Margaret Thatcher on the Anglo-American Relationship

The Anglo-American relationship is not some out-dated romantic notion, it reflects shared history, language, values, and ideals–the very things which generate that willingness for sacrifice on which the outcome of every military venture ultimately depends.

Western cooperation will also be easier if we re-assert, as I have been suggesting, the moral and cultural foundations of our Western world. In the Cold War years, we were able to persuade our populations that our values were worth fighting for. By re-iterating those values, we conservatives offer the best prospect of security, stability and peace.

The whole of this programme, like any political programme in the real world, has to adapt to circumstances. But what gives it such relevance and weight today is that it is the only one which recognises the over-riding importance of keeping the West strong and united.

Western civilization would not be the first to re-shape others in its own image, only to discover that it had lost the identity, confidence and will to survive: on this matter the historians of the Classical World could provide some useful lessons to today's Western liberal politicians.

The decline of the West has been predicted before, and it has not occurred. It need not occur. And it will not occur–if we conservatives keep faith in everything we have achieved and the bedrock principles which inspired us to prevail.

_____

1997 Sep 28 Su, Margaret Thatcher.
Speech to the First International Conservative Congress.

Barack Obama’s Unwelcome Jubilee Present to Britain

Washington reaffirms OAS resolution calling for Falklands negotiations with Argentina

From The Telegraph

By Nile Gardiner

Barack Obama: hardly "neutral" on the Falklands

Barack Obama was all smiles in his carefully scripted message of congratulation to Queen Elizabeth II on her Diamond Jubilee. But at the same time as he recorded his message, his administration was actively undermining Great Britain at the annual meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS), held in Bolivia. The OAS General Assembly, which includes the United States, has just re-adopted the 2010 “Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands,” which backed Argentina’s call for negotiations between London and Buenos Aires over the Falkland Islands.

ANNOTATED AGENDA FOR THE
FORTY-SECOND REGULAR SESSION OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(Approved at the first plenary session held on June 4, 2012)

The Question of the Malvinas Islands

Under the provisions of resolution AG/RES. 669 (XIII-O/83), the General Assembly decided to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands indefinitely.

Thus, at its fortieth regular session, the General Assembly adopted AG/DEC. 65 (XL-O/10), which, as at the previous regular session, reaffirmed the General Assembly’s commitment “to continue to examine the topic at subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement was reached.”

AG/DEC. 65 (XL-O/10)

DECLARATION ON THE QUESTION OF THE MALVINAS ISLANDS

(Adopted at the fourth plenary session, held on June 8, 2010)

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

CONSIDERING its repeated statements that the Question of the Malvinas Islands is a matter of enduring hemispheric concern;

RECALLING its resolution AG/RES. 928 (XVIII-O/88), adopted by consensus on November 19, 1988, in which it requested the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute;

BEARING IN MIND that in its resolution AG/RES. 1049 (XX-O/90), it expressed satisfaction over the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries;

RECOGNIZING that the accreditation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, under CP/RES. 655 (1041/95), as a permanent observer of the OAS reflects principles and values shared by that country and OAS member states, which facilitate greater mutual understanding;

NOTING with satisfaction that the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland maintain important political, cultural and trade ties, share common values and are also engaged in close cooperation both bilaterally and in international fora;

BEARING IN MIND that, despite those ties and shared values, it has not yet been possible to resume the negotiations between the two countries with a view to solving the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas in the framework of resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 of the United Nations General Assembly, the decisions adopted by the same body on the same question in the Special Committee on Decolonization, and the reiterated resolutions and declarations adopted at this General Assembly; and

HAVING HEARD the presentation by the head of delegation of the Argentine Republic,

WELCOMES the reaffirmation of the will of the Argentine Government to continue exploring all possible avenues towards a peaceful settlement of the dispute and its constructive approach towards the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands.

REAFFIRMS the need for the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume, as soon as possible, negotiations on the sovereignty dispute, in order to find a peaceful solution to this protracted controversy.

DECIDES to continue to examine the Question of the Malvinas Islands at its subsequent sessions until a definitive settlement has been reached thereon.

