The UK-US Special Relationship through the lens of strategic documents

Cherniaev Mikhail Sergeevich Postgraduate student, Department of Theory and History of International Relations, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 117198, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Miklukho-Maklaya, 10/2 shvarts_2013@mail.ru Other publications by this author

"Special relationship": reboot or the end?

In the course of historical development, the relations between Great Britain and the United States have undergone significant transformations. Since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1785, Great Britain has gone from not recognizing the sovereignty of the United States and military conflicts to achieving the status of "special" bilateral relations.

Bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and the United States have been called "special" since the second half of the 20th century, when the countries formed a special type of cooperation based on common values, history, and language ^{[1, p. 13]}. The term was introduced in 1946 by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during the Fulton Speech. After that, the "special" status of relations was consolidated in the rhetoric of both countries ^{[2, p. 161]}.

The role of bilateral relations has been enshrined in key regulatory documents of the countries. The 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy, issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, defines the United Kingdom as the "oldest and closest ally" of the United States, and calls the relationship between London and Washington "special" ^[3]. In the Strategies of 2010 ^[4] and 2015 ^[5], issued under the presidency of Barack Obama, the US relations with the United Kingdom are defined as "close historical ties".

The National Security Strategy and the 2015 Strategic Defense and Security Review of the United Kingdom emphasize the common goals of the two countries, among which are jointly ensuring international stability and security, combating terrorism, "improving the efficiency of the global economic system, "promoting the rule of law and free trade." The bilateral relations are called "special". The United Kingdom defines the United States as a "leading economic and defense power", a "guarantor of global stability" and its "main partner in the field of security, defense and foreign policy" ^[6].

In 2019 The United Kingdom and the United States have signed the first ever bilateral agreement on expanding and accelerating access to data to combat crime and terrorism ^[7], which allows access to data without submitting official requests and conducting verification by a partner.

Although the United Kingdom and the United States have long emphasized the "special" status of bilateral relations, including at the level of strategic foreign policy documents, the level of interaction has significantly decreased recently ^[8]. Firstly, this is due to the UK's withdrawal from the European Union and London's loss of a connecting role between the United States and European countries. Secondly, the reason was the chaotic reshuffle in the British cabinet after Boris Johnson resigned.

In June 2023, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak arrived in Washington for the first time since taking office in order to restore the shaken relations. During the official talks, US President Joe Biden noted that the "special relationship" is in "good shape" and that he intends to create an "economic alliance" ^[9].

Currently, opinions on the current state of the "special relationship" differ significantly. The Institute for Foreign Policy Studies provides two opposing views. Charles A. Ray notes that US–UK relations need to be rebooted, but at the same time they are mutually beneficial for both sides: for Washington, this is an opportunity to use Britain's historical ties around the world, to have access to intelligence data in areas where American data is scarce, for the United Kingdom, this is beneficial defense–industrial cooperation, access to to technical intelligence and security guarantees from the United States ^[10]. Mohamed Amersi, in an article with the headline "The Special Relationship is dead", points out that the time of the "special relationship" has expired, and the UK needs to go its own independent way and put its own interests first ^[11].

To understand the current role of the "special relationship" in the politics of both countries, it is advisable to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of the latest versions of strategic documents – the US National Security Strategy and the Updated Comprehensive Review of the United Kingdom.

An updated comprehensive review of the UK: "a response to increasing global inconsistency and instability" ^[12]

The document was published in March 2023 as an update of the Comprehensive Review of Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy of 2021.

In the preface, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak emphasizes that the update of the document is due to a number of emerging or increased threats to the international order, namely: the beginning of Russia's special military operation in Ukraine, the weaponization of energy and food, "nuclear rhetoric and China's more aggressive position in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait," continuing threats of terrorism and organized crime, including in Afghanistan, as well as other transnational problems – large-scale migration, human smuggling, drugs and weapons, illegal financial transactions ^{[12, p. 2]}. The Prime Minister also outlined four priorities that define the UK's national security strategy:

1. the formation of a global strategic environment in cooperation with like-minded partners around the world; the main priority is the security of the Euro–Atlantic area;

2. "support for self–defense and restoration of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, because the security of Ukraine is directly the security of Great Britain"; the defense industry will receive 5 billion pounds of additional funding over two years; it is planned to spend 2.5% of GDP on defense instead of the basic 2%;

3. Strengthening economic, medical and energy security;

4. Increased investments in innovation, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity – by 2024-2025, it is planned to allocate 20 billion pounds per year for research and development ^{[12, pp. 3-4]}.

