Newly appointed Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson was hosting his US counterpart in London for a bilateral meeting where they discussed the relationship between the two countries on defence.

Williamson said:

“Well, it’s an enormous privilege to welcome you here to the Ministry of Defence.  In a few days’ time, both our nations will mark Remembrance Sunday.  The UK has been the United States’ closest partner for a century now, from fighting in the trenches in the First World War to tackling Daesh today.

So, my first bilateral meeting with Secretary Mattis is a chance to continue strengthening our special relationship. So, we’ve got a pretty busy agenda, I think, ahead of us, but making sure that we’re actually being able to not just back up our relationship with words, but also in actions and deeds. 

And we face some major threats, going forward.  We have to be constantly vigilant to defeat the Daesh death cult. This year, they’ve murdered citizens in New York, Manchester and London.  We must continue to confront increased Russian aggression, and deal with the disruptive and dangerous behavior of North Korea.  We must never, ever flinch in the face of aggression.

Second, we need to sharpen our future capability.  We’re proud that the United Kingdom is one of only six NATO countries hitting the 2 percent defence spending target, and today, we’re using our budget to spend 178 billion pounds on everything from F-35 fighters to some of the greatest aircraft carriers in the world.  As we look to the future, we want to turn shared challenges into greater opportunities to work together.

Finally, we will be bolstering our shared prosperity.  We’re proud that the U.S. and U.K.’s defence trading relationship is worth 3 billion pounds a year, and we want to build on that as part of our relationship as a global Britain.

The United Kingdom and the United States, when we are united, quite simply, the world is a safer and better place. And let us make sure that unity continues going forward.”

The following is a transcript of the speech given by Secretary of Defense Mattis:

“Secretary of State for Defense, I would just tell you, Secretary Williamson, that we are committed to everything that you just said; specifically, to strengthening what you and I have inherited here in our respective jobs.

I appreciate you hosting me on my third visit to London as secretary of defense.  And I congratulate you on the appointment, the confidence that your country, your prime minister, your queen have placed in you, because your forces are a treasure — a national treasure to the U.K., but one we respect greatly.

And it’s good to continue a conversation after being together for the last two days as well in Brussels.  And thank you for the U.K.’s efforts to strengthen deterrence in the North Atlantic, modernize NATO, and increase contributions to defeat ISIS, which I saw in action the last two days at the ministerial.

As Churchill said in 1946, “Should our two nations join forces and convictions in what is called fraternal association, the high road to the future will be clear, not only for us, but for all; and not only for our time, but for a century to come.”  And that is the responsibility, I think, that you and I now must demonstrate in how we carry out these jobs.

And in that spirit, the U.K. and U.S. maintain an unmatched, enduring special relationship that is not an artificial or historical artifact.  In fact, it’s a pathway for our future.  Its exemplified common values and democratic ideals, which I look forward to reinforcing alongside you.

Our countries have more than 200 years of shared history, over a century of shared battlefield experiences, and a robust record of diplomatic cooperation in support of our security interests.  And from the Marne in World War I, to the beaches of Normandy in World War II, to the Chosin Reservoir in the Korea campaign, to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria today, our forces are proud to stand alongside yours to face down any enemy.

Today, we face what you just described as a volatile and dynamic security environment, and we stand united in condemning North Korea’s aggressive provocation and violation of international law, the Russian Federation’s violation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, and Iran’s destabilizing influence across the Middle East.  Together, we send a message of trans-Atlantic resolve.

In the face of today’s challenges, we value the U.K.’s leadership on the European and global stages.  For many years, Britain has galvanized the international community through the power of its moral voice, and today, I look forward to strengthening that special relationship in defense of our way of life.”

45
Leave a Reply

avatar
13 Comment threads
32 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
20 Comment authors
johnChrisLee HElliottDaniele Mandelli Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Geoffrey Roach
Guest
Geoffrey Roach

Excellent. Now all we need, Mr Williamson is a defence budget that properly provides the means to back the words so that we can continue with what is a very special relationship.

No more cuts, no more reductions, no more crazy, albeit speculative ideas about destroying our amphibious capability and in particular an absolute commitment to keeping our Royal Marines at their current strength.

