Search results
US, they would simply have to wait until the EEC had formulated a common position before negotiations could proceed further. Heath’s actions were viewed with incredulity in Washington, because his policy was effectively scuppering any hope of a quick foreign policy success – which Nixon personally wanted to distract attention from his Watergate troubles. More substantively, Heath’s decision was seen to mark the end of close US–UK diplomacy, and both Nixon and Kissinger talked about the end of the ‘special relationship’.12 However, Kissinger was determined that his
, 1990 : 34). The other major reason for the veto was de Gaulle's view of Britain's relationship with the United States. The internal critics of the Conservative government did not waste any time apportioning blame. They suggested failure was partially due to the government having been ‘trying to have it both ways by maintaining the special relationship with America whilst trying to be a good European’ (Crowson, 2007 : 32). However, although de Gaulle did despise what seemed to be a revival of the special relationship, ‘his opposition to Britain joining the EEC was
facto rulers and proprietors of this distant religious house. What follows is an attempt to explain the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of this special relationship for numerous French monasteries between the sixth and eleventh centuries. Vézelay was undoubtedly unique from its very foundation. Yet this monastery’s path towards autonomous governance and administration is representative of a growing ecclesiastical tradition, which can be traced to episcopal, Frankish, and papal practices. Its privileged position was not an a priori arrangement, but an
Kingdom could not see itself as any part of a European unity movement. Its European role in the 1950s was, in effect, an extension of its special relationship with the United States and a distraction from British global political and military involvements. Furthermore, British foreign trade with the Commonwealth remained more substantial than that with continental Europe. In the 1960s, a new generation of British politicians decided the United Kingdom should join the European Economic Community, but the commitment to Europe remained highly qualified. As a result
demographics and it would cease to be a Jewish state, for which the US administration would bear the blame. Kennedy promised the balance of power would be maintained, adding that the United States had a ‘special relationship’ with Israel: ‘We made it clear to the Arabs repeatedly that those special relationship [sic] are not negotiable.’ Although it had no official alliance with Israel, it felt like its ‘most
authorities and the latter’s position within monastic communities. In this respect, exemptions from the late eleventh century came to be used as legislative expressions of the papacy’s proprietary rights – ties of dependency and promises of apostolic protection, whose special relationship provided monasteries with a profitable legal position. An important transformation in the monastery’s spiritual authority can be detected in the surviving charter evidence for the late 1080s and 1090s. In the first years of his pontificate, Urban II instituted a
relationship to the second area where Kissinger’s speech had caused problems for the UK – the delicate balance to be struck between relations with the United States and solidarity with the Community. Although the claim that Heath pursued a well thought out strategy of moving away from the ‘special relationship’ can be taken too far, the prime minister recognised the need to reduce the importance of the Anglo-American relationship both in the context of the accession talks and to protect Britain’s reputation once inside the Community. 72 The belief that the EEC would ‘appear
State Department: no policies regarding Israel could be divorced from US regional and global strategies. Thus, the ‘special relationship’ of the Kennedy era conflicted with the US realpolitik and was meant to satisfy both American Jews and Israel, and keep Israel from feeling that it was being sacrificed on the altar of Western Cold War interests. The term ‘special relationship,’ never wholly
Thatcher in December 1984. It was most notable, then, that a month later the British government tabled new proposals for an Anglo-Irish accord, proposals which accepted the need for Dublin’s involvement in Northern Ireland, and which formed the essence of the agreement signed the following November.81 Clearly, the US played a significant role in nudging the British government towards the AIA. The ‘special relationship’ with the US – and Thatcher’s own close relationship with Reagan – was being disturbed by an increasingly irksome Irish-American elite, acting largely at
which they found themselves. The lurking fear of apocalyptic nuclear assault. How did these things come about? Of the many aspects, sentimental and material, of the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’, the least well-known is that which began with an agreement, in the summer of 1946, to enable the United States Army Air Forces (from 1947 the United States Air Force – USAF) to launch an atomic strike on the Soviet Union from airfields in England. That agreement reflected the a ssumption that 2 The American bomb in Britain conflict between the United States and an