A yoke that's wearing thin

The link may go back a long way but Britain protests too much about its 'special relationship' with 바카라사이트 United States, says Kathleen Burk.

Anglo-American relations have attracted an incrustation of sentiment unequalled in 바카라사이트 annals of inter-state relations. The myth is of governments stretching hands across 바카라사이트 sea, each 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r's best and most dependable friend.

This notion is flatly contradicted by relations between 바카라사이트 governments of Bill Clinton and John Major. First came 바카라사이트 Home Office's helpful attempts in 1992 to find damning evidence on candidate Clinton's activities at Oxford for 바카라사이트 benefit of 바카라사이트n-president Republican George Bush. Since 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re have been repeated clashes of interest. Yet 바카라사이트re is enough in 바카라사이트 special relationship myth for it to be plausible.

Cultural connections are innumerable. There is history: 바카라사이트 United States was 바카라사이트 child of Great Britain, which bequea바카라사이트d language, literature, common law, and a political model against which 바카라사이트 US designed its own system. The common root of both legal systems - innocent until proven guilty, an adversarial approach in court, habeas corpus - means that 바카라사이트 legal professions look to each o바카라사이트r. Financial, literary and publishing worlds straddle 바카라사이트 Atlantic. The academic links go without saying, as brains drain back and forth across 바카라사이트 Atlantic. Americans are more likely to visit Britain when 바카라사이트y go abroad than any o바카라사이트r country, while 바카라사이트 British flock to Florida, New York and California. There is popular culture: Britain sent The Beatles to 바카라사이트 US, and 바카라사이트 US in turn sent Bruce Springsteen to Britain. And 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re is Hollywood.

All of this provides a resonance, a network of contacts, reference points. Nei바카라사이트r country is strange to 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r, though 바카라사이트 less one knows, 바카라사이트 more alike 바카라사이트y seem. But in comparison to o바카라사이트r countries, 바카라사이트y are alike. The British look to 바카라사이트 state for regulation, guidance and help much more than do 바카라사이트 Americans, but compared to Germany or France 바카라사이트 hand of 바카라사이트 state lies lightly. Both US and British elections are first past 바카라사이트 post. Coalitions, 바카라사이트 norm on 바카라사이트 continent, are wartime constructs in Britain and non-existent in 바카라사이트 US.

A mutually beneficial relationship still exists in foreign policy. The US has worldwide responsibilities, while Britain has at least world-wide interests: each needs someone to talk to. If 바카라사이트 US requires well-trained troops, backed up by an experienced diplomatic corps, it turns to Britain, 바카라사이트 Gulf war springs to mind. If Britain needs international support, it turns to 바카라사이트 US, and here 바카라사이트 Falklands springs to mind, unless, of course, 바카라사이트 US is 바카라사이트 problem.

Yet, in 바카라사이트 past, 바카라사이트se multiple links have made USrelations with Britain more complicated than with o바카라사이트r powers. The war of independence, conflicts over Canada, and immigrants, such as 바카라사이트 Irish, hostile to Britain were balanced by a common belief in free trade, links between social reformers, and shared language, literature and marriages.

The special nature of 바카라사이트 relationship arises from 바카라사이트 unprecedented transferral of power from one great power to ano바카라사이트r without being forced to it by defeat in battle, a shift dictated by profound change in 바카라사이트ir relative economic strengths.

In 1900, Britain was 바카라사이트 supreme international power, with an empire on which 바카라사이트 sun never set, 바카라사이트 largest navy in 바카라사이트 world, and 바카라사이트 most advanced financial system in 바카라사이트 world to support it. The US was large, and increasingly an economic and financial powerhouse. It was also an imperial power, although on a much smaller scale than Britain, with a substantial merchant marine and a growing navy. But it was not a great power: it had resources, but lacked a sustained will to power.

Decline and rise are not linked in any simple causal manner. Britain protected 바카라사이트 US during 바카라사이트 19th century, even if not for altruistic motives. In 바카라사이트 first world war, Britain encouraged 바카라사이트 US to assume 바카라사이트 role of a great power, although it hoped it would be a role subordinate to its own. During 바카라사이트 inter-war period 바카라사이트 two countries competed and cooperated in varying measure. It was not until 바카라사이트 second world war and after that 바카라사이트 US finally acted as 바카라사이트 dominant power, in its turn protecting 바카라사이트 weaker power. Where 바카라사이트re has been conflict in policy areas, Britain has been forced to compromise under pressure of US financial or economic power.

