Economie et socit Anglais

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
Anglo-American relations mainly from WWI to the present time.
What does that mean? It was raised by the national for their self-interest. Theres more than a
relation of crude national interest. The culture of classiness is also good points: common
language, common culture trades, and ties during WWII, the 2 countries supporting each
other in an unusual way.
Have there been such a thing as a special relationship between the US and GB, or is it just
a segment of British imagination? If it actually exists, to what extent it has been
significant?
We have a hypothesis that theres a special relationship. Our task is to approve/disapprove it.
The expression Special relationship:
- It was coined by the British, usually attributed to Winston Churchill
- Important point: more often used by the British than by the Americans because they
needed it more than them.
- Common language, common cultural traits, emotional ties dating back to WWII
leading to some diplomatic friendship
So goes the special relationship hypothesis.
1. Theories of international relations and special relationship hypothesis
The 3 main theories of international relations are: realism and new-realism, pluralism,
structuralism.
a) Realism and new-realism
Realism: The states are the most important actors, they are much more important than
anything else. So, the states pursue power and nothing else.
Their goal is to dominate rivals, to increase their power and to sit to preserve their security.
In the realism scheme of things international relations are highly confrontational and throat
with danger. Realism is dominated by real politic, power politics and pragmatism. The main
goal to maintain balance of power this is seen as the best way to avoid conflict and achieve
stability. Concerning realism theory, there is no cultural or emotional preferences, promotion
our crude interest rules supreme. We can say that alliances rest upon interest only.
New-realism: Its same assumption but more emphasis on non-state actors (such as
multinational corporations).
What would a proponent of realism in international relations have to say about the special
relationship?
If there is such a thing as a special relationship between the USA and Great Britain, it can be
rooted in national interest. From the WWII it has been in the best interest of the USA and
Great Britain (especially Great Britain) to establish very close diplomatic ties with each other.
Concerning realism and new-realism, the cultural closeness, the common languages, personal
interaction or the shared memories of war have nothing to do with. The special relationship is
purely a matter of national interest for countries.
b) Pluralism
Concerning pluralism, the emphasis is upon complex interdependence. States are not purely
independent and self-interested entities. States cant entirely separate their own interest from
those with whom they interact. And beside states, other actors (out of states) can be regarded
as major actors (multinational corporations, religious movements, national movements, cyber
society movements). This seems to be especially relevant in the American context because
pressure groups have access to many entries of power (example with, isolationism, pro-Israel
lobby, and pro-Arab lobby). Complex picture in which foreign policy can deviate from a
purely rational approach dominated by self-interest only.
What would a proponent of pluralism in international relations have to say about the special
relation?
As far as we are concerned its interesting because one make posit that pure national interest
among the whole story on the count of multiple influences upon foreign policy. But its a
complex that real politic rational can be exclude or modified. It makes a case for a special
relationship between the USA and Great Britain resting upon more than just national interest
only.

c) Structuralism
Its a structures matter much more than actors. Examples of structures: relative wealth,
population trends, trade patterns or sociological data. The emphasis is upon long term trends
affecting a county and its inhabitants. The major trends in foreign affairs said to be beyond the
control of individuals and organizations.
The consequences can be defined in 2 points:
- Skeptical of the influence of organizations outside structural constrains
- Skeptical of the influence of individuals outside structural constrains.
There is no much leeway for actors to act freely. Proponents of structuralism oppose it a
diplomatic determinism. The major trends in foreign affairs are said to be beyond the
controls of individuals and organizations. In other words, events and historical developments
occur because of long-term economic, cultural, demographic and geographic trends.
What would a proponent of structuralism in international relations have to say about the
special relationship?
There is no denying that its surely undermined the case for special relationship since it
downplays the ability of individual actors to actually shake the course of events. It means that
emotions, feelings of closeness and personal interaction can only purport a negative role. If
there is such a thing that the special relationship between the USA and Great Britain it would
be the result of structures, of international relations and long-term trends in the history of both
countries . The example is the inevitable decline of the British Empire, of British Economy
slot, and at the same time, the rise of the USA as the most powerful country in the world. So
the special relationship is no more than an alliance derived from historical circumstances. If
series of international relations have anything to go by, they dont seem to go a strong case for
a special relationship in full sense trend. Several historians have argued that there might well
be some truth to the special relationship hypothesis.
Our task will to put their claim to the test of historical analysis. To sum up 3 main questions
need to be asked:
- Why have Great Britain and the USA frequently stuck together since the WWII? (Why
not France and the USA for example).
- To what extent was this alliance useful and necessary to both countries?
- Have their common language and their shared cultural traits had an impact on the
Anglo-American relations? Have they been significant?
Do personal relationships between statesmen of both countries and between the high-ranking
officials of both counties matter at all? In other words, whether they are involved in military,
diplomatic or intelligence fields? And if so, to what extent?
2. A brief chronological overview
a) Anglo-American relations from the American independence and the WWII.
In 1776, parting of waste to the war, between 1776 and 1781, there were frequent friction
after. Example of the war of 1812, the economic competition and especially for the second
half of the 19th century. Of course, all this cant be denied. It would be outlandish to state that
there was a special relationship between the USA and Great Britain before the WWII. The
cultural links that have always existed between the two countries concerning language, the
Common Law (Not in the continental Europe and Scotland Roman law), lingering influence
of British political, constitutional, philosophical thoughts in the USA. The USA and Great
Britain are closer to each other culturally than they are to France or Germany.
b) The WWII is the birth of the special relationship
Great Britain in desperate need to survive, establishes genuine links about politics, diplomacy,
intelligence, military ) so the post war trends were already apparent at that time. At the
same time, the USA was clearly emerging as the strongest part.
c) After the WWII: The Anglo-American relations from 1945 to 1956
The Anglo-American relations from 1945 to 1956: its the beginning of the Cold War and
Great Britain struggle to remain a global power.
Why did the special relationship outlay the WWII?
Despite of its difficulties, Great Britain willing to remain a global power. And in the year that
followed 1945, it was still a world power. But not strong enough to stay on their feet alone so
the special relationship was a means to maintain their status. Using the American connection
to do that, and at the same time the USA needed support to police the world and only Great
Britain could still do it after the 1945.

d) The Anglo-American relations from 1956 to 1979

The special relationship and the Britain decline with the Suez crisis in 1956 that made the
special relationship less relevant to the USA and Great Britain became a less crucial ally.
e) The Anglo-American relationship in the 1980s
Spectacular revival of a very close relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald
Reagan. Interestingly, personal intercourse seems to have performed a role. One of the
highlights in the history of the Anglo-American relations.
f) The Anglo-American relations from 1991 to 2010
Post-War and Globalization: To many people Cold War was the raison dtre of special
relationship and to globalized economy and post-Cold War period create that the special
relationships became obviously was less relevant. And yet, spectacularly revive with the war
on terror after 2001 (was a revived moment), with the fact that Great Britain followed the
USA in Iraq (not France, not Germany)
g) Impact on personalities and public opinion in Anglo-American relations
The Anglo-American relations: relatives issues like Cold War, the Middle East conflict, the
European Union, the nuclear diplomacy and globalization. All those issues need to be treated
to understand Anglo-American special relationships.
The key questions :
- Has there been such a thing as a special relationship between the USA and GB.
- Or is it just a figment of British imagination?
- If it actually exists: to what extent has it been significant?
Related issues: Cold War, Decolonization, Middle East conflict, European Union, Nuclear
diplomacy, Globalization.
CHAPTER 2: ANGLO AMERICAN RELATIONS FROM AMERICAN
INDEPENDENCE TO 1939
Its important to understand that there is a possibility of a close alliance emerging one day
between countries building on share values and cultural common ground.
I.
Anglo-American common ground
A common ground has always existed between the counties even to this day but we have to be
careful about the degree of common ground between the USA and Great Britain. British and
American cultures are not identical but there are some fundamental differences between the
two and a the same time we would argue that in some aspects American and British people
share some values and intellectual habits. Great Britain and the USA are very different but at
the same time much closer to each other than if we compare to European countries, and
especially the continental European countries, for example France, Spain and Italy.
There is an Anglo-American common ground but in what way?
a) History and culture
The history of the United States began with a break from Great Britain with the American
War of Independence: 1776 to 1781. This 5 yearlong military clash which ended in defeat
and humiliation for Great Britain and independence for American colonists. The 2
countries where at odds with each other (very different). On further examination it becomes
apparent that the American Revolution came to pass because the American colonists were
being too British. To explain that, we have to compare the American Revolution to the French
revolution.
The French Revolution can be singular as a sharp and radical break. The French Revolution
put an end to Ancien Rgime. French revolutionaries and most notably the so-called sans
culottes were rejecting the states scale and were attempting to build something completely
new. It means that the French revolution was a radical innovation.
The American Revolution: The American colonist rebelled because they couldnt no enjoy
their long cherished British liberties any longer. They prided themselves on being free British
subjects in their own rights. They were proud of being part of British Empire but they were
contemptuous (mprisant) about Roman Catholic Slaves (people who didnt enjoyed British
freedom).
The problem was that from the mid-1760s, the British Crown started to treat them not as free
British subjects but as mere colonists and this is part of a backlash in America. The American
colonists complain that the British had stopped being British so what they were asking for was

continuity (so it was the opposite France). Some of their slogans were British, for example
No taxation without representation. Another example is the division of power, the rejection
of absolutism (Founding Fathers with the ideas of Common Place in Great Britain). So the
justification of the American declaration of Independence was partly be founded in British
political philosophy with John Locke, and John Locke natural philosophy is:
When natural rights of the governed are infringed by the government, the governed have the
right and the duty to rebel against the government.
In addition, it can hardly be deny that the American colonists thought of themselves as heirs to
English Parliamentary tradition (we can speak about that with Magna Charta and the Bill of
Rights of 1869). Some 10 years before the American Declaration of Independence, a huge
majority of American colonist would never have dreamt of breaking with Great Britain most
of them were British descendent and proud of it. Interestingly, concerning this Declaration of
Independence, this declaration was a list of grievances against British Crown but at one point
mention is made on it of British Brethren. The American independence amounted to a break
but not a rejection of British values and culture.
Consequences: The Founding Fathers relied upon British ideas, especially when they drafted
the American Constitution (adopted in 1789). The British model is an unwritten constitution,
but an American Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, the notion of limited
government made central and the emphasis upon division of power was upheld.
Conclusion: Of course British and American form of government are far from identical, but
to be sure, in the 19 century, American often took exception to would-be British Monarchical
tendencies but only to heard back to vast sections of British philosophical tradition in the
same breath. So an intellectual connection survived albeit (bien que, encore que) in an
ambivalent fashion.
b) Legal common ground : Common Law
A legacy of the British presence in America: All American states have opted to a common law
legal system (except for Louisiana which opted for Roman law system). The common law is
widespread throughout the English speak world: Great Britain (except Scotland), Canada,
Australia, New-Zealand and the USA.
What is the difference between the Common Law and Civil Law?
The Common Law is English in origin and it lays the stress on jurisprudence and Courts
decisions. It means that if there is no precedent, judges make the law: when they return a
verdict they set a precedent. Common law is a buy product of Great Britains dedication to
empiricism and pragmatism.
The Civil Law is inspired by the Roman law. The Civil Law prevails in most countries of
continental Europe (France, Germany ) and it emphasis on codes and statutes made by
legislators so the notion of precedent is not so important.
So on one hand, Common law starts from circumstances and particular cases and on the other
hand the Civil Law starts from principles and ideas spelled out in codes (ex. Napoleon code)
c) Language
The common ground between GB and the USA is the language but there are fundamental
differences, the 2 countries share some values and habits. Winston Churchill (on the book
History of the English Speaking Peoples) wrote
The break between the two countries made by the American Revolution was neither
complete nor final.
The intentional remark from Churchill can be the main proponent of the special relationship
hypothesis and there is no gain saying that the special relationship had not been borne out by a
fact before the IIWW. In other words, all what we have said is important to permitted to get
the context but its not enough to prove or disapprove your opinion, theses about the special
relationship.
II.
Tensions and frictions before 1939
There was no special relationship before WWII; there is evidence to support this statement:
After the American Independence many American citizens kept castigating (criticizing)
British monarchical tendencies as opposed to the American as the land of real freedom.
This is the War of 1812: Great Britain restricted American trade with France so the Royal
Navy forced some American sellers to join the Royal Navy. That was a way for Great Britain

