History of the foreign relations of the United Kingdom: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:16, 15 August 2016

the History of the foreign relations of the United Kingdom covers British foreign policy since about 1600. For the current situation since 2000 see Foreign relations of the United Kingdom.

This section is moved from Foreign relations of the United Kingdom.

British foreign relations were largely inherited from the Kingdom of England's place in the world prior to the unification of Great Britain into a single United Kingdom. British foreign policy initially focused on achieving a balance of power within Europe, with no one country achieving dominance over the affairs of the continent. This was a major reason behind the British wars against Napoleon, and the UK's involvement in the First and Second World Wars. The chief enemy of the British, from the Hundred Years' War until the defeat of Napoleon (1337-1815) was France, a larger country with a more powerful army. The British were generally successful in their many wars, with the notable exception of the American War of Independence (1775–1783), when Britain, without any major allies, was defeated by the colonials who had the support of France, the Netherlands and Spain. A favoured diplomatic strategy was subsidising the armies of continental allies, such as Prussia, thereby turning London's enormous financial power to military advantage. Britain relied heavily on its Royal Navy for security, seeking to keep it the most powerful fleet afloat with a full complement of bases across the globe. British dominance of the seas was vital to the formation of the British Empire, which was achieved through the maintenance of a Navy larger than the next two largest Navies combined for the majority of the 19th and early 20th centuries, prior to the entry of the United States into the Second World War.

1814-1914

Britain, with its large empire, powerful Navy, and global financial and trade networks, dominated diplomacy in Europe and the world in the largely peaceful century 1814-1914. Four men stand out for their leadership in foreign policy: Lord Palmerston, Benjamin Disraeli, William Ewart Gladstone and Lord Salisbury. Military action was much less important than diplomacy.

Lord Palmerston, as a Whig and then a Liberal, was the dominant leader in foreign policy for most of the period from 1830 until his death in 1865. As foreign secretary from 1846 to 1851 and subsequently as prime minister, Palmerston sought to maintain the balance of power in Europe, sometimes even aligning with France to do so.^[1]. Thus he was aligned with France in the Crimean War against Russia, fought and won with the limited goal of protecting the Ottoman Empire. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). In all his actions Palmerston brought to bear a great deal of patriotic vigour and energy. This made him very popular among the ordinary people of Britain, but his passion, propensity to act through personal animosity, and imperious language made him seem dangerous and destabilising in the eyes of the Queen and his more conservative colleagues in government.^[2]^[3]

Benjamin Disraeli, the Conservative leader for much of the late 19th century, built up the British Empire and played a major role in European diplomacy. Disraeli's second term (1874-1880) was dominated by the Eastern Question—the slow decay of the Ottoman Empire and the desire of other European powers, such as Russia, to gain at its expense. Disraeli arranged for the British to purchase a major interest in the Suez Canal Company (in Ottoman-controlled Egypt). In 1878, faced with Russian victories against the Ottomans, he worked at the Congress of Berlin to obtain peace in the Balkans at terms favourable to Britain and unfavourable to Russia, its longstanding enemy. This diplomatic victory over Russia established Disraeli as one of Europe's leading statesmen. World events thereafter moved against the Conservatives. Controversial wars in Afghanistan and South Africa undermined Disraeli's public support.^[4]

William Ewart Gladstone (Prime Minister 1868-74, 1880-86, 1892-94), the Liberal leader, was much less inclined to imperialism and sought peace as the highest foreign policy goal. However, historians have been sharply critical of Gladstone's foreign-policy during his second ministry. Hayes says it, "provides one of the most intriguing and perplexing tales of mobile and incompetence in foreign affairs, unsurpassed in modern political history until the days of Grey and, later, Neville Chamberlain."^[5] Gladstone opposed himself to the "colonial lobby" which pushed the scramble for Africa. His term saw the end of the Second Anglo-Afghan War, First Boer War and the war against the Mahdi in Sudan, as well as the Anglo-Egyptian War, which resulted in the occupation of Egypt.^[6]

Historians largely agree that Lord Salisbury as foreign minister (1878-80, 1885-86, 1887-92, and 1895-1900) and prime minister (1886-92, 1895-1902)was a strong and effective leader in foreign affairs.^[7] He had a superb grasp of the issues, and proved:

a patient, pragmatic practitioner, with a keen understanding of Britain's historic interests....He oversaw the partition of Africa, the emergence of Germany and the United States as imperial powers, and the transfer of British attention from the Dardanelles to Suez without provoking a serious confrontation of the great powers.^[8]

1900-1914

After 1900 Britain ended its policy of "splendid isolation" by developing friendly relations with the United States and European allies - most notably France and Russia, in an alliance which fought the First World War. The "Special Relationship" with the U.S. was forged more definitely during the 1940s, and has endured to this day - playing a pivotal role in the Cold War and the War on Terror.

