Britains Role In 20th Century International History - Essay Example

What are the main lessons of Britain’s role in 20th century international history for our foreign policymakers today? Britain’s international history in the early 20th century is littered with cases of imperialism, colonialism and sporadic conflicts with other competing colonial powers like France and Germany. It was a period of conquering new territories and empire building. By 1886, Britain had accomplished most of its expansion in South and East Asia and the focus was now on Africa, with the Berlin conference of 1884 splitting the continent between rival powers (Reynolds 127). The ambition as personified by diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes was to conquer the Cape to Cairo corridor across Africa which envisioned a continuous British colony from Cape of Good Hope at the south to Egypt at the north. This was almost achieved by 1890 except for German East Africa in the middle. By 1902, the European partition of Africa was complete with about half the continent area and half of its population under British control. Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire though it was under British control from 1882 and was annexed formally as a British protectorate in 1914. German African colonies were absorbed by Britain after First World War, thus completing the Cape to Cairo corridor (Reynolds 127). With some colonies attaining self-government status through rebellion such as Canada in 1837 and Australia in 1854, the British government found it necessary to convene colonial conferences in 1887, transforming in to Imperial Conferences in 1911, and becoming Commonwealth Conferences in 1944 (Reynolds 127). The British empire in South America consisted of British Guiana and Falkland Islands at opposite ends of the continent. Argentina was part of the informal empire consisting of those countries, not under British rule but in which Britain had a strong economic interest. All colonies in British North America (Canada) attained self-governance by 1855 except Vancouver Island. All the colonies became one Dominion under the name Canada in 1867 and Canada was to be the first autonomous federation of the British Empire with its capital in Ottawa (Reynolds 127). The Australian colonies were united into an autonomous Dominion in 1901 with the federal government located at Melbourne before being moved to Canberra in 1927. New Zealand became a Dominion in 1907. All four South African colonies were federated into autonomous Dominion of Union of South Africa in 1910 (Reynolds 127). The granting of autonomy to the Irish Free State reduced the territory of the United Kingdom to Great Britain in 1921. It can be argued that the British Empire was at its peak in the 1920s after World War One when it gained most of German territories in Africa and Ottoman provinces including Palestine and Iraq in the Middle East by mandate granted by the League of Nations (Reynolds 127). At the Balfour Declaration in 1926, Britain and its Dominions agreed that they were not subordinate to each other another in aspects of both domestic and external affairs though united by common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British Common Wealth Of Nations. The Statute of West Minister in 1931 granted full autonomy to The Dominions of Canada, union of South Africa, Irish Free states Australia and New Zealand they were collectively referred to as the British common wealth. They were also granted the right to secede (Reynolds 127). World War Two (1939-45) demonstrated the royalty of the Dominions to the empire as in 1939 the Australian prime minister acknowledged his country’s involvement in war by virtue of Britain’s declaration of war on Germany and as a result, Australia was at war, again in 1940 gold in millions of pounds was shipped to Canada in preparation for relocation of the British Royal Family if the situation of war escalated (Reynolds 127). The empire was to further expand in 1945 after the war, occupying most of Italian territories in Africa and huge areas of the Middle East to secure oil supplies and seaways and remove regimes friendly to the Axis. Even though, Egypt and Iraq had been granted nominal independence earlier, both were re-occupied by Britain during World War Two. An agreement in Ottawa in 1932 saw empire preferential trade established making complete free trade and preference for empire goods within the British Empire (Reynolds 127). Against the backdrop of territorial expansion and consolidation, Britain lagged behind other major world powers in industrial performance and was psychologically and economically exhausted after enduring two costly wars. By 1945, the financial and ideological will to sustain the Empire was lacking to a section of the British and colonial system (Reynolds 127). The election of an anti-imperialist Labour Government in Britain that desired change saw the granting of all Dominions freedom and equality with Britain in 1947. In 