Anthony Julius of the Mischon de Reya law firm, well known for his work on behalf of Princess Diana and Deborah Lipstadt (an American historian accused by historian David Irving of libel), recently wrote an opinion piece for the The Times of London accusing an imperial United States of throwing its weight around even on minor issues such as its views on gambling. Headlined, "Call that a special relationship? They wouldn't bet it on: America's pursuit of British businessmen who have broken no law is absurd,' the piece starts by describing the U.S.-UK "special relationship' on a grand scale:
The "special relationship', a phrase coined by Winston Churchill after the Second World War, is predicated on shared language and history, and a commitment to representative democracy and the political freedoms that sustain it. It has the character of a family relationship in two critical respects. It is permanent and open to particular abuse. Although the abuse has been sharpest in recent years, it derives from a longer-term problem , best identified as a peculiarly American extra territorialism'
Julius, however, quickly descends into the nitty-gritty of U.S. trade laws, such as the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 and the Extradition Act of 2003, implying that they tip the balance in the special relationship sharply in favor of the United States, despite the fact that these laws are not specifically related to the U.S.-UK relationship. As an example of unfair treatment of British businessmen, he cites U.S. action on publicly listed UK Internet gambling outfits which violate U.S. laws and the detention of UK gambling executives entering the United States. Although Julius concedes that both sides of the Atlantic can be guilty of protectionist trade policies, he argues that American policies against Internet gambling constitute an egregious imbalance in the U.S.-UK relationship.
There is a tendency among commentators to ignore international trade and business relations in favour of broader political and geopolitical concerns. But we should not need Adam Smith to remind us that it is in the fairness of everyday commercial dealings between nations that peace and harmony lie. America is in danger of overlooking this truth, when it acts unjustly and overlooks the interests of allies and friends.
Given that Julius sees the special relationship as being built on such grand commonalities of shared language, history and commitment to representative democracy, is it not a bit of a stretch to argue that trade laws affecting his clients comprise major threats to the relationship?