to limit the American commercial competition and consequently the young republic suffered
economically and militarily.
The American Civil War 1861 1865: That was a conflict internal to the US over the issue of
slavery. The Southern states tried to secede from the Peculiar Institution. This four-year
conflict was bloodshed. From the beginning, Great Britain chose to remain neutral. However,
British attitudes arose some suspicion in the North for several reasons.
- The strong economic ties with the Great Britain and the Southern States
- The south actively sought to obtain British and French support.
- During the conflict, Great Britain sent troupes to Canada (the question which arose
was: Will Great Britain attack the North?)
- Great Britain was accused of taking advantage on the situation, especially
concerning economic situation.
Economic and commercial rivalry: The British protectionism rankled in the US. The USA
pushed for free trade in order to have access to markets protected by GB and other European
powers. The economic competition between the two countries was unequal, but things
changed in the late 19th century with the rise of the American economic giant. So the
economic competition increased between the 2 countries.
The great depression (1929): The economy collapse around the world except USSR. This
collapse led many countries to resort to protectionism so it created tensions between GB and
the USA. At this time, an act was created concerning this situation: the Smoot-Hawley Act.
Its a dramatic increase in American tariffs on great number of goods. The goal was to protect
American industry and more precisely, from foreign competition after the economic
meltdown.
Ottawa Imperial Conference (1932): This conference was in order to deal with the economic
consequences of the great depression and it was to put forward the notion of Imperial
preferences. It didnt go well in the USA because the American public opinion and the
American press were highly critical of British imperialism.
Conclusion: Many bonds have competition and mutual suspicions and that permit to say that
there were no special relationships before 1939. However, we should notice that the cultural
common ground is thought evident and sometimes, the cooperation between the two countries
between 1776 and 1939 with the example of commerce, the competition but also trading
partners. There were a lot of exchanges between the two countries. But during the WWI in
1939, in spite of Roosevelts efforts, British closest relationship was not with the USA but
with France. However, the cultural common ground and the strategic necessity made it
possible for a close alliance to develop between the two countries.
CHAPTER 3: THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP DURING THE WWII
The Anglo-American close collaboration most sustainably from 1941 to 1945: was it a matter
for national security for both countries?
I.
How and why it all began?
a) FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) and US isolationism
Even when the WWII broke out (in 1939), the special relationship was no problem
conclusion. Franklin Roosevelt was willing to collaborate with the French and the British
against the Nazi Germany. But the fact remain that the American isolationism was a force to
reconvert and Roosevelt had to take into account when applying the American Foreign policy
priorities. Roosevelt was an internationalist and foreign policy and this is of much interest
since in the USA, in the system of government, the president is the nations chief diplomat
and the commander in chief of the arm forces. In addition there are two other instrumental
players which are instrumental in shaping American foreign policy:
- The Senate (the job of the senate is to declare war and ratify treaties)
- The Public Opinion
It happens that both Congress and Public Opinion remain overwhelmingly isolationist and this
until the Japanese attack in 1941 on Pearl Harbor. From 1945, several neutrality acts were
passed by the Congress. For example
- In 1945 it was illegal to engage in trade with countries at war.
- In 1937, trade was allowed with beleaguered countries so long as no weapons were
involved.

Those pieces of legislation testified the strong isolationism tendencies in the American
society. Many American citizens wanted to keep a law from what some historian relator said
the European civil war. In other words: not intention to be drag in European conflict.
That was the situation FDR had to grapple with and he reckoned that it wasnt the interest of
the USA to take an active part in the world affairs and that isolationism would eventually
prove self-defeating and can be dangerous for the county. But at the same time, he had to
contend with an isolationist congress and people (they wanted to stay isolationist). So a
compromise was needed between Presidents opinion and Congress opinion.
In 1939 when the war broke out he contended himself with giving moral support to Great
Britain and no loan was granted. In 1939 Great Britain was closer to France than to the USA
and actually until 1940, the Prime Minister in GB, who was Neville Chamberlain, didnt
expect much from the USA. Gradually, Roosevelt managed to move the USA closer and
closer to Great Britain.
In September 1939 there was the cash and carry agreement signed between Great Britain
and the USA. The USA sold military material to Great Britain but on 2 conditions: GB had to
pay immediately and Great Britain had to transport it himself.
With this American compromise position it permits Great Britain to be supported but at the
same time, for the American opinion, it made sure to stop short of direct involvement in the
conflict. Meanwhile American isolationism didnt subsided; two events eventually prompted
the USA to get involved to the WWII (b. & c.).
b) June 1940: France surrenders
In June 1940, Nazi Germany invaded France and sweetly crushed Franco-British resistance.
So Great Britain and her vast empire were left alone to face Nazi Germany so she found
herself in desperate situation. But in May 1940, Winston Churchill became the British Prime
Minister and he had absolutely no intention of negotiating with the Nazis. At this moment,
Great Britain was in desperate need of American help. The special relationship with the USA
was a matter of survival.
Driving the USA into the WWII and receiving the American economic and military support
became Churchills main objective and obsession. Therefore he probed Roosevelt to provide
Great Britain with the help she needed and he asked Roosevelt that it was a matter of national
security for the USA as well as for Great Britain. Roosevelt refused to enter into the conflict
in 1940, but he committed the USA more and more on the British side. So from 1940, a
greater collaboration concerning military and intelligence was developed. In June 1940, the
USA didnt stay neutral anymore but they remained a non-belligerent nation.
In September 1940, Destroyers for Bases deal was signed by Great Britain and the USA
which means that 50 American Destroyers were sent to Great Britain in exchange of access to
some British possessions.
From March 1941 to 1945: Lend Lease. It means that it supplies her allies with great amount
of war material with free of immediate charge. So this Lend Lease meant was crucial in the
special relationship meant that by no means the beneficiary was Great Britain. With a price
less support to sustain the war effort, a new lifeline was created.
In November 1940, Roosevelt was reelected for the third time as American president.
Consequently it became easier for him to act regardless of popular sentiment. By 1940 1941
the USA had already become a central actor of the WWII, but still had not entered in the
WWII (the USA was the central actor concerning the support but they didnt enter into the
conflict).
c) Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
In the 7 of December 1941, the Japanese attacked by surprise the American naval base in
Hawaii, and the USA immediately declared the war on Japan (and incidentally on Germany).
Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the ground had been led for the special relationship but it
could now begin in earnest.
II.
The special relationship during WWII
From 1941 to 1945, Great Britain and the USA established an unusual close alliance.
a) Military collaboration
The special relationship was military in origin, and has always riven on military organization.
The unprecedented legal cooperation invaded by the creation in February 1942 on the
Combine Chief of Staff (CCF)

The committee, with its elaborate organization of staff, officers of every grade, disposes of
all our resources, and, in practice uses British and American troops, ships, aircraft and
munitions just as if they were the resources of a single state or nation (Churchill) [Combines
Chief of Staff I, Feb. 1942]
Great Britain and the USA set up a joined command of their combined military forces and in
front of an American audience in 1943, Churchill called the CCS a wonderful system and
Winston to declared
This committee, with its elaborate organization of staff officers of every grade, disposes of
all our resources, and, in practice uses British and American floats, ships, aircrafts and
munitions just as if they were resources as a single state or nation.
The CCS became one of the highlights of this special relationship it should come as no
surprise that Churchill suggested the CCS should be maintained after the WWII. It was
obviously in Great Britains interest since they need of American support. The close military
corporation between the two countries helped forced practices of mutual assistance and
understanding between them.
b) Intelligence
It was the only field in which Great Britain was a stronger partner in 1944. The Americans
didnt have many experiences before the WW2 and like Great Britain which was adapted at
collecting useful information. So the American OSS (Office of Strategic Services which is
since 1947 the CIA) and the British SIS (Secret Intelligence Service = MI6) worked hand in
hand. Great Britain was teaching the Americans.
Two agreements called BRUSA were signed in 1940 and 1943. They contributed / wanted to
increase cooperation in field of intelligence, laying the ground for future cooperation. It
would become an enduring feature of the special relationship after the WWII and of course
throughout the Cold War even if after the USA overtook Great Britain about that.
c) Nuclear research
In origin it was Great Britain, but then the USA took the lead with their Manhattan project
culminated to the creation of the first nuclear bomb in 1945.
In August 1943, there was the Quebec agreement. This agreement secured Great Britains
participation to Manhattan project. It specified that neither county can use the bomb against
the other or without the others consent.
d) Making plans for the post-war world
In 1940: the Atlantic Charter which was a joint declaration meant to be a blueprint
(empreinte)
for
new world order after the WWII.
In 1944: the Bretton Woods conference which was a blueprint for a new financial order after
WWII. The British representative Lord Keynes was actively involved.
Concerning these 2 points it was obvious that in both cases, the USA was imposing their own
agenda and the Great Britain had to follow suite. And here again we can see that the USA was
a stronger partner in the special relationship.
e) Personal friendship
The personal friendship was warm-feelings both elite (from the USA and from Great Britain)
were sticking together and that can build the corner stone of the special relationship
hypothesis. The first example is when Roosevelt said to Churchill
It is great fun to be in the same decade as you.
Churchill it is up most to force a warm-close with the American citizens. It was not just the
Prime Minister and the President but the close personal relationship at all levels (among
middle ranking officials this close personal relationships were existent) during the WWII.
Roosevelt, Churchill on the Combined Chiefs of Staff in 1943:
All these men now know each other; they trust each other; they like each other, and most of
them have been at work together for a long time [These men middle / high ranking officials
in the army].
Winston Churchill was overstating the case but he was certainly true concerning some points.
And the personal friendships and mutual respect were to play a role in Anglo-American
relationship after the WWII. These roles are the 2 next points: a firm framework of diplomatic
interchange and the personal memories and shared habits facilitating mutual understanding.
It should not be exaggerated but it was what made the special relationship existed and
special.
III.
Limitations: tensions and mutual suspicions