1949, India, drafted a constitution wishing to be a completely independent republic with a head of state and the foreign policy of a fully sovereign nation but retaining membership of the commonwealth. Therefore at the Commonwealth Prime Minister Meeting of 1949 the London Declaration was signed allowing India to become a republic in 1950 and was to accept the British sovereign as a symbol of free association of its independent member nations. As a result of this declaration the British Common Wealth was changed to Common Wealth of Nations (Reynolds 127). Decolonization followed in the 1950s and 1960s with majority of common wealth members becoming republics with a head of state. Members who continued to regard the British monarch as head of state would be called realms (Clarke 271). The Suez Crisis of 1956 marked the end of the empire when Britain indebted to the US in billions of dollars most of it being war debt, lacked the courage to act on the international stage without support from the United States (Young 167). In addition, Britain re- assessed the value of its colonial domination, and under strain from the US and the United Nations it began a process of decolonization all over the world. Britain had abandoned all its sea interests outside the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean between 1957 and 1971 and most of British Africa had attained independence by 1968 and so was the case in Caribbean by 1983. Decolonization was further hastened by the abandoning of the Common Wealth in economic matters by Britain in 1973 when it joined the European Economic Community (now European Union) (Young 167). The labour government of Anthony Eden initially wanted to join the European Coal and Steel Community ECSC, the founding organisation of the EU but backed out as it saw the Community’s plan as too ambitious. In the aftermath of the treaty, the six EEC members flourished economically, whereas Britain suffered continuous economic decline, promoting Britain to seek membership. The initial members shaped the community to their advantage accruing more benefits than later members like Britain. Britain applied to join the EEC in 1961, but the application was vetoed by France as the strong link to the USA and the British Commonwealth were seen as possible hindrance to its dedication to the EEC. France removed the veto in 1973 and consequently Britain joined the EEC (Young 167). The UK does not pursue political integration and is reluctant to transfer sovereignty opting for the intergovernmental cooperation structure. This is clearly demonstrated by the UK’s continued definition of cooperation with Europe as intergovernmental and not a constant process of political integration with supranational institutions taking precedence over domestic governments. There has been public discontent with the EU in Britain with even political class demonstrating disdain for the Community, for example, the labour party held a referendum in 1975 on European withdrawal, but the majority voted in favour of staying in the Community (Young 167). However, the labour party actively supported European integration when some social issues were raised by European law like provision of social protection to part-time workers and sexual discrimination. The administration objected to the amount of contribution Britain was making to the European budget and the transfer of independence and sovereignty to Brussels terming it as damaging and counterproductive. Thatcher categorically rejected the European Monetary System or the adoption of A Common Social Policy as she regarded it as a step towards closer political unification which was against Britain's view of Europe as a common European Market (Young 167). However, John Major her successor, ratified the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 leading to the formation of the EU. John Major opted out of the section dealing with social policy as well as joining the Monetary and Economic Union reinforcing the familiar awkward position Britain had adopted in relation to the EU. The social chapter was to be signed by Tony Blair when he came to power in 1997. However, Blair was to jeopardise European integration by demonstrating a keen interest for close links with the USA after the terrorist attacks in September 2001 (Young 167). Foreign policy makers of today can learn several lessons from the role of Britain in 20th century international history. The devastating effects of the second world war forced Britain to change foreign policy and initiate decolonization of its colonies, implying that foreign policy should be consistent with the economic situation this is important for foreign policy makers of today. The Suez Canal crisis well demonstrated the UN’s abilities to resolve international disputes and the emergence of the Soviet Union and the USA as the world superpowers. It is important for foreign policy makers today to recognize the dominant world powers and imposing structures when designing foreign policy (Kennedy 89). All implications of a military offensive should be carefully considered before being enforced as evidenced by the fact that Britain suffered considerable international humiliation despite the military attack on Egypt being successful. 