Spot on. I noticed Brown was trying to be duplicitous ahead of his visit to the U.S. I conjectured that if he thinks he can fool the Americans by saying one thing in the U,K and something totally different in the US, aided by an implusibler excuse he is heading for trouble. The Americans are easily mocked but aren't totally stupid.
Brown got away with his duplicity in the U,K,because he has been part of the government and got an assist by manipuiating the media.
In Washington it's a different ball park.

Steve D., Wimborne, U.K.

It is difficult to speak for Gordon Brown, since he is more than capable of looking after himself,. He was probably born in a suit,, is that a crime? As for media image, luckily television was not around in the Churchill era, we would l be living in a different world.
Deriding American foreign policy, and not being on the same wavelength as the President, is not difficult,,Congress appears to doing a much better job than Mr. Brown could ever do. He is not a tool of the left, and is far too bright to seek popular acclaim by alienating our closest ally.
One still questions why Iraq was invaded, surely not in the name of democracy, thus neutering the one country holding Iran in check, and whilst not being Vietnam, Iraq has a similar ring of "how the hell do we get out of here?"on both sides of the Atlantic.
Brown and Beckham went to the States for different reasons, one diplomatic ,the other, commercial, but with no chance of changing American foreign policy or prime time sport.

M. Fishman, London,

"Longer term struggle for human freedom"?
Hahahahahhahahahaahahaahahahaahahahahahaaha

Appu, Sydney, Australia

Quite comical to claim that Becks doesn't care what the Yanks think of him. His arrival was preceded by one of the most elaborate marketing campaigns in recent memory, with his eager complicity. Gordy Brown did his own bit of fawning, but the without the syrup of Tony Brown.

T manley, Madison, USA

The shirt is closer than the coat. Brown is -rightly- thinking about his next elections rather than the next US elections.

Nick, Dubai, UAE

Can't say I have any problems with Brown's approach, because its pretty much in tune with mainstream opinion. In other words, few of us hate or dislike the US, actually most of us recognise many shared values and like Americans.

However that doesn't mean we think Britain should blindly agree with whatever mad policies are pursued, especially when these are constructed by a narrow minded clique who only represent a part of US domestic opinion.

One of the deep ironies of the Blair approach of blindly following Bush everywhere was that Britain actually lost any influence on US policy - why listen to Britain when they were going to follow anyway?

The Blair years were a humiliation for Britain, the message being Britain could not have any interests of its own - US interests were its interests.

The US are our friends and allies, but that doesn't mean we have to follow them over a cliff.

Nick, France,

No, sorry you're wrong Baker. Brown is doing exactly the right thing diplomatically and it just so happens it is popular back home as well not just with the Labour Left and Brussels but with whole swathes of the country. The stiffness, the coolness, toward the Bush Whitehouse is perfectly pitched. It says this. We recognise that the US is an important ally and America remains our friend we respect the position of the US President but dislike the style and substance of GWB. For the moment this is strictly business. Tie on, jacket on,, white shirt, collar done up, blue suit , clean hanky, firm handshake, good eye contact, firm voice business meeting stuff. It is actually how things should be and generally were before Blair and his toothpaste moments made us all reach for a bucket. Well done Brown not bad at all even if you are Labour.

Samuel Gee, Farnham, UK

Yankee-bashing is certain to be approved as a competition just in time for the 2016 olympics. Until then (and even after then), who you gonna call? France? Hardee-har-har. Germany? Nein! Russia? Nyet. China? Maybe. The UN? Get real. Until another major player on the horizon is willing and able to run with the ball, it looks as if it's only the U. S., like it or not.
9/11 and the ability and willingness for non-state actors to inflice massive pain on countries that stand in their way (e. g., Spain) have rearranged the world in ways no one could have foreseen as late as early 2001. It's a different ball game, with different players, and totally different rules.
It is a game the West can win, but the West can win it only if it gets over its self-loathing and replaces it with honest reflection. Muslim societies, stuck with a victims' mentality from over 400 years ago, are either unwilling or unable to engage in serious reflection.

