This reports finds that the Coalition Government has developed in public a more mature and measured relationship with the US, although there has been no fundamental change in the nature of the tie. The Committee declares the relationship to be in good health. In particular, the Committee said that it was not aware of any evidence that the House of Commons vote in August 2013 against potential military action in Syria had damaged the UK's relationship with the US. Rather, the Committee concluded that the episode illustrated general features of the UK-US relationship, namely that developments in the UK could influence US policy; and that the underlying tie was resilient. Today's publication follows up a report produced by the previous Foreign Affairs Committee at the end of the last Parliament, which recommended that the UK Government should adopt a more hard-headed and less deferential approach to the US. The Coalition Government seemed to have taken up this recommendation. The Committee criticises the UK Government's poor provision of information about the UK-US Joint Strategy Board, which was created during President Obama's State Visit to the UK in May 2011. Among strategic issues that it considered, the Committee agreed with the Government that the proposed EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could have significant positive strategic impact for the UK and the transatlantic relationship.

The Work Of The Joint Committee On The National Security Strategy In 2013-14 (HC 169, HL 1257) covers the work of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which was established with a broad role; to consider the National Security Strategy. In practice, the Committee has considered not only the National Security Strategy (NSS) document 'A Strong Britain In An Age Of Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy' published by the Government in 2010 (see below), but also the wider strategy that underlies government decision making on matters affecting national security. The report gives an account of activities over the past year, highlighting in particular the evidence session with the Prime Minister in January 2014; draws attention to areas of continuing concern; and outlines objectives for the remainder of the Parliament.

Leading academics from around the world, who specialize in analysing maritime strategic issues, deliberate the impact of the American 'pivot' or 're-balance' strategy, and the 'Air-Sea Battle' operational concept, on the maritime power and posture of a number of selected states. Intending to strengthen US economic, diplomatic, and security engagement throughout the Asia-Pacific, both bilaterally and multilaterally, the re-balance stands out as one of the Obama administration's most far-sighted and ambitious foreign policy initiatives.

Andrew Mumford challenges the notion of a “special relationship” between the United States and United Kingdom in diplomatic and military affairs, the most vaunted and, he says, exaggerated of associations in the post-1945 era. Though they are allies to be sure, national self-interest and domestic politics have often undercut their relationship. This is the first book to combine a history of US-UK interaction during major counterinsurgency campaigns since 1945, from Palestine to Iraq and Afghanistan, with a critical examination of the so called special relationship that has been tested during these difficult, protracted, and costly conflicts. Mumford’s assessment of each nation’s internal political discussions and diplomatic exchanges reveals that in actuality there is only a thin layer of specialness at work in the wars that shaped the postcolonial balance of power, the fight against Communism in the Cold War, and the twenty-first-century “war on terror.” This book is especially timely given that the US-UK relationship is once again under scrutiny because of the Trump administration’s “America First” rhetoric and Britain's changing international relations as a result of Brexit. Counterinsurgency Wars and the Anglo-American Alliance will interest scholars and students of history, international relations, and security studies as well as policy practitioners in the field.

In this report, published on the last day that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has funding responsibility for the World Service, the Foreign Affairs Committee says that it has "clear differences" with the BBC on new arrangements for governance of the World Service. It specifically has reservations about the move to licence fee funding for the World Service and what that would mean for the World Service's budget, and its ability to be heard amongst all the other competing voices within the BBC. The Committee regrets that the World Service now has no direct voice on either the BBC Executive Board or the Management Board, and it says that it "remains to be seen" whether representation of the World Service's interests at Board level by the Director of News and Current Affairs will indeed safeguard the distinct nature of the World Service. The Committee welcomes the assurance given in evidence by James Harding, the BBC's Director of News and Current Affairs, that the £245 million budget for the World Service in 2014-15 will be used as a baseline for the following two years. But what is really needed is longer-term protection at institutional level, and we continue to be concerned about the absence of a direct voice for the World Service on either the BBC's Executive Board or the Management Board

This new work examines how the European states, the United Kingdom and the United States will approach the defence and Security of Europe in the medium and long-term. It is often assumed that Brexit, the United Kingdom’s departure from the political and commercial European Union, would affect defence and security profoundly, but the basis of that assumption is rarely analysed. Bringing together a panel of specialists from Europe, the UK, the EU, and the United States, this volume evaluates the relative position they play in Europe’s defence in the era of Brexit. It examines the arguments, challenges, and problems in European defence, and tests them against the residual commitment, cohesion, and capabilities of the states concerned, including Anglo-French military co-operation, the silent Anglo-German partnership, the US-UK Special Relationship, and the emergent Northern Group.

The Kurdistan Region of Iraq is a genuine, if developing, democracy. It is also a haven of tolerance and stability in a critically unstable region where those values are needed more than ever. It has huge strategic value to the UK as a bridge to other regional powers, is a key bulwark against ISIL, and has significant oil and gas potential. But it is also vulnerable and needs the support of its friends. It should respond positively to the invitation from the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to be its "partner of choice" on trade, education and cultural exchange as well as on defence and intelligence matters. The Kurdistan Region has work to do on developing its democratic culture and its respect for human rights, and UK support should go hand in hand with proof of progress in these areas. The Committee commends the Region's defence force, the Peshmerga, for its defence of Kurdish territory against ISIL and its protection of vulnerable minorities. It supports the UK Government's decision to offer the Peshmerga equipment and training. Advice is also needed from the Kurdistan Region's experts on issues like counter-terrorism and on the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria. More diplomats need to be working out of a proper office in Erbil instead of hotel rooms. And this is not easily achieved as the FCO has suffered from cuts to its meagre budget at a time when more expertise and high-level co-operation is desperately needed.