2. Answer one of the following questions in essay form and in not more than 1,500 words. The essay must make use of secondary and at least some primary sources (published or archival). Again, MHRA referencing and a bibliography are essential (see the History Field Guide for full details): f) Was the Suez Crisis a symptom or a cause of British decline? The Suez Crisis or the Tripartite Aggression was an offensive war fought by the United Kingdom, France and Israel against Egypt in 1956. Israel initially attacked Egypt with France and Britain issuing a joint ultimatum against Egypt and continuing to bomb Cairo. Despite Britain and Israel denial there was considerable proof to show that the two invasions were deliberated in collusion (Cannadine 37). Egypt’s president Gamal Abdel Nasser's decision to nationalize the Suez Canal after the withdrawal of support by Britain and the United States to finance the construction of Aswan dam in response to Egypt ties to the Soviet Union promoted the attack. The aim of the attack was to regain Western control of the Canal and precipitate the fall of Nasser who was perceived to be a threat to the interests of the attackers (Cannadine 37). While the three allies were successful in attaining their immediate military targets, pressure from the United States, the USSR and the United Nations forced them to withdraw. This caused Britain and France to fail in their strategy of controlling the canal and dethroning Nasser. The Suez Canal is a convenient sea route between Africa and Asia; as such it was of strategic importance to European colonisers as it provided a short ocean link between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean (Cannadine 37). The British acquired ownership of the canal in 1875 after the Egyptian ruler constrained by debt decided to sell his part in the canal operating company to the government of Benjamin Disraeli. They obtained 44% of the shares in the canal’s operation for less than 4 million pounds. Britain invaded Egypt in 1882 taking de facto control of the canal; its finances and operations but the 1888 Convention of Constantinople declared the Canal a neutral zone under British protection. The Ottoman Empire ratified the treaty by agreeing to permit international vessels to pass through the canal in times of war or peace. The convention came into force in 1904 (Cannadine 37). The Canal’s role as a strategic intersection was apparent during world war one when Britain and France closed the Canal to non-allied shipping. Its strategic importance continued after the Second World War where it acted as a conduit for the shipment of oil. By 1955, petroleum accounted for half of the canal’s traffic and two-thirds of Europe's oil passed through it. In the aftermath of the Second World War, Britain reassessed its role in the light of severe economic constraints and its colonial history. The kingdoms of Egypt and Iraq were seen as vital to maintaining British influence in the Middle East region especially in light of the economic potential of the region and vast oil reserves (Cannadine 37). In 1951, Egypt abrogated the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 which gave Britain lease on the Suez Canal for 20 more years, but Britain stayed put relying on the treaty rights and the Suez garrison of over 80,000 troops. This caused steady escalation in increasing violent hostility to Britain and British troops in Egypt. Gamal Abdul Nasser was installed as the president of Egypt in 1952 following a military coup, and as a result, there was increased interference and confiscation of international commercial ships and especially Israeli ships passing through the Suez Canal contrary to the laws of the canal. Nasser sought to establish Egypt as the head of the Arab world in order to secure Egypt independence and as a result, challenged British Middle Eastern interests throughout the mid-1950s culminating in the Suez Crisis (Cannadine 37). In 1956, Nasser officially recognized the people’s republic of china angering the US as the US was a keen sponsor of Taiwan. The US withdrew all financial aid for the Aswan High Dam and Nasser responded by nationalizing the Suez Canal, By announcing that the nationalization law had been published and all assets of the Suez Company frozen. All stockholders were to be paid the price of their shares according to the day’s (26 July 1956) closing price on the Paris Stock Exchange (Cannadine 37). The nationalization hit the British economic and military interests in the region, and the British government decided in favour of military intervention against Egypt to avoid complete collapse of British interests in the region. Direct military intervention was deemed to be risky as it would anger Washington