GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES: A NONEXCLUSIVE PARTNERSHIP DEDICATED TO THE ATTAINMENT OF...

North Carolina Office of Archives and History

GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES: A NONEXCLUSIVE PARTNERSHIP DEDICATED TOTHE ATTAINMENT OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE, SECURITY, AND STABILITY THROUGHPEACEFUL MEANSAuthor(s): Patrick DeanSource: The North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. 44, No. 2 (April, 1967), pp. 161-165Published by: North Carolina Office of Archives and HistoryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23518040 .

Accessed: 09/06/2014 16:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

North Carolina Office of Archives and History is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The North Carolina Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.147 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:45:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncoah

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23518040?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES: A NONEXCLUSIVE PARTNERSHIP DEDICATED TO THE ATTAINMENT OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE.

SECURITY, AND STABILITY THROUGH PEACEFUL MEANS

By Sir Patrick Dean*

When I was first approached by the organizers of these celebra tions, I received a number of letters addressed to "Sir Patrick Dean,"

which, of course, was quite normal and absolutely correct. As the

correspondence went on I noticed, however, that my name under

went a subtle change and I was increasingly referred to as "Sir Patrick

Henry Dean." I am used to this form of address by now, especially when I happen to be in Virginia.

When I was reading the excellent material sent to me by the North

Carolina Literary and Historical Association, I saw that there might be an additional reason for the use of my full name. This is that

apparently Joseph Winston, after whom the Winston part of Winston Salem was named, was related to Patrick Henry.

I had better tell you the truth at the outset that I was not named

after Patrick Henry. Nor do I know why I was christened thus because

I doubt very much whether my father and mother had it in mind at

that time that I should become Ambassador to the United States. So

far as I know the only obvious thing that Patrick Henry and I have in

common is that we started out as lawyers. After that our paths di

verged. He became very close, as he himself admitted, to becoming a rebel, while I have only changed from the striped pants of the law

yer to the stuffed shirt of the diplomatist. I am greatly honored to have been invited here to celebrate with

you the two hundredth anniversary of the founding of Salem.

* Sir Patrick Dean is the British Ambassador to the United States; this address was

made at the luncheon meeting of the Literary and Historical Association, December 2,

1966.



162 The North Carolina Historical Review

The story of this city is indeed fascinating and significant, too. To

begin with it is hard to imagine that it was ever possible to buy the tract of land known as Wachovia—some 100,000 acres—for £916. But

my history book tells me it was so. It was an arrangement arrived at

between the Moravians and Lord Granville, the last of the Lords

Proprietors of the colony, who held the counties bordering on Vir

ginia. The early settlers who came to Wachovia were from Penn

sylvania and were largely central European by origin. They decided that they wanted a "congregation town" where only members of the

Moravian church would live. That town began to grow in 1766 and

it was, significantly, I think, called Salem, from the Hebrew, meaning "peace." Before that, the territory which is now North Carolina had,

of course, been inhabited by a number of Indian tribes and was visited

by French, Spanish, and English explorers in the early sixteenth cen

tury. Then there were the very early attempts by the English to settle on Roanoke Island, some two hundred years before the

founding of Salem. And later much of the state was settled by Eng lishmen and Scottish Highlanders and people of mixed Scottish and Irish descent.

Now all these peoples, with their different religious, social, racial, and educational backgrounds have melded, through natural hardship and the vicissitudes of war, and have built and created, prospered and

expanded. This city is now, as we all know, one of the leading cultural

and manufacturing centers of the South. Britain has long enjoyed not

only a close cultural and historical association with North Carolina

and Winston-Salem, we also have very close and important business

ties as well.

So it seems appropriate and it is for me a great pleasure to take

this opportunity to say a few words to you about the position of our

two countries in the world today. Let me begin by saying that while Britain is no longer one of

the greatest powers because we have not the military might, eco

nomic strength, or the resources, or the populations of the United

States and Russia, we are nonetheless preeminently a worldwide

power with more interests, relationships, and commitments in every

part of the globe than any other power. As Mr. George Brown, the British Foreign Secretary, put it recently, we are "linked to the four

corners of the world, linked by trade, linked by the Commonwealth, linked by our Alliances." These ties have come to us through history and geography, and through the realities of international life today.

Though Britain is geographically roughly the same size as the state



Great Britain and the United States 163

of Oregon; hard put to it, up to now, too often for comfort, to make

both ends meet; though we have to import about half the food we

eat and nearly all the raw materials we need for our industry—we have nonetheless many blessings.

