From The Wall Street Journal:
It was, even for those two historical giants, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, a remarkable action. On Aug. 7, 1941, without letting the still-neutral American nation know what was going on, the unorthodox and purposeful president had arrived in the quiet harbor of Placentia Bay on the Newfoundland coast, after traveling there via train and warship. Two days later the equally resourceful Prime Minister of Britain arrived in the same port on the battleship HMS Prince of Wales, just repaired from its encounter with the Bismarck.
For three full days, these two leaders and their top advisers shared their views about how the United States and the British Empire should carry out a combined policy against the Axis powers “in the event” of America’s joining the war. This meeting turned out to be the first of 11 that the “Big Two” would have during the world conflict—the last being with Stalin, at Yalta in February 1945. Their colloquy established a pattern for the hammering-out of the shared Anglo-American grand strategy.
In addition to discussing their military intentions, the two governments also worked together to produce one of the most important political documents in the West’s canon of statements about human rights, trade, the freedom of peoples and democratic purpose. The statement, soon termed “The Atlantic Charter” in the press, was issued after the two leaders had secretly departed for home, the better to avoid possible enemy interruption.
The Atlantic Charter was never actually signed by Roosevelt and Churchill, but was later viewed by historians as a grand step toward the coming of the United Nations. The lineage of the document’s ideas ran back, via Wilson’s Fourteen Points, to 19th-century thought about the comity of nations and an international order. And when this greatest conflict in human history was over—to be followed shortly after by the rise of the Cold War—the permanent peacetime agreements that formed the NATO alliance (1949) could also be seen as the natural successor to the ideas and decisions that arose from Roosevelt and Churchill’s meeting.
It is not surprising, then, that whenever the cohesiveness and common purposes of the Western Alliance appears to be splintering, whenever America and Europe seem to be drifting apart in today’s world, the calls to halt that danger almost always begin by referring back to this historic 1941 encounter. A fine new Brookings Institution policy book by David McKean and Bart Szewczyk, “Partners of First Resort: America, Europe and the Future of the West,” is not a work of history, unless one thinks of it being what scholars at the Harvard Kennedy School call “Applied History.” The two authors are scholar-practitioners (both being former members of the Policy Planning Staff of the Department of State) and their account begins with the Atlantic Charter, the United Nation and NATO, then gallops forward swiftly to the coming of the Obama and Trump presidencies, both of which in their different ways (the latter especially) exposed irresolution and fissures in the Atlantic partnership.
This book can be seen as a liberal-internationalist act of special pleading, but it is no less interesting for being so. “Partners of First Resort” is quite good in describing the American-European differences of viewpoint in recent times, and on the dangers posed by Chinese authoritarianism—as well as by Vladimir Putin’s frequent efforts to undermine Western ideas and unity. The book concludes with a long chapter (“Toward a New Atlantic Charter”) that contains a serious and detailed agenda of all of the areas that any and all American policy makers, Republican or Democratic, now have to grapple with: climate change; cyber conflict; technological disruption; trade; public health. “Partners of First Resort” comes across, then, as a bold attempt to set out a grand strategy for the West, perhaps timed to catch the attention of President Biden and his team of advisers.
Link to the rest at The Wall Street Journal (If this free link stops working, PG apologizes for the paywall, but hasn’t figured out a way around it.)
General reply.
The only “perpetual war” goes on in the economic sphere – never ending, no matter the size of the combatants, or their relationship in the political sphere. Whether it is the USA vs. the EU, or Texas vs. California, or (in my corner of the world), Phoenix vs. Tucson.
You’re too kind.
Humans are tribal; war is pretty much eternal. In all spheres.
The contest might be muted but economics, politics, sports, religion, every activity involving more than two ends up a struggle for domination.
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGi00HqpmS0
It is meant to be funny and it is.
But it is also prescient.
To be clear: most humans are “good” in the personal field (psychopaths, sociopaths, and politicians aside) but once you move outside person to person interactions tribalism takes over. That’s how soccer riots and city burnings happen. And war: military, economic, political, class, or race. The less personal interaction and experience involved, the less empathy or sympathy.
Aliens beware! 😀
When has war not existed in recorded history?
Not as *open* enemies, anyway.
