Britain’s position in the world 1951-1997 Flashcards
Response to Crises: Korean War
- after defeat Japan 1945, Korean peninsular divided 38th parallel = June 1950 North Korean invasion
- USSR boycotting UN over refusal to recognise communist China = US organised 16 country coalition under UN flag to repel the invasion
- Chinese and US forces = statement = July ‘53 Armistice
- Labour foreign secretary Ernest Bevin believed: communist aggression needed to be challenged to prevent further war, British involvement showed Britain was a major power and pushed back against challenged to credibility of UN (which Britain helped found) AND if Britain didn’t help = US might halt defence of Europe = ALL in part true…
…HOWEVER: War showed Britain to be junior partner (Lost 700 troops compared to US’s 34,000; majority of troops in September 1950 fateful invasion were American even if Britain took part in the decision
AS A RESULT OF WAR:
- demonstrated loyalty to US & Britain checked communist aggression = UN effective agency
- NATO established permanent military bureaucracy firmly tied to USA defense of Europe
- increased defense expenditure = added to difficulties in economy, still struggling after WW2
Response to Crises: Suez
- Middle Eastern oil was transported to Europe via Suez Canal, and British forces got to Far Eastern bases via it = majority shareholder since 1975
- 1952 pro-British king overthrown (blamed for poor army showing in war against new state of Israel 1948-9) = one of overthrowing nationalist officers Gamal Abdel Nasser proclaimed himself president 1954 = renegotiated withdrawal of British troops (and was accepting USSR aid and arms)
- Dec 1955: US & Brit money Offer for dam to modernise BUT July 1956: withdrawn due to reluctance to follow pro-western policies = Nasser took control of Anglo-French company running Suez
- EDEN unsuccessful negotiating = he feared this was part of a plan to establish Egyptian dominance in Middle East AND that cooperation with USSR meant their growing influence in region
- Action described as ‘his thumb on our windpipe’ as 1/3 ships using canal were British and over 2/3 of oil supplied to Western Europe passed through it
- THIS LED TO… French/British invasion in late October in collusion with Israelis (Eden wanted to topple regime, French didnt like Egyptian aid rebels ending colonial rule in Algeria) = FAILED INVASION = Nasser sunk ships in Canal stopping usuage
- Eisenhower not consulted & ordered out troops = Eden humiliated by him & Nasser = resigned jan ‘57
SEEN BY WORLD AS POORLY MANAGED =
- Nasser didnt do anything illegal
- USSR condemned it as imperialist
- Eisenhower furious as mad clear he opposed use of force = felt deceived & meant US couldn’t easily condemn USSR for similar invasion in Hungary at similar time
Response to Crises: The Falklands War
- 2 April 1982 = Argentine military dictatorship’s forces invaded, believing Britain, 8000 miles away, wouldn’t interfere = RISK LOSS OF PRESTIGE OF MILITARY DEFEAT?
- 5 April: Thatcher sent ships, 2 May: British submarine san an Argentine cruiser (General Belgrano) = 370 dead, FOLLOWED BY Argentine Missile hitting HMS Sheffield (British warship = 20 crew died)
- 21 May: troops landed on East Falkland, 14June: entered capital, Port Stanley = surrender
WHY VICTORY?
- Thatcher acted swiftly
- UN Security Council demanded Argentine withdrawal = british justified by law AND European community imposed sanction
- Argentinian forces weakness in comparison
- Reagan was against war = Secretary of State Haig made unsuccessful attempts to mediate = giving British extra rime tho AND US Defence Secretary Weinberger was pro-British = supplied weapons, intelligence and air base
WAS IT A SUCCESS?
- Thatchers personal politics transformed = landslide victory 1983 = restored ‘greatness’ and demonstrated widely admired resolution and skill of her and armed forces
- BUT reinforced lesson of Suez, that British couldn’t go to war without US
- BUT defending against future attack = garrison troops and rebuild airport = £1.5 mill per islander = HUGE COST with little benefit?