First World War

Britain had suffered little devastation during the war and Prime Minister David Lloyd George supported reparations to a lesser extent than the French. Britain began to look on a restored Germany as an important trading partner and worried about the effect of reparations on the British economy.^[9]^[10]

Interwar years 1919-39

Britain had suffered little devastation during the war and Prime Minister David Lloyd George supported reparations to a lesser extent than the French did at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. It reluctantly supported the hard Treaty of Versailles. . Britain began to look on a restored Germany as an important trading partner and worried about the effect of reparations on the British economy.^[11]^[12]

Vivid memories of the horrors and deaths of the World War made Britain and its leaders strongly inclined to pacifism in the interwar era.^[13]

1920s

Politically the coalition government of Prime Minister David Lloyd George depended primarily on Conservative Party support. He increasingly antagonized his supporters with foreign policy miscues regarding 's dependence on the more conservative Tory political party played an instrumental role in this political development. The Chanak Crisis of 1922 brought Britain to the brink of war with Turkey, but the Dominions were opposed and the British military was hesitant, so peace was preserved, but Lloyd George lost control of the coalition and was replaced as Prime Minister.^[14]

Britain maintained close relationships with France and the United States; however the U.S. refused to renegotiate its wartime loans. In the 1920s Britain rejected isolationism and sought world peace through naval arms limitation treaties,^[15] and peace with Germany through the Locarno treaties of 1925. A main goal was to restore Germany to a peaceful, prosperous state. The Dominions (Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand) achieved virtual independence in foreign policy in 1931, though each depended heavily upon British naval protection. After 1931 trade policy favoured the Commonwealth with tariffs against the U.S. and others.

The success at Locarno in handling the German question impelled Foreign Secretary Austen Chamberlain, working with France and Italy, to find a master solution to the diplomatic problems of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. It proved impossible to overcome mutual antagonisms, because Chamberlain's program was flawed by his misperceptions and fallacious judgments.^[16]

1930s

The challenge came from dictators, first Benito Mussolini of Italy from 1923, then from 1933 Adolf Hitler of a much more powerful Nazi Germany. Britain and France led the policy of non-interference in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39). The League of Nations proved disappointing to its supporters; it was unable to resolve any of the threats posed by the dictators. British policy was to "appease" them in the hopes they would be satiated. League-authorized sanctions against Italy for its invasion of Ethiopia had support in Britain but proved a failure and were dropped in 1936.^[17]

Germany was the difficult case. By 1930 British leaders and intellectuals largely agreed that all major powers shared the blame for war in 1914, and not Germany alone as the Treaty of Versailles specified. Therefore they believed the punitive harshness of the Treaty of Versailles was unwarranted, and this view, adopted by politicians and the public, was largely responsible for supporting appeasement policies down to 1938. That is, German rejections of treaty provisions seemed justified.^[18]

Coming of Second World War

By late 1938 it was clear that war was looming, and that Germany had the world's most powerful military. The British military leaders warned that Germany would win a war, and Britain needed another year or two to catch up in terms of aviation and air defense. The final act of appeasement came when Britain and France sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler's demands at the Munich Agreement of 1938.^[19] Instead of satiation Hitler seized all of Czechoslovakia and menaced Poland.At last in 1939 Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain dropped appeasement and stood firm in promising to defend Poland. Hitler however cut a deal with Joseph Stalin to divide Eastern Europe; when Germany did invade Poland in September 1939, Britain and France declared war; the British Commonwealth followed London's lead.^[20]

Second World War

Since 1945

The British built up a very large worldwide British Empire, which peaked in size in 1922, after more than half a century of unchallenged global supremacy. The cumulative costs of fighting two world wars, however, placed a heavy burden upon the UK economy, and after 1945 the British Empire gradually began to disintegrate, with many territories granted independence. By the mid-to-late 1950s, the UK's status as a superpower had been largely diminished by the rise of the United States and the Soviet Union. Many former colonial territories joined the "Commonwealth of Nations," an organisation of fully independent nations now with equal status to the UK.^[21] Britain finally turned its attention to the continent, joining the European Union.^[22]

