The British co-operation with other states

The British co-operation with other states

1. Britain, Europe and the United States
2. NATO and the UN

1. It was, perhaps, natural that Britain was unable to give proper attention to its relations with Europe until it was no longer an imperial power. Ever since the growth of its trade beyond Europe during the 17^th century, Britain had ceased to be fully active in Europe except at moments of crisis. As long as Europe did not interfere with Britain’s trade, and as long as the balance of power in Europe was not seriously disturbed, Britain could happily neglect European affairs.

At the end of the 18^th century Napoleonic France drew Britain further into European politics than it had been, perhaps, since the Hundred Years war. In 1815 Britain co-operated with the other European powers to ensure peace, and it withdrew this support because it did not wish to work with the despotic powers then governing most of Europe. For the rest of the century, European affairs took second place to empire and imperial trade.

After the World War I it was natural that some Europeans should try to create a European Union that would prevent a repetition of war. A few British people welcomed the idea. But when France proposed such an arrangement in 1930, one British politician spoke for the majority of the nation: ‘Our hearts are not in Europe; we could never share the truly European point of view nor become real patriots of Europe. Besides, we could never give up own patriotism for an Empire which extends to all parts of the world… The character of the British people makes it impossible for us to take part seriously in any Pan-European system.’

Since then Britain has found it difficult to move away from this point of view. After the World War II the value of European unity was a good deal clearer. In 1946 Churchill called for a ‘United States of Europe’, but it was already too late to prevent the division of Europe into two blocs. In countries to form the Council of Europe, ‘to achieve greater unity between members’, but it is doubtful how far this aim has been achieved. Indeed, eight years later in 1957, Britain refused to join the six other European countries in the creation of a European Common Market. Britain was unwilling to surrender any sovereignty or control over its own affairs, and said it still felt responsibility towards its empire.

It quickly became clear that Britain’s attitude, particularly in view of the rapid loss of empire, was mistaken. As its financial and economic difficulties increased, Britain could not afford to stay out of Europe. But it was too late: when Britain tried to join the European Community in 1963 and again in 1967, the French President General de Gaulle refused to allow it. Britain only became a member in 1973, after de Gaulle’s retirement.

After becoming a member in 1973, Britain’s attitude towards the European Community continued to be unenthusiastic. Although trade with Europe greatly increased, most British continued to feel that they had not any economic benefit from Europe. This feeling was strengthened by the way in which Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher argued for a better financial deal for Britain in the Community’s affairs. The way in which she fought won her some admiration in Britain, but also anger in many parts of Europe. She welcomed closer co-operation in the European Community but only if thus did not mean any lessening of sovereignty. Many Europeans saw this as a contradiction. Unless member states were willing to surrender some control over their own affairs, they argued, there could be little chance of achieving greater European unity. It is not surprising that Britain’s European partners wondered whether Britain was still unable ‘to take part seriously in any Pan-European system’.

Britain felt its special relationship with the United States was particularly important. It was vaguely believed that this relationship came from a common democratic tradition, and from the fact that the United States was basically Anglo-Saxon. Neither belief was wholly true, for the United States since 1783 had been a good deal more democratic than Britain, and most US citizens were not Anglo-Saxons. Even Britain’s alliance with the United States was very recent. In 1814 British troops had burnt down the US capital, Washington. In the middle of the 19^th century most British took the part of the South in the American Civil War. By the end of the century the United States was openly critical of Britain’s Empire.

Britain’s special relationship rested almost entirely on a common language, on its wartime alliance with the United States and the Cold War which followed it. In particular it resulted from the close relationship W. Churchill personally enjoyed with the American people.

After the war, Britain found itself unable to keep up with the military arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. It soon gave up the idea of an independent nuclear deterrent, and in 1962 took American ‘Polaris’ nuclear missiles for British submarines. The possession of these weapons gave Britain, in the words of one Prime Minister, the right ‘to sit at the top of the table’ with the Superpowers. However, Britain could only use these missiles by agreement with the United States and as a result Britain was more closely to the United States.

So, relations with the US started very badly indeed, with the war of Independence at the end of the 18^th century, when the Americans defeated the British. But in the 20^th century the two countries were close allies, first of all in both World Wars, then in the Cold War, and finally in a sort of international policing role. It has often been called a special relationship, although generally this has meant Britain doing whatever the USA wanted it to. Britain has given military support on several occasions, and has even more often given moral support. Britain was the only country to allow American planes to use its airports on their way to bomb Libya in 1986, and the only country to support the American invasion of Panama in 1989. Similarly, the USA gave some helpful information to Britain during the Falklands War. The UK supported the USA in the Gulf War (Kuwait, Iraq).

The relationship is not always special. The British did not really share the American’s bitter anti-Communist feeling during the Cold War. Neither do they support Israel with the same unconditional enthusiasm. The British have resented American attempts to get involved in Northern Ireland, and been angry when Irish Americans have sent money to the IRA. There was a difficult moment in 1983 when the USA invaded the Caribbean island of Grenada to remove a left-wing government. This was an ex-British colony, but the Americans did not even tell the British that they were invading. More recently, Britain has been opening up commercial and tourist links with Cuba, in defiance of the American blockade.

2. Britain’s principal military focus is NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which started in 1949 and includes the USA, Canada and most of the Western European countries. This alliance is very much dominated by its biggest member, the United States, and it was not easy for Britain to join and give up a long tradition of independence. Britain accepted a secondary role, and allowed the USA to use the country for its military bases, including, for a time, nuclear weapons facilities.

Britain has been involved in the United Nations since it was created in 1945. The British rather hoped at the time that, since they themselves were now too weak for the job, the UN would police the world, including the British Empire. It never worked quite like that, and in fact, as the colonies gained their independence, they joined the UN and were able to vote against the richer, more powerful countries. Britain often found itself in a small minority, against the rest of the world.

It is because of its nuclear weapons that Britain has permanent seat on the UN Security Council, along with the USA, Russia, France and China. There are also ten non-permanent members of the Council. Decisions are based on a nine-out-of-fifteen majority vote, but permanent members have the right to veto proposals. Since the early days of the UN, Britain’s international status has declined significantly. It now seems inappropriate that Britain should still have a permanent seat. Both Germany and Japan have applied for permanent seats, and it is likely that in the long run Britain will lose this privileged position.