These include, above all, a spirit of independence, of determination, of adventure, of ingenuity and a desire to innovate and to invent, to

explore and to pioneer. Without them we certainly should not have

survived. We share these with you, just as we share a common history and, I believe, a common destiny. Today, at this stage in our long and at times stormy association, we can see certain things very clearly indeed. Above all, our two countries have reached a point where for

our own peoples at home and for the world at large we hope for and

are working toward, very broadly, the same things. This closeness of view and similarity in approach to world problems

is, of course, based upon many things. We are greatly helped by speak ing a common language—"The strongest and most durable of all

ties," as De Tocqueville wrote. We are like-minded in our fundamental

beliefs; the parliamentary system, the independent judiciary, the inalienable right of human beings to live in freedom and dignity under

law; that the state is made for man and not vice versa. There are

strong ties of blood, too.

But this common approach, based on our closely intermingled past, is not, I believe, in any way a narrow, myopic relationship. There is

no exclusivity about the partnership between Britain and the United States. Some people suggest that it is so, but they do so out of ignor ance. You may have come across this line of thought—that the partner

ship is in some way exclusive or preclusive—in the context of the

probings and soundings that are now going on about possible British

entry into the European Common Market. Perhaps people do not

always fully understand what we say. That of course may be our

fault. What we have in fact always tried to make clear is that we

could never take part in the building of a unified Europe if the cost

were to divide the Atlantic down the middle. Put another way, we

do not intend to narrow the English Channel by widening the Atlantic

Ocean. How could we? We know that it is vital for world peace and

stability as well as for our own individual national well-being that

the responsibilities and commitments of Europe and North America

should continue to be interdependent. I do not believe any nation, however great and powerful or small

and insignificant, can ever again be sure it would survive another

global war. In Britain's case another war of that kind is unthinkable:



164 The North Carolina Historical Review

we are far too vulnerable. For the seas that surround our islands,

though always our friend, can never again be the shield that they were in the past. So it would surely be an incredibly backward step if, after two disastrous world wars and tremendous efforts on the part of governments and people over the years to bring about greater

unity, we were now to go back on our tracks and deny all these

things. Are not the Commonwealth, the European Economic Com

munity, EFTA, NATO, SEATO, CENTO, the OAS, and the OAU, to mention only some of the main organizations, and above all the United

Nations itself, are they not all concrete, if imperfect, examples of

governments' and peoples' determination to work together, to ad

vance by peaceful cooperation rather than by any violent means?

Our way to international peace, security, and stability is to work

through peaceful means—negotiation, arbitration, mediation, consul

tation, and discussion within the framework of international law. In a

world where the old empires have broken up and the greater part of

the world's population is going through a period of change it is essen tial that we should try to ensure that that change is peaceful and not

violent.

In some of the newly—or relatively newly independent countries

poverty and ignorance and disease are extreme and the potential for

fermenting violence is extreme, too, as we have all unfortunately seen.

That is why those nations in the developed world, the United States

and Britain, and other like-minded countries, have launched big pro

grams of aid for the developing countries. These programs, generous

though they are, are never large enough, so great is the gap be

tween the developing and developed countries. That gap used to be

thought about in terms of wealth only—hence the terms Haves and

Have-Nots—but now it is, I think, understood to be much more com

plex. The gap now covers the ability to trade in this highly competitive world and refers, too, to the huge technological gulf between us

which gets wider by geometrical rather than arithmetical progression. Indeed, we might now almost refer to the two parties as the Know

Hows and the Non-Know-Hows.

Side by side with our aid programs are the treaties and defensive alliances by which both we and you seek to help the smaller coun tries, when they ask, from being overcome or subverted by larger and more powerful countries.

Within our partnership there is, naturally, a great disparity. The United States is the most powerful nation on earth. But you would, I

am sure, be the first to agree that, as we found out, power brings with



Great Britain and the United States 165

it extra burdens and more responsibilities. To carry these out you need not only your own vast resources, and the willingness of your

people, and your own broad shoulders. You also have to have friends.

Though in terms of power, Britain's contribution is bound to be small beside yours, it is nonetheless constant and significant. Above all, it is there and you are aware that it will remain there so long as it is

needed and so long as we are able to provide it. I am thinking here

of such concrete things as the fact that Britain has always made the

biggest contribution after the United States to NATO and that again, after you, we are the second largest contributor to United Nations

activities as a whole. Moreover, we are the only country to be a mem

ber of all three defensive alliances, NATO, SEATO, and CENTO.

Then, too, we have something to offer the partnership which is difficult to measure in concrete terms. Through history, especially our imperial and trading past, we have naturally well-established links

with many parts of the world where you have few or none. And by these links which cover the whole globe, principally through the

Commonwealth, we can make a certain unique contribution.

So between us, I think we have much to offer in the continuing

struggle for peace and for the improvement of our fellowmen's way of life and standard of living.



GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES: A NONEXCLUSIVE PARTNERSHIP DEDICATED TO THE ATTAINMENT OF...

Documents

Transcript of GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES: A NONEXCLUSIVE PARTNERSHIP DEDICATED TO THE ATTAINMENT OF...