It's been more than 80 years since the last state visit to Britain by an American president.

The year was 1919 and the visitor was Woodrow Wilson, who had led America into World War I on the side of the Allies to help ensure the defeat of the central European powers.

Since then, many American presidents have visited London, but always on an official visit. The difference? On an official visit the guest is received as the head of a foreign government; on a state visit, he is received as a head of state. Before World War I, most heads of state were reigning royalty from the continent of Europe. Today they are more often executive presidents who are often both heads of state and government. In the British system, the monarch is head of state, while the prime minister is the head of government.

The practical difference is this: foreign leaders on state visits stay at Buckingham Palace as guests of Queen Elizabeth II where they are wined and dined at great expense—and there are only two state visits a year. The last state visit was by Russia's President Vladimir Putin.

The state visit of President Bush to London emphasized the strengthened relationship between the two countries. Often referred to as "the special relationship," the formal alliance between the United States and Britain goes back to the Atlantic Charter of 1941, when British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met with President Franklin Roosevelt in Bermuda.

At the time, the British and their empire were standing alone against Nazi Germany and needed help. The United States offered help, receiving in return access to British military facilities throughout the Empire. The two nations didn't know it at the time, but a long-lasting alliance had been formed that would preserve the freedoms of the Western world for the remainder of the century and beyond.

Nineteenth-century German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck had predicted that the most significant geopolitical fact of the coming 20th century was that the United States and Britain spoke the same language. They also shared similar values.

Until World War II, Great Britain, the British Empire and Commonwealth carried the military burden of defending the free world. Franklin Roosevelt reminded Britain's King George VI in 1939 that the British Empire remained America's first line of defense. By the end of World War II, the roles were effectively reversed.

In 1940, when Britain and its empire stood alone against Germany, American historian James Truslow Adams wrote: "In this great crisis, we in America have a great stake... Different peoples may have different ideals of government but 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 would rush, but the strongest bulwark outside ourselves for our own safety and freedom would have been destroyed" (The British Empire, 1789-1939, p. 358).

Adams' chilling prediction was fulfilled. The postwar world has seen more conflicts than in any comparable period of world history, in spite of the existence of the United Nations formed towards the end of World War II. The last 13 years have also seen a dramatic increase in conflict around the world in the aftermath of the Cold War. The end of great empires leaves a vacuum that may take decades to fill.

As the British Empire crumbled following World War II, the United States took over Britain's leading role in policing the world and preserving the freedom of the Western nations. During this period, Britain was to remain a firm ally of America. Only twice have the two countries failed to support each other—and each time they lost.

In 1956 Britain, together with France and Israel, invaded Egypt. Britain's primary purpose was to take back the Suez Canal, recently seized by Egypt's government. America's failure to support the three nations led to a humiliating withdrawal, which, in turn, led to the rapid dismantling of what remained of the British and French Empires.

Some years later the United Kingdom failed to support the United States in Vietnam. America suffered a similar humiliating defeat.

Each nation has had its own minor conflicts since World War II, but whenever there has been a bigger challenge, the two countries have usually acted together and victory has been the end result. It seems as if each country has its strengths and the two countries complement each other. Whereas Americans are risk-takers and usually attack with a strong initial force, the British are better peacekeepers, pacifying peoples after a conflict.

Without realizing it, the two nations have been fulfilling their prophesied role. After prophesying that Joseph's two sons would become both "a multitude of nations" and a "great" nation (the British Commonwealth and the United States of America), Jacob called his sons together to tell them "what shall befall [them] in the last days" (Genesis 48:19; 49:1).

Jacob prophesied how "Joseph is a fruitful bough, a fruitful bough by a well; his branches run over the wall"—a prophecy about the great prosperity that each nation would bring to the world, along with a military role mentioned in the following two verses. "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 49:22-24). Interestingly, here Joseph is mentioned as one, meaning that both sons' descendants would be fulfilling this passage, perhaps even sometimes together. This has certainly been the case historically.