and damage Anglo-Arab relations, and as a result, the British government struck a military pact with Israel and France aimed at regaining control over the Suez Canal (Cannadine 37). The Protocol of Sèvres enlisted the support of Israel with Israel agreeing to initiate the invasion followed by the intervention of Britain and France on the basis of that Egypt's control of such a critical route was tenuous, and it needed to be under Anglo-French management. Both Britain and France felt that the canal ought to be an open conduit of oil while Israel intended to reopen the Straits of Tiran linking the Gulf of Eilat for its vessels (Clarke 271). However, Washington disagreed with Paris and London on military intervention and put in a concerted diplomatic effort to resolve the crisis while avoiding conflict. The joint British-French campaign was initiated on 31st October 1956 through Operation Musketeer and went on into November. An estimated 3000-4000 people were killed in the campaign an overwhelming majority being Egyptian (Cannadine 37). The military phase of the campaign was highly successful as the alliance managed to seize the Suez Canal, Gaza and parts of Sinai, but it was a total disaster from a political point of view as it resulted in international criticism and diplomatic pressure. From the American perspective, the Suez Crisis coincided with the Hungarian revolt and the US decided it could not criticize Soviet suppression of the Hungarian revolt and at the same time avoid opposing aggression by its two principle European allies and Israel (Clarke 271). The UN convened an emergency special session on 2nd November, and the general assembly adopted the United Nations proposal resolution 997 which called for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of all forces behind armistice lines, an arms embargo and reopening of the Suez Canal (Cannadine 37). The UN adopted a number of enabling resolutions which established the first United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). The events that followed saw the withdrawal of both Britain and France from Egypt within a week. The Soviet Union through foreign minister threatened dire consequences to Britain and France, this promoted America to rise in defense of its allies. The US put economic forces on Great Britain to stop the attack as the bank of England had lost $50 million between in the short period of conflict and England's oil supply had been adversely affected by the closure of the Suez Canal; Britain sought financial assistance from the IMF, but it was denied by the US (Kennedy 89). The US government also threatened to sell the Sterling Bond holdings which were part of aid to post war British economy and payment for enormous World War II debt owed to the US government and American corporations. Saudi Arabia also imposed an oil embargo on Britain with America refusing to fill the gap until Britain withdrew from Egypt. This was in addition to the refusal by NATO members to sell oil to Britain. With increasing political and economic pressure, Britain announced ceasefire on November 6. All Anglo-French forces were forced to withdraw by 22nd Dec 1956 and replaced by UNEF (Kennedy 89). The involuntary end to the crisis marked the definitive weakening of the UK as a global power, and implied that mid-sized powers could no longer act independently in matters of international importance. The crisis hastened the decolonization of British colonies with most getting independence in the next several years (Kennedy 89). The crisis inspired the Eisenhower Doctrine which set aside $200 million to help Middle Eastern nations desiring US aid. After the crisis, the British foreign policy stopped acting as a great imperial power, and there was speculation that Britain refused to send troops to Vietnam despite America's persistent requests due to America's refusal to support Britain during the Suez Crisis. The crisis was the last time Britain imposed military will abroad without US support until the 1982 Falklands War. It is argued that the Suez Crisis marked the final transfer of power to the new superpowers of the Soviet Union and the United States (Kennedy 89). In conclusion, it can be said that as demonstrated by previous events such as the Indian independence and the plummeting value of the pound, the decline of Britain as a superpower was long overdue. The Suez Canal crisis only exacerbated an already bad situation and confirmed the decline of Britain as a world power Works cited: Reynolds, David, Britannia Overruled: British Policy and World Power in the 20th Century. Edinburg Gate; Harlow: Pearson Education, 2nd ed. 2000. Young, John., Britain and the World in the 20th Century. London [u.a.]: Arnold, 1997. Clarke, Peter, Hope and Glory: Britain 1900-2000. London [u.a.]: Penguin Books. 2004. Cannadine, David., Britain in Decline? New Haven; Connecticut: Yale University Press. 1997. Kennedy, Paul. The rise and fall of the great. New York: Random House Inc. 1988. Read More