Latest news with #AtlanticCharter
New York Times
25-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
The Terrifying Prospect of Trump's Peace Plan for Ukraine
Days after threatening to abandon peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, the Trump administration last week produced the outlines of a proposal to end the war between the two countries. The proposal, which is being viewed as President Trump's 'final offer,' completely blindsided Ukraine and America's European allies, and for good reason: It heavily favors the aggressor. Ukraine has already rejected it. In addition to reportedly freezing the current territorial lines, prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO, and lifting sanctions on Russia that have been in place since 2014 when it annexed the Crimean Peninsula, the proposal offers Moscow a diplomatic gift that would set an extremely dangerous precedent: formal recognition of its control over Crimea. Acceding to Russian control of Ukraine would break with an over-eight-decade, bipartisan tradition of opposing the changing of international borders by force. This policy was first articulated in 1940, after the Soviet Union annexed the three Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The acting secretary of state, Sumner Welles, issued a statement that would come to have a profound impact on American foreign policy and international relations. 'The people of the United States are opposed to predatory activities no matter whether they are carried on by the use of force or by the threat of force,' Welles said. 'Unless the doctrine in which these principles are inherent once again governs the relations between nations, the rule of reason, of justice and of law — in other words, the basis of modern civilization itself — cannot be preserved.' More than 50 countries followed America's lead in refusing to recognize the puppet governments installed by Moscow in the three annexed countries. The United States maintained its nonrecognition policy after allying itself with the Soviet Union in June 1941. Later that year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Britain produced the Atlantic Charter, envisioning a postwar world order governed along liberal principles like self-determination, democracy and free trade. The two nations also expressed their 'desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.' Over the next 50 years, the United States stayed true to the letter and the spirit of the Welles Declaration, acknowledging the exiled governments of the Baltic States as the legal sovereigns of the territories they did not actually control. Along those lines, offering de facto recognition of Russia's control over Crimea, as the Trump plan proposes with regard to Ukraine's eastern regions, would be a reasonable concession. Russian troops and military matériel are facts on the ground that cannot be wished away. But the U.S. providing formal recognition of the Crimean annexation would overturn the policy of every American president since Roosevelt, including Mr. Trump. In 2018, during his first administration, secretary of state Mike Pompeo reiterated the basic tenet that the United States would not legitimize territorial aggrandizement by recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. 'As we did in the Welles Declaration in 1940, the United States reaffirms as policy its refusal to recognize the Kremlin's claim of sovereignty over territory seized by force in contravention of international law.' Nothing that has occurred over the past nearly 7 years justifies a repudiation of this commitment to principle and tradition. Alas, longstanding principles and traditions have never had much influence on Mr. Trump's decision making. The most charitable explanation for this impetuous plan is that it's a product of his impatience with diplomacy and desire to win a Nobel Peace Prize. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly said that he would end the war within 24 hours of being inaugurated. When that didn't happen, he tasked an envoy, the retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, with solving the conflict within 100 days. The likelier motive for Mr. Trump's proposed acquiescence to Russian colonialism is that it's a genuine reflection of his worldview, namely, the principle that might makes right. Mr. Trump either doesn't know or doesn't care that this conflict began 11 years ago when Russia launched an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. That this act was gravely immoral, never mind illegal, does not factor into Mr. Trump's geopolitical calculus. Threats to run for a third term notwithstanding, Mr. Trump is a lame-duck president, which makes him more prone to take rash actions on the international stage. As his own threats to take over Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal suggest, he is sympathetic to the idea of big countries taking over smaller ones, and he is behaving far more erratically in the realm of foreign affairs than he did in his first term. That he might become the first American president to confer legitimacy on the annexation of another country's territory is a real, and terrifying, possibility. The war in Ukraine is not, as another British prime minister once said about a European territorial dispute that quickly escalated into the most destructive conflict the world has ever seen, just a 'quarrel in a faraway country, between people of whom we know nothing.' Assenting to Russia's annexation of Crimea would have global consequences. Other dictatorships, having witnessed the world's leading democracy endorse such a flagrant violation of the most basic principle governing the relationship among sovereign states, would feel emboldened to do the same. 