, we can certainly conclude that there was a monumental lack of grip at the top” (Porter). This exemplifies why the British are not trusting what Bush says of tells them to believe. Information like this also raises the question: did President Bush allow the attack to take place in order to gain public support for a war, much like the accusation made of Franklin Roosevelt regarding the Pearl Harbor Bombing? Whatever the answer may be, President Bush garnered the support of millions of Americans and had an approval rating of nearly 90% after the invasion of Afghanistan.

Later in Pilger’s article that ran in The Mirror, he listed a series of faults in the Bush administration’s intelligence which they used as main arguments for the invasion of Iraq. The first “hole” in the intelligence which Pilger elaborates pertains to Iraq’s nuclear threat. “As for Saddam Hussein’s ‘nuclear threat,’ the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq’s nuclear weapons program had been eliminated ‘efficiently and effectively’. The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January reported full Iraqi compliance. Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that ‘the weapons inspectors are allowed back.’ Nor did they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence” (Pilger). A second argument he exposes to the world is the connection between Iraq and the attackers on September 11th. “…a New York Times investigation concluded: ‘the Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups’” (Pilger).

Leading up to the war in Iraq, American Intelligence was trying to acquire information as to how much weaponry Iraq possessed, but found little success. The issue was covered by an article in BBC News on September 15th 2003. “The intelligence agencies agreed that he probably possessed weapons of mass destruction. But they had no hard evidence. Most of the intelligence was five years out of date. Ever since the UN inspectors left in 1998, the CIA has been ‘guesstimating’ the size of the Iraqi stockpile” (Carver). An even more shocking find were the fears of the intelligence agencies upon entering the war and their lack of knowledge about Iraq and its potential for disaster. “On the eve of a war, US intelligence always draws up a formal, secret assessment of the threat, known as a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). But the White House did not want a document with all the usual intelligence analysts’ caveats” (Carver). Why would President Bush not want to see the risks being taken by invading Iraq? Perhaps this is because there were too many risks outweighing the gains that he certainly did not want brought to light. There have even been reports of White House officials trying to coerce intelligence agencies to create evidence supporting Bush’s plan to invade Iraq. In The Observer, an article was published on November 1st 2003, stating, “…when [Hans] Blix met with Cheney at the White House, the vice-president told him what would happen if his efforts on WMDs did not support Bush’s policy: ‘We will not hesitate to discredit you’” Reports also show that Paul Wolfowitz had ordered a report made by the CIA showing Blix’s tendency to go easy on Iraq, even before the search for weapons of mass destruction began, in an attempt to undermine Blix’s authority before he even started” (Blumenthal). Later in the article it explicates Bush’s means of necessitating a war in Iraq. “Having already decided upon its course in Iraq, the Bush administration demanded the fabrication of evidence to fit into an imminent threat. Then…preemptive action could be taken” (Blumenthal). A lack of evidence, faulty evidence, and even manufactured evidence in British reports show the United States having no actual proof or reason to enter Iraq, and President Bush’s credibility becoming worse and worse.

One final argument against President Bush not published by British press, but very important nonetheless, is the accusation of the first family having very close ties to the bin Laden family prior to the September 11th attacks. In Michael Moore’s Dude, Where’s My Country, he poses a series of questions for President Bush about certain aspects of his presidency, the first of which being, “Is it true that the bin Ladens have had business relations with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?” (Moore p.6). He speaks of the business contacts the Bush family had with the bin Ladens and interactions that have taken place. “…you received financing from a man named James A. Bath….He had been hired by Salem bin Laden – Osama’s brother – to invest the bin Ladens’ money in various Texas ventures. Some $50,000 – or 5 percent of control of Arbusto–came from Mr. Bath” (Moore p.7). Moore also cites business interactions between President Bush’s father former President Bush. “After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group was none other than the bin Laden family. The bin Ladens put a minimum of $2 million into the Carlyle Group” (Moore p.8). These ties between the bin Laden Family and the Bush family further the speculation of the possibility of the president purposefully ignoring the warnings of US intelligence and allowing al-Qaeda to attack the United States.

