Death of an alliance

The British have always been prejudiced against the Americans and never quite forgiven them for winning independence. The British continued to interfere with the young United States to try and win back their domination. Canada was used as a springboard by the British and between 1814 and 1815 three great battles were fought, all won by the Americans. The British were defeated in the second Anglo-American War for New Orleans in which 6,000 American militia defeated 12,000 regular British troops, avenging the British burning of Washington city (now DC) in August 1814.

Those major historical events laid the foundations for a deep-rooted English antipathy towards Americans. This has been reflected in the prejudice that has now surfaced over the trial of the British nanny — American crudity, the inadequacy of the American legal system, the lynch mobs and the TV culture which are shown to dominate American life.

The less said about the English legal system the better. Lest we forget, a commission of inquiry in November 1919 only forced Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer to resign his commission when he should have been hanged for Jallianwalla. The British now want the Americans to show the same leniency to the nanny as was shown to Dyer. British prejudice and outlook have not changed.

Anti-Americanism was inculcated in those receiving a good English education in India. `Do not spell like an American, do not dress like an American, that’s American slang, he’s chewing tobacco like an American, and stop acting fresh, do you think I am an American girl?’

Surprisingly, while most Indians have outgrown British-inspired prejudice against Americans, the British continue to live with it. The street demonstrations in London and elsewhere against what appears to most to be a fair verdict is appalling. Even Hillary Clinton has not been spared.

Churchill used every trick up his sleeve to get the Americans to join the War on the British side. He even encouraged his daughter-in-law Pamela Churchill (later Harriman) to befriend powerful Americans — for a purpose. He made much of his American connection, calling himself half-American. Perhaps he was, but would a bigoted Englishman like him trumpet his American connection if it was not to get more, and more, out of the Americans?

The British have played on the cultural insecurity of Americans to give them a complex. They have also made much of `special relations’ and how without them, the Americans would have no true friends. In past years, they have been backed by a small but vociferous group of Anglo-Americans on the East Coast. (Paradoxically, Massachusetts is the most British of the US states, so English that a New Yorker may find the Boston area foreign). Even a week ago a columnist in the London Times wrote of the Anglophilia of the US. It is a myth created by the British for their own psychological security. The nanny trial has proved that the Americans have no time for British prejudice just as after World War II American leadership refused to go along with Churchill — despite his flimsy American connections — in denying the Third World its freedom (Churchill did not want countries like India discussed at peace conferences because they were part of the British Empire). The nanny was lucky to be tried in Massachusetts. In California, she would have got a worse deal.

Only an American author like Kitty Kelley could have looked at the Royal family as normal humans and spoken openly of their shortcomings. On the book jacket is a photograph of Kelley with an American flag, to stress her American rebelliousness.

The British attitude fits in with the growing anti-Americanism in Europe. As Washington switches its attention to Asia, Europeans are giving vent to their anger. The European world-view is essentially colonial and one in which they dominate. It had been so from the 16th century to the 19th. Even after the emergence of the US as the most powerful nation, the Europeans were happy as most of American attention was given to Europe. Besides, the Soviet Union was a European nation, which made Europe the main theatre of action. But things have changed after the Cold War. Japan, China and US are now the big three and even if Russia is included as the fourth, its importance is more apparent in the Eurasian context than the exclusively European.

How desperate the Europeans are to build up linkages with America can be seen in the hard work done to show up Madeleine Albright’s European links and portray her as a `European’ Secretary of State, in much the same way as Henry Kissinger was categorised.

Competition is already building up in trade, in the sale of aircraft and other products, and intellectual barriers are coming up. France and some other European countries are not happy about the entry of American films, Britain does not permit the sale of American books in regions that are marked out as its turf, like India. No American books are available in India unless there is a British edition. Conversely, no British magazines or books are generally available in the US except in American editions.

The impending split will have a tremendous global impact. NATO and other transatlantic bodies will remain in place, but without an enemy their bonds will weaken. It is the common foe that has kept Europe and America together. Today, the US realises that the real action is in Asia. Europe, which wants to become the superpower of the 21st century, is not too happy about this. Britain was the only discordant voice but is quickly falling in line. The anti-Americanism over the nanny case was not an overnight development.

India must begin to take into account the impact of the rupture between the US and Europe in its foreign policy and trim its sails accordingly. Non-alignment may once again become the order of the day.