'Giving Russia de jure recognition of occupied territories would send the world the signal: Go ahead, invade a sovereign country, change its borders; it's all good,' the former Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves told me. If the United States were to recognize Crimea as Russia it would join the august company of Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela. Those who support bestowing an imprimatur of legality upon Russia's annexation of Crimea contend that, like the territories Russia controls in its other frozen conflicts, the land Ukraine has lost is never coming back. The same, however, was said about the Baltic States. For most of the Cold War, the prospect of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania regaining their independence seemed remote, if not fantastic. In 1975, The Times reported that, while American officials doubted that 'formal recognition' of the Soviet occupations would 'come soon,' they believed it was 'inevitable.' Yet the United States and its allies persisted in refusing to accept the subjugation of the Baltic States, and when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, they were liberated. Today, they are members of the European Union and NATO with consolidated democracies, market economies and increasingly confident places on the world stage. After 11 years of grinding conflict, it's entirely understandable that Mr. Trump wants to end this war. But he must not mistake a temporary cessation of hostilities — which is all that his proposal would achieve — with a just and lasting peace. Unless Ukraine is provided with an explicit security guarantee (which in all likelihood means NATO membership), Russia will just bide its time until the moment is opportune for it to invade again. Whether Mr. Trump is in or out of office when this happens, it will destroy his legacy.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: What's next for Ukraine?
The brutal verbal ambush by United States leaders of Ukraine's beleaguered President Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to resonate in the world's capitals, especially in Europe as well as in North America. The demeaning insults directed at him by President Donald Trump and especially Vice President JD Vance are probably unprecedented for any media-reported meeting held in the Oval Office of the White House. Obviously, Zelenskyy erred by losing his temper and responding in kind. A more skilled diplomat would have kept a poker face and directed a calm response to Trump. But cut some slack for the Ukraine leader. He has been directing the defense of his country in heavy combat with invading Russia forces for three years. Nonetheless, a wider perspective provides some hope for Ukraine and eventual peace accord. Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer provided bookends to the political disaster. Starmer met with Trump in the Oval Office the day before Zelenskyy, and with the Ukraine leader in London the day after. London also just hosted an emergency summit of European leaders. Britain enjoys a firmly established special relationship with the United States, and a long history of favorably influencing developments in Europe. This special relationship was initially formalized and announced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill during the darkest days of World War II. The leaders met off the Coast of Newfoundland in August 1941. Churchill returned to meet with Roosevelt in the White House and address a joint session of Congress in December of that year, shortly after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The first of these historic meetings resulted in the Atlantic Charter, defining broad positive human goals of freedom and basic economic security. The follow-up session resulted in commitment to the concept of the United Nations. This close partnership between Britain and the U.S. has endured down to the present despite sometimes severe strains. The evolution of the Anglo-American Special Relationship underscores important events of that global total war, and the Cold War and post-Cold War era which have followed. During the mid-1960s, the Johnson administration pressed extremely hard for at least token direct military participation in the Vietnam War. Australia and New Zealand, both members of the British Commonwealth, did provide forces. In the case of Australia, there was considerably more than a token commitment. Britain remained out of that war, for understandable reasons. In hindsight, this lack of support by a close ally was an early indication of the questionable nature of the American military escalation. From the other direction, the most serious Anglo-American and wider Atlantic alliance crisis was over the Suez Canal in 1956. Britain, France and Israel launched a coordinated surprise military attack to retake the waterway and associated territory from Egypt's nationalist government. President Dwight Eisenhower was completely opposed as well as offended by lack of consultation. His administration forced an abrupt halt to the operation. No crisis since has so seriously threatened the alliance. Economics strengthens alliance cooperation. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's deregulation of the economy in the 1980s pays powerful dividends today. For example, Canary Wharf, formerly grim docks and housing in eastern London, has been transformed into a mammoth global commercial center. Trump and Vance may garner some momentary satisfaction, along with Trump's core voters, by insulting Zelenskyy. But more important, Britain's government is working with others to implement a realistic, workable Ukraine peace agreement. Starmer refers to 'A Coalition of the Willing.' Such leadership is essential as the U.S. withdraws.
