All the Presidents' Friends

A short visual history of presidential BFFs, and why Obama needs his own global buddy.

BY KAYVAN FARZANEH, ANDREW SWIFT, PETER WILLIAMS | MARCH 29, 2010

Mr. Lonely: Within a month of his inauguration, it became clear that fostering "special relationships" would not be a priority for Barack Obama. It started when the new U.S. president said he didn't want a Winston Churchill bust on loan from the British government that had sat in the Oval Office since the 9/11 attacks. Later, on a state visit to London, Obama presented Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a series of DVDs -- not taking into account Brown's failing eyesight or the fact that the DVDs were not compatible with British DVD players. Brown, however, displayed a little more attention in his gift-giving, presenting Obama with a pen holder carved from the timbers of the HMS Resolute, the same wood that was used to build the president's famous "Resolute desk."

Bruno Vincent/Getty Images

Three's company: The close working relationship between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill is one of the best documented between a U.S. president and a foreign leader. It was a friendship molded by the pressures of war: They spent 113 days together and exchanged more than 2,000 messages over the course of World War II, meeting nine times between 1941 and FDR's death in 1945. Despite the stakes, they struck up a distinctly informal friendship: After their first meeting in August 1941, Roosevelt told Churchill, "It is fun to be in the same decade with you." Churchill would later write, "I felt I was in contact with a very great man who was also a warm-hearted friend and the foremost champion of the high causes which we served."

Less well known is FDR's persistence in establishing a warm relationship with Stalin, or "Uncle Joe," as FDR and Churchill called him. In fact, FDR was far more suspicious of Britain's colonial habits and saw Stalin as a more suitable partner for global peace: "I think if I give [Stalin] everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of peace and democracy."

Keystone/Getty Images

Peas in a pod: During the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher were not only natural allies, but fast friends. It's said that during their first meeting -- which went 45 minutes overtime -- the two regularly finished one another's sentences. Reagan's press secretary is reported to have commented that it would have "taken a crowbar to get them apart."

The two had a lot in common: Both were elected as conservative rebukes to the liberal domestic and foreign policies of their predecessors, Jimmy Carter and "Sunny" Jim Callaghan. While Reagan and Thatcher are perhaps most famously remembered for their promotion of neoliberal economic policies, the two also shared a common approach to Cold War foreign policy that combined traditional deterrence strategy with a coolheaded sense of pragmatism. Although Reagan and Thatcher did have their disagreements, according to The Economist their mutual affection was steadfast: "[S]he loved him and he loved her back. ... They encouraged each other, validated each other and, in consequence, needed each other."

ARCHIVES UPI/AFP/Getty Image

The power couple: Reagan's friendship with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the most important political relationships during the second half of the 20th century. Not only did Reagan and Gorbachev help end the Cold War, but they also made sweeping progress on an arms control and nuclear disarmament agenda that endures to this day. Although structural factors played an important role in helping Reagan and Gorbachev realize these achievements -- Reagan's defense buildup allowed the United States to negotiate with the Soviets "from a position of strength," while the foundering Soviet economy and overstretched Red Army left Gorbachev with little choice but to adopt a more conciliatory foreign policy -- so did their close personal relationship. Overcoming decades of mutual hostility and suspicion between American and Soviet leaders, Reagan spoke highly of the "moral dimension in Gorbachev" while Gorbachev praised Reagan as a "great American" and "great leader."

BILL FITZ-PATRICK/AFP/Getty Images

The royal flush: The close ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family have been the subject of much study and more than a little controversy. George Herbert Walker Bush was already well acquainted with the Saudis before his presidency, having met both King Fahd and then Crown Prince Abdullah in 1982, while serving as Reagan's vice president. After Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, it was feared that his next target would be oil-rich Saudi Arabia. The Saudis asked the United States for military assistance, which the Bush administration readily agreed to provide. King Fahd, presciently worried about the Saudi reaction to hosting U.S. troops, requested the decision not be announced until U.S. troops were already in theater. Following the war, U.S. troops established numerous bases throughout the desert kingdom -- one of the major grievances that inspired a Saudi-born Afghan mujahideen leader named Osama bin Laden.

Dirck Halstead//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images

Bliss for Bubba and Boris: Even before he entered office in 1993, Bill Clinton had already begun to cultivate a friendship with Boris Yeltsin. The two met for the first time  in 1992 and Clinton, so taken with the newly elected Russian president, joked that Yeltsin "could run for sheriff in Arkansas." Although Yeltsin possessed many unsavory qualities -- like chronic alcoholism and a healthy tolerance for corruption -- nothing could shake Clinton's belief that "ol' Boris" was a true reformer dedicated to economic and political liberalization. Clinton even traveled to Moscow to effectively stump for Yeltsin during his 1996 presidential campaign.

