Britains position in the world, 1951-97, all Flashcards
1
Q
Britain and USA relations - coordination/support - 1951-79
A
- Cold war – relations between USA got closer.
- USA gave Britain Financial aid – Marshal Aid Scheme.
- Britain + USA – co-ordinated in Berlin Blockade, 1948-49
- Both members of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) – 1949.
- ‘Special relationship’ – Churchill speaking in USA – about British Commonwealth and USA Empire.
- Britain + USA – troops to defend South Korea against the Invasion by the Chinese – backed by communist North Korea.
- Joined US in Geneva agreement – divided Vietnam in 1954.
2
Q
Britain and USA relations - conflict - 1951-79?
A
o Britain’s intervention in the Suez Canal – 1956, not supported by USA – demonstrated Britain could no longer act independently of or in opposition to USA – Eisenhower was furious – however did little permanent damage to relations.
o USA involved in Vietnam – Britain did not provide military aid (economic problems and lack of public support for the US) + tried to bring about peace settlement – Wilson (64-70) – failure demonstrated how little influence Britain had over America – irritated Johnson (‘63-69) – lack ok UK support.
o In Cuban Missile Crisis – USA did not act in close operation with Britain.
o Heath (1970-74) – Believed Britain future lay with Europe – wanted Britain to be part of Europe-wide partnership with USA – instead of special status in Washington – distinctly cool relations.
o Warmer relations – personal chemistry Callaghan (76-79) and Carter (77-81).
3
Q
USA and Britain relations under Thatcher and Reegan?
A
- Both strong opponents of communism.
- Visited each-other often – strengthen personal ties.
- Agreement on many polices: opposing UN sanction against apartheid regime in South Africa.
- Military aid: US assistance in Falklands War, Thatcher allowed USA – use British air bases 1986 – to bomb Libya – relation to terrorist actions against American targets.
- Disagreements:
o T sceptical about R’s ‘Star Wars’ initiative – Strategic Defence Initiative – laser capable of shooting incoming missiles – disliked by T – believed nuclear weapons kept peace since 1945.
o Worried Reagan made too many concessions on nuclear disarmament.
o Disliked USA invasion of Grenada (to remove left-wing gov 1983).
4
Q
USA and Britain cooperation/relations after 1990?
A
o Strong ties maintained -Cooperated in 1st Gulf War – Remove Iraq’s troops from Kuwait – after invasion by Saddam Hussein.
o Collaborated in UN efforts – stop violence in former Yugoslavia 1995 – Brought about Dayton Peace Accords.
5
Q
USSR and Britain relations - oppositions?
A
- Mutual suspicion and distrust characterized relationship.
- Defence planning – envisaged USSR – major threat for Cold War period, USA kept military presence in Berlin – guard from Russian Expansion.
- UK and USA – agreed rearming of West Germany + its inclusion in NATO – opposed by USSR.
- Both Opposed USSR in North Korean expansion in 1950 – had the backing of the USSR.
- Russia disapproved of Suez Crisis – critical of Britain’s Imperialism generally – Britain disapproved of USSR repression of unrest in Eastern Europe – especially Hungarian revolt 1956 + Czech Crisis 1968.
- Condemned Berlin Wall 1961 – and Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan 1980.
- Accused each other of espionage – low point in relations – expulsion of 100 Soviet diplomats form Britain 1971.
6
Q
USSR and Britain relations - attempts the relieve tensions?
A
- Fall of Stalin 1953 – greater contact – more state visits.
- Khrushchev visited Britain 1956 – Macmillan – Moscow 1959.
- Despite communist criticism – Thatcher – good relations with Gorbachev – state visits in 1984 – calmed Russian concerns about America and the Star Wars.
- Fall of USSR control 1989 – end of Communism – break up of USSR 1991 – welcomed by Britain – new phase of Anglo-Russian Relations.
- British Efforts – 1990s – paved way for Russia to join exclusive club of leading industrialised nations – known as ‘G8’.
- 1992 – Yeltsin – visited Britain – sign wide-ranging agreements – trade and military co-operation.
7
Q
British Support for the UN?
A
- Historic role in founding early development of the UN.
- 1st meetings of general assembly and Security Council – London Jan 1946.
- Always been permanent member of the Security Council.
- Major contributor to UN budget – 2013-15 – 6.7% of the total.
- British-born officials – significant roles in the agencies of UN.
- One judge in International Court of Justice at Hague.
- Member of important Economic and Social Council.
- British gov – anxious to obtain UN support for policies – boosted authority of UN – war against Iraq – justified by UN condemnation of Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait.
- Forces taken part in peace-keeping missions – UN military actions: Korean War (1950-53) – British forces took part – prevent North Korea (backed by China and USSR).