- BUT issue of sovereignty remains despite democratic govt 1983
Response to Crises: First Gulf War
- 2 AUG 1990, Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq invaded and conquered Kuwait
- US worry about seizure of Saudi oil fields = mots of world supply = G.H.W.Bush (89-93) build a coalition against Iraq (Arab troops and UN support)
- 17 Jan 1991: bombing of Iraqi defences began, 21 Feb: ground assault = HOSTILITIES OVER IN 100 HOURS
- British involvement to help UN, US and ally Kuwait = deployed 53,000 servicemen = 3rd largest contribution after uS and Saudi Arabia, RAF planes played significant role, as did British troops on ground = 47 british deaths
RESULTS OF WAR: (seemed successful)
- Successful liberation of Kuwait
- Improved US-British relations
- Thatcher’s reputation for decisive defence of international law strengthened in run up (though forced to resign before it) as she saw it as aggressive violation of UN Charter
- demonstrated British armed forces could still play significant role in supporting US initiatives
- Major demonstrated Britain’s diplomatic influence in creation of ‘safe havens’ for Kurds
- BUT… Hussein allowed to maintain control of Iraq = took rvenge on domestic enemies
- BUT… send by many in Middle East as US/UK imperialism
- BUT… Iraq continued to be an issue = ldd to more controversial 2003 removal of Hussein
Anglo-American Relations 1930s - 1970s
- Churchill March ‘46 “special relationship”
- hundred of thousands of troops stationed in Britain during WW2
- 2 countries operated together to defeat USSR attempt to dominate Berlin 1948-9
- cooperation over nuclear weapons, secret intelligence during Cold War and NATO membership reinforced relationship
BUT: decline in British economic power = only limited military assistance could be offered to US, especially regarding the uS’s security concerns outside Europe where it was harder to access after Far Eastern bases given up in early 70s - close during Korean War (51-53), but Brit clearly subordinate in decision making
- Suez (56) showed Britain couldn’t act independently of or opposition to US BUT although Eisenhower was angry, not long term damage as MacMillan eased tension
- after Suez, US mainly took over Britain’s role as guardian of western interests in Middle East
- 60s-70s decolonisation and Economic difficulties reduced British power = harmonious relationship but Britain was increasingly less important
- Kennedy (61-63) saw MacMillan as a political father figure and consulted for advice during Berlin Crisis 61 and Cuban 62 (though no active role)
- Wilson tried to broker peace in Vietnam War 67 BUT failure showed how little influence Britain had over US foreign policy = irritated Johnson who was already disappointed at lack of troops fighting in war
- Heath believed future lay in Europe = cool relations - wanted Europe wide partnership with US rather than special status BUT warmer restored by personal chemistry between Callaghan and Jimmy Carter (77-81)
Anglo-American Relations 1980s - 1990s
- Reagan and Thatcher had a warm friendship and agreed on policy issues = Falklands War 82 relied o US logistical and intelligence assistance = reciprocated in April 86 when US used British based F111s to bomb Libya in retaliation for terrorist action
- Both opposed UN sanction against apartheid regime in SA
- BUT 3 AREAS OF OPPOSITION: Thatcher disliked Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative idea, his willingness to bargain away West’s nuclear deterrent in talks with Gorbachev AND Reagan’s invasion of Grenada ‘83 which she had advised against = ALL THREE SHE WAS IGNORED (irrelevant?)
- cooperation in 1st Gulf War and ‘95 Balkans
- OVERALL: diplomatic and military support valued but only one (junior) among many, Britain still relied on US nuclear deterrent and exercised influence in UN Security Council in cooperation with US
Anglo-Russian Relations 1950s - 1970s
- Stalin death ‘53 = hope = peaceful coexistence under Khrushchev
- Oct 55, British and Russian naves exchanged goodwill visits
- April 56, Khrushchev visited Britain
- Feb 59 MacMillan visited Moscow
BUT: thaw didn’t change mutual hostility… seen in USSR bid for support of Asian/African nations emerging from colonial rule in the 50s and the Western regard of Eastern Europe as part of the soviet empire - As Britain withdrew from colonial empire = seen as less important by UUSR = focused on US
- Nonetheless: Sept ‘71 Britain expelled 105 Soviet diplomats accused of spying
Anglo-Russian Relations 1980s - 1990s
- Thatcher strongly anti-communist, determined to retain Europe nuclear defences BUT she admitted in Dec ‘84 that she like Gorbachev = visited Moscow in ‘84 and hosted return visit
- Dec 1991 USSR collapse = Yeltsin grateful for support from Britain against Soviet hard lines who tried to seize power in Aug ‘91
- british efforts in 90s helped pave the way to Russia to join exclusive club of worl’s leading industrialised nations (G8)