MARKKU ULANDER/AFP/Getty Images

Partners in peace: Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin forged a close bond during the mid-1990s as they worked together on trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rabin initially thought Clinton naive and inexperienced, but Clinton's top National Security Council deputy, Sandy Berger, remembers that over time Rabin developed "a great respect for the president." The two men's camaraderie and confidence in one another proved critical as they worked with Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat to draft and sign the historic 1993 Oslo Accords, which provided for the creation of a Palestinian National Authority and the removal of Israel Defense Forces troops from Gaza and the West Bank. Their partnership was unexpectedly cut short when Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by Yigal Amir, an extreme-right Israeli settler. Clinton famously signed off his eulogy at Rabin's funeral with, "Shalom, haver" -- Goodbye, friend.

J. DAVID AKE/AFP/Getty Images

Bosom buddies: Of the many storied relationships between British prime ministers and U.S. presidents, one of the most geopolitically influential -- and perhaps unexpected -- partnerships was that of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, who had already established a good relationship with fellow "new liberal" Bill Clinton. Bush and Blair weren't nearly as ideologically simpatico, and instead their tight friendship was forged over a shared Christian faith and the fateful decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Most Britons despised Blair's willingness to follow Bush's lead, which earned him the nickname, "Bush's poodle."

STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images

On the rocks: In the Obama era, the White House's relationship with Israel has hit rock bottom. Vice President Joe Biden's recent visit to Israel in March was nothing short of a disaster: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unintentionally shattered the glass of a framed certificate meant as a gift for Biden's mother. Later that evening, Biden was blindsided by the Israeli Interior Ministry's announcement of the approval of 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem. Obama did not take the development well, and David Axelrod, the U.S. president's top political advisor, went as far as to call it an "insult."

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

Comrades: Washington insiders were surprised to learn in March that Obama's advisors counted Russian President Dmitry Medvedev among the U.S. president's closest foreign confidants. "[C]ould it really be that an American president has found his closest foreign partner in the Kremlin?" wondered the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl. Maybe not, but the two men do seem to be friends with benefits: Last week, Obama triumphantly announced a breakthrough in nuclear talks with Russia following a direct phone call with Medvedev to finalize matters.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Mon ami?: In Paris, June 2009, Obama turned down an invitation from French President Nicolas Sarkozy to dine at the Elysée Palace, instead taking First Lady Michelle Obama to a Paris restaurant. When asked about the snub later, Obama replied, "Good friends don't worry about the symbol and the conventions and the protocols." But Sarkozy's luck might just be changing. On March 30, the French leader and his supermodel wife, Carla Bruni, are scheduled for a private dinner with the Obamas.

STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN/AFP/Getty Images

 

Kayvan Farzaneh, Andrew Swift, and Peter Williams are editorial researchers at Foreign Policy.

LITTLEMANTATE

10:58 AM ET

March 30, 2010

Are you kidding me?

Those examples are horrifying. Hang out with Stalin? BFF with Margaret Thatcher or Netanyahu? We can do without the damage done by Bush and Blair's unholy bonding.

This slide show is like a running ad for isolationism.

 

SCOTTGOOSE

5:16 PM ET

March 30, 2010

Your missing the point

First of all, Stalin just so happened to be at the same photograph from Yalta. The author's did a great job, and their message is that despite Obama's distaste for American Primacy and lip-service about multilateralism, his buddy-buddy antics with dictators -- and disregard for alliances dating back before his birth -- he has failed in formulating a viable FP that is characteristic of the manner in which claims geopolitics should work.

He is a neophyte, and since his presidency, has an abysmal batting-average in terms of choosing countries to coerce. Frankly, I think he is in way over-his-head and could bring the world to the precipice of disaster unless he can adjust his ways. Let's hope he's got his own "Triangulation" plan.

I'll go even further. Thus far, Obama has been an embarrassment to the Presidency. That's right, I said it.

 

SCOTTGOOSE

5:45 PM ET

March 30, 2010

A few exceptions

Upon further inspection, I find the snubs of Britain and France to be quite interesting. On the surface, things like snubbing an invitation for a meeting five times/the gift issue or declining a dinner reservation, seem like obnoxious things to do to old friends. However, it is here that I become humble and realize that there is a lot of geo-strategic significance to otherwise quotidian aspects of life, like eating dinner with friends or accepting a gift. It would be silly for me be pretend that I understand the significance, and is why I ask: What is the strategic logic in making allies beg to even grace your presence? While meeting the leader of the free world is certainly invaluable, is a policy of treating your allies in a way that necessitates their dependence upon you sustainable and/or even relevant, taking into account U.S.s dwindling, but still hegemonic, status.