If we have to prove our willingness to any other country in this troubled world it is surely the United States. I am sure they will not take kindly to another round of penny pinching.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

As always agree with you Geoffrey. I fear though as usual the Treasury do not feel the same way.

Lee H
Guest
Lee H

US Sec Def named 7 conflicts in his speech. One British unit has appeared in all seven.
Any guesses?

Tim
Guest
Tim

Royal Marines.

Lee H
Guest
Lee H

US Marine Corps General reminding those around him where his heritage lies.

mac
Guest
mac

Cringe inducing Load of shite.

This ‘special relationship’ is a work of fiction that the post WWII political class in the UK cling to for reasons best known to themselves.

The Americans would cut us loose in a heart beat if it suited their strategic interests.

As the old saying went, ‘No allies, just interests’.

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

If you were involved with military or intelligence communities you would not say such rubbish.

It’s a free country so troll away.

Geoffrey Roach
Guest
Geoffrey Roach

Thank you for such a meaningful and coherent contribution. Political classes? you mean the people who post here? Give me a break.

David Steeper
Guest

Mike Saul I agree with most of what I read from you but the US has only one special relationship and that’s Israel. I’ll ask a question to all of you that I hope you think about. How did the special relationship work in Palestine, Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez, Aden, Borneo, Belize and the Falklands ? When in all of history has the US fought alongside the UK because of the ‘Special Relationship’ If you want to judge the true value of it I would suggest you read up on Suez and the Falklands.

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

I think things have moved on in recent times, given the threat from global terrorism and the UKs excellent intelligence services the US now recognises us as an important partner in the fight against terrorism.

The US and Israeli partnership is also one for them but for different reasons.

Chris
Guest
Chris

David Steeper – Nail on the head over Israel (and Suez was a related matter as well). It is an interesting relationship where the nation being aided comprehensively by $ Bns in cash every January actually dictates US Middle East policy. It is a hard political fact that no Candidate criticising Israel will ever become a President. I wouldn’t call it a ‘Special Relationship’ it is more a ‘Curious and Incestuous Relationship’ It was right you listed Palestine first in your observation of how little the USA turns out for us in OUR need contrary to how we turn out… Read more »

Elliott
Guest
Elliott

Steeper if you want debate the Special Relationship. Do not bring up the Falklands. America’s relationship with the UK gave Britain weapons and intel. While insuring America’s nonintervention, when traditional policy (Monroe Doctrine) would have been to side with the country in America’s hemisphere in all things. Palestine well when the US Army rolled into the death camps in Germany how do you think think the American public to, “Displaced Persons Camps,” on Cyprus. Plus you would have to add for Israel’s favor in America one value is treasured above all else Loyalty. In addition Malaya, Kenya and Aden right… Read more »

Chris
Guest
Chris

Elliott – regarding the Falklands the US gave us diddley squat Intelligence as they had no satellite capability (of the required type) over the South Atlantic in 1982. The Norwegians apparently did have access and they gave us key intelligence. We also got direct Intell. from friendly South American countries. As regards weapons yes the USA allowed us to re-supply Sidewinders direct from US stocks rather than wait for the longer UK purchase / supply chain. But we got nothing else. And please don’t mention the Iwo Jima. And shall we discuss the way Haig and Kirkpatrick were busy doing… Read more »

Elliott
Guest
Elliott

The traditional foreign policy of the United States is NO intervention by any Foreign power against ANY country in the Americas. First espoused in the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary then set into treaty by the Rio Pact. All of those are far older than NATO and required the US government to engage in VERY creative interpretations. The Western Hemisphere, the United States until relatively recently has seen itself as being a creature of the New World not the Old. A sentiment that since 03 is enjoying a bit of a Renaissance. As for Reagan asking Thatcher to lay off.… Read more »

dave12
Guest
dave12

kremlin paid troll is macski ignore it

Chris
Guest
Chris

mac – well thanks for a contribution of precisely nothing. But oddly enough you point out the reality that keeps us close to the USA – It is in their interest to have access to our world beating intelligence on the widest aspects of security. We are not a key player in ‘5 Eyes’ for nothing. I dare say like all our relationships with the USA they get more out of it than we get from them but such is the way of the world. We don’t kid ourselves.

