Global Security: UK-US Relations - Foreign Affairs Committee Contents


10. The roots of the bilateral relationship between the UK and US reach back into the 17th century, and the relationship has had high and low points ever since.[5] During the 20th century, the UK-US relationship evolved gradually into something like its present form in the ten years following the end of the Second World War. Dr Robin Niblett of Chatham House has argued that there have been three main drivers of the relationship in the post-war period. Firstly, successive British Governments realised that they no longer had the capacity to protect or project British interests around the world, and acquiesced in the replacement of Britain by the United States as the world's dominant power. Secondly, the UK believed that the most direct threat to British and European security—that of Soviet military aggression and/or political subversion—could only be confronted if the United States were tightly woven into a transatlantic alliance whose principal focus was the defence of Europe and the broader Atlantic community. Finally, Dr Niblett believed that a "corollary and third driver of the special relationship was the mutual suspicion in Washington and London about a deepening of European political integration that could come at the expense of US engagement and influence in the Atlantic community".[6]

11. As a result, throughout the period of the Cold War and beyond, Britain was one of the most stalwart of America's European allies, and the one best-placed to support the US within and outside the Atlantic area. This led to the building of an infrastructure of bilateral interaction in the fields of intelligence-sharing and nuclear and military co-operation that allowed each side to define the relationship as 'special' rather than just close.[7] Echoing the view of a number of our witnesses, Frances Burwell, of the US-based think-tank the Atlantic Council, stated that during the second half of the 20th Century, the relationship between the US and the UK was one of the most influential partnerships in the global arena.[8]

Trade, finance and cultural links

12. Although defence, intelligence and nuclear co-operation continue in many respects to define the contemporary UK-US relationship (see below, Chapter 3), the origins of the relationship are considerably broader and are reflected in the shared history, shared values, language and interests of both countries. Today, the links remain broad and deep. UK-US ties can be found in many areas, from trade and business to popular culture. As Frances Burwell stated, "the fact that governments and publics can understand each other with minimal explanation, allows much closer cultural ties, resulting in a huge level of shared popular culture".[9] This wide range of links has resulted in a relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom which has been described as, "the densest conducted between two sovereign states",[10] and has affected a broad swathe of the public in both countries.[11]

13. Personal contacts remain strong, with tourism a key link: in 2008 almost 3 million Americans visited the UK while over 4.5 million Britons visited the US whether as tourists, to study or to do business. Over 47,000 US citizens enrolled in courses of study in the UK in 2008. In the same year, one in seven chief executives of FTSE 100 companies were reported to be American.[12] In addition, some 130,000 Americans live in the UK while an estimated 678,000 British citizens live in the US.[13]

14. Public opinion research also suggests that cultural similarities ensure that British and American citizens hold each other in higher regard than they do any other close ally.[14] There is a mesh of personal interactions between government officials, between non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and between foreign policy/security think tanks, forming links which are said to be as close as for any other US partner.[15] Media links, too, are extensive, with British television programmes and formats becoming increasingly popular in the US.[16] In the field of scientific collaboration, the US and the UK are each other's most important research partners; 30% of the UK's international collaborations are with the US, more than double any other country and 13% of the US's are with the UK.[17]

15. On the issue of values, too, there remains strong alignment. There are of course well-documented differences, as Frances Burwell highlighted: "the support for the death penalty among the US public and acceptance of relatively unregulated gun ownership for example, and the British support for universal, state-provided health care are perhaps the clearest examples of a persistent and strong individualism in US societies and a greater emphasis in the UK on social welfare. Nevertheless, among all the European allies, the strongest similarities in terms of values are clearly with the British".[18]

16. Some of the most important contemporary links, particularly from a British perspective, can be found in the fields of trade, finance and the economy. Frances Burwell believed that while New York and London were "sometimes portrayed as rival financial capitals, they actually represented two mutually dependent hubs—not just as cities, but as economic capitals of their nations—in an increasingly interconnected global economy".[19] In their written submission, Heather Conley and Reginald Dale, of the US-based think-tank the Center for Strategic & International Studies, argued that "New York and London are now so closely intertwined, both culturally and financially, that they are sometimes referred to as a single entity, 'NyLon'".[20]

