Printer-friendly version

US and British Responses in the Aftermath of the Oil Spill: Still a special relationship?

I. Introduction

The United States and Britain have been intrinsically linked since the beginning of modern history. The special economic, political, military, and cultural relationship that has ensued has created a friendly and loyal partnership that transcends an ocean. The past several years have witnessed many great tests to the US and British "special relationship" in the form of war, economic recession, and internal political realignments. Despite these great challenges, the US and Britain have continually maintained a mutually beneficial relationship that is soundly grounded and enduring. However, the tragic oil spill which began off the coast of the US at the hands of a British-based company on April 20, 2010, has brought heightened attention to the genuine durability of the US' and Britain's special transatlantic relationship.

With great fervor, British, American, and worldwide media have responded to the spill, named the greatest environmental disaster in US history, and its vast repercussions. The British- based company, BP, that has taken responsibility for the destruction of many American livelihoods, and miles of coastline, has quickly become the target of the over-expressive American media and its scorn. Meanwhile, British media and public response have represented the oil spill and its aftermath in a stoic and reflective manner while maintaining a "hands-off" approach to political and economic concerns. The combination of media and public responses, on both sides of the Atlantic, has given rise to worldwide media speculation regarding possible political repercussions and a dissolution of the US' and Britain's special relationship. However, these speculations are not supported by political actions and are, instead, perpetuated by the media's misrepresentations of British and American public sentiments. Although the British and Americans have been affected in vastly different ways by the oil spill, the recognition of its atrocity, and the heinous repercussions that have ensued, are represented equally within both the British and American public. Comparing both the British and American public response to the oil spill, the responsibility of BP, public and political missteps, environmental degradation, and monetary recovery, demonstrates similarities and fevered calls for action and accountability. Although the media represents a transatlantic relationship in turmoil, transatlantic sentiment and public reaction to the oil spill have been similar in both countries. Both continually recognize the hideousness of the oil spill and its lasting impacts on the future of energy security and environmental protection.

II. The American Public: Action vs. Reaction

An Oval Office address by an American president is a venue reserved for great American tragedies, emergencies, and, most frequently, issues of conflict and war. President Obama's oval office address on June 15, 2010 subsequently echoed the fever of a nation on the brink of war with a quickly approaching enemy. Laying out a siege for the "battle we're waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens" Obama asserted a "battle plan" for the "fight."¹ Appealing to the American mindset with the rhetoric of war is not a new way to rally public support. President Obama's verbiage is in keeping with the traditional American reaction to unnatural tragedies. The American public launched a series of emotional and angered outcries that ranged in topics from reparations to a drilling moratorium. Rhetoric, however, is only one of the many ways the American public has responded to the oil spill, BP, energy security, and the future of its coastlines.

The oil spill has engendered great personal loss and emotional distress for thousands of Americans. Health concerns, job losses, industry declines, and property loss are just a few of the many hardships that Americans have suffered at the hands of a seemingly never ending oil slick. After recently recovering from Hurricane Katrina, the gulf coast is a vulnerable and fragile conglomerate that is geographically susceptible to unexpected tragedy. Needing a culprit, the American public easily directs its anger and resentment at the British-based company that is being held responsible for the tragedy. The American public's emotional reaction has prompted a vast proactive response. Soon after the oil spill, BP took responsibility and promised to pay for all cleanup efforts and the financial repercussions for individuals and their businesses. Americans made their sentiments known by boycotting BP gas stations and launching a campaign of non support for the British based company. BP stocks fell to an all- time low, and the public continues to protest the company until full reparations are made. Soon after the spill, fishing season was halted in the Gulf of Mexico, and fishermen and fishing fleets resolved to help in the clean up. Fishing boats were converted into skimmer boats, and individual fisherman found employment with BP in clean-up teams. Around the country, fundraisers, think tanks, scholars and universities, nonprofit organizations, religious groups, and everyday citizens pulled their resources and ideas together to bring a swift resolution to the oil leak and its required clean up. As cleanup efforts stalled and a solution seemed far away, politicians and lobbyists began feeling the public pressure to prevent a future spill. A presidential decree placed a moratorium on all deep-water offshore drilling pending safety reviews; the moratorium was temporarily overturned by US District Court Judge Martin Feldman. The political battle continued as the American public responded to the daily needs of the cleanup and the daily hiccups that inhibited a speedy solution.

Ultimately, BP and the United States have never faced such an unusual catastrophe under such extraordinary circumstances. The depth and breadth of the spill and its resounding effects on the future of the environment, the oil industry, and government regulations of both are unprecedented. Misplaced anger and frustration, and the American media's representation of it, has fed the speculation of an American abhorrence of BP, Britain and its companies. After BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg told Washington reporters that BP "care[s] about the small people," public outrage against the British based company reached an all time high.² Despite a clear language barrier and several clarifications by the chairman, the media capitalized on the opportunity to broadcast the fury of gulf coast residents. Similarly, after Tony Hayward, BP's CEO, was photographed on a weekend yachting vacation, the public flogging of Hayward intensified and his glamorous ocean outing was sensationally displayed in sharp contrast to an oil soaked gulf.³ However, despite several public gaffes and BP's prolonged response to the oil spill, the sensationalism of the media has falsified the majority of American sentiment toward Britain and the British public. Recent surveys indicate that Americans are unsatisfied with BP and its response to the oil spill, but harbor no resentment or ill will towards Britain or its major companies. A recent publication by Angus Reid Global Monitor demonstrates that 63% of Americans believe that BP solely deserves the blame for the disaster while 30% believe drilling contractor, TransOcean, should be held equally accountable.⁴ Public opinion polls reveal that only 13% of Americans hold an "unfavorable" attitude towards Britain while the majority holds a "very favorable" or "favorable" opinion.⁵

The American public is volatile yet rightfully distraught over the financial and emotional devastation caused by the oil spill. However, despite a media that has sensationalized the public reaction to the oil spill, average Americans are able to separate frustration with BP from the important transatlantic relationship that the US and Britain share. The economical, political, and social bond that spans the Atlantic Ocean is unwavering and endures despite an unprecedented environmental accident caused by a British-based company.