- Forces – Yugoslavia – 1992-1995 – prevent ethnic cleansing by Serbian troops in Bosnia and Croatia.
- Peacekeeping force in Cyprus since 1964.
8
Q
British Conflict with the UN?
A
- Used right of veto 32 times since 1956 – E.g. vetoed resolutions over demands for majority rule in Rhodesia – 1963-1976 – Britain did not wish to take military action.
- Suez Crisis – acted outside UN – 1956 – Britain, France, Israel – allied – attack Egypt after Nasser nationalised Suez Canal.
- UN – not consulted – although Britain accepted intervention of UN peacekeeping forces when it was clear that domestic and international opinion was against intervention.
- UN wished to condemn US bombing of Libya 1986 – Thatcher joined USA in vetoing the critical resolution.
- Britain did little to limit conflict in Congo and Rwanda.
- Resented + ignores criticism of UN about colonial policies.
- British military support – limited – only 2,500 troops deployed to support humanitarian and peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia.
- British membership of NATO – more significant – foreign and defence policy.
9
Q
Domestic Divisions in Britain about joining EEC
A
- 1950s - Scepticism about joining united Europe’s – Britain had strong links with Commonwealth and ‘special relationship’ with US.
- Macmillan realised colonial Empire had not future – tried to establish stronger ties with Europe’s:
- He took initiative to establish European Free Trade Area – 1960: 7 Europeans countries – not in EEC – created EFTA – looser structure than EEC – UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and Portugal – abolished trade tariffs – free to set own tariffs with non-member countries – allowing Britain to maintain strong links with Commonwealth.
- 1961 – due to scale of Economic issues in Britain convinced pro-Europeans of need to join EEC - Britain first applies to Join EEC – rejected – France vetoed against Britain’s membership – president Charles de Gaulle – doubted British commitment to united Europe.
- Both Major parties had opposition to joining Europe:
- Labour: left of Labour – extend nationalised control of British economy – not want. To join EEC – as it committed to Free enterprise.
- Conservative: Faction nostalgic of Empire – opposed entry – jeopardise British ties with Commonwealth.
- Wilson – tackle division within Labour party - Wilson held national referendum 1975 – remain side won – 2:1 votes in favour of membership.
- Rest of decade – not major issue in domestic politics.
10
Q
Why did British attitudes towards Europe change between 1950 and 1975?
A
- Loss of Empire - look towards Europe.
- Economic success of EEC - compared to EFTA – Britain’s economy was in trouble.
- Heath’s premiership – Pro-Europeans.
- USA encouraged UK joining.
- Retirement of de Gaulle – 1969 – British entry possible.
11
Q
Thatcher and the Conservative party in European 1980s
A
- 1980s – Thatcher’s gov – disagreements about EEC budget contributions – Thatcher though contributions were too large – ‘I want my money back’ – four years before success – damaged relations.
- Thatcher opposed Europeans Vision of United Europe – regarded it as a threat to British sovereignty.
- Divisions within party: Some members believed inflation could be tackled by joining ERM – issue contributed to her downfall.
12
Q
Major, Maastricht and Conservative divisions 1990s
A
- Briefly member of ERM – and signed Maastricht Treaty 1991 – greater economic + political union – did not accept common currency (euro).
- Throughout 1990s – Euroscepticism – strong in conservative party 2 main issues:
o Humiliating withdrawal from ERM – 1992 – subsequent economic recovery – strengthened that Britain did not benefit form European membership.
o Maastricht treaty – united those wanting to leave EEC and those who only wanted partnership – because of its implications of British Sovereignty. - Pro-Europeans:
o Britain benefited being part of world’s largest single market.
o Free movement of goods, working conditions, labour – removed business obstacles.
o Regulations benefitted all countries.
o European Union – more investment form outside Europe than Britain could achieve alone.
13
Q
Britain as a Major player in Europe:
A
- Still major role despite join EEC late.
- Major power in North Atlantic Treaty Organization 1949 (NATO).
- Initiative to establish European Free Trade Area – 1960: 7 Europeans countries – not in EEC – created EFTA – looser structure than EEC – UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and Portugal – abolished trade tariffs – free to set own tariffs with non-member countries – allowing Britain to maintain strong links with Commonwealth.
- Persisted attempts to join EEC – after rejection – 1973 joined under Heath – EEC later became European Union – 1993.
14
Q
Britain as an outsider in the move to European Unity 1950s
A
- 1950s - Scepticism about joining united Europe’s – Britain had strong links with Commonwealth and ‘special relationship’ with US.
- Did not join European Coal and Steel Community 1952, did not partake in discussions leading to Treaty of Rome in 1955 – Established European Economic Community.