The structure of the Updated Comprehensive Review is built around four strategic pillars, each of which contains the main priorities of British foreign policy and makes up the corresponding sub-chapter of the document.

The first pillar, the formation of an international environment, establishes the UK's commitment to a multilateral approach and the formation of a stable world order based on managed cooperation and competition between sovereign states, reciprocity, norms of responsible behavior and respect for the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and international law.

The following are designated as geographical priorities:

– Euro–Atlantic: strengthening relations with the countries of the European Union on the basis of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement; developing new forms of cooperation, including in the field of defense through PESCO; investing in regional institutions - NATO (highest priority), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe; supporting new initiatives such as the European the political community.

– Indo-Pacific region: maintaining stability, freedom and openness of the region; recognizing the central position of ASEAN; deepening partnerships and defense cooperation with (AUKUS, Five Eyes), India, Japan; conducting the final phase of negotiations on joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

– Regions on the periphery of the Euro-Atlantic: The Middle East, Africa, and the Arctic.

The thematic priorities include: combating climate change, striving to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals, creating an open global economy and ensuring a free trade system, managing the establishment of rules for interaction between actors in the digital and technological space, cyberspace; maintaining balance in the space and maritime spheres.

The strategy of interaction with China is presented separately. The UK plans to strengthen national security in areas where the actions of the Chinese Communist Party pose a threat – the economy, democratic freedoms, critical infrastructure, supply chains, as well as to balance and encourage China to change through cooperation with partners, directly interact with China at the bilateral and multilateral levels.

Within the framework of the second pillar – deterrence, protection, competition in all spheres – the UK is putting forward an integrated approach to deterrence and defense, the fundamental component of which is the British nuclear deterrent capability designed to protect NATO. The intention to invest 2.5% of GDP in defense is once again emphasized, which "will strengthen Britain's leading position in NATO" ^{[12, p. 33]}. Most of the United Kingdom's defense potential will be directed to the Euro-Atlantic region, which "remains the main theater of military operations" ^{[12, p. 40]}. The basis of collective security in the Euro–Atlantic area is NATO. The priority is to support Ukraine.

The updated strategy for Russia involves "further strengthening NATO, ... combating Russia's harmful influence on the world stage, exposing Russian disinformation, working with partners around the world to reduce their dependence on Russia, ... intensifying cooperation with Moldova, the South Caucasus, the Western Balkans, Central Asia and Mongolia ... to increase their resilience to Russian interference, ... reducing Russia's ability to conduct intelligence activities" ^{[12, p. 40]}.

It also indicates the UK's intention to counter threats to regional and international security from Iran, to maintain stability and peace in the Taiwan Strait and on the Korean Peninsula.

The third pillar – addressing vulnerabilities through resilience – reveals the UK's approach to sustainability through a long-term campaign to address vulnerabilities in five key areas: 1) energy security, climate, environment and health; 2) economic security; 3) democratic and social sustainability; 4) cybersecurity; 5) State borders.

The fourth pillar, creating strategic advantage, establishes the UK's approach to maintaining strategic advantage, consisting of two components: actively developing fundamental strengths with an emphasis on science, technology and cyber power; updating public administration tools and developing levers to transform strengths into real results.

The US National Security Strategy: "the need for American leadership is greater than ever" ^[13]

The document was published in October 2022. In the preface, US President Joe Biden emphasizes that the world is at a turning point, and the strategic competition for the formation of the future international order is in full swing. Strategic priorities are partially being set – deepening alliances in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region, and developing AUKUS partnerships with the United Kingdom and Australia. "China's intention to change the international order" and Russia's special military operation in Ukraine are identified as threats ^{[13, p. 3]}. In conclusion, the President notes that the United States will continue to "defend democracy around the world" ^{[13, p. 3]}.

The strategy defines two strategic challenges. First, it is competition between major Powers, in the context of which it is important to respect the principles of self-determination, territorial integrity and political independence. Secondly, global cross-border problems such as climate change, food insecurity, infectious diseases, terrorism, lack of energy resources, inflation, which affect the foundations of international security and require appropriate responses and solutions.

