122.105.208.45 (talk) RV per wp:NPOV |
Mythbuster2010 (talk | contribs) Undid revision 413696789 by 122.105.208.45 (talk) Do you even know what POV is? |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{globalize|date=December 2010}} |
{{globalize|date=December 2010}} |
||
{{Merge to|United Kingdom – United States relations|discuss=Talk:United Kingdom – United States relations#Merge discussion |date=November 2010}} |
{{Merge to|United Kingdom – United States relations|discuss=Talk:United Kingdom – United States relations#Merge discussion |date=November 2010}} |
||
[[ |
[[Image:Tehran Conference, 1943.jpg|thumb|alt=Three men, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, sitting together elbow to elbow|[[Joseph Stalin]] (left) meeting [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (center) at the [[Tehran Conference]] in 1943, with [[Winston Churchill]] further to the right.]] |
||
[[File:TrumanAtleeKing1945.jpg|thumb|US President [[Harry Truman]] and Prime Ministers [[Clement Attlee]] of the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Mackenzie King]] of [[Canada]] boarding U.S.C.G. ''Sequoia'' for discussions about the [[atomic bomb]], November 1945.]] |
|||
[[File:Barack & Michelle Obama meet Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace 4-1-09.jpg|thumb|[[Barack Obama|Barack]] and [[Michelle Obama]] meet [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]] at Buckingham Palace, 2009]] |
|||
The '''Special Relationship''' is a phrase chiefly used in the United Kingdom<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6y7ggURro0 |
|||
The '''Special Relationship''' is a phrase used to describe close political, diplomatic, cultural and historical [[United Kingdom – United States relations|relations between the United Kingdom and the United States]], following its use in a 1946 speech by British [[statesman]] [[Winston Churchill]]. While both the United Kingdom and the United States maintain close relationships with many others, the level of cooperation in economic activity, trade and commerce, military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology and intelligence sharing with each other has been described as "unparalleled" among [[major power]]s.<ref name="wither">{{cite journal | last =James| first =Wither| year =2006| month =March| title =An Endangered Partnership: The Anglo-American Defence Relationship in the Early Twenty-first Century| journal =European Security| volume =15| issue =1| pages =47–65| doi =10.1080/09662830600776694| id ={{ISSN|0966-2839}}| accessdate =2007-01-09}}</ref> The special relationship was most recently demonstrated by their mutual support for the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]]. |
|||
]</ref><ref>[http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/414/file/3381_bpblair1206.pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/is%2Bit%2Ba%2Bspecial%2Brelationship/641362.html]</ref> to convey the primacy the United Kingdom attaches to its relationship with the United States. While the U.K. maintains close links with many countries, her dependence on the United States in the spheres of commerce, technology, and national defense has been described as "unparalleled".<ref name="wither">{{cite journal | last =James| first =Wither| year =2006| month =March| title =An Endangered Partnership: The Anglo-American Defence Relationship in the Early Twenty-first Century| journal =European Security| volume =15| issue =1| pages =47–65| doi =10.1080/09662830600776694| id ={{ISSN|0966-2839}}| accessdate =2007-01-09}}</ref> The Special Relationship was first used in a 1946 speech by [[Winston Churchill]] and has since become synonymous with Britain's continued allegiance to the United States. This allegiance has allowed the United Kingdom to augment her diminished economic and geopolitical influence after the collapse of the [[British Empire]], enabling her to "punch above her weight".<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2026961,00.html]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=_izz6hzx1wkC&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=britain+punches+above+her+weight+special+relationship&source=bl&ots=NutdEOH-9M&sig=Qw3EpmocPEKrtEZl8NprtqKWjtc&hl=en&ei=X9dVTdufDMP78AaRr_HnBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false]</ref><ref>[http://security.nationaljournal.com/2010/10/an-end-to-the-usuk-special-rel.php]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/foreign_policy/uk_us.stm]</ref><ref>Horne, ''Macmillan: Volume II of the Official Biography'' (London: Macmillan, 1989), p. 429.</ref> Indeed, the former US Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin confided that Britain was allowed a seat at the top table because it had promised to the United States, "whatever you want, whatever you need, right away."<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/foreign_policy/uk_us.stm]</ref> Seen in this light, Britain is very much the junior partner in the special relationship: it needs to continuously prove its usefulness to its more powerful friend.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/foreign_policy/uk_us.stm]</ref> [[David Cameron]], the current British Prime Minister, in his remarks published in the [[Time Magazine]], said of the special relationship: "I believe in the special relationship. Britain is, of course, the junior partner. I hope we bring things to that relationship."<ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-16/britain-is-junior-partner-to-u-s-cameron-says.html]</ref> Former British Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]], testifying before the [[Chilcot Inquiry]], remarked: "It (the special relationship) is not a contract. It is not 'We do this for you, you do this for us'... As I always say to people, you can distance yourself from America if you want to, but you will find it is a long way back."<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2004052,00.html]</ref> |
|||
British participation in the U.S.-led 2003 Invasion of Iraq, despite widespread popular opposition at home, was the most recent manifestation of the special relationship. |
|||
==Suez Crisis as the genesis of the Special Relationship== |
|||
==Churchillian emphasis== |
|||
In 1956, Egyptian leader [[Gamal Abdel Nasser]] unilaterally nationalised the Suez Canal. The response of the new British Prime Minister, [[Anthony Eden]], was to collude with France to engineer an [[Israel]]i attack on [[Egypt]] that would give Britain and France an excuse to intervene militarily and retake the canal.<ref>[[#refJames2001|James]], p. 581.</ref> Eden infuriated his US counterpart, President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], by his lack of consultation, and Eisenhower refused to back the invasion.<ref>[[#refFergusonEmpire2004|Ferguson 2004]], p. 355.</ref> Another of Eisenhower's concerns was the possibility of a wider war with the [[Soviet Union]] after [[Nikita Khrushchev]] threatened to intervene on the Egyptian side. |
|||
Although the special relationship between the two governments was especially emphasised by British Prime Minister [[Winston Churchill]], its existence had been recognised since the 19th century, not least by rival powers.<ref>'The Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty', ''The Times'' (14 January 1897), p. 5, col. C, quoting the 'semi-official organ' the ''North-German Gazette'': 'There is, therefore, not the slightest occasion for other States to adopt as their model and example a form of agreement which may, perhaps, be advantage to England and America in their special relationship.'</ref><ref>'The New American Ambassador', ''The Times'' (7 June 1913); p. 9, col. C: 'No Ambassador to this or any other nation is similarly honoured ... It is intended to be, we need hardly say, precisely what it is, a unique compliment, a recognition on our part that Great Britain and the United States stand to one another in a special relationship, and that between them some departure from the merely official attitude is most natural.'</ref><ref>'The Conference and the Far East', ''The Times'' (21 November 1921), p. 11, col. B, C: 'The answer of the [Japanese] Ambassador [Baron Kato] shows that he and his Government even then [1911] appreciated the special relationship between this country [the United Kingdom] and the United States ... That, probably, the Japanese Government understands now, as clearly as their predecessors understood in 1911 that we could never make war on the United States.'</ref><ref>'Limit of Navy Economies', ''The Times'' (13 March 1923), p. 14; col. F: 'After comparing the programmes of Britain, America, and Japan, the First Lord said that so far from importing into our maintenance of the one-Power standard a spirit of keen and jealous competition, we had, on the contrary, interpreted it with a latitude which could only be justified by our desire to avoid provoking competition and by our conception of the special relationship of good will and mutual understanding between ourselves and the United States.'</ref><ref>'Five Years Of The League', ''The Times'' (10 January 1925), p. 13, col. C: 'As was well pointed out in our columns yesterday by Professor Muirhead, Great Britain stands in a quite special relationship to that great Republic [the United States].'</ref><ref>'The Walter Page Fellowships. Mr. Spender's Visit To America., Dominant Impressions', ''The Times'' (23 February 1928), p. 16, col. B, quoting J. A. Spender: 'The problem for British and Americans was to make their special relationship a good relationship, to be candid and open with each other, and to refrain from the envy and uncharitableness which too often in history had embittered the dealings of kindred peoples.'</ref> Their troops had been fighting side by side—sometimes spontaneously—in skirmishes overseas since [[Taku Forts#Second Opium War|1859]], and the two [[Liberal democracy|democracies]] shared a common bond of sacrifice in [[World War I]]. |
|||
Eisenhower applied diplomatic pressure and financial leverage by threatening to sell US reserves of the [[Pound sterling|British pound]] and thereby precipitate a collapse of the British currency.<ref>[[#refFergusonEmpire2004|Ferguson 2004]], p. 356.</ref> Because the Bank of England had lost $50 million (US) between 30 October and 2 November, and England's oil supply had been damaged by the closing of the Suez Canal, the "British treasury requested an immediate standby credit from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)". The United States "denied the support" while Britain did not adhere to a cease fire agreement.<ref>[[#Kap95|Risse-Kappen 1995]]. p. 96.</ref> Eisenhower in fact ordered his Secretary of the Treasury, [[George M. Humphrey]], to prepare to sell part of the US Government's Sterling Bond holdings. The US Government held these bonds in part to aid post war Britain’s economy (during the [[Cold War]]), and as partial payment of Britain’s enormous [[World War II]] debt to the US Government, American corporations, and individuals. It was also part of the overall effort of [[Marshall Plan]] aid, in the rebuilding of the Western European economies. Britain's then [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], [[Harold Macmillan]], advised his Prime Minister, [[Anthony Eden]], that the United States was fully prepared to carry out this threat. He also warned his Prime Minister that Britain's foreign exchange reserves simply could not sustain the devaluation of the pound that would come after the United States' actions; and that within weeks of such a move, the country would be unable to import the food and energy supplies needed simply to sustain the population on the islands. |
|||
Prime Minister [[Ramsay MacDonald]]'s visit to the United States in 1930 confirmed his own belief in the 'special relationship', and for this reason he looked to the [[Washington Naval Treaty|Washington Treaty]] rather than a revival of the [[Anglo-Japanese alliance]] as the guarantee of peace in the [[Far East]].<ref>Maurice Cowling, ''The Impact of Hitler: British Politics and British Policy 1933–1940'' (Cambridge: University Press, 1974), pp. 77-78.</ref> However, as [[David Reynolds (English historian)|David Reynolds]] observes: ‘For most of the [[Interwar period|period since 1919]], [[United Kingdom-United States relations|Anglo-American relations]] had been cool and often suspicious. America’s “betrayal” of the [[League of Nations]] was only the first in a series of US actions—over war debts, [[Washington Naval Treaty#Background|naval rivalry]], the 1931-2 [[Japanese invasion of Manchuria|Manchurian crisis]] and the [[Great Depression|Depression]]—that convinced British leaders that the United States could not be relied on.’<ref>David Reynolds, '1940: Fulcrum of the Twentieth Century?', ''International Affairs'', Vol. 66, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), p. 331.</ref> Equally, as President [[Harry S. Truman|Truman]]'s secretary of state, [[Dean Acheson]], recalled: 'Of course a unique relation existed between Britain and America—our common language and history ensured that. But unique did not mean affectionate. We had fought England as an enemy as often as we had fought by her side as an ally.'<ref>Dean Acheson, ''Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department'' (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969), p. 387.</ref> |
|||
Furthermore, in concert with U.S. actions [[Saudi Arabia]] started an oil [[embargo]] against Britain and France. The U.S. refused to fill the gap until Britain and France agreed to a rapid withdrawal. The other NATO members refused to sell oil they received from Arab nations to Britain or France.<ref>Kennett Love, Suez: The Twice-Fought War, New York: McGraw Hill, 1969, p.651</ref> |
|||
Arguably, 'the [[Battle of France|fall of France]] in 1940 was decisive in shaping the pattern of [[International relations|international politics]]', leading the special relationship to displace the [[entente cordiale]] as the [[wikt:pivot|pivot]] of the international system.<ref>Reynolds, '1940: Fulcrum of the Twentieth Century?', pp. 325, 348-50.</ref> During [[World War II]], as an observer noted, 'Great Britain and the United States integrated their military efforts to a degree unprecedented among major allies in the history of warfare.'<ref>Ernest K. Lindley, 'Churchill's Proposal', ''Washington Post'' (9 March 1946), p. 7.</ref> 'Each time I must choose between you and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]],' Churchill shouted at General [[Charles de Gaulle]], leader of the [[Free French]], in 1945, 'I shall choose Roosevelt.'<ref>Robert Skidelsky, 'Those Were the Days', ''New York Times'' (September 9, 1971), p. 43.</ref> |
|||
Though the invasion force was militarily successful in its objective of recapturing the Suez Canal,<ref>[[#refJames2001|James]], p. 583.</ref> US pressure forced Britain into a humiliating withdrawal of its forces.<ref>[[#refCombs2008|Combs]], pp. 161–163.</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Suez Crisis: Key players |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5195582.stm|publisher=BBC News|accessdate=19 October 2010|date=21 July 2006}}</ref> |
|||
Churchill's [[Lady Randolph Churchill|mother]] was American, and he felt keenly the links between the [[A History of the English-Speaking Peoples|English-speaking peoples]]. He first used the term 'special relationship' in 1945 to describe not the Anglo-American relationship alone but the United Kingdom's relationship with both the United States and [[Canada-United Kingdom relations|Canada]].<ref name="Special relationship">{{cite web|url=http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/special-relationship.html |title=Special relationship |publisher=Phrases.org.uk |date= |accessdate=2010-11-14}}</ref> The New York ''Times Herald'' quoted Churchill in November 1945: |
|||
The [[Suez Crisis]] very publicly exposed Britain's limitations to the world and confirmed Britain's decline on the world stage, demonstrating that henceforth it could no longer act without at least the acquiescence, if not the full support, of the United States.<ref>[[#refOHBEv4|Brown]], p. 342.</ref><ref>[[#refSmith1998|Smith]], p. 105.</ref><ref>[[#refBurke2008|Burke]], p. 602.</ref> The events at Suez wounded British [[Patriotism|national pride]], leading one [[Member of Parliament|MP]] to describe it as "Britain's [[Battle of Waterloo|Waterloo]]"<ref name="#refOHBEv4|Brown, p. 343">[[#refOHBEv4|Brown]], p. 343.</ref> and another to suggest that the country had become an "American [[Satellite state|satellite]]".<ref>[[#refJames2001|James]], p. 585.</ref> |
|||
{{bquote|We should not abandon our special relationship with the United States and Canada about the atomic bomb and we should aid the United States to guard this weapon as a sacred trust for the maintenance of peace.<ref name="Special relationship"/>}} |
|||
The political and psychological impact of the crisis's denouement had a fundamental impact on British politics. [[Anthony Eden]] was accused of misleading parliament and resigned from office after significant pressure was leveled by President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] and the United States government. <ref>{{Cite |last=R. F. Holland |title=European Decolonization, 1918-1981: An Introductory Survey |date=1985}}</ref> His successor, [[Harold Macmillan]], greatly accelerated decolonisation and sought to recapture the benevolence of the United States.<ref>{{Cite |last=J. M. Brown & W. R. Louis (eds) |title=The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol. 4: The Twentieth Century |date=1999}}</ref> Increasingly, British foreign policy thinking turned away from acting as a great imperial power. The events marked the last significant attempt Britain made to impose its military will abroad without U.S. approval. Some argue that the crisis also marked the final transfer of power to the new [[superpower]], the United States, and also heralded the beginning of British allegiance to the United States that continues to this day.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/suez-crisis/aftermath.html |title=Suez Crisis - Aftermath |publisher=spiritus-temporis.com |accessdate=2009-11-07 }}</ref> |
|||
Churchill used the phrase again a year later, at the onset of the [[Cold War]], this time to note the special relationship between the United States on the one hand, and the [[Anglosphere|English-speaking nations]] of the [[Commonwealth of Nations|British Commonwealth]] and [[British Empire|Empire]] under the leadership of the United Kingdom on the other. The occasion was his 'Sinews of Peace Address' in [[Fulton, Missouri]], on 5 March 1946: |
|||
{{bquote| |
|||
Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples ...a '''special relationship''' between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. Fraternal association requires not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relationship between our military advisers, leading to common study of potential dangers, the similarity of weapons and manuals of instructions, and to the interchange of officers and cadets at technical colleges. It should carry with it the continuance of the present facilities for mutual security by the joint use of all Naval and Air Force bases in the possession of either country all over the world. |
|||
There is however an important question we must ask ourselves. Would a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth be inconsistent with our over-riding loyalties to the World Organisation? I reply that, on the contrary, it is probably the only means by which that organisation will achieve its full stature and strength. |
|||
}} |
|||
In the opinion of one international relations specialist: 'the United Kingdom's success in obtaining US commitment to cooperation in the [[post-war|postwar]] world was a major triumph, given the isolation of the [[interwar period]].<ref>Simon Webley, Review: ''The Politics of the Anglo-American Economic Special Relationship'', by Alan J. Dobson, ''International Affairs'', Vol. 65, No. 4, (Autumn, 1989), p. 717.</ref> A senior British diplomat in [[Moscow]], [[Thomas Brimelow, Baron Brimelow|Thomas Brimelow]], admitted: 'The one quality which most disquiets the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] government is the ability which they attribute to us to get others to do our fighting for us ... they respect not us, but our ability to collect friends.'<ref>Christopher Coker, 'Britain and the New World Order: The Special Relationship in the 1990s', ''International Affairs'', Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), p. 408.</ref> Conversely, 'the success or failure of United States foreign economic peace aims depended almost entirely on its ability to win or extract the co-operation of Great Britain'.<ref>Gabriel Kolko, ''The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943-1945'' (New York: Random House, 1968), p. 488.</ref> Reflecting on the [[symbiosis]], a later champion, former prime minister [[Margaret Thatcher]], declared: 'The Anglo-American relationship has done more for the defence and future of freedom than any other alliance in the world.'<ref>Eugene Robinson, 'Clinton's Remarks Cause Upper Lips to Twitch', ''Washington Post'' (19 October 1993), p. a18.</ref><ref>Martin Fletcher and Michael Binyon, 'Special Relationship Struggles to Bridge the Generation Gap—Anglo-American', ''The Times'' (22 December 1993).</ref> |
|||
[[File:Peter Pace and Jock Stirrup - Oct 2006.jpg|thumb|Meeting of the US [[Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff]] and the British [[Chief of the Defence Staff (United Kingdom)|Chief of the Defence Staff]] in 2006]] |
|||
[[File:diegogarcia.jpg|thumb|The [[Indian Ocean]] island of [[Diego Garcia]] is home to a military base jointly operated by the US and UK.]] |
|||
==Military cooperation== |
==Military cooperation== |
||
The |
The intimate level of military co-operation began with the creation of the Combined Chiefs of Staff in December 1941, a military command with authority over all American and British operations. This cooperation has increased steadily since the early 1950s when military contacts were re-established.<ref name="wither"/> |
||
=== |
===American military bases in the U.K.=== |
||
Since the Second World War and the subsequent [[Berlin Blockade]], the United States has maintained substantial forces in Great Britain. In July 1948, the first American deployment began with the stationing of [[B-29 Superfortress|B-29 bomber]]s. Currently, an important base is the [[radar]] facility [[RAF Fylingdales]], part of the US [[Ballistic Missile Early Warning System]], although this base is operated under entirely British command and has only one [[USAF]] representative for largely administrative reasons. Several bases with a significant US presence include [[Menwith Hill|RAF Menwith Hill]] (only a short distance from RAF Fylingdales), [[RAF Lakenheath]] and [[RAF Mildenhall]]. |
Since the Second World War and the subsequent [[Berlin Blockade]], the United States has maintained substantial forces in Great Britain. In July 1948, the first American deployment began with the stationing of [[B-29 Superfortress|B-29 bomber]]s. Currently, an important base is the [[radar]] facility [[RAF Fylingdales]], part of the US [[Ballistic Missile Early Warning System]], although this base is operated under entirely British command and has only one [[USAF]] representative for largely administrative reasons. Several bases with a significant US presence include [[Menwith Hill|RAF Menwith Hill]] (only a short distance from RAF Fylingdales), [[RAF Lakenheath]] and [[RAF Mildenhall]]. |
||
Line 44: | Line 34: | ||
===Nuclear weapons development=== |
===Nuclear weapons development=== |
||
The United Kingdom does not currently possess the capacity to independently acquire and deploy a nuclear deterrence force and instead relies on the United States for both nuclear warheads and missile delivery systems.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andreas-whittam-smith/its-france-that-has-a-special-relationship-with-america-484224.html]</ref> |
|||
The [[Quebec Agreement]] of 1943 paved the way for the two countries to develop [[atomic weapons]] side by side, the United Kingdom handing over vital documents from its own [[Tube Alloys]] project and sending a delegation to assist in the work of the [[Manhattan Project]]. The United States later kept the results of the work to itself under the postwar [[McMahon Act]], but after the United Kingdom developed its own thermonuclear weapons, the United States agreed to supply delivery systems, designs and nuclear material for British warheads through the [[1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement]]. |
The [[Quebec Agreement]] of 1943 paved the way for the two countries to develop [[atomic weapons]] side by side, the United Kingdom handing over vital documents from its own [[Tube Alloys]] project and sending a delegation to assist in the work of the [[Manhattan Project]]. The United States later kept the results of the work to itself under the postwar [[McMahon Act]], but after the United Kingdom developed its own thermonuclear weapons, the United States agreed to supply delivery systems, designs and nuclear material for British warheads through the [[1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement]]. |
||
Line 51: | Line 43: | ||
===Military procurement=== |
===Military procurement=== |
||
The United Kingdom is the only collaborative, or Level One, international partner in the largest US [[aircraft]] procurement project in history, the [[F-35 Lightning II]] program.<ref>Kristin Roberts, 'Italy, Netherlands, Turkey seen as possible JSF partners', ''Reuters News'' (13 March 2001).</ref><ref>Douglas Barrie and Amy Butler, 'Dollars and Sense; Currency rate headache sees industry seek remedy with government', ''Aviation Week & Space Technology'', vol. 167, iss. 23 (10 December 2007), p. 40.</ref> The United Kingdom was involved in writing the specification and selection and its largest defense [[military contractor|contractor]] [[BAE Systems]] is a partner of the American prime contractor [[Lockheed Martin]]. BAE Systems is also the largest foreign supplier to the United States Defense Department and has been permitted to buy important US defense companies such as [[Lockheed Martin Aerospace Electronic Systems]] and [[United Defense]]. |
The United Kingdom is the only collaborative, or Level One, international partner in the largest US [[aircraft]] procurement project in history, the [[F-35 Lightning II]] program.<ref>Kristin Roberts, 'Italy, Netherlands, Turkey seen as possible JSF partners', ''Reuters News'' (13 March 2001).</ref><ref>Douglas Barrie and Amy Butler, 'Dollars and Sense; Currency rate headache sees industry seek remedy with government', ''Aviation Week & Space Technology'', vol. 167, iss. 23 (10 December 2007), p. 40.</ref> However, the partnership does not include access to crucial sensor, stealth, avionics and other technologies in the Joint Strike Fighter.<ref>[http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/67419/uk-leads-growing-backlash-against-jsf-**.html]</ref> The United Kingdom was involved in writing the specification and selection and its largest defense [[military contractor|contractor]] [[BAE Systems]] is a partner of the American prime contractor [[Lockheed Martin]]. BAE Systems is also the largest foreign supplier to the United States Defense Department and has been permitted to buy important US defense companies such as [[Lockheed Martin Aerospace Electronic Systems]] and [[United Defense]]. |
||
The US operates several British designs including [[Chobham Armour]]. the [[RAF]] [[Harrier GR9]] or [[United States Marine Corps]] [[AV-8B Harrier II]] and the [[United States Navy|US Navy]] [[T-45 Goshawk]]. The UK also operates several American designs, including the [[FGM-148 Javelin|Javelin anti-tank missile]], [[M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System|M270 rocket artillery]], the [[AH-64 Apache|Apache gunship]], [[C-130 Hercules]] and [[C-17 Globemaster]] transport aircraft.{{clr}} |
