Special Relationship (US-UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

The phrase special relationship has been used to describe the largely positive political, diplomatic, cultural^{[citation needed]} and historical relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. The phrase in this context originated in a 1946 speech by Winston Churchill.

The United States maintains close relationships with many countries, however the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapon technology sharing and intelligence sharing between the U.S. and UK has been described as "unparalleled"^[1].

Contents 1 History and overview 2 Military cooperation 2.1 Shared military bases 2.2 Nuclear weapons development 2.3 Military procurement 3 Other areas of cooperation 3.1 Intelligence sharing 3.2 Economic policy 4 Personal relationships 4.1 Bush and Blair 5 Public opinion 5.1 Iraq 5.2 Extraordinary rendition 5.3 Criminal law 5.4 Trade policy 5.5 Diplomacy 5.6 Anti-terrorism activities 6 Current status 7 See also 8 External links 9 References

[edit] History and overview

The origin of the term is Winston Churchill's "Sinews of Peace Address" in Fulton, Missouri, better known for addressing post-war communism and the rise of the Iron Curtain. Churchill was himself half-American and felt keenly the links between the English-speaking peoples. He first used the term in 1945 to describe not the UK - US relationship alone but the UK relationship with both Canada and the United States^[2]. A year later he again used the phrase, this time to note the special relationship between the United States on the one hand, and the English-speaking countries of the British Commonwealth and Empire under the leadership of the United Kingdom on the other.

“

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.

”

This was a new approach to the relations between the two countries. During World War I, for example, President Woodrow Wilson and Prime Minister David Lloyd George 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 a sceptical Wilson to enter the war.^{[citation needed]}

The British did not follow US policy in Vietnam (at least not officially - nor commit troops), although Australia and New Zealand were English-speaking allies of the United States within the British Commonwealth that did commit troops and participate in the Vietnam War.

President Bush stated that Britain was America's "closest friend in the world" in November 2003 in the Banqueting House in London.^{[citation needed]} However, President Bush's favours were rather promiscuous: he also said "We have no greater friend than Mexico" (September 2001)^{[citation needed]}, and "We have no better friend than Canada" (February 2002)^{[citation needed]}. The 'special relationship' was most recently demonstrated during the war in Iraq.

During the worst periods of the cold war the United Kingdom was jokingly referred to as the "biggest aircraft carrier in the world."^[3]

[edit] Military cooperation

The unparalleled 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.^[1]

[edit] Shared military bases

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.

Following the end of the Cold War, which was the main rationale for their presence, the number of US facilities in the UK 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 a military facility on Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory.

[edit] Nuclear weapons development

The Quebec Agreement of 1943 paved the way for the two countries to develop atomic weapons side by side, Britain handing over vital documents from its own Tube Alloys project and sending a delegation to assist in the work of the Manhattan Project. America kept the results of the work to itself due to the postwar McMahon Act, but after Britain 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.

Britain purchased first Polaris and then the Trident system which remains in use today. This co-operation has allowed Britain to establish a more efficient, cost effective nuclear deterrent than France's Force de frappe.^{[citation needed]} British attempts to provide reciprocal technology to the U.S., such as Chevaline, have been largely unsuccessful.^{[citation needed]} The 1958 agreement gave the UK access to the facilities at the Nevada Test Site and it would conduct a total of 25 underground tests there before the cessation of testing in 1991. The agreement under which this partnership operates was recently updated^[4]; it is argued^[who?] that US assistance for the UK nuclear deterrent is in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[edit] Military procurement

The UK is the only "level one" international partner in the largest U.S. aircraft procurement project in history, the F-35 Lightning II program.^{[citation needed]} The UK 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.

Other joint projects include the RAF Harrier GR9 or United States Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier II and the US Navy T-45 Goshawk. Both nations also operate several common designs, including the Javelin anti-tank missile, M270 rocket artillery, the Apache gunship, C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft.

[edit] Other areas of cooperation

[edit] Intelligence sharing

The special relationship has maintained ties in collecting and sharing intelligence since World War II.^{[citation needed]} This aspect of the relationship originally grew from the common goal of monitoring and countering the threat of communism.

One present-day example of such cooperation is the UKUSA Community, comprising the USA's National Security Agency, the UK's Government Communications Headquarters, Australia's Defence Signals Directorate and Canada's Communications Security Establishment collaborating on ECHELON, a global intelligence gathering system. Moreover, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada are the only countries which the CIA has publicly stated^{[citation needed]} that it does not spy upon. This is generally interpreted^[who?] as meaning that the CIA does not maintain intelligence agents in these aforementioned countries.

[edit] Economic policy

The United States is the largest source of Foreign Direct Investment to the UK economy, likewise the UK is the largest single investor in the US economy.^[5]British trade and capital have been important components of the American economy since its colonial inception.