15
Q
Arguments in favour of British Nuclear deterrent?
A
- Lab Gov 1940s – decided to build British Nuclear bomb 1947 – pre-NATO treaty 1949 – fear USA unwilling to defend Europe – nuclear weapons needed to deter USSR.
- British nuclear deterrent – defence of Western Europe.
- Possession of independent deterrent – maintains status as ‘great’ power.
16
Q
Arguments against British nuclear deterrent?
A
- 1969 – Macmillan persuades Kennedy – US supply Britain with Polaris missiles to carry British warheads – thus deterrent not independent – reliant on America.
- British deterrent irrelevant measured against size of USA and USSR nuclear.
- Heavy cost maintenance – reduce gov investment in welfare state + conventional forms of defence.
17
Q
Nuclear weapons as an issue in domestic policy 1950s and 60s?
A
- Late 50’s early 60’s – greater pressure for abandonment of nuclear weapons – make world safer.
- 1958 – campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) – founded – annual protests and marches – 1960 – 100,000 protestors.
- However – still argument for deterrent to prevent Soviet aggression – clear by 1960s – UK reliant of US missiles to delivers it’s bombs.
- Labour party more divided than conservative on issue.
18
Q
Britain and international agreements of nuclear technology?
A
- 1963 – joined US and USSR – testing – space, underwater, in atmosphere.
- 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – agreement not to share nuclear technologies with other nations.
- Continued build-up of nuclear weapons – USA and USSR – Britain deterrent so small – played little part in Strategic Arms and Limitations Treaties (SALT) 1972 and 1979.
19
Q
Britain and nuclear weapons in 1980s?
A
- Issue became controversial again in ‘80s.
- Mid 1970s – USSR deploying SS-20 intermediate range missiles – could hit targets anywhere in Europe,
- 1979 NATO powers – agreed to deploy US intermediate range cruise missiles in response:
o Increased likelihood of Europe as nuclear battle ground.
o Protestor camp outside RAF and USAF base at Greenham Common in Berkshire 1981 – women only – lasted 19 years – potent symbol of women’s rejection of war and violence. - Thatcher did not sympathise with Protestors – alarmed by Reagan’s willingness in ‘zero option’ discussions with Gorbachev – complete abolition of nuclear weapons on both sides.
- Believed it would end deterrent that had brough 40 years of peace in Europe’s – make chemical conventional and biological war more likely.
- Leave Europe exposed to conventional forces of USSR - large than NATO’s.
- Zero option not adopted – however nuclear arsenals decreased both USA and USSR – after fall of USSR in 1991.
- End of century – still debate – still reliant on USA.
20
Q
Why Britain joined Korean War?
A
- Britain joined UN force to defend South Korea- coalition of 16 countries organised by USA – 1950-53 – against communist invasion by North Korea.
- Joined because:
- Cold war atmosphere – Britain committed to resisting communist aggression.
- Britain still had possessions in Asia.
- Still considered itself – important world power.
- Major founding force of UN – needed to support to for UN to remain credible.
- Maintain links with USA – support its stand against USSR aggression.
- If Britain did not join – might jeopardise US commitment to defend Europe – NATO.
21
Q
Results of Korean War?
A
- USA – pushed North Koreans out of South in September – forcing them to retreat – then USA invaded North Korea – Chinese sent huge forces intro Korea – pushed out US forced.
- Armistice signed July 1953.
- NATO strengthened – fear of further communist aggression.
- Britain confirmed ‘special relationship’ with USA.
- Established UN as effective agency.
- War was costly – 700 British and Commonwealth troops killed – economic problems worsened my high defence expenditure.
- Britain was shown to be a junior partner of USA – USA gave far more troops – 34,000 killed.
22
Q
Why did Britain partake in the Suez Crisis?
A
- 1956
- Britain allied with France and Israel – attack Egypt.
- Nationalist ruler – Nasser – proclaimed himself president after overthrow of pro-British King – and nationalised Anglo- French company running Suez Canal in July 1956 – response to loan for dam-building being withdrawn.
- UK had been major shareholder in company running Suez Canal since 1875.
- Suez Canal – Vital route way – 2/3rds oil supplies from Europe passed through it.
- UK feared USSR-backed Arab nationalism.
- Eden saw Nasser as dictator.
- Eden assumed USA would approve and that Nasser could be easily overthrown.
- Did not consult USA.
23
Q
Results of Suez Crisis?
A
- Invasion failed – Nasser’s position strengthened.
- Nasser responded – sinking ships in the canal – preventing its use.
- Nasser’s nationalisation was not illegal – British cabinet admitted his ‘actions amounted to no more than a decision to buy out the shareholders.’
- Britain received international criticism.