The Anglo-American alliance during the WWII was exceptionally close and strong but we
cant forget that the foreign policy was brought down for all countries to promoting their
national interest (and the WWII was no exception to that rule).
a) Hidden agendas
The shifting power of parliaments importance was appearing during the WWII, Great Britain
sacrificed a force of the national wealth, and empire was weakened especially in Asia.
By contrast, the WWII pulls the USA out of the economic inflation and just started the
American extend. In addition, it enable the USA to increase its influence in the Pacific, East
Asia, and the Middle East; areas where she had often taken the second place (example:
Australia New Zealand which moved closer to the USA during the WWII) and the trend was
accentuated by the cold war. To be sure to the overwriting objective for both countries was to
win but they were also competing for world power. No one was nave and it fuelled mental
suspicions and tensions:
- The USA suspected Great Britain to manipulate them with the view to preserve the
British Empire.
- Great Britain suspected the Americans to be trying to weaken the British Empire for
their own strategic and commercial benefit.
The both allegation was correct.
For example, The Internal Foreign Office (GB) [State Department US] paper of March 1944 :
It must be our purpose not to balance our power against that of America, but to make use of
America power for purpose which we regard as good [] We must use the power of the US to
preserve the Commonwealth and the Empire, and, if possible, to support the pacification of
Europe
b) Anglo American bones of contention
The British empire
The USA tried to reduce its influence, and in opposite Churchill committed to the preservation
of the British Empire. Example of the Atlantic charter in 1940 with the article 3 The right
of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.
It was a blueprint for an American dominated post World War using self-determination as a
means to weaken European colonial Empires. On the opposite Churchill interpreted article 3
as applying to countries invaded by Axis Powers only (not for the British Empire).
Trade
In the USA it was free trade and in Great Britain it was Imperial Preferences. This issue
was related to the British Empire.
Middle East
Before the 2WW it was a British sphere of influence and it was increasingly crucial
strategically as both countries were realizing how important oil was becoming. Great Britain
dominated Iran and Iraq while the USA controlled Saudi Arabia. The USA needed more oil,
Great Britain willing to retain the upper hand in the region that was again a mutual suspicions
and competition.
Attitude as regard to the soviet union
The main event was in 1943 with Teheran conference. The USA, Great Britain and USSR.
During this conference F. Roosevelts priority was to collaborate more fully with the
Russians, and he was closer to Stalin than to Churchill. Roosevelt and Stalin agreed on 2 main
objectives:
- Keeping Germany weak
- Weakening European colonial Empires.
On the other side Great Britain worried more about the danger a strong USSR would cause
after the war. From 1943 to 1945, Great Britain and the USA remain very close but it became
increasingly difficult for the British to make themselves heard as they had been able to do
between 1941 and 1943.
Conclusion : the WWII marked the birth of the special relationship, the Anglo-American
alliance was indeed special during the war and it shouldnt be forgotten however that the
promotion of the national self-interest remained the corner stone of foreign policy for both
countries. The USA was the stronger partner and Great Britain was more and more dependent
to the USA.

CHAPTER 4 & 5: 1945 1956, THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP AND THE

BEGINNING OF THE COLD WAR
The special relationship came into being an account of the WWII. The fight against the Axis
Powers was the raison dtre of the close Anglo-American relationship. In 1945 the question
can be: What will happen now?
At first the US was not very interested in keeping a close relationship with Great Britain
despite Great Britain has enforced to keep a special relationship ally. By 1947, as the Cold
War was about to begin, the Americans came to the realization that the British could be their
best ally in the fight against communism. Consequently it was a revival of the special
relationship. The cold war, especially during its early face, was the raison dtre of the socalled special relationship.
Consequently several questions arise: why did the Americans chose to distant themselves from
the British in the two years that followed the end of the WWII? And by contrast: Why did the
special relationship become a crucial element of the containment policy devised by the
President Harry Truman?
On other words: Why the Cold War did revive the special relationship? It should be added that
the Anglo-American rapprochement was obvious. The USA clearly had the upper hand, while
the British struggled more and more to keep up with their powerful ally.
What were the consequences of the unequal distribution of power between the two countries?
I.
The Allies
-

The Four Allied powers of WWII were: Great Britain, The USA, the Soviet Union
(USSR, Russia) and France.
The other allied nations: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark,
Greece, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa and
Yugoslavia
The Axis Powers: Germany, Italy, Japan. And later Hungary, Romania and Bugaria

II.
The belligerent
At war Designation of a state recognized under international law as being engaged in a war.
- Of war; of fighting
- Seeking war; warlike
- Inclined or eager to fight: hostile or aggressive
- Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare
III.

1945 1947 : the special relationship on the wane

a) Pressures on the British economy

Great Britain Empire weakened at the end of the war and sought for the American support. In
1945, British economy was in tatters whereas the American economy was booming. In august
1945, the Truman administration announced the end of the Lend Lease. The Lend Lease was
vital to sustain the British war effort and British economy. After this decision J.M Keynes (a
British Representative) said concerning the end of Lend Lease that it and economic Dunkirk
(It was a reference to the crushing defeat of the French and the British at the end of the
Germans in June 1940). He sent to Washington DC to state the British case, and the context
was that Great Britain owned 3.8 billion pounds, and the USA asked for 162 million pounds
only so the British expected to be rewarded of their contribution to the war and hoped their
debt will be cancel but it was not the situation.
But as British economy was on a sorry state, it was urgent to find another loan: new loan
granted by the USA with 3.75 billion dollars to be repaid in 50 years at 2% interest rate. The
British thought that those conditions were harsh given their economy predicament, they
expected better terms. It caused public outcry in Great Britain.
The second economic bone of contention: the USA tried to avoid and to stop the British
system of Imperial Preferences. The US attempted to take advantage of the Great Britains
weak position to undermine British imperial protectionism GATT system (General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade signed in 1947) resulted from Bretton Woods. It didnt
destroyed the Imperial system completely but a lot.
The two main consequences for Great Britain were:
- The pounds sterling was to be freely convertible into gold
- More free trade and weakening of the British system of imperial preferences.
Conclusion: The Americans made some concessions but they still weakened Great Britains
position in the world economy. The American had been partially successful in their endeavour
to weaken the British Imperial system to their benefit.
b) The dangers of US isolationism
In 1945, the British badly needed the US support. Their worst fear was the Americans retreat
into protectionism. And this fear had some evidence to suggest that the USA might withdraw
from the world affairs as it has done after WWI. The American objective was the complete
retreat of US troops by 1947
What actually happened from 1945 to 1947? In 1945, the American military represented 12.1
million people and in mid-1947: 1.7 million of military people.
In 1946 the Republican Majority Congress in the USA pushed for quick demobilization and
protectionist measure. So the British misgivings were justified.
One of the main goals of British diplomacy was to draw the attention of American leaders to
the Soviet threat, and to convince them of the need to remain actively involved in world
affairs.
Iron curtain speech given at Fulton in Missouri in 1946, Churchill said If the population
of the English-speaking commonwealth be added to that of the USA with all that such
cooperation implies in the air, on the sea and in science and industry, there will be no
quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure. On
the contrary, there will be an overwhelming assurance of security.
At this time Churchill wasnt the Prime Minister. He was addressing to an American audience
and he was arguing that Europe was divided into two camps: The Free World VS The
Communist Bloc. In this quotation the mention was made of the fraternal association of the
English-speaking people and of the special relationship between the British Commonwealth
and Empire and the USA.
Clearly W.C was trying to cashing on the special relationship to further British interest and
what is interesting about this speech is that the president Truman has red and approved the
speech before W.C delivered it. However, its part of the public outcry in the USA. Many
discarded Churchills interpretation as wrong, consequently the president Truman had to
distance himself from Churchill. Although the American and the British were getting closer to
each other (regarding Russia in particular), convincing the USA was not an easy task for
British leaders.
c) Nuclear let-down
During the WWII the nuclear research program began in earliest in Great Britain and not in
the USA but the British research program was the Tube Alloys project. As the USA was
living behind, it asked Great Britain to unit British and American research teams but Great
Britain refused and because of that the USA went it alone and soon they outstripped Great
Britain.
Two main agreements concerning the nuclear research:
- In 1943: The Quebec agreement it was a nuclear cooperation between the two
countries under conditions favorable to the USA, but the USA has to consult the
British to use it. With this situation, some British scientists were involved in Manahan
project but they didnt play a major rule.
- In 1944: The Hyde Park agreement signed by Churchill and F. Roosevelt and they
agreed that the nuclear cooperation would continue after WWII.
But when President Truman came to power, he was willing to preserve the American
autonomy and the American congress had no desire to collaborate with Great Britain on
matters in nuclear policy. Consequently in 1946, McMahon Act was signed and with this act
it was clear that they cant communicate any information about nuclear research to any
foreign country (and it includes the Great Britain).
At this point, the nuclear cooperation between Great Britain and USA was over and that was a
slap in the face of British leaders because there was no special treatment and Great Britain felt
betrayed concerning the nuclear research.

d) Palestine
In 1922, Great Britain was awarded a mandate to govern Palestine (Middle East was a
strategic sphere of influence for Great Britain). So in 1917, Balfour (British foreign secretary)
declaration promised a national home for the Jewish people but also to preserve interests of
Arab population. Of course, this declaration created a lot of tensions and British had to tried
to work out on compromise (but with no result).
Finally they allowed 10 000 Jews to immigrate to Palestine every years. But the Jews put
huge pressures on the British to increase the quota of Jews allowed to set up in Palestine,
while the Arab put huge pressure on the British to restrict Jewish immigration in Palestine.
The consequence is that Great Britain found herself in a tricky position but had to grapple
with it because she could not afford to lose Palestine for strategic reasons.
IV.
The Middle East: A strategic sphere of influence
After the WWII Jewish immigration to Palestine increased dramatically. Their persecution by
the Nazis made it all the more difficult for Great Britain to restrict Jewish immigration to
Palestine. They are in favor of the creation of a Palestine State. The Truman administration
openly supported Jewish immigration on a larger scale (he went on a record as saying that
100 000 Jews should be allowed in Palestine).
And this put British on an extremely tricky position again. They were aware that such a move
(a large immigration of Jews to Palestine) could trigger off an Arab rebellion and the
American attitude was deeply resented in British diplomatic circles e.g.: in 1945, the foreign
secretary Ernest Bevin wrote to British embassy in Washington DC :
I feel that the Americans have been thoroughly dishonest in handling this problem
In this context the British accused Truman of trying to make the most of the Jewish votes in
New York State. They were greatly annoyed by Trumans tendency to make statements on
Palestine without consulting Great Britain when it was Great Britain and not the USA who
was actually in charge of Palestine. So the British efforts to work out a compromise between
the Arabs and the Zionists were dashed when Truman officially declared his support for the
Zionists with no reason to compromise.
In 1948, Birth of the State of Israel, when Great Britain withdrew. This is a failure of the
Anglo-American relationship, is deterioted. With this new State, GB was greatly aggravated
by American attitudes which had undermined British strategic interest in the Middle East.
Conclusion: Its fair to say that the Anglo-American relations in the 2 years that followed the
WWII failed in the comparison with the war time alliance. The special relationship however
was about to revived by the beginning of the Cold War.
a) The beginning of the Cold War and containment policy : the special relationship
revived
The Cold War begins. Towards the end of the WWII, Roosevelt was welling to collaborate
with Soviet Russia to shade a New World Order.
From 1945 to 1947, Great Britain and the USA gradually reached the same interpretation of
the Soviet expansion. The situation is that the Soviet Union was bent on establishing a sphere
of influence in Eastern Europe, with no free elections and controlling governance, which was
a way to be protected from Eastern Europe and mostly from Germany.
Watershed in 1947: At this time, Great Britain supported Greece and Turkish government
against the communist insurgencies they were grappling with. The problem was that Great
Britain was in financial dire straits so in February 1947 Great Britain announced that they
couldnt support Greece and Turkey any longer. In other words, Britain is out of Greece and is
out of Turkey. In response, in March 1947, the USA stepped in and supported both countries.
The consequence is the Truman doctrine, a policy of containment against communist
expansion (it means to resist to the progress of communism everywhere in the world) and that
was the beginning of the Cold War.
b) US involvement in Europe : GBs diplomatic priority
In 1945, a Labour government was elected in Great Britain so the Prime Minister was
Clement Atlee and the Foreign Secretary was Ernest Bevin. At this time, E. Bevin assumed
that Great Britain and Western Europe couldnt defend themselves against the Soviet threat
without the USA. And they wouldnt be able to withstand a Russian invasion. The Prime
Minister Clement Atlee agreed with Bevin, and this agreement testified the fact that the
special relationship wasnt a policy embraced by the Conservative Party only, but a British
policy endorsed by the two main British parties (Labour and the Conservative).

