US-UK relations: the death of the ‘special relationship’?

The term ‘special relationship’ has been carved out by a long and relatively well-trodden history. The term was originally coined by former Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the wake of the Second World War. In a world where a victorious Britain had defeated Nazi Germany principally due to their alliance with the US, it was easy to see the need to promote a special relationship between the two nations.

The relationship continued to simmer throughout the latter half of the 20th Century, reaching a particularly warm point in the 1980s under the dynamism and chemistry of the relationship between Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Raegan. Thatcher is reported to have called Raegan “the second most important man in my life,” after her husband.

The election of President Trump was set to rewrite the foreign policy rulebook not just in Europe but around the globe, raising concerns about the durability of the special relationship

Even into the 21st Century, the special relationship maintained momentum. The new millennium brought forth a changing age and uniquely solidified the relationship between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. George Bush described Tony Blair as “a friend. He is a friend of the American people and he is a friend of mine”.

However, in the past decade, the special relationship has become more tepid. 14 consecutive years of confused conservative premiership tested the strong foundations that had been in place near the end of President Obama’s second term. The election of President Trump was set to rewrite the foreign policy rulebook not just in Europe but around the globe, raising concerns about the durability of the special relationship. This was characterised by the interactions between Trump and Prime Minister Theresa May in 2017. Theresa May described some of the rhetoric that Trump expressed as “totally unacceptable”. Such open condemnation paved the way for frosty relations between the two countries towards the end of the decade, only partially reversed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Polarisation in the political ideology between the two leaders poses significant problems for the ease of decision-making between the US and the UK

On the eve of Trump’s second term in the Executive Office, what was previously heralded as one of the most prized relationships across the globe, now looks shakier than ever. Prime Minister Keir Starmer wasted no time in calling to congratulate Trump on his victory. Starmer sent a missive to the White House on November 6, offering the president a “hearty congratulations” and stating that he “looked forward to working closely with the President-elect”. The pair had previously met for a private dinner in September of this year. At face value, this sounds promising for an amicable relationship between the pair going forward. That being said, as has often been the case in recent politics, a gap may exist between perception and reality.

Polarisation in the political ideology between the two leaders poses significant problems for the ease of decision-making between the US and the UK. It is no secret that to win the president’s favour one must adhere to his agenda, conflicting with the Prime Minister’s apparent intent. Beyond this, multiple ministers within the current cabinet have criticised the former president. Foreign Secretary David Lammy went as far as calling Trump a “tyrant” and “a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath”. Lammy has gained renown for rising to challenging remarks during his first term, causing concerns over the UK’s relationship with Trump.

The key to the special relationship, which strengthened foreign relations four years ago, was a broad policy agreement between the two powers. In the words of the former president’s aides, Raegan and Thatcher were “political soulmates” in the broadest sense. Their relationship strengthened the ability of both nations to act. Such was seen in Thatcher’s invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982 and Raegan with the ‘Iran-Contra Affair’ from 1981-6.

Starmer has previously stated that “the UK must end its complicity in Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians” running contrary to Trump’s positioning on the Israel-Gaza Conflict

Modern foreign policy decision-making appears to be more of a tussle than a consensus. Trump’s protectionist, ‘America First’ agenda conflicts with Starmer’s sense of duty to promote increased diplomatic relations with powers in Europe and across the globe. Trump has previously stated that he would end the Russia-Ukraine war by any means. Acting on this intent, Trump may remove the present aid to Ukraine provided by the Biden administration, aid that was supported by the UK government.

Starmer has previously stated that “the UK must end its complicity in Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians” running contrary to Trump’s positioning on the Israel-Gaza Conflict. Under Trump’s second term, there are signs of strong support maintained with the Israeli Government – a relationship that Starmer and other European nations have tried to distance themselves from.

As America enters a new political chapter, the strength of the special relationship is set to be tested. The question is, whether or not the two nations will reach a breaking point. The UK has previously adapted to the global political climate and remained resilient. The current period, however, may be one of the biggest challenges in diplomatic relations the country has faced thus far.

The importance of the special relationship has long been paramount to the continued prosperity of the West. The current period may risk jeopardising this and, in turn, challenge the continued promotion of the special relationship as it exists today

President Trump has expressed that he enjoys the fact other world powers and the US’ mainstream media know very little about his foreign policy plans. The future of the special relationship appears particularly fraught. The resurgence of American isolationism has a propensity to leave the rest of the West behind. Britain recognises that it does not hold the same level of importance to America as America holds to Britain. The US ambassador to the UK, Jane Hartley, stated that the special relationship “isn’t just special, it’s essential”. The importance of the special relationship has long been paramount to the continued prosperity of the West. The current period may risk jeopardising this and, in turn, challenge the continued promotion of the special relationship as it exists today.

Starmer has maintained a hardline foreign policy during his time in office, as seen through the majority of his decisions in the Middle East. Trump has been elected with a mandate to radically change the way America employs its foreign policy objectives. The interplay of these two realities will render the new era in Western foreign policy highly unpredictable. Both premiers represent a break from incumbent administrations with which the public had grown dissatisfied. This is, much to the unease of the rest of the world, where the similarities between the two nations end. If needed, the president-elect has stated that US foreign policy forays could be a “bloody story”. America rough-riding Britain in order to get its way would be a far cry from the idyllic standard of Raegan and Thatcher arm in arm in the eyes of the media.

The special relationship faces a changing reality. Britain’s ability to uphold its integrity and leadership amid shifting global superpower dynamics will be a true test of its resilience.