But now there could be a dramatic change in their relationship.

Change of roles

Dean Acheson, secretary of State during the Truman administration, observed in a speech at West Point in 1962, "Great Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role." After leading its Empire and Commonwealth for almost four centuries, ensuring its security "beyond the seas," the British dramatically changed course. He added, "Britain's attempt to play a separate power role, a role based on a 'special relationship' with the United States, a role based on being the head of a 'Commonwealth'...this role is about to be played out... Her Majesty's Government is now attempting, wisely in my opinion, to re-enter Europe."

At the time of his speech, Mr. Acheson was an adviser to the Kennedy administration, which encouraged Britain to join Europe, desiring a reliable ally in the new European Common Market.

When the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957, thus creating the European Economic Community (EEC), the British were not interested in joining. Within five years, the British sought membership in the new European trading bloc. Their first application received a resounding "Non" from French President Charles de Gaulle in 1962. A second application some years later received an encouraging "Oui" from de Gaulle's successor; and the United Kingdom, with Ireland and Denmark, entered the EEC on Jan. 1, 1973.

It was a fateful decision.

At the time, most British people were unaware of the implications. Others in Europe were determined that the EEC should become "an ever closer union," leading eventually to full economic, monetary, political and military union.

Thirty years later, the first two have been achieved. What is now called the European Union is a full economic and almost complete monetary union. There are 15 member nations, with another 10 set to join in May 2004. Out of the present 15, 12 are in full monetary union, all using the same currency, the euro, which has the potential of becoming the preferred currency around the world, replacing the American dollar.

Economic and monetary union accomplished, the EU member nations are now set on full political and military union.

A European defense force, outside of NATO and opposed by the United States, is in the process of being formed. At the same time, a new European constitution is due to come into effect. This would effectively terminate the independence of each European nation, reducing each country to a status similar to an American state within a federal system. As Germany and France are the two nations in the driving seat of the new European train, domination of a United Europe would fall to them. In fact, it would fall to Germany, the dominant economic continental power. Germany, with the biggest population in the new Europe, will have the most votes in the new federal structure. French aspirations to lead the new federal Europe cannot be realized without continued German support, unlikely once the federal power is fully realized.

Over three decades ago, when the British were contemplating a second application to join the EEC, nobody foresaw this. For centuries, the British have always resisted attempts to unify Europe, realizing their own security would be threatened by a dominant European power. Now they have inadvertently stumbled into helping to create the very force they were for centuries committed to thwarting!

If actually put into force with many of its present stipulations, the end result of the new European constitution will be the effective end of a sovereign United Kingdom. This, in turn, would mean the end of the Anglo-American alliance, which has contributed greatly to preserving the freedom of the West. History suggests that the absence of Britain would make a big difference to future military actions for the United States and vice versa.

As a potential province of a federal Europe, British troops would inevitably be part of a European defense force. As Germany and France, in that order, will dominate the new federal Europe, Britain, ironically, will have handed over control of its military forces to the two nations that most threatened its existence during the last two centuries—France under Napoleon and Germany under first the kaiser and then Hitler.

State visit exacerbates divisions

President Bush's keynote speech during his visit to London extolled the Atlantic alliance formed in 1941, while ignoring the formal alliance of 1949 that established NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization). It may simply have been an oversight, but the fact remains that the continental European allies, many of whom failed to support the United States over Iraq, were excluded by this comment. While the Anglo-American alliance was praised by the visiting president, there was no reference to the bigger alliance that has been credited by many for preserving the peace and security of the West during the four decades of the Cold War.

There is also a further division looming that became more visible during the state visit.

Two terrorist bombings against British targets in Turkey on the Thursday morning served to emphasize a negative aspect of the "special relationship"—that both countries will increasingly be targeted by Islamic terrorist groups. A message from al-Qaeda following the bombings specifically mentioned the United States, Britain and Australia as prime targets—the three nations that were in the invading force sent to Iraq earlier this year. Other nations mentioned were Spain, Italy and Japan. The first two now have troops in Iraq, while Japan is hesitant to send troops following an attack on Italian troops, the biggest loss of Italian military personnel since World War II. Support for the military action in all three countries remains very low.

