The political heavyweights of the Western world have this week descended upon the picturesque English seaside town of St. Ives in Cornwall for the 47th G7 summit meeting. Political issues such as climate change, global Covid-19 vaccination and ongoing concerns regarding state sponsored cyber terrorism are all on the agenda, with a standardised international corporation tax already briefed to the world’s media before the summit as a key policy discussion to be had amongst G7 leaders.
However, the domestic British media’s focus in the run-up to the summit has notably been less concerned with the itinerary of the meeting itself, and more focussed upon the long awaited first meeting between PM Boris Johnson and newly elected US President Joe Biden.
It is understandable that this meeting would garner such interest with the press considering the plethora of reasons why this relationship could turn out to be as tumultuous as the Atlantic waves forming the backdrop of their inaugural encounter as national leaders. Joe Biden was a vehement opponent of Brexit; Boris Johnson was its key architect. Johnson was a staunch ally of Biden’s presidential predecessor and bitter 2020 electoral opponent Donald Trump (until he wasn’t); Biden has acknowledged this warm relationship and previously described Johnson as a “physical and emotional clone” of the former president. They hail from entirely different backgrounds, are associated with markedly different political constitutions, and are in a myriad of ways unlikely to be natural allies to one another outside of the setting they find themselves in.
One can almost picture the hungry press licking their lips at the prospect of a public showdown between the two - or even just a demonstration of indifference - to fill newspaper inches with rampant speculation regarding the breakdown of relations between the two men and their respective nations. The irony that it is I writing about this also is not lost on me, I assure you.
The politicos covering this constituent melodrama of the summit will likely be hugely disappointed with the offerings made by the two thus far. Johnson has described his American counterpart as a “breath of fresh air”, insisting there is both “complete harmony” between the two men and a plethora of mutual interests and commonalities for the two nations to pursue moving forward in NATO, climate change and international security.
Biden was similarly effusive about the meeting, waxing lyrical about an Atlantic Charter that would form the basis of cooperation between the UK and US on "key challenges of this century - cyber security, emerging technologies, global health and climate change".
"We affirmed the special relationship - that is not said lightly - the special relationship between our people and renewed our commitment to defending the enduring democratic values that both our nations share".
Ah, the “special relationship”.
The phrase is a seemingly inescapable motif of US-UK relations stretching back to its coinage by Winston Churchill in 1946. He saw Britain’s post-war place in the world as firmly at the side of her American allies, bounded by common history and the bonds forged in the brutality of war, united in the anticipated battle between the democratic West and the communist East of Stalin’s Soviet Union.
In the decades since Churchill’s proclamation, there is no doubt that Anglo-American relations have been tightknit to say the least. Though interstate cooperation is commonplace in international politics, the level of collaboration between the UK and US in trade and commerce, military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing has been described as "unparalleled" among major world powers.
A truly special relationship, it would seem.
The media’s presently keen interest in the Biden-Johnson relationship is on account of the fact that this “special relationship” has often been marked by warm personal bonds between the respective leaders of the two nations. Churchill and FDR were famously close, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were bonded by common ideologies, whilst Tony Blair was friendly with both Democratic president Bill Clinton and, more notoriously in history, his Republican successor George W. Bush.
While the “special relationship” has been heralded as both the blueprint for bilateral cooperation and as a testament to the close cultural, political, economic and diplomatic ties between the two nations, the reality is arguably somewhat different to the almost sickening romanticism inherent in Churchill’s locution.
The “special relationship” is a decades-long semantic exercise in American condescension to placate an ever-willing ally on the European continent and safeguard American grand strategy objectives. The power imbalance that has been intrinsic since the relationship’s beginning ultimately dictates that this be the reality.
