Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 135–153 | Cite as

Size and reputation — why the USA has valued its ‘special relationships’ with Denmark and the UK differently since 9/11

  • Peter Viggo Jakobsen
  • Jens RingsmoseEmail author
Article

Abstract

Denmark appears far more successful in managing its ‘special’ relationship with the USA than the UK since 9/11. By doing exactly the same as the UK, but on a much smaller scale and at much lower cost in terms of blood, treasure and domestic controversy, Denmark has succeeded in generating more American public gratitude than the UK. While London has been accused of losing Basra and Musa Qaleh, Copenhagen has been showered with praise and top-posts in NATO. This article explains why demonstrating how the differences in size and reputation gave rise to different expectations of the special relationship both in Washington and at home. Britain disappointed Washington by failing to make a difference in stabilising Afghanistan and Iraq, whereas Denmark by merely engaging in combat and taking casualties far exceeded Washington’s expectations. Likewise, the failure to significantly influence decision-making in Washington was a source of great frustration in London but a non-issue in Copenhagen, which never expected it in the first place.

Keywords

UK Denmark special relationship Afghanistan Iraq 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Off-the-record interview with British member of the delegation, March 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peter Viggo Jakobsen and Jens Ringsmose, ‘In Denmark, Afghanistan is Worth Dying for: How Public Support for the War was Maintained in the Face of Mounting Casualties and Elusive Success’, Cooperation & Conflict (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The crucial importance of expectations management is also emphasised in Alan Dobson and Steve Marsh, ‘Benign Neglect: America’s Threat to the Anglo-American Alliance’, Orbis 58, no. 2 (2014): 266–281; andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3a.
    Steve Marsh, ‘Global Security: US-UK Relations: Lessons for the Special Relationship?’ Journal of Transatlantic Studies 10, no. 2 (2012): 182–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    This worry has been part and parcel of the British debate since the Second World War, and the death of the relationship has been announced on countless occasions since then. See Jérôme B. Élie, ‘Many Times Doomed but Still Alive: An Attempt to Understand the Continuity of the Special Relationship’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 3, no. 3 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 4a.
    Patrick Porter, ‘Last Charge of the Knights? Iraq, Afghanistan and the Special Relationship’, International Affairs 86, no. 2 (March 2010): 362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 5.
    An excellent review is Steve Marsh and Alan Dobson, ‘Introduction’, in Anglo-American Relations: Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Steve March and Alan Dobson (London: Routledge, 2013), 1–26.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    Warren F. Kimball, ‘The “Special” Anglo-American Special Relationship: “A Fatter, Larger Underwater Cable”’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 3, no. 3 (2005): 2.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Élie, ‘Many Times Doomed but Still Alive’, 66.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    Ibid.; House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Global Security: UK-US Relations (London: House of Commons, 2010), 82–3.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Global Security, 21. See also Ray Raymond, ‘The U.S.-UK Special Relationship in Historical Context: Lessons of the Past’, in U.S.-UK Relations at the Start of the 21st Century, ed. Jeffrey D. McCausland and Douglas T. Stuart (Carlisle, VA: US Army War College, 2006), 3.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Global Security, 26. The ‘15%-formula’ was thoroughly evaluated in a MoD-analysis from 2011, Ministry of Defence Strategy Unit, UK Defence Policy and Influence over the US. Review of Existing Policy and Operationally Analysis (London: Ministry of Defence). Apparently the MoD gave up the rather rigid ‘15%-rule’ in 2008 in favour of a more flexible recipe.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    Peter de la Billière, Storm Command (London: Harper Collins Publishers), 4; Kosovo: Lessons from the Crisis (Ministry of Defence, 2000), para 8.11; House of Commons Defence Committee, Lessons of Iraq Vol. I, Session 2003–2004 (London: House of Commons, 2004), 39.Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review (London: HM Government, 2010), 60; Delivering Security in a Changing World, Defence White Paper (London: Ministry of Defence, 2003), 8.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    BBC News, ‘Britain Will Pay “Blood Price”—Blair’, September 6, 2002, https://doi.org/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2239887.stm (accessed September 30, 2013).
  16. 14.