The national interests of the United States, according to the National Security Strategy: protecting the American people, expanding economic prosperity and opportunity; protecting the democratic values that underpin the American way of life.

The most acute strategic problem in the American government's vision comes from powers that combine authoritarian governance with revisionist foreign policy. These include Russia as "an immediate threat to a free and open international system" and China as "the only competitor that intends to change the international order and has great economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to achieve this goal" ^{[13, p. 8]}.

The declared goal of the United States is to achieve a free, open and secure international order. The efforts that will be made to achieve this goal are: investing in the main sources and tools of American power and influence; creating the strongest possible coalition of nations to strengthen collective influence on the formation of a global strategic environment and solving common problems; modernization and strengthening of the armed forces.

The US strategic approach is built on several key pillars:

1. Domestic and foreign policy are inseparable from each other: "In order to promote common prosperity at home and protect the rights of all Americans, we must actively shape the international order in accordance with our interests and values" ^{[13, p. 11]}.

2. The most important strategic asset is alliances and partnerships around the world, in particular NATO and alliances in the Indo-Pacific region.

3. China is the most serious geopolitical problem for the United States.  Russia is "an immediate and constant threat to regional order and security in Europe, a source of destruction and instability throughout the world" ^{[13, p. 11]}. Smaller "authoritarian powers acting aggressively and destabilizingly": Iran, North Korea.

4. Interaction with countries on their terms, and not only through the prism of strategic competition, promoting prosperity in each region, in particular in the Middle East and Africa.

5. Recognition of the need to correct the effects of globalization that have caused inequality, in particular economic inequality.

Among the global priorities of the United States are: firstly, overcoming competition with China and deterring Russia; secondly, cooperation in solving global problems, including: climate and energy security, pandemics and biosecurity, food security, arms control and non-proliferation, terrorism, the fight against transnational organized crime;Thirdly, the formation of rules for international cooperation: strengthening and updating the UN system and multilateral institutions.

The Indo-Pacific region occupies the first place in the US regional strategy, in which the US positions itself as a leader in trade and investment. The main tasks in the region are: keeping it open, free, accessible, prosperous; maintaining open access to the South China Sea; strengthening collective forces with partners in AUKUS - Great Britain and Australia – and QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) – Australia, India, Japan; maintaining sustainable diplomacy with North Korea. The United States reaffirms the central role of ASEAN, as well as its obligations to its Indo-Pacific Treaty allies – Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. India is called an important defense partner.

The second priority region, while being called "the main partner in solving the entire spectrum of global problems," is Europe. It is important for the United States to keep Europe whole, free and peaceful, and to this end they plan to continue to support Ukraine. Close cooperation between the EU and the United Kingdom on issues of mutual interest is encouraged. The United States intends to support the European aspirations of Georgia and Moldova, to help partners strengthen democratic institutions, the rule of law and economic development in the Western Balkans, to continue cooperation with Turkey, to continue working through the C5+1 diplomatic platform (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan + USA), to intensify international cooperation to solve world problems with France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom through the G7.

The third regional priority is the Western Hemisphere and the promotion of democracy and universal prosperity in it. The strengthening of work with Canada and Mexico, support for the democratic self-determination of the peoples of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, as well as the mobilization of the international community to help Haiti recover from the prolonged humanitarian, political, and economic crisis are emphasized.

Supporting de-escalation and integration in the Middle East is the fourth priority, aimed at deterring and countering Iran's destabilizing activities, expanding and deepening Israel's growing ties with its neighbors and other Arab States. It is also emphasized: "We will not use our army to change regimes or rebuild society, but instead limit the use of force to circumstances when necessary to protect the interests of our national security" ^{[13, p. 43]}.

In the context of building a partnership between the United States and Africa, it is planned to continue investing in the largest states in the region: Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa, deepen ties with medium and small states, and support the efforts of African countries to resolve conflicts, counter growing terrorist activity and humanitarian crises in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Somalia and the Sahel.

Another regional priority is support for a peaceful Arctic. Russia and China are named as threats to the current balance of power in the region.

Comparative and quantitative analysis of strategic documents

Based on the analysis of the Updated Comprehensive Review of the United Kingdom in 2023 and the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2022, the main priorities of the foreign policy of the two countries were identified and a table with a quantitative comparison of the most common terms was compiled (Table 1).

Table 1.