The special Relationship became a matter of survival for Britain. British diplomats saw
themselves as advisors to the powerful but inexperienced Americans. So it was done to them
to get the Americans to come to turns with the communist threat. And the British shared their
agenda with other Western European countries. So in this context the special relationship was
a means by which the British could ensure their own protection from Soviet Russia.
c) Burden sharing : GB as a useful and necessary ally to the mighty US
Great Britain emerged greatly weakened from WWII. Of course, the prestige was gained, but
they suffered greatly economically, military and strategically. The fact remains that the Great
Britain was still a world power and a force to reckon.
In 1946:
- 1.5 million British soldiers stationed around the World.
- The British military spending amounted to approximately 19% of GNP (far and away
the 1st army in Western Europe)
- Second largest navy in the world : London harbour was the 1st port in Europe
- Possessed military bases all around the world : Europe, Mediterranean sea and Asia
- Member of the UN Security Council
- Remarkable access to political and military intelligence of paramount importance
- London stock exchange, the City: 1st financial centre in the world. Richest
economy in Europe.
- And the additional point is that Great Britain became a nuclear power in 1956 with
the A bomb, and in 1957 with the H bomb.
The British world power status had a significant impact on the American strategy when the
Cold War began in 1947. The Cold War was a global confrontation which imposed huge
commitments on the USA and the strategy planed was to fight and contain the communist
threat everywhere. In other words, the USA had to police the world and the British could and
should help them. Actually only Britain could help them because France and Western
Germany were much weakened and also more focused on Europe than Great Britain; and on
the other hand, Great Britain was a world player in her own rights.
Significantly, the USA was less and less critical on British imperialism. Why?
The survival of the British Empire and the British presence all around the world, and Great
Britain and the USA knew that if the British suddenly collapse, or gave up on their role as a
world power, the USA will have to step in and carry an even heavier burden that it already
was (this is the example of Greek and Turkey in 1947). So Great Britain turned out to be a
useful ally in the context of the Cold War. The good example to illustrate that is the British
basis in and outside Europe that were available for the American B29 bombers. The
importance of the B29 bombers is that they carry the nuclear weapons. Without access to
British bases, it could be very difficult for the Americans because the American bombers in
the 40s and the beginning of the 50s could not reach USSR. But this changed in the late
1950s with the long distant missiles.
The USA needed Great Britain. Of course for the USA, Great Britain became a useful ally in
different cases:
The occupied Western Germany alongside the USA and France.
1950: the Korean War (1950-1953). Great Britain joined the USA to fight the Korean War.
The purpose of the war was to prevent Korea from going communist. The Korea War ended in
a dead lock situation in 1953, with the division of Korea into 2 separate countries (The North
and the South Korea). This Korean War was a good proof enough that the special relationship
was alive and well presence. That was because Great Britain was still powerful enough to
provide the USA a significant support.
In June 1948, with and Internal Department of State Policy statement:
The basic objectives of US policy toward Britain are to obtain maximum British cooperation
in the establishment and maintenance of a just and lasting peace in the protection of our
national interest, necessary for US defence.
There was no doubt that at this point the USA was the strongest partner but it was also willing
and it needed to and gave in burden sharing with Great Britain.
What did Great Britain get in return?
The American economic, military and strategic support with different points:

Marshall Plan in March 1948. It represented $12 billion to Western Europe. The
biggest beneficiary was Great Britain with $2.7 billion. The Marshall plan saved
European economies (France, Western Germany) from meltdown.
- NATO in April 1949. The USA officially committed to the defence of Western
Europe and that was one of the key British objectives that was attained (Great Britain
was afraid that the USA decided to withdraw from international affairs and from the
international defence).
- The USA was less and less critical and even sometimes supportive of the British
Empire (ex: France against Indochina, The Dutch with Indonesia and the British in
Malaya).
For 1948 to 1960, the Malawian emergency (a communist insurgency). Great Britain received
crucial financial support from the USA to suppress the insurgence and for Great Britain it was
a desperate moment to retain her grip on Malaya because it was highly profitable. At this
time, the USA knew that if the British had to collapse in Malaya, the USA will have to replace
them.
Its true that the upshot was that the Anglo-American relationship at the beginning of the Cold
War was two ways situation.
A win-win situation, Great Britain won because she received military and economic support
and they sustain for a while their status as a world power. She received also protection from
the Soviet threat. On the other side, the USA won because they had an ally which relieved
them of some of the burden to police the world. In other words, Great Britain was the
Americas first military ally. In this process both countries benefited from close ties
established during the WWII.
d) Military and intelligence cooperation continues
British military services were known to lobby the British government to continue and buttress
close military collaboration with the USA. And this close military collaboration at many
levels was more and more obvious. About intelligence, UKUSA SIGNIT (1947) extended to
all the Commonwealth countries consolidated the remarkably close cooperation between the
USA and Great Britain about intelligence project begun during the WWII.
e) The issue of British credibility
As long as the USA regarded Great Britain as a useful and necessary ally, the special
relationship would remain. If the British power were to flag, the special relationship would
inevitably be called into question by the USA.
About the government: the post-war Labor government could have chosen to turn to Europe,
but they preferred the Transatlantic Alliance. The special relationship lay at the heart of the
British foreign policy under Clement Atlees Labor government and Winstons
conservative government after 1951.
So much so that the British spare no effort to cater to the need to their American ally and they
were afraid of losing credibility. One on the example is the telegram from the British embassy
in Washington DC to The Foreign Office (July 1947):
Were responsible Americans to become convinced of what is unfortunately already a
growing impression here [i.e. in the US] that Britain can be permanently written off as an
important world power capable of sharing with the US the burdens of world leadership, we
should lose whatever advantages we now possess over other the nations in search of a system
from this function.
This quotation testifies to British fear of losing the confidence of the Americans and therefore
losing the special advantages. Great Britain made a lot of sacrifices and concessions to remain
a world power. The Labour Government intent on setting up a Welfare State and that was the
reason why they had been elected. They did but they had to accept limitation to it for a lack of
money as a large proportion of the British budget went to the military part.
Example: When the Labour government was forced to scheme on some of its welfare benefits
in 1951, glasses and dental care were no longer free. The funds for the Korean War were
extremely needed.
Why the British government did tries hard to be the Americans best ally? Great Britain didnt
want to relinquish her role as a world power.
This extract from an internal document of the British Chief of Staff (1949):

Today we are still a world power, shouldering many and heavy responsibilities. We believed
the privileged position that we, in contrast to the other European nations, enjoy with the US
and the attention she now pays to our strategic and other opinions, and to our requirements,
is directly due to our hold on the Middle East and all that this involves. If we surrendered that
hold and the responsibilities which it entails, we would automatically surrender our position
as a world power, with the inevitable strategic and economic consequences. We should join
the ranks of the other European powers and be treated as such by the US.
This quotation based testimony to the British difficulty to come to turns with the rise of the
American giant. The fact remains. Does the days of the Pax Britanica (The British Empire
has all influence) were over? It was now time, to the American journalist Henry Luce in 1941,
The American Century.
V.
An unequal partnership
In 1939, before the WWII, there were 5 great powers: Great Britain, the USA, France, the
Soviet Union and Germany. But in 1945, at the end of the European Civil war there were 2
super powers the USA and Soviet Union. From these two countries, their agendas were to
shake the New World Order and Great Britain could only follow suit and endeavour to adapt
to the two super powers.
On the USA opinion, after the WWII, the USA sought to:
- Establish balance of powers in Europe and Asia
- Create an environment favorable to the American trade and investment
- Bring about the gradual end of colonial empires to its own benefits.
On the other side the Soviet Union wanted:
- Protect themselves from aggression from Europe
- Reconstruct their economy
- Strengthen their military
Consequently, after the WWII, Great Britain had to fit in that bipolar world and she was no
longer shaping world affairs since she had been doing for a long time.
a) British decline & American ascendency
For all their efforts British were losing ground on two points:
- Economy in late 1940s: Great Britain lost 40% of her export trade, 30% of the
tonnage of her merchant trade and 4.2 million pounds in investment abroad.
Could Great Britain afford to retain her empire, keep a big army and build a welfare
state?
- British Empire gradually was falling apart with the example of Indian independence
in 1947. The British Empire was a strategic asset but also a financial liability for Great
Britain. And in the meantime the American economy was booming.
It led many British diplomats to believe that the USA was replacing Great Britain in several
areas of the world (best example is the Middle East). And they were part right in thinking so,
the British influence was decreasing and the Americans had no intention of helping Great
Britain become as strong as she used to be.
b) The Middle East as a case-study
Ever since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the WWI, the Middle East has become
the informal British Empire. The Ottoman Empire had dominated the region for several
centuries and after the Middle East was turning to a British sphere of influence which is a big
difference from the colonies.
The British reached agreement with the local elites and sent troops to the Middle East. The
Middle East was officially not a part of the British Empire but actually was controlled by the
British. Great Britain had been instrumental in the creation of such a states as Iraq, Libya,
Soudan, The British troops occupied Southern Iran, Syria, Lebanon, mandated Palestine,
Cyprus and also in Libya.
The Middle East was vital for Great Britain because it was strategically located for British
Navy and because 100% of oil consumed by British came from the Middle East. That was the
big difference with the USA which had, at that time, other sources of oils (in the USA and in
Latin America).
After 1945, the British were willing to keep the Middle East as a sphere of influence. But the
problem was they were greatly weakened by the WWII and their rule was being challenged by
local populations and they had to contend with American competition in this area. And it
became obvious that Great Britain was losing a good deal of her influence in the Middle East.

There are two examples:

- Palestine: The British left in 1948
- Iran: Half of all the oil used by British came from Iran thanks to the Anglo-Iranian
Company. In the early 1950s, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh decided
to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian company to put an end to British monopoly on Iranian
oil.
So in 1953, the USA and Great Britain launch an operation called Operation Boot (GB)
[Operation AJAX (US)] to remove Mossadegh from office and this is a real situation to
show that the special relationship was in action. The American and the British secret services
(the CIA and the MI6) were hand in hand to destabilize Mossadegh government. It was
successful and Mossadeghs government was replaced by a new regime more amenable to
western interest.
2 conclusions:
- Once more, the special relationship proved to be efficient
- However, since they needed the Americans to retain the grip on Iran, the British lost
some of their interests to the benefit of the Americans. This is the end of the British
monopoly on Iranian oil because the British now had to share.
In 1953, in Great Britain there were 30% of Iranian oil, the American companies represented
40% and the Dutch and French 20%.
c) Taking a back seat
The special relationship hypothesis put the emphasis upon personal interactions.
Late 1940s: a Foreign Office paper mentioned that the special relationship was written with
the help of some American officials. And when the American Secretary of State Dean
Acheson found out about it, he was furious. Acheson believed in a special relationship
between the USA and Great Britain, but he thought it was counterproductive to make it
public.
So in his point of view the 2 countries have better to keep their secret in order to keep their
European allies especially France.
The other example is in April 1950:
We should insist that British recognize it is necessary for us, when we are dealing with
generalized European problem, not to make overt distinctions between them and other
European countries. Any such over distinctions could only have the effect of seriously
upsetting present fear that both we and British will abandon them in case of an emergency
Until 1950, we can say that the USA clearly emerged as the stronger partner, but in 1951, with
the new general election the conservative party won the general election in Great Britain.
Winston Churchill was back in power as Prime Minister in Great Britain. Churchill devised
the theory of the 3 Circle address foreign policy matters:
- The British Empire,
- The American alliance
- Europe
The special relationship in the Churchill government was the lynchpin of his foreign
policy. Churchill set out to make the most of share war memories and personal contact with
the USA but in opposition, Truman (and later Eisenhower) was not interested. The example is
when Churchill tried to talk to Eisenhower to reestablishing the British veto on American use
of the nuclear weapons but with no result.
The USA had taken the lead and Great Britain was hardly in a position to negotiate. And it
was never more evident than on the issue of the American nuclear weapons with:
- McMahon act in 1946 which forced Great Britain to develop her nuclear weapon
alone, on their side
- Great Britain was a faithful ally of the USA but she had absolutely no say about its
potential use of nuclear weapon: they would be informed but not consulted about the
use of nuclear weapons.
The British were forced to adapt to US foreign policy and hope for the best means that this
was direct consequence of British decline after the WWII. [Context: At that time, the
American military forces used many British bases everywhere in the world so the bases were
British but the military forces were American]
This was a direct consequence of the British decline after the WWII