    Tony Blair, ‘Shaping a Pivotal Role for Britain in the World’, Speech by the Prime Minister at the Lord Mayor’s banquet, Guildhall, London, November 22, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    See https://doi.org/www.nzdf.mil.nz/operations/overseas-deployments/afghanistan/default.htm (accessed September 30, 2013).
  18. 16.
    Jacob Svendsen and Lars Halskov, Et land i krig. Hvordan Danmark blev krigsførende — og politikere og generaler famlede i blinde [A country at war. How Denmark became a warring country — and politicians and generals fumbled in the dark] (København: Politikens Forlag 2012), 92.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Global Security, 30–32.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    The five countries involved are the UK, the USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    Stephen Fidler, ‘The Human Factor: All Is Not Well in Clandestine Intelligence Collection’, Financial Times, July 7, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    Nick Hopkins, ‘Britain Rejects US Request to Use UK Bases in Nuclear Standoff with Iran’, The Guardian, October 25, 2012Google Scholar
  23. 20a.
    Peter Viggo Jakobsen, ‘Multilateralism Matters But How? The Impact of Multilateraliasm on Great Power Policy towards the Breakup of Yugoslavia’, Cooperation and Conflict 30, no. 4 (December 1995), 382–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 20b.
    Alex Spillius, ‘Special Relationship’ Strained: US Criticises UK’s Vow to Talk to Hezbollah’, Daily Telegraph, March 13, 2009.Google Scholar
  25. 21.
    Interviews with US and NATO-officials, September 2013. A useful historical perspective is Thomas Robb, ‘The “Limit of What is Tolerable”: British Defence Cuts and the “Special Relationship,” 1974–1976’, Diplomacy & Statecraft 22, no. 1 (June 2011): 321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 22.
    Kathleen Burk, ‘How Did the Anglo-American Relationship Become “Essential”?’, Lecture, July 6, 2011, 17–18, https://doi.org/britishscholar.org/public-lecture-pdfs/ (accessed October 10, 2013).Google Scholar
  27. 23.
    DoD News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers, March 11, 2003Google Scholar
  28. 23a.
    Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 338.Google Scholar
  29. 24.
    Jeremy Shapiro, The Role of France in the War on Terrorism (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2002), 4; Woodward, Bush at War, 176.Google Scholar
  30. 25.
    Woodward, Bush at War, 55, 155–6, 165.Google Scholar
  31. 26.
    DoD News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers, March 11, 2003.Google Scholar
  32. 27.
    Nora Bensahel, The Counterterror Coalitions: Cooperation with Europe, NATO, and the European Union (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2003), 12, 14–5.Google Scholar
  33. 28.
    Nigel Morris and Kim Sengupta, ‘Afghan Troop Cuts Revealed as Cost of War Reaches £17bn’, Independent, December 19, 2012.Google Scholar
  34. 29.
    House of Commons Defence Committee, Lessons of Iraq, 39.Google Scholar
  35. 30.
    Gavin Berman, ‘The Cost of International Military Operations’, House of Commons Library, SN/SG/3139, July 5, 2012, 8.Google Scholar
  36. 31.
    Warren Chin, ‘British Defense Policy and the War in Iraq 2003–2009’, Defense & Security Analysis 27, no. 1 (2011): 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 32.
    Ibid., 70.Google Scholar
  38. 33.
    Michael Knight and Ed Williams, The Calm before the Storm: The British Experience in Iraq (Washington, DC: The Washington Institute, 2007), Policy Focus, no. 66, 7.Google Scholar
  39. 34.
    British Army Field Manual Volume I, Part 10, 1–2 Countering Insurgency, Army Code 71876, 2009; FM 3–24/MCWP 3–33.5 Counterinsurgency, 2006, 1–13. See also James T. Quinlivan, ‘Burden of Victory’, Rand Review, Summer 2003Google Scholar
  40. 34a.
    R. Royce Kneece Jr. et al., Force Sizing for Stability Operations. Main Report (Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, 2010), 5.Google Scholar
  41. 35.
    British Army, Stability operations in Iraq (Op Telic 2–5). An analysis from a land perspective, Army Code 71844, 2006, 31.Google Scholar
  42. 36.
    Chin, ‘British defense policy and the war in Iraq 2003–2009’, 70–71.Google Scholar
  43. 37.