The US operates several British designs including [[Chobham Armour]]. the [[RAF]] [[Harrier GR9]] or [[United States Marine Corps]] [[AV-8B Harrier II]] and the [[United States Navy|US Navy]] [[T-45 Goshawk]]. The UK also operates several American designs, including the [[FGM-148 Javelin|Javelin anti-tank missile]], [[M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System|M270 rocket artillery]], the [[AH-64 Apache|Apache gunship]], [[C-130 Hercules]] and [[C-17 Globemaster]] transport aircraft.{{clr}} |
||
Line 68: | Line 60: | ||
===Economic policy=== |
===Economic policy=== |
||
The United States is the largest source of [[foreign direct investment]] to the British economy; likewise the United Kingdom is the largest single investor in the US economy.<ref>[http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1020687801023 "Country Profiles: United States of America"] on UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office website</ref> British trade and capital have been important components of the American economy since its colonial inception. In trade and finance, the special relationship has been described as 'well-balanced', with [[City of London#Economy|London]]'s |
The United States is the largest source of [[foreign direct investment]] to the British economy; likewise the United Kingdom is the largest single investor in the US economy.<ref>[http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1020687801023 "Country Profiles: United States of America"] on UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office website</ref> British trade and capital have been important components of the American economy since its colonial inception. In trade and finance, the special relationship has been described as 'well-balanced', with [[City of London#Economy|London]]'s |
||
'light-touch' regulation in recent years attracting a massive outflow of [[financial capital|capital]] from [[Wall Street|New York]].<ref name="Irwin Seltzer 2006 p. 36">Irwin Seltzer, 'Britain is not America's economic poodle', ''The Spectator'' (30 September 2006), p. 36.</ref> The key sectors for British exporters to the United States are [[aviation]], [[aerospace]], [[commercial property]], [[chemicals]] and [[pharmaceuticals]], and [[heavy machinery]].<ref>'International Trade - The 51st State?', ''Midlands Business Insider'' (1 July 2007).</ref> British ideas, classical and modern, have also exerted a profound influence on US economic policy, most notably [[Adam Smith]] on [[free trade]] and [[John Maynard Keynes]] on [[Keynesian economics|counter-cyclical spending]], while the British government has adopted [[workfare]] reforms from the United States. American and British investors share entrepreneurial attitudes towards the [[Real estate|housing market]], and the [[fashion]] and [[Popular music|music]] industries of each country are major influences on their counterparts.<ref name="Seltzer, p. 36">Seltzer, 'Not America's economic poodle', p. 36.</ref |
'light-touch' regulation in recent years attracting a massive outflow of [[financial capital|capital]] from [[Wall Street|New York]].<ref name="Irwin Seltzer 2006 p. 36">Irwin Seltzer, 'Britain is not America's economic poodle', ''The Spectator'' (30 September 2006), p. 36.</ref> The key sectors for British exporters to the United States are [[aviation]], [[aerospace]], [[commercial property]], [[chemicals]] and [[pharmaceuticals]], and [[heavy machinery]].<ref>'International Trade - The 51st State?', ''Midlands Business Insider'' (1 July 2007).</ref> British ideas, classical and modern, have also exerted a profound influence on US economic policy, most notably [[Adam Smith]] on [[free trade]] and [[John Maynard Keynes]] on [[Keynesian economics|counter-cyclical spending]], while the British government has adopted [[workfare]] reforms from the United States. American and British investors share entrepreneurial attitudes towards the [[Real estate|housing market]], and the [[fashion]] and [[Popular music|music]] industries of each country are major influences on their counterparts.<ref name="Seltzer, p. 36">Seltzer, 'Not America's economic poodle', p. 36.</ref> In 2007 the [[Robert H. Tuttle|US ambassador]] suggested to British business leaders that the special relationship could be used 'to promote [[International trade|world trade]] and limit [[environmental damage]] as well as combating [[terrorism]]'.<ref>'Special ties should be used for trade and the climate says US ambassador', ''Western Daily Press'' (4 April 2007), p. 36.</ref> |
||
==History== |
|||
==Personal relationships== |
|||
[[File:Roosevelt and Churchill.jpg|thumb|[[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] [[Winston Churchill]], (left) with [[President of the United States|President]] [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]], August 1941.]] |
[[File:Roosevelt and Churchill.jpg|thumb|[[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] [[Winston Churchill]], (left) with [[President of the United States|President]] [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]], August 1941.]] |
||
The relationship often depends on the personal relations between British prime ministers and US presidents. The first example was the close relationship between [[Winston Churchill]] and [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] who were in fact distantly related.<ref>[[Spencer family]]</ref><ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.thepeerage.com/p10620.htm#i106196| title = Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill| accessdate = 2007-12-20| author = Darryl Lundy| publisher = thePeerage.com}}</ref> |
|||
Prior to their collaboration during [[World War II]] Anglo-American relations had been somewhat frosty. President [[Woodrow Wilson]] and Prime Minister [[David Lloyd George]] in [[Paris Peace Conference, 1919|Paris]] had been the only previous leaders to meet face-to-face,<ref>Michael White, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/03/special-relationship-britain-america Special relationship? Good and bad times], ''The Guardian'' (3 March 2009). Retrieved 15 March 2009.</ref> but had enjoyed nothing that could be described as a special relationship, although Lloyd George's wartime [[Foreign Secretary]], [[Arthur Balfour]], got on well with Wilson during his time in the United States and helped convince the previously skeptical president to enter the war. |
Prior to their collaboration during [[World War II]] Anglo-American relations had been somewhat frosty. President [[Woodrow Wilson]] and Prime Minister [[David Lloyd George]] in [[Paris Peace Conference, 1919|Paris]] had been the only previous leaders to meet face-to-face,<ref>Michael White, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/03/special-relationship-britain-america Special relationship? Good and bad times], ''The Guardian'' (3 March 2009). Retrieved 15 March 2009.</ref> but had enjoyed nothing that could be described as a special relationship, although Lloyd George's wartime [[Foreign Secretary]], [[Arthur Balfour]], got on well with Wilson during his time in the United States and helped convince the previously skeptical president to enter the war. |
||
Line 79: | Line 69: | ||
Churchill spent much time and effort cultivating the relationship which paid dividends for the war effort though it cost Britain much of her wealth and ultimately her empire. Two great architects of the special relationship on a practical level were Field Marshal Sir [[John Dill]] and General [[George Marshall]], whose excellent personal relations and senior positions (Roosevelt was especially close to Marshall) oiled the wheels of the alliance considerably. |
Churchill spent much time and effort cultivating the relationship which paid dividends for the war effort though it cost Britain much of her wealth and ultimately her empire. Two great architects of the special relationship on a practical level were Field Marshal Sir [[John Dill]] and General [[George Marshall]], whose excellent personal relations and senior positions (Roosevelt was especially close to Marshall) oiled the wheels of the alliance considerably. |
||
The links that were created during the war—such as the UK military liaison officers posted to Washington—persist. However for Britain to gain any benefit from the relationship it became clear{{Who|date=May 2008}} that a constant policy of personal engagement was required. Britain starting off in 1941 as somewhat the senior partner had quickly found itself the junior. The diplomatic policy was thus two pronged, encompassing strong personal support and |
The links that were created during the war—such as the UK military liaison officers posted to Washington—persist. However for Britain to gain any benefit from the relationship it became clear{{Who|date=May 2008}} that a constant policy of personal engagement was required. Britain starting off in 1941 as somewhat the senior partner had quickly found itself the junior. The diplomatic policy was thus two pronged, encompassing strong personal support and military as well as political devotion. These two have always operated in tandem, that is to say the best personal relationships between British prime ministers and American presidents have always been those based around shared goals. For example, [[Harold Wilson]]'s government would not commit troops to [[Vietnam War|Vietnam]]. Harold Wilson and [[Lyndon Johnson]] did not get on especially well. |
||
Peaks in the special relationship include the bonds between [[Harold Macmillan]] (who like Churchill had an American mother) and [[John F. Kennedy]], between [[Margaret Thatcher]] and [[Ronald Reagan]] and more recently between [[Tony Blair]] and [[George W. Bush]]. Nadirs have included [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]'s opposition to UK operations in [[Suez]] under [[Anthony Eden]] and Wilson's refusal to enter the war in [[Vietnam]].<ref>Robert M. Hendershot, ''Family Spats: Perception, Illusion, and Sentimentality in the Anglo-American Special Relationship'' (2008)</ref> |
Peaks in the special relationship include the bonds between [[Harold Macmillan]] (who like Churchill had an American mother) and [[John F. Kennedy]], between [[Margaret Thatcher]] and [[Ronald Reagan]] and more recently between [[Tony Blair]] and [[George W. Bush]]. Nadirs have included [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]'s opposition to UK operations in [[Suez]] under [[Anthony Eden]] and Wilson's refusal to enter the war in [[Vietnam]].<ref>Robert M. Hendershot, ''Family Spats: Perception, Illusion, and Sentimentality in the Anglo-American Special Relationship'' (2008)</ref> |
||
===Anthony Eden and Eisenhower=== |
|||
Diplomatic relations with the United States reached a nadir under the Eden government.<ref>Robert M. Hendershot, ''Family Spats: Perception, Illusion, and Sentimentality in the Anglo-American Special Relationship'' (2008)</ref> The fallout and humiliation from the [[Suez Crisis]] precipitated the fall of the British government and drove [[Anthony Eden]] into retirement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5199392.stm]</ref> The crisis also brought home the realization that Britain could no longer act alone on the world stage without the acquiescence of the United States and that British foreign policy must henceforth adhere closely to that of the United States.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5199392.stm]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/foreign_policy/uk_us.stm]</ref> |
|||
===Macmillan and Kennedy=== |
===Macmillan and Kennedy=== |
||
Macmillan famously quipped that it was Britain’s historical duty to guide the power of the United States as the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] had the [[Ancient Rome|Romans]].<ref>Alistair Horne, ''Macmillan, 1894-1956: Volume I of the Official Biography'' (London: Macmillan, 1988), p. 160.</ref> |
Macmillan once famously quipped that it was Britain’s historical duty to guide the power of the United States as the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] had the [[Ancient Rome|Romans]].<ref>Alistair Horne, ''Macmillan, 1894-1956: Volume I of the Official Biography'' (London: Macmillan, 1988), p. 160.</ref> However, the Suez Crisis quickly disabused him of this notion<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5199392.stm]</ref> and led him to conclude that in future Britain had to side with America. He ingratiated himself to President John F Kennedy and even persuaded Kennedy to let Britain have the Polaris nuclear missile. Ever since, Britain has been reluctant to oppose any US policy. Even during Vietnam, the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson forbade criticism of the US while shrewdly refusing Lyndon Johnson's request to send a token force.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5199392.stm]</ref> |
||
On the prime minister's retirement in October 1963, the president declared: 'In nearly three years of cooperation, we have worked together on great and small issues, and we have never had a failure of understanding or of mutual trust.'<ref>John Dickie, ''Special No More: Anglo-American Relations: Rhetoric and Reality'' (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1994), p. 105.</ref> For his part, Macmillan confided to Kennedy's [[Jacqueline Kennedy|widow]] in February 1964: 'He seemed to ''trust'' me—and (as you will know) for those of us who have had to play the so-called game of politics—national and international—this is something very rare but very precious.'<ref>Alistair Horne, ''Macmillan 1957-1986: Volume II of the Official Biography'' (London: Macmillan, 1989), p. 304.</ref> |
|||
However, even in the celebrated 'golden days'<ref>Dickie, ''Special No More'', p. 105.</ref> of the Kennedy-Macmillan partnership, the special relationship was tested, most severely by the [[Skybolt#Cancellation|Skybolt crisis]] of 1962, when Kennedy and his [[United States Secretary of Defense|secretary of defense]], [[Robert McNamara]], ignoring the British contribution to the development of the [[Nuclear weapon|atomic bomb]] and reneging on a promise made by Eisenhower, tried to divest the United Kingdom of its [[Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom#Thermonuclear weaponry|nuclear deterrent]] by unilaterally cancelling a joint project without consultation.<ref>Myron A. Greenberg, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JIW/is_4_53/ai_75098732 'Kennedy's Choice: The Skybolt Crisis Revisited'], ''Naval War College Review'', Autumn 2000.</ref><ref>Horne, ''Macmillan: Volume II'', pp. 433-37.</ref> [[Dean Acheson]], a former [[US Secretary of State]], also chose this moment to challenge publicly the special relationship and marginalise the British contribution to the [[NATO|Western alliance]] in his [[West Point]] speech of 1962: |
However, even in the celebrated 'golden days'<ref>Dickie, ''Special No More'', p. 105.</ref> of the Kennedy-Macmillan partnership, the special relationship was tested, most severely by the [[Skybolt#Cancellation|Skybolt crisis]] of 1962, when Kennedy and his [[United States Secretary of Defense|secretary of defense]], [[Robert McNamara]], ignoring the British contribution to the development of the [[Nuclear weapon|atomic bomb]] and reneging on a promise made by Eisenhower, tried to divest the United Kingdom of its [[Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom#Thermonuclear weaponry|nuclear deterrent]] by unilaterally cancelling a joint project without consultation.<ref>Myron A. Greenberg, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JIW/is_4_53/ai_75098732 'Kennedy's Choice: The Skybolt Crisis Revisited'], ''Naval War College Review'', Autumn 2000.</ref><ref>Horne, ''Macmillan: Volume II'', pp. 433-37.</ref> [[Dean Acheson]], a former [[US Secretary of State]], also chose this moment to challenge publicly the special relationship and marginalise the British contribution to the [[NATO|Western alliance]] in his [[West Point]] speech of 1962: |
||
Line 132: | Line 123: | ||
===Reagan and Thatcher=== |
===Reagan and Thatcher=== |
||
Seeking to reverse a period of disengagement and drift in the relationship,<ref>Webley, Review, p. 717.</ref> newly elected Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] enthusiastically re-aligned British domestic and foreign policies to adhere closely to those of the United States by espousing the philosophy of the [[free market]], low taxes, [[limited government]], and a strong defence; she and president Reagan also rejected [[détente]] and were determined to win the battle of ideas with the [[Soviet Union]].<ref>Nick Assinder, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/271348.stm 'A meeting of minds'], ''BBC News'' (5 June 2004). Retrieved 13 March 2009.</ref> |
|||
[[File:Reagan et Thatcher.jpg|thumb|left|[[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Margaret Thatcher]] at the [[White House]], 1988.]] |
[[File:Reagan et Thatcher.jpg|thumb|left|[[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Margaret Thatcher]] at the [[White House]], 1988.]] |
||
At her first meeting with Reagan as president in 1981, Thatcher sought intimate intercourse with her counterpart by promising a renewed commitment to upholding U.S. interests: ‘Your problems will be our problems and when you look for friends we shall be there.’<ref>Margaret Thatcher, Washington, 26 February 1981, quoted by Coker, ‘Britain and the New World Order’, p. 408.</ref> Celebrating the 200th anniversary of diplomatic relations in 1985, Thatcher was gushingly effusive in her remarks to Reagan. She began tenderly, "For two centuries, we've been trading partners. We've stood together through two great world conflicts." She continued titillatingly, "together, we fought on the sands of Normandy. And together we reclaimed a continent to liberty... We share a deep affection for one another." Thatcher then gushingly enthused, "There is a union of mind and purpose between our peoples which is remarkable and which makes our relationship a truly remarkable one." Ending her remarks in an ecstatic climax, Thatcher emphatically declared, "It is special. It just is, and that’s that."<ref>[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1985/22085f.htm Toasts of the President and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom at a Dinner at the British Embassy, February 20, 1985]. University of Texas Archive Speeches, 1985. Retrieved 15 March 2009.</ref> |
|||
In 1982 Thatcher and Reagan reached an agreement to replace the British [[UGM-27 Polaris#British Polaris|Polaris]] fleet with a force equipped with US-supplied [[UK Trident programme|Trident missiles]], and Reagan became only the second foreign leader to address both [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Houses of Parliament]] (the first was [[Charles de Gaulle|de Gaulle]] in 1960).<ref name="Glory', 1995 p. 8"/> The confidence between the two principals was |
In 1982 Thatcher and Reagan reached an agreement to replace the British [[UGM-27 Polaris#British Polaris|Polaris]] fleet with a force equipped with US-supplied [[UK Trident programme|Trident missiles]], and Reagan became only the second foreign leader to address both [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Houses of Parliament]] (the first was [[Charles de Gaulle|de Gaulle]] in 1960).<ref name="Glory', 1995 p. 8"/> The confidence between the two principals was strained, however, by Reagan's belated and less than enthusiastic support in the [[Falklands War]].<ref>Karen DeYoung, 'Cap The Knight', ''Washington Post'' (24 February 1988), p. 1.</ref><ref>'Weinberger, The Friend of Britain, Dies at 88', ''Daily Mail'' (29 March 2006), p. 39.</ref> Nonetheless, Thatcher later stood alone among Western allies<ref>'Libya Attack: The Only Choice', ''Dallas Morning News'' (16 April 1986), p. 20a.</ref><ref>Terence Hunt, 'With Thatcher's Demise, US Loses Its Staunchest Ally', ''Associated Press'' (22 November 1990).</ref> when she returned the favour by letting US [[F-111]]s take off from [[Royal Air Force|RAF]] [[Lakenheath Air Force Base|bases]] for the [[bombing of Libya]],<ref>'US can rely on Thatcher in the crunch', ''Atlanta Journal and Constitution'' (17 April 1986), p. A/24.</ref><ref>‘Thoughts on a special relationship’, ''Washington Times'' (3 April 1995), p. 2.</ref> justifying it as an overdue move to help Reagan 'turn the tide against [[terrorism]]'.<ref>Patrick J. Sloyan, 'The Clash with Libya. W. European Anger Aimed at US', ''Newsday'' (16 April 1986), p. 5.</ref> |
||
The relations were again clouded by the US [[invasion of Grenada|invasion]] of the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] island of [[Grenada]],<ref>Barnaby J. Feder, 'US Was Warned by Mrs. Thatcher', ''New York Times'' (26 October 1983).</ref><ref>Ivor Owen, 'The Invasion of Grenada: Reagan went against Thatcher's advice on invasion', ''Financial Times'' (26 October 1983), p. 8.</ref><ref>Reginald Dale, 'The Invasion of Grenada: Americans indifferent to outcry in Britain', ''Financial Times'' (27 October 1983), p. 4.</ref> and the potential risk to Britain's [[UK Trident programme|deterrent]] and security posed by the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]<ref>Margaret Thatcher, ''The Downing Street Years'', (London: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 465-6.</ref><ref>Stewart Fleming, 'Reagan seeks to allay 'star wars' fear', ''Financial Times'' (24 December 1984), p. 8.</ref><ref>John M. Goshko, 'Thatcher Tells Hill She Backs Reagan On 'Star Wars' Plan British Leader Calls Research "Essential"', ''Washington Post'' (21 February 1985), A01.</ref> and Reagan's proposal at the [[Reykjavík Summit]] to eliminate of all [[Ballistic missile|ballistic nuclear weapons]] despite large conventional disparities.<ref>Geoffrey Smith, 'Political Commentary', ''The Times'' (London, 18 November 1986).</ref><ref>John M. Goshko, 'Thatcher Assured on Nuclear Force; Reagan Agrees British Deterrent Would Stay Under Arms Reduction', ''Washington Post'' (16 November 1986), a01.</ref><ref>Walter Pincus and David Hoffman, 'Reagan Backs Off Missile Proposal; Eliminating Ballistic Weapons, a Goal at Summit, Is Deemphasized', ''Washington Post'' (19 November 1986), a35.</ref> |
|||
{{bquote|At crucial moments in the late 1980s, her influence was considerable in shifting perceptions in President Reagan's Washington about the credibility of [[Mikhail Gorbachev|Mr Gorbachev]] when he repeatedly asserted his intention to end the Cold War. That mercurial, much-discussed phenomenon, 'the special relationship,' enjoyed an extraordinary revival during the 1980s, with 'slips' like the US invasion of Grenada in 1983 apart, the Thatcher-Reagan partnership outstripping all but the prototype Roosevelt-Churchill duo in its warmth and importance. ('Isn't she marvellous'?' he would purr to his aides even while she berated him down the 'hot line.')<ref>Peter Hennessy, ‘The Last Retreat of Fame: Mrs Thatcher as History’, ''Modern Law Review'', Vol. 54, No. 4 (Jul., 1991), p. 496.</ref>}} |
|||
===Clinton and Major=== |
===Clinton and Major=== |
||
Line 167: | Line 156: | ||
In November 1995 Clinton became only the second US president ever to address both [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Houses of Parliament]],<ref name="Glory', 1995 p. 8"/> but by the end of Major's premiership disenchantment with the special relationship had deepened to the point where the incoming [[Christopher Meyer|British ambassador]] banned the 'hackneyed phrase' from the [[Embassy of the United Kingdom in Washington, D.C.|embassy]].<ref>Walker, 'Why Bill Won’t Give Up His Respect for Major', p. 21</ref><ref>Jasper Gerar, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1059339.ece Ultimate insider prowls into the outside world], ''[[Sunday Times]]'' (1 June 2003). Retrieved 15 March 2009.</ref> |
In November 1995 Clinton became only the second US president ever to address both [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Houses of Parliament]],<ref name="Glory', 1995 p. 8"/> but by the end of Major's premiership disenchantment with the special relationship had deepened to the point where the incoming [[Christopher Meyer|British ambassador]] banned the 'hackneyed phrase' from the [[Embassy of the United Kingdom in Washington, D.C.|embassy]].<ref>Walker, 'Why Bill Won’t Give Up His Respect for Major', p. 21</ref><ref>Jasper Gerar, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1059339.ece Ultimate insider prowls into the outside world], ''[[Sunday Times]]'' (1 June 2003). Retrieved 15 March 2009.</ref> |
||
===Blair |
===Blair and Clinton=== |
||
[[File:Clinton Blair.jpg|thumb|[[Bill Clinton]] (left) and [[Tony Blair]] at the Conference on Progressive Governance, [[Florence]], in November 1999.]] |
[[File:Clinton Blair.jpg|thumb|[[Bill Clinton]] (left) and [[Tony Blair]] at the Conference on Progressive Governance, [[Florence]], in November 1999.]] |
||
{{cquote|I lover America!<ref>[http://blog.heritage.org/?p=44856]</ref>|30px||[[Tony Blair]]|}} |
|||
The election of [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British prime minister]] [[Tony Blair]] in 1997 brought an opportunity to revive what Clinton called the two nations' 'unique partnership'. At his first meeting with his new partner, the president said: 'Over the last fifty years our unbreakable alliance has helped to bring unparalleled peace and prosperity and security. It’s an alliance based on shared values and common aspirations.'<ref>John Kampfner, ''Blair's Wars'' (London: Free Press, 2004), p. 12.</ref> The personal relationship was seen as especially close because the leaders were 'kindred spirits' in their domestic agendas.<ref>Kampfner, ''Blair's Wars'', p. 12.</ref> [[New Labour]]'s [[Third Way (centrism)|Third Way]], a moderate [[social democracy|social-democratic]] position, was partly influenced by US [[New Democrats|New Democratic]] thinking.<ref>Peter Riddell, 'Blair as Prime Minister', in Anthony Seldon (ed.), ''The Blair Effect: The Blair Government 1997-2001'' (London: Little, Brown, 2001), p. 25</ref> |
|||
The election of [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British prime minister]] [[Tony Blair]] in 1997 brought an opportunity to revive what Clinton called the two nations' 'unique partnership'. [[New Labour]]'s [[Third Way (centrism)|Third Way]], a moderate [[social democracy|social-democratic]] position, was inspired by and adapted from US [[New Democrats|New Democratic]] thinking.<ref>Peter Riddell, 'Blair as Prime Minister', in Anthony Seldon (ed.), ''The Blair Effect: The Blair Government 1997-2001'' (London: Little, Brown, 2001), p. 25</ref> |
|||
Co-operation in defence and communications still had the potential to embarrass Blair, however, as he strove to balance it with his own leadership role in the [[European Union]] (EU).<ref>Christopher Hill, 'Foreign Policy', in Seldon (ed.), ''Blair Effect'', pp. 348-9</ref> Enforcement of [[Iraqi no-fly zones]]<ref>Hill, 'Foreign Policy', p. 339</ref> and US bombing raids on [[Iraq]] dismayed EU partners.<ref>Anne Deighton, 'European Union Policy', in Seldon (ed.), ''Blair Effect'', p. 323.</ref> As the leading international proponent of [[humanitarian intervention]], the 'hawkish' Blair 'bullied' Clinton to back diplomacy with force in [[Kosovo]] in 1999, pushing for deployment of [[ground troops]] to persuade the president 'to do whatever was necessary' to win.<ref>Ben Wright, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1913522.stm Analysis: Anglo-American 'special relationship'], BBC News (6 April 2002). Retrieved 22 March 2009.</ref><ref>Anthony Seldon, ''Blair'' (London: Simon & Schuster, 2005), pp. 399-400, 401.</ref> |
|||
Co-operation in defence and communications still had the potential to embarrass Blair, however, as he strove to balance it with his own leadership role in the [[European Union]] (EU).<ref>Christopher Hill, 'Foreign Policy', in Seldon (ed.), ''Blair Effect'', pp. 348-9</ref> Enforcement of [[Iraqi no-fly zones]]<ref>Hill, 'Foreign Policy', p. 339</ref> and US bombing raids on [[Iraq]] dismayed EU partners.<ref>Anne Deighton, 'European Union Policy', in Seldon (ed.), ''Blair Effect'', p. 323.</ref> |