One last example: a part of the American strategy during the Cold War consisted in forming
blocs under American command.
The example for Western Europe is NATO, the Baghdad pact for the Middle East in 1955).
One most important is the ANZUS treaty in 1951 (The USA, Australia and New Zealand)
they created a bloc in the Pacific but under American leadership.
After the end of this treaty in 1952 1953, Churchill asked the USA if Great Britain could be
included in this Pacific bloc but it was completely denied by the Secretary of State John
Foster Dulles. [Context: Australia and New Zealand were two former British dominions, they
belong to the Commonwealth but Great Britain had lost her ability to defend the region during
the WWII. Great Britain had lost her influence. Therefore, to the Americans, Great Britain
was out of the picture as far as the Pacific was concerned.]
Conclusion : Where the British were useful the American granted them in special status but
where Great Britain and the British where useless they discorded them as a non-entity. No
doubt that the Cold War kept the special relationships up and running but we cant forget that
the Americans at the upper hand and the British world power status was hanging by a thread

CHAPTER 6 & 7: MANAGING BRITISH DECLINE (ANGLO-AMERICAN

RELATIONS 1956 1979)
For many historians, the Suez crises of 1956 marked the end of the British illusions, and it
became more and more obvious to the British and to the rest of the world that Great Britain
was losing her world power status in spite of her leaders efforts to reverse this trend. From
1956 to 1979, Great Britain declined economically, strategically and military.
What were the consequences of British decline on the so called special relationship?
It seems fair to state that the British decline weakened the special relationship although it
didnt destroy it completely. Significantly the American leaders kept urging Great Britain to
come to terms with her status as a European power instead of a world power. In other words
for the USA, Great Britain should take care of Europe and not of the world.
I. Reality checkpoint: the repercussions of the Suez crisis and of British economic and
strategic decline
a) The Suez crisis and its significance
Antony Eden (1897-1977): Conservative British prime Minister from 1955 to 1957.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969): American president from 1952 to 1960
One of the most serious breach occurred in Egypt. The Middle-East was a sphere of influence
for the British who were desperate to hold on. In the early 1950s, Egypt was a British
protectorate (not a British colony but under British domination).
Great Britain controlled the Suez Canal and this was of utmost strategic importance to Great
Britain for 2 reasons:
- It buttressed (emphasis) a strong British military presence in the Mediterranean
- 2/3 of oil consumed throughout the world was from the Middle East and 100% of the
British oil.
So it was vital for Great Britain to retain control under the Suez Canal. But the problem was
that the British power was on the vein and was declining. The consequence was that Great
Britain encountered more and more position in Egypt, and in the early 1950s, the British
began to lose their grip on Egypt, with:
- In 1952: Military coup deposed King Farouk (puppet monarchy controlled by the
British)
- In 1954: Nasser seized power
- In 1956: Nasser became president
All this points are the consequence of the opposition from the local population in Egypt.
With the new regime, when Nasser became president, they wanted to be independent from the
West. After the military coup the British government announced that they will withdraw from
Egypt in 1956. And this decision was supported by the Americans. Great Britain and the USA
endeavored to corporate with Nasser and establish sound relation with Egypt. But in
opposition Nasser was keen on preserving Egypts independence and gradually became closer
to the Soviet Union.

Previously; the USA has offered to grant Egypt a loan to finance construction of Aswan dam
but this loan was cancelled due to Nassers ambivalent position. This cancellation was a
disaster for Great Britain because this weakened Great Britain strategically (because they lost
the control of the canal), economically (because now they had to pay to use the canal). But of
course the first and the most important disaster was that Nasser decided to nationalize the
Suez Canal.
The consequence of this nationalization is the decision of the Prime Minister Eden who was
willing to act military in opposition to the USA: for the USA it was necessary to seek a
solution by diplomatic way whereas for Great Britain it was necessary to act military. In other
words the British were being frustrated by their main ally so the British government decided
to set up a covert operation alongside France and Israel to regain the control to the Suez zone.
Why France and Israel?
- France: Because it was also affected by this nationalization for the same reason.
- Israel: They wanted to retaliate against Egypt because it was frequently attracted by
terrorists from Egypt
Of course the American administration knew nothing about it (the covert operation alongside
France and Israel to regain the control of the Canal Zone).
Concerning this covert operation: France, Great Britain and Israel VS Egypt
- Israel would attack Egypt and invade Sinai
- An Anglo-French coalition would take Israel attack as a pretext to launch a military
operation in order to separate the two armies (Egypt and Israel)
In the process, the Anglo-French coalition would take the control of the Canal Zone and
would stay there clearly; the goal was to claim that the Suez Canal had to be controlled by a
neutral force. In that way Great Britain would be able to retain control of the Canal at the
exchange of Egypt. And the Americans again knew nothing about that.
The operation started in October 1956. A first everything went on as the plan. It was a
military success but a diplomatic disaster (a diplomatic disaster, especially on the American
point of view). This operation packed off the American outrage, the Eisenhower
administration was furious for several reasons:
- In 1956, the USSR invaded Hungary and because of the Suez operation it made it
more difficult for the West to take full advantage of the Soviet ruthlessness.
- Great Britain had double-crossed the USA.
- The context of the Cold War: the USA and the USSR had entered a competition to
dominate the third world countries. The Cold War was a global conflict; each
superpower struggled to establish spheres of influence and in such circumstances the
USA feared that the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt would discredit the free world
and prompt the Arab world to go over to the Soviet camp.
John Foster Dulles (American secretary of State from 1888 to 1950) said in 1956:
Unless we now assert and maintain this leadership all of these newly independent countries
will turn from us to the USSR. We will be looked upon as forever tied to British and French
colonialist politics.
Not only the USA refused to support their allies but they also acted to make their scheme fail.
How did the US act against their British ally?
o They took a stand against the Great Britain and France at the United Nations
o The Suez crisis gave rise to a run on the pound which greatly weakened the
British economy and forced the British government to ask for an IMF loan.
Consequently, the US made it clear that this loan would be granted ONLY on condition that
Great Britain withdraws from Egypt. The USA twisted the arm of their allies. And the Suez
crisis ended in defeat and humiliation for British and France. They had to withdraw while
none of their objectives had been attained.
Lessons from Suez :
The Suez crisis carried symbolical meaning because it was a slap in the face for Great Britain
it dealt British prestige a terrible blow. And it had also shown that Great Britain or France was
no longer able to carry out a successful military operation without the American consent and
support. After that Great Britain to come to terms with military and strategic decline of course
and the consequence is that Anthony Eden (the Prime Minister) resigned a few month later
and was replaced by Harold McMillan (who was conservative) and at this point it was no
longer possible to deny the British decline and the task for the British leaders was to manage

decline and ease the transition of their country from the world power to the European power.
Watershed in British foreign policy.
b) Lagging behind: British economic decline
Great Britain took advantages of post-war economic boom and grew richer. At the end of the
WWII Great Britain was the biggest economy of Europe but in the early 1960s, Great Britain
had been outstripped first by Germany, then by France. With the repeated monetary crises in
the 1960 the question raises: Devaluate the pound sterling or seek the American financial
system?
Finally Great Britain seeks American assistance on several occasions: the first one in 1964
with a 1 billion dollars loan, in 1965 and then in 1966.
From the American side, of course they didnt want Great Britain to devaluate the pound
because it would weaken the dollar currency but in 1969 Great Britain had to devalue the
pounds sterling by 14% and things didnt get better.
The context of the British economy in the 1970: low and sluggish economic growth and high
inflation stagflation. Consequently, there were a great number of strikes in Great Britain and
this is the reason why some economist named the Great Britain as the sick man of Europe.
That affected British ability to sustain a military power. As a matter of fact, the British
economic decline was concomitant with her strategic decline.
c) Losing ground: Britains strategic decline
By the 1950s, it became obvious that Great Britain was falling victim to was historians called
the Imperial overstretch it means a lack of economic and military strengths to sustain global
commitment. Ironically enough British decline didnt go down so well in the United States.
One the one hand the American had always fended off British imperialism but on the other
hand they needed the British to remain imperialistic to counterbalance the world community.
This is the notion of burden-sharing with the Americans. The underline message from the
USA was Will provide assistant if necessary but please dont walk away for your
commitments overseas. The burden-sharing was the very basis of the special relationship
during the Cold War.
In the early 60s: Great Britain began to withdraw from several bases in the Indian and Pacific
oceans and left Aden and Yemen. Great Britain couldnt afford it anymore and this created a
negative effect upon the Anglo-American relations.
The Vietnam War (c.1965 1973) :
Harold Wilson (1916-1995): British prime minister from 1964 to 1970
Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973): American president from 1963 to 1968
The American military involvement in Vietnam began in earnest in 1965 and B. Johnson put a
lot of pressure on Wilson to send British troops to Vietnam. They didnt ask for a British
involvement in a large scale what the American needed was a symbolical British presence in
Vietnam. And with this presence it would enter the American initiative with more legitimacy.
But Great Britain never went in Vietnam (with Australia and New Zealand). Officially Great
Britain supported the USA but they couldnt send troops because the British public opinion
and a large section to the Labor Party were fiercely opposed to the Vietnam War. The example
was the speech given in the House of Commons in June 1966 when Wilson condemned the
American bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong.
Consequently the American administration was very unhappy and Wilson was willing to act
as a middle man between the USA and the Vietcong. In 1965: Wilson organized a peace
mission but it was a complete failure.
Concerning the Anglo-American relationship, if the British didnt contribute to American
efforts and initiatives during the Cold War, they couldnt expect to make themselves hurt.
However it was to get even worst in the late 1970s with the major event: the withdrawal from
east of Suez
The withdrawal from east of Suez
In the 1960s, Great Britain still plays an active role in the Cold War strategy divide by
Americans diplomats. In 1966 the Defense White Paper because of economic difficulties,
Great Britain had to cut back on some of her global commitments. This started in 1967 when
Wilson announced that the British presence in the east of Suez and in the Middle East will be
all but terminated by 1971 (because Great Britain couldnt afford it anymore). She would only
maintain her nuclear programs and her presence in Germany and Hong Kong.

Johnsons administration was extremely furious. The USA devoted a great deal of its energy
in the Vietnam War and the British retreat from the east of Suez was the last thing that
Americans needed. So one question arose as a result: If Great Britain could no longer
perform a special role why should the USA continue the special relationship with her? Maybe
because British place was really in Europe
II.

