Giving the Atlantic Charter a Face-Lift on Its 60th AnniversaryNews Abroad
President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter at a secret summit on a warship off Newfoundland, declaring in broad terms their joint humanitarian, strategic and commercial goals. The agreement signaled an end to American neutrality and isolation.
The Charter gave rise to the term"Atlanticism," denoting a special relationship between two English-speaking countries separated by an ocean but sharing a heritage of culture, ideas, open markets and free trade.
Roosevelt wanted to introduce moral and practical standards into postwar arrangements. He also wanted to define a role for the United States in international affairs while increasing cooperation with the British. The Atlantic Charter echoed the Four Freedoms speech Roosevelt had delivered seven months earlier to Congress, an address that declared worldwide goals freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear and aggression.
In the Charter, the United States indirectly undermined British colonialism by stressing postwar self-determination and self-government, but mollified the British by promising crucial support against Germany. Although a British undersecretary for war called the Atlantic Charter"great poppycock," its contents gave rise to the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Today, the United States and Britain compete economically and have different interests. In addition, the United States is focusing its policies more on Asia while Britain is drawing closer to Europe.
The British are governed by a Labor Party that is friendly to environmental concerns, would like to avoid an arms race with China and Russia, and tends to pressure Israel to be more conciliatory toward the Palestinians. The United States, by contrast, is led by Republicans who are more receptive to industrial, business and military points of view in using natural resources and handling international relations. There is so far little chemistry between the statesmen at the helm of these countries.
Could a new Atlantic charter help bridge these differences? A new charter, signed perhaps by leaders of all industrial nations, might be based on democracy and free trade. It could sanction political and commercial cooperation against the global recession, against endemic poverty and lawlessness in the developing world, and propose strategies for dealing with AIDS, nuclear proliferation, terrorism and rogue nations.
A new charter could launch an inclusive Western agenda into the twenty-first century. It could embrace poor, ethnic and religious communities at home and abroad. The United States and Britain could benefit from assuming a new global leadership role, replicating their finest hour 60 years ago.
This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.
comments powered by Disqus
Frank Branzuela - 4/19/2004
The history of the Atlantic Charter should be the subject of a book. Especially interesting would be a list of all the authoritative historical publications that state unequivocally that the Atlantic Charter was signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill on Aug. 14, 1941. Actually, they didn't sign it on August 14th. They didn't ever sign it. There has never been a signed copy of the Atlantic Charter. Some sources say that the Charter was a communique rather than an official document. It was a typed news release given to the American and British radio operators on board the ships at the conference held off the coast of Newfoundland. It's release was intended to explain away the purpose of the secret conference in the Atlantic. For well over 60 years respected historians have been citing the Aug. 14, 1941 signature date, and none of them seem to have gone to the bother to refer to source documents. There are no signatures on the documents in the U.S. Archives. It was a news release. We have been parroting a deception for over 60 years. We do so want to believe what our leaders tell us, don't we?
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Newly released interactive map shows images of destroyed monuments of Mosul
- How the Rise of the Post Office Explains American Innovation
- These Americans are reliving history and don’t mind repeating it
- Britain largest home is saved for the nation
- Shelter and the slums: capturing bleak Britain 50 years ago
- WSJ features an article by a conservative calling for the abolition of Black History Month
- Mary Beard, herself a bestselling author, wonders why more women historians aren't
- Princeton U. historian Imani Perry claims mistreatment in parking ticket arrest
- Retired historian George Dennison remains on the payroll at the U. of Montana while faculty are cut
- The Atlantic profiles exciting ways to teach history