After 1945 Britain systematically reduced its overseas commitments. Practically all the colonies became independent. Britain reduced its involvements in the Middle east, with the humiliating Suez Crisis of 1956 marking the end of its status as a superpower. However Britain did forge close military ties with the United States, France, and traditional foes such as Germany, in the NATO military alliance. After years of debate (and rebuffs), Britain joined the Common Market in 1973; it is now the European Union.^[23] However it did not merge financially, and kept the pound separate from the Euro, which kept it partly isolated from the EU financial crisis of 2011.^[24] As of 23 June 2016, the UK has voted to leave the EU.^[25]^[26]

The UK is currently establishing air and naval facilities in the Persian Gulf, located in the UAE and Bahrain.^[27]^[28]^[29] A presence in Oman is also being considered.^[30]

21st century

Foreign policy initiatives of UK governments since the 1990s have included military intervention in conflicts and for peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance programmes and increased aid spending, support for establishment of the International criminal court, debt relief for developing countries, prioritisation of initiatives to address climate change, and promotion of free trade.^[31] The British approach has been described as "spread the right norms and sustain NATO".^[32]

Lunn et al. (2008) argue:^[33]

Three key motifs of Tony Blair’s 10-year premiership were an activist philosophy of 'interventionism', maintaining a strong alliance with the US and a commitment to placing Britain at the heart of Europe. While the 'special relationship' and the question of Britain’s role in Europe have been central to British foreign policy since the Second World War...interventionism was a genuinely new element.

In 2013, the government of David Cameron described its approach to foreign policy by saying:^[34]

For any given foreign policy issue, the UK potentially has a range of options for delivering impact in our national interest. ... [W]e have a complex network of alliances and partnerships through which we can work.... These include – besides the EU – the UN and groupings within it, such as the five permanent members of the Security Council (the “P5”); NATO; the Commonwealth; the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; the G8 and G20 groups of leading industrialised nations; and so on.

The Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 highlighted a range of foreign policy initiatives of the UK government.^[35]^[36] Edward Longinotti notes how current British defence policy is grappling with how to accommodate two major commitments, to Europe and to an ‘east of Suez’ global military strategy, within a modest defence budget that can only fund one. He points out that Britain’s December 2014 agreement to open a permanent naval base in Bahrain underlines its gradual re-commitment east of Suez.^[37]

A momentous change is underway in 2016 after the British electorate voted fro "Brexit"--to leave the European Union.