Anglo-American relations and European integration

a) A reluctant applicant: Great Britain, European integration and the USA

From the beginning the USA played an active role in European integration for two reasons:
- The USA had a vested interest in economic recovery of Europe. The point for the
American was to be able to unload the surplus of goods produced by their economy.
- The USA wanted to form a strong Western Bloc to thwart the communists.
One of the objectives of the USA regarding Great Britain was to convince her leaders to
commit their country to the process of European integration. But there was a problem: GB
was not keen on joining them, and has already pointed out that the transatlantic alliance
carried much more weight than the European connection. At first, the British were not
interested. Among the 3 circles 5winston Churchill), Europe was the last in importance.
Winston saw Great Britain as closed to Europe geographically but not as part of it and he had
no intention of sacrificing British independence.
In 1957, the Treaty of Rome marked the birth of the EEC (European Economic Community)
without Great Britain and much to the disappointment of the Americans. However, British
membership of the EEC more and more sense due to the loss of her world power status and
decolonization. And this British situation was send by statement made by former American
Secretary of States
Late 1950s and early 1960s: the former American Secretary of States Dean Achesons in his
speech on December 1963 said Great Britain has lost and Empire has not yet found a role.
And to make matters even worst to Great Britain, the EEC members were faring better than
hurt. Consequently the British leaders came up with an idea to compete with the EEC with the
creation of the European Free Trade Association in 1960 among Great Britain, Denmark,
Norway, Portugal and Sweden. With this European Free Trade Association it meant to be a
rival to the EEC but it was a failure.
Meanwhile, the American kept urging their British ally apply for the EEC membership. But
there was one obstacle: General de Gaulle (1890-1970) and France. France was willing to ban
Great Britain from the EEC. The Americans, so British membership, were seeing EEC as a
means by which they can offset and limit French influence and German influence.
Foreign policy of General de Gaulle: he wanted to make France more autonomous from the
USA, and in 1966, France withdrew from NATO (integrated military structure).
GB applies for EEC membership:
What the American government wanted to avoid was the advent of the French led Europe and
receptive to American demands.
The British membership could change that and in 1960s, British leaders understood that the
EEC membership would make it possible for them to carry more weight in Washington. In
other words the EEC member ship could be a way to remain useful to the Americans and
therefore to sustain special relationship to British advantage.
De Gaulle had no intention of accepting British membership.
The first application for the EEC membership was in 1961 but it turned down by the French in
1962. De Gaulle argued among other things that Great Britain was tied to closely to the USA.
The second application was in 1967 and it was denied by the French. So Great Britain was
only successful at the third attempts with Edward Heath
b) Edward Heat and the European connection
Edward Heat (1916-2005): British Conservative Prime Minister from 1970 to 1974
Edward Heats main foreign policy objective was the EEC membership. He assumed that one
of the main obstacles was the special relationship with the USA. So he did it almost to play
down the special relationship in order to convince the EEC members that Great Britain was
actually ready to join. On several occasions the Heats government did something very

unusual: he distanced himself from the USA, he refused to establish close personal
relationship with the American president (Richard Nixon).
In 1973, the American idea was to launch the Year of Europe. The goal of Nixons
administration was to induce the Europeans to get more involved of their own defence. And
the Nixon administration asked Heat to act as an intermediate between the USA and the other
Europeans countries. But Heat refused to act as a middle-man between the USA and Europe.
The Year of Europe was resented as a token of American paternalism and Heat goal was to be
on the European side. This American idea of the Year of Europe was a complete failure and
it came to nothing.
Finally in 1973, Great Britain became a member of the EEC. In 1973, De Gaulle was no
longer the French president.
c) Down but not out: the special relationship lives on
During the period from 1966 to 1979, the Anglo-American relations became less and less
special. Nevertheless the special relationship didnt disappeared completely. The example is
the British opposition to the USA during the Heat year and this opposition should not be
overstated with 2 points:
- Military and secret services (intelligence relationship) continue to work hand in hand
- Collaboration on nuclear proliferation control talks with 2 projects: SALT 1 (Strategic
arms Limitation Talks) which led to ABMT (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) in 1972
In 1974 the Labor Party back in power until 1974 to 1979 with: H. Wilson from 1974 to
1976 and James Callaghan from 1976 to 1979. They both wanted to restore a close
transatlantic alliance.
Why?
They were disappointed by the EEC membership because British economic prospects didnt
improve and moreover many members of the Labour Party were hostile to the EEC
partnership. In addition there were more practical reasons.
In the 1970s, Great Britain was going through serious difficulties and needed American
assistance. The American sponsored loan was 5.3 billion dollars. On the American side the
leaders were taking heed of British decline but no desire to break with Great Britain.
One example was with Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixons foreign policy advisor who said
We do not suffer from such an excess of friends that we should discourage those who feel
that they have a special friendship to us. This remark suggested that the special relationship
was not dead and buried.
III.
The Anglo American interdependence: the nuclear test
The first atom bomb, in 1945, changed foreign relations. Weapons of mass destruction have
turned war into an even more a dangerous activity than before. Therefore, it was not
surprising that a country like Great Britain and France thought to get the bomb.
a) The development of the nuclear relationship
In 1946, when Congress passed the McMahon Act, the USA but an end to the nuclear
relationship so Great Britain went it alone with the first nuclear bomb on 1952 and the
thermonuclear bomb in 1957. Great Britain entered the nuclear club. Yet Great Britain still
needed the USA to catch up with the latest technological breakthrough.
The example is in 1950s, the problem was that Great Britain had the bomb but they were not
adapted to bombers. They didnt have bombers to carry it and only the USA can provide them.
Once again the British needed the Americans.
In 1958: Agreement for Cooperation on Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense
Purpose (that was a repeal of McMahon Act).
Revival of the nuclear relationship
60 Tor missiles were sold to Great Britain by Eisenhower administration but the USA kept the
Veto on their use. We can wonder if Great Britain was really an independent nuclear deterrent
or not. Later Great Britain bought new American missiles, called Skybolt program from the
USA, and it was in exchange for the USA, to an access to 2 British bases Holy Loch and
Flyindales.
This decision was relegate to Great Britain because they got American missiles at bargain
basement price but the down side was that the American Missiles in Holy Loch and Flyindales
could be used without the consent of the British government. It was the beginning of the loss
of autonomy for Great Britain. Then, in December 1962 came the Nassau Conference.

In early 1960s the Skybolt program was abandoned by the USA and that was a real disaster
for Great Britain because the question which rose was where will they going to get their
missiles now?
An additional point is that the majority of the American State department were opposed to
independent nuclear deterrent (for example France or Great Britain), they were afraid of
nuclear proliferation. And the person who illustrated this point of view, the Secretary of
Defense under Kennedys administration Robert McNamara rooted (pushed) for the creation
of a Multilateral Force (MLF) to replace the French and the British independent nuclear
deterrent.
The MLF was a NATO force with nuclear weapons, the use of which would have dependent
on American approval, in other words it was necessary to get the American agreement to use
them. So this was a way for the USA to control the use of nuclear weapon from and by the
Europeans. But the creation of the MLF was turned down by De Gaulle and the British Prime
Minister Harold McMillan but still McNamara saw the amendment of the Skybolt program as
an opportunity to go away with the British nuclear deterrent. And during the Nassau
conference, the British delegation was very angry on the Americans. On the USA side, the
State Department was urging president Kennedy not to yield British pressure. But the British
Prime Minister (McMillan) resorted to sentiments and begged president Kennedy to help
Great Britain out. And the British Prime Minister convinced the American president. Here is
an example of the personal interactions as significant role in the special relationship between
the USA and Great Britain.
Finally he USA agreed to sell new American missiles (Polaris missiles) to Great Britain and
at a very cheap price. But the British Polaris missiles were to be part of NATO even if they
accepted that Great Britain could use them if her supreme national interests were at stake.
The Nuclear relationship was firmly established between the USA and GB.
In 1979 with the Jamaica Conference, the USA agreed to supply Great Britain with its
Trident Submarines equipped with the C-4 missiles under the same terms for Great Britain.
b) Interdependence: British genius or British self-delusion
From the 1950s, the British policy as regards to the USA was described as warmth
interdependence. Great Britain needed to get the protection from USSR. The example is a
British planning paper on interdependence in January 1958:
The United States is so much the most powerful nation in the Western camp that our ability
to have our way in the world depends more than anything else upon our influence upon her to
act in conformity with our interests.
At the same time the British were afraid of becoming a mere American satellite and the
Nassau agreement of 1962 was an interesting case about that. We may argue that the British
used the special relationship to their advantage but they were not strong enough to get an
effective nuclear deterrent alone and Great Britain made the most of the American
connections. Indeed, many members of the State Department were very unhappy about the
President Kennedys decision to provide British with Polaris missiles and they thought that
the President has been misled by the British and that they made a decision against the
American interest. All that is the consequence of the Nassau agreement in 1962.
The example is in April 1962, with the memo written by McGeorge Bundy (Presidents
National Security Advisor)
We want the British in Europe and we do not really see much point in the separate British
nuclear deterrent, beyond our existing Skybolt commitment; we would much rather have
British efforts go into conventional weapons and have the British join in the rest of NATO in
accepting a single US-dominated nuclear force.
Was Great Britain independent nuclear deterrent really independent?
A contradiction seems to lie at the heart of British nuclear policy: the British independent
nuclear deterrent depends on American acceptance to supply the missiles necessary to make it
effective. In theory Great Britain was independent but not in reality. The example to show
what can be the real independence is the French Force de frappe which was completely
independent from the USA.
Conclusion : the special relationship was weakened by British decline but it continues to exist
(nuclear strategy for example) and the next period (1980s), a spectacular revival of special
relationship under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

CHAPTER 8: RONALD REAGAN AND MARGARET THATCHER IN THE 1980s, AN

EXTRAORDINARY RELATIONSHIP
There is a wealth of evidence to say that the revival of the special relationship occurred in the
1980s. From the British side, Margaret Thatcher gave priority to the transatlantic alliance
rather than European partners. Meanwhile the Regan administration welcomed British
friendship and still passed support but overall the close personal links between Thatcher and
Reagan was also a reason of this extraordinary relationship.
The extraordinary relationship of the 1980s begged several questions:
- How useful was the SR for GB in the 1980?
- Did Great Britain benefits from her close alliance from the USA?
Margaret Thatcher: Conservative British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990
Ronald Reagan: Republican American President from 1980 to 1988
I.
Spectacular Revival of the special relationship
After 1956, the special relationship declined although it didnt die. The ideological context of
the 1980s greatly contributed to an Anglo-American rapprochement.
a) The conservative counter-revolution
These 2 people saw eye to eye with each other to economic policy and foreign policy
Economic policy
The different contexts:
After 1945, governments in western parts tended to take a central role in managing the
economies. It was a period of unregulated capitalism and it was a period of laisserfaire which had come to a temporary end. Capitalism survived and it took a more
regulated form called the mixed economy.
After 1955: The Welfare state which set up to cater with the need of citizens and
cause huge increases in government spending and in the size of government.
After the WWII: The post-war economic boom but later in 1970s we have the
Keynesian consensus which began follow part and most western countries
experienced a combination of slow growth and high inflation (= Stagflation) with the
consequence of public debts dramatically increased. The post-war economic
consensus came into question.
In the 1980s, Reagan and Thatcher were the two main figures of the conservative
counterrevolution which took leads in the 1980s and their agenda could be send up out to
reduce governments spending and deregulate the economy. The central of their economic
rational was laisser-faire economics. During his first inaugural agrees Reagan went on
saying In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is
our problem in 1981.
Both assumed that if the market was to be left free to regulate itself, the economy would draw
at past pay. Throughout, the developed world (Western Countries mainly), a shift began in the
1980s from the Keynesian consensus to the return to the free market (laisser-faire
economy). This draws the two leaders closer to each other which is very different from France
because at this time the president was Franois Mitterrand and he was a socialist president
who didnt share their faith about capitalism. Actually Thatcher was convinced that the free
market revolution could only happen if the USA took the lead (and the USA did that).
Foreign policy
The different contexts:
In 1970s, some growing tension between the USA and the USSR and the so-called dtente
of the early 1970s was gradually being replaced by more hostile attitudes of both sides. With
the 3 points:
- Failure of nuclear disarmament talks
- December 1979: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
- American boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow to protest against the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan
In 1980 with the election of Reagan, the Dtente died and buried. It took a much more
aggressive tends as regards Soviet Russia. The Reagan administration saw it as their mission
to regain the initiative and to put the Russians under pressure. This is called the beginning of
the second Cold War. Beginning of the second Cold War occurred because of 3 points:
- Massive increase in military spending,
- End of arms control negotiations

Contain any communist effort in the third world.