[edit] Personal relationships

The relationship often depends on the personal relations between British Prime Ministers and U.S. Presidents. The first example was the close relationship between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt who were in fact distantly related.^{[citation needed]}

Prior to their collaboration during World War II Anglo-American relations had been somewhat frosty. President Woodrow Wilson and Prime Minister David Lloyd George 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 a previously skeptical Wilson to enter the war.^{[citation needed]} Churchill, himself half-American, 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^{[citation needed]}. 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 British 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.^{[citation needed]} The diplomatic policy was thus two pronged, encompassing strong personal support and equally forthright military and political aid. 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.^{[citation needed]}

Peaks in the special relationship include the bonds between Harold Macmillan (who like Churchill had an American mother) and John F. Kennedy, and between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.^{[citation needed]} Nadirs have included the American government's opposition to British operations in Suez under Anthony Eden and Wilson's refusal to enter the war in Vietnam.

While the relationship between the two countries may have been strained by Reagan's neutrality in the initial phases of the Falklands War, this was more than countered by the US Defense Secretary, Casper Weinberger, who approved shipments of the latest weapons to the massing British task force. Bill Clinton was poorly disposed towards John Major after it was alleged that the Conservative government had allowed his Republican opponents access to British documents detailing his time at Oxford University.^{[citation needed]} Friction in their relationship was also demonstrated when in March 1995 Major refused to answer the phone calls of Clinton over his decision to invite Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams to the White House for Saint Patrick's Day.^[6]

[edit] Bush and Blair

The relationship between Tony Blair and George W. Bush served to highlight the nature of the special relationship by increasing the importance of Britain in relation to the US. Following the September 11 Attacks in New York and Washington DC, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to Washington. In a speech to the United States Congress, nine days after the attack, President Bush declared "America has no truer friend than Great Britain."^[7] Following that speech Blair embarked on two months of diplomacy gathering international support for military action. The BBC estimates^{[citation needed]} that, in total, the prime minister held 54 meetings with world leaders and travelled more than 40,000 miles (60,000 km).

The involvement in the war in Iraq of Tony Blair damaged his standing at home (both in the country at large, and especially within his own party)^{[citation needed]} and in the rest of Europe, but helped to buttress the relationship at least to the end of his term in office in June 2007, after the re-election of George W. Bush. When Bush first took office in January 2001, it was predicted by some^[who?] that Third Way/Clintonesque Blair and the conservative Bush would have little common ground but in fact their shared beliefs and responses to the international situation following 9/11 formed a commonality of purpose. Blair, like Bush, was convinced of the importance of moving against the new threat both perceived to international order.^{[citation needed]}

At the time of the 2004 U.S. presidential election, Blair did not demonstrate any preference of candidate in the election. Although the majority of his party was backing Kerry^{[citation needed]}, the Prime Minister was unable to voice such support for fear of damaging relations with Bush if he were to be re-elected. On the other hand, supporting Bush would have damaged links between Labour and the Democrats as well as infuriating a large proportion of backbench Labour Members of Parliament, many of whom are highly critical of Blair's relationship with Bush.

The 2006 Lebanon War has caused some tension between the United States and UK. The apparent support of both Tony Blair and the United States administration for Israel caused disquiet among the general public and Tony Blair's cabinet. On 27 July, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett openly criticised the US for "ignoring procedure" when using Prestwick Airport as a stop off point for delivering laser-guided bombs to Israel.^[8] On 17 August, The Independent reported that Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott had said that George Bush was "crap" with regard to the Middle East Roadmap, which Prescott felt had been a condition of his support for the war in Iraq.^[9][10]

[edit] Public opinion

A June 2006 poll by Populus for The Times^[11] 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 the US" had fallen to 58% (from 71% in April), and that 65% believed that "Britain’s future lies more with Europe than America." 44% agreed that "America is a force for good in the world." A later poll reported in The Guardian^[12] during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict said that 63% of Britons felt that Britain is tied too closely to the US. A 2008 poll by The Economist has shown that Britons' views differ considerably from Americans' views when asked about the topics of religion, values, and national interest. ^[13]

[edit] Iraq

Refusal of the US Government to heed British advice regarding post-war plans for Iraq, specifically the critical importance of preventing the power vacuum in which the current insurgency plaguing the country was allowed to develop. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Britain criticised America's de-Ba'athification policy i.e. the purging of Saddam Hussein's party from government. Geoff Hoon, then the British defence secretary, has stated that Britain "lost the argument" with the Bush administration over rebuilding Iraq.^[14] Speaking on the same topic, Prince Andrew said there are "occasions when people in the U.K. would wish that those in responsible positions in the U.S. might listen and learn from our experiences",^[15] that there is "healthy skepticism" in Britain toward what is said in Washington DC,^[16] and a feeling of "why didn't anyone listen to what was said [in the UK] and the advice that was given."^[17] CNN have acknowledged that the Prince's views are widely shared in the UK.^[18]

After the Iraq War, there were a series of coroners' inquests into so-called friendly fire incidents relating to UK armed servicemen who had been killed by US forces. The US Government routinely hindered the coroner's investigation by refusing to cooperate. In January 2007 this culminated in the US preventing the release of cockpit videos showing events leading to the death of Lance-Corporal Matty Hull of the Household Cavalry, and threatening newspapers who published them with prosecution. This particular incident caused a diplomatic row.

