5: Relationship with the UN; & nuclear weapons

20 January 2023 14:59

STARTER

Recap: Why was the UN established? How did Britain affect the UN between 1951-1965? How did the
UN affect Britain?

UN established: To maintain international peace and prevent aggression; replaces the League of
Nations. Founded in 1945. Provide a world forum for discussion and co-operation.

United Nations Security Council - powerful body in the UN, decisions are binding: 5 permanent members
of the Security Council -> China, Russia, France, US, UK -> each of these members has a veto

United Nations General Assembly -> less powerful -> made up of every recognised state

British impact on UN:

- Britain handed over Palestine issue to the UN

- Britain supported the UN effort in Korean War
- Britain has veto power

UN impact on Britain:
- Founded on the idea of self-determination and accelerated decolonisation by making it less
politically acceptable to retain empires/colonies

KEY ENQUIRIES

1. Why was it easier for Britain to adhere to UN resolutions in the 1950s, but harder from the 1960s
onwards? (Consider how the membership of the UN had changed over time)

Pre-1950s/1960s, most UN members are colonial powers or Western-aligned states (with the
exception of the Communist states). So most resolutions would be things that Britain agreed with
anyway.

From the late 1950s/early 1960s onwards, the mass decolonisation of European empires meant
lots of new members joining with different priorities, often contradictory with Britain's priorities,
especially continuation of imperialism

2. Consider this data on the use of the veto by Britain in the UN over time. What explains the
changing patterns of the use of Britain's Security Council veto?

Initially not used very frequently, but the use of the veto expanded considerably in the 1960s, 70s
and 80s. As more and more decolonised countries joined the UN, there was greater criticism of
white-minority governments which were seen as part of the 'colonial legacy' - specifically
Rhodesia and South Africa.

Even though Britain had tense and fractious relationships with both Rhodesia and South Africa,
they still vetoed resolutions that were critical of those governments because:

a. They were seen as 'internal' or 'Commonwealth' issues within Britain's sphere of influence
b. They were vetoed in partnership with the US, because there was a fear that black nationalist
movements in those countries might be influenced by Communism (Cold War context)
c. The black nationalist movements were viewed as too radical/extreme by many British
politicians

The veto was almost always exercised in partnership with the Americans.

Date Resolution passed by the UN Vetoing powers

1956 USA condemned Anglo-French invasion of Suez UK; France
1956 USA condemned Anglo-French invasion of Suez UK; France
1963 Condemnation of minority white rule in Rhodesia UK
1970 Enquiry into civil war in Rhodesia (minority white v black majority) UK; USA
1970 Enquiry into civil war in Rhodesia (minority white v black majority) UK
1971 Enquiry into civil war in Rhodesia (minority white v black majority) UK
1972 Broadening above enquiry to other former British African colonies UK
1972 Enquiry into civil war in Rhodesia (minority white v black majority) UK
1973 Enquiry regarding South African/Portuguese involvement in Rhodesia UK; USA
1974 Relationship between apartheid South Africa and the UN UK; France; USA
1975 Enquiry into South African occupation of Namibia UK; France; USA
1976 Enquiry into South African occupation of Namibia UK; France; USA
1977 Enquiry into South African occupation of Namibia UK; France; USA
1977 South African occupation of Namibia; nuclear weapons; and apartheid UK; France; USA
1977 Condemnation of South African apartheid UK; France; USA
1981 Enquiry into South African occupation of Namibia UK; France; USA
1981 Enquiry into South African occupation of Namibia UK; France; USA
1981 Enquiry into South African occupation of Namibia UK; France; USA
1981 Enquiry into South African occupation of Namibia UK; France; USA
1982 Pro-Argentine enquiry on the Argentine invasion of the Falklands (UK) UK; USA
1985 Enquiry into South African occupation of Namibia UK; USA
1986 Libya/Burkina Faso/Syria/Oman condemnation of US bombing Libya UK; France; USA
1986 Enquiry into South African occupation of Namibia UK; USA
1986 South African involvement in Angolan Civil War UK; USA
1987 South African occupation of Namibia; South African apartheid UK; USA
1987 South African occupation of Namibia UK; USA
1988 South African occupation of Namibia; South African apartheid UK; USA
1989 Libya/Bahrain condemnation of US bombing of Libya UK; France; USA
1989 Condemnation of US invasion of Panama UK; France; USA

3. How important was membership of the UN to Britain's foreign policy between 1951-1997?

Important = influential as a source of legitimacy and global status for Britain; extensive use of the
veto in the 1970s and 80s to protect British foreign policy interests, especially in southern Africa;
decolonisation impacted Britain's standing in the world; involvement in the Korean War

Not important = Britain's vetoes were almost always alongside the USA - so the Special
Relationship was more significant than membership of the UN; and in the early period
(1950s-1960s), Britain was minimally affected by the UN and still relied on the
empire/Commonwealth as sources of global power.