17. The UK-US trading relationship is also strong. The US is the UK's top export destination and is the leading destination for UK overseas investment. In 2007-08 UK goods exports to the US amounted to £34.7 billion (an increase of 8.3% over 2006-07), while the value of services exported totalled £36.2 billion.[21] The US has consistently been the major single investor into the UK with American capital stocks in 2007 totalling nearly $400 billion and creating employment for approximately 1 million people.[22] In 2008-09, UKTI succeeded in attracting 621 (out of a total of 1,744) Foreign Direct Investment projects to the UK creating 12,888 new jobs in the process.[23] The UK is also the largest investor in the US (with a total investment stock of $411 billion at the end of 2007), supporting almost 1 million jobs.[24]

18. The scale of the recent financial crisis has also highlighted the importance of UK-US economic ties. Both countries have been affected by the vulnerability of banks and financial institutions to troubles in the US economy, and both have accepted the need for strong co-ordination between the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England (as well as with the European Central Bank).[25] On the financial front, there has been close UK-US co-operation. One written submission stated that London's role as "the number two global financial centre promotes the overall US-UK relationship", and is particularly important as repair of the global financial system continues to sit high on the international agenda.[26] The FCO's written submission pointed to the extent of the UK's engagement with the US both bilaterally and in international fora such as the G20, where the UK has been keen to adopt a common approach to the global economic crisis and to secure a sustainable worldwide recovery.[27]

Mutual benefits

19. Since we last reported on UK-US relations in 2001, global patterns of power have shifted considerably. In particular, the emergence of countries like China, India and Brazil as major economic and political powers, has challenged the long-standing pre-eminence of North America and Europe. However, the fact remains, as the FCO noted, that in spite of these changes the United States remains the world's only superpower "economically, diplomatically and militarily".[28] The US produces more than 23% of world GDP (according to World Bank figures for 2008), making it larger than that of any other country and almost three times larger than that of the second largest economy, Japan. Current forecasts suggest that, at its current levels of growth, China's GDP is unlikely to overtake that of the US for more than a decade.[29] The FCO also pointed out that the US combination of high spending on science and research, ready access to venture capital and its entrepreneurial business culture have given it, since the Second World War, a technological lead over other countries. The US is also unrivalled in its ability to wield military power and exercise political influence across the globe, and it remains a key member of the global system of multilateral institutions.[30]

20. From a British perspective, therefore, the imperative to maintain a close relationship with the US is clear. As Dr Robin Niblett told us, "the US is the world's pre-eminent power; its engagement and decisions are vital to nearly all priorities for British foreign policy—from negotiations to combat climate change and to control nuclear non-proliferation to stabilizing Afghanistan. It is natural for British policy-makers to want to be as close to their US counterparts as possible and to try to influence their policy choices".[31] Many other witnesses made similar points. Lord Hurd noted in his written evidence:

    At the heart of the relationship lies a simple fact. British defence policy rests on the assumption that we will not fight a major war except in partnership with the United States. It follows that it is crucially in our interest to understand and influence American foreign policy. Moreover, our standing in the rest of the world will be shaped in part by the perceived extent of that influence.[32]

21. For its part, it is arguable that the US also benefits from its relationship with the UK in a number of ways. Much of the evidence we received pointed to the added value that the UK provides in respect of defence and intelligence matters (this is examined in more detail in Chapter 3). British support for the US in multilateral fora has helped to allay charges of US unilateralism.[33] The UK remains an important US ally in NATO and in the UN Security Council. For instance, it has played an important role as a key US ally in attempts to contain Iran's nuclear programme, as well as joining the US as an advocate for open markets in the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation. As Dr David Dunn noted, the ability of the UK to advance common interests with the US is greatly valued in Washington.[34] We were told that the US looks to the UK for staunch support of US policies at the United Nations, that the US usually reciprocates and that co-operation at the UN is close.[35] The US is also said particularly to value UK engagement beyond Europe in difficult security situations where other allies are reluctant to become involved, and to continue to regard the UK as its partner of first choice outside East Asia, Francophone Africa, and Latin America.[36]

Recent disagreements

22. As Lord Hurd commented in his written evidence, disagreements even between good allies "are inevitable".[37] Nor are disagreements a new phenomenon; there is no doubt that differences have been evident as long as the UK-US relationship has existed. During the Cold War period, foreign policy differences were particularly marked at the time of the Suez crisis and over the issue of the Vietnam War. When we produced our last Report on British-US relations, in 2001, we identified a range of issues where there was marked divergence between the UK and US at that time. These include issues such as arms control, the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol.[38]

23. Dr Niblett noted that British and US perceptions of the nature of certain international risks and the appropriate policy solutions are not always "in synch". This was apparent during the George W. Bush Administration, when the US position on the Arab-Israeli conflict, on combating climate change and on some of the techniques that were used in pursuit in the global "War on Terror" ran counter to British approaches.[39]