James, Jacksonville,

The UK and the US have too much in common to ever seriously fall out. The main assumption in Mr. Baker's article is that the job of the British PM to support U.S. foreign policy irrespective of whether those policies are popular in the UK. Brown wants to win the next election and in democracies it usually help if you follow public opinion. Bush's approval ratings are extremely low so his policies are no longer poplular in the U.S. either. I doubt whether the British public could ever be convinced of the wisdom of expanding the war on terror into Iran and Pakistan. It's Brown's job to be honest about whether he can deliver.

mike scott, new york, usa

The British are going to bash the U.S. no matter who is in office or what our foreign policys are. It is either overt as exampled by the British media and by most British citizens or covert like the two Browns.Britian should just stop wasting its breath on the U.S. and concentrate on becoming a full member STATE of the EU. Your future security, foreign policies and trade,etc are going to be tied to Brussels. Britian should relinquish its seat on the U.N. Security Council . Even we ''dumb, rich,uncouth Americans would not expect Arkansas to have a seat. Contrary to what Lynne of Ga. implies,it is my impression that most Americans do not care at all what the British think of the U.S.

Jay, Dixie, U.S. S.C.

To: Rob, Cambridge, UK

1- In the US there is a President not a "Premier". So there is not such thing as an American Premier.

2-It is the lack of courage on Gordon Brown's side to stand for what he and the British public believes. He can't have it both ways. The UK is beginning to look as duplicitous as the Saudis.

RG, Cary, NC, USA

Summer is slowly moving to its end and there is one question. What about the Leafs?

Luke Fisher, Ottawa, Canada

Tim from Toronto's point is not relevant. Suggesting that the French be grateful that they're not expected to speak Russian would be more accurate.

D Murphy, Skipton,

I agree. I think it makes Brown - and Britain - look shifty.

I'm not so sure about Basra, though. There, there does not seem so much as an insurgency as a turf war between gangs and I'm not sure armies are best suited for policing work.

tolkein, chelmsford,

You are spot on about questioning whose side of the fence Brown really is on. I think most english people by instinct and preference share the same common goals and aspirations as americans.Brown, however, is not english and in view of his intention to foist a backdoor european constitution on us sends warning bells down my spine. If europeanisation is his real agenda Scotland would then be treated as a quasi nation state under the european umbrella and any real power that the uk formerly wielded would be transferred to the new superstate.If I personally was asked to choose between America and Europe as allies I would tell Brussels in no uncertain terms to take a long jump off a short pier.

philip, Ipswich,

I fear that Brown - and Britain - look shifty. Wwith the press being spun that, eg Douglas Alexander's speech is distancing the UK from the US, and then Brown's instruction to ministers that the US relationship is key, the Malloch Brown's appointment and comments followed up by David Milliband's robust support for the US looks two faced. Even if it isn't. So it does not look good.

tolkein, chelmsford,

I would like to publically apologize for the comments of my fellow Canadian, Tim from Toronto.

I would also like to apologize for our Prime Minister, Bush Junior.

Tim: I will explain the article to you at the Donut Shop.

Rob, Halifax, Canada

For the moment, staying reasonably close to America but not to the oaf in charge remains a sensible strategy. He'll be gone in 2009. Once the US leadership changes, Brown's government (assuming it is still in charge) may need to cut out the 'stray speeches'.

Chris, Reading, UK

1) The U.S. can stop coming to the aid of Britain. Should Russia stop giving energy to Britain, the U.S. can just say "Well, it's your problem, deal with it".

2) Britain can stop coming to the aid of the U.S., such as sending troops to Iraq to prolong an illegal war of GwB (but isn't any war illegal??) or giving credence to terrorism fear tactics.

Instead, let's just agree to continue to import fine television, such as Dr. Who, Jekyll, Coupling, Heros, and Lost, to those entertainment starved thousands. Being entertained these days really is what people only care about, right? The real owners of government now are corporations and their billionaire CEOs.

Jeff, PDX,

While your opinion is more than likely spot on, the part of the story you have left untold is whether the "Two Famous Brits" extended families care.

If Beckham flops, then the queen of Beckhamshire will never have a chance to gain the global throne that she so covets. And if Brown flops, what can we count on when our new friends are the Belgians?

When your disgust is with the president (Bush) do you extend that to the team? I am beginning to feel like we are Leeds United...I hope we like Division Two.

H Ford, Worcester,

Toronto Tim, don't worry. Read the article again, but slooowwwwly.

James, Monteria, Colombia

Everyone understands that President Bush is on his way out and that world leaders are basically trying to hold a steady course until they can see who will replace him. The real question in my mind is what will happen to the relationship between the US and the UK if and when the proposed EU constitution is ratified. Americans tend to think of Britain as a genuine ally and the rest of Europe as a source of trouble.

Don, Houston, USA/ Texas

Actually, I do speak German, and French, and Dutch, as well as English...