The fact that terrorists seem to be targeting American, British and Australian interests could further isolate them from other Western nations as they pursue their own self-interest.

Australia should not be forgotten. President Bush was not the only visitor to England in November. Earlier in the month, Australian Prime Minister John Howard visited London, where he dedicated a new memorial to Australia's war dead, tens of thousands of whom died in the two world wars, fighting alongside their British allies. Indeed, proportionately, more Australians gave their lives in World War I than peoples from any other nation. This was a war in which Australia was not directly threatened. But Australians were a part of the British Empire and identified very much with it at that time. Australia was a major part of the prophesied "multitude of nations," descendants of Joseph's son Ephraim.

Prime Minister Howard reminded those in attendance that Australia has "links with many but there is no nation in the world with which we share as much history, language, culture, patterns of humor and even sporting rivalry as Great Britain. To Australians, the British heritage is immense. Britain's most enduring gift to Australia has been the institutions which have tooled our natural instinct for democracy—parliamentary government, the rule of law and the tradition of a free and, uncomfortably on occasion, skeptical media. Tomorrow, with Her Majesty the Queen and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, I will unveil a memorial to those Australians who served with their British allies during the two great global conflicts of the last century... At this time we should recall those moments when the very survival of liberty seemed in peril..." (Australian Broadcasting Corporation Web site).

These nations now are increasingly isolated from the rest of the Western world, which often seems inclined to ignore the rising threat of terrorism, or even to appease the terrorists.

Entente cordiale vs. the special relationship

The leader of this faction, which has majority support at the United Nations, is France. French President Jacques Chirac arrived in London less than 48 hours after the U.S. president's departure, as Tony Blair attempted again to reestablish his pro-European credentials. To commemorate the centenary of the "entente cordiale," the alliance between Britain and France, which played a vital role in World War I, the queen has been invited to France next year for a state visit. The French president has similarly been invited to Britain later in the year.

Both leaders committed themselves to the new separate European defense force, saying that it would not undermine NATO.

The British prime minister is under great pressure at home. Partly this is because of his support for President Bush. Partly it is because the British perception is that the special relationship is one-sided, that Britain receives very little in return for its support of the United States. This perception is so extensive that Mr. Blair is often depicted in cartoons as "Bush's poodle."

In an editorial written on the eve of the president's visit to London, Newsweek's Stryker McGuire observed: "If Blair looks like a poodle, it's partly because he seems to get so little for his loyalty. 'Tony has walked the walk for Bush,' one of his ministers told Newsweek. 'We'd just like a little reciprocity.'" Blair, no admirer of Ariel Sharon, has found Bush immovable in his support of the Israeli prime minister. And Blair and his inner circle felt betrayed last month when Washington stepped in to criticize British efforts, with France and Germany, to create a modest European defense arrangement outside of NATO. Last week Blair aides were hopeful that the Bush visit would finally yield an American concession: a decision to rescind U.S. tariffs on steel imports.

"With reciprocity or without, Blair will stand by Bush. Despite Blair's reputation as an idealist, says the historian Ben Pimlott, 'he's essentially very practical.' Blair believes that for historical, cultural and economic reasons, the U.S.-British relationship is inviolable. 'You throw away a lot if you're an unreliable ally,' said Pimlott.

Yet Blair, when he meets Bush this week, may be inclined to make that very same point" ("Is the Poodle a Doberman?" Nov. 24, 2003).

In Mr. Blair's mind, it is possible to be both a good European and supportive of the United States. Convicted of this, he has said he is trying to be a bridge between the two. But, beset by increasing divisions over Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Kyoto treaty and trade, the bridge seems set to collapse. When it does, which side of the water Britain is on will go a long way to determining the future direction of the special relationship and of the Western democracies that have depended on the two English-speaking nations for their freedom for over 200 years. —WNP