Friends with Benefits? The strength of the UK/US relationship...

There are many tired clichés and easy to write stories about UK defence issues that regularly feature in the press – such as this recent one from the NY Times. One of the most popular to trot out to fill column inches is some kind of article that suggests that the UK military no longer matters to the US and that France / Australia / Asgard are the new best friend of the US, usually followed by a comment about how the Special Relationship is no longer special.

These articles have been written for decades, with author after author proudly proclaiming the demise of the UK / US relationship due to UK defence cuts or other reasons. Frankly, they’re utterly predictable and usually built on emotion and not logic. Is the UK a declining power though and has France supplanted it, or are these articles merely wishful thinking?

In practical terms the UK and US enjoy a particularly close security relationship that covers some of the most sensitive areas of a nation states activity and secrets. This is not a relationship built on nostalgia, but one built on the UK offering practical value to its ally. Broadly speaking the UK value to the US comes about through the following areas:

1.  Global diplomatic influence and reach
2. Residual real estate in useful location
3. Extremely valuable niche capabilities
4. Self-sustaining military with global reach

The UK retains a global diplomatic network to represent its interests, coupled with membership of a broad range of institutions including the UN and NATO. To the US this matters because not only can the US work alongside the UK at a local diplomatic level (e.g. jointly demarching a nations government can be a powerful diplomatic lever), but also the UK has access to some nations that the US has no representation in (e.g. Iran and DPRK).

The UK is able to make effective use of this network to lobby and influence other powers, and can work closely with US and other allied diplomats to co-ordinate diplomatic efforts. One of the key reasons why the UK matters to the US is the FCO diplomats who consistently deliver effective solutions to difficult foreign policy problems. This relationship makes it possible for the UK to effectively co-ordinate and co-operate with the US and help further joint policy goals.  

People often lose sight of the fact that the ideal resolution to a diplomatic crisis does not involve going to war. If the UK and US have to conduct a military operation somewhere it means that diplomatic measures have failed. The constant engagement between FCO and State is testament to the ability of these departments to work together to provide a diplomatic solution.

The UK matters too because it has a truly global outlook on policy issues, meaning that unlike regional allies, it can be counted on by the US to take a view on something and lobby for it. This gives the US a reliable likeminded partner who  is prepared to work with them to further their goals. It also means the US can draw on UK access and influence through soft power (e.g. nations which have a closer relationship or are more amenable to UK lobbying than US) to help secure their support in international organisations or issues.

The challenge for US policy makers is that not every nation sees eye to eye with US policy goals, and cannot always be counted on to support them. Consequently the UK matters to the US because it shares many US foreign and security policy goals and is highly unlikely to ever actively lobby against them – a trait not every US partner shares.

It is not just the diplomatic efforts that matter though. The UK retains a variety of real estate in interesting parts of the world that it is prepared to let the US use for operational reasons. The value to the US of having a reliable partner own the estate their base is on cannot be overstated. For example Diego Garcia is home to a number of critical US military assets, while the UK historically is willing to let the US have permission to conduct operations out of facilities in the UK, Cyprus and Ascension Island.

This willingness to actively support US operations makes a significant difference to US planners. Knowing that they can rely on guaranteed access to facilities, and permissions to permit them to conduct a full range of operations is vital. Not every country that permits foreign military forces on its soil is so supportive, or willing to allow the US to carry out operations – they may put caveats in place preventing airstrikes, or limiting the type of forces or operations conducted from their facilities.The UK matters to the US in part because it is prepared to offer secure facilities and not prove to be a difficult partner state.

The UK also retains a wide range of niche capabilities that it is willing and able to use in support of wider coalition goals. For instance the considerable capability offered by Law Enforcement Agencies such as the National Crime Agency, or extremely capable and effective aid organisations such as DFID. These are able to work effectively overseas either in conjunction with US equivalent organisations, or burden share to alleviate pressure on the US.

A good example of this was the indictments against North Korea last year for various cyber-attacks such as ‘Wannacry’, where the successful US legal process and attribution of North Korea as the responsible actor occurred in part due to the support received from UK law enforcement organisations.  

This is supported by an exceptionally capable intelligence community which functions well alongside its US peer group, both bilaterally and as part of the ‘Five Eyes’ community. The combination of cutting edge technology, global aspiration and a willingness to tackle real issues such as cyber-crime or counter terrorism and proliferation issues has meant that the UK intelligence community brings assets and capabilities that profoundly matter to the US.