Another one of the British media’s focuses is the continual coverage pertaining to their Prime Minister Tony Blair and his views before and during the War in Iraq. In a press conference held in Texas presumably at President Bush’s ranch on April 6th, 2002, some of the first talks of Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction are brought to the media. British government reports quote Prime Minister Blair, “We also agreed and made it very clear that weapons of mass destruction cannot be ducked, it is a threat, it is a danger to our world and we must see that threat and act to prevent it being realized” (Press Conference…). As early as almost one full year before the war started, the platform of weapons of mass destruction was being laid down by both administrations. This was their focus that would be the push for the preemptive invasion of Iraq. During this same press conference, Blair is also quoted on having remarks about Saddam Hussein and his role in the Middle East. “I can say that any sensible person looking at the position of Saddam Hussein and asking the question, would the region, the world, and not least the ordinary Iraqi people, be better off without the regime of Saddam Hussein? The only answer anyone could give to that question would be yes” (Press Conference…). It is easy to see by this conference that Prime Minister Blair has strong feelings against Hussein to begin with and would like to see him out of power. He also demonstrates his feelings being in line with those of President Bush in that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and force is needed to disarm him. On the night of American and British troops first entering Iraq, Tony Blair addressed the nation and is quoted saying, “Tonight, British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea. Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction” (Prime Minister’s Address…). The weapons of mass destruction phrase appears yet again as the first and foremost cause for taking military action in Iraq. Blair also shows his strong alliance with Bush during this speech as well, “President Bush and I have committed ourselves to peace in the Middle East…” (Prime Minister’s Address).

As the war progressed five day and the coalition of American and British troops plowed through the Iraqi countryside, Prime Minister Blair made another speech to the people about the progress of the war. “In the 5 days since military action began, a huge amount has been achieved….By yesterday we had covered twice as mush ground in 5 days as was covered in the whole of the last conflict. Our aim remains as has been stated: to remove Saddam as the route to disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction” (PM: Saddam…). There is a slight shift in the Prime Minister’s angle in this speech as he now aims to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction by removing Saddam first and foremost. The weapons were also last in the sentence, possibly implying that removing Saddam is more important or because it is actually achievable. Moreover, if so much of Iraq has been covered and taken over, why haven’t any weapons of mass destruction been found? The sites were said to be spread throughout the desolate desert country, yet the troops move toward Baghdad with no weapons to show for it. Later in the press conference that followed, Blair speaks of the confidence in Hussein’s guilt and the eventual discover of his weapons. “In respect to the weapons that he may have or use, that is one of the reasons why it is so important that we move quickly through the country. There will be a point in time when we are able then properly to begin the search for weapons of mass destruction” (PM: Saddam…). Notice the use of “may” in his answer. If Great Britain and the United States were launching a full-scale military attack on Iraq and basing their invasion upon Saddam’s having weapons of mass destruction, why would Blair not be sure of there being any at all? When asked later what would be the effect of not finding any evidence of weapons, Blair responded, “We have absolutely no doubt at all that these weapons of mass destruction exist, and the only thing I would say to you is that if they didn’t, his cooperation with the inspections would have been a very, very easy thing to have done” (PM: Saddam…). If he is totally sure of weapons being there, why is he contradicting a statement he made moments earlier?

Moving even further from their initial causes to enter Iraq, Prime Minister Blair and President Bush met two days later on the 27th of March, 2003, at Camp David, where Blair made the following comments, “…the justice of our cause lies in the liberation of the Iraqi people, and to them we say we will liberate you, the day of your freedom draws near” (Joint press conference…). The focus of weapons of mass destruction has been shifted or is trying to be shifted by Bush and Blair to the liberation of the Iraqi people. It seems like they both are trying to delay the inevitability of not finding any weapons and are trying to do as much newsworthy deeds as possible in the meantime to make the cause seem worthwhile.

Next to the summer months and the middle of the war that had been going on for roughly five months, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair met yet again, but this time it was to defend their reasoning for war on Iraq. An article published by the BBC News that hit the stands in England on July 18th, 2003, the article states, “Mr. Blair – who was greeted with cheers and repeated standing ovations during his address – said that even if they had been wrong about weapons of mass destruction, history would forgive the removal of Saddam Hussein” (Bush and Blair…). Later in the article Tony Blair is quoted saying, “If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible for inhumane carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive” (Bush and Blair…). As it is easy to see, Blair and Bush are trying to make the fact that there might not be any weapons of mass destruction a minor detail compared to the great deed they have done by ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Nick Assinder of the BBC chimed in a comment of his own, “Mr. Blair is preparing the ground for justification for war in the event WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] never turn up” (Bush and Blair). Blair then praised Bush for his efforts on the war and the strain the media has placed upon him, “There has never been a time when the power of America has been so necessary and so misunderstood” (Bush and Blair). President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have obviously shown great respect and allegiance for each other’s decisions, as many in this case may have been bad ones. Moving up to near-present-day, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair held another conference on November 20th, 2003 to discuss matters further with the media on the progress of the war. One of Blair’s final comments on the conflict was a rebuttal to the negative attention the war has received both in the media and in protests. “There is something bizarre about having got rid of Saddam in Iraq from the Government in Iraq, when we have already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves, there is something bizarre about these situations happening, and people saying that they disagree when the effect of us not doing this would be that the Taliban was still in Afghanistan and Saddam was in charge of Iraq” (Press Conference: PM…). In his conference, there was no talk of weapons of mass destruction, but of the liberation of the Iraqi people, mass graves having been found, and the strong bond developed between the United States and Great Britain.

