There is no mistaking the rage in America, across the board, at the release of the Lockerbie bomber Megrahi, and at the apparent duplicity of Gordon Brown and his kinsmen north of the border. Americans dislike more than anything else duplicity among friends (though it is not always absent in Washington). We should remember Suez, 1956.
For the last time when the mood within the "special relationship" was as frigid, one has to look back to 1973. It was the year of Nixon/Kissinger, and of Ted Heath. A few years previously, Brezhnev's tanks had crushed Czechoslovakia and out of fear of the Soviet Bear, Henry Kissinger, who was then Nixon's very influential National Security Adviser, launched a programme to stiffen Nato. At issue were generational factors; namely the thought that the "great generation", bonded by the Second World War and the creation of the alliance, was inevitably being removed by time and needed a surrogate. Called the "Year of Europe", it was, as Kissinger admits, the least of his successes.
France's President Pompidou, successor to de Gaulle, retorted that "for a Frenchman, surely every year was the Year of Europe". In West Germany, the socialist chancellor Willy Brandt was playing his own game of Ostpolitik with Moscow. But the toughest opposition came from Tory prime minister Ted Heath. Before Mr Brown, there was no pricklier incumbent ever to inhabit No 10, or more blinkered, and Heath didn't really like Americans, and certainly didn't try to understand them – not a charge that could be levelled at Mr Brown, who does like them and appears to understand them.
Heath's priority was to cement Britain's relations with Europe. Of course he succeeded; but little else counted. As Kissinger saw it: "Heath preferred a leading position in Europe to an honoured advisory role in Washington, and he did not consider the two functions compatible." More recently, Tony Blair attempted both, but the results now seem pretty ephemeral.
Nixon was infuriated by the conundrum posed by the "New Europeans". "When I speak to Europe, I don't know whom I'm speaking to," he complained of the new set-up. Kissinger added his voice: "We seem to be talking to those who can't negotiate, and those who can negotiate won't talk to us!" It all threatened to make a nonsense of the special relationship.
Under Heath, dialogue between London and Washington became progressively frostier. It is instructive to compare the tone of the now-published telephone conversations between Kissinger and the Soviet and British ambassadors in Washington at the time. With the former, Anatoly Dobrynin, although he represented the potential foe, Kissinger could be jocular and familiar; with Lord Cromer, the Brit, the language would be highly formal, devoid of any suggestion of intimacy. (Cromer, a charming man, was a somewhat lofty oligarch, described by a distinguished contemporary as "the stupidest boy at Eton"; though that was not necessarily an obstacle to ambassadorial preferment.)
By the time of the outbreak of the Yom Kippur war, in October 1973, relations had become seriously cool. Kissinger, now appointed Secretary of State, was infuriated by Britain's sitting on the fence, and hesitating to support a US vote at the UN for a ceasefire. Matters worsened when, at the height of the crisis, the Heath government vetoed the use of British landings, or airspace, to US flights that were resupplying Israel's battered armed forces. In the event, the bulk of US supply flights had to be funnelled through Portugal's Azores.
After the war was over, Kissinger complained to his good friend Lord Home (then foreign secretary) that the Soviet Union had been left freer to use Nato airspace than the US – given that much of the Russians' airlift, to their Arab clients, had overflown allied airspace without challenge.
Relations between Nixon (now under serious threat of impeachment because of the Watergate scandal) and Heath had reached a nadir. At one point, Nixon and Kissinger were resorting to language close to the threats once made by John Foster Dulles, of "agonising reappraisals".
There was still worse to come. In October 1973, the Arabs, led by Saudi Arabia, imposed a swingeing cut in oil supplies to the West. America, with only 5 per cent of its energy requirements dependent on the Middle East, suffered to a moderate degree. But the British economy was savagely hit, resulting in a crisis that would help bring down the Heath government the following year. There was a wide sense of bitterness that an alienated Nixon regime had not done enough to help protect their British ally's vital interests.
In the maintenance – and sometimes salvaging – of the special relationship, ambassadors matter. Perhaps the most successful duo in recent memory were the two Davids, at the time of Macmillan and Kennedy; David Bruce in London and David Ormsby-Gore in Washington, a personal friend of JFK's, who had a significant input during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
Least imposing was the appointment of Peter Jay in 1977; a questionable piece of socialist nepotism in that Jay was PM Callaghan's son-in-law. Through their own much-publicised "special relationships", the Jays afforded entertainment to Georgetown's chattering classes, plus material for Nora Ephron's best-selling novel Heartburn – but little else. (His Excellency Jay was the only one of the last dozen ambassadors not to receive a knighthood; Margaret Jay was given a peerage and the job of renovating the Lords – with deplorable consequences.)
Another more recent Labour appointee to cause heartburn in Washington was Sir Christopher Meyer (1997-2003), whose memoir, DC Confidential, was deemed to be highly indiscreet and self-serving. At the other end of the spectrum came Sir Nicholas Henderson (1979-82), brought out of retirement by Margaret Thatcher. With nothing to lose by being up-front, "Nico" was an inspired choice at a time of crisis with the IRA threat, and then the Falklands. He and his wife, Mary, were unrivalled experts in wooing the Reagan regime.