Timeline

Notes

^ David Brown, "Palmerston and Anglo–French Relations, 1846–1865." Diplomacy and Statecraft 17.4 (2006): 675-692
^ Jasper Ridley, Lord Palmerston (1971)
^ Dick Leonard, Dick, "Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston—Master Diplomat or Playground Bully?." in Dick Leonard, ed., Nineteenth-Century British Premiers (Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2008). pp 245-265.
^ Martin Swartz, The Politics of British Foreign Policy in the Era of Disraeli and Gladstone (1985).
^ Paul Hayes, Modern British Foreign Policy: The Twentieth Century: 1880–1939 (1978) p 1
^ Martin Swartz, The Politics of British Foreign Policy in the Era of Disraeli and Gladstone (1985).
^ Keith M. Wilson, ed., British foreign secretaries and foreign policy: from Crimean War to First World War (Routledge Kegan & Paul, 1987).
^ Nancy W. Ellenberger, "Salisbury" in David Loades, ed. Reader's Guide to British History (2003) 2:1154
^ Antony Lentin, Lloyd George and the lost peace: from Versailles to Hitler, 1919-1940 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2001).
^ ] Margaret Macmillan, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World (2001).
^ ] Margaret Macmillan, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World (2001).
^ Antony Lentin, Lloyd George and the lost peace: from Versailles to Hitler, 1919-1940 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2001).
^ Michael Pugh, Liberal internationalism: the interwar movement for peace in Britain (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
^ Michael Laird, "Wars Averted: Chanak 1922, Burma 1945–47, Berlin 1948," Journal of Strategic Studies (1996) 19#3 pp 343-364.
^ B. J. C. McKercher, "The politics of naval arms limitation in Britain in the 1920s." Diplomacy and Statecraft 4#3 (1993): 35-59.
^ Dragan Bakić, "‘Must Will Peace’: The British Brokering of ‘Central European’and ‘Balkan Locarno’, 1925–9." Journal of Contemporary History 48.1 (2013): 24-56.
^ James C. Robertson, "The Origins of British Opposition to Mussolini over Ethiopia." Journal of British Studies 9#1 (1969): 122-142.
^ Catherine Ann Cline, "British Historians and the Treaty of Versailles." Albion 20#1 (1988): 43-58.
^ David Faber, Munich, 1938: Appeasement and World War II (2010)
^ Donald Cameron Watt, How War Came: Immediate Origins of the Second World War, 1938–39 (1990)
^ Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (2001)
^ Stephen Wall, A Stranger in Europe: Britain and the EU from Thatcher to Blair (2008)
^ Andrew Marr, A History of Modern Britain (2009)
^ Stephen Wall, A Stranger in Europe: Britain and the EU from Thatcher to Blair (Oxford University Press, 2008)
^ Andrew Gamble, "Better Off Out? Britain and Europe." The Political Quarterly (2012) 83#3: 468-477.
^ Nathaniel Copsey and Tim Haughton, "Farewell Britannia? 'Issue Capture' and the Politics of David Cameron's 2013 EU Referendum Pledge." JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies (2014) 52-S1: 74-89.
^ "East of Suez, West from Helmand: British Expeditionary Force and the next SDSR" (PDF). Oxford Research Group. December 2014. Retrieved 22 May 2015.
^ "A Return to East of Suez? UK Military Deployment to the Gulf". Royal United Services Institute. April 2013. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
^ "The New East of Suez Question: Damage Limitation after Failure Over Syria". Royal United Services Institute. 19 September 2013. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
^ "Defence Secretary visits Oman". Ministry of Defence. 1 October 2015. Retrieved 28 October 2015.
^ Gaskarth, Jamie (2013). British Foreign Policy Crises, Conflicts and Future Challenges. Hoboken: Wiley. p. 15. ISBN 9780745670003.
^ Wagnsson, Charlotte (2012). Security in a Greater Europe: The Possibility of a Pan-European Approach. Oxford University Press. p. 33. ISBN 9780719086717. The British solution: spread the right norms and sustain NATO ... The new rules placed humanitarian intervention above the principle of sovereignty. Blair stated that this 'would become the basis of an approach to future conflict'.
^ Lunn, Jon; Miller, Vaughne; Smith, Ben (23 June 2008). "British foreign policy since 1997" (PDF). Research Paper 08/56. House Commons Library.
^ "Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Foreign Policy" (PDF). HM Government. July 2013. p. 13. Retrieved 21 November 2015.
^ "National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015" (PDF). HM Government. November 2015. Retrieved 23 November 2015.
^ Lord Robertson, former UK Defence Secretary and Secretary General of NATO (27 October 2015). "The 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review and its Implications". Gresham College. Retrieved 26 November 2015. Defence Review would be foreign policy led
^ Longinotti, Edward (9 September 2015). "'For God's sake, act like Britain' Lessons from the 1960s for British defence policy". History & Policy. Retrieved 7 July 2016.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-the ''' History of the foreign relations of the United Kingdom''' covers British foreign policy since about 1600.  Fir the current situation since 2000 see [[Foreign relations of the United Kingdom]].
+the ''' History of the foreign relations of the United Kingdom''' covers British foreign policy since about 1600.  For the current situation since 2000 see [[Foreign relations of the United Kingdom]].
+This section is moved from  [[Foreign relations of the United Kingdom]].
+{{further|Timeline of British diplomatic history|History of the United Kingdom}}