The strength of these relationships should not be underestimated, nor the ability to leverage them with wider diplomatic and other soft power capabilities too to achieve effects. The UK also continues to possess armed forces which possess global reach and the ability to self-sustain themselves at considerable distance from the homeland. There is also still a political willingness to ‘get hands dirty’ and deploy them into difficult situations, or use them in a highly challenging situation – such as the so-called ‘day one’ scenarios involving strikes on difficult targets such as Syria.

The UK operates widely compatible equipment and there is a high level of policy and operational integration between the two militaries and national security policy makers which makes it possible for the two nations to work together on a near seamless basis operationally overseas.

It is important not to take this level of joint integrated working for granted, bringing two militaries together in a position where both feel comfortable working with the other and able to operate effectively together is not easy. Outside of highly scripted exercises, few nations enjoy genuinely close military relationships, and fewer still feel comfortable sharing many of their most sensitive operational capabilities with each other. Yet the UK and US remain in a space where they feel this can be done, and they can work together.

US and UK warships routinely operate alongside each other as one force -as seen in Bahrain where a joint MCMV force has operated for years, or operationally in places like Libya and Syria. There is a level of joint trust that exists in this relationship that is unparalleled in the world – the only other nations that come close are the remaining members of the ‘Five-Eyes’ community.

When assessing the state of the UK/US relationship too much attention is paid by some to the relationships between President and Prime Minister, ignoring that in the real world of international relations heads of state/government rarely speak regularly, and far less is paid to the relationship between the mandarins and the military.

International relationships work best when nations can determine that they share a determination to see a specific set of policy goals delivered – be it the invasion of a country or securing change to an international treaty. While the Prime Minister and President may set the strategic direction of Government, it is down to policy makers to grease the machinery of state and ensure this is delivered.

Too little emphasis is given to the vital working relationships between Officials who engage regularly on all manner of issues and co-ordinate the activities of their respective governments and who set up the calls or meetings for their principals. In practical terms the UK/US relationship works so well because officials are able to work together well. When senior politicians meet, they are usually discussing issues or concerns identified at working levels as requiring senior level discussion and intervention.

When assessing the state of a national bilateral relationship a better guide to its relative strength is asking how often do policy makers engage with each other at working level, or share ideas and plans on delivering shared goals? Is the sole engagement formal, highly scripted and tightly controlled on an annual basis with seniors, or is it more normally conducted daily by normal officials via emails, meetings and phone calls?

F35 and Future Carrier - A truly joint UK/US Capability

- Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

People tend not to consider this but it is worth thinking about. A relationship forged in wartime and honed over decades of co-operation by tens of thousands of people requires far less very senior level political leadership attention – it already works, and works very well. Why waste the time of a busy President or Prime Minister to handle niceties that are pleasant but won’t materially alter things, when you could deploy them instead on other pressing issues, where their intervention could help alter things?

While senior level engagement and staff talks do of course go on, it is worth remembering that the measure of the UK/US relationship is as much the fact that the relationship is less about establishing senior rapport and more about continuing working level delivery of shared policy goals.

While it may be trendy to assume that the UK doesn’t matter as much anymore, a better question to ask when looking for who the US new ‘best mate’ is is to look closely and ask what nations possess the same combination of widespread diplomatic reach, global real estate, highly capable security and military forces and a willingness to use them globally?

The reality is there aren’t really any other players in town in the same category – for all the occasional talk of how the French are raising their game, and the fact that Brexit will potentially mean the US has to focus more on bilateral EU engagement in future than it has in the past, there are no other nations emerging which really fit the bill?

Add in the combination of a shared past and an ,almost, shared language (as anyone who has tried speaking the Queens English in rural America can attest too!) and you realise that the UK is fortunate enough to enjoy a very effective working relationship with the US that no other nation can match. This level of co-operation is arguably unparalleled anywhere else on the planet.

The US may have many close relationships with many different nations and for different reasons, but To those who say the UK/US relationship is waning, Humphrey would ask them to point out the next nation with the same traits and capabilities as the UK , with the same shared global interests and values and the same range of capabilities underpinned by a genuinely close and effective working level relationship between officials. It may have changed a lot and had ups (and downs) but when push comes to shove Washington and London know that they do have a very special relationship.