Britain’s Faustian Bargain: The Special Relationship Meets Its Reckoning

I’ll freely admit that I’m an Anglophile and a fan of the Westminster type of government. I think Canada made a mistake with its haste to distance itself from the “colonial” power, largely because it pushed us further into the arms of the United States, which somehow was regarded as more preferable. We are now firmly entangled and are struggling to find a way out.

As part of that process, many Canadians are suddenly remembering that the UK and Canada share a monarch, are both members of the Commonwealth, and that Britain is a significant military power in its own right. Canada and the UK share extremely deep historical ties, ties that are reflected in our system of government. Canada’s military, especially the Army, continues to reflect a very strong British heritage and the UK is the only foreign force (aside from US officers based with Canadians in NORAD) to maintain an actual base in Canada.

But in many ways, these pale in comparison to Britain’s ties with the United States. Since the very early days of the Second World War, the UK has pursued a “special relationship” with the US, relying on shared ties, shared belief in democracy, and a shared culture to create that relationship. And it worked. The British benefited from access to US industry as it struggled to fight Hitler alone, Lend-Lease bolstered military potential, and after Japan’s attack in 1941, the US was convinced that Hitler was the greater threat.

Canada is, of course, swamped with popular history originating from the United States, and we can be forgiven if we don’t remember that the “special relationship” wasn’t all one way. The British shared what Churchill called the “treasures,” and dispatched the Tizzard Mission to provide the United States with the results of Britain’s wartime research. This included the cavity magnetron, critical to the development of radar and a host of other technologies. Even more critical was the decision, taken during the 1943 Quebec Conference, to merge efforts to create an atomic weapon. The UK—and Canada—contributed greatly to the resulting Manhattan Project and British scientists were at the centre of the bomb’s creation.

But by 1945, things began to crack. The US had—by virtue of its size and industrial capacity—become the leading western ally, with the rest, including the UK, taking a backseat. The snubs and lecturing began, culminating in the 1946 decision to seize all nuclear research, including that developed jointly, for American use only. The British and Canada were, at the stroke of a pen, frozen out.

One can imagine the effect. Post-war Britain was broke, having expended blood and treasure to defeat Germany and Japan. The Attlee government was trying to create a modern welfare state. Preparations for a retreat from the Empire and decolonization were underway, driven in part by the economy. Yet the decision was taken to develop a sovereign nuclear weapon, a decision that culminated in a British atomic bomb in 1952. The 1956 Suez Crisis drove the creation of a British hydrogen bomb, which was tested in 1957. This was supported by the development of advanced aircraft to deliver the weapons. The whole idea was to try to maintain the UK’s position as a great power.

The Americans had to relent—there was nothing to be gained from withholding nuclear cooperation—and in 1958 the Mutual Defence Agreement was signed. It intertwined US and UK nuclear cooperation and was followed by the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement, which gave the British a submarine-launched ballistic missile. These two agreements were the “great prize” that ensured British relevance on the international stage and gave Britain a completely independent nuclear deterrent without having to incur massive development costs.

And for half a century, things were fine. Information was shared, submarines and weapons built, and the “special relationship” blossomed. It’s a deep level of trust made deeper by the presence of major US bases on British soil, and by global intelligence sharing arrangements in the Five Eyes group. Further, it is without equal anywhere else on the planet.

Every aspect of Anglo-US relations needs to be viewed through the lens of the “special relationship.” It’s why a left-leaning Prime Minister will commit to supporting the US in a potentially illegal war in Iraq, it’s why the British played such a large role in Afghanistan, and it’s why they will attempt to flatter, cajole, and convince Donald Trump of their reliability, no matter how distasteful that may be to a Labour Prime Minister. If it takes a dinner with the King to ensure Trident missile fleet rotation can proceed uninterrupted, it’s a small price to pay.

Or so it was last time. But Trump 2.0 is a different level of threat. Now, settled into his second reign and surrounded by odious sycophants and ideologues, Trump holds court and gives rein to his worst instincts. His ego is unrestrained. In such an environment, the British are trying to play on Trump’s ability to be flattered, on his love of pomp and ceremony, and on his sympathy for the UK itself. But it might not work this time, for Trump has openly threatened another British ally, with which it also has deep ties: Canada.

The situation for London is fraught with danger. Canada and the UK share a monarch, although the crowns are theoretically separate. There are already demands from Canada for the King to “say something!” in defence of Canada’s sovereignty, although it would take a request from Ottawa for him to do so. For the UK, any statement from the King would almost certainly be seen as coming from London by the ill-informed toadies surrounding Trump. It would also upset London’s obvious plan to flatter and mollify Trump into maintaining the “special relationship.”

One suspects that the British invitation to Trump to plan a state visit was given without discussion with Ottawa; it was, in the current atmosphere, the wrong thing to do. Already Canadian republicans are seizing on it to criticize the monarch himself, obviously not understanding that he has nothing to do with the decisions already made by the political leadership. But there has obviously been a decision, this one likely taken between Ottawa and London, to have the King say nothing regarding Trump’s threats to Canada. It may be far too early in any event.

Like most Western democracies, it has taken time for the UK to realize that the tactics used with Trump 1.0 aren’t likely to work this time around. Indeed, we still see attempts to flatter and convince him, even in light of yesterday’s unbelievable treatment of Ukrainian president Zelenskyy in the Oval Office.

But something has happened. Zelenskyy is being given an unusually warm welcome in London today, including a private meeting with the King. This is the type of thing that does register with Donald Trump and his massive ego. It isn’t a break with Washington—far from it—but it is a signal. And British weapons and aid continue to flow to Ukraine unabated. This will register with Trump too.

In the end, I suspect that London will try to play both sides because they have to. They’ll plop Trump into a carriage and trot him down The Mall festooned with US flags. Trump will eat it up. And the missile pool will remain intact.

What about Canada? We’ll be on our own unless Trump makes good on his annexation threats. Then the Crown will mean something, the links will hold and the “special relationship” will be utterly destroyed. At least I hope so.