+British foreign relations were largely inherited from the [[Kingdom of England]]'s place in the world prior to the unification of Great Britain into a single United Kingdom. British foreign policy initially focused on achieving a [[Balance of power (international relations)|balance of power]] within Europe, with no one country achieving dominance over the affairs of the continent. This was a major reason behind the British wars against Napoleon, and the UK's involvement in the First and Second World Wars. The chief enemy of the British, from the [[Hundred Years' War]] until the defeat of Napoleon (1337-1815) was [[History of France|France]], a larger country with a more powerful army. The British were generally [[British military history|successful in their many wars]], with the notable exception of the [[American War of Independence]] (1775–1783), when Britain, without any major allies, was defeated by the colonials who had the support of France, the Netherlands and Spain. A favoured diplomatic strategy was subsidising the armies of continental allies, such as [[Prussia]], thereby turning London's enormous financial power to military advantage. Britain relied heavily on its [[History of the Royal Navy|Royal Navy]] for security, seeking to keep it the most powerful fleet afloat with a full complement of bases across the globe. British dominance of the seas was vital to the formation of the British Empire, which was achieved through the maintenance of a Navy larger than the next two largest Navies combined for the majority of the 19th and early 20th centuries, prior to the entry of the United States into the Second World War.
+==1814-1914==
+{{further|International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919)}}
+Britain, with its [[British Empire|large empire]], powerful Navy, and global financial and trade networks, dominated diplomacy in Europe and the world in the largely peaceful century 1814-1914.  Four men stand out for their leadership in foreign policy: Lord Palmerston, Benjamin Disraeli, William Ewart Gladstone and Lord Salisbury. Military action was much less important than diplomacy.
+[[Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston|Lord Palmerston]], as a Whig and then a Liberal, was the dominant leader in foreign policy for most of the period from 1830 until his death in 1865. As foreign secretary from 1846 to 1851 and subsequently as prime minister, Palmerston sought to maintain the balance of power in Europe, sometimes even aligning with France to do so.<ref>David Brown, "Palmerston and Anglo–French Relations, 1846–1865." ''Diplomacy and Statecraft'' 17.4 (2006): 675-692</ref>. Thus he was aligned with France in the [[Crimean War ]]against Russia, fought and won with the limited goal of protecting the Ottoman Empire.  <ref>   Some of his aggressive actions, now sometimes termed [[Interventionism (politics)|liberal interventionist]], were highly controversial at the time, and remain so today. For example, he used military force to achieve his main goal of opening China to trade, although his critics focused on his support for the opium trade.<ref>{{cite book|author=Glenn Melancon|title=Britain's China Policy and the Opium Crisis: Balancing Drugs, Violence and National Honour, 1833–1840|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V527VTyT29gC&pg=PA126|year=2003|publisher=Ashgate }}</ref> In all his actions Palmerston brought to bear a great deal of patriotic vigour and energy. This made him very popular among the ordinary people of Britain, but his passion, propensity to act through personal animosity, and imperious language made him seem dangerous and destabilising in the eyes of the [[Queen Victoria|Queen]] and his more conservative colleagues in government.<ref>Jasper Ridley, ''Lord Palmerston'' (1971)</ref><ref>Dick Leonard, Dick, "Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston—Master Diplomat or Playground Bully?." in Dick Leonard, ed., ''Nineteenth-Century British Premiers'' (Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2008). pp 245-265.</ref>
+[[Benjamin Disraeli]], the Conservative leader for much of the late 19th century, built up the British Empire and played a major role in European diplomacy.  Disraeli's second term (1874-1880) was dominated by the [[Eastern Question]]—the slow decay of the [[Ottoman Empire]] and the desire of other European powers, such as Russia, to gain at its expense. Disraeli arranged for the British to purchase a major interest in the [[Suez Canal Company]] (in Ottoman-controlled Egypt). In 1878, faced with Russian victories against the Ottomans, he worked at the [[Congress of Berlin]] to obtain peace in the Balkans at terms favourable to Britain and unfavourable to Russia, its longstanding enemy. This diplomatic victory over Russia established Disraeli as one of Europe's leading statesmen.  World events thereafter moved against the Conservatives.  Controversial wars in [[Second Anglo-Afghan War|Afghanistan]] and [[Anglo-Zulu War|South Africa]] undermined Disraeli's public support.<ref>Martin Swartz, ''The Politics of British Foreign Policy in the Era of Disraeli and Gladstone'' (1985).</ref>
+[[William Ewart Gladstone]] (Prime Minister 1868-74, 1880-86, 1892-94), the Liberal leader, was much less inclined to imperialism and sought peace as the highest foreign policy goal.  However, historians have been sharply critical of Gladstone's foreign-policy during his second ministry.  Hayes says it, "provides one of the most intriguing and perplexing tales of mobile and incompetence in foreign affairs, unsurpassed in modern political history until the days of [[Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon|Grey]] and, later, [[Neville Chamberlain]]."<ref>Paul Hayes, ''Modern British Foreign Policy: The Twentieth Century: 1880–1939'' (1978) p 1</ref> Gladstone opposed himself to the "[[colonialism|colonial lobby]]" which pushed the [[scramble for Africa]]. His term saw the end of the [[Second Anglo-Afghan War]], [[First Boer War]] and the [[Mahdist War|war]] against the [[Muhammad Ahmad|Mahdi]] in Sudan, as well as the [[1882 Anglo-Egyptian War|Anglo-Egyptian War]], which resulted in the occupation of Egypt.<ref>Martin Swartz, ''The Politics of British Foreign Policy in the Era of Disraeli and Gladstone'' (1985).</ref>