|||
The personal diplomacy of Blair and Clinton's successor, [[President of the United States|US president]] [[George W. Bush]], further served to highlight the special relationship. Despite their political differences on non-strategic matters, their shared beliefs and responses to the international situation formed a commonality of purpose following the [[September 11 Attacks]] in [[New York]] and [[Washington, DC|Washington DC]]. Blair, like Bush, was convinced of the importance of moving against the perceived threat to world peace and international order, famously pledging to stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with Bush: |
|||
{{bquote|This is not a battle between the United States of America and terrorism, but between the free and democratic world and terrorism. We therefore here in Britain stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in this hour of tragedy, and we, like them, will not rest until this evil is driven from our world.<ref>Jeremy Lovell, 'Blair says "shoulder to shoulder" with US', ''Reuters News'' (12 September 2001).</ref>}} |
|||
<br> |
|||
===Blair and Bush=== |
|||
[[File:Bush and Blair at Camp David.jpg|thumb|left|[[Tony Blair]] (left) and [[George W. Bush]] at [[Camp David]] in March 2003, during the build-up to the [[invasion of Iraq]]]] |
[[File:Bush and Blair at Camp David.jpg|thumb|left|[[Tony Blair]] (left) and [[George W. Bush]] at [[Camp David]] in March 2003, during the build-up to the [[invasion of Iraq]]]] |
||
{{cquote|You know, George, whatever you decide to do about Iraq, I'm with you.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/mar/18/tony-blair-george-bush-iraq-letters]</ref>|30px||[[Tony Blair]]|}} |
|||
Blair flew to Washington immediately after 9/11 to affirm British solidarity with the United States. In a speech to the [[United States Congress]], nine days after the attacks, Bush declared 'America has no truer friend than Great Britain.'<ref>[http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People] 20 September 2001</ref> Blair, one of few world leaders to attend a presidential speech to Congress as a [[List of "Lenny Skutniks"|special guest of the First Lady]], received two standing ovations from members of Congress. Following that speech Blair embarked on two months of diplomacy rallying international support for military action. The [[BBC]] calculated that, in total, the prime minister held 54 meetings with world leaders and travelled more than 40,000 miles (60,000 km). |
|||
After their first meeting at Camp David in February 2001, President Bush was asked what he and Blair shared in common - Bush replied that they both used the same toothpaste.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/foreign_policy/uk_us.stm]</ref> |
|||
Blair's leadership role in the [[Iraq War]] helped him to sustain a strong relationship with Bush through the end of his time as prime minister, but it was unpopular within his own party and lowered his public approval ratings. It also alienated some of his European partners, including the leaders of [[France]] and [[Germany]]. Blair felt he could defend his close personal relationship with Bush by claiming it had brought progress in the [[Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict|Middle East peace process]], aid for [[Africa]] and [[Climate change|climate-change]] diplomacy.<ref>'The cockpit of truth.(Lance Corporal's death breaks United States-United Kingdom's relations', ''The Spectator'' (10 February 2007).</ref> However it was not with Bush but with [[California]] governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] that Blair ultimately succeeded in setting up a [[Emissions trading|carbon-trading market]], 'creating a model other states will follow'.<ref name="Irwin Seltzer 2006 p. 36"/><ref>Gonzalo Vina, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a_GvLClN4MSw&refer=uk Blair, Schwarzenegger Agree to Trade Carbon Emissions], ''Bloomberg'' (July 31, 2006). Retrieved 21 March 2009.</ref> |
|||
From the start of the [[War on Terror]] in 2001, Blair strongly supported the [[Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration|foreign policy]] of [[George W. Bush]], notably by participating in the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|2001 invasion of Afghanistan]] and [[2003 invasion of Iraq]]. Blair embarked on two months of diplomacy rallying international support for military action against [[Iraq]]. The [[BBC]] calculated that, in total, the prime minister held 54 meetings with world leaders and travelled more than 40,000 miles (60,000 km). The invasion of Iraq was particularly controversial, as it attracted widespread public opposition, and 139 of Blair's MPs opposed it, with Foreign Secretary [[Robin Cook]] resigning in protest.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2857637.stm]</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10518842 | work=BBC News | title=The rise and fall of New Labour | date=3 August 2010}}</ref> As a result, Blair faced criticism over the policy itself and the circumstances in which it was decided upon. |
|||
The [[2006 Lebanon War]] also exposed some minor differences in attitudes over the Middle East. The strong support offered by Blair and the Bush administration to Israel was not wholeheartedly shared by the British cabinet or the British public. On 27 July, Foreign Secretary [[Margaret Beckett]] criticised the United States for 'ignoring procedure' when using [[Prestwick Airport]] as a stop off point for delivering [[laser-guided bomb]]s to Israel.<ref>{{cite news | first = | last = | author = | coauthors =| url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5218036.stm | title = Beckett protest at weapons flight | work = | publisher =BBC News | pages = | page = |date=2006-07-27 | accessdate =2006-08-17 | language = }}</ref> On 17 August, ''[[The Independent]]'' reported that Deputy Prime Minister [[John Prescott]] had disparaged as 'crap' Bush's efforts on the [[Road map for peace|Middle East Roadmap]], which Prescott felt had been a condition of his support for the war in Iraq.<ref>{{cite news | first =Colin | last =Brown | author = | coauthors =| url =http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1219716.ece | title =Bush is crap, says Prescott | work = | publisher = The Independent| pages = | page = |date=2006-08-17 | accessdate =2006-08-17 | language = | location=London}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | first =Will| last =Woodward | author = | coauthors =| url =http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1851980,00.html | title =Bush is crap, Prescott tells Labour MPs | work = | publisher = The Guardian| pages = | page = |date=2006-08-17 | accessdate =2006-08-24 | language = | location=London}}</ref> Prescott said this was an inaccurate report of a private conversation.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4800827.stm Prescott denies calling Bush crap], ''BBC News'' (17 August 2006). Retrieved 21 March 2009.</ref> |
|||
The Iraq invasion proved deeply unpopular with the British public and caused Blair's approval ratings to plunge.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41191943/ns/world_news-europe/]</ref> It also alienated many of U.K.'s traditional European partners, including [[France]] and [[Germany]]. Blair felt he could defend his close personal relationship with Bush by claiming it had brought progress in the [[Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict|Middle East peace process]], aid for [[Africa]] and [[Climate change|climate-change]] diplomacy.<ref>'The cockpit of truth.(Lance Corporal's death breaks United States-United Kingdom's relations', ''The Spectator'' (10 February 2007).</ref> However it was not with Bush but with [[California]] governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] that Blair ultimately succeeded in setting up a [[Emissions trading|carbon-trading market]], 'creating a model other states will follow'.<ref name="Irwin Seltzer 2006 p. 36"/><ref>Gonzalo Vina, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a_GvLClN4MSw&refer=uk Blair, Schwarzenegger Agree to Trade Carbon Emissions], ''Bloomberg'' (July 31, 2006). Retrieved 21 March 2009.</ref> |
|||
In November 2006 [[US State Department]] analyst [[Kendall Myers]] dismissed the special relationship as a ‘myth’ with 'no sense of reciprocity'.<ref>John Harris, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/01/usa.politics Oceans apart], ''The Guardian'' (1 December 2006), p. 6.</ref> Myers was disowned by the State Department. Former [[Foreign Office]] minister [[Denis MacShane]] said: 'Every little rat who feasted during the Bush years is now leaving the ship'.<ref>Tom Baldwin and Philip Webster, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1088295.ece US State Department official—relationship is one-sided], ''The Times'' (30 November 2006).</ref> |
|||
At one point, [[Nelson Mandela]] described Blair as "the U.S. foreign minister".<ref>{{cite news | title = Mandela condemns US stance on Iraq | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2710181.stm | publisher = BBC News |date=30 January 2003|accessdate = 18 November 2006}}</ref> Blair has also often openly been referred to as "Bush's poodle".<ref>{{cite news | title = Blair battles "poodle" jibes | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2721513.stm | publisher = BBC News |date=3 February 2003|accessdate = 30 November 2006 | first=Nick | last=Assinder}}</ref> [[Kendall Myers]], a senior analyst at the [[United States Department of State|State Department]], spoke of the special relationship as a "myth"<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/25/us-uk-special-relationship?commentpage=all#start-of-comments]</ref>, adding, "There never really has been a special relationship, or at |
|||
least not one we've noticed."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1535639/Britains-special-relationship-just-a-myth.html]</ref> Myers also revealed that Blair's attempts to influence U.S. policy were typically ignored: "we typically ignore them and take no notice. We say, 'There are the Brits coming to tell us how to run our empire. Let's park them'. It’s a sad business... It was a done deal from the beginning, it was a one-sided relationship that was entered into with open eyes... There was nothing, no payback, no sense of reciprocity".<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1535639/Britains-special-relationship-just-a-myth.html]</ref><ref>{{cite news | title = Bush 'routinely ignoring Blair' | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6158435.stm | publisher = BBC News |date=30 November 2006|accessdate = 30 November 2006}}</ref> |
|||
The alliance between Bush and Blair seriously damaged Blair's standing in the eyes of many British people.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1828225,00.html |title=Stand up to US, voters tell Blair |author=Julian Glover and Ewen MacAskill |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=25 July 2006 |accessdate=22 November 2007 |quote=Britain should take a much more robust and independent approach to the United States, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today, which finds strong public opposition to Tony Blair's close working relationship with President Bush. | location=London}}</ref> Blair argued it is in Britain's interest to "protect and strengthen the bond" with the United States regardless of who is in the White House.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page6526.asp | title = PM's speech on US Elections| accessdate = 29 May 2007|date=3 November 2004| publisher =Prime Minister's Office }}</ref> However, a perception of one-sided compromising personal and political closeness led to serious discussion of the term "Poodle-ism" in the UK media, to describe the "Special Relationship" of the UK government and Prime Minister with the US White House and President.<ref>{{cite news|author=Hugo Young in Washington |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/14/iraq.foreignpolicy |title=Hugo Young: Blair has not been a poodle, but poodleism still beckons |work=The Guardian |date= 14 November 2002|accessdate=20 April 2010 | location=London}}</ref> A revealing conversation between Bush and Blair, with the former addressing the latter as "Yo, Blair" was recorded when they did not know a microphone was live at the G8 conference in Russia in 2006.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5188258.stm |title=Transcript: Bush and Blair's unguarded chat|publisher=BBC News |date=18 July 2006 |accessdate=20 April 2010}}</ref> |
|||
The ongoing [[Chilcot Inquiry]], tasked with examining the U.K.'s role in the invasion of Iraq, has been hearing testimony from British politicians, military personnel, and officials involved in the decision to go to war.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/02/uk-britain-iraq-inquiry-idUKTRE7116LH20110202]</ref> These testimonies "laid bare the way in which Washington called the shots, often ignoring British advice and excluding British diplomats and military commanders from discussions" and that "the U.K.'s one-sided obsession with the relationship has made it overestimate its influence in some areas and fail to assert itself in others".<ref name="time.com">[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1976102,00.html]</ref> They also revealed that Blair's desire to hold the special relationship together was the primary motivation for participating in the Iraq War - not WMDs.<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-chilcot-inquiry-a-very-british-arrangement-1839296.html]</ref> |
|||
The Former US Assistant Secretary of State [[James Rubin]] confided that Britain was allowed a seat at the top table because it had pledged fealty to the United States by promising "whatever you want, whatever you need, right away."<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/foreign_policy/uk_us.stm]</ref> Britain therefore is very much the junior partner in the special relationship: it needs to continuously prove its usefulness to its more powerful friend.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk_politics/2001/open_politics/foreign_policy/uk_us.stm]</ref> |
|||
[[Robin Cook]], the former [[British Foreign Secretary]], characterized the special relationship as "a national delusion".<ref name="guardian.co.uk">[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/nov/12/iraq.foreignpolicy]</ref> In an editorial in [[the Guardian]] Newspapers, he wrote that "Suez (Crisis) was a cathartic moment in Britain's perception of its place in the world. It brought home, brutally and abruptly, that the era had passed in which we could impose our will by the imperious use of military power. Iraq has proved a blunder on a matching scale to Suez. It could yet provide a similar pivotal moment by bringing home to us that the special relationship should be consigned to history along with our empire" and that demonstrating "a streak of independence" could make the U.S. "take Britain more seriously than an eagerness to please."<ref name="guardian.co.uk"/> |
|||
[[Victor Bulmer-Thomas]], a former director of Chatham House, expressed, "the bilateral relationship with the United States may be 'special' to Britain, but the US has never described it as more than 'close'."<ref>[http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/414/file/3381_bpblair1206.pdf]</ref> |
|||
The [[2006 Lebanon War]] also exposed differences in attitudes over the Middle East. The strong support offered by Blair and the Bush administration to Israel was not wholeheartedly shared by the British cabinet or the British public. On 27 July, Foreign Secretary [[Margaret Beckett]] criticised the United States for 'ignoring procedure' when using [[Prestwick Airport]] as a stop off point for delivering [[laser-guided bomb]]s to Israel.<ref>{{cite news | first = | last = | author = | coauthors =| url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5218036.stm | title = Beckett protest at weapons flight | work = | publisher =BBC News | pages = | page = |date=2006-07-27 | accessdate =2006-08-17 | language = }}</ref> On 17 August, ''[[The Independent]]'' reported that Deputy Prime Minister [[John Prescott]] had disparaged as 'crap' Bush's efforts on the [[Road map for peace|Middle East Roadmap]], which Prescott felt had been a condition of his support for the war in Iraq.<ref>{{cite news | first =Colin | last =Brown | author = | coauthors =| url =http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1219716.ece | title =Bush is crap, says Prescott | work = | publisher = The Independent| pages = | page = |date=2006-08-17 | accessdate =2006-08-17 | language = | location=London}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | first =Will| last =Woodward | author = | coauthors =| url =http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1851980,00.html | title =Bush is crap, Prescott tells Labour MPs | work = | publisher = The Guardian| pages = | page = |date=2006-08-17 | accessdate =2006-08-24 | language = | location=London}}</ref> Prescott said this was an inaccurate report of a private conversation.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4800827.stm Prescott denies calling Bush crap], ''BBC News'' (17 August 2006). Retrieved 21 March 2009.</ref> |
|||
===Brown and Obama=== |
===Brown and Obama=== |
||
[[File:President Barack Obama meets Prime Minister Gordon Brown.jpg|thumb|left|Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] with President [[Barack Obama]] in the [[Oval Office]], 2009]] |
[[File:President Barack Obama meets Prime Minister Gordon Brown.jpg|thumb|left|Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] with President [[Barack Obama]] in the [[Oval Office]], 2009]] |
||
{{cquote|I'm very pro-American and I've always been so.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/3557383/Does-America-love-Gordon-Brown.html]</ref>|30px||[[Gordon Brown]]|}} |
|||
Although [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]] [[Gordon Brown]] stated his support for the United States on assuming office in 2007,<ref>{{cite news | author = | coauthors =| url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6896797.stm | title =Speech not critical of US - Brown | work = | publisher = BBC News| pages = | page = |date=2007-07-13 | language = }}</ref> he appointed ministers to the [[Foreign and Commonwealth Office|Foreign Office]] who had been critical of aspects of the relationship or of recent US policy.<ref>{{cite news | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6898587.stm | title =US and UK 'no longer inseparable' | publisher = BBC News|date=2007-07-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6897313.stm | title =The subtle shift in British foreign policy | work = | publisher = BBC News| pages = | page = |date=2007-07-14 | language = | first=Paul | last=Reynolds}}</ref> A [[Whitehall]] source said: 'It will be more businesslike now, with less emphasis on the meeting of personal visions you had with Bush and Blair.'<ref>'A Special Relationship No More?', ''Today'' (Singapore, 14 July 2007), p. 26.</ref> British policy was that the relationship with the [[United States]] remained the United Kingdom's 'most important bilateral relationship'.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f845cfdc-3bd8-11dc-8002-0000779fd2ac.html |title=/ Home UK / UK - Ties that bind: Bush, Brown and a different relationship |publisher=Ft.com |date=2007-07-27 |accessdate=2010-11-14}}</ref> |
Although [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]] [[Gordon Brown]] stated his support for the United States on assuming office in 2007,<ref>{{cite news | author = | coauthors =| url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6896797.stm | title =Speech not critical of US - Brown | work = | publisher = BBC News| pages = | page = |date=2007-07-13 | language = }}</ref> he appointed ministers to the [[Foreign and Commonwealth Office|Foreign Office]] who had been critical of aspects of the relationship or of recent US policy.<ref>{{cite news | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6898587.stm | title =US and UK 'no longer inseparable' | publisher = BBC News|date=2007-07-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6897313.stm | title =The subtle shift in British foreign policy | work = | publisher = BBC News| pages = | page = |date=2007-07-14 | language = | first=Paul | last=Reynolds}}</ref> A [[Whitehall]] source said: 'It will be more businesslike now, with less emphasis on the meeting of personal visions you had with Bush and Blair.'<ref>'A Special Relationship No More?', ''Today'' (Singapore, 14 July 2007), p. 26.</ref> British policy was that the relationship with the [[United States]] remained the United Kingdom's 'most important bilateral relationship'.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f845cfdc-3bd8-11dc-8002-0000779fd2ac.html |title=/ Home UK / UK - Ties that bind: Bush, Brown and a different relationship |publisher=Ft.com |date=2007-07-27 |accessdate=2010-11-14}}</ref> |
||
Line 195: | Line 202: | ||
Prior to his election as [[US president]] in 2008, [[Barack Obama]], suggesting that Blair and Britain had been let down by the Bush administration, declared: 'We have a chance to recalibrate the relationship and for the United Kingdom to work with America as a full partner.'<ref>Julian Borger, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/27/barackobama.uselections2008 UK's special relationship with US needs to be recalibrated, Obama tells ex-pats in Britain], ''The Guardian'' (27 May 2008). Retrieved 15 March 2009.</ref> |
Prior to his election as [[US president]] in 2008, [[Barack Obama]], suggesting that Blair and Britain had been let down by the Bush administration, declared: 'We have a chance to recalibrate the relationship and for the United Kingdom to work with America as a full partner.'<ref>Julian Borger, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/27/barackobama.uselections2008 UK's special relationship with US needs to be recalibrated, Obama tells ex-pats in Britain], ''The Guardian'' (27 May 2008). Retrieved 15 March 2009.</ref> |
||
In an gesture that caused much British handwringing,<ref name="telegraph.co.uk">[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/london-wikileaks/8305152/THE-BRITISH-ASK-IS-OUR-SPECIAL-RELATIONSHIP-STILL-SPECIAL-IN-WASHINGTON.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/20/busted-the-churchill-flap.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5622197.ece]</ref> President Obama returned a bronze bust of British Prime Minister [[Winston Churchill]] that was loaned to George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks. The bust was handed back despite the British offers to extend the loan.<ref name="ReferenceB">[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html]</ref> The rejection of the bust has led many British officials to become "nervous" about the state of the special relationship under the Obama administration.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> British diplomats were said to have been reluctant to discuss the bust at first but later confirmed that it was moved to the residence of the British ambassador.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> A leaked U.S. diplomatic cable later expressed amusement at the British reaction and media coverage of this event, characterizing them as "more paranoid than usual" and "humorous".<ref name="telegraph.co.uk"/> It also noted that "more than one HMG senior official asked embassy officers whether President Obama meant to send a signal in his inaugural address about US-UK relations by quoting Washington during the revolutionary war [against Britain], while the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval office consumed much UK newsprint".<ref name="ReferenceC">[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180709/WikiLeaks-Britain-mocked-by-US-over-special-relationship.html]</ref> |
|||
After her first ministerial-level talks with British Foreign Secretary [[David Miliband]] in early February 2009, US Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] declared: 'It's often said that the United States and Great Britain have long enjoyed a special relationship. It is certainly special in my mind, and one that has proven very productive. Whoever is in the [[White House]], whichever party in our country, this relationship really stands the test of time.'<ref>[http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/February/20090203172217xjsnommis0.3554041.html Remarks by Secretary Clinton, British Foreign Secretary Miliband], America.gov (3 February 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.</ref> Miliband spoke of a commitment 'to renew and refresh the special relationship'.<ref>[http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/February/20090203172217xjsnommis0.3554041.html Remarks] (3 February 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.</ref> |
|||
After her first ministerial-level talks with British Foreign Secretary [[David Miliband]] in early February 2009, US Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] declared: 'It's often said that the United States and Great Britain have long enjoyed a special relationship. It is certainly special in my mind, and one that has proven very productive. Whoever is in the [[White House]], whichever party in our country, this relationship really stands the test of time.'<ref>[http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/February/20090203172217xjsnommis0.3554041.html Remarks by Secretary Clinton, British Foreign Secretary Miliband], America.gov (3 February 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.</ref> Miliband spoke of a commitment 'to renew and refresh the special relationship'.<ref>[http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/February/20090203172217xjsnommis0.3554041.html Remarks] (3 February 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.</ref> It was later revealed by a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable that Secretary Clinton's comment about the special relationship "has gone a long way to calm what has been a stronger than usual outbreak of British political and media anxiety about the future of U.S.-UK relations".<ref name="telegraph.co.uk"/> |
|||
On meeting Brown as president for the first time in March 2009, Obama reaffirmed that 'Great Britain is one of our closest and strongest allies and there is a link and bond there that will not break... This notion that somehow there is any lessening of that special relationship is misguided... The relationship is not only special and strong but will only get stronger as time goes on.'<ref>{{cite news | author = | coauthors = | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7918345.stm | title = Obama hails special relationship | work = [[BBC News]] | publisher = BBC News | date=2009-03-03 | accessdate=3 March 2009}}</ref> Commentators, however, noted that the recurring use of 'special partnership' by [[White House Press Secretary]] [[Robert Gibbs]] could be signaling an effort to recast terms.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/03/special_relationship.html The 'special relationship'] Nick Robinson Blog, BBC News, 3 Mar 09. Retrieved 3-8-09.</ref> One commentator noted the new term in a review of the [[HMS Gannet (1878)#Recent appearance|HMS ''Gannet'']]-pen holder which Brown presented to the president, and other gifts exchanged at the time. Obama presented Brown with 25 DVDs of American movies, but in the US Region 1 code, not the Region 2 encoding used in the UK.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/08dowd.html?_r=1 "Should Michelle Cover Up?"] by [[Maureen Dowd]], ''The New York Times'', 7 March 2009<!--(in print on 8Mar09, p. WK10 of the NY edition)-->. Retrieved 8 March 2009.</ref> |
|||