However wrong the President and Prime Minister may be about the weapons of mass destruction they soon hope to come across, Prime Minister Blair has progressively moved toward agreeing with some of the United Nations’ policies concerning post-war Iraq. In Blair’s speech to the nation on March 25, 2003, he stated, “So in addition to pursuing our military campaign with vigor and determination, we are also determined in the wake of military success to bring humanitarian relief to the people of Iraq. The most important humanitarian priority is to restore the operations of the Oil and Food Program. Its scale is massive, it spends some $10 billion a year and is funded by the sale of Iraqi oil” (PM: Saddam…). Blair now is seeing that the support of the United Nations is going to be needed if he and President Bush are to regain political confidence again on the global scale. It is a politically savvy move on his part to shift the topic to that of world-wide acceptance instead of their non-existent reasoning for invading Iraq.

British media has been the foremost criticizer of President Bush and his administration before and during the war in Iraq. They have criticized his political knowledge and aptitude, his staff and their abilities, his policies and the problems involved therein, and the US intelligence agencies from which he selectively used information. Tony Blair has been a key contributor to the media surrounding the war by supporting President Bush and by sending troops to Iraq. Blair, at the outset, was totally focused on weapons of mass destruction; but as the war progressed and no weapons were found, he shifted his focus to the liberation of the Iraqi people and the atrocities committed by the now-removed Saddam Hussein. Even though he may have been wrong about the weapons, Blair has taken sides with the United Nations on several topics, especially the relief for the post-war Iraqi people. The bottom line of this conflict is that if two of the world’s most powerful people can rush into a preemptive war and invade a country on what they deem is probable cause and not receive any punishment for it, who is to stop it from happening again? As a result of their actions, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have made the formalities of future conflicts obsolete after not facing any consequences for charging into and unsubstantiated war.

Works Cited

Blumenthal, Sidney. “Bush’s other war.” Guardian. [London] 1 Nov. 2003

“Bush and Blair defend Iraq war.” BBC News. 28 July 2003. 30 Nov.

2003 .

Carver, Tom. “Why Bush escaped an Iraq row.” BBC News. [London]

15 Sept. 2003.

Hutton, Will. “Time to stop being America’s lap-dog.” Observer. [London]

Observer Worldview. 17 Feb. 2002.

“Joint Press Conference with President Bush at Camp David.” 10

Downing Street. 27 March 2003. 30 Nov. 2003 .

Jones, Terry. “OK, George, make with the friendly bombs.” Observer.

[London] Observer Worldview. 17 Feb. 2002.

Moore, Michael. Dude Where’s My Country. London: Allen Lane, 2003

Pilger, John. “Not in our name.” Mirror. [London]

“PM: Saddam and his regime will be removed.” 10 Downing Street.

25 March 2003. 30 Nov. 2003 .

Porter, Henry. “Don’t wag your finger at us, Mr. Bush.” Observer. [London]

Observer Worldview. 26 May 2002.

“Press Conference: PM Tony Blair and President George Bush.” 10

Downing Street. 20 Nov. 2003. 30 Nov. 2003 .

“Press Conference: Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush.”

10 Downing Street. 6 April 2003. 30 Nov. 2003 < -.uk/output/Page1711.asp>.

“Prime Minister’s Address to the Nation.” 10 Downing Street. 20 March

2003. 30 Nov. 2003 .

“Protesters fear war against Iraq.” BBC News. [London] 2 March 2002

Vulliamy, Ed. “Bush at Bay.” Observer. [London] Observer Worldview.

23 June 2003.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download