+Historians largely agree that [[Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury|Lord Salisbury]] as foreign minister (1878-80, 1885-86, 1887-92, and 1895-1900)  and prime minister (1886-92, 1895-1902)was a strong and effective leader in foreign affairs.<ref>Keith M. Wilson, ed., ''British foreign secretaries and foreign policy: from Crimean War to First World War'' (Routledge Kegan & Paul, 1987).</ref>  He had a superb grasp of the issues, and proved:
+:a patient, pragmatic practitioner, with a keen understanding of Britain's historic interests....He oversaw the partition of Africa, the emergence of Germany and the United States as imperial powers, and the transfer of British attention from the Dardanelles to Suez without provoking a serious confrontation of the great powers.<ref>Nancy W. Ellenberger, "Salisbury" in David Loades, ed. ''Reader's Guide to British History'' (2003) 2:1154</ref>
+==1900-1914==
+After 1900 Britain ended its policy of "[[splendid isolation]]" by developing friendly relations with the United States and European allies - most notably France and Russia, in an alliance which fought the First World War. The "[[Special Relationship]]" with the U.S. was forged more definitely during the 1940s, and has endured to this day - playing a pivotal role in the Cold War and the War on Terror.
+==First World War==
+{{Further|Causes of World War I|Treaty of Versailles }}
+Britain had suffered little devastation during the war and Prime Minister [[David Lloyd George]] supported reparations to a lesser extent than the French. Britain began to look on a restored Germany as an important trading partner and worried about the effect of reparations on the British economy.<ref>Antony Lentin, ''Lloyd George and the lost peace: from Versailles to Hitler, 1919-1940'' (Palgrave Macmillan, 2001).</ref><ref>] Margaret Macmillan, ''Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World'' (2001).</ref>
+===Interwar years 1919-39===
+Britain had suffered little devastation during the war and Prime Minister [[David Lloyd George]] supported reparations to a lesser extent than the French did at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. It reluctantly supported the hard [[Treaty of Versailles]]. . Britain began to look on a restored Germany as an important trading partner and worried about the effect of reparations on the British economy.<ref>] Margaret Macmillan, ''Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World'' (2001).</ref><ref>Antony Lentin, ''Lloyd George and the lost peace: from Versailles to Hitler, 1919-1940'' (Palgrave Macmillan, 2001).</ref>
+Vivid memories of the horrors and deaths of the World War made Britain and its leaders strongly inclined to pacifism in the interwar era.<ref>Michael Pugh, ''Liberal internationalism: the interwar movement for peace in Britain'' (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).</ref>
+===1920s===
+Politically  the coalition government of Prime Minister David Lloyd George depended primarily on Conservative Party support.  He increasingly antagonized his supporters with foreign policy miscues regarding
+'s dependence on the more conservative Tory political party played an instrumental role in this political development.  The [[Chanak Crisis]] of 1922 brought Britain to the brink of war with Turkey, but the Dominions were opposed and the British military was hesitant, so peace was preserved, but Lloyd George lost control of the coalition and was replaced as Prime Minister.<ref>Michael Laird, "Wars Averted: Chanak 1922, Burma 1945–47, Berlin 1948," ''Journal of Strategic Studies'' (1996) 19#3 pp 343-364.</ref>
+Britain maintained close relationships with France and the United States; however the U.S. refused to renegotiate its wartime loans.  In the 1920s Britain rejected isolationism and sought world peace through naval arms limitation treaties,<ref>B. J. C. McKercher, "The politics of naval arms limitation in Britain in the 1920s." ''Diplomacy and Statecraft'' 4#3 (1993): 35-59.</ref> and peace with Germany through the Locarno treaties of 1925. A main goal was to restore Germany to a peaceful, prosperous state. The Dominions (Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand) achieved virtual independence in foreign policy in 1931, though each depended heavily upon British naval protection. After 1931 trade policy favoured the Commonwealth with tariffs against the U.S. and others.
+The success at Locarno in handling the German question impelled Foreign Secretary [[Austen Chamberlain]], working with France and Italy, to find a master solution to the diplomatic problems of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. It proved impossible to overcome mutual antagonisms, because Chamberlain's program was flawed by his misperceptions and fallacious judgments.<ref>Dragan Bakić,  "‘Must Will Peace’: The British Brokering of ‘Central European’and ‘Balkan Locarno’, 1925–9." ''Journal of Contemporary History'' 48.1 (2013): 24-56.</ref>
+===1930s===
+{{Further|Appeasement|Neville Chamberlain's European Policy}}