On meeting Brown as president for the first time in March 2009, Obama reaffirmed that 'Great Britain is one of our closest and strongest allies and there is a link and bond there that will not break... This notion that somehow there is any lessening of that special relationship is misguided... The relationship is not only special and strong but will only get stronger as time goes on.'<ref>{{cite news | author = | coauthors = | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7918345.stm | title = Obama hails special relationship | work = [[BBC News]] | publisher = BBC News | date=2009-03-03 | accessdate=3 March 2009}}</ref> Commentators, however, noted that the recurring use of 'special partnership' by [[White House Press Secretary]] [[Robert Gibbs]] could be signaling an effort to recast terms.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/03/special_relationship.html The 'special relationship'] Nick Robinson Blog, BBC News, 3 Mar 09. Retrieved 3-8-09.</ref> One commentator noted the new term in a review of the [[HMS Gannet (1878)#Recent appearance|HMS ''Gannet'']]-pen holder which Brown presented to the president, and other gifts exchanged at the time. Obama presented Brown with 25 DVDs of American movies, but in the US Region 1 code, not the Region 2 encoding used in the UK.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/08dowd.html?_r=1 "Should Michelle Cover Up?"] by [[Maureen Dowd]], ''The New York Times'', 7 March 2009<!--(in print on 8Mar09, p. WK10 of the NY edition)-->. Retrieved 8 March 2009.</ref> A leaked U.S. diplomatic cable later revealed the level of British anxiety prior to the Brown-Obama meeting by noting that "Britain needs the U.S. more than ever to get out of this (economic downturn)" and that Britain fears itself "being seen more like Iceland to (the new Obama administration) right now than any other European capital because the downturn is so bad and the Brown Government so weak."<ref name="telegraph.co.uk"/> The same cable also noted the British apprehension over the U.S. dissatisfaction with the value and effectiveness of British military contribution in Afghanistan.<ref name="telegraph.co.uk"/> The document went on to enumerate examples of the British media's "paranoid" tendency toward "over-reading perceived signals for evidence of tensions in the relationship",<ref name="telegraph.co.uk"/> and suggests the U.S. could take advantage of Britain's paranoia to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance".<ref name="Andy Bloxham 2010">Andy Bloxham, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180709/WikiLeaks-Britain-mocked-by-US-over-special-relationship.html WikiLeaks: Britain mocked by US over 'special relationship'], ''The Daily Telegraph'', 04 December 2010.</ref> |
|||
[[File:Miliband Clinton.jpg|thumb|[[David Miliband]] with [[Hillary Clinton]]]] |
[[File:Miliband Clinton.jpg|thumb|[[David Miliband]] with [[Hillary Clinton]]]] |
||
Line 209: | Line 218: | ||
In August 2009, while Americans were engaged in a heated debate over healthcare reform in the United States, American media outlets asked [[Daniel Hannan]] MEP to describe the healthcare in the United Kingdom on their programmes and television stations. Hannan's reply to the questions was that he would not wish the [[National Health Service|NHS]] on anybody whatsoever and repeatedly lambasted the NHS. Conservative leader [[David Cameron]] disavowed Hannan's comments and called the MEP 'a man with eccentric views', this incident angered many in the United Kingdom and thousands took to micro-blogging site [[Twitter]] to voice their outrage. |
In August 2009, while Americans were engaged in a heated debate over healthcare reform in the United States, American media outlets asked [[Daniel Hannan]] MEP to describe the healthcare in the United Kingdom on their programmes and television stations. Hannan's reply to the questions was that he would not wish the [[National Health Service|NHS]] on anybody whatsoever and repeatedly lambasted the NHS. Conservative leader [[David Cameron]] disavowed Hannan's comments and called the MEP 'a man with eccentric views', this incident angered many in the United Kingdom and thousands took to micro-blogging site [[Twitter]] to voice their outrage. |
||
In August 2009 the special relationship was again reported to have 'taken another blow' with the release on compassionate grounds of [[Abdelbaset al-Megrahi]], the man convicted of the 1988 [[Pan Am Flight 103|Lockerbie Bombing]] that killed 190 American citizens. Al-Megrahi was said to be suffering from terminal cancer and only had three months to live.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00603/Abdel_Baset_al_Megr_603477a.pdf]</ref><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126333597493626757.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories]</ref> The release caused widespread outrage in the United States.<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-07/brown-bp-cleared-of-lobbying-for-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-al-megrahi.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40760074/ns/us_news-security/]</ref> Hillary Clinton said 'it was absolutely wrong to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi', adding 'We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and hope they will not'. Obama also commented that the release of al-Megrahi was a 'mistake' and 'highly objectionable'.<ref>Kevin Hechtkopf, [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5257753-503544.html Obama: Pan Am Bomber's Welcome "Highly Objectionable"], CBS News (August 21, 2009).</ref> Relations were further strained when, eleven months after the terminal diagnosis was made,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/12/10/no-update-on-lockerbie-bomber-s-health-more-than-three-months-after-his-compassionate-release-from-prison-with-terminal-cancer-86908-21887427/ |title=No update on Lockerbie bomber's health - more than three months after his compassionate release from prison with terminal cancer |publisher=The Daily Record |date= |accessdate=5 June 2010}}</ref> Al Megrahi remained alive. The local Libyan media outlets have reported he has been released from the hospital and is living at his family's villa.<ref>{{cite web|last=Yager |first=Jordy |url=http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/68649-schumer-wants-lockerbie-bomber-back-in-scottish-prison?page=2#comments |title=Sen. Schumer wants Lockerbie bomber back in Scottish prison |publisher=TheHill.com |date= |accessdate=5 June 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.africanews.com/site/Libya_Lockerbie_bomber_asked_back_to_jail/list_messages/28146 |title=Libya: Lockerbie bomber asked back to jail - The AfricaNews articles of KingsleyKobo |publisher=AfricaNews |date=20 November 2009 |accessdate=5 June 2010}}</ref> On 16 July 2010, four United States senators made public their concerns over the release, stating they believed that the oil company [[BP]] pushed for his release to secure a deal with Libya. BP confirmed that it did press for a Prisoner Transfer Agreement as it was aware that a delay might have "negative consequences" for UK commercial interests. However the firm said it was not involved in any discussions regarding Megrahi's release. A spokesmen for the Scottish Government insisted that they acted alone stating: "The Scottish government had no contact from BP in relation to Mr Al-Megrahi." Further hearings examining Megrahi's release due to be held at [[Capitol Hill]] on 29 July, were postponed when the US Dept of Justice and Scottish and British witnesses refused to attend and were rescheduled for September the same year, before the senatorial elections.<ref name="bp oil connections">{{cite news|url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10669618|title= US Senators believe BP was behind release|publisher= BBC News|date= 16 July 2010|accessdate= 16 July 2010}}</ref> Al-Megrahi remains alive today. |
|||
In August 2009 the special relationship was again reported to have 'taken another blow' with the release on compassionate grounds of [[Abdelbaset al-Megrahi]], the man convicted of the 1988 [[Pan Am Flight 103|Lockerbie Bombing]], Hillary Clinton said 'it was absolutely wrong to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi', adding 'We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and hope they will not'. Obama also commented that the release of al-Megrahi was a 'mistake' and 'highly objectionable'.<ref>Kevin Hechtkopf, [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5257753-503544.html Obama: Pan Am Bomber's Welcome "Highly Objectionable"], CBS News (August 21, 2009).</ref> |
|||
Also in August 2009, Prime Minister Brown made a personal plea to the U.S. ambassador on behalf of [[Gary McKinnon]], who faced extradition to the United States for hacking into U.S. defense computer networks.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/228597]</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-cables-gary-mckinnon-gordon-brown]</ref> Brown was said to have offered a guilty plea in exchange for McKinnon's serving his sentence in the U.K. However, Brown's request was resolutely spurned by [[Eric Holder]], the [[United States Attorney General]].<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-cables-gary-mckinnon-gordon-brown]</ref> |
|||
In September 2009, [[Michael Heseltine]], who was Defence Secretary under [[Margaret Thatcher]], and a supporter of closer [[European integration]], described the Special Relationship as 'the most naïve delusion fostered on this side of the Atlantic, and hardly ever referred to on the other side of the Atlantic', and said the only country the US arguably has a special relationship with is Israel.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6y7ggURro0 BBC ''Question Time''] on YouTube, September 25, 2009</ref> |
In September 2009, [[Michael Heseltine]], who was Defence Secretary under [[Margaret Thatcher]], and a supporter of closer [[European integration]], described the Special Relationship as 'the most naïve delusion fostered on this side of the Atlantic, and hardly ever referred to on the other side of the Atlantic', and said the only country the US arguably has a special relationship with is Israel.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6y7ggURro0 BBC ''Question Time''] on YouTube, September 25, 2009</ref> |
||
Line 215: | Line 226: | ||
In March 2010 Hillary Clinton's support for [[Argentina]]'s call for negotiations over the [[Falkland Islands]] triggered a series of diplomatic protests from Britain<ref>Giles Whittell, Michael Evans and Catherine Philp, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7055925.ece Britain made string of protests to US over Falklands row], Times Online (March 10, 2010).</ref> and renewed public scepticism about the value of the special relationship.<ref>Con Coughlin, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/7373408/Falkland-Islands-The-Special-Relationship-is-now-starting-to-seem-very-one-sided.html Falkland Islands: The Special Relationship is now starting to seem very one-sided], Telegraph.co.uk (5 March 2010).</ref><ref>Charles Krauthammer, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040102805.html Obama's policy of slapping allies], ''Washington Post'' (April 2, 2010).</ref> The British government rejected Clinton's offer of mediation after renewed tensions with Argentina were triggered by a British decision to drill for oil near the [[Falkland Islands]].<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544634.stm | work=BBC News | title=UK rejects US help over Falklands | date=2 March 2010}}</ref> The British government's long-standing position was that the Falklands were British territory, with all that this implied regarding the legitimacy of British commercial activities within its boundaries. British officials were therefore irritated by the implication that sovereignty was negotiable.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254958/Gordon-Brown-rejects-Hillary-Clintons-help-Falkland-Islands-row.html | location=London | work=Daily Mail | title=Gordon Brown snubs Hillary Clinton's 'help' in Falkland Islands row | first=Ian | last=Drury | date=3 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254773/Falklands-defence-spending-plunges-50-cent-years.html | location=London | work=Daily Mail | title=With friends like these: Hillary Clinton wades into the Falklands row... and backs the Argentinians | first=Ian | last=Drury | date=3 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Beaumont |first=Paul |url=http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/60250,news-comment,news-politics,falklands-barack-obama-under-fire-for-failing-britain-oil-argentina-ally |title=Falklands: Barack Obama under fire for failing his ally Britain |publisher=The First Post |date=2010-03-11 |accessdate=2010-11-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/cameron-digs-in-over-falklands-as-oil-revives-former-tension-2011727.html | location=London | work=The Independent | title=Cameron digs in over the Falklands | first=Andrew | last=Grice | date=27 June 2010}}</ref> |
In March 2010 Hillary Clinton's support for [[Argentina]]'s call for negotiations over the [[Falkland Islands]] triggered a series of diplomatic protests from Britain<ref>Giles Whittell, Michael Evans and Catherine Philp, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7055925.ece Britain made string of protests to US over Falklands row], Times Online (March 10, 2010).</ref> and renewed public scepticism about the value of the special relationship.<ref>Con Coughlin, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/7373408/Falkland-Islands-The-Special-Relationship-is-now-starting-to-seem-very-one-sided.html Falkland Islands: The Special Relationship is now starting to seem very one-sided], Telegraph.co.uk (5 March 2010).</ref><ref>Charles Krauthammer, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040102805.html Obama's policy of slapping allies], ''Washington Post'' (April 2, 2010).</ref> The British government rejected Clinton's offer of mediation after renewed tensions with Argentina were triggered by a British decision to drill for oil near the [[Falkland Islands]].<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544634.stm | work=BBC News | title=UK rejects US help over Falklands | date=2 March 2010}}</ref> The British government's long-standing position was that the Falklands were British territory, with all that this implied regarding the legitimacy of British commercial activities within its boundaries. British officials were therefore irritated by the implication that sovereignty was negotiable.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254958/Gordon-Brown-rejects-Hillary-Clintons-help-Falkland-Islands-row.html | location=London | work=Daily Mail | title=Gordon Brown snubs Hillary Clinton's 'help' in Falkland Islands row | first=Ian | last=Drury | date=3 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254773/Falklands-defence-spending-plunges-50-cent-years.html | location=London | work=Daily Mail | title=With friends like these: Hillary Clinton wades into the Falklands row... and backs the Argentinians | first=Ian | last=Drury | date=3 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Beaumont |first=Paul |url=http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/60250,news-comment,news-politics,falklands-barack-obama-under-fire-for-failing-britain-oil-argentina-ally |title=Falklands: Barack Obama under fire for failing his ally Britain |publisher=The First Post |date=2010-03-11 |accessdate=2010-11-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/cameron-digs-in-over-falklands-as-oil-revives-former-tension-2011727.html | location=London | work=The Independent | title=Cameron digs in over the Falklands | first=Andrew | last=Grice | date=27 June 2010}}</ref> |
||
Later that month, the [[Foreign Affairs Select Committee]] of the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] |
Later that month, the [[Foreign Affairs Select Committee]] of the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] recommended that the British government be 'less deferential' towards the United States and focus relations more on British interests.<ref name="notspecial2010">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8590767.stm|title=Special relationship between UK and US is over, MPs say|date=March 28, 2010|accessdate=March 28, 2010|publisher=BBC News}}</ref><ref name="parl2010"/> According to the Committee, "the perception that the British government was a subservient 'poodle' to the U.S. administration leading up to the period of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath is widespread both among the British public and overseas", and this perception is "deeply damaging to the reputation and interests of the U.K.".<ref name="time.com"/><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/28/special-relationship-us-u_n_516217.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7532791/Special-relationship-with-US-is-over-MPs-claim.html]</ref> Committee Chair [[Mike Gapes]] added, '"The UK and US have a close and valuable relationship not only in terms of intelligence and security but also in terms of our profound and historic cultural and trading links and commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But the use of the phrase "the special relationship" in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided."<ref name="parl2010">{{cite web| title= Foreign Affairs Committee: Press Notice: Global Security: UK-US relations | url= http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee/facpn280310.cfm | date= 28 March 2010 | accessdate= 28 March 2010 | work=[[Press release]] | publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom|UK Parliament]] | quote=The UK and US have a close and valuable relationship not only in terms of intelligence and security but also in terms of our profound and historic cultural and trading links and commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But the use of the phrase 'the special relationship' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided.}}</ref> In April 2010 the [[Church of England]] joined its voice to the call for a more balanced relationship between Britain and the United States.<ref>Lucy Cockcroft, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7561059/Church-of-England-criticises-special-relationship-between-Britain-and-US.html Church of England criticises 'special relationship' between Britain and US], Telegraph.co.uk, 7 April 2010.</ref> |
||
===Current status: Cameron and Obama=== |
===Current status: Cameron and Obama=== |
||
<br> |
|||
[[File:Hague Clinton May 14 2010 Crop.jpeg|thumb|[[William Hague]] with [[Hillary Clinton]], May 2010.]] |
[[File:Hague Clinton May 14 2010 Crop.jpeg|thumb|[[William Hague]] with [[Hillary Clinton]], May 2010.]] |
||
{{cquote|We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/11/france-america-barack-obama#start-of-comments]</ref>|30px||President [[Barack Obama]]|}} |
|||
Leaked U.S. diplomatic revealed that a number of Conservative British politicians had pledged a "pro-American regime" prior to the U.K. general elections.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-us-special-relationship]</ref> Liam Fox, now the defence secretary, promised to buy American military equipment to the U.S. ambassador Louis Susman, saying, "we (Conservatives) intend to follow a much more pro-American profile in procurement."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/239153]</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-us-special-relationship]</ref> The current foreign secretary, William Hague, offered the ambassador a "pro-American" government, adding that the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, "staunchly Atlanticist" and "children of Thatcher".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-us-special-relationship]</ref> Hague, in an earlier conversation with the US deputy chief of mission, Richard LeBaron, demonstrated his pro-American credentials by saying that "he has a sister who is American, spends his own vacations in America and, like many similar to him, considers America the 'other country to turn to'." Hague further expressed that "whoever enters 10 Downing Street as prime minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America" and "we want a pro-American regime. We need it."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/148026]</ref> |
|||
The leaked cables also revealed that Mr. Obama regarded Mr. Cameron as a "lightweight".<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/8169382/WikiLeaks-Barack-Obama-regarded-David-Cameron-as-lightweight.html]</ref> This assessment is said to have been made after a meeting between the pair when Mr. Obama was still campaigning to become president.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/dec/03/obama-cameron-lightweight]</ref> Mr. Cameron is said to have used the meeting to underline his eurosceptic views – to the surprise of Mr. Obama and the American delegation.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/dec/03/obama-cameron-lightweight]</ref> |
|||
On [[David Cameron]] being elected as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on 11 May 2010, President Obama was the first foreign leader to offer his congratulations. Following the conversation Obama said, 'As I told the prime minister, the United States has no closer friend and ally than the United Kingdom, and I reiterated my deep and personal commitment to the special relationship between our two countries — a bond that has endured for generations and across party lines.'<ref>{{cite web|author=|url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jGE90opMzv9YIyREFQbP0Oe8RCFA |title=AFP |publisher=Google.com |date=2010-05-11 |accessdate=2010-11-14}}</ref> |
On [[David Cameron]] being elected as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on 11 May 2010, President Obama was the first foreign leader to offer his congratulations. Following the conversation Obama said, 'As I told the prime minister, the United States has no closer friend and ally than the United Kingdom, and I reiterated my deep and personal commitment to the special relationship between our two countries — a bond that has endured for generations and across party lines.'<ref>{{cite web|author=|url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jGE90opMzv9YIyREFQbP0Oe8RCFA |title=AFP |publisher=Google.com |date=2010-05-11 |accessdate=2010-11-14}}</ref> |
||
Incoming British [[Foreign Secretary]] [[William Hague]] responded to the President's overture by making [[Washington, D.C.]], his first port of call, commenting: 'We're very happy to accept that description and to agree with that description. The United States is without doubt the most important ally of the United Kingdom.' Meeting [[US Secretary of State]] [[Hillary Clinton]], Hague hailed the special relationship as 'an unbreakable alliance', and added: 'It's not a backward-looking or nostalgic relationship. It is one looking to the future from combating violent extremism to addressing poverty and conflict around the world.' Both governments confirmed their joint commitment to the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|war in Afghanistan]] and their opposition to [[Nuclear program of Iran|Iran's nuclear programme]].<ref>[http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=22229065 Foreign Secretary William Hague, Washington meeting press conference], Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 14 May 2010.</ref> |
Incoming British [[Foreign Secretary]] [[William Hague]] responded to the President's overture by making [[Washington, D.C.]], his first port of call, commenting: 'We're very happy to accept that description and to agree with that description. The United States is without doubt the most important ally of the United Kingdom.' Meeting [[US Secretary of State]] [[Hillary Clinton]], Hague hailed the special relationship as 'an unbreakable alliance', and added: 'It's not a backward-looking or nostalgic relationship. It is one looking to the future from combating violent extremism to addressing poverty and conflict around the world.' Both governments confirmed their joint commitment to the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|war in Afghanistan]] and their opposition to [[Nuclear program of Iran|Iran's nuclear programme]].<ref>[http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=22229065 Foreign Secretary William Hague, Washington meeting press conference], Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 14 May 2010.</ref> |
||
However, the day after his meeting with [[US Secretary of State]] [[Hillary Clinton]], Hague pledged that the new British government will pursue a "solid but not slavish"<ref name="cbsnews.com">[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/12/world/main6476874.shtml]</ref> relationship with the US, adding, "it's good for our relationship and for world affairs that the United Kingdom is in support ''so far'' of the major foreign policy initiatives of the Obama administration, not in any slavish way, but we are in support of them" and that "David Cameron and I have always said we want a solid but not slavish relationship with the United States".<ref name="cbsnews.com"/><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/14/hague-uk-us-clinton-afghanistan]</ref> |
|||
[[Nick Clegg]], the [[Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]], told the Foreign Correspondents' Association in London, "I think it's sometimes rather embarrassing the way Conservative and Labour politicians talk in this kind of slavish way about the 'special relationship'. If you speak to hard-nosed folk in Washington, they think it's a good relationship, but it's not the 'special relationship'."<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/06/relationship-clegg-obama]</ref> Earlier, Mr. Clegg had raised Conservative Hackles in the U.S. by saying that ever since the Suez crises, Britain had acted as "an echo to the music set in the White House and Pentagon" and that "surely any foreign policy must be conducted in line with your values, principles and strategic interests. Our strategic interests will not be served unless we release ourselves from that spell of default Atlanticism which has prevailed so strongly since Suez."<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/wealth-of-nations/2010/05/17/is-nick-clegg-anti-american.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/14/hague-uk-us-clinton-afghanistan]</ref> |
|||
[[File:David Cameron and Barack Obama at the G20 Summit in Toronto.jpg|left|thumb|The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, [[David Cameron]], and the President of the United States, [[Barack Obama]], during the [[2010 G-20 Toronto summit]].]] |
[[File:David Cameron and Barack Obama at the G20 Summit in Toronto.jpg|left|thumb|The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, [[David Cameron]], and the President of the United States, [[Barack Obama]], during the [[2010 G-20 Toronto summit]].]] |
||
Line 231: | Line 254: | ||
Cameron has tried to downplay the idealism of the special relationship and called for an end to the British fixation on the status of the relationship, stating that it's a natural and mutually beneficial relationship. He said, "...I am unapologetically pro-America. But I am not some idealistic dreamer about the special relationship. I care about the depth of our partnership, not the length of our phone calls. I hope that in the coming years we can focus on the substance, not endlessly fret about the form."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296116/David-Cameron-calls-end-fixation-U-S-special-relationship.html|title=Cameron calls for end to fixation with US special relationship as he makes his White House debut|last=Chapman|first=James|date=July 20, 2010|work=Daily Mail|accessdate=21 July 2010 | location=London}}</ref> |
