Matlin's America: So What is This "Special Relationship" with Britain?

Every time there is a change of leader in the United Kingdom or the US, the British media jump to the question of when the new man (or woman) will meet his or her counterpart and the extent to which the so-called “special relationship” between the countries will benefit or suffer.

Hence when Bill Clinton, with whom Tony Blair seemed to enjoy the best of relationships, was succeeded by George W. Bush, the media expected the “SR” to be damaged. Blair, by then everybody’s friend (at least in the West), did his “May I call you George?” bit, and all seemed to be well.


This special relationship between Britain and the US is much misunderstood and misinterpreted. The term attempts to encapsulate close political, cultural, and historical tie, yet it did not exist, even as media commentary, at the end of the First World War. Let us not forget that part of America’s price of entering the war was the sharing of British bunkering ports throughout the Pacific and elsewhere, a privilege previously denied to the US. The aim was to break the trading power of the British Empire.

America repeated its assault at the end of World War II. Certainly, Britain was the largest recipient of aid under the Marshall Plan but much of that was passed on to other European countries. And, boy, did we pay for the support in higher interest rates and stricter terms than other recipients. Indeed, we only repaid the final installment of Marshall aid a few years ago.

Let me be clear. I don’t object to what the US did in exacting a price from its allies. Business is business. What needs to be said is that in the days of world conflict and its aftermath, America’s overriding policy was free trade; the British Empire’s policy was preferential trade. The economic difference between the two nations mitigated against any so-called special relationship.

One cannot ignore the personal. I am positive that Franklin D. Roosevelt liked Winston Churchill, whilst resisting the latter’s overtures to join in the fight against Germany before December 1941. I have no doubt that Harry Truman liked Winnie, too. Indeed, it was during Churchill’s famous 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri that the expression, “special relationship” was allegedly coined. But can anyone point me to US policy decisions, in those first years after World War II, that demonstrate the existence of this special relationship?

In the early 1960s, Harold Macmillan thought John F. Kennedy was wet behind the ears and a man who could be led by them. Even after Kennedy showed Macmillan the error of this judgment, the two men remained on good terms. However, Lyndon Johnson's relationship with Harold Wilson was strained. LBJ tried to get Wilson to send a small, token force to Vietnam, in exchange for which he would help bail the Brits out of yet another economic crisis, but for once Johnson’s charm offensive failed. Wilson would not play ball in Southeast Asia.

And now? President Obama demonstrated his disdain for Prime Minister Gordon Brown by refusing one-to-one meetings or even a photo call.

At the highest levels, the special relationship doesn’t really exist, except as a personal link, and even then, nothing is certain.

Take an occasion two weeks ago. A U.S. Senate committee called in the Chief Executive Office of BP America to explain the company’s role in the explosion and leak of the Gulf of Mexico oil wellhead. The CEO found himself facing a firing squad, with one senator after another seeking absolute confirmation that BP accepted full liability for the leak and would pay all claims, regardless of actual fault.

The senators did not like the CEO’s response that BP would pay all claims for which it was legally responsible. The US legislators were out for blood and I’m sure they were even keener than usual to get a foreign company spiked. (I have not seen American corporations, even US commercial bankers, treated this way by the Senate.)

I do not seek to excuse BP in any way from their acts or omissions. But let's be clear --- as many of the senators involved knew full well that an admission of liability would negate insurance policies, enabling BP’s insurers to walk away, as the company tried to protect its shareholders --- during the hearings, no one referred to any special relationship between the US Government and a British company.

I believe in the existence of the special relationship. It is at grassroots level. The British and Americans share a common language, or at least a resemblance of a common language. of sorts. Generally, the people of each nation are pro-famil and centre of the road politically, have a keen enjoyment of sports and arts, and are charitably and socially minded.

I have relatives in New York and Miami. I have an American wife and enjoy seeing her extended family, be they in Minnesota, Oregon, Arizona, California, or New York.We have close American friends from Vermont to Colorado. I visited the on business for more than 40 years, probably more than 150 times. Since retirement, I have had extended stays for academic research. On all such visits, and I do mean all, I was treated as a friend should be.

US ideology is often quite different to ours. The British, by and large, are not hung up on issues such as abortion or creationism, nor are we troubled by same-sex unions. And we don’t want to carry guns. In return, some Americans might say we Brits have no concept of advanced citizenship.