Churchill conceded that Britain was largely on the decline by the conclusion of the war in 1945, that Pax Britannica was ending and Pax Americana was to begin. However, he saw Britain’s new role as that of a wise old mentor, guiding the young, powerful but impetuous American superpower through the trials and tribulations of hegemony in a Mr Miyagi-esque manner. The special relationship would be set by this dynamic and would secure Britain’s continued status amongst the global political elite in spite of any imperial recession or economic decline.
Churchill’s vision hasn’t been realised. The special relationship has resembled more of a motorcycle and sidecar dynamic than one of mutual respect between a veteran and a virile young fighter. More Wallace and Gromit than Mr Miyagi and Daniel-son.
The proof is plastered across the post-war era. The special relationship has been promoted as strong only when Britain has been willing to do American bidding, whilst on rare occasions that Britain has rejected its orders from across the Atlantic, American attitudes towards its “special partner” become decidedly frostier.
British PM Harold Wilson refuses American President Lyndon Johnson’s request to join American forces in Vietnam?
*Johnson publicly criticises British involvement in Malaysia*
Thatcher serves as a willing ally to Reagan’s ideological crusade against the Soviet Union?
Reagan: “The United States and the United Kingdom are bound together by inseparable ties of ancient history and present friendship”
Tony Blair commits to support US invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq in the War on Terror?
Bush: “America has no truer friend than Great Britain”
This bears no resemblance to a relationship of equals, instead one built with a clear power imbalance to serve American interests with limited relative benefit, if not outright detriment, to the junior British partner.
Boris Johnson currently faces his own decision whether or not to comply with American wishes at the ongoing G7 summit, namely over the difficulties associated with the Northern Ireland protocol and problems arising from border issues between the EU and Britain.
President Biden has taken a personal interest in the dispute in part because of his well-known affinity with his Irish roots. The protocol is said to be seen as sacrosanct to him and his national security adviser has warned the British government to not underestimate his strength of feeling towards upholding the accord. He himself has warned both the UK and EU against jeopardising peace in Northern Ireland secured through the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a point he’s likely to further push at the G7 meeting itself and one he’s undoubtedly already made in earnest to Boris Johnson at their initial meeting.
What now for the PM? It is one thing to wax lyrical about his American opposite number to the press- this type of adulatory is expected as a diplomatic courtesy for inaugural meetings and was perhaps even more urgent considering their rocky past- and quite another to take deliberative policy decisions on such a key domestic issue.
President Biden has made his position to Boris Johnson clear: respect the Northern Ireland protocol or any prospect of a US-UK free trade agreement is gone. Though this has not been the public position, the implication with prior warnings regarding Northern Ireland has been made clear by his administration.
Johnson has affirmed from his meeting with President Biden that there is “absolutely common ground” between the two on the issue of Northern Ireland, perhaps indicating his position will more closely align with American wishes moving forward, in keeping with the vast majority of Anglo-American relations since Churchill. Certainly, a large-scale trade deal with the world’s largest economy is not something to be sacrificed so willingly, this no doubt a key factor in Johnson’s decision-making.
Conversely, Johnson is also said to be incredibly unfond of the phrase “special relationship”, taking issue with its usage by Biden in their first call after Biden’s January inauguration, which may also indicate his desire to build a more autonomous Britain free from American involvement moving forward. Certainly, his efforts since becoming PM have appeared to focus on rebuilding Britain’s national prestige and reaffirming its place amongst the world’s elite, and this may be reflected in his decision to comply or defy the will of President Biden.
Johnson has suggested the US-UK relationship be dubbed “the indestructible relationship”, perhaps representing a desire to break free from the intrinsically condescending underpinnings of the previous arrangement in favour of a more mutually beneficial partnership secured by the undeniable historic and cultural bonds the two nations share. It will be interesting to sample President Biden’s perspective on this new take.
In the long line of British Prime Minister-US President relationships, not all of have been warm and friendly. Will the Johnson-Biden relationship be a Reagan-Thatcher or a Johnson-Wilson? This summit will undoubtedly provide us with an insight.
Kommentare