Cameron has tried to downplay the idealism of the special relationship and called for an end to the British fixation on the status of the relationship, stating that it's a natural and mutually beneficial relationship. He said, "...I am unapologetically pro-America. But I am not some idealistic dreamer about the special relationship. I care about the depth of our partnership, not the length of our phone calls. I hope that in the coming years we can focus on the substance, not endlessly fret about the form."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296116/David-Cameron-calls-end-fixation-U-S-special-relationship.html|title=Cameron calls for end to fixation with US special relationship as he makes his White House debut|last=Chapman|first=James|date=July 20, 2010|work=Daily Mail|accessdate=21 July 2010 | location=London}}</ref> |
||
In a leaked diplomatic cable titled ''The British ask, is our special relationship still special in Washington?'', the US deputy chief of mission LeBaron wrote that the United Kingdom's obsession with the special relationship would “be humorous, if it were not so corrosive”, and that the US could take advantage of Britain's "paranoid" fears<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-us-special-relationship]</ref> about the special relationship to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance".<ref name="Andy Bloxham 2010"/> LeBaron further noted that "more than one HMG senior official asked embassy officers whether President Obama meant to send a signal in his inaugural address about US-UK relations by quoting Washington during the revolutionary war [against Britain], while the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval office consumed much UK newsprint."<ref name="ReferenceC"/> |
|||
The England v. USA World Cup encounter, which ended as a 1-1 tie, ended a bet between the two leaders in which Obama gave over a Chicago beer called [[Goose Island Brewery#Beer|Goose Island 312]]' while Cameron gave over a bottle of '[[Wychwood Brewery#Brands|Hobgoblin]]'. Obama also took the moment to praise the way that Cameron had handled the [[Saville inquiry]] into [[Bloody Sunday (1972)|Bloody Sunday]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-policy/beer-unites-cameron-and-obama-$21380847.htm |title=Beer unites Cameron and Obama |publisher=Politics.co.uk |date= |accessdate=2010-11-14}}</ref> |
|||
In December 2010 it was reported in leaked diplomatic cables the US deputy chief of mission said that the United Kingdom's obsession with the special relation would “be humorous, if it were not so corrosive”.<ref>Andy Bloxham, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180709/WikiLeaks-Britain-mocked-by-US-over-special-relationship.html WikiLeaks: Britain mocked by US over 'special relationship'], ''The Daily Telegraph'', 04 December 2010.</ref> |
|||
In February 2011, based on a leaked cable, ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported that the Obama Administration had secretly agreed to give [[Russia]] sensitive information on the [[UK Trident programme|British nuclear deterrent]] as an inducement to sign an [[New START|arms reduction treaty]].<ref>Matthew Moore, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Relationship&action=edit WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets], ''The Daily Telegraph'', 4 February 2011.</ref> |
In February 2011, based on a leaked cable, ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' reported that the Obama Administration had secretly agreed to give [[Russia]] sensitive information on the [[UK Trident programme|British nuclear deterrent]] as an inducement to sign an [[New START|arms reduction treaty]].<ref>Matthew Moore, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Relationship&action=edit WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets], ''The Daily Telegraph'', 4 February 2011.</ref> |
||
In February 2011, during a [[White House]] appearance with French president [[Nicolas Sarkozy]], ignoring British sensitivity,<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100071241/barack-obama-france-is-americas-strongest-ally-the-president-gives-britain-the-boot-again/]</ref><ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346006/Barack-Obama-declares-France-biggest-ally-blow-Special-Relationship-Britain.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/11/france-america-barack-obama]</ref> President Obama declared, {{cquote|We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/11/france-america-barack-obama#start-of-comments]</ref>|}} |
|||
==Public opinion== |
==Public opinion== |
||
Line 268: | Line 291: | ||
In May 2010, another poll conducted in the UK by YouGov revealed that 66% of those surveyed held a favourable view of the USA and 62% agreed with the assertion that the USA is Britain's most important ally. However, the survey also revealed that 85% of British citizens believe that the UK has little or no influence on American policies, and that 62% think that America does not consider British interests.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250651532713816.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion Obama and the 'Special Relationship'], Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2010.</ref> |
In May 2010, another poll conducted in the UK by YouGov revealed that 66% of those surveyed held a favourable view of the USA and 62% agreed with the assertion that the USA is Britain's most important ally. However, the survey also revealed that 85% of British citizens believe that the UK has little or no influence on American policies, and that 62% think that America does not consider British interests.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250651532713816.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion Obama and the 'Special Relationship'], Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2010.</ref> |
||
===1967 letter=== |
|||
In 1967 a group of prominent Americans sought to reaffirm the importance of close ties in a letter published in ''[[The Times]]'' of [[London]], saying that the special relationship should remain a fundamental [[Bilateralism|bilateral policy]] even if the United Kingdom entered the [[European Economic Community]]. They suggested that the two governments 'begin to consider contingent means, including mutually beneficial trade and fiscal reforms, for saving and strengthening the historic relationship between our nations, whatever the outcome of the E.E.C. negotiations'. Signers included 10 [[United States Senate|senators]], 29 members of the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representative]]s and a number of [[university president]]s. ''The Times'' proposed a 'wide [[Transatlantic Free Trade Area|Atlantic-based free trade area]]' as one possibility of a broader economic grouping.<ref>'Americans’ Letter Stresses British Tie', ''New York Times'' (February 21, 1967), p. 5.</ref> |
|||
[[File:Friendly Fire Iraq.ogg|right]] |
[[File:Friendly Fire Iraq.ogg|right]] |
Revision as of 15:19, 13 February 2011
The Special Relationship is a phrase chiefly used in the United Kingdom[1][2][3] to convey the primacy the United Kingdom attaches to its relationship with the United States. While the U.K. maintains close links with many countries, her dependence on the United States in the spheres of commerce, technology, and national defense has been described as "unparalleled".[4] The Special Relationship was first used in a 1946 speech by Winston Churchill and has since become synonymous with Britain's continued allegiance to the United States. This allegiance has allowed the United Kingdom to augment her diminished economic and geopolitical influence after the collapse of the British Empire, enabling her to "punch above her weight".[5][6][7][8][9] Indeed, the former US Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin confided that Britain was allowed a seat at the top table because it had promised to the United States, "whatever you want, whatever you need, right away."[10] Seen in this light, Britain is very much the junior partner in the special relationship: it needs to continuously prove its usefulness to its more powerful friend.[11] David Cameron, the current British Prime Minister, in his remarks published in the Time Magazine, said of the special relationship: "I believe in the special relationship. Britain is, of course, the junior partner. I hope we bring things to that relationship."[12] Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, testifying before the Chilcot Inquiry, remarked: "It (the special relationship) is not a contract. It is not 'We do this for you, you do this for us'... As I always say to people, you can distance yourself from America if you want to, but you will find it is a long way back."[13] British participation in the U.S.-led 2003 Invasion of Iraq, despite widespread popular opposition at home, was the most recent manifestation of the special relationship.
Suez Crisis as the genesis of the Special Relationship
In 1956, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser unilaterally nationalised the Suez Canal. The response of the new British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, was to collude with France to engineer an Israeli attack on Egypt that would give Britain and France an excuse to intervene militarily and retake the canal.[14] Eden infuriated his US counterpart, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, by his lack of consultation, and Eisenhower refused to back the invasion.[15] Another of Eisenhower's concerns was the possibility of a wider war with the Soviet Union after Nikita Khrushchev threatened to intervene on the Egyptian side.
Eisenhower applied diplomatic pressure and financial leverage by threatening to sell US reserves of the British pound and thereby precipitate a collapse of the British currency.[16] Because the Bank of England had lost $50 million (US) between 30 October and 2 November, and England's oil supply had been damaged by the closing of the Suez Canal, the "British treasury requested an immediate standby credit from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)". The United States "denied the support" while Britain did not adhere to a cease fire agreement.[17] Eisenhower in fact ordered his Secretary of the Treasury, George M. Humphrey, to prepare to sell part of the US Government's Sterling Bond holdings. The US Government held these bonds in part to aid post war Britain’s economy (during the Cold War), and as partial payment of Britain’s enormous World War II debt to the US Government, American corporations, and individuals. It was also part of the overall effort of Marshall Plan aid, in the rebuilding of the Western European economies. Britain's then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Harold Macmillan, advised his Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, that the United States was fully prepared to carry out this threat. He also warned his Prime Minister that Britain's foreign exchange reserves simply could not sustain the devaluation of the pound that would come after the United States' actions; and that within weeks of such a move, the country would be unable to import the food and energy supplies needed simply to sustain the population on the islands.
Furthermore, in concert with U.S. actions Saudi Arabia started an oil embargo against Britain and France. The U.S. refused to fill the gap until Britain and France agreed to a rapid withdrawal. The other NATO members refused to sell oil they received from Arab nations to Britain or France.[18]
Though the invasion force was militarily successful in its objective of recapturing the Suez Canal,[19] US pressure forced Britain into a humiliating withdrawal of its forces.[20][21]
The Suez Crisis very publicly exposed Britain's limitations to the world and confirmed Britain's decline on the world stage, demonstrating that henceforth it could no longer act without at least the acquiescence, if not the full support, of the United States.[22][23][24] The events at Suez wounded British national pride, leading one MP to describe it as "Britain's Waterloo"[25] and another to suggest that the country had become an "American satellite".[26]
The political and psychological impact of the crisis's denouement had a fundamental impact on British politics. Anthony Eden was accused of misleading parliament and resigned from office after significant pressure was leveled by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the United States government. [27] His successor, Harold Macmillan, greatly accelerated decolonisation and sought to recapture the benevolence of the United States.[28] Increasingly, British foreign policy thinking turned away from acting as a great imperial power. The events marked the last significant attempt Britain made to impose its military will abroad without U.S. approval. Some argue that the crisis also marked the final transfer of power to the new superpower, the United States, and also heralded the beginning of British allegiance to the United States that continues to this day.[29]
Military cooperation
The intimate level of military co-operation began with the creation of the Combined Chiefs of Staff in December 1941, a military command with authority over all American and British operations. This cooperation has increased steadily since the early 1950s when military contacts were re-established.[4]
American military bases in the U.K.
Since the Second World War and the subsequent Berlin Blockade, the United States has maintained substantial forces in Great Britain. In July 1948, the first American deployment began with the stationing of B-29 bombers. Currently, an important base is the radar facility RAF Fylingdales, part of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, although this base is operated under entirely British command and has only one USAF representative for largely administrative reasons. Several bases with a significant US presence include RAF Menwith Hill (only a short distance from RAF Fylingdales), RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall.
During the Cold War critics of the special relationship jocularly referred to the United Kingdom as the "biggest aircraft carrier in the world."[30]
Following the end of the Cold War, which was the main rationale for their presence, the number of US facilities in the United Kingdom has been reduced in number in line with the US military worldwide. Despite this, these bases have been used extensively in support of various peacekeeping and offensive operations of the 1990s and early 21st century.
The two nations also jointly operate on the British military facilities of Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory and on Ascension Island, a dependency of Saint Helena in the Atlantic Ocean.
Nuclear weapons development
The United Kingdom does not currently possess the capacity to independently acquire and deploy a nuclear deterrence force and instead relies on the United States for both nuclear warheads and missile delivery systems.[31]
The Quebec Agreement of 1943 paved the way for the two countries to develop atomic weapons side by side, the United Kingdom handing over vital documents from its own Tube Alloys project and sending a delegation to assist in the work of the Manhattan Project. The United States later kept the results of the work to itself under the postwar McMahon Act, but after the United Kingdom developed its own thermonuclear weapons, the United States agreed to supply delivery systems, designs and nuclear material for British warheads through the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement.
The United Kingdom purchased first Polaris and then the American Trident system which remains in use today. The 1958 agreement gave the United Kingdom access to the facilities at the Nevada Test Site, and from 1963 it conducted a total of 21 underground tests there before the cessation of testing in 1991.[32] The agreement under which this partnership operates was updated in 2004; anti-nuclear activists claimed renewal may breach the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[33][34] The United States and the United Kingdom jointly conducted subcritical nuclear experiments in 2002 and 2006, to determine the effectiveness of existing stocks, as permitted under the 1998 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.[35][36]
Military procurement
The United Kingdom is the only collaborative, or Level One, international partner in the largest US aircraft procurement project in history, the F-35 Lightning II program.[37][38] However, the partnership does not include access to crucial sensor, stealth, avionics and other technologies in the Joint Strike Fighter.[39] The United Kingdom was involved in writing the specification and selection and its largest defense contractor BAE Systems is a partner of the American prime contractor Lockheed Martin. BAE Systems is also the largest foreign supplier to the United States Defense Department and has been permitted to buy important US defense companies such as Lockheed Martin Aerospace Electronic Systems and United Defense.
The US operates several British designs including Chobham Armour. the RAF Harrier GR9 or United States Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier II and the US Navy T-45 Goshawk. The UK also operates several American designs, including the Javelin anti-tank missile, M270 rocket artillery, the Apache gunship, C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft.
Other areas of cooperation
Intelligence sharing
A cornerstone of the special relationship is the collecting and sharing of intelligence. This originated during World War II with the sharing of code breaking knowledge and led to the 1943 BRUSA Agreement, signed at Bletchley Park. After WWII the common goal of monitoring and countering the threat of communism prompted the UK-USA Security Agreement of 1948. This agreement brought together the SIGINT organizations of the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and is still in place today. The head of the CIA station in London attends each weekly meeting of the British Joint Intelligence Committee.[40]
One present-day example of such cooperation is the UKUSA Community, comprising the USA's National Security Agency, the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters, Australia's Defence Signals Directorate and Canada's Communications Security Establishment collaborating on ECHELON, a global intelligence gathering system. Under classified bilateral accords, UKUSA members do not spy on each other.[41]
Following the discovery of the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, the CIA began to assist the Security Service (MI5) by running its own agent networks in the British Pakistani community. Security sources estimate 40 per cent of CIA activity to prevent a terrorist attack in the United States involves operations inside the United Kingdom. One intelligence official commented on the threat against the United States from British Islamists: 'The fear is that something like this would not just kill people but cause a historic rift between the US and the UK.'[42]
Economic policy
The United States is the largest source of foreign direct investment to the British economy; likewise the United Kingdom is the largest single investor in the US economy.[43] British trade and capital have been important components of the American economy since its colonial inception. In trade and finance, the special relationship has been described as 'well-balanced', with London's 'light-touch' regulation in recent years attracting a massive outflow of capital from New York.[44] The key sectors for British exporters to the United States are aviation, aerospace, commercial property, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and heavy machinery.[45] British ideas, classical and modern, have also exerted a profound influence on US economic policy, most notably Adam Smith on free trade and John Maynard Keynes on counter-cyclical spending, while the British government has adopted workfare reforms from the United States. American and British investors share entrepreneurial attitudes towards the housing market, and the fashion and music industries of each country are major influences on their counterparts.[46] In 2007 the US ambassador suggested to British business leaders that the special relationship could be used 'to promote world trade and limit environmental damage as well as combating terrorism'.[47]
History
Prior to their collaboration during World War II Anglo-American relations had been somewhat frosty. President Woodrow Wilson and Prime Minister David Lloyd George in Paris had been the only previous leaders to meet face-to-face,[48] but had enjoyed nothing that could be described as a special relationship, although Lloyd George's wartime Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, got on well with Wilson during his time in the United States and helped convince the previously skeptical president to enter the war.
Churchill spent much time and effort cultivating the relationship which paid dividends for the war effort though it cost Britain much of her wealth and ultimately her empire. Two great architects of the special relationship on a practical level were Field Marshal Sir John Dill and General George Marshall, whose excellent personal relations and senior positions (Roosevelt was especially close to Marshall) oiled the wheels of the alliance considerably.
The links that were created during the war—such as the UK military liaison officers posted to Washington—persist. However for Britain to gain any benefit from the relationship it became clear[who?] that a constant policy of personal engagement was required. Britain starting off in 1941 as somewhat the senior partner had quickly found itself the junior. The diplomatic policy was thus two pronged, encompassing strong personal support and military as well as political devotion. These two have always operated in tandem, that is to say the best personal relationships between British prime ministers and American presidents have always been those based around shared goals. For example, Harold Wilson's government would not commit troops to Vietnam. Harold Wilson and Lyndon Johnson did not get on especially well.
Peaks in the special relationship include the bonds between Harold Macmillan (who like Churchill had an American mother) and John F. Kennedy, between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and more recently between Tony Blair and George W. Bush. Nadirs have included Dwight D. Eisenhower's opposition to UK operations in Suez under Anthony Eden and Wilson's refusal to enter the war in Vietnam.[49]
Anthony Eden and Eisenhower
Diplomatic relations with the United States reached a nadir under the Eden government.[50] The fallout and humiliation from the Suez Crisis precipitated the fall of the British government and drove Anthony Eden into retirement.[51] The crisis also brought home the realization that Britain could no longer act alone on the world stage without the acquiescence of the United States and that British foreign policy must henceforth adhere closely to that of the United States.[52][53]
Macmillan and Kennedy
Macmillan once famously quipped that it was Britain’s historical duty to guide the power of the United States as the ancient Greeks had the Romans.[54] However, the Suez Crisis quickly disabused him of this notion[55] and led him to conclude that in future Britain had to side with America. He ingratiated himself to President John F Kennedy and even persuaded Kennedy to let Britain have the Polaris nuclear missile. Ever since, Britain has been reluctant to oppose any US policy. Even during Vietnam, the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson forbade criticism of the US while shrewdly refusing Lyndon Johnson's request to send a token force.[56]
However, even in the celebrated 'golden days'[57] of the Kennedy-Macmillan partnership, the special relationship was tested, most severely by the Skybolt crisis of 1962, when Kennedy and his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, ignoring the British contribution to the development of the atomic bomb and reneging on a promise made by Eisenhower, tried to divest the United Kingdom of its nuclear deterrent by unilaterally cancelling a joint project without consultation.[58][59] Dean Acheson, a former US Secretary of State, also chose this moment to challenge publicly the special relationship and marginalise the British contribution to the Western alliance in his West Point speech of 1962:
Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role. The attempt to play a separate power role—that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based on a ‘Special Relationship’ with the United States, a role based on being the head of a ‘Commonwealth’ which has no political structure, or unity, or strength and enjoys a fragile and precarious economic relationship—this role is about played out.[60]
On learning of Acheson's attack, Macmillan thundered:
In so far as he appeared to denigrate the resolution and will of Britain and the British people, Mr. Acheson has fallen into an error which has been made by quite a lot of people in the course of the last four hundred years, including Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. He also seems to misunderstand the role of the Commonwealth in world affairs.
In so far as he referred to Britain’s attempt to play a separate power role as about to be played out, this would be acceptable if he had extended this concept to the United States and to every other nation in the Free World. This is the doctrine of interdependence, which must be applied in the world today, if Peace and Prosperity are to be assured.
I do not know whether Mr. Acheson would accept the logical sequence of his own argument. I am sure it is fully recognised by the US administration and by the American people.[61]
The looming collapse of the alliance between the two thermonuclear powers forced Kennedy into an immediate volte-face at the Anglo-American summit in Nassau, where he agreed to sell Polaris as a replacement for the cancelled Skybolt. Richard E. Neustadt in his official investigation concluded the crisis in the special relationship had erupted because ‘the president's "Chiefs" failed to make a proper strategic assessment of Great Britain's intentions and its capabilities’.[62]
The Skybolt crisis with Kennedy came on top of Eisenhower’s wrecking of Macmillan’s policy of détente with the Soviet Union at the May 1960 Paris summit, and the prime minister’s resulting disenchantment with the special relationship contributed to his decision to seek an alternative in British membership of the European Economic Community (EEC).[63] According to a recent analyst: ‘What the prime minister in effect adopted was a hedging strategy in which ties with Washington would be maintained while at the same time a new power base in Europe was sought.'[64] Even so, Kennedy assured Macmillan ‘that relations between the United States and the UK would be strengthened not weakened, if the UK moved towards membership.’[65]
Wilson and Johnson
Prime Minister Harold Wilson recast the alliance as a 'close relationship',[66] but neither he nor President Lyndon B. Johnson had any experience of foreign policy,[67] and Wilson's attempt to mediate in Vietnam, where the United Kingdom was co-chairman with the Soviet Union of the Geneva Conference, was unwelcome to the president,[68] who was rumoured to have called the prime minister a 'creep'.[69] 'I won't tell you how to run Malaysia and you don’t tell us how to run Vietnam,' Johnson snapped in 1965.[68] However relations were sustained by US recognition that Wilson was being criticised at home by his neutralist Labour left for not condemning US involvement in the war.[69][70]
Despite US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's insistence that the United Kingdom should 'pay the blood price' by sending troops to Vietnam as 'the unwritten terms of the Special Relationship',[71] Wilson refused to commit regular forces, only special forces instructors.[72] His stance was consistent with a burden-sharing arrangement agreed by Macmillan, whereby British forces had been concentrated against the Communist insurgency in Malaya. 30,000 British troops were still defending Malaysia in 1964 in an undeclared war with Indonesia.[68] Australia and New Zealand were Commonwealth allies that did commit regular forces to Vietnam.
