At the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, and at the UN Security Council meeting before that, Barack Obama continued his administration’s new policy toward Great Britain: declare that the “special relationship” between the U.S. and the U.K. is as strong as ever, and then act as if there is no such relationship at all.
The British papers were filled with the news that the president would not grant Prime Minister Gordon Brown a one-on-one meeting. “Mr. Obama had refused five separate requests from the prime minister for a private meeting during his U.S. trip for the UN summit in New York,” reported the Daily Mail.
The White House downplayed the reports. “Stop reading those London tabloids,” spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One Thursday. But Gibbs did not deny reports that the White House had turned down Brown’s requests for a meeting.
“Gordon Brown, are we snubbing him?” asked a reporter. “And if not, why did we turn down five requests for bilaterals?”
“The notion that there remains anything other than a special relationship between the two countries is silly and absurd,” Gibbs answered. “The President spoke with Prime Minister Brown on the phone in the lead-up to G20 just two weeks ago. They spent time after the climate change dinner on Monday. They spent time after the Security Council today, and obviously went into the Friends of Pakistan meeting together, on an issue that’s of great concern to both countries. So I think this is a media-generated bunch of silliness.”
“Bunch of silliness?”
“Bunch of silliness.”
“But why did we turn down the request for a bilateral?” the reporter pressed.
“Because we’re talking to them constantly,” Gibbs answered. “The notion that you can only do this in one meeting I think would — doesn’t make any sense. Because of the special relationship we have, we’re in constant communication.”
That’s not how the British saw it. A columnist in the Telegraph noted that last Monday’s paper carried a picture of a British soldier who had been killed in Afghanistan. Alongside the picture was a report “that the prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes ‘face time’ with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.” The headline for the column: “Barack Obama’s churlishness is unforgivable.”
Still the White House didn’t budge. And then, in an unexpected development, Obama was forced to make a statement regarding the revelation of the secret Iranian nuclear enrichment plant. At an early-morning appearance Friday, Obama demanded Iran comply with UN Security Council resolutions on its nuclear program. And who was standing behind president as he spoke? Gordon Brown, along with French president Nicolas Sarkozy.
Shortly after that, Gibbs’ office sent out a press release: “President Obama to hold a bilateral meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown today.” At long last, Brown, whose appearance with Obama at the Iran statement helped convey a sense of unity and resolution among the allies, got his meeting. The two leaders discussed mostly Iran and Afghanistan, a statement said. But whatever was discussed seemed to take a back seat to the fact that the meeting nearly didn’t happen. “The get-together at the end of the Pittsburgh summit will be seen as a scant consolation for the earlier refusal to meet,” reported the Telegraph.
It’s clear to everyone that Brown is on his last political legs. Perhaps that has something to do with the White House’s behavior, although no one in the administration can say that publicly. But it won’t be long before there is a new British prime minister. Will Obama, in need of allied support on Iran and Afghanistan, give him the same treatment?
