Unwavering friends?

evolving priorities among allies

As I have mentioned, I read various publications to ensure I recognize as many perspectives as possible. I believe the Constitution mandates "checks and balances" through our three branches of government rather than the "unitary president" theory. Still, I read about the latter concept to grasp what others advocate. I advocate for the broadest array of foreign policy tools to provide our leaders with options, so I am consuming volumes on the effects of terminating non-kinetic instruments like USAID and Radio Free Asia. I also believe firmly in considering how others view this country since we are merely 4% of the world's population, even if we have a higher percentage of gross domestic product or military might.

When I studied in London as a graduate student, I had family friends who read the Daily Telegraph. I had undoubtedly heard of The Times and the Manchester Guardian (as it was called in the late 1970s) but figured I would see what my friends were consuming. They lived in Croydon, what seemed an upper-middle-class suburb south of the river. Geoff and Pat were my aunt's friends for decades; she was their daughter's godmother. Geoff and Pat both worked in the travel industry. Their daughter was on a short course in Switzerland during my studies. In short, these people did not seek to shut off the world.

The Telegraph clearly approved of Mrs. Thatcher's moves to consolidate power. It was anti-union in an era of much upheaval as Britain struggled to exit the disastrous rule under James Callahan and Labour. The daily columns on what was going on "at Court" were quaint but telling. Some readers cared about what the Queen and family were doing to represent the nation. In short, when I was in Croydon monthly, I learned a great deal from reading the Telegraph as an indicator of Tory middle-class views.

I still read the paper's headlines daily, six other newspapers, and several newsletters. The Telegraph and The Guardian seem to have a good swath of British opinion for this era. I can get it online easily for a brief period.

Tories, readers of the Telegraph, have liked us. Maggie and Ronnie got along swimmingly during his eight-year run in the 1980s. Maggie pushed George H.W. Bush to ensure that Saddam Hussein's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait did not stand. The British people were sympathetic to the point of sending troops to serve with us for more than a decade following the 2001 attacks. Our mutual concerns about Ukraine bound us together firmly after Vlad the Impaler went beyond earlier interventions in our domestic politics (Brexit and the 2016 election stateside) to undermine a democratically-elected regime in Kyiv in both 2014 and 2022.

I misspoke: many Brits have a soft spot for we Yanks, although never uniformly nor without recognizing significant differences. Yes, our current President is half-Scottish, but his bluster and disrespect for the "special relationship" during his first term rubbed many the wrong way. No, Brits (and much of the world) cannot grasp why we allow guns to flow freely from sea to shining sea. Many in the U.K. aren't enthralled with the National Health Service but recognize they have a universal system which we lack.

They liked us a lot until they realized we were no longer like we were for generations. I rang a couple I have known well for 45 years a fortnight ago as they sent me a birthday card (which actually arrived this year, unlike the one they posted a year ago with everything correct, but the USPS returned for no reason the carrier could explain).

Jock, the most mild-mannered of Scots, was passionate in opposing our current world positions. I have discussed various political figures over Jock's dining room table for years, but never have I heard him say any politician "has to stop." This conversation followed the Oval Office spectacle between U.S. leaders and President Zelenskyy. For Jock, it was proof positive that our current approach was antithetical to his country's national interests. I never thought I would hear the passion in his voice as he stressed his words.

It was thus jarring today to see the following headline from The Telegraph: "There are three nations Britain can trust. The U.S. is not one of them." Daniel Hannan's op-ed made no bones about the need for Westminster to bind itself much more tightly with Ottawa, Wellington, and Canberra. He advocated a rump alliance between the English-speaking nations historically bound together under the "Five Eyes" intelligence-sharing arrangement built on the most profound trust between our like-minded nations.

Hannan advocated far more than intelligence sharing but a defence (sic) and diplomatic alliance to advance the interests of Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. His concerns indicated several profound changes the current White House advocates, such as forcing Canada to become the 51st state of our union, cutting off arms to Ukraine (and potentially to NATO members), and using tariffs against the longest standing of Washington's allies, and the overall malaise that our current threats engender. Hannan's distrust of Washington should a conflict erupt was evident, a decided juxtaposition from decades of partnership, faith, and shared objectives.

To reiterate, this is in a paper that generally speaks favorably about us and what we do. Hannan represented Southeast England as a Tory in the European Parliament. He held a leadership role in the House of Lords. Hannan is a free trader, rejecting tariffs as the best posture for economic growth. This is a man who, by any traditional measure, would hold his criticisms close to the vest because he shares much of the orientation of "conservatives" in the United States. Hannan's column made clear he no longer embraces a further connection between conservative forces across the Atlantic.

This column rests, admittedly, on merely two data points, which is no guarantee of a change in the bilateral relationship. Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer met the White House leadership team, where he, like other global leaders, sought to establish working conditions. It's difficult to ignore such stark statements as Hannan's column in a world seemingly on edge over the reconfiguration of world ties.

Leaders in participatory systems act to protect national interests because they are accountable to voters. Rulers in autocratic systems ignore the people's will for personal gain, as we see in Russia. While many Americans appear bewildered by the rush of statements on foreign policy, others worldwide are adopting a "worst-case" interpretation of much of our rhetoric, political paralysis, and transformative policies. Hannan's plea will likely meet considerable approval, though any government in Westminster will hedge its bets through soft-pedaling differences with Washington. At the same time, they quietly build alternate networks to support their interests.

What I don't see happening, however, is most states embracing our new positions. In an "America First" era, that may have implications when interests clash between nations. We are foolish to assure ourselves we can anticipate the specifics of those clashes, but we can be confident they will crop up.

Have we ever asked ourselves how much our global power was our model of good governance and rule of law?

Our current government may not want to be part of the world except on its terms, but the rest of the world likely will force us to be a player—rather than a worldwide decision-maker. Time alone will tell.

I welcome your thoughts on this column. If you find it useful, please feel free to circulate it. I do not have all the answers, but I hope to raise questions while fostering dialogue.

Thank you for your time today and every day you read Actions. Please consider a membership at $50 per year or $8 per month, as it would support my work immensely.

I slept through last night's heavy rain but found this residual about an hour ago amidst the beautiful hyacinths out front.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Daniel Hannan, “There are three nations Britain can trust. The U.S> is not one of them”, Telegraph.com, 15 Marach 2025, retrieved at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/15/canzuk-uk-australia-canada-nz-not-usa-alliance/