Joyce, Leiden, the Netherlands

Another question to ask is, does Texas George see our man Brown in a white hat, or a black one? Or is it simply grey to him? Perhaps, though, Brown's monster investment in nuclear subs has made it a white one.

Tony Gold, Bangkok, Thailand

The “special” relationship between America and Britain no longer exists. It ended for much more practical reasons than a hated US President and an unpopular war. What remains is nostalgia. Britain’s future within the EU collective; all that remains is the anachronism of having an independent vote on the Security Council; one EU, one vote. America’s future is “special” relationships with China and India who will have independent votes on the Security Council.

Brad, Pittsburgh, USA

I for one don't have a problem with Brown speaking with a forked tongue. He'd have to be a complete fool to write off the US, yet he needs to reassure Brits. When he was here, my impression was that he's waiting Bush out, as we all are. He spoke kindly of the US and it seemed heartfelt, but not so of Bush. Frankly, he expressed well the feelings of many of us. I can live with Mallach Brown as long as he doesn't unhinge his jaw too often.

Lynne, Athens, GA, USA

Rob,

Your point would be true if the last few years had seen a remarkable change in British attitudes to the US. In fact what we have now is entirely consistent with what has passed over the last two hundred years. Its just become a little more fashionable.

In my experience UK dinner party conversation hardly focuses on so-called human rights abuses. Instead one will hear a table of apparently intelligent people concluding that all Americans are generally fat, crass and dumb. If they substituted the word 'black' for 'American' they would be shocked at their bigotry and prejudice.

What we have now is nothing more than age old European arrogance and condescension. Over 200 hundred years ago British newspapers solemnly informed readers that George Washington was stupid - and they said the same of his successor, John Adams. So what, precisely, has changed?

Hugh, London,

Have you actually read this article, Tim of Toronto?

Chris, Shetland,

Traipsing the high wire by Brown and his buffoon underlings at a Barnum and Bailey circus might be just cool provided there is an Uncle Sam safety-net underneath. Socialism is a brain malfunction which causes woofing in the opposite direction of the walker.

joel joseph, Ilford, Essex

Tim, your point is well-taken. The Normandy campaign was, indeed, won by North America - but let's not forget how many of them were Canadian, not US, citizens. Canada's more modest film industry lets us forget that at times.

KR, Stockport,

mock at your peril. don 't forget you still speak English, and not German.
Tim, Toronto, Canada
****************************
Dont forget, we still own ur a**

phil, london, uk

Tim from Toronto, what you said is utterly stupid. We could say the same thing about Canada and the Brits. Don't forget you speak English, and not French.

Pete, Montreal, Canada

Yes, tim from Toronto. And I thank the Russians for that.

david, london, uk

The Labout spin machine in 5th gear. How long will the British public continue beliving this? .... “Brown does rather give the impression he was born in a suit and tie, doesn’t he?” - Love it.

Alex, Lodon, London,

This article is all very well, it notes the duplicitous signals eminating from the Brown government, but its weakness is its readiness to dump the responsibility for this situation upon the British PM, rather than Bush himself.
Brown is not distancing himself from Bush merely to win" plaudits from the Labour Left and the Brussels bureaucracy", rather the posistion is forced upon him because the American premier is so loathed in Britain that any popular democratic leader must avoid overt closeness to him.
This situation is caused by the president's indifference to forign perceptions of his policies, not by Brown's indecision over where he stands in the "struggle for human freedom". If America wants to advance a global agenda it must present itself successfully to a global audience; it's Bush's utter failure here which has forced Brown to speak with a forked tongue. Brown's posistion is the unavoidable consequence of US forign policy articulated without regard to forign perception.

Rob, Cambridge, UK

You're dead right. If the U.S. were to vanish overnight the World would be in a hell of a mess. You can't say that about any other country on the Planet (and certainly not this one). Brown needs watch his step, and pay less attention to the Yank-bashers. The U.S. may be far from perfect, but it's a thousand times better than the self-serving spineless squabblers in the U.N. or E.U..

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

Nice, but we shouldn't forget that the cited politicians have not at all the wise forthsight of Monty Python. It does not need a bridge to the splendid humour of the early 70s to recognize the brainless emptyness of today's world. Disastrous policy in foreign countries, ignoring any good sense, leads automatically to critics and 'bashing'. Anyway, still more than a year to go for the acting American president, and nothing good in sight - even the English language will not help!

Joachim Kappert, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal

mock at your peril. don 't forget you still speak English, and not German.

Tim, Toronto, Canada