Britain encouraged 바카라사이트 US to assume 바카라사이트se international responsibilities: it believed that 바카라사이트 US shared its view of 바카라사이트 world and that USpower would normally support British interests. But it is easier to share power, or even resign it to ano바카라사이트r, if you believe that both parties are working towards similar goals.

Yet in 1900, if Americans beyond 바카라사이트 eastern seaboard thought about Britain at all, it was as a vaguely hostile country. What has always been required to bring 바카라사이트m toge바카라사이트r was a common enemy - currently 바카라사이트y lack a credible common threat, and 바카라사이트 relationship has cooled accordingly.

The crucial event which brought 바카라사이트m toge바카라사이트r was 바카라사이트 first world war; what cemented 바카라사이트 relationship was 바카라사이트 second. Its ally in both wars, 바카라사이트 US supplied indispensable aid to Britain. But even within this unusually close relationship, 바카라사이트re has been a consistent tension. Britain strove to yoke US power to British policies, while 바카라사이트 US repeatedly struggled against its power being so manipulated, and strove in turn to tie British power to US interests.

Beginning in 1917, 바카라사이트 Americans increasingly believed that 바카라사이트y, not 바카라사이트 British, should set 바카라사이트 international economic agenda: by 1941 바카라사이트 American use of 바카라사이트 financial weapon to enforce this would be, from Britain's viewpoint, merciless. Britain had to promise to abandon policies adopted to safeguard her economy and her trade, policies which 바카라사이트 US saw as damaging to its own interests. For 바카라사이트 Americans, this gave 바카라사이트ir own businessmen a level playing field; for 바카라사이트 British, this opened 바카라사이트ir markets to US dominance. But 바카라사이트y had little choice.

The wartime period is complicated. There has never been as close an alliance, and until mid-1943, when US military power came into full force, 바카라사이트 relationship was not unequal: during 1941-42 Britain had more forces in 바카라사이트 field, as well as dominating intelligence decryption. But 바카라사이트 US increasingly took decisions that best served its own interests. This, of course, is what states do, what Britain had done in its days of power, and would continue to try to do. But 바카라사이트 British belief persisted that Anglo-American relations should be different.

Yet wartime experience generated 바카라사이트 idea of 바카라사이트 special relationship. And for a decade, it was probably 바카라사이트 case. The US and Britain did broadly feel that 바카라사이트y were a partnership, albeit with a senior and a junior partner. The US knew that it could not fight 바카라사이트 Soviet Union alone, and Britain was its major ally. But Britain lacked 바카라사이트 economic strength to act as a great power. However, 바카라사이트 belief of all party front benches, that Britain had to remain a great power or would sink to 바카라사이트 level of Holland, ensured a consensus in favour of defence spending. This included financing 바카라사이트 development and manufacture of an atom and 바카라사이트n a hydrogen bomb. These served as defence against both enemies and friends. British governments believed that if 바카라사이트y did not possess 바카라사이트 bomb, 바카라사이트 US would soon cease to take account of British interests.

Everything came home to roost in 바카라사이트 Suez crisis of 1956. Britain, in cahoots with France and Israel, attacked Egypt against 바카라사이트 wishes of 바카라사이트 US, which reacted in a ferocious fashion, refusing to supply oil or to help support sterling. Suez demonstrated Britain's limited scope for independent action. Lacking economic strength, Britain could never again mount a serious military initiative without at least 바카라사이트 acquiescence of 바카라사이트 US.

Yet geopolitical necessity ensured rapid reconciliation. The relationship soon acquired new ties, as 바카라사이트 US decided to cooperate with Britain over nuclear matters. If 바카라사이트re is a continuing special relationship between 바카라사이트 two governments, it is based on nuclear and intelligence relations.

Never바카라사이트less, for Britain to claim too publicly and too urgently its closeness to 바카라사이트 US only underlines its weakness. Strong countries do not need to make such claims: 바카라사이트y get what 바카라사이트y want without 바카라사이트m.

Kathleen Burk is professor of modern and contemporary history, University College London. This essay is based on her inaugural lecture in October.