The Johnson administration’s support for IMF loans delayed devaluation of sterling until 1967.[69] The United Kingdom's subsequent withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and East Asia 'came as a shock to the United States', where it was strongly opposed, British forces being especially valued for their out-of-area contribution.[73] In retrospect Wilson's moves to scale back Britain's global commitments and correct its balance of payments contrasted favourably with Johnson's overexertions which accelerated the United States' relative economic and military decline.[69]
Heath and Nixon
A Europeanist, Prime Minister Edward Heath preferred to speak of a '"natural relationship", based on shared culture and heritage', and stressed that the special relationship was 'not part of his own vocabulary'.[74]
The Heath-Nixon era was dominated by the United Kingdom's 1973 entry into the European Economic Community (EEC). Although the two leaders' 1971 Bermuda communiqué restated that entry served the interests of the Atlantic Alliance, American observers voiced concern that the British government's membership would impair its role as an honest broker, and that, because of the European goal of political union, the special relationship would only survive if it included the whole Community.[75]
Critics accused President Richard M. Nixon of impeding the EEC's inclusion in the special relationship by his economic policy,[76] which dismantled the postwar international monetary system and sought to force open European markets for US exports.[77] Detractors also slated the personal relationship at the top as 'decidedly less than special'; Prime Minister Edward Heath, it was alleged, 'hardly dared put through a phone call to Richard Nixon for fear of offending his new Common Market partners.'[78]
The special relationship was 'soured' during the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 when Nixon failed to inform Heath that US forces had been put on DEFCON 3 in a worldwide standoff with the Soviet Union, and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger misled the British ambassador over the nuclear alert.[79] Heath, who learned about the alert only from press reports hours later, confessed: ‘I have found considerable alarm as to what use the Americans would have been able to make of their forces here without in any way consulting us or considering the British interests.’[80] The incident marked 'a low ebb' in the special relationship.[81]
Callaghan, Ford and Carter
While President Gerald Ford never visited the United Kingdom,[82] the British government saw the US bicentennial in 1976 as an occasion to celebrate the special relationship. Political leaders and guests from both sides of Atlantic gathered in May at Westminster Hall to mark the Declaration of Independence. Prime Minister Jim Callaghan presented a visiting US Congressional delegation with a gold-embossed reproduction of Magna Carta, symbolising the common heritage of the two nations. British historian Esmond Wright, of the Institute of US Studies, noted 'a vast amount of popular identification with the American story'. A year of cultural exchanges and exhibitions culminated in July in a state visit to the United States by the Queen.[83]
Ties between Callaghan and President Jimmy Carter were cordial but not emotional.[84] When Carter came to London on his first foreign trip in May 1977 he described the relationship as 'very special'[82] but, with both left of centre-governments being preoccupied with economic malaise, diplomatic contacts remained low key. US officials characterised relations in 1978 as 'extremely good', with the main disagreement being over trans-Atlantic air routes.[85]
Reagan and Thatcher
Seeking to reverse a period of disengagement and drift in the relationship,[86] newly elected Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher enthusiastically re-aligned British domestic and foreign policies to adhere closely to those of the United States by espousing the philosophy of the free market, low taxes, limited government, and a strong defence; she and president Reagan also rejected détente and were determined to win the battle of ideas with the Soviet Union.[87]
At her first meeting with Reagan as president in 1981, Thatcher sought intimate intercourse with her counterpart by promising a renewed commitment to upholding U.S. interests: ‘Your problems will be our problems and when you look for friends we shall be there.’[88] Celebrating the 200th anniversary of diplomatic relations in 1985, Thatcher was gushingly effusive in her remarks to Reagan. She began tenderly, "For two centuries, we've been trading partners. We've stood together through two great world conflicts." She continued titillatingly, "together, we fought on the sands of Normandy. And together we reclaimed a continent to liberty... We share a deep affection for one another." Thatcher then gushingly enthused, "There is a union of mind and purpose between our peoples which is remarkable and which makes our relationship a truly remarkable one." Ending her remarks in an ecstatic climax, Thatcher emphatically declared, "It is special. It just is, and that’s that."[89]
In 1982 Thatcher and Reagan reached an agreement to replace the British Polaris fleet with a force equipped with US-supplied Trident missiles, and Reagan became only the second foreign leader to address both Houses of Parliament (the first was de Gaulle in 1960).[82] The confidence between the two principals was strained, however, by Reagan's belated and less than enthusiastic support in the Falklands War.[90][91] Nonetheless, Thatcher later stood alone among Western allies[92][93] when she returned the favour by letting US F-111s take off from RAF bases for the bombing of Libya,[94][95] justifying it as an overdue move to help Reagan 'turn the tide against terrorism'.[96]
The relations were again clouded by the US invasion of the Commonwealth island of Grenada,[97][98][99] and the potential risk to Britain's deterrent and security posed by the Strategic Defense Initiative[100][101][102] and Reagan's proposal at the Reykjavík Summit to eliminate of all ballistic nuclear weapons despite large conventional disparities.[103][104][105]
Clinton and Major
The special relationship waned for a time with the passing of the Cold War, despite intensive co-operation in the Gulf War. Thus, while it remained the case that: 'On almost all issues, Britain and the US are on the same side of the table. You cannot say that for other important allies such as France, Germany or Japan',[106] it was also acknowledged: ‘The disappearance of a powerful common threat, the Soviet Union, has allowed narrower disputes to emerge and given them greater weight.’[107]
Republican administrations had enjoyed strong links with the Conservative governments, and the new Democratic President Bill Clinton said he intended to maintain the special relationship, avowing: 'I'm a great Anglophile',[108] but he and Prime Minister John Major were 'an odd couple',[109] who 'got off on the wrong foot'.[110] Their personal relationship was described as ‘especially awful’, with the two leaders once refusing to speak to one another while dining side-by-side.[111]
Both the Conservatives[112] and Labour[113] had sent advisers to the United States to aid the rival candidates in the 1992 presidential election,[114] and it emerged that the Conservative government had allowed Home Office press officers to search files for evidence that Clinton had applied for British citizenship to avoid the Vietnam draft while a Rhodes scholar at Oxford in 1969; no evidence was found that he had.[115][116]
Major stood accused of letting the special relationship become a personal relationship with the losing candidate, President George H. W. Bush,[117] and of having 'bet on the wrong horse in the presidential race'.[118] The Economist predicted: 'the special relationship, declared dead scores of times since Suez, will soon face another burial'.[114] The Clinton administration did little to rebut a report in the New York Times in January 1993 that Major topped a 'Clinton enemies list'.[117] The president afterwards explained: ‘I was determined there would be no damage but I wanted the Tories to worry about it for a while.’[119] At Clinton's first meeting with Major in February 1993 Clinton joked that he was 'grateful that I got through this whole campaign with most of my time in England still classified.'[120]
The nuclear alliance—'the heart of the special relationship'—was weakened when Clinton extended a moratorium on tests in the Nevada desert in 1993, and pressed Major to agree to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.[121] The freeze was described by a British defence minister as 'unfortunate and misguided', as it inhibited validation of the ‘safety, reliability and effectiveness’ of fail-safe mechanisms on upgraded warheads for the British Trident II D5 missiles, and potentially the development of a new deterrent for the 21st century, leading Major to consider a return to Pacific testing,[122] and the Ministry of Defence to turn to computer simulation.[123] One analyst accused the United Kingdom of using safety and reliability as cover for testing a replacement warhead for the WE.177 free-fall bomb.[124] The moratorium weakened the case for British reliance on Trident,[125] resulting in the entente nucléaire with France in 1995 under a Joint Nuclear Commission.[126]
A genuine crisis in transatlantic relations blew up over Bosnia.[127] London and Paris resisted relaxation of the UN arms embargo,[128] and discouraged US escalation,[129] arguing that arming the Muslims or bombing the Serbs could worsen the bloodshed and endanger their peacekeepers on the ground.[130] US Secretary of State Warren Christopher's campaign to lift the embargo was rebuffed by Major and President Mitterrand in May 1993.[128] After the so-called 'Copenhagen ambush' in June 1993, where Clinton 'ganged up' with Chancellor Kohl to rally the European Community against the peacekeeping states, Major was said to be contemplating the death of the special relationship.[131] The following month the United States voted at the UN with non-aligned countries against Britain and France over lifting the embargo.[132]
By October 1993 Christopher was bristling that Washington policy makers had been too 'Eurocentric', and declared that Western Europe was 'no longer the dominant area of the world'.[128] The US ambassador to London demurred, insisting it was far too early to put a 'tombstone' over the special relationship.[130] A senior US State Department official described Bosnia in the spring of 1995 as the worst crisis with the British and French since Suez.[133] By the summer US officials were doubting whether NATO had a future.[133]
The nadir had now been reached, and, along with NATO enlargement and the Croatian offensive in 1995 that opened the way for NATO bombing, the strengthening Clinton-Major relationship was later credited as one of three developments that saved the Western alliance.[133] The president acknowledged: 'John Major carried a lot of water for me and for the alliance over Bosnia. I know he was under a lot of political pressure at home, but he never wavered. He was a truly decent guy who never let me down. We worked really well together, and I got to like him a lot.'[133]
A rift opened in a further area. In February 1994 Major refused to answer Clinton's telephone calls for days over his decision to grant Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams a visa to visit the United States to agitate.[134] Adams was listed as a terrorist by London.[128] The US State Department, the CIA, the US Justice Department and the FBI all opposed the move on the grounds that it made the United States look 'soft on terrorism' and 'could do irreparable damage to the special relationship'.[135] Under pressure from Congress, the president hoped the visit would encourage the IRA to renounce violence.[136] While Adams offered nothing new, and violence escalated within weeks,[137] the president later claimed vindication after the IRA ceasefire of August 1994.[138] To the disappointment of the prime minister, Clinton lifted the ban on official contacts and received Adams at the White House on St. Patrick's Day 1995, despite the fact the paramilitaries had not agreed to disarm.[128] The rows over Northern Ireland and the Adams affair reportedly 'provoked incandescent Clintonian rages'.[139]
In November 1995 Clinton became only the second US president ever to address both Houses of Parliament,[82] but by the end of Major's premiership disenchantment with the special relationship had deepened to the point where the incoming British ambassador banned the 'hackneyed phrase' from the embassy.[140][141]
Blair and Clinton
I lover America![142]
The election of British prime minister Tony Blair in 1997 brought an opportunity to revive what Clinton called the two nations' 'unique partnership'. New Labour's Third Way, a moderate social-democratic position, was inspired by and adapted from US New Democratic thinking.[143]
Co-operation in defence and communications still had the potential to embarrass Blair, however, as he strove to balance it with his own leadership role in the European Union (EU).[144] Enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones[145] and US bombing raids on Iraq dismayed EU partners.[146]
Blair and Bush
You know, George, whatever you decide to do about Iraq, I'm with you.[147]
After their first meeting at Camp David in February 2001, President Bush was asked what he and Blair shared in common - Bush replied that they both used the same toothpaste.[148]
From the start of the War on Terror in 2001, Blair strongly supported the foreign policy of George W. Bush, notably by participating in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and 2003 invasion of Iraq. Blair embarked on two months of diplomacy rallying international support for military action against Iraq. The BBC calculated that, in total, the prime minister held 54 meetings with world leaders and travelled more than 40,000 miles (60,000 km). The invasion of Iraq was particularly controversial, as it attracted widespread public opposition, and 139 of Blair's MPs opposed it, with Foreign Secretary Robin Cook resigning in protest.[149][150] As a result, Blair faced criticism over the policy itself and the circumstances in which it was decided upon.
The Iraq invasion proved deeply unpopular with the British public and caused Blair's approval ratings to plunge.[151] It also alienated many of U.K.'s traditional European partners, including France and Germany. Blair felt he could defend his close personal relationship with Bush by claiming it had brought progress in the Middle East peace process, aid for Africa and climate-change diplomacy.[152] However it was not with Bush but with California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that Blair ultimately succeeded in setting up a carbon-trading market, 'creating a model other states will follow'.[44][153]
At one point, Nelson Mandela described Blair as "the U.S. foreign minister".[154] Blair has also often openly been referred to as "Bush's poodle".[155] Kendall Myers, a senior analyst at the State Department, spoke of the special relationship as a "myth"[156], adding, "There never really has been a special relationship, or at least not one we've noticed."[157] Myers also revealed that Blair's attempts to influence U.S. policy were typically ignored: "we typically ignore them and take no notice. We say, 'There are the Brits coming to tell us how to run our empire. Let's park them'. It’s a sad business... It was a done deal from the beginning, it was a one-sided relationship that was entered into with open eyes... There was nothing, no payback, no sense of reciprocity".[158][159]
The alliance between Bush and Blair seriously damaged Blair's standing in the eyes of many British people.[160] Blair argued it is in Britain's interest to "protect and strengthen the bond" with the United States regardless of who is in the White House.[161] However, a perception of one-sided compromising personal and political closeness led to serious discussion of the term "Poodle-ism" in the UK media, to describe the "Special Relationship" of the UK government and Prime Minister with the US White House and President.[162] A revealing conversation between Bush and Blair, with the former addressing the latter as "Yo, Blair" was recorded when they did not know a microphone was live at the G8 conference in Russia in 2006.[163]
The ongoing Chilcot Inquiry, tasked with examining the U.K.'s role in the invasion of Iraq, has been hearing testimony from British politicians, military personnel, and officials involved in the decision to go to war.[164] These testimonies "laid bare the way in which Washington called the shots, often ignoring British advice and excluding British diplomats and military commanders from discussions" and that "the U.K.'s one-sided obsession with the relationship has made it overestimate its influence in some areas and fail to assert itself in others".[165] They also revealed that Blair's desire to hold the special relationship together was the primary motivation for participating in the Iraq War - not WMDs.[166]
The Former US Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin confided that Britain was allowed a seat at the top table because it had pledged fealty to the United States by promising "whatever you want, whatever you need, right away."[167] Britain therefore is very much the junior partner in the special relationship: it needs to continuously prove its usefulness to its more powerful friend.[168]
Robin Cook, the former British Foreign Secretary, characterized the special relationship as "a national delusion".[169] In an editorial in the Guardian Newspapers, he wrote that "Suez (Crisis) was a cathartic moment in Britain's perception of its place in the world. It brought home, brutally and abruptly, that the era had passed in which we could impose our will by the imperious use of military power. Iraq has proved a blunder on a matching scale to Suez. It could yet provide a similar pivotal moment by bringing home to us that the special relationship should be consigned to history along with our empire" and that demonstrating "a streak of independence" could make the U.S. "take Britain more seriously than an eagerness to please."[169]
Victor Bulmer-Thomas, a former director of Chatham House, expressed, "the bilateral relationship with the United States may be 'special' to Britain, but the US has never described it as more than 'close'."[170]
The 2006 Lebanon War also exposed differences in attitudes over the Middle East. The strong support offered by Blair and the Bush administration to Israel was not wholeheartedly shared by the British cabinet or the British public. On 27 July, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett criticised the United States for 'ignoring procedure' when using Prestwick Airport as a stop off point for delivering laser-guided bombs to Israel.[171] On 17 August, The Independent reported that Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott had disparaged as 'crap' Bush's efforts on the Middle East Roadmap, which Prescott felt had been a condition of his support for the war in Iraq.[172][173] Prescott said this was an inaccurate report of a private conversation.[174]
Brown and Obama
I'm very pro-American and I've always been so.[175]
Although British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated his support for the United States on assuming office in 2007,[176] he appointed ministers to the Foreign Office who had been critical of aspects of the relationship or of recent US policy.[177][178] A Whitehall source said: 'It will be more businesslike now, with less emphasis on the meeting of personal visions you had with Bush and Blair.'[179] British policy was that the relationship with the United States remained the United Kingdom's 'most important bilateral relationship'.[180]
Prior to his election as US president in 2008, Barack Obama, suggesting that Blair and Britain had been let down by the Bush administration, declared: 'We have a chance to recalibrate the relationship and for the United Kingdom to work with America as a full partner.'[181]
In an gesture that caused much British handwringing,[182][183][184] President Obama returned a bronze bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill that was loaned to George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks. The bust was handed back despite the British offers to extend the loan.[185] The rejection of the bust has led many British officials to become "nervous" about the state of the special relationship under the Obama administration.[185] British diplomats were said to have been reluctant to discuss the bust at first but later confirmed that it was moved to the residence of the British ambassador.[185] A leaked U.S. diplomatic cable later expressed amusement at the British reaction and media coverage of this event, characterizing them as "more paranoid than usual" and "humorous".[182] It also noted that "more than one HMG senior official asked embassy officers whether President Obama meant to send a signal in his inaugural address about US-UK relations by quoting Washington during the revolutionary war [against Britain], while the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval office consumed much UK newsprint".[186]
After her first ministerial-level talks with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in early February 2009, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared: 'It's often said that the United States and Great Britain have long enjoyed a special relationship. It is certainly special in my mind, and one that has proven very productive. Whoever is in the White House, whichever party in our country, this relationship really stands the test of time.'[187] Miliband spoke of a commitment 'to renew and refresh the special relationship'.[188] It was later revealed by a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable that Secretary Clinton's comment about the special relationship "has gone a long way to calm what has been a stronger than usual outbreak of British political and media anxiety about the future of U.S.-UK relations".[182]
On meeting Brown as president for the first time in March 2009, Obama reaffirmed that 'Great Britain is one of our closest and strongest allies and there is a link and bond there that will not break... This notion that somehow there is any lessening of that special relationship is misguided... The relationship is not only special and strong but will only get stronger as time goes on.'[189] Commentators, however, noted that the recurring use of 'special partnership' by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs could be signaling an effort to recast terms.[190] One commentator noted the new term in a review of the HMS Gannet-pen holder which Brown presented to the president, and other gifts exchanged at the time. Obama presented Brown with 25 DVDs of American movies, but in the US Region 1 code, not the Region 2 encoding used in the UK.[191] A leaked U.S. diplomatic cable later revealed the level of British anxiety prior to the Brown-Obama meeting by noting that "Britain needs the U.S. more than ever to get out of this (economic downturn)" and that Britain fears itself "being seen more like Iceland to (the new Obama administration) right now than any other European capital because the downturn is so bad and the Brown Government so weak."[182] The same cable also noted the British apprehension over the U.S. dissatisfaction with the value and effectiveness of British military contribution in Afghanistan.[182] The document went on to enumerate examples of the British media's "paranoid" tendency toward "over-reading perceived signals for evidence of tensions in the relationship",[182] and suggests the U.S. could take advantage of Britain's paranoia to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance".[192]
The following week British Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell, trying to plan the G-20 London summit, said it was hard to deal with US Treasury officials because they were 'unreachable'.[193][194]
The special relationship was also reported to be 'strained' after a senior US State Department official criticised a British decision to talk to the political wing of Hezbollah, complaining the United States had not been properly informed.[195][196] The protest came after the Obama administration had said it was prepared to talk to Hamas[197] and at the same time as it was making overtures to Syria and Iran.[198] A senior Foreign Office official responded: 'This should not have come as a shock to any official who might have been in the previous administration and is now in the current one.’[199]
In June 2009 the special relationship was reported to have 'taken another hit'[200] after the British government was said to be 'angry'[201][202] over the failure of the US to seek its approval before negotiating with Bermuda the resettlement to the British overseas territory[203] of four ex-Guantanamo Bay inmates wanted by the People's Republic of China.[204] A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It's something that we should have been consulted about.'[205] Asked whether the men might be sent back to Cuba, he replied: 'We are looking into all possible next steps.'[201] The move prompted an urgent security assessment by the British government.[206] Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague demanded an explanation from Miliband,[206] as comparisons were drawn with his previous embarrassment over the US use of Diego Garcia for extraordinary rendition without British knowledge,[207] with one commentator describing the affair as 'a wake-up call' and 'the latest example of American governments ignoring Britain when it comes to US interests in British territories abroad'.[208]
In August 2009, while Americans were engaged in a heated debate over healthcare reform in the United States, American media outlets asked Daniel Hannan MEP to describe the healthcare in the United Kingdom on their programmes and television stations. Hannan's reply to the questions was that he would not wish the NHS on anybody whatsoever and repeatedly lambasted the NHS. Conservative leader David Cameron disavowed Hannan's comments and called the MEP 'a man with eccentric views', this incident angered many in the United Kingdom and thousands took to micro-blogging site Twitter to voice their outrage.
In August 2009 the special relationship was again reported to have 'taken another blow' with the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie Bombing that killed 190 American citizens. Al-Megrahi was said to be suffering from terminal cancer and only had three months to live.[209][210] The release caused widespread outrage in the United States.[211][212] Hillary Clinton said 'it was absolutely wrong to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi', adding 'We are still encouraging the Scottish authorities not to do so and hope they will not'. Obama also commented that the release of al-Megrahi was a 'mistake' and 'highly objectionable'.[213] Relations were further strained when, eleven months after the terminal diagnosis was made,[214] Al Megrahi remained alive. The local Libyan media outlets have reported he has been released from the hospital and is living at his family's villa.[215][216] On 16 July 2010, four United States senators made public their concerns over the release, stating they believed that the oil company BP pushed for his release to secure a deal with Libya. BP confirmed that it did press for a Prisoner Transfer Agreement as it was aware that a delay might have "negative consequences" for UK commercial interests. However the firm said it was not involved in any discussions regarding Megrahi's release. A spokesmen for the Scottish Government insisted that they acted alone stating: "The Scottish government had no contact from BP in relation to Mr Al-Megrahi." Further hearings examining Megrahi's release due to be held at Capitol Hill on 29 July, were postponed when the US Dept of Justice and Scottish and British witnesses refused to attend and were rescheduled for September the same year, before the senatorial elections.[217] Al-Megrahi remains alive today.