I was working in Washington at the time of the Reagan inauguration. It was then widely assumed that the new team, with its very Californian orientations, would demote the special relationship. On the contrary; under Thatcher and Reagan, fuelled by Henderson, a new and closer entente emerged, which conjointly was to presage the fall of communism.
The current ambassador in Washington, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, seems to enjoy good relations with his prime minister, but will need to use all the skills he can muster to mend transatlantic relations.
It may be the sign of a romantic, but I still believe in the mystique of the special relationship. Pragmatically it received a boost at the time of the Falklands when the naval commander of the task force, Admiral Sandy Woodward, declared to me that in no way could the risky operation have succeeded without US commitment. This was founded upon long years of joint Nato experience, of speaking the same language, not only philologically but in terms of military-speak.
The same applies today. We remain the US's closest and most reliable military ally. There are excellent relations at various levels between the two sets of armed forces. But all of this depends upon our ability to remain, militarily, seated at the top table. As it is, under Gordon Brown's reprehensible management of MoD priorities for the Services, both in manpower and resources, we are in graver danger than ever before of losing that seat. We clearly cannot go on punching under-weight.
After Megrahi, can the special relationship be restored? We romantics, and optimists, believe that it can; it happened, after all, following 1973. But almost certainly it will not happen under this disastrous and terminally sick government. One can only hope that David Cameron can pull something out of the locker, to build upon that great residue of respect for British institutions, and enterprise, that continues to exist in the United States.
Alistair Horne's 'Kissinger's Year: 1973' is published this month by Orion, at £20.
Comments: 41
I believe the relationship between Britain and the U.S.will endure,as I am a citizen of both I cannot contemplate otherwise. The special relationship is,after all based on a common ancestry,values and trust,all through the twentieth century an American soldier in his foxhole has known the British squaddie over there in his can be depended upon. They were both in their holes defending the best way of life this world has ever managed to come up with. The recent shabby behaviour of both Nulab and the SNP has done much harm,the Scottish parliament has at least had the decency to vote against their own leaders. Will the Labour party have the courage to tell their own wretched leadership what a cockup they have made, I think not.
Uh...... You guys do realize that most Americans are more concerned with health care and what not than with this guy being released right? Perhaps there has been damage done by both sides amongst the chattering class but the only time I hear about this being a real scandal is when I read British newspapers. Oh well everyone has a right to enjoy a good scandal so have fun. Just so you know most Americans I know (and I know a lot since I'm American) would choose Jolly old England over the EU any day.
I'm not sure which one I find scarier, Lyle or Norman. It's quite close.
Please let me put the Record Straight ! The 'Special Agreement - relationship' between the US and the UK only works one way - to the advantage of the US - and when UK wants something from the US - NO CHANCE ! Cast you mind back to the Suez Crisis in 1956 - the US told France and Britain to 'get the hell out of Suez' In the late 1960s - the US wanted Britain to fight in Vietnam - but Harold wilson stood up and said NO! However - in the late 1960s - US policies later forced Harold Wilson to devalue the Pound - and made his famous speech - "The pound in your pocket is still worth a pound!" And after WW2 - the UK got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from the 'Marshall Aid Plan' - and in order to get money - Clement Attlee had to agree to allow the US to trade in areas of the world where the UK had sole rights - and Trueman et al .. laughed all the way to the BANK ! As Britain supports the US regarding Iraq and Afghanistan - should Britain refuse - then I simply cannot imagine the consequences ... the financial Centre of the world would be transferred to Berlin ..... immediately ! But I firmly believe that in order to put an immediate stop to the deaths of Servicemen and women in the Middle East and Afghanistan - the US and the UK - should tell the UN - that EVERYONE gets the hell out of Helmand Province by a 'certain date' - and if there's anyone remaining in Helmand Province - after that date - than a 'small Nuclear device' will be used ! Why fight wars in 2009 with weapons that were used 70 years ago in WW2 - when a 'small nuclear device' would do the job .. VERY WELL ! .... and it would put an immediate stop to the nightly News Bulletins annoumncing more deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq ....
Harbringer let me get this right The Bankers , who run everything are through the EU creating a communist state in the UK? Gosh now that is a conspiracy! Don't you think calling the UK a communist state is just a little ridiculous? People have been calling Obama a Marxist at the same time as saying he is an Islamist. Goodness now that would take some fancy footwork. So the people that run the EU are communists but keep it secret by belonging to mainstream parties. Really clever these guys. And as for the special relationship there isnt one. Winston Churchill found out at the end of WW2 that we had been dumped. Lets just decide to be ourselves and stay out of useless wars. Lets forget the idea that you posture on the world stage by fighting wars in far a way places for no good purpose. The Scottish people are happy to forget the old "Empire world power nonsense" Surely even our most rabid Englanders know that we can no longer afford the weapons that need to be paid for. You no longer can get by on a �500 spitfire you needs a multi million pound plane now. The old dreams are dying For goodness sake people in Norway Sweden and Italy and Germany dont get themselves caught up in those ridiculous situations They just lead their lives as best as they can.
Read Full Article »