Not everybody approved that, especially in Europe where some analyst held that it was
unnecessary dangerous and counterproductive. But Thatcher shared Reagans passionate
rejection of communism and that was another mutual interest.
b) Interpersonal relations: a perfect match
Thatcher and Reagan liked each other and that was the big difference with other European
leaders like France). Of course the most important point about the Anglo-American alliance
was the 3 main points:
- 15 summits between 1980 and 1988
- The Irangate scandal. The president Reagan caught in a controversy during his
second term because his administration has secretly sold military material to Iraq and
Iraq was officially an enemy of the USA. Major scandal in the USA. And in 1987,
Thatcher paid Reagan an official visit in Washington during which she went out her
way to support him and to grand his as a great president.
- Thatcher gave priority to the transatlantic connection. The Thatcher government
voluntary turned her back on the EEC because it wanted Great Britain to retain their
national sovereignty and to keep her financial participation to the EEC at a minimum.
c) Nuclear and military cooperation: business as usual
The USA continues to supply Great Britain with their latest nuclear missiles and Great Britain
had access to the Trident program under excellent conditions. In 1982 for example, the
British C4 missiles replaced by grand new D5 missiles and it was a very good deal for Great
Britain. The USA agreed to sell their most advanced nuclear system and only Great Britain
(no other American ally) was sold trident. The trident deal was reminiscent of the Polaris of
1962.
But the second point is about intelligence services. It continued to work hand in hand. The
example is in 1988 with the existence of the Echelon system which was rebuild. It was a
global system to collect information. The countries were the USA, Great Britain, Canada,
Australia, and New-Zealand. Here we can said that the English-speaking club of the spirit
of the special relationship. Of course, the Anglo-American relationship spectacularly comes
to freshen during the Falklands war between April and June 1982.
d) The military special relationship: the 1982 Falklands war
Falkland Islands have been British since 1833 and it was a bone of contention between Great
Britain and Argentina. In 1980, 1 800 captors were almost English and they were willing to be
under British Court.
Context: Late 1970 and early 1980 there was a military dictatorship in Argentina which was
strangling into economic difficulties and the political repression that was inflecting on its own
people. So in April 1982, 5 000 Argentinean soldiers invaded the islands and they saw it as a
way to strengthen the regime (dictatorship) but it cause an outcry in Great Britain.
The Thatcher government intended to strike back immediately but there was a major problem
with the USA. The USA was an ally both for the Argentina and Great Britain. Argentina was a
brutal military regime but the USA supported military dictatorships as long as they quell
communism and they insured stability and were friendly for American interests (that was the
case for Argentina and Chili). In addition Argentina was a member of OAS (Organization of
American States) that was a league of American republics of which the USA was also a
member. The American administration found itself in an upset position having to grapple with
a conflict between two allies.
First the USA attempted to remain neutral (the British government very furious) and the
American Secretary of State Alexander Haig tried to act as a middle man to work out a
compromise but it came to nothing. The UN resolution condemned Argentina and following
the failure of its peace making effort the USA eventually sided with Great Britain. The USA
provided Great Britain with significant strategic arm military support which was probably
decisive. For example, the American military gave the British military crucial information
about the Argentinean military and by June 1982, that was the victory for Great Britain.
Great Britain achieved a great military success thanks to the special relationship and of course
Margaret Thatcher was undeniably a believer in the special relationship. In a speech she gave
in London in June 1982 at the end of the Falklands War about the special relationship, she was
addressed in the Americans

our ability to discuss with you problems of common interest [] to discuss them freely and
candidly, not necessarily always agreeing but giving and taking advice as family friend,
without exiting anxiety or envy.
There is no denying that Thatcher was drawing on special relationship rhetoric to serve her
countrys interest. The other illustration to serve her countrys interest is about Libya and the
USA. In 1980s there were mounting tension between Libya and the USA: the latter accused
the former of sponsoring Arab terrorism. The USA accused Libya to sponsor Arab terrorism.
And in April 1986, in Western Berlin a part with American soldiers was bombed and the
Libyan government was involved in that. Consequently the USA launched air raids to bomb
Libya and throughout this crisis the Thatcher government supported the USA with 2 main
points:
- The USA were allowed to use British bases
- The USA were allowed to plane over British territory (different from France for
example)
The attitude of Thatcher came in much criticism in Great Britain but she remains firm in the
support to the US. She though that Great Britain could turn her back to the EEC but that she
had to sand by her ally: the USA. There were few exceptions.
II. The Anglo-American disagreements in the 1980s
a) The British autonomy from the USA
The Thatcher government supported the Americans still Great Britain didnt always follow the
Americans and there were 2 examples:
- In 1980, the Carter administration decided to boycott the Olympics in Moscow Great
Britain didnt follow them.
- In 1981, The Martial law was established in communist Poland to repress political
decenters. Of course the British joined the Americans to protest against the repressive
policy of the Polish government but the Reagan administration wanted to add
economic sanctions to the condemnations. They asked the Europeans to cut trade
ties with Poland. The Americans were asking the Europeans to make their force they
were not prepared to make. This time Thatcher sided with all the European countries
and turned down Regan requests
Because it would have undermined British interest Thatcher reaction serves suggested that she
was not prepared to maintain the special relationship at all cost. However it was only a minor
disagreement.
The most serious crisis in Anglo-American relations occurred in the Caribbean during the
1980s.
b) Grenada
Grenada is an isolated country in the West Antilles, close to the USA.
In 1979, Maurice Bishop established a Marxist government. Since Fidel Castro had taken
control of Cuba in the same region, the USA had been highly suspicious on any link with the
government in the Caribbean. Hostile to the regime set up by Bishop but found a compromise
and Bishop remained in power.
In 1983, Bishop was overthrown by hard-line communists and the Regan administration
decided to step in to avoid the advent of hostile country in its own backload. The problem
with Grenada it that it was previously a British colony (a member of the Commonwealth) so it
was closely related to Great Britain and a few days before Thatcher informed that the USA
was preparing a military intervention. She protested.
And on 25 October 1983 the Americans launched Operation Urgent Fury and crushed the
military government of Grenada. To Great Britain, the American invasion of Grenada was a
violation of international laws and a humiliation.
Thatcher felt undeservedly let down by her closest ally and in her memoirs The Downing
Street Years published in 1993 she said
At the time I felt dismayed and let down by what had happened. At least, the British
government had been made to look impotent, at worst we looks deceitful.
It can hardly be denied that Anglo-A relations were excellent in the 1980s. So one question
arises: Did Great Britain genuinely take advantage of the special relationship?
An assessment of Margaret Thatchers foreign policy: Clever Tactician of British Poodle?
c) Margaret Thatcher as Clever Tactician

By the time Thatcher became Prime Minister, Great Britain had long seems to be a world
power. Great Britain had lost an Empire and her economic performances were quite poor.
Great Britain was the second great nation on the world stage. Yet under Thatcher, Great
Britain seems to have more influence in international affairs than a status would have wanted
when they became Prime Minister. The special relationship used by the British as an
instrument to exert influence upon the Americans.
The good example is the British role in the nuclear diplomacy.
In 1983, the Regan administration launches a program called Strategic Defense Initiative
(SDI) a system to destroy nuclear ballistic missiles which could be launched from the Soviet
Union. The SDI was a nuclear shield which would protect the USA from a Russian nuclear
attack. If SDI was to be successful it could have tremendous strategic repercussions for
European countries including Great Britain. Indeed if the USA were to be protected to any
Russian nuclear attack it would have much less incentive to insure the protection of Europe.
So Europe would no longer be Americas first line of defense. That was one of the raisondtre of the special relationship.
Thanks to the special relationship, Thatcher managed to have Great Britain included in the
SDR program and she obtained the American commitment to the defense of Europe.
Ironically enough Thatcher represented and advocated European interests thanks to the special
relationship. The program was eventually abandoned because it was deemed too expansive
and unrealistic by Congress.
Mid 1980s, Thatcher acted as an intermediary between the USA and the USSR at a moment
when the relations were very tends between the American and the Russians. And that was a
prominent role for a second-rate nation. Margaret Thatchers ambition when she became
Prime Minister was to make Britain great again. Once more when Russians and Americans
discussed nuclear disarmament, Thatcher could act further European interests. However some
of her opponents claimed that far from having further British interests, she was acting a
Poodle to the American giant.
d) Great Britain as a fawning poodle
Margaret Thatcher was sometimes accused of doing too much with the Americans which had
no positive effects for Great Britain with 2 examples.
Concerning Nuclear Relationship, Great Britain got American nuclear weapons on
very good financial terms but actually Great Britain was dependent on the Americans
in nuclear matters and some analysts claimed that there was no autonomy in reality;
the British only had the illusion of owning an independent deterrent. Speech by Denis
Healy (shadow [Shadow = Party of the opposition here Labor Party] Foreign
Secretary)
Because the Prime Minister has now made Britain totally dependent of the USA for the
supply and maintenance of its strategic nuclear missiles for the testing of its warheads,
Britain is totally incapable of standing up to that great power on any major issue of defense
or foreign policy. The US has the physical ability to still supply the Trident forces with
missiles or to refuse to replace them.
On Healys view Great Britain relied too heavily on the USA.
Concerning Grenada, Denis Healy instead that the reason why Great Britain had been
humiliated in Grenada was to be found on the British dependence on the USA which
could take British support and acquaintance for granted. Thats why during his speech
at the House of Commons in October 1983; Denis Healy said:
The Prime Minister has been an obedient poodle to the American president. [] The PM
has made something of a cult of her special relationship with the American president at the
expense of British interests, of her relations with our European partners and of our relations
with the Commonwealth.
The Labor party was quick to point out the limitations of Thatchers foreign policy. Thatcher
gave priority to the USA rather than to the EEC. Great Britain benefited from it several times
but she also had to follow the USA lead when her government had serious reservation about
American foreign policy. And this is the example of Libya or SDI.
Conclusion : Over all, the special relationship seems to have served Great Britain well. It
appears to have announced her status on the world stage. No doubt the USA was the
strongest partner and Great Britain the junior one but they often stuck together which
could help both countries especially Great Britain.