I also take back saying that he has thus far been an embarrassment to the U.S. Presidency, because it is far too early to make such an unequivocal statement, and because its not like I have inside info about U.S. Grand Strategy. But to me, the way Obama has treated France, Britain and Israel (specifically) is appalling. In the end of the day, the hope that Obama is just 8 steps ahead of his rivals in the chess game of politics, and knows he can get away with such slights. However, if I were from either of those countries, I'd be pretty pissed at Obama. I'm not exactly thrilled, and he's my Commander-in-Chief.

 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

6:23 PM ET

March 30, 2010

Give Him Time

Well giving Israel unlimited rope is clearly no path to peace. I would argue that sanctions would be most effective vs an allied country like Israel. Vs enemies it often causes them to solidify their positions and nothing gets done. With a country like Israel, who is on the umbilical cord of the US, it is good to show them that we drive policy once in a while.

The two state solution is a racist fantasy of the Israeli government, and even that is too much for them to stomach. Israel is far too powerful and Palestine far too weak for any meaningful state to develop. The obvious solution is 1 powerful state that confers equal rights on all its citizens. This is unacceptable to the racist Israeli Jews however, who insist on remaining the numerical majority, despite all demographic information to the contrary.

This charade trying to establish 2 states will probably go on for decades longer. This region of the world will permanently be cursed to violence and despair until we stop with ethnic politics. A "Jewish Democracy" is apartheid by another name.

 

SCOTTGOOSE

10:03 PM ET

March 30, 2010

get your facts straight

Palestinians only account for a 20% of Israel's population. The two-state solution is the only solution; anyone claiming that a one-state solution is any sort of viable scheme to fix the M.E. conflict is delusional, to say the least. Israel has every incentive to concede the majority of the W.B. (97-98%) and all of Gaza...when the Palestinians get their act together. For now, the Palestinian's have no infrastructural capacity to build a state, or the ability to mend the schism's in their own camp, let alone bargain with Israel who is itself divided, thanks to its right-wing coalition holding Bibi hostage.

Point being: Israelis (Likudniks, that is) do not want to cede territory to the Palestinians, but are willing to, if they stop making maximalist demands that are non-starters for any final-status negotiation: right of return and no building in E. Jerusalem just arent happening pre-agreement

 

LITTLEMANTATE

1:34 PM ET

March 31, 2010

No I get the point

Sacrificing US national interests for certain special, globalized interests and the increasing militarisation of society to support the warfare/welfare state. I get the point, looking past the horrible domestic policies of our "allies" like the Saudis, or our erstwhile pets like Saddam, to further US interests. We make deals with monsters while mumbling on about human rights and democracy. The president should make nice with Saudis, but ramble on about Iraq and Iran as threats ala George W. Bush, is that your point? But the point is, US interests aren't furthered. And as far as being a bad president, he's in good company. This country hasn't had a decent leader since Eisenhower, and before him you have to basically go back to Lincoln, and before him you have to go back as far as John Q. Adams. The rest are a bunch of mediocrities.

 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

8:03 AM ET

March 31, 2010

Israeli Arabs

They are not Palestinians, they are Israeli Arabs. Citizens of the state of Israel. These people are treated like second class citizens. The neighborhoods they live in are worse, they experience daily systematized racism and are discriminated against for jobs. While they are exempt from the mandatory military service required of Israeli Jews as they would have to fight against their brethren, wide segments of Israeli Jewish society feel as if they deserve to be discriminated against. The Israeli Arabs are rejected by the Jews because of their religion, and by the Arabs because of their Israeli identity.

However, I am guessing you support the racist Zionist policies, so what do you care?

 

MUSTNOTSLEEP14

11:15 AM ET

March 31, 2010

There are a plethora of

There are a plethora of reasons why your reasons are vacuous. I could list many nations that subsidize a particular region or ethnic group, yet still face open rebellion. It is not enough. The only way to avoid long term problems is to bring everybody into the political sphere and give them equal rights. A "Jewish Democracy" BY DEFINITION requires that the Arabs, who have far higher birth rates, be systematically eliminated from their lands. One word for this is genocide. Even now, it is an open argument in Israeli society that something must be done about Israeli Arabs as their demographic % is rising at the expense of Israelis.