    Lieutenant General Shirreff, ‘Oral Evidence’, Iraq Enquiry, January 11, 2010, 3–4, https://doi.org/www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/oralevidence-bydate/100111.aspx (accessed October 10, 2013).
  44. 38.
    Richard Iron, ‘The Charge of the Knights’, The RUSI Journal 158, no. 1 (2013): 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 39.
    Porter, ‘Last charge of the Knights?’, 369.Google Scholar
  46. 40.
    House of Commons Defence Select Committee, Operations in Afghanistan, Vol. I, Session 2010–2012 (London: House of Commons, 2011), 29.Google Scholar
  47. 41.
    Anthony King, ‘Understanding the Helmand Campaign: British Military Operations in Afghanistan’, International Affairs 86, no. 2 (March 2010): 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 42.
    House of Commons Defence Select Committee, Operations in Afghanistan, 29.Google Scholar
  49. 43.
    House of Commons Defence Select Committee, Operations in Afghanistan, 34.Google Scholar
  50. 44.
    Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks, ‘As British Leave, Basra Deteriorates’, Washington Post, August 7, 2007.Google Scholar
  51. 45.
    Michael Evans, ‘Complacent British Ignored Advice that Force Was too Small, Say Pentagon Officials’, The Times, June 10, 2010.Google Scholar
  52. 46.
    James Ferguson, A Million Bullets (London: Bantam Press, 2008), 147–8Google Scholar
  53. 46a.
    Sherard Cowper-Coles, Ever the Diplomat: Confessions of a Foreign Office Mandarin (London: HarperCollins UK, 2012), Chapter 12Google Scholar
  54. 46b.
    Deborah Haynes, ‘The Whitehall Brass and Mandarins Who Set up the Bloodiest Mission since Korea’, The Times, June 10, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 47.
    Interview with senior US-official, June 2011.Google Scholar
  56. 48.
    Robert Egnell, ‘Lessons from Helmand, Afghanistan: What Now for British Counter-insurgency?’, International Affairs 87, no. 2 (2011): 298–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 48a.
    Stuart Griffin, ‘Iraq, Afghanistan and the Future of British Military Doctrine: From Counterinsurgency to Stabilization’, International Affairs 87, no. 2 (2011): 318–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 48b.
    Tim Shipman, ‘British Forces Useless in Basra, Say Officials’, Daily Telegraph, August 19, 2007.Google Scholar
  59. 49.
    David Hastings Dunn, ‘UK-US Relations after the Three Bs — Blair, Brown and Bush’, Defense & Security Analysis 27, no. 1 (2011), 11–12; Porter, ‘Last Charge of the Knights?’, 365–66, 369Google Scholar
  60. 49a.
    Rachel Sylvester, ‘Memo: Don’t Rely on the Brits during a Battle’, The Times, January 6, 2009.Google Scholar
  61. 50.
    Des Browne and David Miliband, ‘Still On Track in Basra’, Washington Post, August 31, 2007.Google Scholar
  62. 51.
    David B. Clark, A Bridge over Troubled Waters: The Vital Role of Intelligence Sharing in Shaping the Anglo-American “Special Relationship” (Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, December 2008), 47–8.Google Scholar
  63. 52.
    Wallace and Philips, ‘Reassessing the Special Relationship’, 268–9.Google Scholar
  64. 53.
    Samuel Azubuike, ‘The “Poodle Theory” and the Anglo-American “Special Relationship”’, International Studies Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2005): 129; Wallace and Philips, ‘Reassessing the Special Relationship’, 269.Google Scholar
  65. 54.
    Wallace and Philips, ‘Reassessing the Special Relationship’, 268.Google Scholar
  66. 55.
    James D. Boys, Intelligence Design UK National Security in a Changing World (London: The Bow Group, 2012), 27.Google Scholar
  67. 56.
    Kristin Archick, The United Kingdom: Issues for the United States, CRS Report for Congress, July 16, 2007, 11.Google Scholar
  68. 57.
    John Dumbrell, ‘The US-UK “Special Relationship” in a World Twice Transformed’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17, no. 3 (2004): 446–9; House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Global Security, 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 57a.