- USA – felt it hadn’t been consulted – opposed plan – Eisenhower had tried to resolve it peacefully – made it clear he was opposed to force + took place at same time as USSR invaded Hungary to crush reform – difficult for US to criticise considering Suez Crisis.
- USSR – condemned invasion as British imperialism.
24
Q
Why did Britain react to the Falklands Crisis, 1982?
A
- Argentine forces invaded + captured Falkland Islands April 1982.
- British population lived on island – Britain had to decide whether to abandon them and lose prestige or risk military defeat.
- Military advised Government that Britain could succeed.
- Support for military action from:
o UN and EU
o British press
o All political parties
o USA – gave intelligence support and the use of US bas on Ascension Island.
25
Q
Why were the British successful in the Falklands War?
A
- Reputation of British forces rose as the succeeded in June 1982.
- Thatcher’s domestic popularity increased despite financial cost.
- Consequence of defeat – Argentine military regime fell – however continued resentment towards Britain in Argentina.
- Argentina – not well matched:
o skilful air pilots hit a few British targets – but there was considerable losses
o Argentine Naval – little part – cowed by the loss of warship General Belgrano.
o Conscription forces – little match for the British trained forces.
26
Q
Why did Britain partake in Gulf war?
A
- Britain sent forces in 1991 as part of the US-led coalition – liberate Kuwait after Iraqi invasion.
- Solidarity to US, it’s Arab allies in the war and the UN.
- Prevent further invasions from Saddam Hussein – Iraq leader.
- Protect oil supplies.
- Support international law and order.
- Show Britain was still major power and that Jhon Major was not weaker than Thatcher in 1982.
27
Q
What were the results of the Gulf War, 1991?
A
- Coalition forces succeeded – British air power played key role.
- Fostered ongoing commitment to maintaining peace in the area.
- British and USA relations strengthened.
- Action in Kuwait lead to further war in Iraq 2003 – far greater consequences.
28
Q
Why did Britain grant independence to most of it’s colonies?
-WW2
-Not beneficial - commonwealth.
-Hostile international opinions
-Economic reaons
-Politcal leaders
A
- Prestige lost in 2nd world war:
o Japan had conquered Britain’s south-east Asian colonies easily during the war.
o Britain looked weak to it’s subjects as a result.
o Encouraged nationalist movements in Britain – encouraging demand for independence – growth in support of these movements.
o Indian independence – 1947. - Colonies not seen as any more beneficial to Britain as colonies than they would be as part of the Commonwealth.
o Nkrumah in Ghana – effective leader – offered to keep an independent Ghana in the commonwealth. - Hostile international opinion towards Empire
o USA disapproved – USSR + allies denounced British Imperialism.
o 1955 – newly independent nations – denounced colonial rule – established the Non-Alignment movement.
o Countries outside Europe in UN – condemnation of imperialism – difficult for Britain to conduct international relations as an imperial power. - Economic Reasons:
o Economic problems – hard to sustain control/invest in colonies.
o Cost of defending British rule – bloody colonial wars – Kenya against Mau Mau terrorists – Cyprus against EOKA opposition – unpopular at home – made Britain reluctant to use military force, E.g. Rhodesia. - Political leaders accepted need to decolonise:
o 1960 – Macmillan – ‘Wind of Change’ speech in Africa.
o From 1970s – Britain moved away from links to former Empire – more towards Europe.
29
Q
In what ways did Britain make the transition from Empire to Commonwealth successfully?
A
- Decision of newly independents states (India, Pakistan and Ceylon(Sri Lanka) – to stay within Commonwealth - set precedent for other colonies to follow.
- Commonwealth supported Britain in Korean War.
- Commonwealth meetings and declarations of principles maintained Britain’s influence – loyalty to Queen – significant element in keeping Cultural, economic, and diplomatic ties.
- South Africa re-join Commonwealth after end of Apartheid 1994 – indication of success.
30
Q
In what ways did Britain make the transition from Empire to Commonwealth unsuccessfully?
A
- Costly colonial wars: Kenya (1952-63), Cyprus (1955-60), Malaya (1948-60).
- Commonwealth critical of Suez Canal crisis.
- South Africa withdrew from Commonwealth –1961 – over hostility to its Apartheid regime.
- Commonwealth leaders critical of Britain’s continued economic ties with South Africa – especially sale of armaments.
- Thatcher’s government isolated for refusing to impose economic sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa.
- Commonwealth leaders critical of its failure to act when white-supremacist Rhodesia claimed independence in 1961.
- 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act – resented by Black nations – clearly to limit black immigration to Britain.
- Entry to EEC – ending preferential treatment for Commonwealth imports – resented by countries like New Zealand.