- Nov ‘92, Yeltsin visit to sign agreements on trade and military cooperation, thanking Major
- London as a financial centre = attractive for Russian business
Britain’s influence at the UN
- big role ‘BIG THREE’ in establishing UN ‘45 = diplomats helped draw up UN Charter (maintaining peace & security, preventing agression, addressing economic, social and cultural problems, promotion of human rights, etc…) = 1 or 5 permanent members of Security Council = considerable power and a VETO
- Important to British government that actions conformed with Charter THUS UN had big influence on British foreign policy (especially with rise of social media)
- often under criticism from Asian ad African nations = seen as imperialist and in violation human rights and freedoms
- USED VETO SPARINGLY always something to do with appearing imperialist…
= in conjunction with France against US & USSR during Suez
= 1963-73, used it 6 times to do with Rhodesia
= April ‘86, supported US vectoring criticism of US bombing of Libya - white imperialism followed them in 70s-80s even after independence to most colonies = incurred wrath around vetoing resolution against white minority rule in Southern Africa AND 90s Muslims viewed UN legalisation of military action in Iraq as similarly imperialist
Relations with Europe 1930s - 1950s
- central role in creation of OEEC ‘48 to administer Marshall Aid
- 1 of original signatories of North Atlantic Treaty April ‘49
- founding member of Council of Europe, May ‘49 to promote unity & human rights
- Committed itself to defence of Europe by series of Treaties
-moves towards European unity appeared to threaten national sovereignty = controversial with development of European Economic Community - THUS Britain took no part in the ‘52 ECSE, the ‘57 Treaty of Rome in which the ECSC counties established the EEC in ‘58
- BECAUSE: tories hoped to make colonial empire/commonwealth stronger trading bloc than EEC, disliked commitment to closer union in treaty of Rome AND didn’t believe France and Germany could overcome centuries of hostility enough to make the EEC a success
Relations with Europe 1950s - 1975
- Wilson realised colonial empire had no future = established EFTA 1960 as rival to EEC = 1961 scale of economic difficulties convinced him to join Common Market
- Opposition from both side (LEFT: organisation strongly for free trade when they wanted nationalisation, RIGHT: worried about threat to commonwealth ties) = SEEN STARKLY IN ‘73 debate over terms of entry
- national referendum June ‘75 = 2:1 vote = British role in Europe was not a major issue in domestic policies for rest of decade
WHAT CHANGED? Loss of empire, economic success of EEC vs EFTA, Heath was pro-European, encouragement from US, retirent of de Gaulle who had opposed British entry
Relations with Europe 1980s
- 1980 “I want my money back!” = convinced Britain was making a disproportionate large contribution to EEC budget = demanded rabbet = 4 years of negotiation = damaged relations
- thatcher thought Tory economic policy had led to economic recovery after 70s, NOT EEC
- sent ‘88, speech in Bruges about European integration a s a threat to British sovereignty
- BUT by 1989, some of Thatcher’s senior ministers believed that inflations could best be tackled by joined the ERM (contributed to her downfall)
Relations with Europe 1990s
Eurosceptic wing grew under Major = emboldened by humiliating withdrawal from ERM ‘92 and subsequent economic recovery AND the Maastricht Treaty = brought together Tories who wanted to leave EEC and those who believed I should be no more than a trade partner as the treaty was seen as a THREAT.
While pro-Europeans maintained that: Britain benefited from largest single market, it removed obstacles to business, benefited workers and the environment through common regulations and attracted more investment.
Controversies around the Nuclear Deterrent
FOR:
- nuclear bomb ‘47 built out of fear USA wouldn’t defend Europe = needed nuclear deterrent to deter USSR who was much more powerful
- British nuclear deterrent helps défende ALL of Western Europe
- helps maintain Britain’s ‘great’ power status
AGAINST:
- heavy cost in maintaining it reduces govt investment elsewhere
- virtually irrelevant deterrent when measures against the size of American and Russian arsenals
- since 1962, British nuclear Dexter the had been reliant on American’s
Nuclear Weapons 1950s - 1970s
- pressure grew 50-60s for nuclear weapons to be abandoned = 1958 Camoaign for nuclear Disarmament founded = annual protest s and marches = 1960 march from Aldermaston to Trafalgar Square attracted 100k protesters BUT many maintained that the deterrent was neeeded to prevent Soviet aggression
- Labour Party more divided than tories
- 1963: banned nuclear testing in space, under water and in the atmosphere with US & USSR
- 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed = no sharing nuclear tech
- 1960s arms race rendered Britain;s insignificant = palled little part in SALR in 1972 and 1979