Summary judgment ->

4. Why did Britain want to pursue its own independent nuclear weapons in the late 1940s under
Attlee, instead of just relying on America's?

a. Nuclear weapons were seen as the sign of a 'superpower' in the new world --> global status
symbol
b. Thought there was a risk of the USA retreating into isolationism and not 'protecting' the UK
c. --> need for an independent deterrent against the Soviet Union

Britain acquired nuclear weapons in 1952 (third country after the USA and USSR)

Ernest Bevin - 'We’ve got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the
bloody Union Jack on top of it.'

Nye Bevan – not having nuclear weapons "would send a British Foreign Secretary naked into the
conference-chamber"

1. Why were missiles a better system of delivery for nuclear weapons than dropping them out of a
plane, like those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Link to the concept of 'Mutually Assured Destruction'

Planes can be shot down. Missiles can't. Development of missile/rocket technology led to the
advent of Mutually Assured Destruction because it made it possible to retaliate even before being
struck with weapons. This was good for Britain because it 'levelled the playing field' vs other
nuclear powers, specifically the Soviet Union, as the USSR wouldn't want to attack Britain because
they knew Britain could easily retaliate.

Britain's nuclear deterrent was reliant on the USA, because even though Britain had independently
developed nuclear bombs, the delivery system (Polaris missiles) were from the US

2. What were the positions of the following on nuclear weapons in the 1950s/60s?

General Public - Split on the issue - lots of public opposition (CND - Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament) - large public protests --> 100k marching in London (concerns re conflict, violence,
morality, expense, nature)

Labour Party - Split. Left (Bevanites) were opposed re expense and wanted unilateral
disarmament; Right (Gaitskellites) were in favour of them for security, but willing to consider
multilateral disarmament

Conservative Party - Pro-nuclear weapons --> saw it as a way to maintain British security

3. Despite deep public splits on the issue, why did Britain decide to retain nuclear weapons anyway?

Retain great/ superpower status --> still a 'status symbol', and perhaps a 'replacement' for Empire
as a means of status.
Political consensus that they were necessary to prevent Soviet aggression against Western Europe
and Britain

4. Why was Thatcher opposed to abolishing nuclear weapons in the 1980s?

Some movement towards disarmament in the 1960s and 70s, involving Britain. E.g. Test Ban
Treaty and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But Britain didn't play a role in SALT1.

Previously has been successful in deterring Soviet spheres of influence

Thatcher was very against abolition of nuclear weapons, even if multilateral, because Britain didn't
have a substantial conventional military so nuclear weapons were necessary to have a deterrent
against the Soviet Union. If there were no nuclear weapons, the USSR would far outweigh the UK's
conventional military.

5. How did changes to Britain's nuclear arsenal in the 1990s reinforce the nuclear deterrent - and
was it worth it?

Nuclear missiles moved from land-bases to Vanguard nuclear submarines, which enhanced the
deterrent (because even if Britain were destroyed, you would not be able to know where the
submarines were and target them).

Missiles changed from Polaris to Trident (still co-manufactured with the USA, and serviced in California)

Worth it? Maintenance of security - just in case!!

Not worth it? Collapse of the Soviet Union (1991) eliminated the main nuclear rival - so who are the
missiles there to deter? Also perhaps not worth the cost if the nuclear missiles were still dependent on
the USA for servicing

PLENARY

Consider the following. Rank them in order of importance for Britain's global power in the years
1951-1997. Justify your answer:

1. Special relationship with the USA

2. Nuclear weapons
3. Permanent seat on the Security Council of the UN

'The special relationship with the USA was the most important aspect for upholding Britain's global
power in 1951-1997"