top of page
Writer's pictureLaurence Claussen

The New Atlantic Charter: Part One

The United States, represented by Joe Biden, and the United Kingdom, represented by Boris Johnson, agreed to a renewed Atlantic Charter on June 10th, just before this year’s G7 summit in Cornwall. The timing of this event could hardly be more perfect. The recent agreement comes almost exactly eighty years after the original Atlantic Charter, when FDR and Winston Churchill, while off the coast of Newfoundland, agreed to a set of principles for the post-WWII world. Then, the globe was rocked by war, fascism, and waves of humanitarian catastrophe. Now, we face the worst pandemic in a century. Plus, both the US and the UK have just seen four years of some of their worst domestic political upheaval in decades. It is easy to see why both countries, and the Western World as a whole, are eager for a new start.


Indeed, this new charter, just like the first, is profoundly interwoven with the domestic and foreign policy goals of both leaders. Biden has spoken often of a historic inflection point in international politics, and at home he seeks to recall FDR’s transformative economic and social legacy. Johnson wants to lead the UK into a more flexible, more prosperous, and more influential post-Brexit future, a future where his country is no longer looked down at as the pariah of Europe. And all of this is wrapped in the wider context of a fragile transatlantic alliance; where once Western Europe and North America stood side by side as the self-proclaimed guardians of democracy and peace, now many question the basic sense of that old association.


The new Atlantic Charter is, for all these reasons, a big deal. It has been noted and analyzed by astute commentators for weeks now, and I want to join the conversation. At first I figured this could be done in a single post, but I quickly realized that there is just too much to tease apart. So, this is the first of three articles I will write on the subject.


this is the first of three articles I will write on the subject.

Here, I will address a single question: compared to its predecessor, is the new charter more symbolic than pragmatic, meant to express shared values and ideals but promising no systemic substantive changes?


To be clear, both charters are, by their very nature, idealistic documents, meant to be short and powerful statements rather than exhaustive, meticulous plans. But it is still worth considering how the new stacks up against the old, because the most important legacy of the 1941 agreement was its practical effects. Even at the time, it was not some pie-in-the-sky delusion; it had serious implications because it was taken seriously by both sides when post-war institutions had to be crafted. It shaped the world in tangible ways by serving both as a constraint and beacon for post-war policy.


So, is the new charter more bark than bite?


My gut reaction to this is ‘yes;’ yes, the new Atlantic Charter is more symbolic than the old because the respective circumstances surrounding each are so different. The only reason the original Atlantic Charter happened is because there was an actual war going on. It made sense for allies like the US and the UK to hammer out the terms of their post-war vision; had there been severe disagreements between the two powers on territorial sovereignty or free trade, it is unlikely they would put much effort into fighting alongside each other. Moreover, both sides could rest assured that they would have an opportunity to put their principles into effect. Assuming the good guys won, there would logically follow a Western-dominated peace conference. And in the long scope of human history, there is no better time to enforce a new world order than at the peace conference following a great, generational war (see 1919, 1815, 1763, 1648, etc.). The 2021 Charter does come at a time of great tumult and change, but there is no obvious path for the US and UK to actually realize the ideals in the document. Even though the COVID Pandemic will undoubtedly create windows of opportunity for great progress, only messy, multilateral negotiation between vastly different sets of interests can make anything of them. With the hegemony of the West in 1945, messy multilateralism was comparatively minor. And while the transatlantic alliance remains important, a statement of agreement on global problems that doesn’t include EU, Asian, and African partners has limited practical significance.


At the same time, there are good reasons why the new Atlantic Charter is not just a bit of symbolism. For one, the Trump administration demonstrated that there is another vision of America lurking out there. Trump gave every self-respecting European internationalist nightmares for four years, leaving many seriously questioning the long-term strategic alignment of Europe and America. And after years of little England rhetoric, some doubted that Johnson would put much stock in grand, ambitious foreign policy. So, at the very least, the June 10th agreement signals a major shift in how two of the world’s most powerful countries will behave on the world stage. We might already be seeing this in action, with the new global corporate tax, updated climate protocols and legislation, and renewed confrontational posturing with China. None of this was caused by the new Atlantic Charter, of course, but such developments suggest that a revitalized strategic partnership is underway; and so far this partnership seems guided and framed by the language of the June 10th.


a revitalized strategic partnership is underway

Ultimately, it is too soon to pass final judgment on the charter. Much depends on the next few years: whether major forward strides like the global tax continue to happen; whether the world really changes after COVID; whether Biden’s vision of America lasts past 2024. I continue to anticipate disappointment. I don’t believe the world is primed for some great reset like in 1945. But I also see reason for optimism. After all, the existence of a renewed Atlantic Charter was by no means predetermined; the 80th anniversary could have come and gone without a peep, had an election or two swung differently. In any case, I look forward to writing more about this subject.

Comments


bottom of page