III. Britain's Dichotomous Response

"I have no idea what BP did, I am not responsible for BP" Prime Minister David Cameron responded on July 19th when asked about whether the oil giant had lobbied for the release of the Lockerbie bomber.⁶ This response represents how the oil spill, and BP's continuing relationship with the US, is seen from a UK perspective, especially from the British government. However, Cameron's response does not mean that the British public and the British media approve of the oil spill or how the involved parties have been handling the situation.

Without taking into consideration the environmentalists, who adamantly oppose the Deepwater Horizon disaster, one can discern a clear division amongst the British public. On one hand, BP is one of the largest contributors of UK pensions and greatly effects the personal financial situations of many individuals. However, a large part of the British public has been oblivious, or appears to be, to the whole situation. For many of the unaware Britons, as long as their pensions remain untouched, there seems to be no problem. Furthermore, some believe that the oil spill is a problem between a company, that by chance happens to be British-based, and the USA and that the everyday citizen should not be concerned. Perhaps because the spill did not occur in their homeland, many consider it foolish to engage in such a controversy. On the other hand, the intellectual, academic and artistic communities have accepted the task of discrediting BP. This group of activists has been picketing the BP logo that sponsors one of London´s famous art institutions, the Tate, and waging simple protests against other prestigious art institutions that defend their link with the oil firm. Between the oblivious and the activists, one finds the rest of the British population which has found the new coalition government´s actions more important than the ordeals of a UK-based company.

The British media, and its many facets and perspectives present the oil spill, and BP's response, in a much less emotional and exaggerated manner than the American media. Since April 20th, transatlantic relations have been portrayed by a push-pull relationship between the U.S and the UK. Many times British reporting of the oil spill is in response to specific instances that effect Britain or British citizens. For example, the oil spill remained unmentioned in most British media outlets until Cameron met with Obama on July 20th. Today, months after the spill began, it seems that issues regarding the special relationship between the US and Britain, continue to lose importance within the media and the public. Causes of the British media's lack of attention to the transatlantic relationship are unknown. However, it is most likely that the British media has found more public interest in the controversial topics within the BP oil spill scandal; the size of the spill and its containment, Hayward's resignation as the CEO of BP, Cameron's response to the oil spill, British pensions, or the US Congress' recent obsession with the Lockerbie bomber release and its association with a BP oil deal.

IV. Conclusions

Unquestionably, the oil spill and its devastation have created great economic and personal losses for both the U.S and Britain and many of its citizens. While the US media's sensationalism creates unwarranted negativity towards British-US relations, Britain's divided public represents a number of differing reactions to the oil spill and BP. Whatever the media response or public reaction, the fundamental human response is the same; the oil spill and its aftermath are tragic accidents that deserve a just resolution without political and cultural humiliation.

Today, months after the initial accident, the oil spill appears to be under control. The issues surrounding the oil spill and US-British relations seems to have taken another turn that may lead to the special relationship to fall into public limbo once again. However, if anything has been made clear in the aftermath of the spill, it's that there is no need to fear a divided US and Britain. The media, the public, and political commentators on both sides of the Atlantic have recognized the potential for a transnational divorce between the two countries but always consider the nature of the US-Britain relationship and its history. In June, Dominc Raab, an MP (Member of Parliament) and former British diplomat, when asked whether the transatlantic relationship between the US and Britain was still special, said: "The glue binding Britain and America remains: a strong defense and intelligence relationship, relatively open economies,liberal democracy, similar common law systems, enormous cultural affinity and - despite poor impersonations on either side – language."⁷

Both Americans and British are able to look beyond the BP tragedy and gain a renewed perspective on transatlantic relations and the perceived attitudes of their neighbors across the pond. Media reports and public reaction to the oil spill have been unusual and inconsistent in both nations, which is in keeping with the accident itself and the massive amount of conflicting issues that have been engendered by the spill.

1. The White House Online. "President Obama's Oval Office Address on BP Oil Spill and Energy." June 15, 2010.
2. The Associated Press. BP comment about "small people" causes anger. July 16, 2010.
3. World News Network. BP CEO's yachting outing infuriates Gulf residents. June 19, 2010.
4. Angus Reid Global Monitor. Americans Blame BP for Oil Spill, Britons Divided. June 25, 2010.
5. CNN Politics Online. CNN Poll: US views of Britain take hit in wake of spill. June 21, 2010.
6. Daily Mail Online, "I have no idea what BP did: Flustered Cameron washes hands of Lockerbie bomber´s release ahead of US visit", July 19, 2010.
7. Dominic Raab, "Is the Trans Atlantic relation still special?", Conservative Home Platform, June 16, 2010.