But these differences are outweighed easily by what I like. In their locality, Americans tend to be socially-minded. They care about their neighbours and friends. They are amazingly charitable. Their restaurants (excluding the fast-food empires) usually serve great food at reasonable prices. I have a list of places to recommend from Miami to Seattle. And there’s so much space in America, as opposed to the little island where I live.

Freedom is a reality. And because our two peoples have so much in common, the special relationship is alive and well, even if our governments are at each others' throats.

Comments

[If You Could Get a Degree in R]

[...] Matlin's America: So What is This “Special Relationship” with … [...]

[UJ]

Haha, these Matlin's America's always push my buttons - I'm touchy about furrners trying to figure us Americans out (Just because we're not Exceptional doesn't mean we SUCK. Rep your set, yo.)

But every single time I read these it makes me wonder: If a Brit talking about America can seem just a tiny few inches out of touch, how many millions of miles off the mark could I be about Pakistan, or wherever?

Trust no one. Question everything. Rock on, John.

[IranPhD]

Dear Scott,

I noticed in an earlier comment you mentioned that Marandi's dissertation was on Lord Byron and Orientalism. Do you by any chance know if his work is available for download anywhere? I am familiar with Saree Makdisi's work on the same issue and would be interested in seeing Marandi's take.

Thanks!

[IranPhD]

Btw, I should mention that I found one of his articles on the issue, but can't seem to locate the full dissertation. Please don't go out of your way to give me a link, but if you happen to know where it might be digitally available off the top of your head I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

[Dave]

QUOTING -- "The British, by and large, are not hung up on issues such as abortion or creationism, nor are we troubled by same-sex unions."

These issues have divided the UK Christian community in recent years. I know because I worshipped in Church of England churches for several years. Many Anglicans don't even like women serving as priests! The Episcopal Church in the United States and most other mainline American churches are more progressive than the Church of England, the religious arm of the UK national government. Americans in same sex relationships can even be ordained in some of the largest mainline Protestant churches -- ECUSA, PCUSA, ELCA, UCC, and so on, but not in the Church of England.

********************

QUOTING -- "At the highest levels, the special relationship doesn’t really exist, except as a personal link, and even then, nothing is certain."

The State Department and the Foreign Office often have their squabbles, but relations have been very close and friendly at the military level. Relations are special at times and not special at other times. Both sides benefited. Yes, by gaining control of British naval facilities, the US was able to use the British military emergency of 1940-1941 to expel the Royal Navy from the Western Hemisphere, thereby supplanting its control over the whole Atlantic. But relations during and since the war have been that of give and take. Britain received military equipment on favorable terms under Lend-Lease. Britain also embraced the special relationship for the entire post-war period in order to use US power to maintain the balance of power in Europe, since Britain could no longer do that job herself. The US shared intelligence with Britain that it didn't share with anyone else. Henry Kissinger said things to his counterpart, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, that he never shared with others in the NSC and State Department - so he claims. But I believe it. Why not?

[ScottLucas11]

IranPhD,

I'm afraid it would have to be ordered from British Library --- http://ethos.bl.uk:8080/OrderDetails.do?did=2&uin=uk.bl.ethos.397121" rel="nofollow">http://ethos.bl.uk:8080/OrderDetails.do?did=2&u...

S.

[IranPhD]

Thanks! I'll hold off on buying it till after I've read the article first.

[How is wearing nail polish rel]

[...] Matlin's America: So What is This “Special Relationship” with … [...]

[Kurt]

I love these things, too. It's always fun to see how others see us. On the other hand, far too many generalities for me. Pro-family? Like, what culture isn't?

I also find it telling that whilst "special relationship" has oft splashed across many a British lede, it is curiously absent in the American vernacular.

I think this sheds light on more than the dialectal palette.

[G/F i really loved is gone, Im]

[...] Matlin’s America: So What is This “Special Relationship” with Britain? | Enduring ... [...]

[Does Term Life Insurance Vary]

[...] Matlin's America: So What is This “Special Relationship” with … [...]

[Dave]

The other thing worth noting is Britain's ability to project power globally. Britain is the only European member of NATO with that capability, and that forges the special relationship further, making Britain a natural ally of the United States.

[Dr John Matlin]

Thanks to all of you who have commented on this piece. Yes, it was a little tongue in cheek and, yes, there are always different points of view. Thank heavens we Brits and Americans live in countries where we celebrate differences.

[Ian]

I agree with you John. There is no 'special' relationship. Most relationships we have with America are very one sided in favour of America.
I note you refer to BP. Criticise them or not. BP's response has been VERY different from the American response to Bhopal which was and remains monumentally disgracefully disgusting.