A renewed Atlantic Charter: Rekindling a wartime spirit between the US and UK?
A Renewed Atlantic Charter: Rekindling a wartime spirit between the US and UK?
WRITTEN BY AMELIA HADFIELD AND WILLIAM HITT
22 July 2021
The US and the UK have made much of their strategic connections, and on occasion, personal partnerships. In the past century, this has taken on different formats: alliances, treaties, international organisations, as well as furnishing funds and setting goals around shared security concerns, and key values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Wars have always operated as turning points within history. World War I for instance provided both sides with the first authentic opportunity to establish the world's first intergovernmental organisation, dedicated to maintaining world peace. The trans-Atlantic relationship was tested in World War II; after two years of hostilities and with Europe having succumbed to Nazi occupation, America and Britain found themselves ideologically besieged and territorially outmanoeuvred. Their first move was to rededicate themselves as allies, before deciding upon potential responses. One of the key vehicles for doing so was the 1941 ‘Atlantic Charter’: a brief document outlining simple but common principles, agreed jointly by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August 1941, aboard the battleship Prince of Wales, off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada.
The Atlantic Charter used ‘common principles’ to determine what both sides would and would not tolerate in the theatre of an increasingly global war. The principles are simultaneously a commitment to the medium-term goal of peace and "hopes for a better future of the world" based on sovereign self-determination, and a shopping list of the material and logistical support both sides — and their wider ring of allies — would need to start the pushback in Europe. Charters and summits identify explicitly the protagonists and antagonists making up contemporary political disputes. Where the 1941 Atlantic Charter made clear the ideological differences between the club of Western powers and the threat of Nazi Germany, the renewed 2021 charter and the June G7 identified the chasm between Western powers and their expectations, and the increasingly systemic authoritarian behaviour displayed by entrenched autocracies, most notably China and Russia.
The 1941 Atlantic Charter quickly gained support, becoming an anchor for the ensuing trans-Atlantic alliance through and beyond the end of the war. In some ways, its aspirational wording was loose enough to adhere compatibly to the principles of other states, all with their own various post-war goals. In others, the document was substantive enough to enable post-war developments, including the United Nations (as an intergovernmental organisation dedicated to global peace and prosperity) and NATO (as the preeminent European regional security framework providing a bulwark against the emerging Soviet threat). As an article in The Australian Quarterly from 1942 suggested:
“the greatness of the Atlantic Charter lies not in any definiteness of plan, nor indeed indefiniteness of approach… Its greatness lies rather in the sober statement of a complex goal; it is a promise not a fulfilment, a challenge and not an answer, a christening not an absolution”.
This is a pithy description of how accords can engender long-standing commitment to a specific task at hand, despite the ambiguity of the overall goal. In this sense, the Atlantic Charter brought public solidarity and political cooperation across the trans-Atlantic alliance. The chief question at this point is the relevance of the renewed Atlantic Charter and its ability to align approaches to tackling global threats and rogue state behaviour.
A new and improved charter?
Eighty years later, much has changed. As a “grand agenda”, the revised Atlantic Charter situates itself against the warlike backdrop of COVID-19, climate change and explicit challenges to democracy by authoritarian states including China and Russia, setting up a contemporary road map for the US and the UK to take forward. The historical parallels are certainly striking: US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson combined the G7 summit’s soft power with the hard power of a new HMS Prince of Wales to launch a renewed Atlantic Charter. Interestingly, the revised charter parallels its 1941 original with the use of ‘Common Principles’, providing a shopping list of key goals including:
Defend principles, values, and institutions of democracy and open societies.
Unite under the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the peaceful resolutions of disputes.
Commit to continuing building an inclusive, fair, climate-friendly, sustainable, rule-based global economy for the 21st century.
Act urgently to ambitiously tackle the climate crisis, protect biodiversity, and sustain nature.
Continue collaboration to strengthen health systems.
Other core goals include the need for cooperation in addressing challenges such as cyber-attacks and illicit finance, again highlighting the ongoing need for a concerted alliance to challenge the increasingly routinised threats to many of these common principles, especially the values and institutions of democracy.
The second version of the Atlantic Charter is more than a grand sweep, starting with its focus at the outset on quite specific topics including COVID-recovery tools (e.g. opening up air travel, technology transfer, and a new centre for pandemic forecasting). However, as Patrick Wintour highlights, the revised Atlantic Charter also includes tendentious issues on trade such as a “negotiated end to the Airbus and Boeing trade disputes” as well as “the protection of the Good Friday Agreement”. The latter remains an outstanding source of tension between the UK, the EU, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, with Biden having already indicated his willingness to weigh in if necessary. Given this, and the implications of border issues worsening still further, it is perhaps no surprise that both sides felt induced to make this commitment. The 1941 Charter “skilfully bound the US into the fight against Nazism and upheld the principle of national self-determination”. Its 2021 successor reaffirms the bedrock of shared values between the US and the UK, based in turn on a “foundation of a sustainable global recovery”, making clear the need for a staunch defence of this foundation, and those states around the world determined to upend those democratic freedoms.
Charter 2.0 — pros and cons
The overarching positive of the new Charter is the signal sent regarding the durability of UK-US relations, and the strategic specialness of their relationship. For President Biden, the bilateral connection is “the special relationship between our people and renewed our commitment to defending the enduring democratic values that both our nations share, that is the strong foundation of our partnership”.
