British Prime Minister David Cameron called President Barak Obama on Saturday, June 12, 2010 to discuss the oil spill and US-British relations. The conversation comes at a time many Americans are raising an angry fist at BP, participating in boycotts of the company's products, and demanding that the Justice Department pursue legal action against the company. At the same time, anger in Britain is growing against what has been called President Obama’s heavy handedness against BP.
But while the president reminded TV viewers On June 4, 2010 that BP has “moral and legal obligations here in the Gulf…” London Mayor Boris Johnson (BBC News, June 10, 2010) commented that it becomes a “matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on the international airwaves.”
BP’s Financial Future
Defending BP’s pending payout of a shareholder dividend, Dan Roberts, writing in the Guardian (June 10, 2010) warns that withholding the dividend would send the wrong message to credit rating agencies and stock markets, potentially causing even lower stock values. According to MSNBC’s Jennifer Carlile, “By Wednesday night, BP’s shares had lost more than half of their market value…” (Thursday, June 10, 2010) But even Dan Roberts admits that, “This is an environmental catastrophe without parallel where the pattern of negligent behavior points firmly at BP.”
At issue are the estimated 18 million Britons that hold shares in BP. President Obama spoke of BP “nickel-and-diming” Gulf coast residents whose livelihoods may be permanently eliminated while paying a dividend on its stock. These dividends represent $10.5 billion. At the same time, BP’s damage control efforts – an immense PR media campaign, is costing an estimated $50 million. (Truthout, June 10)
Ms. Carlile quotes Thelma Aengenheister, an 80-year old London resident. Referring to Obama’s reactions to BP she said, “It’s like kicking someone when they’re down. But I do feel for the people of Louisiana, it must be dreadful for them.” Herein is the problem. Angry Britons may not fully understand the enormity of the ecological disaster and its long term impact on millions of people.
Communicating the Scope of the Disaster
Americans see the growing effects of the Gulf oil spill every day with round-the-clock news analysis. It has headlined every television national news presentation. It is no longer the Gulf spill threatening Louisiana, but now affects Mississippi and Alabama and is predicted to shortly hit the west coast of Florida. Long-term projections have the spill carried by the Atlantic currents to the North Carolina coast by August. NC Governor Beverly Perdue has announced that she will assemble a commission to review the threat.
But European presses have not been reporting the oil spill with the same relentless vigor or anywhere close to it. Most Thursday, June 10, 2010 headlines focused on President Obama’s denigration of BP which is seen in Britain, by extension, as criticism of Britain. Fraser Nelson, writing in the June 10, 2010 Spectator refers to Obama’s finger pointing, “on the other side of the Atlantic. It makes you wonder how highly he values UK-US relations.” A Guardian headline asks, “Has US Bloodlust for BP gone too far?”
Why Americans are Angry at BP
Americans widely perceive that BP distorted the facts after the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon, understating the amount of oil flowing into the Gulf. BP had no emergency plans in place to halt the flow of oil. Its safety record has not been stellar. The June 10 Miami Herald, referring to the 2005 BP refinery explosion in Texas, quotes an OSHA official stating that the results of that investigation were “deeply troubling.” The Herald writes that, “Inspectors found a significant lack of compliance.”
Andrew Clark, writing about increasing U.S. anger directed at Britain, does not, however, excuse the oil giant. “BP hasn’t done itself many favors…The company was ill-prepared for such an unprecedented disaster but has finally made some progress in plugging the leak.” The British are also quick to point out that BP was not the only possible culprit. The rig itself was owned by Transocean, headquartered in Switzerland. Halliburton was also involved in the rig’s construction. But BP’s share was 65%.
Future Effect on British-American Relations
Fraser Nelson, in the Spectator, writes that “…Britain’s reputation in America stands at its lowest ebb since 1776.” This may all revert back to the lack of properly communicating the scope of the disaster across the Atlantic. One of PM David Cameron’s goals when called upon to lead Britain in the recent election was to improve relations with Washington, D.C. His stated sympathies with the people that live along the Gulf may go a long way to preserve that goal. Another solution may be to take Mr. Cameron on a visit to the Gulf coast.
Join the Conversation