The inhabitants of the Falklands are more than 95 percent British and have no desire to be ruled by Argentina, a point that both the OAS and the Obama presidency are happy to ignore. This is a clear-cut case of self-determination, and the Obama administration's continuing support for a negotiated settlement (made abundantly clear by a senior State Department spokeman last week) is a slap in the face for both the Falkland Islanders as well as the British people. In his message to the Queen today, Barack Obama paid lip service to the Special Relationship, but his actions over the Falklands demonstrate that in practice he has nothing but disdain for America's closest friend and ally.

Another Opportunity for Obama to Sabotage the Anglo-American Alliance

It was another opportunity for the Obama Administration to show their contempt for the historic "special relationship" between the United Kingdom and the United States; and it was an opportunity America's ambassador to the Court of Saint James seized when he snubbed a major dinner at London's Guildhall last night honoring Ronald Reagan's centenary.  As reported by the London Evening Standard, the event boasted four British Cabinet ministers, an ex-Prime Minister, nine US congressmen, a senator and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."

We have not minced words in expressing our contempt for the current American leadership.  But we wonder if these repeated insults to America's most faithful ally are an expression of new U.S. foreign policy, another opportunity for this Marxist president to deliberately sabotage America's strength and role in the world, or just the fruit of a government in the hands of vulgar, classless thugs who just don't know how to behave in polite company, much less on the world stage.  We suspect they are a result of all three, and further proof, were any needed, that this vile, anti-American regime must be removed root and stem from every office of government at the first opportunity.

The riddle of the missing US ambassador as London toasts Ronald Reagan centenary

Missing man: American ambassador Louis B Susman hosted a VIP breakfast but did not attend the celebration dinner.

From The London Evening Standard
By Joe Murphy, Political Editor

It was one of the most glittering events of the year, attracting some of the greatest names in American and British politics.

But as the British roasted lamb and the sunny Californian chardonnay were cleared away, one notable absence was the hottest topic among guests at the Guildhall dinner in honour of Ronald Reagan's centenary.

Where was the American ambassador to London, Louis B Susman?

He had, it soon transpired, been invited. But despite a guest list that boasted four British Cabinet ministers, ex-Prime Minister, nine US congressmen and a senator and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, there was no sign of President Obama's representative in London.

And in a warm atmosphere evoking the closest days of the special Anglo-US relationship of the Eighties, the surprise at Mr Susman's absence turned to annoyance.

"Our ambassador should be here," said Lynn de Rothschild, the American entrepreneur who is married to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and was one of Hillary Clinton's key fundraisers in 2008 as well as a supporter of several Republican presidential candidates. "This was an historic dinner to mark Reagan's centenary and to celebrate him as the man who ended the Cold War. What could not be more important?

"Why is our ambassador not here on Independence Day? No excuse. How is it that America is not represented in this room by our ambassador? It is appalling that no representative of our government is in this room. This has the feel of petty partisanship."

Where indeed? Mr Susman had been at the unveiling of a statue of Reagan in Grosvenor Square earlier in the day, and had hosted a generous breakfast for the entire VIP visiting party and the military band, so he had certainly not snubbed the grand centenary events. According to the US embassy spokesman: "Ambassador Susman was pleased to be invited to the dinner but was unable to attend."

Mr Susman missed some sparkling speeches and anecdotes, announced by trumpet blasts, including Foreign Secretary William Hague recounting a gem from the Royal Wedding: "I told an Arab Ambassador, 'look, a million people are heading for the palace - and we're totally relaxed'." London MP Greg Hands said: "It was a non-partisan occasion to celebrate a great American and President's 100th birthday."

Among the VIPs were John Major, Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who sat next to Ms Rice, Home Secretary Theresa May, Commons leader Sir George Young, former ambassador Robert Tuttle, ex-California governor Pete Wilson and the company heads of BP and Visa.

The menu reflected the Anglo-US alliance, starting with a bouquet of English asparagus, organic smoked salmon, baby leaf salad and dill hollandaise, followed by duet of new season lamb, served with Beringer chardonnay from the Napa Valley and Peachy Canyon zinfandel, also from California.

The Obama's Are Not Welcome at the Royal Wedding

Barack Hussein Obama is seen by many commentators as the most anti-British President in modern American history because he has never passed up an opportunity to offend that ally.

