The New Relationship

The partnership would survive. Britain and France agreed to withdraw from Suez, the U.S. released the oil Europe needed, and many on both sides of the Atlantic sighed in audible relief that old friends were speaking again.

Before the differences were patched up, many ugly words had been said (see NATIONAL AFFAIRS). In the most massive show of parliamentary anti-Americanism in years, 126 British Tories signed a motion deploring "the attitude of the U.S.A., which is gravely endangering the Atlantic Alliance." And the kind of cutting British remarks that are usually said privately got said aloud. Sample, by First Lord of the Admiralty Lord Hailsham: "We do not wish to hear any moral lectures from those whose moral weakness and incapacity to see the facts was the precipitating factor in the present crisis." The occasion for the worst hostility might die down with the oil deliveries, but the rancor was likely to remain.

Two Blocs. In France, where hostility also ran high, Foreign Minister Christian Pineau sought to explain the U.S. attitude: "Two principles dominate U.S. policy at the present time: the world must not be divided into two blocs--the white race on one side, and the peoples of color on the other. The Soviet Union must not be allowed to have a monopoly of defending the latter group. These two principles are justified." Pineau added: "But what is not, and what is even singularly paradoxical, is to conclude that the U.S. should lend its help to Nasser. Despite our bitterness, we cannot renounce either U.S. friendship or the Atlantic Alliance. It is our only safeguard against a fate similar to that of Hungary."

Others who took sober second readings recognized, in the words of London's Spectator, "that the Americans did not go it alone; we have. The [British] government decided that the Anglo-American alliance was something that could be switched off like a tap. Almost immediately it got thirsty and tried to switch it on again. Finding it could not do so, it has been relieving its feelings by kicking the tap."

Blasphemous Candor. The transatlantic friendship was renewed, but it would be a different, perhaps a healthier relationship. It would be based on the realization that Britain, France and the U.S., old friends united by necessity and sentiment, have a common purpose in Europe, but only parallel--and sometimes even divergent--interests in other places.

Said Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd: "The partners should on occasion be able to act unilaterally and according to the dictates of their best judgment, without jeopardizing the firm foundations of their understanding." Said the London Economist: "Britain's proper attitude towards the U.S. is the attitude that Australia has long maintained towards Britain. It is an attitude of blasphemous private candor about most matters and about awkward Foreign Secretaries, but of sufficient loyalty to allow any American leader to feel confident that when really big issues arise, Britain will never deceive him."

The new relationship had advantages. For the U.S., it freed both its conscience and its politics. The U.S. would no longer have to apologize in its heart for British tactics on Cyprus, or be as discreet about its displeasure with French methods in Algeria (Britain and France might, in turn, make up their own lists of American causes they do not wholeheartedly endorse).

At the moment, all through the Arab world, the U.S. had new stature and trust as the only nation that had acted disinterestedly. Alone of all nations, it could act and be accepted as an evenhanded arbiter. "Whatever happens next in the Middle East is up to the U.S. Government; we're out of the picture," admitted British Editor Geoffrey Crowther.

Common Gain. This was not to say that the U.S. preferred Nasser to Eden, or thought that the Arab-Asian bloc would make sounder and stronger friends than Britain or France. Yet to make common cause with its friends in every part of the world would be to inherit their legacy, and lose much. A new relationship, that recognizes deep affinities but does not gloss over differences, could be worth more than a thousand speeches.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.