American/ British relations strained because of oil spill and blame game?

[bebemoohatessnot]

I'm actually wondering about the personal side of this issue....
Being an American, but resident in Britain, can be tough sometimes when it comes to politics. I find myself as challenged lately mediating 'the sides' on the oil spill as I did trying to explain the Gulf war point of view to people.

Do you find yourself (or others) being overly defensive (of one side or another) because of the media involved with the oil spill? Does anyone else get tired of trying to wade through the information and the sweeping statements of blame.

and why, can't we see in others what we see in ourselves? and why can't our understanding of ourselves and our goals and fears help us to treat others a little better?

It's all pretty silly, the whole "blame the British" thing is just a distraction.

BP isn't even that British. It employs twice as many Americans as British people and roughly as many shares are held by Americans as Britons.

The rig itself was built and run by American sub-contractors.

It's awful what's happened and the company's slow response to it but anyone pointing the finger overseas and blaming the Brits is trying to hide from something...

Exactly. It's all politics and there's so much more going on there than any of us really know. And yet people make so many sweeping negative statements which gets everyone defensive.
Where is the really intelligent information/reaction? (I imagine with the people trying to solve the actual problem of capping/stopping the flow.)
I find the whole thing disheartening.

I find it a bit that Americans are acting all holier than thou over this for the reasons you mention and because over the years I'm sure as a nation they've produced many a company responsible for poor health and safety records eg Bhopla which still hasn't been cleaned up years later.

I thought they were extremely rude to the bloke being grilled yesterday. I think BP were shameful but when you fire questions at somebody it's normally polite to actually listen to the answer.

What was the point of getting him there if they had no intention of listening to his answers unless of course it was to make themselves look good-"look at me I'm American I can bully and belittle whoever I damn well please,this is how we deal with people who damage our land".

Not nice and doesn't actually help anything.

It was not 'polite' but unfortunately it's how Senate committee meetings usually go from what I've seen
The 'public' bit the such things has a LOT to do with showing how 'tough' you are. It is not about being American so much as showing your constituents that you're (superficially) strong and in control and have their supposed best interests at hand.
I also think that, like I've sometimes seen with news people who interview politicians even over here, they keep beating the same drum (pelleting the same question) when the person has said I cannot sing that tune (or 'listen I cannot answer that for various reasons which honor or the law, or investigation, whatever holds me to') in the hopes of 'tricking' them or breaking them down and they start singing the tune they think the public want to hear.

Mila, when you say 'Americans are holier than thou' are they people you've been talking to? or people you've seen on the news?

MilaMae - I'm not sure 'rude' even comes into it.

Tony Heyward did himself (and BP) no favours by largely refusing to give specific answers or take responsibility as the CEO of the company. I think it was that behaviour that incensed the politicians and caused them to be incredulous, frustrated and eventually 'rude'.

In theory, these hearings are supposed to be accounts of what went wrong, how it happened, and who is to blame. Over and over, he gave no answers on what caused the spill or who was to blame.

Multiple times he answered he 'did not know' and 'could not recall'. Can it be possible that the BP CEO doesn't know how many deepwater rigs his company operates around the world? Seems fairly basic information to many, and answering 'I don't know' to that question (and many others) makes him appear detached from his duties and possibly indicates incompetency.

His appearance is being reported most everywhere as a 'public relations disaster' for him personally and for BP.

Doesn't everyone remember when Kraft took over Cadbury the domestic reaction then? "Big nasty American company taking over our nice British business" was the nub of it. So we shouldn't be too suprised when looking for someone to take the rap the Americans light on the 'foreign' element to this.

The BP team have done a rubbish job on a PR level. Embarassingly so. Wrong people. Badly thought-through statements. Having said that, I'm a little tired of the blustering rhetoric. (And Obama doesn't look all that comfortable in his new role of Witchfinder General) We need to know the truth, people compensated and the spill needs to be cleaned up pronto... but I don't see how public, ritual humiliation acheives any of those things.

''I don't see how public, ritual humiliation acheives any of those things.''

The hearings are supposed to be investigative - they are about asking the people in charge what happened and how in a detailed way. It is about explaining and being accountable. Executives can't be elusive, or hide behind sound bites and public relations statements. It is a company's chance to explain what occurred to the government and the nation's people.

In theory, politicians can then help craft/pass legislation that can be more effective in future on these issues.

In the past 18 months, similar hearings have been held for the bankers whose companies contributed to the financial disaster, and for the CEOs of America's automobile companies who asked for/needed huge bailouts in order to survive.

There is a vindictive, hectoring tone to the whole process that seems out of step with the assertion that these processes exist to establish the truth. The objective, to the casual observer, is not so much to get to explanations as to make the person in front of them look as small and pathetic as possible on camera. It's a modern-day version of the stocks.....not very edifying.

Politicians and their constituents are angry.

Tony Heyward's repeated insistence that the investigation is still ongoing, that it is too early to tell, that he wasn't part of the decision making process, etc. was infuriating and exasperating for the politicians who want and expect clear answers.

It is hard not to be defensive, but then watching Tony Hayward talk, I thought he did such a poor job and BP really need to pull their fingers out. They are handling this disastrously and it seems more clear by the day that they had cut corners and put people in danger.

The thing that is making me cross right now is that although it is absolutely right BP take responsibility there seems to be no mention of Transocean and Haliburton, who must also share some portion of the blame. It doesn't seem very fair in that respect.

Yes. T and H probably need to share the blame too.
And have you seen the bit (cannot find it now, thought it was in the Times) that the group (who monitors and approves deep water drilling in the US) had given BP the go ahead to drill as they were/use the specific practice of not capping the well first?
So there too is someone else who needs to be questioned about practices and why the danger was deemed small enough to allow this type of drilling.
AND the fact that there was (possibly if the media is to be believed) a similar spill in Australia...