+The challenge came from dictators, first [[Benito Mussolini]] of Italy from 1923, then from 1933 [[Adolf Hitler]] of a much more powerful [[Nazi Germany]]. Britain and France led the policy of non-interference in the [[Spanish Civil War]] (1936-39). The [[League of Nations]] proved disappointing to its supporters; it was unable to resolve any of the threats posed by the dictators.  British policy was to "appease" them in the hopes they would be satiated.  League-authorized sanctions against Italy for its invasion of Ethiopia had support in Britain but proved a failure and were dropped in 1936.<ref>James C. Robertson, "The Origins of British Opposition to Mussolini over Ethiopia." ''Journal of British Studies'' 9#1 (1969): 122-142.</ref>
+Germany was the difficult case. By 1930 British leaders and intellectuals largely agreed that all major powers shared the blame for war in 1914, and not Germany alone as the [[Treaty of Versailles]] specified. Therefore they believed the punitive harshness of the Treaty of Versailles was unwarranted, and this view, adopted by politicians and the public, was largely responsible for supporting appeasement policies down to 1938. That is, German rejections of treaty provisions seemed justified.<ref>Catherine Ann Cline, "British Historians and the Treaty of Versailles." ''Albion'' 20#1 (1988): 43-58.</ref>
+===Coming of Second World War===
+{{Further|Causes of World War II|Diplomatic history of World War II}}
+By late 1938 it was clear that war was looming, and that Germany had the world's most powerful military. The British military leaders warned that Germany would win a war, and Britain needed another year or two to catch up in terms of aviation and air defense. The final act of appeasement came when Britain and France sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler's demands at the [[Munich Agreement]] of 1938.<ref>[[David Faber (politician)|David Faber]], ''Munich, 1938: Appeasement and World War II'' (2010)</ref> Instead of satiation Hitler seized all of Czechoslovakia and menaced Poland.At last in 1939 Prime Minister [[Neville Chamberlain]] dropped appeasement and stood firm in promising to defend Poland. Hitler however cut a deal with [[Joseph Stalin]] to divide Eastern Europe; when Germany did invade Poland in September 1939, Britain and France declared war; the British Commonwealth followed London's lead.<ref>Donald Cameron Watt, ''How War Came: Immediate Origins of the Second World War, 1938–39'' (1990)</ref>
+===Second World War===
+{{Further|Causes of World War II|Diplomatic history of World War II}}
+===Since 1945===
+{{further|History of the United Kingdom (1945–present)}}
+The British built up a very large worldwide [[British Empire]], which peaked in size in 1922, after more than half a century of unchallenged global supremacy. The cumulative costs of fighting two world wars, however, placed a heavy burden upon the UK economy, and after 1945 the British Empire gradually began to disintegrate, with many territories granted independence. By the mid-to-late 1950s, the UK's status as a superpower had been largely diminished by the rise of the [[United States]] and the [[Soviet Union]]. Many former colonial territories joined the "Commonwealth of Nations," an organisation of fully independent nations now with equal status to the UK.<ref>Lawrence James, ''The Rise and Fall of the British Empire'' (2001)</ref>  Britain finally turned its attention to the continent, joining the European Union.<ref>Stephen Wall, ''A Stranger in Europe: Britain and the EU from Thatcher to Blair'' (2008)</ref>
+After 1945 Britain systematically reduced its overseas commitments. Practically all the colonies became independent. Britain reduced its involvements in the Middle east, with the humiliating [[Suez Crisis]] of 1956 marking the end of its status as a superpower. However Britain did forge close military ties with the United States, France, and traditional foes such as Germany, in the [[NATO]] military alliance. After years of debate (and rebuffs), Britain joined the [[European Economic Community|Common Market]] in 1973; it is now the [[History of the European Union|European Union]].<ref>Andrew Marr, ''A History of Modern Britain'' (2009)</ref> However it did not merge financially, and kept the pound separate from the Euro, which kept it partly isolated from the EU [[European sovereign debt crisis|financial crisis of 2011]].<ref>Stephen Wall, ''A Stranger in Europe: Britain and the EU from Thatcher to Blair'' (Oxford University Press, 2008)</ref> As of 23 June 2016, the UK has voted to leave the EU.<ref>Andrew Gamble,  "Better Off Out? Britain and Europe." ''The Political Quarterly'' (2012) 83#3: 468-477.</ref><ref>Nathaniel Copsey and Tim Haughton, "Farewell Britannia? 'Issue Capture' and the Politics of David Cameron's 2013 EU Referendum Pledge." ''JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies'' (2014) 52-S1: 74-89.</ref>
+The UK is currently establishing air and naval facilities in the [[Persian Gulf]], located in the UAE and Bahrain.<ref>{{cite web|title=East of Suez, West from Helmand: British Expeditionary Force and the next SDSR|url=http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/ORGDec14EastSuezWestHelmand_0.pdf|publisher=Oxford Research Group|accessdate=22 May 2015|date=December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=A Return to East of Suez? UK Military Deployment to the Gulf|url=https://www.rusi.org/publications/other/ref:N517AA8D59D1B3/|publisher=Royal United Services Institute|accessdate=1 July 2015|date=April 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=The New East of Suez Question: Damage Limitation after Failure Over Syria|url=https://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C523A2F0A381F3/#.VZROPeu-ra6|publisher=Royal United Services Institute|accessdate=1 July 2015|date=19 September 2013}}</ref> A presence in Oman is also being considered.<ref>{{cite news|title=Defence Secretary visits Oman|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-visits-oman|accessdate=28 October 2015|agency=Ministry of Defence|date=1 October 2015}}</ref>