CHAPTER 9: THE END OF THE COLD WAR AND THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP
From 1989 to 1991, the Eastern Communist bloc felt apart.
In 1991, the Cold War area was over. It was an event of parliament importance in world
affairs. Indeed, the binary opposition, between the USA and the Western bloc on the one hand
and the USSR and the Eastern bloc on the other hand, which had dominated foreign relations
which their basic structures since 1947 was no longer relevant. The end of the Cold War had a
significant impact on the Anglo-American relations. Actually the end of the Cold War begs
one crucial question: Was the special relationship going to survive?
I. The end of the Cold War
a) The special relationship at risk
Georges H.W. Bush: Republican American president from 1989 to 1993.
Soon after Bushs election, the official visit to the USA by Margaret Thatcher, she was
frustrated. Bush was different from Regan and willing to distance himself from his
predecessor. He kept Thatcher at a distance and he didnt come off to a good start. The end of
the Cold War was a surprise both for the Americans and for the British. And Margaret
Thatcher main concern was : Would the special relationship survive?
The Cold War was the raison dtre of the special relationship. It was an alliance to face a
common enemy but by 1991 the enemy was gone. The British were afraid of witnessing the
emergence of an indiscriminate form of the multilateralism. In this multilateralism the
special relationship would come for nothing. No special status would be granted Great
Britain. Great Britain was also in competition with Germany. The Bush administration was
keen on establishing closer ties with Germany because Germany was regarded as the leader or
Europe.
The example is in May 1989 when Bush called partnership in leadership. The Thatcher
government was worried about the advent of a close relationship between the USA and
Germany. This fueled tensions and in 1989, the collapse of the Berlin wall beg one question.
Would Germany be reunified? And that was a bone of contention between Great Britain and
the USA. Margaret Thatcher was opposed to the Germany reunification while the USA
supported it and by September 1990 the reunification process was complete.
At the highest level the Anglo-American relations were fraught with tensions at the end of the
Cold War. Several observers announced the end of the special relationship which, they argued:
The special relationship could no longer be justified after the end of the Cold War. Then
came the Gulf war which led to a revival of the special relationship.
b) Back with a vengeance: Anglo-American relations during the Gulf War
In August 1990 the Iraqi military invaded Kuwait Why?
- First Iraq owed a large part of its debt to Kuwait.
- It claims that the territory of Kuwait belong of right to Iraq
- The other reason was related to oil.
This invasion is part of international condemnation. The USA to constrain against Iraq and
between August 1990 and November 1990, Thatcher was steadfast in her support to the USA
administration.
November 1990 is the end of Margaret Thatcher Primer ship she ousted by the members of
her own cabinet and she was replaced by John Major (1990 1997)
John Major was in line with Thatcher on Iraq, he was steadfast in his support of the USA. He
explained that in his memoir entitled Autobiography in 1999 with this first quotation
There was no hesitation. No unease. No holding back. No probing to find out the others
position. And There is unique rapport between Britain and the USA. British politicians and
the military do not have the reserve in dealing with their American counterpart that they show
elsewhere, and confidences are shared as a matter of course.
A coalition with several countries including France was under the American leadership and
this coalition launched a military operation and Kuwait was quickly liberated. Of course the
Gulf War led the ground for revival of the special relationship. The British contribution to the
military campaign was Second only (after the USA) with 30 000 military personnel.
The British and the American commanders worked hand in hand with General Peter de la
Billire and General Norman Schwarzkopf who established close working relations. Of

course the USA retained the upper hand. But concerning the special relationship it was clear
alive and clear on. During the Gulf War the Anglo-American relations were restored to the
Cold War situation in other words, thanks to the Gulf War the special relationship was revived
as it was during the Cold War. Of course there were limitations. After 4 days of ground war
the Bush administration decided to end the fight and not to go to Baghdad to oust Saddam
Hussein. The Americans made that decision alone (the British were not consulted on this
part).
c) The case of NATO
It was a buy product of the Cold War (created in 1941) and the goal was to organize the
defense of Europe against communist threat. But at the end of the Cold War questions
arise:
Would NATO survive? Did NATO still have a purpose? Wasnt it time to terminate it? Could
the Europeans muster a credible defense entity without the USA? Was Europe able to ensure
its own defense alone? Great Britain said no. The priority was to make sure that the NATO
would continue to existed, that Americans would remain committed in the defense of Europe.
Why American would do that?
Americans remains strongly committed to NATO at the end and after the end of the Cold War
and Americans had a vested interest in the existence of NATO.
- It enables them to retain significant influence on European affairs. The Bush
administration remains strongly committed to the American leadership of NATO.
- By contrast an independent European defense entity would not serve the American
purposes.
Great Britain supported the USA and also rutted for continued American involvement in
NATO. But with the new American president Bill Clinton from January 1993, he was about to
make the life of British diplomats difficult.
II.
John Major and Bill Clinton: Hard Times
Bill Clinton: American President from 1993 to 2001.
He was not much interested in the special relationship; he was willing to turn to Asia so that
the USA can make the most of the Asian economic miracle. Furthermore Bill Clinton and its
British opposite member, John Major, disliked each other. The Anglo-American relations
under Bill Clinton and John Major fraught with tension especially on two points: about
Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland.
a) Yugoslavia
After the end of the Cold War, Yugoslavia disintegrated. It is a country whose population was
composed of many different ethnic groups and religious groups.
- Croats (Catholic),
- Slovenians (Catholic),
- Serbs (Orthodox Christians),
- Bosnians (3 categories: Croats, Serbs, and Muslim Bosnians called Bosniak).
Tensions and rivalry between those various groups happened under communist rules,
Yugoslavia held different ethnic and religious groups together. Yugoslavia was mainly a
Serbian idea. After the end of the Cold War, the Serbs were willing to keep Yugoslavia as a
nation ally. On the other hand Croats and Slovenians wanted to break away. The War
broke out in 1992.
In Bosnia there were 3 belligerents: Croats, ethnic Serbs and Muslim Bosnians. The Ethnic
Serbs back by Serbians engaged in ethnic cleansing in order to get rid of Muslim Bosnian. It
was an extremely violent conflict, a reminiscence of Europe darkest power. As violence in
Yugoslavian conflicts intensified, a breach appeared between European countries (including
Great Britain) and the USA. But disagreement appeared to what have to be done on
Yugoslavia Should troops be committed on the ground?
There were 2 opinions:
- Yes said the Europeans: they pushed for a neutral military presence on the ground
before an agreement can be found.
- No said the American: they condemned the Serbs and protected Bosnian Muslims but
they decided that no troop would be on the ground. They favored air strikes against the
Serbs.
Consequently, NATO and the European Union appeared powerless. There were more and
more tensions between the USA and Great Britain, the American diplomatic activism

increased but in November 1995, with the Dayton Agreements it was the end of war in
Bosnia.
b) Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland belongs to the UK. It has been a religious thrive between Protestants
against Catholics. In Northern Ireland, Protestants are in majority, Catholics are what we can
call the second class citizens. The Protestants were desperate to remain part of the UK
while Catholics wanted to break away from the UK to join the Republic of Ireland and this
led to terrorism. Terrorism was resumed in the 1970s under the ages of Irish Republican
Army (IRA) and the troubles in Northern Ireland had been a hot issue to tackle by all British
Prime Ministers since the 1970s.
It was an internal matter for the UK Why and what does it have to do with the AngloAmerican relations?
Since the 1970s, some Irish American politicians had thought to get involved to the Northern
Irish affairs. Some of them were supported the independence of Northern Ireland (for example
Ted Kennedy). In the early 1990s, and estimated 44 million Irish Americans were supported
the Northern Irish affairs. Until Bill Clinton, Northern Ireland moved to the top of the
American foreign policy agenda. Bill Clinton was keen to make the difference. He got
personally involved in peace diplomacy. Such an attitude didnt go done well in London and
there was clearly interference in British internal affair.
This is the example with Patrick Mathew (Secretary for Northern Ireland); in February 1993
he said We do not need a peace envoy. But Bill Clinton would not listen and by 1994, Great
Britain had accepted the American mediation. The American administration tried to get
closer to the IRA to serve as a go between.
Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein (Political Party which represents the IRA), applied for
a visa to the USA 8 times but in February 1994 it was accepted, Gerry Adams was granted a
visa and it was public outcry in the UK and major government was completely furious.
Consequently on the American mediation, in March 1993, there was no more restriction on
Sinn Fein Fund rising in the USA. Through these actions the USA was committed to a twintrack approach. They started to talk while they were trying to obtain decommissioning from
1994 to 1996, IRA accepted a ceasefire. In June 1996 the ceasefire was broken by the IRA.
And Sinn Fein was excluded from talks as a result of this action.
Of course the Northern Ireland was a major bone of contention between John Major and Bill
Clinton in the 1996s.
III.
Tony Blair a bridge between America and Europe?
a) Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, the two like-minded leaders
Tony Blair: British New Labor Prime Minister from 1997
He was from the New Labor Party and it was an attempt to emulate the example set by Bill
Clinton in the USA. Bill Clinton had managed to become the President of the USA by stray
away from the habits of Democratic Party. With the support of his group, the Democratic
Leadership Council, Clinton set out to modernize the Democratic Party with what we called
his Third Way. With his Third Way Tony Blair was willing to walk in the foot step of Clinton
whom he admired and their agenda consisted in 3 parts:
- Fiscal responsibility
- Fighting against the culture of dependency by welfare entitlement they created
workfare ( = welfare at work)
- Tough on crime
Relying on such an agenda, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton took both away from the right, they
caught the political middle ground and remover what they called the Forgotten Middle
Class and they win over the Forgotten Middle Class. The close relationship between the two
was really clear. At first, Tony Blair was Clintons protg; he supported him during the
Lewinski affair.
b) Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Iraq
Concerning Northern Ireland, Tony Blair welcomed the American involvement (big difference
with Johns Major). In 1998, Good Friday agreement: it secured the creation of Northern
Ireland Assembly. The USA was involved in the negotiations with the blessing of the Blair
government. About Kosovo, war broke out in Kosovo between Serbs and Kosovo Albanians.

Between 1998 and 1999, Kosovo was then a part of Serbia. The Serbs restored to ethnic
cleansing of Kosovo Albanians with massacres of populations.
Tensions between Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: the former wanted troops on the ground while
the latter favored Air strikes. Bill Clinton prevailed and Serbian troops withdrew from
Kosovo. And in spite of tensions, Great Britain supported the USA. Throughout the crisis, Bill
Clinton and Tony Blair talked every day on the phone and got closer together. Consequently,
Tony Blair was accused of acting as a British poodle to the USA. In March 1991, about the air
strikes, Tony Benn said We take our orders from Washington.
Iraq
In December 1998, the USA and Great Britain launched air attacks on Iraq for 4 days. Why?
They suspected Iraq of developing weapons of mass destructions (WMDs). In November
1998, Saddam Hussein had forced the United Nation weapon inspectors to go out of Iraq. And
the objective of the air strike from the USA and Great Britain has to reduce Saddam Husseins
ability to build and use WMD and threaten the neighboring countries.
The Anglo-American military operation came into much criticism throughout the Arab
countries, but also in France which was openly critical of the air strikes and neither European
countries participated in air strike (this was purely and Anglo-American affair) and in these
condition, we can say that the special relationship was alive and well alive by the late of
1980s.
c) Blair, Europe and the USA
Blair refused to choose between Europe and the USA. He intended to collaborate closely
with Europe and the USA. He wasnt a Euro-skeptic (difference with Margaret Thatcher), to
Tony Blair European connection, alliance was a pillar of British Foreign policy, it was crucial,
in his opinion it couldnt afford to turn his back to Europe and he was well aware of the
situation. His priority was the USA but in addition, for the USA, Great Britain was the
number one ally.
The Transatlantic alliance was at the top of the British agenda under Tony Blair. Great Britain
should endeavor to prevent the USA from acting alone. It was essential and beneficial to
Great Britain that they make the USA act on a multilateral way. It was important for Great
Britain to get Europe closer to the USA (as a partner not a rival).On this opinion Blair has an
approach different from the France one: French often saw Europe as a counterweight to the
USA. Blair ambition was to turn Britain into a bridge between the USA and Europe.
Why did Blair emphasize the transatlantic alliance?
On Blairs opinion, you cant sacrifice the American alliance to favor Europe because the
USA is too powerful. America is the real power ally. The example to illustrate that is Kosovo,
Blair understood that Europe is weak and need the USA on a military point of view. As a
result, Great Britain cant afford not to be close to the USA, because Europe was not strong
enough. This is the example concerning the budget for defense. At the end of 1990s all the
EU countries combined invested $140 billion in defense and defense research and for the
USA it represented $290. Great Britain didnt believe in an independent European defense. As
well, Great Britain turned to the USA which could be much more careful and powerful than
Europe. Tony Blair wanted to be a European leader seeking to turn Europe into a partner
rather than a rival to the USA.
To conclude on this point we may wonder if in such circumstances Europe wouldnt just
become An American protectorate to paraphrase General De Gaulle.