24. Tactical rifts are also an ongoing risk. Dr Niblett pointed to the unmasking of the plot to blow up transatlantic airliners in August 2006 which revealed important differences in British and US approaches to counter-terrorism. He also saw a "growing gap" between the extensive resources and troop levels which the US Administration can deploy in distant military theatres like Iraq and Afghanistan and the more limited resources available to Britain.[40]

25. More recently, and during the course of our inquiry, a number of other UK-US disagreements have come to the fore. Prominent amongst these was the disagreement between the two countries over the release on 21 August 2009 by the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill MSP, on compassionate grounds, of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. This decision caused considerable anger within the US. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as "absolutely wrong", while President Obama described it as a "mistake". A letter from Robert Mueller, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to Mr MacAskill criticised him for failing to consult "partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy".[41] The recent legal judgments concerning the case of former Guantánamo detainee and British resident, Binyam Mohamed, which we discuss below (see paragraph 115), have also led to difficulties.

26. From a UK perspective, there have been concerns about actions taken by the US, for instance the decision to place four Guantánamo detainees in the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda without consulting Britain. We were told by US Administration officials during our visit to Washington in October 2009 that this had been a genuine error, and were assured that it would not happen again. There has also been considerable criticism of the US both in Parliament and the press over the case of Gary Mackinnon, who recently lost his appeal in the House of Lords against extradition to the US on charges of hacking into US defence systems.[42]

27. Another difference of approach emerged on 3 March 2010, following comments made by the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton during a visit to Argentina when she stated that the US would be willing to facilitate negotiations between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands if called upon to do so. She is reported to have said "We would like to see Argentina and the UK sit down and resolve the issues between them in a peaceful and productive way".[43] The longstanding position of the British Government on the Falklands was subsequently reiterated by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband to the House: "The Government have made it clear that we have no doubt about the United Kingdom's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The principle of self-determination underlies that. There can be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such a time as the Falkland islanders so wish it. They have made it clear that they have no such wish".[44]

28. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the former Ambassador to the United Nations, told us that when the UK has disagreements with the United States in official business, "we play out those disagreements, we argue with the United States, in private. We tend not to argue in public unless public explanation is necessary or we are having a great row about something that cannot be kept out of the public domain".[45]

29. As Lord Hurd told us in his evidence, "if the substance of the relationship is in good heart, it is not necessary to worry about secondary though important arguments which blow up as storms crossing the Atlantic".[46] Referring specifically to the disagreement over the release of Mr al-Megrahi, Lord Hurd argued that "disagreements properly handled do not go deep; they represent accurately a genuine difference of approach, illustrated in this […] case by the different attitudes of the relatives of the victims of the bombing on each side of the Atlantic".[47] Likewise, Heather Conley and Reginald Dale described the al-Megrahi affair as no more than "a short-term irritant". They added that "senior US officials have assured their UK counterparts that the Lockerbie incident in no way endangers intelligence and security co-operation".[48] This assessment echoes what we were told during our visit to the US in October 2009.

30. We conclude that recent minor disagreements between the UK and US do not in any way threaten the underlying strength of the bilateral relationship. However, they do highlight the need for better understanding between the UK and US governments if the strength of the relationship is not to be eroded over the longer term.


31. The British media are swift to report on any alleged fractures in the 'special relationship'. For instance, in September 2009 there was much play made of claims that UK officials made five unsuccessful attempts to secure official talks with the US President when the UN General Assembly met in New York. The Daily Telegraph described how the Prime Minister had to "settle" for an informal discussion with President Obama after a climate change dinner at the UN, conducted as a 15 minute "walk and chat through the kitchen of the UN headquarters as both men left the building in Manhattan".[49] President Obama's decision to remove a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office at the start of his Presidency led to similar angst on the part of some British broadsheets and tabloids. Commenting on the press outcry, an article in the US edition of Newsweek asked:

    Has America's even-tempered new President already ruffled feathers in the land that spawned Borat and Benny Hill? That's certainly how the spiky British press responded after the White House sent back to the British Embassy a bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had occupied a cherished spot in President Bush's Oval Office.

