-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ukamb6.html | American Embassy London | Ambassador Philip Lader | Lessons from Walking: Anglo-American Relations for a New Century The Inaugural John C. Whitehead Lecture The Royal Institute of International Affairs By Philip Lader U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James's London, June 12, 1998 My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is memorable enough, Mr. President, to be welcomed at Chatham House; but I am especially pleased to inaugurate this lectureship honoring an individual who has been a model of public service, commercial success, and personal integrity. . . and who has been a supportive friend of mine over the years. Few Americans have excelled in such diverse fields, served so selflessly, and touched as many lives as John Whitehead. In public roles of long tradition Deputy Secretary of State, Chairman of the United Nations Association of the U.S.A., the Andrew Mellon Foundation, the Asia Society, the International Rescue Committee, the Brookings Institution, the Securities Industry Association he has summoned venerable institutions to renew their legacies. In private councils of broad reach 38 years with Goldman, Sachs & Co., its Senior Partner and Co-Chairman, chairman of another preeminent investment firm, director or trustee of the J. Paul Getty Trust, Rockefeller University, Lincoln Center Theater, Outward Bound he has demonstrated a sure grasp of the requisites of success, but also a deep commitment to public responsibility. In his personal life, this Naval veteran of the invasions of Normandy, southern France, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, having experienced both gains and losses, has exhibited steady courage and grace. To me, John Whitehead personifies stewardship: the capacity and discipline to employ whatever gifts we have to multiply their returns and apply them to the good of others. In that spirit we gather here tonight and I ask you to join me in thanking him not merely for his support of this Institute, but especially for his personal example. Thinking Anew About Anglo-American Relations At Chatham House in 1993, John expressed the hope that his remarks would challenge the audience to challenge him. With that recitation of his remarkable career, this relatively new ambassador tonight is challenged to an uncommon degree. Nine months ago, when Vice President Gore administered my oath of office, he observed that my predecessor, Admiral William Crowe, had previously served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This was the first instance in the Vice President's memory, he said, when a four-star admiral was replaced by a former Army sergeant. Of course, my Army friends saw nothing inappropriate in that succession. Whatever an American's rank, what new can be said about Anglo-American relations? Has not the subject been exhausted by William H. Allen, James Bryce, Abigail and Henry Adams, my predecessors' writings, and a stream of British commentators? Is not the "special relationship" indelibly portrayed by our images of Churchill and Roosevelt, Reagan and Thatcher, Clinton and Blair? Thankfully, my task is not so great as John Adams', the first American Minister to London. Standing before George III, he dedicated himself to "restoring. . . the old good nature and the old good humour" that had existed between Britain and America before the Revolution. Richard Rush, following John Quincy Adams as our envoy to London, described what Great Britain meant to an American of his time: "He hears of her statesmen. . . her scholar. . . her patriots. In the nursery he learns her ballads. . . Her language is his. . . a tie, to use Burke's figure, light as air and unseen, but stronger than links of iron. Is it not fit that two such nations should be friends?" The relationship was little diminished by occasional undiplomatic candor. Ambassador Walter Hines Page complained, "[The English] have only three vegetables, and two of them are cabbage." He would envy my daily fare at your sumptuous tables. Has the friendship been inevitable? "The British Empire and the United States," Winston Churchill predicted, "will have to be somewhat mixed up together. . . I do not view the process with any misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished; no one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it roll on, full flood. . ." But this opinion has not been unanimous. Samuel Johnson, the curmudgeon from my old Oxford college, resolved, "I am willing to love all mankind, except an American." Nathaniel Hawthorne declared, "I fancy that [the English] would. . . reciprocate [our regard] in their ungracious way. . . but they are beset by a. . . bitterness of feeling between themselves and all other nationalities, especially. . . America. They will never confess it; nevertheless, it is as essential a tonic to them as their bitter ale." In 1856, George Mifflin Dallas, the new American envoy who had been Polk's Vice President, proudly said he did not believe in "all that balderdash about mother country, kindred and so forth." Harold Macmillan, in a 1944 diary note, despaired: "[The Americans] either wish to revert to isolation combined with suspicion of British imperialism, or to intervene in a pathetic desire to solve in a few months problems which have baffled statesmen for many centuries." Amidst deliberations of the post-war monetary system, an anonymous poet set a not uncommon British view to verse: In Washington Lord Halifax Once whispered to Lord Keynes: It's true they have the money bags But we have all the brains. (I suspect we all still hear whispers of that refrain.) Let us not devalue Anglo-American relations by succumbing to misconceptions. Our common language and adherence to common law did not necessarily prompt