[edit] Extraordinary rendition

False assurances made by the American government to the British government that "extraordinary rendition" flights have never landed on British territory (i.e. Diego Garcia), when in fact official US records prove that such flights have landed there repeatedly.^[19] These revelations have embarrassed Foreign Secretary David Miliband,^[20] who made no secret of the political damage it has done in the UK. Miliband was forced to apologise^[21] to Members of Parliament, describing the incidents as "a most serious matter".

Doubts regarding the morality and legality of the American government's extraordinary rendition process,^[22] which ignores extradition treaties and officially sanctions 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.^[23] The UK's Intelligence and Security Committee has stated that America's refusal to listen to British concerns regarding this issue had "serious implications" for future intelligence relations.^[24]

[edit] Criminal law

The US Government refused to accede to the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court, another UK priority.^[25] Foreign observers recalled the 1970s failure to bring the perpetrators of the My Lai massacre to justice.^[26]

The US pressured the UK Government to agree to an unequal extradition treaty,^[27] whereby the UK needed to make a strong prima facie case to US courts before extradition was possible.^[28][29]

In marked contrast, extradition from the UK to the US was a matter of administrative decision alone i.e. no prima facie evidence of guilt was required. This was initially seen as an anti-terrorist measure in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Very soon, however, it was being used by the US to extradite and prosecute a number of high-profile City of London businessmen (e.g. the Natwest Three and Ian Norris^[30]) on fraud charges. Contrasts have been drawn with the US's harbouring of Provisional IRA terrorists in the 1970s through to the 1990s.^[31] There has also been irritation that Americans who have killed British citizens in friendly fire incidents (where a subsequent inquest verdict of unlawful killing was returned) cannot be extradited to the UK.^[32] On 30 September 2006 the US Senate unanimously ratified the treaty allowing for equal extradition requirements between the two countries. Ratification had been slowed by complaints from some Irish-American groups that the treaty would create new legal jeopardy for American citizens who opposed British policy in Northern Ireland.^[33]

There have been a number of cases where cultural differences seem to have led to verdicts by US courts which have been perceived as markedly unjust in UK terms. One example was of an Aberdonian who after a "good night out" in a US city became lost and knocked on a door to ask the way; the householder shot him dead through the door and was later acquitted of any crime.^{[citation needed]} Another was of Chantal McCorkle, a Briton imprisoned for over 24 years in 1998^[34] following minor involvement in a trading fraud.

[edit] Trade policy

The US has been perceived to pursue an aggressive trade policy, using or ignoring WTO rules; the aspects of this causing most difficulty to the UK have been high tariffs on European (including UK) steel products^[35] and 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.^[36]

[edit] Diplomacy

Britain's first Muslim Government Minister, Shahid Malik MP, protested on 28 October 2007 at having been detained and searched for explosives at a Washington airport on his way home (ironically) from a meeting with the US Department of Homeland Security.^[37][38] 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 USA in November 2006. Mr Malik commented: "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."^[39]

The ongoing refusal of the US Embassy in London to pay the London congestion charge has irritated Londoners.^[40] American Embassy officials claim that they do not have to pay the congestion charge because it is a tax, from which diplomats are exempt. British officials have asserted that the congestion charge is no different from the toll charges paid by drivers to travel into American cities such as Manhattan via bridges and roads. American embassies pay similar congestion charges in Singapore and Oslo.^[41]

[edit] Anti-terrorism activities

Polls of the US public show that Britain, as an "ally in the war on terror" is viewed more positively than any other country. 76% of Americans polled viewed Great Britain as an "ally in the War on Terror" according to Rasmussen Reports.^[42] According to Harris Interactive 74% of Americans view Great Britain as a "close ally in the war in Iraq", well ahead of next-ranked Canada at 48%.

[edit] Current status

Although British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stated his support for the United States,^[43] he has appointed ministers to the Foreign Office who have been critical of aspects of the relationship or of recent US policy.^[44][45] Present British policy is that the relationship with the United States represents Britain's "most important bilateral relationship".^[46]

[edit] See also

• Anglo-American relations
• Foreign relations of the United Kingdom
• Foreign relations of the United States
• The Great Rapprochement

[edit] External links

• June 2002, Policy Review, The State of the Special Relationship
• 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

[edit] References

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Anglo-American relations. (Discuss)