    But the British press, as is its wont, smells a snub. The Telegraph speculated that British diplomats' pulse rates would soar, while The Times of London wondered if a shadow had been cast over the special US-UK relationship. A spokesperson for the British Embassy, though, threw cold tea on the notion, pointing out British politician David Miliband was the first foreign minister to meet with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[50]

32. The response in the White House to the fallout in the British media appeared to be one of mild bemusement, as Justin Webb of the BBC told us:

    I was speaking to [an]Administration official about the bust of Churchill and the way in which it was rather unceremoniously taken in a taxi to the British Embassy, and the fallout, particularly in the British press. He said, "We thought it was Eisenhower. They all look the same to us".[51]

33. Our witnesses were uniformly of the view that the British media's pre-occupation with personal relations between the two countries' leaders and the state of the 'special relationship' is frequently at the expense of coverage of the more substantive aspects of the relationship.[52] Professor Michael Clarke argues that "there is too much political capital […] invested by UK observers, and by the British media in general, in the personal chemistry between US President and British Prime Minister".[53] Sir Jeremy Greenstock told us that "the degree to which the press fixate over this is reminiscent of Snow White saying 'Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is fairest of them all?'"[54] Sir Jeremy also argued that press coverage was too personalised, often consisting of "silly spasms".[55] Summing up the views of most of our witnesses, Lord Hurd told us that "the press are always keen to exaggerate the nature of UK-US differences; this is a cost which has to be borne as calmly as possible".[56]

34. We conclude that in some cases the British media performs a valuable role in informing the public about the state of UK-US relations, but frequently it indulges in speculation about relations between the Prime Minister and the President. Important though personal relations at the highest level may be, they form only one aspect of the transatlantic relationship.

Foreign policy alignment

35. The importance that the UK attaches to its relationship with the US is stated clearly in the FCO's written submission, which claimed that the UK's ability to achieve its international objectives will be "immeasurably greater" if the UK's objectives are shared with the US.[57] As a result of the more multilateral approach adopted by President Obama, UK and US views now seem to converge on a greater range of issues than under the previous US Administration.[58] The FCO's written evidence set out in detail the respective approaches of the UK and US on a range of issues, and the extent of co-operation on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran, the Middle East Peace Process, counter-terrorism, NATO, nuclear issues, climate security, international fora, arms control, non-proliferation, defence, intelligence, the UN, and global and trade policy issues, as well as on policies in relation to a host of individual countries. We are grateful to the FCO for providing this comprehensive assessment which we have published in full. The FCO's written submission also stated:

    All countries have national interests which are particular to them and not shared with others. The UK and US are no exception. But to a very great extent we also have shared interests in combating violent extremism around the world, and addressing the poverty, ignorance and conflict which underlies it; in promoting good governance; in supporting development and economic growth to the benefit of the world's poorest countries.[59]

36. Robert Hunter, a former US Ambassador to NATO, told us in his written submission that "in most areas, US and UK foreign policies have been compatible, to a consistency the US finds with no other major European country. Despite the improvement of Franco-American relations (and France's renewed full integration in NATO's integrated military structure), the US still looks to the UK as its 'first partner', at least in security terms, even though at least outside of the current global economic downturn—the US looks more to Germany as a leading economic partner and to the EU overall in economic relations".[60]

37. Notwithstanding the recent increase in alignment between the UK and US, areas of divergence continue to exist on a number of issues. As Dr Robin Niblett told us, this is most obvious "in dealing with the reassertion of Russian power, instability in North and Sub-Saharan Africa, the need to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the rise of China's power in East Asia". He noted that in many of these areas of foreign policy, "the UK hews closer to the view of other EU Member States than it does to current US approaches".[61] He stated that on these issues, "Britain will be hard-pushed either to convince the US to alter its policy approach or to build a transatlantic consensus for action".[62] President Obama has declared himself the first "Pacific" President.[63]

38. We conclude that under the Obama administration there is a significantly greater degree of alignment with the UK on a number of key policy areas. However, as is perhaps inevitable, there remain some key areas of British interest where policies continue to diverge. In these areas the UK may work more effectively in harness with other countries, including its European partners.

Still 'special'?

39. Official Government statements from both the UK and the US maintain that the 'special relationship' is in good health. Senior politicians on both sides of the Atlantic seem obliged to deploy the phrase whenever they refer to UK-US relations. For instance, during her visit to London in October 2009, Hillary Clinton spoke of the "historic importance of the special relationship between our two nations", before extending that description to her relations with the Prime Minister.[64] During our October 2009 visit to Washington DC, many of our American interlocutors mentioned, unprompted, the 'special relationship'. When the Prime Minister visited Washington in March 2009, the President's official statement used a variant on the phrase, talking of "a special partnership".[65] In oral evidence we were told that US ambassadors to the UK "tend to love it [the phrase, 'special relationship'] because it gives them something to talk about, basically, 365 days of the year".[66] However, many of our witnesses argued that official US rhetoric masks a more complex reality. Lord Hurd cautioned that:

    the survival and success of the partnership depends on the usefulness of Britain to the United States as an efficient ally. We are sometimes deceived on this point by the courtesy of the Americans in their appearing to regard the Anglo-American partnership as crucial to the United States when in fact it is not.[67]