close affinity among our forbears. Anglo-American relations cannot be taken for granted. We have had quarrels even in the recent past: the Suez Crisis, Skybolt, the Vietnam War, Grenada, the Strategic Defense Initiative, Bosnia. Certainly in my years in the White House at the start of this Administration, there were differences. Focusing on these squabbles, some de-mythologists would have us believe that the importance of Anglo-American relations has been exaggerated. These critics fail to comprehend how reliable is the vessel which can survive occasional foul weather. Churchill himself would have expected this: "All sorts . . . of differences of outlook . . . necessarily occur as we roll ponderously forward together," he said, referring to wartime problems. "But. . . there are [sic] none of them that cannot be settled face-to-face by heart-to-heart talks and patient argument." Walking the Length of Britain That conclusion may be drawn today from witnessing the friendship of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. . . and from walking the length of Great Britain as an anonymous American. On the former, my estimate is professional; on the latter, my opinion, as well-worn boots evidence, is very personal. About once each month, I walk. . . 40 to 50 miles over a weekend. . . starting at Land's End in November, skipping one bit in the Northeast for a future outing, and passing into Scotland this month, on to John O'Groats. Staying in "B&Bs," eating in pubs or village grocery stores, talking with farmers and pensioners, I learn a great deal about those "differences of outlook." These walks have provided me some of my best insights into Anglo-American relations today. As I passed Carlisle, almost to Scotland, one elderly woman greeted me: "Where'd you come from?" she asked. "Land's End," I replied, my self-satisfaction barely disguised. "That's a good day's walk," she responded seriously, dampening the spirit of a walker with more than 500 miles behind him. Why spend time outside the "M-25" and much of it in environs unlike Whitehall? I believe that today's Anglo-American relations are shaped not only by our governments, but also by businesses, NGOs, and universities; by trades unions and schools; by cultural groups, churches, and charities; by a broad spectrum of personalities and everyday activities. All of these can preserve and strengthen the heritage and common cause of America and the United Kingdom. I walk in good company: not only the required protection officer, but also the spirit of Washington Irving, who was an attache at our London Embassy. "Those who would form a correct opinion of the English. . ." said the author of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, "must go forth into the country. . . the villages and hamlets. . . visit castles, villas, farmhouses, and cottages. . . loiter about country churches; attend wakes and fairs, and other rural festivals. . ." Besides, Lord Balfour was right: London is a splendid place to live for those who can get out of it. Footpaths, bridleways, and country roads. The South-West Coastal Path's plunging cliffs. Daphne Du Maurier's mysterious Cornwall. Along Bodmin Moor, sleet and January wind so fierce that I trudged over an abandoned airfield at a 45-degree angle. Untamed expanses of eerie beauty. Tiny villages with seemingly abandoned churches and thriving Thai take-aways. Missing signposts, removed 50 years ago in case of invasion. Fairy-tale tollkeepers' cottages in Devon. Footpaths leading only yards from great houses. . . giving new meaning to the pleading, "Forgive us our trespasses." Endless hedgerows and rolling fields of winter wheat. "How far must I go east on this little isle before I can turn north?" The Quantocks in sight for what seemed like days. Through industrial sprawl. Across the Bristol Channel Bridge as the fog lifted on St. David's Day, only to find no pub serving leek soup. Along the Welsh border on Offa's Dyke, looking down at Tintern Abbey. Woods and grasslands. Stiles of every design. Terrifying, unavoidable stretches on A-roads, with thundering trucks and mad rally drivers. Different vistas from every hour's turn. The lollipop lady who knew every child by name. Not a person with an unkind word to an American accent. Striding up muddy towpaths along Staffordshire's canals. Sloshing across Derbyshire. The Pennine Way. Bogs of peat which can never be washed from my socks. A few unplanned forays in the wrong direction, the Ordnance Survey not to blame. Ten million grazing sheep, give or take a million; more spring lambs than daffodils. Hadrian's Wall. Across the Scottish border. The tragic garden in Lockerbie. Stiff climbs ahead till I reach John O'Groats. Dimensions of The Relationship Today What, from my walk, have I learned about Anglo-American relations? Today's United Kingdom an indescribable variety of scenery, terrain, accents, earths, and idioms in a relatively small place is not the pastoral England of most Americans' dreams. Bette Midler thought, "When it's three o'clock in New York, it's still 1938 in London." She was wrong. What is on people's minds here is unlike times past: Your constitution's future, devolution, Northern Ireland, BSE, a single European currency. I have learned that our kinship in 1998 is no longer derived predominantly from language or family. Our current bonds are fortified by much more than the brute necessities of two world wars and the Cold War. This generation's ties transcend those of privileged citizens and opinion leaders. Anglo-American relations today are the product of the societies themselves and the problems, domestic and foreign, which confront them. To a greater degree than ever before, our prosperity, our cultures, our security are now intertwined. Our prosperity? U.S.-U.K. aggregate trade and investments now surpass the volume between any other two countries in the world, other than that between the United States and Canada, with whom America shares a 4,000-mile border. Today, more than one million Americans went to work at British-owned businesses. The U.S. stake here exceeds 40 percent of all American investments in the entire European Union. Trade in services between our two countries is, by far, the largest in the world. Americans have invested more in the United Kingdom than in all of continental Asia. Of all the foreign-owned firms located in the U.K., 31 percent are owned by U.S. organizations. Of all American companies with European operations, 56 percent have established their regional European headquarters here. But the relationship today is about more than economics. Our cultures? Ambassador Page lamented, "The longer I live here the more astonished I become at the fundamental ignorance of the British about us and at our fundamental ignorance about them." There is far less chance of that today. American theatergoers in London this summer will feel at home. Sweet Charity has been revived; Eugene O'Neill and Tennessee Williams are in great demand. Oklahoma opens at the Royal National; Show Boat is at the Prince Edward. Chicago, Grease, Smoky Joe's Caf�, Rent and Disney's Beauty and the Beast are all here. Meanwhile, Broadway this season has been called "Britway." At last Monday's Tony Awards, Britons were named both "best actor" and "best actress." Two others star in a production which received six Tony nominations. Twelfth Night has opened at Lincoln Center to excellent reviews; and the Royal Shakespeare Company begins a long-anticipated U.S. tour. The next Star Wars trilogy will cost George Lucas' film company �1.3 billion to produce, the largest cinema project in history; and it will be made at Britain's newest film studio. The United Kingdom is still host to more than twice as many Americans studying abroad as any other country. Our security? Lady Thatcher, in her 1985 Address to a Joint Session of Congress, reflected, "No one of my generation can forget that America has been the principal architect of a peace in Europe which has lasted forty years." Over that period, successive British prime ministers and American presidents have stood shoulder-to-shoulder to guarantee European and North American security, to promote democracy, to fight against terrorism, to combat drugs and international crime, and to ensure peace and prosperity. Britain's political stability and vibrant economy, its membership in the European Union, NATO, and the Security Council, its nuclear and intelligence capability, and its continued commitment to military preparedness are among the important elements of the U.K.'s contribution to our mutual security concerns. One scholar believed that Churchill regarded the British-American alliance as one "of equals in which any shortfall in Britain's economic power would be made up for by her political skills and historic wisdom." That perspective continues to be invaluable today. Our military and intelligence cooperation remains essential. Lockheed Martin has developed an Industrial Support Group of 47 U.K. companies for the C-130J program; Matra British Aerospace and Raytheon are developing the Royal Air Force's next-generation short-range air-to-air missile. Our two governments are developing the next-generation strike fighter which will result in more than 3,000 U.S. and U.K. aircraft. Where We Stand Together Yet there is fear in some quarters that, absent the Soviet threat, Anglo-American relations may wither; that, with American leaders of geographic origins, military experience, and historical outlook different from past eras, our foreign policies will be less sensitive to the Atlantic ties. Those concerned should note Robin Cook's April 23rd [1998] assessment of his Government's first year: "The most positive development in our security. . . has been the strengthened alliance between London and Washington," the Foreign Secretary reported. At the Pentagon last week, in response to threats from Iraq, Iran, and others, our respective Defense Secretaries, William Cohen and George Robertson, again took joint actions to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Our nations are both committed to NATO as the fundamental political and security link between North America and Europe. We know that, through NATO expansion, the outdated divisions of the Cold War can best be erased. We both seek to heal breaches created by this century's tragic wars in Europe, to complete the work of the Marshall Plan. We understand the importance of bringing the former members of the Warsaw Pact into Western institutions, of helping their market economies mature. We agree on the wisdom of dealing with Russia as a great nation with a legitimate right to be part of Europe, as reflected in the NATO-Russia Founding Act. Today, American, British and Russian soldiers are all patrolling villages in Bosnia. We share a passion for free trade and international investment. Businesses in both our countries are realizing benefits from the Mutual Recognition Agreement on product testing and certification; and our chief executives are tackling nettlesome problems through the Transatlantic Business Dialogue. Future historians may view such economic matters as the structure of a new order in the way that security agreements served that end for a prior generation. America's and Britain's national interests today coincide to an extraordinary degree. Our leaders continue to speak and to speak frequently with courage and candor, with no compromise of basic principles. We respect the differences of being British and being American. Stewards and Architects But John Whitehead, steward that he is, would not have us simply celebrate the Anglo-American relationship as it was or merely consider our friendship as it is. He knows that neither of us can rely on old recipes for security any more than we have for prosperity or entertainment. The world remains perilous. Within a fortnight, both India and Pakistan have wakened the public consciousness from a dangerous nuclear complacency; a haunting refrain echoes from Kosovo; Russia's and Asia's economies are fragile. The United States may have the advantages of being the sole military superpower, but there are greater limits to military solutions today than before. For our own purposes and for the world's sake, we must be architects of Anglo-American relations for the next century. That time will be far different from our own. Our parents fashioned a "special relationship" in adversity and war, then were preoccupied with a dominant threat to our security. We are now constructing post-Cold War Europe with the European Union, NATO enlargement, the OSCE. Our children will likewise be challenged by weapons proliferation, regional conflicts, environmental degradation, and high tech crime. Our children's children will have to address even more vast realms of human activity globally. This larger scope is best achieved by broadening our focus today. The best architects, Eliel Saarinen reminded us, "Always design a thing by considering it in its larger context a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan." (Some wish his son, the architect of our Embassy, had heeded his father and looked more closely at our neighbors at Grosvenor Square.) The look to potential global consequences affects initial commitments. Architects know that budgets and costs significantly influence design, as your directors reminded themselves last year with Chatham House's renovation. Much can be preserved to good end. A good architect, it is said, can improve the looks of an old house merely by discussing the cost of a new one. Architectural historians teach us that defining characteristics may be introduced inadvertently. In South Carolina's early days, a double-storey "piazza" was added to British-style townhouses to access summer breezes; but this feature soon came to define the Charleston vernacular. New Orleans' cast-iron balconies simply replaced rotting wood until they became central to the Latin Quarter's character. In international relations, as in building, temporary, local "fixes" occasionally endure. Architects cannot substitute romantic notions of relationships for engineering that carries weight. In what we build there can be no place for ghosts. Lessons from Walking Even if there is no precise blueprint (Drawing straight lines and using indelible ink are how diplomats get into trouble, I am told.) the Anglo-American relations we build in the next century could benefit from some design principles drawn from the transatlantic partnership's experience. Curiously, my lessons from walking may be instructive. Distance walking, like the friendship of our two nations, requires careful thought of what to take and what to leave behind. Timetables had best not be too tight. Breakfasts before seven, like much we often take for granted with our friends, require immense goodwill from B&B proprietors. Countless surprises and discoveries are along the way. It's always more complicated when others are on the journey. Some things you simply cannot control, and not just the weather. There are five points on a compass North, South, East, West, and where you are and the last is most important, though often the most difficult to discern. Don't get lost. But as walkers like to say, "A man who never was lost never went very far." There never are enough maps or fellow walkers to consult, but you are ill-advised to rely entirely on them. There are no short cuts. Each person has a natural rhythm and routine. Defenses, against weather or blisters, are neglected at great cost. You pay a price for every day's plan that is unrealistic or overreaching. You always need a destination, but had better not feel defeated if one day's mark is missed. Your feet may be sore, your ankles swollen, but, Lord willing, tomorrow's another day. You can take pride in having gone more than halfway, but there's still another 450 miles to go. The walk seems straightforward and easy. Not so. >From my walks, I have learned the truth of the Spanish proverb, "There are no roads. Roads are made by walking." Over these decades, Americans and the British have walked together with confidence, knowing that while the road may be uncertain they have been in the company of trusted friends. Adequacy for Different Times Yet is this relationship adequate to the demands of different times? I ask this question respectfully as the first American Ambassador to the Court of St. James's born after the Second World War, appointed by a President my same age, accredited to a government led by a man half a decade younger. Fidelity to democratic institutions, individual liberty, the rule of law, human rights, economic progress, and social justice has defined Anglo-American relations. These values have been, and must continue to be, our common foundation. But in the 21st century, the transatlantic partnership must embrace our entire societies. Its reach must be global. Its scope must increasingly include Europe. Its reinvention must be perpetual. The relationship for which we are stewards is not simply that of Roosevelt and Churchill, Clinton and Blair. It is that of our entire contemporary societies, the men and women I know from the factories and shops of South Carolina, its affluent resorts and rural schools, and those I have met on my walks in Britain. From all walks of life, these British and Americans realize with both excitement and some trepidation that their lives are being shaped by incidents, ideologies, and individuals half-a-globe away. The plethora of "players," markets, industries and companies, capital and data sources, technologies, and commentators today influencing our policies would dazzle the "wise men" who shaped our post-War world. For our sons and daughters, the list will be even more staggering. Our, and their, objective for Anglo-American relations should be not a public monument to any interest or economic group, but a series of structures to facilitate international collaboration and human achievement. With them, we must ensure the common purpose and cooperation not only of our two nations, but also of the United States and Europe in the wider context of global affairs. To preserve the Anglo-American relationship we inherited, we must now, with no cost to Anglo-American friendship, deploy this common heritage and these shared values in together addressing global issues. This requires us to apply the pragmatic and intangible qualities of the "special relationship" to a broader European-American relationship. The European-American Relationship U.S. policy, and my personal view, is that there is not necessarily a contradiction between stewardship of our transatlantic ties and Britain's deeper engagement in Europe. Admit it or not, Europe will be at the heart of Anglo-American relations for the next century. In Berlin on May 13th, President Clinton told the people of Germany, "We begin our common journey with one basic premise. America stands with Europe. Today, no less than 50 years ago, our destinies are joined." In 1997, Secretary Albright said, "It is a central lesson of this century that America must remain a European power," and her work in London today evidences this fact. The precise nature of Britain's engagement with its European neighbors is, of course, a matter for you and them to determine. Be sure this American Ambassador has no desire to meddle in partisan British debate. Ambassador Page, to whom I referred earlier, once was criticized for a toast, then measured his words before journalists more carefully, and wrote President Wilson, "I think I have now learned that lesson. . . One of their correspondents. . . got up and yawned. . . as soon as I had spoken and said to his neighbors, 'Well, I'll go; the Ambassador didn't say anything that I can get him into trouble about.'" I hope I can be so fortunate tonight. A Britain more deeply engaged in Europe can be good for Europe, good for Britain, and good for America. It may sound trite, but it is true that this is not a zero-sum game. The actions of the May U.S.-E.U. Summit in London illustrate what can be accomplished: Increasing cooperation on non-proliferation and counter-terrorism, dealing with states that violate international norms, promoting democracy in Cuba, establishing the "Transatlantic Economic Partnership," signing the U.S.- E.U. Mutual Recognition Agreement, working with Russia to strengthen nuclear safety, promoting economic reform in Ukraine and the speedy closing of Chernobyl, curbing international trafficking in women, and addressing Kosovo, India's nuclear tests, violence in Indonesia, and Caspian energy development. "In short," Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering said it best, "the United States and European Union again rose to the occasion, dealt decisively with our differences, and set new goals for an even more productive Euro-American partnership." Having been close to this process, I reject the notion that there is, or needs to be, a "Trojan horse" in U.S.-European relations. But I must observe that the British seem to understand us Americans as well as anyone else does. Therein lies great value for Europe, for Britain, and for America. On hundreds of issues in the European Union's and NATO's jurisdiction, America must maintain open and vigilant discussions with Britain and our friends on the continent. Decisions may be made in Brussels, but they are not necessarily made by Brussels. On the significant number of issues beyond the E.U.'s and NATO's exclusive or principal province non-proliferation, peace in the Middle East, regional financial traumas, international crime and public health, barriers to trade, the promise of electronic commerce, global climate change the U.S. and Europe must look outward together. As we address this increasingly challenging agenda, we welcome Britain's role in Europe, but not at the cost of cherished Anglo-American ties. The United Kingdom, already a European power, need not absolutely choose between its European and Atlantic interests, any more than the United States must favor Atlantic over Pacific relationships. Architects for the 21st Century So long as we do not fall victim to triumphalism or hegemony, the everyday citizens of our two nations, as well as our leaders, have the foundation, the materials, and the principles to design even stronger Anglo-American relations. The task cannot be left to leaders of state or captains of industry. Christopher Wren, the story is told, walked one day unrecognized among the men who were building St. Paul's cathedral. "What are you doing?," he inquired of one workman, who said, "I am cutting a piece of stone.". When Wren put the same question to another, the man responded, "I am earning five shillings, two-pence a day." A third man replied, "I am helping Sir Christopher Wren build a beautiful cathedral." John Whitehead by his example and with this lectureship challenges all of us to comprehend what we can build together, to realize the role each of us can play as architects of Anglo-American relations for the next century. For the opportunities to join you in this historic endeavor, to learn from walks in your country, and to be with you on this occasion, I thank you. --------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | American Embassy London | Ambassador Philip Lader | DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
