Affluent Society - Foreign Relations Flashcards
1951 - British position internationally
WW2 = Britain with massive debts and up in the shadow of two new military superpowers, USA and Soviet Union
- had to tell American that Britain faced bankruptcy and has to withdraw from commitments to Greece, Turkey, and Palestine
- same year, independence was granted to India and Pakistan (Retreat from Empire)
Public and political opinion low about the future of British foreign policy
The Future Policy Study:
Britain accepted some but not all of implications of the retreat from Empire
“Britain had lost an Empire but had not found a role”
LOSING INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE
Atlantic Alliance
NATO
Formed in 1949 to defend the western alliance in the Cold War = collective defence policy (any members attacked, it would be defended by all of them
The Schuman Plan
The Schuman Plan was the foundation of the EEC
Set out proposals for a Coal and Steel Community that would integrate historic enemies (France and Germany) in heavy industry.
This was to promote rapid economic construction and in the hope to prevent any future wars between them.
Strongly supported by Britain and USA as important contribution to security of Europe = vital at the beginning of Cold War
HOWEVER Britain did not initially become involved
Why did Britain not become initially involved with the Schuman Plan?
Few politicians in favour of Britain taking a leadership role in Europe
Left was suspicious of the free-market principles behind the Common Market (EEC)
Right tended to regard the preservation of traditional trade links (Australia, Candada and New Zealand) as far more important than those with Europe
Assumption that Britain was still a great world power and would not need the support of the EEC
Britain wanted to balance its involvement with Europe with maintaining the special relationship with the USA
Treaty of Rome
The Treaty of Rome launched the EEC in 1957 without Britain
Partnership between France and Germany in the EEC
Charles de Gaulle was determined to protect this partnership from Britain and subsequently the USA through their partnership with the UK
British attitudes shifting
1959 Britain took the lead of the formation of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) (Britain, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland)
Created a free trade area
Only moderately successful and not able to match the economic growth of the EEC
British application to join the EEC
1961, Macmillan submitted Britain’s application to join the EEC
Reasons for a change in attitude:
- boost industrial production
- increase industrial efficiency
- stimulate economic growth
USA also keen on Britain joining EEC as it created a vital link between Europe and America
Tensions were rising in late 1950s due to Cold War
Britain’s imperial power had been shaken:
- Suez crisis
- accelerating pace if decolonisation in Africa
Why was the application difficult?
Britain wanted to keep its position with two other areas of world affairs:
- Commonwealth
- United Sates
= made negotiations extremely difficult and complex
EEC has already developed detailed economic structures (e.g. Common Agricultural Policy) which Britain found difficult to conform to.
Britain’s trade with Commonwealth partners such as New Zealand would have been blocked by EEC rules but special exceptions had to be made for Britain
The outcome of Britain’s application
Many months of hard bargaining by chief negotiator Edward Heath but negotiations seemed to have reached a successful conclusion in Jan 1963 but at the last minute Charles de Gaulle vetoed and blocked Britain’s application (protection the partnership between France and Germany from Britain and subsequently America)
Situation between USSR, USA and UK
During WW2 = allies
Post war = USA and UK against spread of communism
Cold War = UK and USA allies (placed under strain though due to Burgess and Maclean affair, Britain’s relationship with the EEC, Suez crisis)
Britain still on international “top table”
Burgess and Maclean affair
Revelation that British spies had been leaking vital secrets to Moscow deeply worried the Americans
= much less ready to share intelligence secrets with Britain
(Before, JFK would keep Macmillan informed with the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis)
Britain’s position internationally during Cold War
On international “top table” due to alliance with America.
However, still militarily outstretched and very dependent on American power (demonstrated by Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent)
Why did Britain become committed to developing an independent nuclear deterrent?
USA had stopped sharing its nuclear secrets with Britain after the Burgess and Maclean affair.
Britain had to become a nuclear power by themselves.
Nuclear policy
Churchill continued this policy
Britain’s first tests of the atomic bomb were in 1952 = Britain was the third country in the world to develop nuclear weapons (after USA & USSR)
However, USA and USSR were already developing more powerful hydrogen bombs
Britain’s ‘H’ bomb was tested in 1957
CND
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Founded in 1958 after concerns about the rapid nuclear developments happening in Britain
Rapidly became the most powerful pressure group in Britain.
Backed by many intellectuals and mobilising middle-class protesters
Wanted Britain to reject nuclear weapons and instead follow a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament.
8000 people at demonstrations at weapons research base at Aldermaston 1958 and even more people in 1959
Many Labour left-wingers joined in
Mutual Defence Agreement
1958 USA once again agreed to share nuclear technology with Britain under Mutual Defence Agreement.
Britain abandoned its project of Blue Streak and replaced it with the American Polaris submarine weapons system
Became clear that Britain would not have an independent nuclear deterrent and SOME OF LABOUR PARTY STARTED TO BECOME MORE SCEPTICAL OF SUPPORTING A PRO-NUCLEAR POLICY
The Korean War (date and what happened)
1950-1953
End of WW2, Korea was occupied by the Soviet Union in the north, and the USA in the south = both claiming to be legitimate governments.
1950, forces from North Korea, supported by the USSR and China, invaded the south.
= United Nations were condemned to action and sent forces to combat the invasion (over 20 countries supplied troops) e.g. Britain provided 90,000 soldiers
Ceasefire agreed in 1953 and agreed that Korea would be split between communist North Korea and non-communist South Korea.
The Korean War impacts
Showed that the Cold War was being fought across the whole world.
Demostraste Britain’s willingness to continue to play a major role in world affairs (despite economic constraints)
Clear that the USA was still a greater power than Britain
The importance of the Suez Canal
Main artery connecting trade routes from the Mediterranean through to the Indian Ocean and beyond to Asia and Oceania
Vital route for oil shipments = 80% of Western Europe’s oil imports passes through the canal
What happened to make the Suez Canal nationalised?
After Britain’s decolonisation, there was an emergence of Egyptian independence under a new nationalist leader, Colonel Nasser.
USA and Britain planned to invest in the Aswan Dam but pulled out in 1956 = in response Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal to provide finance for the Aswan Dam
Placed Egypt on the Soviet side of the Cold War
Why was the nationalisation of the canal an issue?
It threatened to cut off Europe’s oil supplies and other trade opportunities
Britain’s retaliation to Suez Canal incident
Britain encouraged by both France and Israel and a secret meeting was held in Paris where a plan of action was formed
Israeli forces would invade Egypt and then British and French forces would intervine (the excuse for intervention would be to enforce peace of Egypt and Israel) However the real plan was to seize control of the Suez Canal Zone
Put into action on 29th October and caused a storm of political protest in Britain and the USA opposed the action
The outcome of the Suez Canal crisis
USA opposed the action and Britain was not strong enough in 1956 to stand up to American pressure and was plunged into serious financial crisis.
- questioned Britain’s reputation as a force of good
- Britain’s inability to act without the support of the USA
- presented the impact that Britain’s economic and financial policy had on the direction of foreign policy
- undermine belief that Britain was still a major world power