Also in August 2009, Prime Minister Brown made a personal plea to the U.S. ambassador on behalf of Gary McKinnon, who faced extradition to the United States for hacking into U.S. defense computer networks.[218][219] Brown was said to have offered a guilty plea in exchange for McKinnon's serving his sentence in the U.K. However, Brown's request was resolutely spurned by Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General.[220]
In September 2009, Michael Heseltine, who was Defence Secretary under Margaret Thatcher, and a supporter of closer European integration, described the Special Relationship as 'the most naïve delusion fostered on this side of the Atlantic, and hardly ever referred to on the other side of the Atlantic', and said the only country the US arguably has a special relationship with is Israel.[221]
In March 2010 Hillary Clinton's support for Argentina's call for negotiations over the Falkland Islands triggered a series of diplomatic protests from Britain[222] and renewed public scepticism about the value of the special relationship.[223][224] The British government rejected Clinton's offer of mediation after renewed tensions with Argentina were triggered by a British decision to drill for oil near the Falkland Islands.[225] The British government's long-standing position was that the Falklands were British territory, with all that this implied regarding the legitimacy of British commercial activities within its boundaries. British officials were therefore irritated by the implication that sovereignty was negotiable.[226][227][228][229]
Later that month, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons recommended that the British government be 'less deferential' towards the United States and focus relations more on British interests.[230][231] According to the Committee, "the perception that the British government was a subservient 'poodle' to the U.S. administration leading up to the period of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath is widespread both among the British public and overseas", and this perception is "deeply damaging to the reputation and interests of the U.K.".[165][232][233] Committee Chair Mike Gapes added, '"The UK and US have a close and valuable relationship not only in terms of intelligence and security but also in terms of our profound and historic cultural and trading links and commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But the use of the phrase "the special relationship" in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided."[231] In April 2010 the Church of England joined its voice to the call for a more balanced relationship between Britain and the United States.[234]
Current status: Cameron and Obama
We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people.[235]
— President Barack Obama
Leaked U.S. diplomatic revealed that a number of Conservative British politicians had pledged a "pro-American regime" prior to the U.K. general elections.[236] Liam Fox, now the defence secretary, promised to buy American military equipment to the U.S. ambassador Louis Susman, saying, "we (Conservatives) intend to follow a much more pro-American profile in procurement."[237][238] The current foreign secretary, William Hague, offered the ambassador a "pro-American" government, adding that the entire Conservative leadership were, like him, "staunchly Atlanticist" and "children of Thatcher".[239] Hague, in an earlier conversation with the US deputy chief of mission, Richard LeBaron, demonstrated his pro-American credentials by saying that "he has a sister who is American, spends his own vacations in America and, like many similar to him, considers America the 'other country to turn to'." Hague further expressed that "whoever enters 10 Downing Street as prime minister soon learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America" and "we want a pro-American regime. We need it."[240]
The leaked cables also revealed that Mr. Obama regarded Mr. Cameron as a "lightweight".[241] This assessment is said to have been made after a meeting between the pair when Mr. Obama was still campaigning to become president.[242] Mr. Cameron is said to have used the meeting to underline his eurosceptic views – to the surprise of Mr. Obama and the American delegation.[243]
On David Cameron being elected as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on 11 May 2010, President Obama was the first foreign leader to offer his congratulations. Following the conversation Obama said, 'As I told the prime minister, the United States has no closer friend and ally than the United Kingdom, and I reiterated my deep and personal commitment to the special relationship between our two countries — a bond that has endured for generations and across party lines.'[244]
Incoming British Foreign Secretary William Hague responded to the President's overture by making Washington, D.C., his first port of call, commenting: 'We're very happy to accept that description and to agree with that description. The United States is without doubt the most important ally of the United Kingdom.' Meeting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Hague hailed the special relationship as 'an unbreakable alliance', and added: 'It's not a backward-looking or nostalgic relationship. It is one looking to the future from combating violent extremism to addressing poverty and conflict around the world.' Both governments confirmed their joint commitment to the war in Afghanistan and their opposition to Iran's nuclear programme.[245]
However, the day after his meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Hague pledged that the new British government will pursue a "solid but not slavish"[246] relationship with the US, adding, "it's good for our relationship and for world affairs that the United Kingdom is in support so far of the major foreign policy initiatives of the Obama administration, not in any slavish way, but we are in support of them" and that "David Cameron and I have always said we want a solid but not slavish relationship with the United States".[246][247]
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, told the Foreign Correspondents' Association in London, "I think it's sometimes rather embarrassing the way Conservative and Labour politicians talk in this kind of slavish way about the 'special relationship'. If you speak to hard-nosed folk in Washington, they think it's a good relationship, but it's not the 'special relationship'."[248] Earlier, Mr. Clegg had raised Conservative Hackles in the U.S. by saying that ever since the Suez crises, Britain had acted as "an echo to the music set in the White House and Pentagon" and that "surely any foreign policy must be conducted in line with your values, principles and strategic interests. Our strategic interests will not be served unless we release ourselves from that spell of default Atlanticism which has prevailed so strongly since Suez."[249][250]
The BP oil spill crisis of 2010 caused public outcry in the US. The Christian Science Monitor observed that a "rhetorical prickliness" had come about from escalating Obama administration criticism of BP—straining the special relationship—particularly the repeated use of the term 'British Petroleum' even though the business no longer uses that name.[251] Cameron stated that he did not want to make the president's toughness on BP a US-UK issue, and noted that the company was balanced in terms of the number of its American and British shareholders.[252] The validity of the special relationship was put in question as a result of the 'aggressive rhetoric'.[253]
On July 20, Cameron met with Obama during his first visit to the United States as prime minister. The two expressed unity in a wide range of issues, including the War in Afghanistan. During the meeting, Obama stated, "We can never say it enough. The United States and the United Kingdom enjoy a truly special relationship," then going on to say, "We celebrate a common heritage. We cherish common values. ... (And) above all, our alliance thrives because it advances our common interests."[254] Cameron stated in an interview during the trip that he wanted to build a strong relationship with the United States, Britain's "oldest and best ally." Cameron further stated that, "from the times I've met Barack Obama before, we do have very, very close -- allegiances and very close positions on all the key issues, whether that is Afghanistan or Middle East peace process or Iran. Our interests are aligned and we've got to make this partnership work."[252]
Cameron has tried to downplay the idealism of the special relationship and called for an end to the British fixation on the status of the relationship, stating that it's a natural and mutually beneficial relationship. He said, "...I am unapologetically pro-America. But I am not some idealistic dreamer about the special relationship. I care about the depth of our partnership, not the length of our phone calls. I hope that in the coming years we can focus on the substance, not endlessly fret about the form."[255]
In a leaked diplomatic cable titled The British ask, is our special relationship still special in Washington?, the US deputy chief of mission LeBaron wrote that the United Kingdom's obsession with the special relationship would “be humorous, if it were not so corrosive”, and that the US could take advantage of Britain's "paranoid" fears[256] about the special relationship to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance".[192] LeBaron further noted that "more than one HMG senior official asked embassy officers whether President Obama meant to send a signal in his inaugural address about US-UK relations by quoting Washington during the revolutionary war [against Britain], while the removal of the Churchill bust from the Oval office consumed much UK newsprint."[186]
In February 2011, based on a leaked cable, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Obama Administration had secretly agreed to give Russia sensitive information on the British nuclear deterrent as an inducement to sign an arms reduction treaty.[257]
In February 2011, during a White House appearance with French president Nicolas Sarkozy, ignoring British sensitivity,[258][259][260] President Obama declared,
We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people.[261]
Public opinion
It has been noted that secret defence and intelligence links 'that had minimal impact on ordinary people played a disproportionate role in the transatlantic friendship',[262] and perspectives on the special relationship differ.
Poll findings
A 1942 Gallup poll conducted after Pearl Harbor, before the arrival of US troops and Churchill's heavy promotion of the special relationship, showed wartime ally Russia was still more popular than the United States among 62% of Britons. However only 6% had ever visited the United States and only 35% knew any Americans personally.[263]
In 1969 the United States was tied with the Commonwealth as the most important overseas connection for the British public, while Europe came in a distant third. By 1984, after a decade in the Common Market, Britons chose Europe as being most important to them.[264]
British opinion polls from the Cold War revealed ambivalent feelings towards the United States. Margaret Thatcher's 1979 agreement to base US cruise missiles in Britain was approved of by only 36% of Britons, and the number with little or no trust in America's ability to deal wisely with world affairs had soared from 38% in 1977 to 74% in 1984, by which time 49% wanted US nuclear bases in Britain removed, and 50% would have sent US-controlled cruise missiles back to the United States. At the same time, 59% of Britons supported their own country’s nuclear deterrent, with 60% believing Britain should rely on both nuclear and conventional weapons, and 66% opposing unilateral nuclear disarmament. 53% of Britons opposed dismantling the Royal Navy's Polaris submarines. 70% of Britons still considered Americans to be very or fairly trustworthy, and in case of war the United States was the ally trusted overwhelmingly to come to Britain's aid, and to risk its own security for the sake of Britain. America and Britain were also the two countries most alike in basic values such as willingness to fight for their country and the importance of freedom.[265]
In 1986, 71% of Britons, questioned in a Mori poll the day after Reagan’s bombing of Libya, disagreed with Thatcher's decision to allow the use of RAF bases, while two thirds in a Gallup survey opposed the bombing itself, the reverse of American opinion.[266]
The United Kingdom's all-time low poll rating in the United States came in 1994, during the split over Bosnia, when only 56% of Americans interviewed considered Britons to be close allies.[267][268]
In a 1997 Harris poll published after Blair's election, 63% of Americans viewed Britain as a close ally, up by one percent from 1996, 'confirming that the long-running "special relationship" with America's transatlantic cousins is still alive and well'.[269] Britain came second behind its colonial offshoot Canada, on 73%, while another offshoot, Australia, came third, on 48%.[270] Popular awareness of the historical link was fading in the mother country, however. In a 1997 Gallup poll, while 60% of the British public said they regretted the end of Empire and 70% expressed pride in the imperial past, 53% wrongly supposed that America had never been a British possession.[271]
In 1998, 61% of Britons polled by ICM said they believed they had more in common with Americans than they did with the rest of Europe. 64% disagreed with the sentence, ‘Britain does what the US government tells us to do.’ A majority also backed Blair's support of Bill Clinton's strategy on Iraq, 42% saying action should be taken to topple Saddam Hussein, with 24% favouring diplomatic action, and a further 24%, military action. A majority of Britons aged 24 and over said they did not like Blair supporting Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal.[272]
A 2006 poll of the US public showed that the United Kingdom, as an 'ally in the war on terror' was viewed more positively than any other country. 76% of Americans polled viewed the British as an 'ally in the War on Terror' according to Rasmussen Reports.[273] According to Harris Interactive, 74% of Americans viewed Great Britain as a 'close ally in the war in Iraq', well ahead of next-ranked Canada at 48%.
A June 2006 poll by Populus for The Times showed that the number of Britons agreeing that 'it is important for Britain’s long-term security that we have a close and special relationship with America' had fallen to 58% (from 71% in April), and that 65% believed that 'Britain's future lies more with Europe than America.'[274] 44% agreed that 'America is a force for good in the world.' A later poll during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict found that 63% of Britons felt that the United Kingdom was tied too closely to the United States.[275] A 2008 poll by The Economist showed that Britons' views differed considerably from Americans' views when asked about the topics of religion, values, and national interest. Indeed, it has been argued that Britons are more closely aligned with other Western Europeans, especially the Germans and Dutch. The Economist remarked:
For many Britons, steeped in the lore of how English-speaking democracies rallied around Britain in the second world war, [the special relationship] is something to cherish. For Winston Churchill ... it was a bond forged in battle. On the eve of the war in Iraq, as Britain prepared to fight alongside America, Tony Blair spoke of the 'blood price' that Britain should be prepared to pay in order to sustain the relationship. In America, it is not nearly so emotionally charged. Indeed, American politicians are promiscuous with the term, trumpeting their 'special relationships' with Israel, Germany and South Korea, among others. 'Mention the special relationship to Americans and they say yes, it's a really special relationship,' notes sardonically Sir Christopher Meyer, a former British ambassador to Washington.[276]
In January 2010 a Leflein poll conducted for Atlantic Bridge found that 57% of Americans considered the special relationship with Britain to be the world's most important bilateral partnership, with 2% disagreeing. 60% of Americans regarded Britain as the country most likely to support the United States in a crisis, while Canada came second on 24%, and Australia third on 4%.[277][278]
In May 2010, another poll conducted in the UK by YouGov revealed that 66% of those surveyed held a favourable view of the USA and 62% agreed with the assertion that the USA is Britain's most important ally. However, the survey also revealed that 85% of British citizens believe that the UK has little or no influence on American policies, and that 62% think that America does not consider British interests.[279]
Friendly fire
More British servicemen were killed in the 1991 Gulf War by US fire than by Iraqi soldiers.[280] A public controversy arose after US military authorities refused to allow USAF pilots to give evidence at a 1992 British inquest into the deaths of nine British soldiers killed in a US air strike, saying they had already supplied all the relevant information.[281] The inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Families of those killed accused the United States of 'double standards' after three US military officers were reprimanded for negligence after a separate incident involving the similar death of a US soldier. Tammy Groves, solicitor for the families, said: 'We have been denied any inquiry in the US; there have been no reprimands; and the pilots have not been named. The contrast could not be greater.'[282] Anne Leech, whose son was one of the British soldiers killed, said: 'They are supposed to be a friendly country, but it shows it only goes as far as they want it to ... Unless people are made accountable for what they do in these situations it will continue to happen.'[283]
President George H. W. Bush responded: 'My heart goes out to their families. But I see no reason in going beyond what we've already done to fully account for this terrible tragedy of war.'[281] Peter Atkinson, whose son was also killed, said: 'We met George Bush. He was trying to slide out of meeting us so I ran after him, collared him and told him what I thought. He said to me "You want the facts? ... Right, you'll get them." Months later they sent us a report. It was rubbish. All the relevant details had been censored out.'[284]
Further friendly fire incidents in the 2003 Iraq War brought assurances from officers and politicians that they would not hurt the close alliance: 'A situation like this does not mean anything of harm to the coalition, but in many ways it brings us closer together,' said RAF Group Captain Jon Fynes.[285] However the US government again refused to co-operate with the coroner’s investigations. This culminated in the United States attempting to prevent the release of cockpit videos—later leaked to The Sun—showing events leading to the death of Lance-Corporal Matty Hull of the Household Cavalry, and threatening newspapers that published them with prosecution.[286] The coroner slammed US 'intransigence', and the British press accused the Pentagon of operating 'in a no-fault zone', with the Daily Telegraph commenting: 'This will reaffirm the view of many in the British military that while the US has the best kit, it does not necessarily have the best training ... Uninhibited by the risk of any sanction, is it any wonder that they go about their lethal business with such apparent insouciance?'[287] The Spectator described the British forbearance towards American evasiveness as "a bleak parable of the flaws at the heart of the U.S.-U.K. 'special relationship'."[288]
Iraq
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, senior British figures criticized the refusal of the US Government to heed British advice regarding post-war plans for Iraq, specifically the Coalition Provisional Authority's de-Ba'athification policy and the critical importance of preventing the power vacuum in which the insurgency subsequently developed. British defence secretary Geoff Hoon later stated that the United Kingdom 'lost the argument' with the Bush administration over rebuilding Iraq.[289] Speaking on the same topic, Prince Andrew said there were "occasions when people in the UK would wish that those in responsible positions in the US might listen and learn from our experiences",[290] that there was 'healthy skepticism' in the United Kingdom toward what was said in Washington DC,[291] and a feeling of 'why didn't anyone listen to what was said and the advice that was given'.[292] CNN acknowledged that the Prince's views were widely shared in the UK.[293]
Extraordinary rendition
Assurances made by the United States to the United Kingdom that 'extraordinary rendition' flights had never landed on British territory were later shown to be false when official US records proved that such flights had landed at Diego Garcia repeatedly.[294] The revelation was an embarrassment for former British foreign secretary David Miliband, who was obliged to apologise to Parliament, describing the incidents as 'a most serious matter'.[295][296]
Legal and moral doubts also arose over the US government's extraordinary rendition process,[297] which ignored extradition treaties and officially sanctioned the kidnap and extrajudicial transfer of people (some of them British citizens) from one country to another, sometimes to one of their covert CIA-run prisons, known as black sites, other times to Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[298] The United Kingdom's Intelligence and Security Committee stated that America's failure to heed British concerns had 'serious implications' for future intelligence relations.[299]
Criminal law
In 2003 the United States pressed the United Kingdom to agree to an extradition treaty which, proponents claimed, allowed for equal extradition requirements between the two countries.[300][301] Critics argued that the United Kingdom was obligated to make a strong prima facie case to US courts before extradition would be granted,[302][303] and that, by contrast, extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States was a matter of administrative decision alone, without prima facie evidence.[304] This had been implemented as an anti-terrorist measure in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Very soon, however, it was being used by the United States to extradite and prosecute a number of high-profile London businessmen (e.g. the Natwest Three and Ian Norris[305]) on fraud charges. Contrasts have been drawn with the United States' harboring of Provisional IRA terrorists in the 1970s through to the 1990s and repeated refusals to extradite them to the UK.[306]
On 30 September 2006 the US Senate unanimously ratified the 2003 treaty. Ratification had been slowed by complaints from some Irish-American groups that the treaty would create new legal jeopardy for US citizens who opposed British policy in Northern Ireland.[307] The Spectator condemned the three-year delay as 'an appalling breach in a long-treasured relationship’.[308]
The United States also refused to accede to another priority of the Blair government, the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court.[309]
Trade policy
Trade disputes and attendant job fears have sometimes strained the special relationship. The United States has been accused of pursuing an aggressive trade policy, using or ignoring WTO rules; the aspects of this causing most difficulty to the United Kingdom have been a successful challenge to the protection of small family banana farmers in the West Indies from large US corporations such as the American Financial Corporation,[310] and high tariffs on British steel products.[311] In 2002 Blair denounced Bush's imposition of tariffs on steel as 'unacceptable, unjustified and wrong', but although Britain's biggest steelmaker Corus called for protection from dumping by developing nations, the Confederation of British Industry urged the government not to start a 'tit-for-tat'.[312]
Diplomacy
In October 2007 The United Kingdom's first Muslim government minister, Shahid Malik, rebuked US authorities after having been detained and searched for explosives at a Washington airport on his way home from a meeting with the US Department of Homeland Security.[313][314] This was the second occasion on which this Member of Parliament had been detained and searched, having received the same treatment at JFK airport during a visit to the United States in November 2006. Mr Malik remarked: 'The abusive attitude I endured last November I forgot about and I forgave, but I really do believe that British ministers and parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity at USA airports that we would bestow upon our colleagues in the Senate and Congress.'[315]
The ongoing refusal of the US embassy in Grosvenor Square to pay the London congestion charge has also been a minor source of controversy.[316] Embassy officials claimed they did not have to pay the congestion charge because it was a tax, from which diplomats were exempt. London officials asserted that the congestion charge was no different from the toll charges paid by drivers to travel into US cities such as Manhattan via bridges and roads. US embassies paid similar congestion charges in Singapore and Oslo.[317]
See also
References
- ^ [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6y7ggURro0 ]
- ^ [1]
- ^ [2]
- ^ a b James, Wither (2006). "An Endangered Partnership: The Anglo-American Defence Relationship in the Early Twenty-first Century". European Security. 15 (1): 47–65. doi:10.1080/09662830600776694. ISSN 0966-2839.
{{cite journal}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ [3]
- ^ [4]
- ^ [5]
- ^ [6]
- ^ Horne, Macmillan: Volume II of the Official Biography (London: Macmillan, 1989), p. 429.
- ^ [7]
- ^ [8]
- ^ [9]
- ^ [10]
- ^ James, p. 581.
- ^ Ferguson 2004, p. 355.
- ^ Ferguson 2004, p. 356.
- ^ Risse-Kappen 1995. p. 96.
- ^ Kennett Love, Suez: The Twice-Fought War, New York: McGraw Hill, 1969, p.651
- ^ James, p. 583.
- ^ Combs, pp. 161–163.
- ^ "Suez Crisis: Key players". BBC News. 21 July 2006. Retrieved 19 October 2010.
- ^ Brown, p. 342.
- ^ Smith, p. 105.
- ^ Burke, p. 602.
- ^ Brown, p. 343.
- ^ James, p. 585.
- ^ R. F. Holland (1985), European Decolonization, 1918-1981: An Introductory Survey
- ^ J. M. Brown & W. R. Louis (eds) (1999), The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol. 4: The Twentieth Century
{{citation}}
:|last=
has generic name (help) - ^ "Suez Crisis - Aftermath". spiritus-temporis.com. Retrieved 2009-11-07.
- ^ In George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four Britain (now part of a bloc including North America) is called "Airstrip One".
- ^ [11]
- ^ 'Time Runs Out as Clinton Dithers over Nuclear Test', Independent On Sunday (20 June 1993), p. 13.
- ^ Richard Norton-Taylor, Nuclear weapons treaty may be illegal, The Guardian (27 July 2004). Retrieved 15 March 2009.
- ^ Michael Smith, Focus: Britain's secret nuclear blueprint, Sunday Times (12 March 2006). Retrieved 15 March 2009.
- ^ Andrea Shalal-Esa, 'Update 1-US, 'Britain conduct Nevada nuclear experiment', Reuters News (15 February 2002).
- ^ Ian Bruce, 'Britain working with US on new nuclear warheads that will replace Trident force', The Herald (10 April 2006), p. 5.
- ^ Kristin Roberts, 'Italy, Netherlands, Turkey seen as possible JSF partners', Reuters News (13 March 2001).
- ^ Douglas Barrie and Amy Butler, 'Dollars and Sense; Currency rate headache sees industry seek remedy with government', Aviation Week & Space Technology, vol. 167, iss. 23 (10 December 2007), p. 40.
- ^ [12]
- ^ "Why no questions about the CIA?". New Statesman. 2003.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Bob Drogin and Greg Miller, 'Purported Spy Memo May Add to US Troubles at UN', Los Angeles Times (March 4, 2003).
- ^ Tim Shipman, 'Why the CIA has to spy on Britain', The Spectator (28 February 2009), pp. 20-1.
- ^ "Country Profiles: United States of America" on UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office website
- ^ a b Irwin Seltzer, 'Britain is not America's economic poodle', The Spectator (30 September 2006), p. 36.
- ^ 'International Trade - The 51st State?', Midlands Business Insider (1 July 2007).
- ^ Seltzer, 'Not America's economic poodle', p. 36.
- ^ 'Special ties should be used for trade and the climate says US ambassador', Western Daily Press (4 April 2007), p. 36.
- ^ Michael White, Special relationship? Good and bad times, The Guardian (3 March 2009). Retrieved 15 March 2009.
- ^ Robert M. Hendershot, Family Spats: Perception, Illusion, and Sentimentality in the Anglo-American Special Relationship (2008)
- ^ Robert M. Hendershot, Family Spats: Perception, Illusion, and Sentimentality in the Anglo-American Special Relationship (2008)
- ^ [13]
- ^ [14]
- ^ [15]
- ^ Alistair Horne, Macmillan, 1894-1956: Volume I of the Official Biography (London: Macmillan, 1988), p. 160.
- ^ [16]
- ^ [17]
- ^ Dickie, Special No More, p. 105.
- ^ Myron A. Greenberg, 'Kennedy's Choice: The Skybolt Crisis Revisited', Naval War College Review, Autumn 2000.
- ^ Horne, Macmillan: Volume II, pp. 433-37.
- ^ Horne, Macmillan: Volume II of the Official Biography (London: Macmillan, 1989), p. 429.
- ^ Macmillan to Oliver Lyttelton, Lord Chandos, 7 December 1962, quoted in Macmillan, At the End of the Day, p. 339.
- ^ Greenberg, 'Kennedy's Choice'.
- ^ Nigel J. Ashton, 'Harold Macmillan and the "Golden Days" of Anglo-American Relations Revisited', Diplomatic History, Vol. 29, No. 4 (2005), pp. 696, 704.
- ^ Ashton, 'Anglo-American Relations Revisited', p. 705.
- ^ David Reynolds, 'A "Special Relationship"? America, Britain and the International Order Since the Second World War', International Affairs, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Winter, 1985-1986), p. 14.
- ^ Reynolds, 'A "Special Relationship"?', p. 1.
- ^ Gle O'Hara, Review: A Special Relationship? Harold Wilson, Lyndon B. Johnson and Anglo-American Relations "At the Summit", 1964-1968 by Jonathan Colman, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Apr., 2006), p. 481.
- ^ a b c Reynolds, 'A "Special Relationship"?', p. 14.
- ^ a b c d O'Hara, Review, p. 482.
- ^ Ashton, 'Anglo-American Relations Revisited', p. 694.
- ^ Ben Macintyre, 'Blair's real special relationship is with us, not the US - Comment - Opinion', The Times (7 September 2002), p. 22.
- ^ Robert M. Hendershot, Family Spats: Perception, Illusion, and Sentimentality in the Anglo-American Special Relationship VDM Verlag, 2008. ISBN 978-3-639-09016-1
- ^ Reynolds, pp. 14-15.
- ^ Ronald Koven, 'Heath Gets Bouquets, But Few Headlines', Washington Post (February 5, 1973), p. A12.
- ^ Editorial, New York Times (24 December 1971), p. 24, col. 1.
- ^ New York Times (24 December 1971).
- ^ Allen J. Matusow, 'Richard Nixon and the Failed War Against the Trading World', Diplomatic History, vol. 7, no. 5 (November 2003), pp. 767-8.
- ^ Henrik Bering-Jensen, ‘Hawks of a Feather’, Washington Times (8 April 1991), p. 2.
- ^ Paul Reynolds, UK in dark over 1973 nuclear alert, BBC News (2 January 2004). Retrieved 16 March 2009.
- ^ 'America "misled Britain" in Cold War; National archives: 1973', The Times (1 January 2004), p. 10.
- ^ ‘Nixon nuclear alert left Heath fuming’, The Express (1 January 2004), p. 8.
- ^ a b c d 'Thatcher Hero and the Leader of Free World Basks in Glory', The Guardian (25 November 1995), p. 8.