All of this is insane ethnic politics. Until there exists secular democracy, with no preference toward either religion, then these problems will be passed on for generations. "Tough" is a horribly stupid thing to say. Israel is a fundamentally racist country and I would argue that there is no place for religious states in the modern world, whether it be Israel or Iran (as both are in the same league).

 

DAV305Z

12:41 PM ET

March 31, 2010

How about an Islamic republic?

I assume you feel the Islamic Republic of Iran should be disbanded and forced to become a secular democracy on similar moral grounds? Their Jewish minority is afforded far lower status than Israel's Arabs.

In a similar vein, when will you stand up and demand that the United States and Mexico form one nation? After all, the United States is "occupying" Mexican territory (Texas, California) and continues to treat illegal Mexican immigrants like second class citizens.

Point being, if you're going to pick on Israel for being a Jewish state, then you need to be consistent.

 

DAV305Z

1:19 PM ET

March 31, 2010

Didn't see your last comment

Didn't see your last note about Iran. At least your consistent. Nevertheless, I still fundamentally disagree. Nationalism may seem arbitrary and even racist at times, but it is in many respects a fundamental human right. We've learned that when we've tried to suppress national identities, it usually results in worse strife, as in the Balkans. There's nothing wrong with nationalism up to the point that it suppresses another people. This is unfortunately has been the case with Israel and the Palestinians up until now – BOTH sides, generally, reject the right of the other side to nationhood. Nevertheless, making one state for both peoples won't satisfy the national aspirations of either nation. Two states for two peoples may sound like an empty slogan at this point, but it really is the only viable solution.

 

SCOTTM2009

4:46 PM ET

April 12, 2010

One State Solution

"The obvious solution is 1 powerful state that confers equal rights on all its citizens. This is unacceptable to the racist Israeli Jews however, ..."

That solution was proposed in 1920 and the Jews supported it - unfortunately, the racist Arabs would have none of such a plan and began their campaign of terrorism to drive the Jews out of Palestine.

 

SCOTTM2009

4:49 PM ET

April 12, 2010

genocide?

"A "Jewish Democracy" BY DEFINITION requires that the Arabs, who have far higher birth rates, be systematically eliminated from their lands. One word for this is genocide."

Um, no, displacement of people is not genocide - at least for anyone who knows what genocide means.

 

BANZY

5:11 PM ET

March 31, 2010

All The President's Friends

So who had the job of choosing the gifts? Maybe someone needs to step down and let someone else who is more up to the job take his or her place. Or is this typical US arrogance?

 

SCOTTM2009

4:54 PM ET

April 12, 2010

typical

"Or is this typical US arrogance?"

Maybe the comment is typical anti-US parroting without any functioning braincells behind it.

 

TODDMAC78

10:24 AM ET

April 3, 2010

Just Press Reset

This reminds me of the botched attempt to "reset" U.S. & Russian relations. Speaking of course about Hillary and her rediculous gag gift that turned out to be a gag on U.S.

Just A Point of View

 

STENTOR

3:36 PM ET

April 7, 2010

Great bromance forgotten

This list is truly incomplete without mentioning genuine and close friendship between Jimmy Carter and Anwar El Sadat.

 

DIGITAL SCRAPBOOKING

3:33 AM ET

April 9, 2010

digital scrapbooking

Resources like the one you mentioned here will be very useful to me!i like the details provided here.Thanks a lot for sharing.Keep up the good works.
digital scrapbooking

 

LIESCH

6:24 PM ET

April 15, 2010

The world has changed but...

This usual as always. Leaders always run up each other once they have interests no matter what they have done or said about before. Obama thinks he needs more proactive but the whole American policy doesn't that smoothly for obvious reasons. Too many years trying to say how the world should be.
But the whole wold has changed, they need to hear more than just send an Army. That's a good start after all.

Oi torpedo Hoteis Desentupidora

 

HS

11:15 AM ET

April 17, 2010

Resolute

The pen holder was made from wood from the HMS Resolute's sister ship, the HMS Gannett, not the Resolute.

 

MARCO5811

8:23 AM ET

April 26, 2010

Obama is turning his

Obama is turning his attention from the global audience to heads of state, hoping to develop a rapport that will help him reap the benefits of his effort to repair America's image abroad. The shift is a recognition that he must appeal more directly and frequently to the people who set policy, as well as to their constituents.sázky,sázky,sázky,Sázkové kancelá?e,Sázkové kancelá?e.As near as I can tell, the talking points you provide about Israel arabs were mostly true for US blacks in South Carolina in 1957. They had the legal right to vote and to run for office. They had the right to public education, etc etc. But South Carolina was very much a segregated state.And wish all the best for all of us.