For optimists, the historical comparisons between the two Charters are credible and encouraging. The list of topics agreed on is deeply important to pulling the world beyond the blight of COVID and reaffirming the cooperation of key alliances in this endeavour. The catalytic element of both charters is also significant. From being overwhelmed in 1941 by a seemingly insuperable military force to the dramatic losses entailed by COVID in 2021 and ongoing state-sponsored threats to democracy, both were staging posts on a far longer journey. Whether the second Charter is as much an ‘end’ in itself as the first one was a means to that end remains to be seen.
There are, of course, drawbacks. Despite its brevity — or perhaps because of it — the new Charter lacks clear instructions as to how its principles are to be achieved. How is the wider body of allies presumed in the document expected to globally defend against health threats? How exactly will the US and the UK be able to protect the values of democracy? What precisely ought Western powers do in their increasingly tense relations with China in particular? Neither state has necessarily covered itself in glory in tackling COVID or post-COVID recovery in respect of the ongoing vaccination needs of the rest of the world. Climate change cooperation remains patchy, trade itself badly bruised, and cooperation with the wider circle of European allies largely untested. For sceptics, Atlantic Charter 2.0 isn’t an upgrade, but more of a bolt-on: there are some additional features, but they come at a price.
There are also some striking contradictions: principle no. 5 for instance states the intention to “promote the framework of responsible State behaviour in cyberspace, arms control, disarmament, and proliferation prevention measures to reduce the risks of international conflict”. However, this stands in stark contrast to the UK’s 2021 Integrated Review, stating explicitly that the UK will increase its nuclear arsenal maximum by 80 warheads, to a total of 260. Additionally, with the Washington Post reporting a potential, additional 145 Chinese nuclear silos being developed, how likely is it that the US itself — currently expanding its own nuclear arsenal — will somehow throw the programme into reverse? Many diplomatic principles are just that, i.e., understood to operate ‘in principle’ but not necessarily in practice. As former UK Ambassador to Washington and the EU, Nigel Sheinwald of the Foreign Policy Centre argues, “there is no point in writing the Atlantic Charter which depends on mutual trust, confidence and the rules of law when you are operating as chancers”.
The art of signalling
Trust and reliability are all important in alliances, both old and new. The renewed Charter does well to put the specific bilateral needs of the US and the UK in a wider context, applicable to global partners while retaining core trans-Atlantic elements unique to the special relationship. Launched at the G7, it sits alongside European friends and NATO allies, allowing Biden a soft landing and Johnson something of a covert absolution. Taken together, the US and the UK can work alongside Europe as “a revived democratic alliance and one that has to equip itself for an existential competition with China’s authoritarianism, describing this as the great battle of this century”. In this respect, the specific challenges arising from China brings the role of the Charter fully into view, which is likely why the document was launched within the confines of the June 2021 G7. With most trans-Atlantic powers present in one location agreeing on outstanding threats, the G7 provides a uniquely helpful diplomatic crucible, which on this occasion took aim at authoritarian states in deciding strategic responses.
The most important of these challenges is China. Biden has led the charge on this, and the revised Charter is a helpful insurance policy to ensure that the UK remains in lockstep, with Biden hoping that 'Team Europe' will not be far behind. Foes are not explicitly named, but the Charter’s democratic DNA is clear: to “defend the principles, values, and institutions of democracy and open societies”, ensuring above all that democracies rather than any other form of government “can deliver on solving the critical challenges of our time”. While the G7 operates for Biden as a helpful diplomatic bootcamp ensuring that “his democratic allies do not embark on this titanic struggle by falling out with one another”, the next steps require the Charter’s signatories and supporters alike to challenge and possibly oppose examples fundamentally opposed to its spirit. In this respect, the renewed Atlantic Charter signals the intent of the US in particular, by setting out fundamental principles, if not clear details, and leaving little doubt that “Washington’s primary focus is on China”. As a recent Chatham House Research Paper observed, “China’s heated rivalry with the US has also become an issue of contention in the transatlantic relationship, despite the EU having similar and growing frustrations over China”.
However, in the eyes of some, Biden still has far to go. For Americans, Bernie Sanders' recent views warn starkly of "Washington’s Dangerous New Consensus on China”, arguing that “the primary conflict between democracy and authoritarianism… is taking place not between countries but within them — including in the United States”. Biden is unlikely to disagree with this, or ironically with Sanders’ suggestion to lead by example and “demonstrating that democracy can actually deliver a better quality of life for people than authoritarianism can”. How Biden chooses to draw upon the power of signalling using tools like the Atlantic Charter however is crucial.
Looking ahead
What next for the new Atlantic Charter? From the US perspective, as argued by the Washington Post, like its antecedent “the new Atlantic Charter understands that American involvement in the world needs to be firmly rooted in domestic policy and democratic commitments”. In 1941, that vision was a dual one: domestic commitment to the war effort, and an alliance-based affirmation to carry the fight to its conclusion. Little has changed: in 2021, “the power of the ideas and the vision, not the agreement itself, is likely to matter most”.
Most likely, the revised Atlantic Charter represents a helpful middle ground: its purpose is ultimately positive and unifying, with both universal and localised commitments, but with little more than the trust between long-standing allies to ensure, if not enshrine it. It reaffirms the anchor points of trans-Atlantic security alongside the values of democracy and human rights, but whether it can roll in all of Europe in this call as well as representing a clear challenge to rising antagonists remains to be seen.
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.
Author biographies
Professor Amelia Hadfield is the Head of the Department of Politics at the University of Surrey. William Hitt is the President of the Politics Society. Image Credit: Wikipedia.