    Toby Helm, ‘Geoff Hoon Says that He and Mr Blair Had Urged the US Not to Dismantle the Iraqi Army’, Daily Telegraph, December 9, 2006; Porter, ‘Last Charge of the Knights?’ 372; Wallace and Philips, ‘Reassessing the Special Relationship’, 275–8.Google Scholar
  70. 58.
    Azubuike, ‘The “Poodle Theory” and the Anglo-American “Special Relationship”, 132.Google Scholar
  71. 59.
    Élie, ‘Many Times Doomed but Still Alive’, 66; Porter, ‘Last Charge of the Knights?’, 361.Google Scholar
  72. 60.
    John Kampfner, Blair’s Wars (London: Simon & Schuster, 2003), 17.Google Scholar
  73. 61.
    Oliver Daddow and Pauline Schnapper, ‘Liberal Intervention in the Foreign Policy Thinking of Tony Blair and David Cameron’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26, no. 2 (2013): 337–8.Google Scholar
  74. 62.
    Sherard Cowper-Coles, Cables from Kabul: The Inside Story of the West’s Afghanistan Campaign (London: HarperCollins, 2011), 227–9, 284Google Scholar
  75. 62a.
    Jeremy Greenstock, ‘Oral Evidence’, Iraq Enquiry, December 15, 2009, 85–88, 94–95, 97–98, 102–3, 106, https://doi.org/www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/oralevidence-bydate/091215.aspx (accessed October 10, 2013)Google Scholar
  76. 62b.
    Sir David Manning, ‘Oral Evidence’, Iraq Enquiry, November 30, 2009, 99–102, 108–9, https://doi.org/www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/oralevidence-bydate/091130.aspx (accessed October 10, 2013).Google Scholar
  77. 63.
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Global Security, 6.Google Scholar
  78. 64.
    Jens Ringsmose, ‘Paying for Protection: Denmark’s Military Expenditures during Cold War’, Cooperation and Conflict 44, no. 1 (2008)Google Scholar
  79. 64a.
    Michael Clemmesen, ‘The Politics of Danish Defence 1967–1993’, in Adaptation and Activism: The Foreign Policy of Denmark 1967–1993, ed. C. Due-Nielsen and N. Petersen (Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing, 1995).Google Scholar
  80. 65.
    Jens Ringsmose, “Frihedens assurancepræmie”: Danmark, NATO og forsvarsbudgetterne [“The insurance premium of freedom”: Denmark, NATO and defence budgets] (Odense: University of Southern Denmark, 2006).Google Scholar
  81. 66.
    Peter Viggo Jakobsen, Nordic Approaches to Peace Operations: A New Model in the Making (Oxon: Routledge Press, 2009).Google Scholar
  82. 67.
    See for instance Nikolaj Petersen, Europæisk og globalt engagement: 1973–2003: Dansk udenrigspolitisk historie bd. 6 [European and global engagement: 1973–2003: Danish foreign policy history volume 6] (Copenhagen: Danmarks Nationalleksikon, 2004), 272, andGoogle Scholar
  83. 67a.
    DIIS, Danmark under Den Kolde Krig: Den sikkerhedspolitisk situation, bd. 3 [Denmark during the Cold War: The political and security situation, volume 3] (Copenhagen: Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier, 2005), 108–30.Google Scholar
  84. 68.
    Peter Viggo Jakobsen, ‘Denmark at War: Turning Point or Business as Usual?’, in Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2000, ed. Bertel Heurlin and Hans Mouritzen (Copenhagen: Danish Institute of International Affairs, 2000), 61–85.Google Scholar
  85. 69.
    Background interviews with former US senior officials, August 2013.Google Scholar
  86. 70.
    Danish Ministry of Defence, Bilag 2 Tidligere dansk deltagelse i internationale operationer [Appendix 2 Previous Danish engagement in international operations] (Copenhagen: Ministry of Defence, 2010), 6, https://doi.org/www.fmn.dk/temaer/veteraner/veteranpolitik/Pages/Veteranrapporten.aspx, (accessed September 30, 2013).
  87. 71.
    Ritzau, ‘Forsvarsminister: Krigen er prisen værd, [Defence Minister: The war is worth the price], January 16, 2012, https://doi.org/www.information.dk/telegram/290596 (accessed October 10, 2013).Google Scholar
  88. 72.