40. Much of the evidence we have received suggests that it would be more appropriate to use the phrase 'special relationship' in relation to specific areas of UK-US co-operation, in relation to nuclear, intelligence, counter-terrorism, security and military matters, than in relation to the totality of UK-US relations.[68] (We examine the extent of co-operation in these specific areas in more detail in Chapter 3.) Professor Michael Clarke of RUSI argued that, when the context does not emphasise these elements, or when they are not utilised successfully, it is difficult to discern in Washington's eyes what is 'special' about the UK.[69]

41. Dr Robin Niblett considered that many of the "drivers" that gave rise to the special relationship no longer exist, not least the threat of Soviet domination and the fear in the US that a unified Europe might pose a serious challenge and threat to US interests. In his view, a shift in US perspective away from the UK has been under way for some time, "certainly since the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the Clinton Administration".[70] He told us that although tactical co-operation on defence and intelligence remain strong, at a strategic level the Obama Administration was now conducting its diplomatic relations on multiple levels simultaneously, and not all of these levels contained the UK as a key US partner".[71]

42. There may be, as Nick Witney told us, advantages in literally speaking the same language because it makes it easier to converse, exchange ideas and act as a sounding board, but he and others were of the view that the UK no longer has "the particular advantage that we have liked to believe we have".[72] Indeed, it is clear that the US views its relationship with the UK as one of a growing number of 'special' relationships, which extend to, for instance, Israel, Canada, Mexico, China and Japan.[73] As Stryker McGuire told us: "China and Japan now own 47% of US Treasury securities. They basically have their hand around the neck of the dollar".[74]

43. There is an asymmetry in mutual awareness between the US and UK which means that the phrase 'special relationship' does not have the same resonance with the American public as it does in the UK. Indeed, it is not a phrase that would likely to be used by most Americans. Heather Conley and Reginald Dale told us that "the phrase 'special relationship', although commonplace in British political and media circles, is seldom used by Americans outside a small core policy group in Washington, DC".[75] Interestingly, nor do British officials use the term 'special relationship' any longer, as Sir Jeremy Greenstock told us. He explained:

    We might have to respond to it in public if it is thrown at us by Americans, but we don't regard it as special: we regard [the relationship] as an asset that has to be nurtured and worked at, and the access to the United States in terms of politicians, officials and Members of Congress has to be earned because we're bringing something to the table. That is the way we think and work. We do not think it is special unless we are introducing substance to make it special.[76]

44. Justin Webb of the BBC told us that within the current US Administration there is "a level of real frustration and eye-raising at what they perceive as the obsession of the Brits with their relationship with the Americans". He stated:

    In preparation for coming to see you, I asked someone in the White House to take a minute or so with a senior Administration official the other day and have a quick word on the current feeling. He said that he had 30 seconds: the Administration official said, "Get out of my room. I'm sick of that subject. You're all mad". There is a sense in the Obama press office that we obsess about this.[77]

This was not a view that was shared by Ivan Lewis, the Minister of State who, when asked whether he believed that senior US officials think that the UK is obsessed with the 'special relationship', simply replied "No".[78]

45. It is unsurprising that some office holders in the US Administration think the UK has what Justin Webb describes as "a neuralgia" about 'the special relationship',[79] given that in the UK the omission of the words 'special relationship' at a high level political meeting, whether deliberate or not, can be enough to generate what Stryker McGuire described as much "hand-wringing" on the part of many British media commentators who appear to fear, and regularly forecast, the imminent demise of the 'special relationship'.[80]

46. Our witnesses were in agreement that while the relationship is still special in some respects, the use of the phrase to cover every aspect of the bilateral relationship is outdated, or in the view of Dr Allin, a post-World War Two coinage which has now "almost become a fetish".[81] Stryker McGuire went further when he argued that "the last thing Britain needs is more talk about the special relationship".[82] He added that while the relationship is an important one, "the phrase and the way it's used by politicians, and even more so by the media, has caused […] a problem […]. The relationship is what it is and it has been what it is for quite some time".[83] Others, like Dr Robin Niblett, emphasised the fact that the relationship cannot have the uniqueness that many in the UK expect it to have:

