March/April 2001 Vol.4, No. 3

Contents The Special Relationship Reaffirmed by Melvin Rhodes When the Angel Leaves the Storm, Part 2 by Darris McNeely Mad Cow Disease: The Fear Alone Is Costly by Cecil E. Maranville Another Crack in the Transatlantic Alliance? by Paul Kieffer In Brief...World News Review by Cecil E. Maranville and John Ross Shroeder This is the Way...Running Better Than Ever by Robin Webber The Special Relationship Reaffirmed The close historic ties between Britain and the United States continue, yet a cloud hangs over the alliance. Britain is increasingly caught in the middle between the United States and Europe. by Melvin Rhodes Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, on a visit to the United States a few years ago, told viewers on a breakfast television program that the great lesson of the 20th century was that when Britain and the United States stood side by side in the interests of world peace, they always won. These words were reminiscent of the prophetic warning given by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the 19th century, who predicted that the most important fact of the coming 20th century was that Britain and the United States spoke the same language. The impact of this upon Germany was to be profound. Winston Churchill, whose mother was the American Jennie Jerome, once cautioned, "English is the common language that divides us." The preceding comments are reminders that Britain and America are very similar, but still different. Inevitably, their interests will not always coincide. But the fact remains that the two nations have enjoyed a formal "special relationship" for six decades and an informal one that goes back much further. At one time, the two countries were subjects of one crown. This was prior to 1776 when the 13 original colonies (soon to be states) were all part of the British Empire. "Most colonial leaders in the mid-eighteenth century thought of themselves not as Americans but as Britons," writes American historian Gordon S. Wood (The Radicalism of the American Revolution, 1991, p. 12). Together the American settlers and the British military defeated the French in North America during the French and Indian War (called the Seven Years War in England, 1756-63). Barely a decade later, differences between the mother country and colonists led to America breaking away. Further conflict between the two was to follow in the War of 1812. In the interim, the British merchant bank Berings had arranged the financing for the Louisiana Purchase, thereby substantially increasing the size of the new American Republic. British investment throughout the 19th century was to play a significant role in the development of the new country. A century later American investment was to help Britain recover following World War II. Without the British Royal Navy, America could not have enforced the Monroe Doctrine, which warned European powers to stay out of the Americas following the upheavals that freed Latin American countries from Spain. Even as recently as 1940, Americans still looked to the nations of the British Empire and Commonwealth as their first line of defense. American historian James Truslow Adams wrote in that threatening year when the British Empire was at war with the Axis powers and America was still neutral: "...for those who have been accustomed to freedom of person and of spirit, the possible overthrow of the British Empire would be a catastrophe scarcely thinkable. Not only would it leave a vacuum over a quarter of the globe into which all the wild winds of anarchy, despotism and spiritual oppression could rush, but the strongest bulwark outside ourselves for our own safety and freedom would have been destroyed" (The British Empire, 1784-1939, p. 358). Role reversal World War II was to see a role reversal with America emerging as the dominant global power by 1945. The British had needed American help in both world wars. In World War I, "pro-British feeling was particularly strong in Wall Street, where J.P. Morgan, Jr., son of the great financier and heir to his vast banking empire, was an ardent anglophile who spent half of each year in Britain. It was to Morgan's that the British Government turned in the early months of the war to handle its military purchases in the United States, to arrange contracts for rifles, shells and heavy guns, for food and vital raw materials such as oil, cotton and copper.... By mid-1915 Morgan's was spending millions each week to pay for Britain's war needs..." (David Dimbleby and David Reynolds, An Ocean Apart, 1988, pp. 45, 49). In 1917, the United States was to enter the war fighting alongside nations of the British Empire and Commonwealth. America might have continued to play a significant role in world affairs following her involvement in World War I, but Congress would not support President Woodrow Wilson's desire that America join the League of Nations, forerunner of the United Nations. A "serious obstacle to co-operation" between Britain and America after World War I "was the fact that the Big Two of the post-war world were rivals as much as collaborators" (ibid., p. 78). Texan Colonel Edward House, an ardent supporter of Great Britain and an adviser to President Wilson, visited London shortly after the war. He shared his observations with Wilson: "Almost as soon as I arrived in England, I sensed an antagonism to the United States. The English are quite as cordial and hospitable to the individual American as ever, but they dislike us collectively.... While the British Empire vastly exceeds the United States in area and population and while their aggregate wealth is perhaps greater than ours, yet our position is much more favorable. It is because of this that the relations between the two countries are beginning to assume the same character as that between England and Germany before the war" (ibid.). The two main issues that divided the countries between the world wars were sea power and finance. Britain's remained the biggest navy, but the United States was rapidly increasing the size of her own (as was Japan), which Britain perceived as a possible threat. At the same time, the United States found it difficult to break into Britain's captive colonial markets, another source of friction. Britain remained briefly committed to her Commonwealth ties after World War II. Film footage of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in June 1953 illustrates the military ties that still bound the multitude of nations together. But this was to change, suddenly, dramatically