The French in particular were never terribly “allied” and a good portion of their policies were focused on undercutting the US. From Surete industrial espionage to the focus on dual use technologies (heavy lift aircraft, ICBM rockets, and a targetting satellite constellation) at the expense of their economic well being. (Neither Ariane, A380, or Galileo had much real economic justification and by now all three are economic flops. Useful militarily, though.)
Look at the big economic developments of the last 60 years and try to find big tech breakthroughs coming out of Europe, especially in the *consumer* sphere. One reason the US has lapped the EU in productivity since the 90’s has been their expenditures propping up “National Champions” and their protectionism (C.f.,the Banana War, the atlantic Cod fisheries, the chicken war, etc).
And it’s not just not just France and Germany. Portugal is trying to do in the Atlantic the same thing as China in the south china sea; misuse the LAW OF THE SEA UN treaty to hijack a big chunk of international waters. The EU’s entire digital strategy is all about undercutting American companies while allowing free reign to Chinese ones.
In fact, a good portion of the “rise of China” has been encouraged and facilitated by euro politicians and business, not just american ones “donating” IP. As recently as early 2020 various european nations were actually signing up to the Chinese Belt and road debt trap project, giving away control of their biggest ports. Italy in particular was way too cozy with the CCP (just as they were with the Soviets during the cold war) hosting the largest Chinese presence in the continent and were “rewarded” with the first big COVID outbreak in the west.
Probably forgotten by now, but the massive NY outbreak was caused not by asian travellers (correctly blocked relatively early) but by Italian travel, not blocked until too late.
And on and on.
Among the more eggregious moves are the french export of nuclear weapon technology to hostile regimes and german companies’ ilegal military assistance to Saddam, Gaddafi, the Mullahs, etc.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/12/09/science/20081209_BOMB_GRAPHIC.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer
(Let’s not forget that in the leadup to DESERT STORM the french were rejecting UN proposals *before* Saddam making the war innevitable.) Even the limited participation of EU forces in Afghanistan was more about getting their garrison armies some actual combat experience to replace the lost combat leadership since WW2. And Spain didn’t even have the…fortitude…to stick by their commitment, caving in at the first challenge.
Not *openly* active enemies, no, but hardly committed allies.
In fact, once the hypothetical book on the rise of American isolationalism and the next big wars, a lot of the blame is going to be laid at the feet of euro politicians along with DC idiots.
In case anybody is interested, how Potugal intends to become one of the largest countries on earth:
https://bloomsburygeographer.com/2020/05/30/beyond-the-horizon-portugals-plan-for-atlantic-expansion/
“On 11 May 2009, in accordance with Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the government made a claim to extend the limits of Portugal’s continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the coastal baseline, up to 350 nautical miles (648 km). In April 2005, the government in Lisbon set up the Task Group for the Extension of the Continental Shelf to prepare a claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf – over 400 days of effective surveying were implemented to collect and analyse data on the adjacent continental shelf to Portugal created through the divergent processes of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The UN is still processing the claim, but if validated, Portugal could more than double its territory to 3.8 million km2 by claiming an additional 2.1 million km2 as part of its continental shelf. Portugal would become one of the largest countries in the world, though only 3% of its territory would be terrestrial. ”
New Zealand should be watching this closely. 😐
The French in particular were never terribly “allied” and a good portion of their policies were focused on undercutting the US.
DeGaulle had an explicit policy of challenging the dominance of the US. Ever wonder how all the Arabs in France got there before the latest migrations? DeGaulle brought them in to provide labor in his program to topple the US from global commercial dominance.
But, say what one will about the French, they sent their troops and special police units running around Kabul last week grabbing French citizens and taking them through the airport gates to planes. Well done, Mr Macron.
The british also care about their folks and allies enough to facilitate their exit. They’ve rescued americans, too, including WaPo reporters as well as rescue dogs and cats.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-uk-government-worked-hard-to-get-200-rescue-cats-and-dogs-out-of-afghanistan-but-critics-are-asking-why-animals-were-priortized/ar-AANQr6D?ocid=uxbndlbing
Good move. The animals are innocent which is more than can be said about a lot of humans. Especially WaPo staff. 😀
What an interesting book to be published at this particular point in history.
There are undoubtedly many who are gearing up to chronicle the end of the era that saw the Western nations acting, by and large, as allies – or at least not as enemies.