Remarkably, they’d become the closest thing to a unified transatlantic power; bound by necessity.
The allies began their relationship as downright foes. America fought a war against Britain for its independence, and they sparred again in 1812, resulting in the burning of buildings in Washington. Despite the conflict, the potential of their economic ties strengthened, and the British public silently sympathised with the American struggle for freedom. The breaking point was the threat of Germany’s rise as an industrial power. All America required was a confirmation of its sovereignty; Britain followed suit, conceding some of its international stronghold to American influence in the 1895-96 Venezuela boundary crisis, securing America’s confidence in the emerging alliance.
Post-Pearl Harbour tensions brought a crucial shift in their relationship, with both working together in the race for the nuclear bomb against their common fear: the hammer and sickle. They fused their research programmes under the 1943 Quebec agreement: British scientists moved to mountainous New Mexico, Tennessee and Washington to work on the Manhattan Project. Faced with the existential threat of the Soviet Union, the countries leaned on each other to extinguish the growing danger of the Communist ideology and its imminent expansion. When the USSR built a nuclear weapon, Britain’s reach across the Commonwealth proved extremely useful in dissipating Soviet influence. The UK offered geographical strength; the US, its nuclear arsenal– together, they successfully crushed fears arising from the Red Scare.
The once co-dependent powers now struggle to find common footing. Britain’s refusal to get involved in the US offensive war on Iran represents a national effort to strive for independence from US military interests. Trump contrasted Britain’s recent “uncooperative” nature with the era of Churchillesque style diplomatic relations between the nations; this was provoked by former Prime Minister Starmer’s choice not to allow US forces to use UK resources for military strikes on Iran.
It’s hard to even picture a scene of the UK Prime Minister and the US president sharing a warm dance at a state dinner now. There was once a time, however. Thatcher and Reagan found their ideological counterparts in one another, at a time when policy in England and the US mirrored each other closely. The leaders embraced free-market, conservative, individualist principles. Even as foreign policy decisions during the Falklands War upset British officials and Thatcher herself, the iron-strong understanding between her and Reagan helped prevent any risk of relations crumbling, even in times of discord.
Three decades earlier, the Suez crisis had provided an interesting autopsy of how the countries navigated variables of power. In 1956, Egyptian President Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal; Britain, France and Israel planned a tactically successful invasion to reclaim the region. It was Washington’s intervention, armed with Eisenhower’s threats to sell American holdings of British bonds and blocking an IMF loan Britain was in desperate need of, that forced Britain to withdraw. It was a warning that the old empire could no longer act first without American permission, and the first domino in a pattern of UK reluctance to be of much help to US offensive efforts today.
After Thatcher, notable camaraderie between a Prime Minister and President is prominent in the Blair period. Blair enjoyed close ties with both Clinton and Bush. He had a knack for good timing: he was the first to call Bush after he won the election, and the first to offer unceasing support after the 9/11 attacks. Bush is quoted as saying that of all of America’s allies, Blair is the only one who never wavered.
Although President Trump’s relations with England have not been as idyllic, he is the only President to have been granted two state visits. While his relationship with Prime Ministers from May to Burnham have been strained, he remains in good spirits with the royal family. King Charles III’s visit to the USA was highly anticipated in hopes of smoothing over relations between the nations, which it did. The success of the visit was attributed to Charles’ diplomatic expertise; following in the footsteps of his mother, who was known for having pleasant relations with every President of the United States she came across. She never had a bad word to say about them or their formers, and the feelings were decidedly mutual.
While the relationship between England and the United States hasn’t been without its fair share of eventful ebbs and flows, we’re witnessing a pivotal change in the nature of the alliance. As the countries diverge on foreign policy stances, they are trying to agree on the economy. The next century might see bolstered interdependence between the countries, echoing the past, when the US Marshall Plan lifted England off its feet after war-driven financial crises. Although we may never see leaders of these powerful nations correspond pleasantly over the phone (rather than rage-fuelled exchanges on X), dance surrounded by regalia, or merge scientific intelligence again, one can expect that the two English-speaking countries will choose to face modern day threats to their power together, just like the old days.