and unexpectedly as British and American interests diverged. The crisis was Suez in 1956. The British- and French-owned Suez Canal was seized by the new nationalist military government of Egypt. British, French and Israeli troops attacked Egypt to win back the canal. Fearing that such a move would let the Soviets into the region by the back door, American President Dwight D. Eisenhower did not back the British. Economically still very fragile and heavily dependent on the United States, Britain pulled back. The ripple effect was the end of her empire and recognition by London that America had replaced her as the global superpower. A decade later, Britain's Labour government failed to back the United States in Vietnam. Interestingly, Suez and Vietnam were both lost while other wars were won, thereby emphasizing Margaret Thatcher's point, that when the United States and Britain stand together, they win. When they do not support each other, as in Suez and Vietnam, they lose. Frequently, both nations, acting in unison, have led the defense of the Western world against the forces of despotism. As we shall see, this was prophesied in the pages of the Bible. Common ancestry Genesis chapter 49 is a chapter about the "last days" (verse 1), prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of God at the return of Jesus Christ. Far from being of no significance, thousands of years after their ancestor Jacob (Israel) lived, the descendants of his 12 sons were prophesied to be at the center of human affairs. Joseph, Israel's favorite son, was to be "a fruitful bough...his branches run over the wall" (Genesis 49:22), spreading out around the world and bringing economic development to many nations (Genesis 12:2-3). Joseph's descendants were also prophesied to be at the center of world conflicts, victorious with God's help. "The archers have bitterly grieved him, shot at him and hated him. But his bow remained in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the Mighty God of Jacob" (Genesis 49:23-24). The preceding chapter, Genesis 48, shows that Britain and the United States at this time were to be separate nations. Joseph's sons, verses 19 and 20, were to "become a multitude of nations" and a "great" single nation (the British Empire and the United States). Joseph was their common parent. Interestingly, Joseph is mentioned in chapter 49, not Ephraim and Manasseh, his two sons. The two peoples were to be acting in unison in prophesied end-time conflicts. Ephraim, the multitude of nations, was to be great "before Manasseh" was (Genesis 48:20). The great company of nations was to become great before the United States. As we have seen, this is exactly what happened. For two hundred years, right up until World War II, the "multitude of nations" was the free world's first line of defense. Since World War II, the U.S. has been the leader of the Western world, the most powerful of Israel's sons. (For more on this subject, see our booklet, The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy.) Caught in the middle The visit of British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Washington D.C. in February was the first meeting of a European leader with the new American president, George W. Bush, a reflection of the closeness of the two nations and of the special bond that has bound them together. President Bush spoke warmly of the special relationship and of his desire to see it continue during his administration. Watching their press conference on America's Fox News satellite network on Friday afternoon, February 23, I was struck by how positive the coverage was and how favorable it was to Britain. Only one week earlier, the two nations had acted together against Iraq while other allies were not so supportive-some were openly critical. Less than one hour later, I watched coverage of the same press conference on "BBC America," Britain's television channel in the United States. Here the emphasis was more negative, pointing out the differences between the two leaders and the two nations they lead. In this writer's opinion, a subtle change has taken place in the "special relationship." In the past, the British talked about it most, concerned that America might forget them. Now, it is the Americans expressing their fears for the future. While both leaders seem committed to the continuance of the "special relationship," a cloud hangs over the alliance. That cloud is the European Union and the increasingly divergent interests that aggravate relations between the United States and Europe. Britain is increasingly caught in the middle. Tony Blair has said that he sees himself explaining America to Europe and Europe to America. But at some future time, it is likely that Britain will be torn between the two. Ironically, it was former American Secretary of State Dean Acheson who proclaimed in 1962, "Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role." Encouraged by the United States, Britain's new role was to be a member of the European Common Market, now the European Union. American administrations hoped that a British presence in Europe would guarantee America's interests on the continent. Past American administrations have supported the drive for European unity, but there now seems to be an increasing awareness that Europe could break away from the United States. In less than 12 months, the single market will be a reality with the euro in circulation as Europe's new currency. Europe is growing faster than the United States, and its trade ties often negatively affect America's overseas business interests. Additionally, there are fears that the new European Rapid Reaction Force will be outside America's control. Tony Blair was reassuring on this matter. But he may not be able to deliver on that reassurance. Britain does not control Europe and is often the outsider looking in. The next few years will be important ones for the "special relationship," as different interests threaten the close ties between Western Europe and the United States, with Britain caught in the middle. The book of Hosea suggests that the United States (Manasseh, the dominant tribe of Israel today) and Britain (Ephraim), with the Jewish state of Israel (Judah in biblical prophecy), will "fall in their iniquity" at the same time (Hosea 5:5). The United States and Britain will likely continue as allies until God removes His protection from them as a result of their turning away from Him. wnp

Contents Send any comments / changes regarding this page to webmaster@churchofgodtwincities.org