Ian
Guest
Ian

So, Williamson trotting out same old boilerplate nonsense as Farron, hiding behind a frigged and discredited 2% without discussing capability. For military & security ties its true, the UK is the US special partner – but that lasts for as long as our defence spending allows us to do that. Otherwise there’s no such thing as the special relationship. Whatever pernicious nonsense Trump spouts, America has always been ruthless in pursuing its own interests first. Israel, Saudi, China, Germany to name a few are all far more important than UK. UK relationship with US suffers from Stockholm syndrome and we… Read more »

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

Bollox

Tim62
Guest
Tim62

@Mike I understand your rejection of this, but when you spend time in Washington you pretty soon realise the truth of it. Yes the UK is important to the US, we provide added muscle and helpful international cover at times of crisis. But it doesn’t go any further than that inside the Beltway among the political class. We are politically important – up to a point. (Never mind the close personal ties our militaries have – that is not the issue.
Remember, it’s explicitly ‘America First’.
Best wishes Tim

Ian
Guest
Ian

Indeed Tim. I think Mike (& Dave) chose to completely ignore my second paragraph.

Dave L
Guest
Dave L

My sentiments exactly – well said Mike!!

Ian
Guest
Ian

Mike, Dave – take my comments as a whole and explain why it’s bollox?

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

Your views are your views but to describe the UK as a hostage to the US suffering Stockholm syndrome is complete and utter bollox.

Both militaries and intelligence services work more closely together than ever before and that will continue.

The US realised it cannot make the world secure by itself it needs reliable partners and the UK has global reach in many areas.

Ian
Guest
Ian

Mike,

Are you deliberately ignoring my words?

‘For military & security ties its true, the UK is the US special partner’

Seems to me exactly what you were saying – no?

My point about Stockholm syndrome was not a military point but a wider political one because anytime in the business or geopolitical sphere will quickly disabuse you of any ‘special relationship’

joe
Guest
joe

Cringe.

In reality the UK’s dwindling defence capability is a laughing stock globally.

If Britain didn’t have nukes, it would have nothing.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Here we go again….

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

“Laughing Stock”

Dear oh dear.

“It would have nothing”

You clearly know bugger all about high tech military and intelligence capabilities do you?

joe
Guest
joe

I know that 5 functioning “high tech” destroyers means nothing globally. I know that the couple of SSNs that are deployable on any given day does not shake the world. I know that a couple of squadrons worth of aging interceptors doesn’t make Russia or China quake. I know that 76,000 troops, a vastly disproportionate number of which being non-combat and/or the brass terrifies no one. I know that having fewer tanks than Switzerland has those of us not in the UK laughing our asses of. Come outside the Brit-bubble. Is Britain’s military feared? No Is Britain’s military admired? Increasingly… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Wow. Where to begin? 195 countries in the world, and you’re talking like the UK is still a Superpower? Which country in South America is superior? With a wide range of capabilities, training, logistics, know how, technology? Name that nation please? Which in Africa? Which in Europe? France? Germany? Which in Asia excluding China and India? Japan possibly? South Korea possibly, with good reason with the threat on their doorstep. How many of them are superior to the British Armed Forces in equipment, training, experience, reputation? Not many. How many have the wide range of capabilities that the UK has?… Read more »

Elliott
Guest
Elliott

Correct, Daniele.

Chris
Guest
Chris

Daniele Mandelli – You just offered an utterly brilliant demolition of the usual naysayer negativity of which we see far too much on here and in commentary in general.
I would love for this country to have 10% the pride and belief the Americans have in their country. Its especially sad when we have 100 times more reason to BE that proud than they do. As you so brilliantly expounded.

Mike Saul
Guest
Mike Saul

The USA/UK defence and intelligence relationship is indeed a very special one and long may it continue

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Seconded.

Geoffrey Roach
Guest
Geoffrey Roach

Thirded!? Yes I know, but I thought I had made the point in my first post and that is to maintain the special relationship we have to increase spending. I don’t expect any body to put their country second and our American cousins certainly won’t. Why should they?