Within days of taking office, he returned the bust of Winston Churchill that had been loaned to the United States and placed in the Oval Office as a display of British-American solidarity in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

When then Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife visited the White House, their diplomatic gifts included a pen holder carved from the HMS Gannet, a ship that had run anti-slavery missions along the coast of Africa. It was a sister ship to the Resolute, the ship whose timbers were used to make the President’s desk, which was given to America by Queen Victoria. Brown also gave Obama a first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert’s seven-volume biography of Sir Winston Churchill.

Obama’s gift to Brown? DVD’s that are unusable on European video players.

When the Obama’s were invited to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen, the Obama’s official gift, on behalf of the United States, was an iPod loaded with The One’s speeches.

With 10,000 servicemen and women fighting alongside their American allies in Afghanistan, Britain’s commitment to defeating Islamic terrorism exceeds all the other European powers combined. More than 250 British troops have given their lives.  While President Bush routinely  recognized the sacrifices made by British, Canadian and other allies, these sacrifices have not even been mentioned by Obama.

Obama has also shown his contempt for Britain by declaring neutrality in Great Britain’s dispute with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.  He has undermined Britain’s role in NATO, and he has undermined British sovereignty by supporting the Lisbon Treaty and a federal Europe.

All of this is easily explained. America has a President who hates America and has done all that he can to undermine her. It is the reason he apologizes to our enemies and offends our allies. How could an anti-American President behave differently to an ally who has nobly and loyally supported America through all the storms of the past century?

So it was not surprising to read today, that while French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife Carla Bruni, among other heads of state, will be invited to the royal wedding of Prince William and Miss Kate Middleton, the Obama’s are not on the list. 

We are relieved that this President, so lacking in class, will not represent America at an occasion with more than a billion people watching.  Better that they should take another vacation at the  American taxpayers' expense.

There is no theme more constant in English literature than its focus on civility, good manners, and the definition of a true gentleman. In his great epic poem, Idylls of the King, Lord Tennyson reflects this concern and defines the true nature of good manners when he writes: 

"Manners are not idle, but the fruit. Of loyal nature and of noble mind."

In two years, the street thug and community agitator now sitting in the White House has made clear that his loyalties are not to the permanent things, to America's Constitution, and to the enduring values that unite the English-speaking peoples.  

The American people exhibited good will, affirmative action, and a desire to atone for past injustice when they elected Barack Hussein Obama.  That grand but misplaced gesture has now been repaid with contempt.  Americans and our friends see the mistake that was made.  Coping with it for the next two years will only forge a deeper, more "special" alliance between the British and American people.

Obama Succeeds in Destroying What Churchill and Roosevelt Built

Parliament Declares End to US-UK 'Special Relationship'

Talk of a "special relationship" between Britain and the United States should be dropped, a House of Commons committee said Sunday, adding the Iraq war carried important lessons for Anglo-US ties.

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee said Britain should be "more willing to say no" to the United States and warned that London will probably not be able to influence Washington as much in future.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Nothing Special About Britain? Britain!?

The following by Jonah Goldberg is a profound insight. Barack Hussein Obama's boorish treatment of the British Prime Minister and the return of the Churchill bust may reflect quite a bit more than just the bad manners of a Chicago community hustler. They reflect contempt for America's closest ally because that is the nation from which our language, culture, laws, literature and values come. How could one value the source of so much that is good in America, if one believes that America is deeply flawed and needs radical remaking?

As Tennyson wrote in his great narrative poem, Idylls of the King: "manners are not idle, but the fruit of loyal nature and of noble mind."

From National Review Online
By Jonah Goldberg

Re: the anonymous Obama administration dufus who said: "There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment."

As an unapologetic, full-throated Anglophile I find those comments idiotic, offensive, ahistorical, and in a certain sense anti-American.* I'm of course appalled.

But it's worth focusing on one aspect of this sentiment: It's idiocy. According to the liberal-realist school, some countries matter more than other countries because they are powerful and have the ability to adversely affect our national interest. According to the liberal-internationalist school, allies matter more than non-allies because grand international coalitions are the best way to do the wonderful things want to do on the world stage. So, China matters because it's a rising hegemon. Burkino Faso matters . . . eh, not so much. "Europe" matters because they are allies on security, global warming, human rights, etc. Well, Britain just happens to be our most important, reliable, and powerful ally.

So even if you take the pragmatist's razor to our shared history, culture, and all other romantic attachments to Great Britain, the bulldog still matters — a lot. In other words, to say that Britain isn't any more special than the other 190 countries in the world, you actually have to dislike Britain to the point where you're willing to suspend what are supposed to be your guiding principles and objectives about foreign policy.

* Just to be clear, what I mean by anti-American isn't a knee-jerk attack on anyone's patriotism. Rather, I simply mean that if you think the country that gave us our system of laws, our democratic tradition, our dominant culture, much of our greatest literature, and even our language is no more special than any backwater country which immiserates or brutalizes its people, then you must not think very much of America's culture, traditions, etc. either.

Please Accept My Apologies for the Boorish Behavior of Mr. Obama, My President.

From American Thinker
By Cliff Thier

To the people of Great Britain:

Please accept my apologies for the boorish behavior of Mr. Obama, my President.

His astonishingly downmarket gift to your Prime Minister is truly embarrassing. Mr. Obama should have treated Mr. Brown with far more respect than he did, not least because Mr. Brown represented the people of your nation.

Sadly -- for us -- it seems that no one ever taught Mr. Obama good manners or how to be a proper host. Worse, Mr. Obama apparently is ignorant of the history of your people and the lasting gifts that you have given to America.

Please let me thank you for those precious gifts.

Thank you for your gift of radical and dangerous ideas of freedom for which your people have fought and died.

Thank you for your gift of your navy's bringing to an end the Atlantic slave trade -- the first use of a nation's navy for a solely moral purpose.

Thank you for your gift of standing fast while standing alone against the terrible, murderous onslaught of the Nazis.

Thank you for your gift of standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States during the 70 years of costly -- but finally victorious -- war against the great sanguinary evil of Communism.

Thank you for your gift of comfort by standing first and strongest with us in the grim days after 9/11.

Thank you for your gift of sending real soldiers to fight and die alongside our men and women liberating the 45 million people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, thank you for your multitude of gifts of science, literature, art and music.

We will always be grateful for your friendship.

The EU Lisbon Treaty: Gordon Brown Surrenders Britain's Sovereignty

From The Heritage Foundation

by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. and Sally McNamara

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's decision to reject a referendum on the new European Union Reform Treaty (Treaty of Lisbon) should be viewed as one of the biggest acts of political betrayal in modern British history. Despite a rebellion by 29 of its own backbenchers, the Labour-led government defeated a Conservative proposal to hold a popular vote on the Lisbon Treaty by 311 votes to 248 in the House of Commons on March 5. Brown's refusal to support a referendum represented a stunning reversal of the government's 2005 manifesto pledge to hold a plebiscite on the European Constitution.

The Commons vote flew in the face of fierce public opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and mounting calls for the British public to have its say. In a series of unofficial mini-referenda held across several marginal seats in early March, 89 percent of the more than 150,000 voters who took part voted against the treaty, with just 8 percent in favor.[1] These votes reflected consistently high levels of opposition to the treaty in virtually all major polls on the issue in the U.K. in the past few months.

Most British voters have already concluded that the Lisbon Treaty is almost identical to the old European Constitution, which was emphatically rejected by electorates in France and Holland in 2005. If ratified in all European capitals, the treaty will come into force in January 2009, and the implications for the future of Europe are immense. So far, only the Irish government has been brave enough to stand up to Brussels and insist on a popular vote by its citizens.

The new Treaty poses the biggest threat to national sovereignty in Europe since the Second World War, would threaten the future of the Anglo-American Special Relationship, and would significantly weaken the transatlantic alliance.

A Blueprint for a European Superstate

Like the rejected constitution, the new Reform Treaty is also a blueprint for a European superstate dreamt up by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. This time around, however, most of Europe doesn't get to vote, as democracy is too dangerous a concept for the architects of this grand vision of an EU superpower.

Originally envisioned as a single market within Europe, the EU (formerly European Economic Community) is morphing into a gigantic political entity with ambitions of becoming the world's first supranational superstate. Already, major strides have been made in the development of a unified European foreign and security policy as well as a supranational legal structure. With the introduction of the euro in 1999, the European single currency and European Central Bank became a reality.

Drafted in 2004, the European Constitution was a huge step forward in the evolution of what is commonly known as the "European Project," or the drive toward "ever closer union." With its 448 articles, the constitution was a vast vanity project, conceived in Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, that dramatically crashed to Earth three years ago. Since then, European Union apparatchiks have worked feverishly to resurrect the constitution, coming up with a cosmetic makeover that would make a plastic surgeon proud.

The new treaty contains all the main elements of the constitution, repackaged in flowery language. According to the European Scrutiny Committee, a British parliamentary body, only two of the treaty's 440 provisions were not contained in the original constitution.[2]

The Reform Treaty paves the way for the creation of a European Union foreign minister (high representative) at the head of an EU foreign service (with its own diplomatic corps) as well as a long-term EU president; both positions are trappings of a fledgling superstate. As European Parliament member Daniel Hannan has pointed out, the treaty will further erode the legal sovereignty of European nation-states, entrenching a pan-European magistracy ("Eurojust"), a European Public Prosecutor, a federal EU police force ("Europol"), and an EU criminal code ("corpus juris").[3] In addition, countries such as Britain will sacrifice their veto right over EU decision-making in 40 policy areas.

A Democratic Deficit

Europe doesn't need a constitution. The European Union is not the United States of Europe. The EU is a grouping of 27 independent nation-states, each with its own culture, language, heritage, and national interests. The EU works best as a single economic market that facilitates the free movement of goods, services, and people. It is far less successful as a political entity that tries to force its member states to conform to an artificial common identity.

The European Constitution and its successor treaty are all about the centralization of political power in the hands of a gilded ruling elite in Brussels, not the protection of individual liberty. They are also based on the principle that sovereignty should be pooled by nation-states for the "greater good" of Europe, a concept that goes against the grain of modern history, as witnessed with the break-up of the old Soviet Empire.

The notion that the people of Europe should not have a vote on a treaty with huge implications for the future of the continent demonstrates the utter contempt that the Brussels bureaucracy has for the average man or woman on the street. There is no doubt that if the treaty were put to a popular vote, the electorates of several countries would reject it. The whole "European Project" is fundamentally undemocratic, unaccountable, and opaque. If subjected to referenda across the EU, it would almost certainly be consigned to the dustbin of history.

A Threat to the Special Relationship

For both sides of the Atlantic, the Lisbon Treaty is bad news. The treaty poses a massive threat to the future of the Anglo-American Special Relationship as well as the broader transatlantic alliance. It will further entrench Europe's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), both major threats to the future of NATO, and will seriously impair the ability of America's allies in Europe to stand alongside the United States where and when they choose to do so.

An America without Britain alongside it would be far more isolated and friendless and significantly less able to project power on the world stage. For Washington, there is no real alternative to the Special Relationship. Its collapse would be damaging to America's standing as a global power and would significantly weaken her leadership of the war against Islamist terrorism.

A Future British Government Must Hold a Referendum

The next British government, which must be elected by 2010 at the latest, should listen to the growing calls of the British people for a vote on the Lisbon Treaty. The public should have the final say on an agreement that will dramatically undermine the U.K.'s ability to shape her own destiny. If, as is highly likely, the public rejects the treaty, Britain should withdraw from its provisions and seek a broader renegotiation of its relationship with the European Union.

The next Prime Minister, if Brown is replaced, should heed the words of Lady Thatcher, who wrote in her seminal book Statecraft: "That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era."[4] The Iron Lady's instincts are right: Common sense must prevail, and the British people should have the freedom to reject an Orwellian vision of Europe's future in favor of the principles of sovereignty and freedom.

Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., is the Director of, and Sally McNamara is Senior Policy Analyst in European Affairs in, the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. Erica Munkwitz assisted with research for this paper.

---

[1]Toby Helm, "Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for EU Referendum," The Daily Telegraph, March 3, 2008, at www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/02/neu102.xml.

[2]"Q&A: EU Treaty," The Daily Telegraph, October 14, 2007, at www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/14/nbrown214.xml.

[3]Daniel Hannan, MEP, "Those Euro-Myths Exploded," The Daily Telegraph, October 19, 2007, at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/october/euromythsexploded.htm.

[4]Margaret Thatcher, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World (London: HarperCollins, 2002), p. 410.