Professional Documents
Culture Documents
“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 Court’s
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 Britain’s 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 it’s 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“. It’s 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 didn’t 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 Roosevelt’s 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.
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. Roosevelt’s 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 shouldn’t 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 d’être 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 d’être of the so-
called 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
Extract from Jeffrey Goldberg’s « The Obama Doctrine » in The Atlantic Magazine - April 2016
President Obama did not come into office preoccupied by the Middle East. He is the first
child of the Pacific to become president—born in Hawaii, raised there and, for four years,
in Indonesia—and he is fixated on turning America’s attention to Asia. For Obama, Asia
represents the future. Africa and Latin America, in his view, deserve far more U.S.
attention than they receive. Europe, about which he is unromantic, is a source of global
stability that requires, to his occasional annoyance, American hand-holding. And the
Middle East is a region to be avoided—one that, thanks to America’s energy revolution,
will soon be of negligible relevance to the U.S. economy.
Extract from Jeffrey Goldberg’s « The Obama Doctrine » in The Atlantic Magazine - April 2016
“Free riders aggravate me,” he told me. Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no
longer be able to claim a “special relationship” with the United States if it did not commit to
spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense. “You have to pay your fair share,” Obama told
David Cameron, who subsequently met the 2 percent threshold.
Part of his mission as president, Obama explained, is to spur other countries to take action for
themselves, rather than wait for the U.S. to lead. The defense of the liberal international order
against jihadist terror, Russian adventurism, and Chinese bullying depends in part, he believes,
on the willingness of other nations to share the burden with the U.S. […] “We don’t have to always
be the ones who are up front,” he told me. “Sometimes we’re going to get what we want precisely
because we are sharing in the agenda. The irony is that it was precisely in order to prevent the
Europeans and the Arab states from holding our coats while we did all the fighting that we, by
design, insisted” that they lead during the mission to remove Muammar Qaddafi from power in
Libya. “It was part of the anti–free rider campaign.”