Japan Times
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Japan Times
The Oval Office meeting that damaged America's standing
In August 1941, about four months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt met with Winston Churchill aboard warships in Newfoundland's Placentia Bay and agreed to the Atlantic Charter, a joint declaration by the world's leading democratic powers on "common principles' for a postwar world. Among its key points: "no aggrandizement, territorial or other'; "sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them'; "freedom from fear and want'; freedom of the seas; "access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.' The charter, and the alliance that came of it, is a high point of U.S. statesmanship. On Friday in the Oval Office, the world witnessed the opposite. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine's embattled democratic leader, came to Washington prepared to sign away anything he could offer U.S. President Donald Trump except his nation's freedom, security and common sense. For that, he was rewarded with a lecture on manners from the most mendacious vulgarian and ungracious host ever to inhabit the White House.
The Independent
28-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
How previous prime ministers handled the ‘special relationship'
As Sir Keir Starmer prepares to meet Donald Trump for key talks in the White House, observers will be looking for signs of the health or otherwise of the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US. Here the PA news agency takes a look at previous relationships between prime ministers and presidents, and the key challenges they faced. The so-called 'special relationship' between the UK and US shaped interactions between prime ministers and presidents as it developed throughout the 20th century. It was Winston Churchill who coined the phrase during a speech in Missouri in 1946. The fact that Mr Churchill was invited to stay at the White House during a trip to Washington following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941, which forced the Americans directly into the war, was seen as a reflection of how close the transatlantic alliance had become. But an anecdote from the time suggests the relationship went beyond conventional diplomatic boundaries. One morning, then-president Franklin D Roosevelt was said to have entered Mr Churchill's suite to find the prime minister emerge 'pink, glowing and completely naked' from the bath. As an embarrassed president turned to leave, Mr Churchill said: 'The prime minister of Great Britain has nothing to conceal from the president of the United States.' The two men later that year signed the Atlantic Charter, a key joint declaration outlining a broad statement of British and US war aims. – Howard Macmillan and John F Kennedy Howard Macmillan and Dwight D Eisenhower developed a positive relationship during the Second World War when the former was a Cabinet minister and the latter a supreme allied commander in the Mediterranean. In 1959, Mr Eisenhower accepted an invitation from the then prime minister to London – the first state visit by a US president in half a century. But perhaps more significant was the visit of Mr Eisenhower's successor John F Kennedy in June 1961, which followed a meeting between the young president and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna. The meeting during the height of the Cold War was described as 'bruising'. With Mr Kennedy suffering from acute back pain, Mr MacMillan discarded plans for a big meeting with advisers in favour of a private chat in his room, which featured sandwiches and whisky. Mr Kennedy was said to have 'unburdened himself' about the Vienna meeting, later describing the meeting as a 'special moment'. – Jim Callaghan and Jimmy Carter Labour prime minister Jim Callaghan worked hard to cultivate a positive relationship with newly elected Jimmy Carter in 1977. Mr Callaghan is said to have significantly developed Mr Carter's understanding of European affairs and also sought to improve his difficult relationship with German leader Helmut Schmidt. A trip to Tyneside featured in the US president's visit to Britain in May 1977. – Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan The relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan is often singled out as a high point in US-UK relations, but interactions between the two were not always cordial. Mr Reagan gave special addresses to both Houses of Parliament in June 1982, only one of three US presidents to do so since then. However, later Mrs Thatcher remarked that their relationship 'worked… because he was more afraid of me than I was of him', while there are accounts of ferocious rows over issues such as the Falklands conflict, the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, and Mr Reagan's 'Star Wars' defence project. But mutual respect is said to have been maintained throughout these exchanges, with both passionate defenders of the transatlantic alliance and a shared vision seen as playing a key role in ending the Cold War. – Tony Blair and George W Bush The connection shared by Tony Blair and George W Bush has proved hugely controversial. Mr Blair formed a strong political alliance with Mr Bush on foreign policy with a backdrop of the emergence al Qaida. In a post-9/11 speech Mr Bush said that 'America has no truer friend than Great Britain', but the close relationship between the two was frowned upon by some in the Labour Party and members of the public uncomfortable with US influence