I know, it’s been a few weeks now since my last post, but I’ve been having a sabbatical of sorts. From writing, work & politics. But I’m back now.

Something really struck me over the last 24 hours, since the news “broke” that our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown had been “snubbed” by President Obama because he was unable to secure official bilaterals at the United Nations annual General Assembly in New York. Apparent insult to injury is the fact that President Obama held bilateral meetings with other heads of state/government, including Japan’s new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama. I found it sad that the UK media seeks to perpetuate this image that we have an insecure Prime Minister, and using what appears to be a simple scheduling conflict to portray Brown as some kind of diplomatic “loner”. At a global summit with somewhere around 190 heads of state/government in attendance, many of whom have never visited the United States before (esp. in the case of the Japanese), surely the American President has the prerogative to choose a select number of official bilateral meetings to hold personally.

It’s a given in the 21st century that the British PM, along with his counterparts in other heavyweight countries like France and Germany, can expect special access to the US President. Britain is one of America’s strongest international allies, and time and again we’ve successfully passed many opportunities to demonstrate this. Many of the major international challenges of the 20th century have been dealt with effectively by the United States & United Kingdom side-by-side. We have a long-standing, solid relationship with the Americans, in culture, business and international relations. Maybe we have a “special” relationship because of this, but I think we should move beyond this now. This cornerstone in Britain’s global identity is out-dated and smacks of insecurity on our part. What is it exactly that drives the UK to constantly seek to be re-affirmed as America’s best friend in the world? Nobody else seems to need that affirmation, and they get along fine as international powers.

Britain’s international power-base doesn’t come from its close relationship to the US. It comes from, inter alia, our place in history, our central role in the founding of the United Nations, the fact we’re a nuclear power, the size, diversity and global reach of our economy, our cultural reach, the fact that the world’s language originated inside our shores, our strong place in the European Union. The list could go on and on. Why we must keep banging on about this “special relationship” with the United States, as important as our relationship with them is, escapes me. It’s clear that the United States only sees it as special when it’s in their strategic interest to do so. Britain is one of the most powerful countries in the world, and it does us no favour to continue with this diplomatic insecurity. I’m certain that one of the first people Barack Obama calls when he has an international challenge on his desk, and he’s looking for a reliable partner, is Gordon Brown, particularly now that the Prime Minister has demonstrated his credentials as one of the leading international thinkers on economics, a major issue of our time.

Just because he can’t find an hour to sit down at the edge of his first United Nations General Assembly, while taking care of final preparations for the American G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, after meeting Gordon Brown privately on many occasions, means very little. Except that is, to the insecure, needy, knee-jerk British media.