World

Newscaster: The US ambassador to Britain hopes thatthe two countries can reach an agreement soon. (ITN:1230, 5.3.99)US Special Trade Representative: Our view remainstoday as it did before that the best way to resolve this isthrough direct negotiations to a mutually agreeablesolution. (Channel 4: 1900, 4.3.99)Another prescription, originating from the UKgovernment involved the suggestion that the UnitedStates could still change its mind about imposingsanctions on Europe. The statement only featured twiceacross the television channels. The Trade and IndustrySecretary Steven Byers was quoted on this on ChannelFour News:Trade and Industry Secretary: Even now it’s not toolate for the United States to reverse its decision. (Channel4: 1900, 4.3.99)The same statement was repeated by a Sky Newsreporter the same day:Reporter: The government has urged its Americancousins to think again, with the Trade Secretaryimploring them – it’s not too late to reverse the decision.(Sky News: 1800, 4.3.99)A spokesperson for the World DevelopmentMovement speaking on Channel 4 urged the governmentnot to give in to ‘bullying’:WDM spokesperson: If the US succeeds with bullyingthis time, they’re going to try again in the future.(Channel 4: 1900, 5.3.99)In the discussion of the potential consequences of thebanana dispute, references were made to possibledamage to the ‘special relationship’ between Britain andthe US. While this received less attention than otherpotential consequences of the dispute, it was referred toon all six channels in our sample. However, there werethree occasions where statements were made regardingtrading relations and traditional loyalties, whichquestion the strength and validity of any ‘specialrelationship’:Reporter: Old friendships are under new andunprecedented pressure as Britain and its Europeanpartners are forced to choose between loyalty to formercolonies and Commonwealth, and trade relations withthe most powerful economy on earth. (BBC1: 2100,8.3.99)Spokesperson for the Caribbean producers: The EU isfacing a major test to stand up to the Americans in theinterests of the Caribbean, and in the interests of Europe,but beyond that in the interests of the rule of law oninternational trade. (BBC2: 2230, 4.3.99)Will Hutton: The Americans don’t have friends – theyhave interests. Tony Blair is learning the hard way that agreat power like America, and I think it behaves in somerespects like an imperial power – when it sees its interestsgoing begging – goes after people who it thinks areoffending it. And it’s going after the EU and Britain hasto decide which side it’s on – the EU or the US. (Channel4: 1900, 6.3.99)C.2.1.11. DiscussionMuch of the coverage of the banana dispute suggestedthat the UK government remained firm andauthoritative in face of the US sanctions. The secondlargest section of the coverage, which concerneddiplomatic activity, largely gave the impression that theBritish government was undaunted by the US action.Part of this impression was created by the key players inthe dispute, such as the Prime Minister who wasfrequently quoted as stating that the US action was‘unacceptable’ and that ‘we won’t have it.’ Theimpression was also fostered by reporters whodramatised some of the diplomatic events following theannouncement of sanctions. While it may have beenunusual for the US ambassador to be summoned to theForeign Office, there were numerous comments abouthim being ‘hauled over the coals,’ ‘carpeted’ and ‘dresseddown’.On the other hand, there were indications that therewas little the UK government could do in face of the USsanctions. The diplomatic event which received mostcoverage was the arrival of the US Secretary of State, fortalks with the British Foreign Secretary. While some newsprogrammes stated that Madeleine Albright was flyingin specifically to talk about the banana dispute, therewere several contradictory comments about the agendaof the meeting. The government in particular wasanxious to play down the significance of the bananadispute in the talks. Despite telephone conversationsbetween the premiers of the UK and the US, meetingsbetween EU officials and an emergency summit at theWorld Trade Organisation, the result of the flurry ofdiplomatic activity following the announcement ofsanctions was that the US position was not moving.The other key area of coverage was on the subject ofpotential consequences of the banana dispute, with threekey consequences discussed. The possibility of job lossesin the UK was referred to most often, partly becauseBBC1 covered the threat to the Scottish cashmere34 DFID – July 2000