Special Relationship

Jon Bright (London, OK): You might be interested in this report published by the Oxford Research Group yesterday: "Towards sustainable security". In it our regular openDemocracy contributor Paul Rogers describes the consequences of the 'War on Terror' - specifically how a muscular style of military intervention might have played into the hands of militant groups.

Jon Bright (London, OK): You might remember the case of Babar Ahmad which Steven Taylor posted on in these pages a couple of months ago. The petition to prevent his extradition, which reached over 5,000 signatures, received it's official government response yesterday, and provided more ammunition for those who think power only flows in one direction in this country.

Stephen Taylor (London, 5jt): This is an appeal for you to sign this petition to the prime minister, urging him to stop Mr Babar Ahmad's extradition and have him tried in Britain.

One of the uglier aspects of our 'special relationship' with the US is the enactment in law of a treaty providing for rapid extradition to the US. Under this law, bitterly criticised by our judiciary, Britain extradites for trial in America anyone wanted in a US court. We do this without question and require no evidence even of a case to answer. Our courts may intervene only to confirm the identity of the person being shipped.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): In a striking and I think very important article in the Financial Times the despicable John Bolton, one time US Ambassador to the United Nations, lays down the line, telling Britain, and in particular Gordon Brown and David Miliband (whom he accuses of being “clever but meaningless”) that “You can’t have two best friends”.

Andrew Blick (London, Houses of Parliament): The importance of the 'Special Relationship' with the US and what precise benefits the UK reaps from it is in the news once again. Underpinning this long-term alliance is cooperation over intelligence. The Intelligence and Security Committee report on possible collaboration by the UK with the 'rendition' of terrorist suspects casts some light on how special this relationship is. The Committee notes that our government's own record-keeping in this area is inadequate (some might say conveniently so); but comes to the conclusion that there is 'no evidence that the UK Agencies were complicit in any “Extraordinary Rendition” operations.' It criticises the UK Agencies for failing to draw ministerial attention to certain developments; and identifies 'a lack of regard, on the part of the U.S., for UK concerns'. It concludes that as part of what it labels the 'War on Terror', 'the U.S. will take whatever action it deems necessary, within U.S. law, to protect its national security from those it considers to pose a serious threat. Although the U.S. may take note of UK protests and concerns, this does not appear materially to affect its strategy on rendition.'