I just hate it when I hear sweeping statements about the issues. Things like, all Americans blame BP and want to see BP go down for something that wasn't their fault at all (had a friend say this to me). And another said Obama should have kept his mouth shut he had no right to say anything. He's blaming BP for it all. Americans always stick their nose in where they don't belong. It makes it very hard to keep level headed and try to be objective.

bebe - interesting that you say you 'hate sweeping statements' and then a few lines later write 'Americans always stick their nose in where they don't belong. '

Find myself agreeing with earlybird completely.

Where is the evidence that the anger about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has anything to do with the British? I haven't heard any anti British comments, other than anger directed at the company rather than specifically about nationality.

As opposed to the comment: 'Americans always stick their nose in where they don't belong' Now, that's just ridiculous. No one suggested that the Australians shouldn't be angry about the oil spill in the Great Barrier Reef.

I think this thread is an interesting mini-example of how there is significant anti-American sentiment coming from the British on this issue. Not the other way around.

Go back and read the posts here so far - there are no anti-British comments, but plenty of negative/sweeping generalisations about Americans.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that most Americans I've encountered are generally extremely pro-British, and that it is the British who can be (generally) anti-American.

Believe me, Americans do not care that the company fouling the Gulf is British. They simply want it to stop spewing, want those whose lives/property have been affected to be compensated, want the animals to be safe/well, and want the mess cleaned up.

They would have the same reaction if the spill was caused by Exxon, Chevron, etc. The perpetrator is immaterial to most, imo.

The way they are doing it is to point the finger to detract from the many other issues facing the country.

Terrible situation but when O says that basically British Petroleum (erm not been that for many many years and he's playing a really shitty card here and it shows his weakness) should be the underwriter for everything here I think the world could respond ....

yeah - bhopal and union carbide

what do you mean 'the world could respond'? Don't understand.

Realistically, you're unlikely to read anti-British comments on any thread on MN...it being a British-based website populated largely by British people.

I'm sure most intelligent Americans realise that there is a more collective culpability here and have not stooped to making this a dumb-down nationalistic 'us and them' situation. However, there have been some rather pointed references in the inquiry to nationality... didn't that man yesterday say something about Hayward's "golden parachute back to England"? And oil-industry-funded politicians or those who signed papers saying 'go ahead with deep water drilling' will be acutely aware that 'there but for the grace of god go I...'

Early - no anti british comment here but look at the threads and blogs from overseas.

I think the ceo of bp (not british petroleum - a highly emotive move from the us president) should be fully accountable.

I also think that that the US government and the ceo of union should have been fully accountable. It won't happen.

I say the world - because surely it's a world issue - deep oil drilling - people suffering because of large corporations.

Obama was wrong to say 'British Petroleum' instead of BP, but I only heard him say that during one interview.

Do we think he made a mistake, or was he pointedly identifying the company as British, and intending to provoke?

Earlybird that's what one of my British friends said to me 'Obama should have kept his mouth shut he had no right to say anything. He's blaming BP for it all. Americans always stick their nose in where they don't belong.' I was rather upset. Especially the last bit abt the nose sticking...

I made the exact same point to him that Americans wouldn't care which oil company had been the perpetrator not matter if it had been an American one. They're upset abt the fact it's happened, people died, environment ruined, etc.

I also made the point that Obama has said that he will hold BP accountable for what they've done. And that is a superbly worded statement in my opinion! Because to the untrained ear it sounds like he's blaming them. BUT what he's actually saying is if they've done wrong they will pay. Love it. Love how the language can be used like that.

I think he was trying to take the heat of himself. He's not a stupid man.

Noone has really stepped up to the mark in getting this disaster stopped and cleared up.

As he's identified a coroporation as pretty much a national asset (to the UK) we would then expect the UK govt to quickly ferry the ceo of british petroleum back to the UK so he cannot face the music. As the US did with Bhopal.

Well I've heard a number of Americans calling BP 'British Petroleum.' It could have been a mistake on Obama's part. I wonder if we could put it to him. He's good about admitting when he's misspoke when called on it.

I'm wondering if anyone can 'step up to the mark' to stop it. It seems like people are working as fast and best as they can to stop and clear this mess up. (But to be honest I don't know...I just assume because surely no one wants it to continue longer than it has to.)

The congressman said, 'back to London' I think, because that's where he lives. I understood the comment more as a pointed remark about his salary, hence 'golden' parachute.

Earlybird though is right about the negative/sweeping generalizations about Americans.

As an American living in the UK, am fairly used to negative comments, and feel that the British aren't used to being criticized. OK, so some blogs are anti British. In day to day life, I haven't heard any and if the only negative comment was from the congressman making a snide remark about where Tony Hayward lives, then that's hardly anti British. This is the man, let's remember who said that BP would honor legitimate claims, then stated that, 'this is America,' inferring that there would lots of false claims. He also said shortly after the Gulf of Mexico explosion that he would be pleased when it would be all over (meaning the investigations etc) as he, 'wanted his life back...' which is so offensive to people who have lost lives/businesses not to mention the damage to the environment

I think the problem is the US do have a history of trampling over the environment in search of the big buck. There is the Kyoto issue as well as Bhopal which is totally shocking when you read into it.

Sorry but I can't help feeling a bit "live by the sword you die by the sword" regards all this.

Maybe some good will come out of all this and the US will actually realise they have some responsibility towards the environment now they can see it's not actually nice when the problems caused by the blatant disregard for the environment are actually happening in your own back yard so to speak.