- ^ Robert B. Semple, Jr, 'British Government Puts on its Biggest Single Show of Year to Mark Declaration of Independence', New York Times (27 May 1976), p. 1, col. 2.
- ^ 'Neil Kinnock to meet President Bush during visit', The Guardian (16 July 1990).
- ^ 'Callaghan set to see Carter about recession', Globe and Mail (16 March 1978), p. 12.
- ^ Webley, Review, p. 717.
- ^ Nick Assinder, 'A meeting of minds', BBC News (5 June 2004). Retrieved 13 March 2009.
- ^ Margaret Thatcher, Washington, 26 February 1981, quoted by Coker, ‘Britain and the New World Order’, p. 408.
- ^ Toasts of the President and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom at a Dinner at the British Embassy, February 20, 1985. University of Texas Archive Speeches, 1985. Retrieved 15 March 2009.
- ^ Karen DeYoung, 'Cap The Knight', Washington Post (24 February 1988), p. 1.
- ^ 'Weinberger, The Friend of Britain, Dies at 88', Daily Mail (29 March 2006), p. 39.
- ^ 'Libya Attack: The Only Choice', Dallas Morning News (16 April 1986), p. 20a.
- ^ Terence Hunt, 'With Thatcher's Demise, US Loses Its Staunchest Ally', Associated Press (22 November 1990).
- ^ 'US can rely on Thatcher in the crunch', Atlanta Journal and Constitution (17 April 1986), p. A/24.
- ^ ‘Thoughts on a special relationship’, Washington Times (3 April 1995), p. 2.
- ^ Patrick J. Sloyan, 'The Clash with Libya. W. European Anger Aimed at US', Newsday (16 April 1986), p. 5.
- ^ Barnaby J. Feder, 'US Was Warned by Mrs. Thatcher', New York Times (26 October 1983).
- ^ Ivor Owen, 'The Invasion of Grenada: Reagan went against Thatcher's advice on invasion', Financial Times (26 October 1983), p. 8.
- ^ Reginald Dale, 'The Invasion of Grenada: Americans indifferent to outcry in Britain', Financial Times (27 October 1983), p. 4.
- ^ Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years, (London: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 465-6.
- ^ Stewart Fleming, 'Reagan seeks to allay 'star wars' fear', Financial Times (24 December 1984), p. 8.
- ^ John M. Goshko, 'Thatcher Tells Hill She Backs Reagan On 'Star Wars' Plan British Leader Calls Research "Essential"', Washington Post (21 February 1985), A01.
- ^ Geoffrey Smith, 'Political Commentary', The Times (London, 18 November 1986).
- ^ John M. Goshko, 'Thatcher Assured on Nuclear Force; Reagan Agrees British Deterrent Would Stay Under Arms Reduction', Washington Post (16 November 1986), a01.
- ^ Walter Pincus and David Hoffman, 'Reagan Backs Off Missile Proposal; Eliminating Ballistic Weapons, a Goal at Summit, Is Deemphasized', Washington Post (19 November 1986), a35.
- ^ Martin Fletcher and Michael Binyon, ‘Special Relationship Struggles to Bridge the Generation Gap—Anglo-American’, The Times (22 December 1993).
- ^ ‘British-American Strains’, New York Times (25 March 1995), p. 22.
- ^ Steve Pagani, ‘Major to visit Clinton to shore up "special" ties’, Reuters News (4 November 1992).
- ^ Bagehot—the special relationship—Major and Clinton, The Economist (12 December 1992).
- ^ Eugene Robinson, ‘Clinton's Remarks Cause Upper Lips to Twitch’, Washington Post (19 October 1993), p. a18.
- ^ Oliver Duff, ‘When Bubba met the Grey Man’, The Independent (21 August 2007).
- ^ ‘A Frigid White House for Major?’, Plain Dealer (16 December 1992), p. 10B.
- ^ Brian Dunning, ‘How Brits Aided Win for Clinton’, Plain Dealer (4 January 1993), p. 7B.
- ^ a b Bagehot, The Economist (12 December 1992).
- ^ Simon Hoggart and Paul Routledge, 'Clinton threatens the special relationship', The Observer (20 December 1992), p. 1.
- ^ Monique Villa, ‘The Reagan-Thatcher "special relationship" has not weathered the years’, Agence France-Presse (27 November 1995).
- ^ a b George E. Condon Jr., ‘Despite assurances, all is not well between Clinton and Major’, San Diego Union-Tribune (25 February 1993), p. A-11.
- ^ John W. Holmes, 'A New Special Relationship for Britain', International Herald Tribune (2 February 1993), p. 2.
- ^ Alec Russell, ‘Major's fury over US visa for Adams’, Daily Telegraph (23 June 2004), p. 9.
- ^ Condon, 'Despite assurances, all is not well between Clinton and Major’, p. A-11.
- ^ Martin Walker, ‘President puts Britain's deterrent in melting pot’, The Guardian (24 February 1993), p. 1.
- ^ Graham Barrett, ‘UK Eyes Nuclear Testing In Pacific’, The Age (5 July 1993), p. 8.
- ^ Alexander MacLeod, ‘Clinton's Stay of Nuclear Tests Irks Britain’, Christian Science Monitor(7 July 1993), p. 3.
- ^ 'Letters - Smokescreen Surrounds UK's Objective of Resuming Nuclear Tests', Financial Times (5 July 1993), p. 12.
- ^ 'London' (5 July 1993), Agence France-Presse.
- ^ ‘Major and Chirac Cuddle Up for Entente Nucléaire’, The Independent (London, 31 October 1995).
- ^ Martin Walker, ‘Why Bill Won’t Give Up His Respect for Major’, The Observer (1 June 1997), p. 21.
- ^ a b c d e Robinson, ‘Clinton's Remarks Cause Upper Lips to Twitch’, p. a18. Cite error: The named reference "ReferenceA" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ ‘Not so special’, Financial Times (26 February 1993), p. 19.
- ^ a b Michael White and Ian Black, ‘Whitehall Plays Down Impact of Clinton Criticism of Britain’, The Guardian (19 October 1993), p. 22.
- ^ Steve Doughty, 'Is this the end of a beautiful friendship? World Wide on why Copenhagen proved not so wonderful for Major', Daily Mail (23 June 1993), pp. 1, 12.
- ^ Robi Dutta, 'Bridging Troubled Waters - Chronology - US Foreign Policy', The Times (19 October 1993).
- ^ a b c d Walker, ‘Why Bill Won’t Give Up His Respect for Major’, p. 21.
- ^ Rusbridger, Alan (21 June 2004). "'Mandela helped me survive Monicagate, Arafat could not make the leap to peace - and for days John Major wouldn't take my calls'". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2006-09-17.
- ^ Alec Russell, 'Major's fury over US visa for Adams', Daily Telegraph (23 June 2004), p. 9.
- ^ Joseph O'Grady, 'An Irish Policy Born in the U.S.A.: Clinton's Break with the Past', Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75, No. 3 (May/June 1996), pp. 4-5.
- ^ O'Grady, 'An Irish Policy Born in the U.S.A.', p. 5.
- ^ Russell, ‘Major's fury’, Daily Telegraph, p. 9.
- ^ Walker, 'Why Bill Won’t Give Up His Respect for Major', p. 21.
- ^ Walker, 'Why Bill Won’t Give Up His Respect for Major', p. 21
- ^ Jasper Gerar, Ultimate insider prowls into the outside world, Sunday Times (1 June 2003). Retrieved 15 March 2009.
- ^ [18]
- ^ Peter Riddell, 'Blair as Prime Minister', in Anthony Seldon (ed.), The Blair Effect: The Blair Government 1997-2001 (London: Little, Brown, 2001), p. 25
- ^ Christopher Hill, 'Foreign Policy', in Seldon (ed.), Blair Effect, pp. 348-9
- ^ Hill, 'Foreign Policy', p. 339
- ^ Anne Deighton, 'European Union Policy', in Seldon (ed.), Blair Effect, p. 323.
- ^ [19]
- ^ [20]
- ^ [21]
- ^ "The rise and fall of New Labour". BBC News. 3 August 2010.
- ^ [22]
- ^ 'The cockpit of truth.(Lance Corporal's death breaks United States-United Kingdom's relations', The Spectator (10 February 2007).
- ^ Gonzalo Vina, Blair, Schwarzenegger Agree to Trade Carbon Emissions, Bloomberg (July 31, 2006). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ "Mandela condemns US stance on Iraq". BBC News. 30 January 2003. Retrieved 18 November 2006.
- ^ Assinder, Nick (3 February 2003). "Blair battles "poodle" jibes". BBC News. Retrieved 30 November 2006.
- ^ [23]
- ^ [24]
- ^ [25]
- ^ "Bush 'routinely ignoring Blair'". BBC News. 30 November 2006. Retrieved 30 November 2006.
- ^ Julian Glover and Ewen MacAskill (25 July 2006). "Stand up to US, voters tell Blair". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 22 November 2007.
Britain should take a much more robust and independent approach to the United States, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today, which finds strong public opposition to Tony Blair's close working relationship with President Bush.
- ^ "PM's speech on US Elections". Prime Minister's Office. 3 November 2004. Retrieved 29 May 2007.
- ^ Hugo Young in Washington (14 November 2002). "Hugo Young: Blair has not been a poodle, but poodleism still beckons". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 20 April 2010.
- ^ "Transcript: Bush and Blair's unguarded chat". BBC News. 18 July 2006. Retrieved 20 April 2010.
- ^ [26]
- ^ a b [27]
- ^ [28]
- ^ [29]
- ^ [30]
- ^ a b [31]
- ^ [32]
- ^ "Beckett protest at weapons flight". BBC News. 2006-07-27. Retrieved 2006-08-17.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Brown, Colin (2006-08-17). "Bush is crap, says Prescott". London: The Independent. Retrieved 2006-08-17.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Woodward, Will (2006-08-17). "Bush is crap, Prescott tells Labour MPs". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2006-08-24.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Prescott denies calling Bush crap, BBC News (17 August 2006). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ [33]
- ^ "Speech not critical of US - Brown". BBC News. 2007-07-13.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ "US and UK 'no longer inseparable'". BBC News. 2007-07-14.
- ^ Reynolds, Paul (2007-07-14). "The subtle shift in British foreign policy". BBC News.
- ^ 'A Special Relationship No More?', Today (Singapore, 14 July 2007), p. 26.
- ^ "/ Home UK / UK - Ties that bind: Bush, Brown and a different relationship". Ft.com. 2007-07-27. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
- ^ Julian Borger, UK's special relationship with US needs to be recalibrated, Obama tells ex-pats in Britain, The Guardian (27 May 2008). Retrieved 15 March 2009.
- ^ a b c d e f [34]
- ^ [35]
- ^ [36]
- ^ a b c [37]
- ^ a b [38]
- ^ Remarks by Secretary Clinton, British Foreign Secretary Miliband, America.gov (3 February 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ Remarks (3 February 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ "Obama hails special relationship". BBC News. BBC News. 2009-03-03. Retrieved 3 March 2009.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ The 'special relationship' Nick Robinson Blog, BBC News, 3 Mar 09. Retrieved 3-8-09.
- ^ "Should Michelle Cover Up?" by Maureen Dowd, The New York Times, 7 March 2009. Retrieved 8 March 2009.
- ^ a b Andy Bloxham, WikiLeaks: Britain mocked by US over 'special relationship', The Daily Telegraph, 04 December 2010.
- ^ Amol Rajan and Nick Clark, Cabinet chief: Obama team 'unreachable', The Independent (11 March 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ Ian Drury, Special relationship? Obama's people won't even answer the phone, whines Downing Street, Daily Mail (11 March 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ Alex Spillius, 'Special relationship' strained: US criticises UK's vow to talk to Hezbollah, Daily Telegraph (13 March 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ Mark Landler, Britain’s Contacts With Hezbollah Vex US, New York Times (March 12, 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ Suzanne Goldenberg, Obama camp 'prepared to talk to Hamas', The Guardian (9 January 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ Raed Rafei and Borzou Daragahi, Senior US envoys hold talks in Syria, Los Angeles Times (March 8, 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ Tom Baldwin and Catherine Philp, America angered by Britain's 'secret' talks with Hezbollah, The Times (March 14, 2009). Retrieved 21 March 2009.
- ^ Thomas Joscelyn, The Special Relationship Takes Another Hit, The Weekly Standard (June 11, 2009).
- ^ a b Tom Leonard, 'Britain angry after Bermuda takes Chinese freed from Guantánamo', The Daily Telegraph (12 June 2009), p. 19.
- ^ Kunal Dutta, 'Bermuda Guantanamo deal sparks anger in UK', The Independent (12 June 2009), pp. 20,21.
- ^ 'US consulted Britain before Uighurs went to Bermuda: official', Agence France Presse (12 June 2009).
- ^ Zhang Xin, 'Repatriate Terrorists, China Says', China Daily (12 June 2009).
- ^ 'Britain chides Bermuda over Guantanamo detainees', Agence France Presse (12 June 2009).
- ^ a b Joe Churcher, 'Questions for Miliband over Guantanamo Bay Inmates Move', Press Association National Newswire (12 June 2009).
- ^ Catherine Philp, 'British authority snubbed as freed Guantánamo four are welcomed; Bermuda upsets London with deal on Uighurs', The Times (12 June 2009), pp. 1, 35.
- ^ Tim Reid, British Government's wishes are barely on the American radar, Times Online (June 12, 2009).
- ^ [39]
- ^ [40]
- ^ [41]
- ^ [42]
- ^ Kevin Hechtkopf, Obama: Pan Am Bomber's Welcome "Highly Objectionable", CBS News (August 21, 2009).
- ^ "No update on Lockerbie bomber's health - more than three months after his compassionate release from prison with terminal cancer". The Daily Record. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
- ^ Yager, Jordy. "Sen. Schumer wants Lockerbie bomber back in Scottish prison". TheHill.com. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
- ^ "Libya: Lockerbie bomber asked back to jail - The AfricaNews articles of KingsleyKobo". AfricaNews. 20 November 2009. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
- ^ "US Senators believe BP was behind release". BBC News. 16 July 2010. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
- ^ [43]
- ^ [44]
- ^ [45]
- ^ BBC Question Time on YouTube, September 25, 2009
- ^ Giles Whittell, Michael Evans and Catherine Philp, Britain made string of protests to US over Falklands row, Times Online (March 10, 2010).
- ^ Con Coughlin, Falkland Islands: The Special Relationship is now starting to seem very one-sided, Telegraph.co.uk (5 March 2010).
- ^ Charles Krauthammer, Obama's policy of slapping allies, Washington Post (April 2, 2010).
- ^ "UK rejects US help over Falklands". BBC News. 2 March 2010.
- ^ Drury, Ian (3 March 2010). "Gordon Brown snubs Hillary Clinton's 'help' in Falkland Islands row". Daily Mail. London.
- ^ Drury, Ian (3 March 2010). "With friends like these: Hillary Clinton wades into the Falklands row... and backs the Argentinians". Daily Mail. London.
- ^ Beaumont, Paul (2010-03-11). "Falklands: Barack Obama under fire for failing his ally Britain". The First Post. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
- ^ Grice, Andrew (27 June 2010). "Cameron digs in over the Falklands". The Independent. London.
- ^ "Special relationship between UK and US is over, MPs say". BBC News. March 28, 2010. Retrieved March 28, 2010.
- ^ a b "Foreign Affairs Committee: Press Notice: Global Security: UK-US relations". Press release. UK Parliament. 28 March 2010. Retrieved 28 March 2010.
The UK and US have a close and valuable relationship not only in terms of intelligence and security but also in terms of our profound and historic cultural and trading links and commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. But the use of the phrase 'the special relationship' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided.
- ^ [46]
- ^ [47]
- ^ Lucy Cockcroft, Church of England criticises 'special relationship' between Britain and US, Telegraph.co.uk, 7 April 2010.
- ^ [48]
- ^ [49]
- ^ [50]
- ^ [51]
- ^ [52]
- ^ [53]
- ^ [54]
- ^ [55]
- ^ [56]
- ^ "AFP". Google.com. 2010-05-11. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
- ^ Foreign Secretary William Hague, Washington meeting press conference, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 14 May 2010.
- ^ a b [57]
- ^ [58]
- ^ [59]
- ^ [60]
- ^ [61]
- ^ "Obama, Cameron dampen US-British prickliness on BP Gulf oil spill". CSMonitor.com. 2010-06-12. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
- ^ a b "Transcript of Diane Sawyer's Interview with the New Prime Minister". ABC. Retrieved 21 July 2010.
- ^ Melanie Ponds "A strain across the (oily) pond" USA Today, July 22, 2010.
- ^ the CNN Wire Staff (July 20, 2010). "Obama, Cameron blast release of Lockerbie bomber". CNN. Retrieved 20 July 2010.
{{cite news}}
:|last=
has generic name (help) - ^ Chapman, James (July 20, 2010). "Cameron calls for end to fixation with US special relationship as he makes his White House debut". Daily Mail. London. Retrieved 21 July 2010.
- ^ [62]
- ^ Matthew Moore, , The Daily Telegraph, 4 February 2011.
- ^ [63]
- ^ [64]
- ^ [65]
- ^ [66]
- ^ Editorial - Bill and Tony - New Best Friends', The Guardian (30 May 1997), p. 18.
- ^ Harry Blaney III and Julia Moore, 'Britain Doubtful of American Intentions, Poll Shows', Dallas Morning News (17 February 1986), p. 15A.
- ^ Blaney and Moore, 'Britain Doubtful', p. 15A.
- ^ Blaney and Moore, ‘Britain Doubtful’, p. 15A.
- ^ Fiona Thompson, 'US Policies Breed Special Relationship Of Resentment / Increasing criticism of British Premier Thatcher's support for Reagan administration', Financial Times (11 November 1986).
- ^ Nihal Kaneira, 'Canada still tops list of US allies – poll', Gulf News (21 September 1997).
- ^ Tunku Varadarajan, 'Britain's place in US hearts secure', The Times (18 September 1997), p. 19.
- ^ Kaneira, 'poll'.
- ^ Varadarajan, 'Britain's place secure', p. 19.
- ^ ‘(Mis)remembrances of Empire’, Wall Street Journal (29 August 1997), p. 6.
- ^ Orya Sultan Halisdemir, ‘British deny they are US puppets’, Turkish Daily News (14 February 1998).
- ^ "The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election". Rasmussen Reports. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
- ^ Populus poll 2–4 June 2006
- ^ Stand up to US, voters tell Blair, The Guardian (25 July 2006).
- ^ The Economist (26 July 2008), p. 66.
- ^ Amanda Bowman, What Britain's changing of the guard will mean for the U.S., Washington Examiner (April 7, 2010).
- ^ Americans Overwhelmingly Support the Special Relationship Between the US and the UK, Atlantic Bridge, 2010.
- ^ Obama and the 'Special Relationship', Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2010.
- ^ 'Friend or Foe', The Advertiser (Adelaide, 10 September 2003), p. L07.
- ^ a b 'Bush Says No Action on British Friendly Fire Victims', Reuters News (7 June 1992).
- ^ John Mullin, 'Lawyers accuse US of "double standards" over Gulf War friendly fire deaths', The Guardian (5 June 1992), p. 5.
- ^ David Connett, 'Reprimands over "friendly fire" deaths attacked', The Independent (London, 5 June 1992), p. 4.
- ^ Peter Victor, 'US Payments to Families Deepen Anguish over Gulf War Dead', Independent On Sunday (London, 28 August 1994), p. 5.
- ^ Warren Hoge, British fear a repetition of 1991 war's 'friendly fire' deaths, International Herald Tribune (24 March 2003), p. 3.
- ^ "Search for truth on 'friendly fire' death". BBC News. 2007-03-16. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
- ^ 'We deserve better from US in "friendly fire" case', Daily Telegraph (7 February 2007), p. 17.
- ^ 'The cockpit of truth. (Lance Corporal's death breaks United States-United Kingdom's relations', The Spectator (10 February 2007).
- ^ Weaver, Matthew (5 February 2008). "Prince Andrew rebukes US over Iraq war". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ "Prince Andrew rebukes US on Iraq". BBC News. 5 February 2008. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ Helm, Toby (5 February 2008). "Prince Andrew rebukes America over Iraq". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ From Prince Andrew, critical words for the United States on Iraq - International Herald Tribune
- ^ "Prince: U.S. ignored UK over Iraq - CNN.com". CNN. 5 February 2008. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ Robbins, James (21 February 2008). "Miliband's apology over 'rendition'". BBC News. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ O'Donoghue, Gary (21 February 2008). "Political fall-out from rendition". BBC News. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ "In full: Miliband rendition statement". BBC News. 21 February 2008. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ "Profile: UK residents in Guantanamo". BBC News. 20 December 2007. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ "Rendition: the cover-up". New Statesman. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
- ^ "US 'ignored' UK rendition protest". BBC News. 25 July 2007. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ Ambassador Tuttle on the Extradition Treaty (12 July 2006) Embassy of the United States. Retrieved 22 March 2009.
- ^ Meg Hillier, What is the US-UK Extradition Act? (24 November 2006). Retrieved 22 March 2009.
- ^ "MPs angry at 'unfair' extradition". BBC News. 12 July 2006. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ Silverman, Jon (22 February 2006). "Extradition 'imbalance' faces Lords' test". BBC News. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ John Hardy, Letter: Bilateral extradition treaty is not equal The Times (22 January 2009).
- ^ The Daily Telegraph. London http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/09/norris09.xml. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
{{cite news}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ Blair, William G. (14 December 1984). "U.S. Judge Rejects Bid For Extradition Of I.R.A. Murderer". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ Torres, Carlos (2006-09-30). "''Senate Unanimously Ratifies US/UK Extradition Treaty'". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
- ^ 'Suspend the treaty now', The Spectator (8 July 2006).
- ^ The Court That Tries American's Patience, The Daily Telegraph report
- ^ Peter Clegg, From Insiders to Outsiders: Caribbean Banana Interests in the New International Trading Framework
- ^ EU report on steel tariffs.
- ^ Peter Marsh and Robert Shrimsley, 'Blair condemns Bush's tariffs on steel imports', The Financial Times (7 March 2002), p. 3.
- ^ BBC Radio 4 news report morning bulletins 29 October 2007
- ^ "Minister detained at US airport". BBC News. 29 October 2007. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ Britain's first Muslim minister detained at US airport, The Daily Mail, 29 October 2007.
- ^ "US diplomats in London roads row". BBC News. 20 October 2005. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
- ^ "Greater London Authority - Press Release". London.gov.uk. 2010-11-06. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
Bibliography
- Luca Bellocchio, L'eterna alleanza? La special relationship angloamericana tra continuità e mutamento, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2006 <http://www.francoangeli.it/Ricerca/Scheda_Libro.asp?CodiceLibro=1460.69> .
- Luca Bellocchio, Anglosfera. Forma e forza del nuovo Pan-Anglismo, Il Nuovo Melangolo, Genova, 2006.
External links
- June 2002, Policy Review, The State of the Special Relationship
- November 2006, The Times, State Department Official disparages the relationship
- May 2007, Professor Stephen Haseler (Global Policy Institute, London Metropolitan University) has written a book examining the history of the special relationship from a British perspective entitled Sidekick: Bulldog to Lapdog, British Global Strategy from Churchill to Blair
- February 2009, The Guardian, Presidents and prime ministers: a look back at previous first meetings of US and UK leaders