and a perception that the relationship was not equal. Mr Blair continued to argue that it was in Britain's interest to 'protect and strengthen the bond' with the US regardless of who is in the White House. The prime minister in 2003 signed the 'The letter of the eight' supporting US policy on Iraq and built his foreign policy on the principles of close ties with the US and the European Union. But the strategy included an interventionist streak which led to Britain joining the US in the global 'war on terror'. This led the UK to participation in the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Iraq war attracted widespread public criticism in the UK and beyond, while 139 Labour MPs opposed it. The circumstances of the decision on the UK's participation were intensely scrutinised, with claims that Iraq leader Saddam Hussein controlled weapons of mass destruction later proved to be false. As casualties in the war mounted, Mr Blair was accused of misleading Parliament and his popularity dropped. However, he did win a third term but some would argue his domestic achievements have been overshadowed by his support for Mr Bush and their shared approach to Iraq. – David Cameron and Barack Obama During David Cameron's term in office, Barack Obama addressed Parliament in another demonstration of the importance of the special relationship to both countries. However, in 2016 Mr Obama partly blamed European leaders for the chaotic state of Libya following the fall of Colonel Gaddafi. He accused Mr Cameron of being 'distracted by a range of other things' and said he had 'more faith in the Europeans'. In an interview published in The Atlantic, Mr Obama touched on an issue that is set to be a key feature of Sir Keir's talks with Donald Trump when he lamented 'free riders' in the international community and seemed to suggest Britain was in danger of falling into that category. According to the article, the US president told Mr Cameron at a G7 summit in Bavaria in 2015 that 'you have to pay your fair share' on defence spending if the special relationship is to continue. Soon after, Downing Street announced that the UK would meet a Nato commitment to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defence. – Theresa May and Donald Trump Theresa May arrived at the White House just a few days after Donald Trump's first inauguration in 2017, in what was seen as strong sign that positive relations would endure. Ms May was reportedly focused on persuading Mr Trump to make a supportive statement about Nato, amid concerns he was too sympathetic to Vladimir Putin. But it was pictures of the President holding Ms May's hand as they walked through the White House that dominated coverage across the world. Mr Trump's first term is perceived as a time of relatively chaotic foreign policy, while reported comments at the time suggest the president did not see Ms May as 'strong'. What followed was the US unilaterally withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear treaty and the Paris climate accord among other unpredictable moves. During a visit to the UK in 2018, Mr Trump said the relationship between the two countries was 'very, very strong' but he was highly critical of Ms May's approach to negotiations with the European Union over Brexit. Despite this element of friction, the pair again held hands ahead of a press conference at Chequers.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How previous prime ministers handled the ‘special relationship'
As Sir Keir Starmer prepares to meet Donald Trump for key talks in the White House, observers will be looking for signs of the health or otherwise of the 'special relationship' between the UK and the US. Here the PA news agency takes a look at previous relationships between prime ministers and presidents, and the key challenges they faced. – Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt The so-called 'special relationship' between the UK and US shaped interactions between prime ministers and presidents as it developed throughout the 20th century. It was Winston Churchill who coined the phrase during a speech in Missouri in 1946. The fact that Mr Churchill was invited to stay at the White House during a trip to Washington following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941, which forced the Americans directly into the war, was seen as a reflection of how close the transatlantic alliance had become. But an anecdote from the time suggests the relationship went beyond conventional diplomatic boundaries. One morning, then-president Franklin D Roosevelt was said to have entered Mr Churchill's suite to find the prime minister emerge 'pink, glowing and completely naked' from the bath. As an embarrassed president turned to leave, Mr Churchill said: 'The prime minister of Great Britain has nothing to conceal from the president of the United States.' The two men later that year signed the Atlantic Charter, a key joint declaration outlining a broad statement of British and US war aims. – Howard Macmillan and John F Kennedy Howard Macmillan and Dwight D Eisenhower developed a positive relationship during the Second World War when the former was a Cabinet minister and the latter a supreme allied commander in the Mediterranean. In 1959, Mr Eisenhower accepted an invitation from the then prime minister to London – the first state visit by a US president in half a century. But perhaps more significant was the visit of Mr Eisenhower's successor John F Kennedy in June 1961, which followed a meeting between the young president and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna. The meeting during the height of the Cold War was described as 'bruising'. With Mr Kennedy suffering from acute back pain, Mr MacMillan discarded plans for a big meeting with advisers in favour of a private chat in his room, which featured sandwiches and whisky. Mr Kennedy was said to have 'unburdened himself' about the Vienna meeting, later describing the meeting as a 'special moment'. – Jim Callaghan and Jimmy Carter Labour prime minister Jim Callaghan worked hard to cultivate a positive relationship with newly elected Jimmy Carter in 1977. Mr Callaghan is said to have significantly developed Mr Carter's understanding of European affairs and also sought to improve his difficult relationship with German leader Helmut Schmidt. A trip to Tyneside featured in the US president's visit to Britain in May 1977. – Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan The relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan is often singled out as a high point in US-UK relations, but interactions between the two were not always cordial. Mr Reagan gave special addresses to both Houses of Parliament in June 1982, only one of three US presidents to do so since then. However, later Mrs Thatcher remarked that their relationship 'worked… because he was more afraid of me than I was of him', while there are accounts of ferocious rows over issues such as the Falklands conflict, the US invasion of Grenada in 1983, and Mr Reagan's 'Star Wars' defence project. But mutual respect is said to have been maintained throughout these exchanges, with both passionate defenders of the transatlantic alliance and a shared vision seen as playing a key role in ending the Cold War. – Tony Blair and George W Bush The connection shared by Tony Blair and George W Bush has proved hugely controversial. Mr Blair formed a strong political alliance with Mr Bush on foreign policy with a backdrop of the emergence al Qaida. In a post-9/11 speech Mr Bush said that 'America has no truer friend than Great Britain', but the close relationship between the two was frowned upon by some in the Labour Party and members of the public uncomfortable with US influence and a perception that the relationship was not equal. Mr Blair continued to argue that it was in Britain's interest to 'protect and strengthen the bond' with the US regardless of who is in the White House. The prime minister in 2003 signed the 'The letter of the eight' supporting US policy on Iraq and built his foreign policy on the principles of close ties with the US and the European Union. But the strategy included an interventionist streak which led to Britain joining the US in the global 'war on terror'. This led the UK to participation in the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Iraq war attracted widespread public criticism in the UK and beyond, while 139 Labour MPs opposed it. The circumstances of the decision on the UK's participation were intensely scrutinised, with claims that Iraq leader Saddam Hussein controlled weapons of mass destruction later proved to be false. As casualties in the war mounted, Mr Blair was accused of misleading Parliament and his popularity dropped. However, he did win a third term but some would argue his domestic achievements have been overshadowed by his support for Mr Bush and their shared approach to Iraq. – David Cameron and Barack Obama During David Cameron's term in office, Barack Obama addressed Parliament in another demonstration of the importance of the special relationship to both countries. However, in 2016 Mr Obama partly blamed European leaders for the chaotic state of Libya following the fall of Colonel Gaddafi. He accused Mr Cameron of being 'distracted by a range of other things' and said he had 'more faith in the Europeans'. In an interview published in The Atlantic, Mr Obama touched on an issue that is set to be a key feature of Sir Keir's talks with Donald Trump when he lamented 'free riders' in the international community and seemed to suggest Britain was in danger of falling into that category. According to the article, the US president told Mr Cameron at a G7 summit in Bavaria in 2015 that 'you have to pay your fair share' on defence spending if the special relationship is to continue. Soon after, Downing Street announced that the UK would meet a Nato commitment to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defence. – Theresa May and Donald Trump Theresa May arrived at the White House just a few days after Donald Trump's first inauguration in 2017, in what was seen as strong sign that positive relations would endure. Ms May was reportedly focused on persuading Mr Trump to make a supportive statement about Nato, amid concerns he was too sympathetic to Vladimir Putin. But it was pictures of the President holding Ms May's hand as they walked through the White House that dominated coverage across the world. Mr Trump's first term is perceived as a time of relatively chaotic foreign policy, while reported comments at the time suggest the president did not see Ms May as 'strong'. What followed was the US unilaterally withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear treaty and the Paris climate accord among other unpredictable moves. During a visit to the UK in 2018, Mr Trump said the relationship between the two countries was 'very, very strong' but he was highly critical of Ms May's approach to negotiations with the European Union over Brexit. Despite this element of friction, the pair again held hands ahead of a press conference at Chequers.