    We wish it was unique; it is not unique, it is special. But where it is special—and it is likely to be a very important area for the next 10 to 20 years—where we can help each other, is on counter-terrorism and that complex aspect of security that requires a sharing of information and intelligence. […] That is in both our national interests. [84]

47. Sir David Manning also concluded that "if the special relationship is hyped too much, expectations are exaggerated about what it can deliver and what to expect from it. […] Sentiment can be used from time to time in support of a policy. I don't think one should disguise the fact that warmth between the two countries can help us, but it is certainly not a policy in its own right".[85]

48. We conclude that the UK has an extremely close and valuable relationship with the US in specific areas of co-operation, for instance in the fields of intelligence and security; that the historic, trading and cultural links between the two countries are profound; and that the two countries share common values in their commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. However, the use of the phrase 'the special relationship' in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided. The overuse of the phrase by some politicians and many in the media serves simultaneously to de-value its meaning and to raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits the relationship can deliver to the UK. We further conclude that there is nothing wrong in acknowledging the undoubted truth that the UK has a special relationship with the US, as long as it is recognised that other countries do so also, including the regional neighbours of the US and its other key strategic allies and partners.

5   Ev 87 Back

6   Ev 120 Back

7   Ev 120 Back

8   Ev 113 Back

9   Ev 115 Back

10   Ev 114 Back

11   Ev 114 Back

12   Ev 129 Back

13   Ev 56 Back

14   Ev 129 Back

15   Ev 86 Back

16   Q 117 Back

17   Ev 70 Back

18   Ev 114 Back

19   Ev 115 Back

20   Ev 105; Ev 93 Back

21   Ev 110 Back

22   Q 163 Back

23   Ev 118 Back

24   Ev 46 Back

25   Ev 115 Back

26   Ev 84 Back

27   Ev 59 Back

28   Ev 71 Back

29   Ev 56 Back

30   Ev 56 Back

31   Ev 119 Back

32   Ev 83 Back

33   Ev 105 Back

34   Ev 129 Back

35   Ev 85 Back

36   Ev 84 Back

37   Ev 83 Back

38   Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2001-02, British-US Relations, HC 327, 11 December 2001 Back

39   Ev 119  Back

40   Ev 120 Back

41   "Lockerbie bomber: Letter from FBI director Robert Mueller", Daily Telegraph, 23 August 2009 Back

42   For discussion on this see, for example, Oral evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 15 December 2009, HC 165, Q 97 Back

43   "Clinton: US will help resolve Falklands oil row", The Guardian, 2 March 2010 Back

44   HC Deb, 2 Mar 2010, col 788 Back

45   Q 127 Back

46   Ev 83 Back

47   Ev 83 Back

48   Ev 106 Back

49   "Barack Obama rebuffs Gordon Brown as 'special relationship' sinks to new low", Daily Telegraph, 23 September 2009  Back

50   Kate Connelly, "Busted: The Churchill Flap", Newsweek, 21 February 2009 Back

51   Q 99 Back

52   Q 170 Back

53   Ev 139 Back

54   Q 11 Back

55   Q 11 [Dr Allin] Back

56   Ev 83 Back

57   Ev 57 Back

58   Ev 105 Back

59   Ev 57 Back

60   Ev 85  Back

61   Ev 119 Back

62   Ev 122 Back

63   Remarks by President Barack Obama at Suntory Hall, Tokyo, Japan, 14 November 2009 Back

64   "Hillary Clinton meets Gordon Brown amid mounting tensions over Iran", The Times, 12 October 2009 Back

65   Statement by the Press Secretary on an Upcoming Working Visit to Washington by Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, White House Press Office, 21 February 2009 Back

66   Q 94 [Mr McGuire] Back

67   Ev 83 Back

68   Ev 139; Ev 120 Back

69   Ev 139 Back

70   Ev 120 Back

71   Ev 119 Back

72   Q 55 [Mr Witney] Back

73   For example, Q 116 [Mr McGuire] Back

74   Q 116 [Mr McGuire] Back

75   Ev 105 Back

76   Q 126 Back

77   Q 99 Back

78   Q 162 Back

79   Q 94 Back

80   Stryker McGuire, "An Island, Lost At Sea", Newsweek, 23 February 2009  Back

81   Q 14 Back

82   Stryker McGuire, "Why put yourself through all this?", The Independent, 5 March 2009 Back

83   Q 104 Back

84   Q 14 Back

85   Q 126 Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 28 March 2010