Mention of key terms in US and UK strategic documents

Compiled by the author.

The number of mentions of the United States in the Updated Comprehensive Review: 16. The document emphasizes that for the United Kingdom, the United States "remains the most important ally and partner" ^{[12, p. 20]}, and the depth of relations with the United States – from intelligence to military and diplomatic coordination – is the most important pillar of security.

The number of mentions of the United Kingdom in the US National Security Strategy is 7, each of which is related to the partnership within the framework of AUKUS or relations with the European Union.

At the same time, the term "special relationship" is not mentioned in any of the documents.

According to the documents, the United Kingdom and the United States have great similarities in the alignment of strategic priorities. Both countries see Russia (49 mentions in the UK and 71 in the USA) and China (39 mentions in the UK and 55 in the USA) as threats to the international order. In the US National Security Strategy, Russia consistently continues to occupy one of the leading positions in terms of the number of mentions.

The countries express their intention to provide full support to Ukraine (57 mentions from the UK and 32 from the USA). The large number of references to Ukraine in the Updated Comprehensive Review is due to the fact that the situation in Ukraine is perceived by the United Kingdom as a direct and immediate security threat to Europe.

The UK's key regional priorities are Europe, the Indo–Pacific region, and for the US, the Indo-Pacific region, Europe. Both countries declare their commitment to building a just world order in cooperation with their main partners. The similarity of strategic priorities creates the basis for further development of relations.

NATO is mentioned 138 times in the Updated Comprehensive review of the United Kingdom. This demonstrates that the North Atlantic Alliance remains for the United Kingdom a guarantor of national security, an important multilateral forum for transatlantic dialogue and one of the key areas of "special relations" with the United States.

The essential difference between the strategic documents lies in the positioning of the countries themselves. The US national Security strategy is the manifesto of a superpower confident in its potential and leading position in the international arena, and most importantly, that other countries need its leadership. The United Kingdom positions itself as a strong power striving for a more independent foreign policy course, but it is considered vital to use the potential of NATO.

Conclusions

At a first glance at the two strategic documents, especially given the absence of the term "special relations" in them and the minimum number of mentions of Great Britain in the US Strategy, it can be concluded that bilateral relations have lost the status of "special". However, the commonality of strategic priorities creates the basis for continued cooperation. In addition, the United States remains an important ally and partner for the UK, as explicitly stated in the Updated Comprehensive Review.

Common values and interests as the basis of a "special relationship" have long turned into a practical reality from which both countries benefit – more or less, depending on which side to look at. The UK is more dependent on the relationship than the US. This relationship is important for the United States when the United Kingdom appears to be a capable and useful partner. The "special relationship" largely depends on the ruling elite of both countries ^[14] and the international context. Various issues, leaders, and the level of personal interests directly affect the status of this partnership.

After leaving the EU, elements of the "new Atlanticism" manifest themselves in the UK's foreign policy, expressed in the desire for a special role in ensuring Euro-Atlantic security and leadership in the field of technology and global security of artificial intelligence ^[15]. In this regard, the "special relationship" with the United States is relevant for the UK in terms of adapting to changes and the need for support in promoting its foreign policy strategy.

Thanks to the exchange of intelligence information, the US-UK bilateral partnership continues to dominate all transatlantic relations. For many decades, there has been a purposeful and steady course towards deepening and developing cooperation between the United States and Great Britain in the field of nuclear and conventional weapons. In the near future, this union will not lose its importance for both countries ^{[16, p. 55]}. One of the confirmations of this can be considered the new Atlantic Declaration on the Economic Partnership of the United States and Great Britain in the 21st Century, adopted in 2023 following the meeting of Joe Biden and Rishi Sunak, which "guarantees that the unique alliance will be adapted, strengthened and rethought to meet the challenges of the current period" ^[17].

The further development of relations will be influenced by the upcoming US elections in November 2024. The UK needs to start planning actions in case of Donald's victory Trump, during whose presidency the United States demonstrated impulsiveness in the international arena, a tendency to unilateral actions and pressure on traditional partners. This was warned by three former leading British diplomats – the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs until 2020, Simon MacDonald, as well as John Kerr and Peter Westmacott, who previously headed the British diplomatic mission in Washington ^[11]. However, given that the United States continues to use the "special relationship" factor in promoting its national interests, there is reason to believe that bilateral relations remain significant in the politics of both countries.