+====21st century====
+Foreign policy initiatives of UK governments since the 1990s have included military intervention in conflicts and for peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance programmes and increased aid spending, support for establishment of the [[International criminal court]], debt relief for developing countries, prioritisation of initiatives to address [[climate change]], and promotion of [[free trade]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Gaskarth|first1=Jamie|title=British Foreign Policy Crises, Conflicts and Future Challenges.|date=2013|publisher=Wiley|location=Hoboken|isbn=9780745670003|page=15|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TZISAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT15&pg=PT15#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref> The British approach has been described as "spread the right norms and sustain NATO".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wagnsson|first1=Charlotte|title=Security in a Greater Europe: The Possibility of a Pan-European Approach|date=2012|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780719086717|page=33|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=C9DJCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt8_X5l6jMAhVF2xoKHQn7BokQ6AEIOjAG#v=onepage&q&f=false|quote=The British solution: spread the right norms and sustain NATO ... The new rules placed humanitarian intervention above the principle of sovereignty. Blair stated that this 'would become the basis of an approach to future conflict'.}}</ref>
+Lunn et al. (2008) argue:<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Jon|last1=Lunn|first2=Vaughne|last2=Miller|first3=Ben|last3=Smith|title=British foreign policy since 1997|publisher=House Commons Library|work=Research Paper 08/56|date=23 June 2008|url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP08-56.pdf}}</ref>
+:Three key motifs of Tony Blair’s 10-year premiership were an activist philosophy of 'interventionism', maintaining a strong alliance with the US and a commitment to placing Britain at the heart of Europe. While the 'special relationship' and the question of Britain’s role in Europe have been central to British foreign policy since the Second World War...interventionism was a genuinely new element.
+In 2013, the government of David Cameron described its approach to foreign policy by saying:<ref>{{cite web|title=Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Foreign Policy|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/227437/2901086_Foreign_Policy_acc.pdf|publisher=HM Government|accessdate=21 November 2015|page=13|date=July 2013}}</ref>
+:For any given foreign policy issue, the UK potentially has a range of options for delivering impact in our national interest. ... [W]e have a complex network of alliances and partnerships through which we can work.... These include – besides the EU – the UN and groupings within it, such as the five permanent members of the Security Council (the “P5”); NATO; the Commonwealth; the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; the G8 and G20 groups of leading industrialised nations; and so on.
+The [[Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015]] highlighted a range of foreign policy initiatives of the UK government.<ref name=SDSR2015>{{cite web|title=National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478933/52309_Cm_9161_NSS_SD_Review_web_only.pdf|date=November 2015|publisher=HM Government|accessdate=23 November 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author1=Lord Robertson, former UK Defence Secretary and Secretary General of NATO|title=The 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review and its Implications|url=http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-2015-strategic-defence-and-security-review-and-its-implications|publisher=Gresham College|accessdate=26 November 2015|date=27 October 2015|quote=Defence Review would be foreign policy led}}</ref> Edward Longinotti notes how current British defence policy is grappling with how to accommodate two major commitments, to Europe and to an ‘east of Suez’ global military strategy, within a modest defence budget that can only fund one. He points out that Britain’s December 2014 agreement to open a permanent naval base in Bahrain underlines its gradual re-commitment east of Suez.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/for-gods-sake-act-like-britain-lessons-from-the-1960s-for-british-defence|title=‘For God’s sake, act like Britain’ Lessons from the 1960s for British defence policy|last=Longinotti|first=Edward|date=9 September 2015|publisher=History & Policy|access-date=7 July 2016}}</ref>
+A momentous change is underway in 2016 after the British electorate voted fro "Brexit"--to leave the European Union.
 ==See also==
 * [[British Empire]]

v t e Foreign relations of Europe
Sovereign states	Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kazakhstan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands North Macedonia Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Vatican City
States with limited recognition	Abkhazia Kosovo Northern Cyprus South Ossetia Transnistria
Dependencies and other entities	Åland Faroe Islands Gibraltar Guernsey Isle of Man Jersey Svalbard
Other entities	European Union Sovereign Military Order of Malta