    Christian Brøndum and Marie Tromborg Petterson, ‘Danmarks krig i Irak kostede 2,4 milliarder kroner, [Danish war in Iraq costs 2.4 billion kroner], Berlingske, December 2, 2007.Google Scholar
  89. 73.
    Poul Høi and Ole Damkjær, ‘Amerikansk kritik af dansk Irak-indsats, [American criticism of Danish contribution in Iraq], Berlingske Tidende, September 4, 2003.Google Scholar
  90. 74.
    Anders Henriksen and 0449999999 Ringsmose, ‘What Did Denmark Gain? Iraq, Afghanistan and the Relationship with Washington’, in Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2012, ed. Nanna Hvidt and Hans Mouritzen (Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, 2012), 157–81.Google Scholar
  91. 75.
    Interview with former White House senior official, June 2011.Google Scholar
  92. 76.
    Interview with former State Department senior official, June 2011. Similar views were expressed in interviews with former officials in the Bush-administration, June 2011 and August/September 2013.Google Scholar
  93. 77.
    Interview with Danish intelligence official, May 2013.Google Scholar
  94. 78.
    Interview with senior official, the Ministry of Defence, Copenhagen, September 2011.Google Scholar
  95. 79.
    Nikolaj Petersen, ‘Hinsides Den Kolde Krig: Danmarks internationale ordenspolitik 1990–2009 [Beyond the Cold War: Denmark’s international order 1990–2009]’, in Nye fronter i Den Kolde Krig [New fronts in the Cold War], ed. Carsten Due-Nielsen, Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2010).Google Scholar
  96. 80.
    Jakob Nielsen, ‘Bush hjalp Fogh med Natojob’, Politiken, July 28, 2013.Google Scholar
  97. 81.
    Henriksen and Ringsmose, ‘What Did Denmark Gain?’.Google Scholar
  98. 82.
    Peter Viggo Jakobsen and Karsten Jakob Møller, ‘Good News: Libya and the Danish Way of War’, in Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2012, ed. Nanna Hvidt and Hans Mouritzen (Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, 2012), 106–30.Google Scholar
  99. 83.
    Ole Vigant Ryborg and Noa Redington, ‘Fogh: Danmark må gøre op med småstats-mentaliteten, [Fogh: Denmark must break with the small-state mentality], Mandag Morgen, September 11, 2006.Google Scholar
  100. 84.
    Conversations with Danish diplomats suggest that the potential benefits flowing from a strong US-Danish relationship played a greater role in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs than in the Danish parliament.Google Scholar
  101. 85.
    Henriksen and Ringsmose, ‘What Did Denmark Gain?’, 172–3.Google Scholar
  102. 86.
    Nick Hopkins, ‘Not Like Bloody Belgium’ Blunder by Admiral Causes Outrage’, The Guardian, September 22, 2011.Google Scholar
  103. 87.
    For a good overview of this debate see Porter, ‘Last Charge of the Knights?’.Google Scholar
  104. 88.
    Interview with Danish official, May 2014; Associated Press, ‘Denmark Backs Military Strike in Syria’, August 29, 2013; Peter Viggo Jakobsen, ‘Out in Front in Pursuit of Pride, Praise and Position — The Libya Campaign Seen from Copenhagen’, in Political Rationale and International Consequences of the Libya War, ed. Dag Henriksen and Ann Karin Larssen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).Google Scholar
  105. 89.
    Dobson and Marsh, ‘Benign Neglect’, 275–6.Google Scholar
  106. 90.
    Erik Holstein, ‘Danmark i USA’s fodspor, [Denmark in the footsteps of USA], https://doi.org/www.altinget.dk, September 5, 2013, https://doi.org/www.altinget.dk/artikel/129406-danmark-i-usas-fodspor (accessed June 11, 2014).Google Scholar
  107. 91.
    Michael Clarke, The Helmand Decision, Whitehall Papers, 77, no. 1 (2011): 18–21.Google Scholar
  108. 92.
    For an elaboration of this point see Dobson and Marsh, ‘Benign Neglect’, 273–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of StrategyThe Royal Danish Defence AcademyCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Center for War StudiesUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations