Alex Spelling

Edward Heath and Anglo–American Relations 1970–1974: A Reappraisal

As British Prime Minister, Edward Heath is generally believed to have presided over a distinct cooling in Anglo– American relations. His frosty personality, use of the term “natural”—instead of “special”—relationship, and determination to re-orient British foreign policy towards the European Community are felt to have deliberately foreclosed a more intimate partnership with the administration of Richard Nixon. This interpretation is captured most vividly in the writings of the Presidents National Security Adviser, and later Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. In contrast to such views, this article argues that despite considerable challenges, Anglo– American relations during Heaths premiership were not fundamentally weakened. Nor can Heath be considered “anti-American.” Moreover, the frictions experienced were often the result of American actions rather than anything which happened in London. A new understanding of Heaths actions and the circumstances of the time are needed when assessing the “special relationship” in this period.

The Wilson-Johnson Correspondence, 1964–69The Wilson-Johnson Correspondence, 1964–69. By Simon C. Smith, ed., Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2015. 323 pp. £75.00.

Simon Smith has conducted diligent research in the UK National Archives, Harold Wilson’s private papers, and the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library among other sources, emerging with a collection of bilateral correspondence published in one place for the first time (some of the material is also available in the relevant 1964–1968 Foreign Relations of the United States series). Smith builds on research done on this era by the likes of Jonathan Colman and broader diplomatic and case-study contributions from, among others, John Young, the late Saki Dockrill, Sylvia Ellis, and John Dumbrell. The introduction is in the form of an in-depth historiographical essay on the WilsonJohnson relationship. Drawing on the rich vein of writing and other works on U.S.UK relations of the last two decades, as well as numerous biographies and memoirs, the introduction provides an excellent overview of the key issues, developments, and interpretations of the “special relationship” during these years. The established interpretation of a turbulent, occasionally fractious relationship between the two leaders is maintained, albeit one much better than often assumed when the finer details are examined; and the message from the subsequent collection likewise conveys a closer connection. Johnson, for example, often emphasized the value he saw in his “friendship” with Wilson. The volume thus allows the reader to question what is meant by a “special relationship” as articulated through the pragmatic and personal connection between the two men. The content further reveals the wide range of subjects the two men conversed on in an era of much international political and economic upheaval. Presenting such high-level, chronological communication gives readers an insight into one element of an empirical approach to diplomatic relations, not least one as heavily scrutinized as the U.S.-UK connection. Such an approach fits the occasionally heard comment on studies of the “special relationship”: that the focus tends to be on the elite level whereas the actual glue of the partnership is bonded at a lower, bureaucratic level, particularly through the diplomatic service and embassies (the latter’s role is the focus of two Palgrave studies, in 2009 and 2012). In addition, much “unseen” cooperation is carried out in the defense and intelligence establishments. Nevertheless, many useful insights can be drawn from high-level correspondence. Here the selection demonstrates that Wilson was far from a puppet of the U.S. president and not sycophantic in his written dealings, as has been suggested in the past.

Preventing ‘A Virological Hiroshima’: Cold War Press Coverage of Biological Weapons Disarmament

This article examines representations of biological weapons during a crucial period in the recent history of this form of warfare. The study draws on a corpus of newspaper articles from the US New York Times and the UK Times and Guardian written around the time of the negotiation period of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, the international treaty banning this form of warfare. We argue that a conventional discourse can be found wherein biological weapons are portrayed as morally offensive, yet highly effective and militarily attractive. Interwoven with this discourse, however, is a secondary register which depicts biological weapons as ineffective, unpredictable and of questionable value for the military. We finish with a somewhat more speculative consideration of the significance of these discourses by asking what might have been at stake when journalists and other writers deployed such differing representations of biological warfare.

“Driven to Tears”: Britain, CS Tear Gas, and the Geneva Protocol, 1969–1975

ABSTRACT This analysis considers a controversy over whether the 1925 Geneva Protocol, the treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare, covered CS “tear gas.” Widespread deployment of tear gases by American forces in Vietnam after 1964 attracted much international criticism as many believed the Protocol banned such agents and pressure gradually built on the British government to clarify its interpretative position. Its tabling a disarmament initiative to prohibit production and possession of biological weapons in July 1969 exacerbated the situation, provoking allegations of diverting attention from chemical weapons as a favour to America and the “Special Relationship.” Meanwhile, the outbreak of the “troubles” in Northern Ireland earlier the same year, where British forces also used CS, presented further difficulties. Britain rejected inclusion of CS under the Protocol in February 1970 but wrestled at great length over the decision and its consequences under the Harold Wilson and Edward Heath governments. Largely absent from historical accounts, this episode allows an examination of a complex, convoluted issue that had potentially wide-ranging ramifications for the interpretation of international relations and treaties. Similarly, re-creating confidential inter-departmental decision-making processes, particularly comparing scientific and legal interpretations, the processes of governmental bureaucracy and the role played by civil society demonstrates why an element with little immediate linkage to British overseas affairs proved such a conundrum.