Despite the American Revolution and the War of 1812, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland enjoy what is termed a special relationship. Lake Effect essayist Art Cyr says that diplomatic closeness is a good thing:
President Barack Obama’s visit to Britain, including a joint press conference with Prime Minister David Cameron on April 22, underscores the vital partnership between that nation and the United States. The visit also highlights the complementary roles of two influential international leaders – Prime Minister Cameron and Queen Elizabeth II.
Currently Cameron’s Conservative government is embroiled in an intense debate over continued membership in the European Union. Britain is not a member of the euro currency union, relying instead on the pound, the nation’s traditional money and an important global currency.
A June referendum will decide whether the nation will remain in the common commercial market. Obama has tried to encourage support for remaining in the EU.
This repays an important favor Cameron did for the U.S. administration early last year during a visit to Washington. In a January 2015 joint press with Obama, the leaders emphasized the importance of tough nuclear negotiations with Iran. There was an honest effort to explain the high stakes involved, and also the great difficulty of negotiating a durable agreement with Tehran – controversial then and now.
Cameron spent time contacting members of the Senate to try to mitigate pressures to impose more sanctions on Iran. The absence of any backlash reflects the special nature of this alliance. No other foreign leader could have lobbied Congress without complaint.
The “special relationship” between Britain and the U.S., forged during the terrible first years of World War II, has endured despite sometimes severe strains. The evolution of the Anglo-American close partnership highlights important events of that global total war, and the Cold War and post-Cold War era which have followed.
David Cameron’s predecessor Tony Blair paid a high political price for his faithful support of the administration of George W. Bush in the invasion of Iraq. Yet the Anglo-American military alliance, and the wider NATO structure, was at no point seriously threatened.
Britain’s commitment to tradition as well as representative government is ably personified by Queen Elizabeth II. She is the head of state of the United Kingdom, which includes those independent Scots, and plays important if subtle political roles. Over four centuries ago, namesake Queen Elizabeth I was forcefully in charge of the British Isles.
Today, royalty and representative government have important complementary functions. In 1867, Walter Bagehot published his important book The English Constitution. He brilliantly described and analyzed the “efficient functions” of Parliament and the “dignified functions” of the monarchy.
The former establishes the government. The latter performs the ceremonial activities of the nation, by so doing insulating national institutions from the passions of party politics. The United States lacks such a distinction, which helps explain our own durable fascination with the British Royals.
Since World War II, Americans have paid considerable attention to developments in the British monarchy – the happy, the tragic, and the scandalous. That war helps explain why this is true.
Before the United States formally entered the global war, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and government colleagues gave priority to forging close alliance with the Americans. FDR and colleagues reciprocated. Britain’s King and Queen visited the U.S. in June 1939, just before Hitler’s Germany invaded Poland.
Cameron on April 22 was diplomatic when asked to comment on now truly disturbing aspects of the U.S. presidential campaign. Nonetheless, he implied great concern, with great effectiveness.
British government institutions will endure. Queen Elizabeth, prudent and responsible head of state, deserves some credit for that – shared credit.
Art Cyr is a professor of political economy and world business and the director of the Clausen Center for World Business at Carthage College in Kenosha. He’s also a regular Lake Effect foreign policy contributor.