Elliott
Guest
Elliott

Agreed.

john
Guest
john

As long as it suits the USA.

Rover10
Guest
Rover10

An Even closer military relationship is the only rational way forward, as the political and military complexion begins to change in Europe. In terms of security, the formation of the EUDF will place great strains on NATO and how it will all integrate in the early years, is anyone’s bet? The US- British alliance needs to strengthen in order to offer a credible defence against an aggressive-minded Russia. A conglomerate of EU nations attempting to dilute its reliance on American might and influence, is to some extent understandable, especially under Trump’s management. Any active anti-US voices in Brussels will be… Read more »

Elliott
Guest
Elliott

The miscalculation there is Trump is a side effect not cause. Could he be a passing tremor? Possibly, but and this is a big one if Brussels continues on it’s path and it’s policy of whining then whoever succeeds Trump will be even more Anti-EU. Trump’s opinions come from a wave of resentment that has been growing in America since the 60s and especially since 2003. That the only beneficiary of American military commitment to Europe is Euro tax payers and welfare beneficiaries. All while EU governments engage in moral proselytizing to America on everything from Foreign Policy, Immigration, and… Read more »

Dave Branney
Guest
Dave Branney

There is a”Special Relationship” between the US and the UK Military. We overly depend on the US for many things such as their weapon stockpiles, but most importantly it is there numbers or to put it bluntly boots on the ground that we rely on. On many major Operational Deployments we are generally subservient to their command structure, which brings in to conflict their much looser rules of engagement. We definitely punch above our weight with regard to the numbers we deploy or with the equipment we use, but this has always been the case. Successive UK Governments since the… Read more »

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

Dave I agree that businesses are broadly in it for themselves – it is their reason for existing and even that gets confusing as a lot of businesses don’t even treat their owners (shareholders) with respect. I do think that there is a very good argument to set up a £10bn pa R&D budget for the UK that gives a wide variety of universities and companies the ability to get funds to create new intellectual property. Some of this could be humanitarian (clean water for instance), ecological (cleaner fuels) or communications (perhaps starting with military comms). Post Brexit we will… Read more »

Evan P
Guest
Evan P

I do believe that the UK and US are strong partners at present. However, I don’t disagree with people suggesting that when it comes down to it, the US would turn away if it suited them. I’m much happier being friends with them than the Russians, but I think it would be naive to assume that they would “have our back” regardless of the situation. Countries don’t survive if they care too much about others when it isn’t in their own best interests. History shows how strong a partner the US is to other countries when it doesn’t want to… Read more »

Geoffrey Roach
Guest
Geoffrey Roach

U K security review postponed. Now likely to be reporting in 2018!

FrankLT
Guest
FrankLT

That 2% achievement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. We got there by creative accounting/spin, not by increasing either spending or capability. What we urgently need is a reversal of troop, equipment & capability cuts. We must be able to defend our nation & interests in the event we’re ever let down by allies. Perish the thought, but how cwuld we fare if faced with an all-out war from our current nadir? How quickly could we train & equip 1/2-1 million troops? Build ships, aircraft, artilliary & AFVs? So much of our equipment has systems from abroad-how could we… Read more »

Elliott
Guest
Elliott

Full court press scenario? Ships 2-3yrs for a T26 sized unit 20 months if the yards hit their stride and have worked out the kinks. Attack subs the bottle neck is reactors and stealth materials so maybe 25-32 months unless the RN builds diesels again then 20-24 months. Carriers difficult to calculate with only 2 examples made in the UK recently and the construction times went down between them so I can’t account for war production, assume less than 4. Artillery is easier. BAE would just have to import some tooling from it’s American holdings. AFVs wheeled ones easy. Tracked… Read more »

Lee H
Guest
Lee H

Morning all Lots of points of view above but one of the reasons that the special relationship exists is one of necessity. We need them as much as they need us. Politically it gives the US legitimacy and a sounding board, a friendly view from outside the US. Militarily it gives them flexibility. Whilst large in size they cannot be everywhere at the same time (7th fleet for example) so having that relationship with the U.K. helps the load get shared. From submarine patrols to air policing patrols in Southern Europe we share responsibility – soon to be enhanced even… Read more »