British Foreign Policy since 1945

Mark Garnett, Simon Mabon, Robert Smith

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317588993
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia britannica moderna

British Foreign Policy since 1945 brings a chronological approach to the study of British foreign policy since the Second World War in order to make the principal events and dynamics accessible within a broader historical and cultural context.

The key features included in this book:

• 
  
  

• a detailed chronological survey of developments in post-war British politics;

• 
  
  

• an integrated discussion of foreign and domestic policy developments indicating connections and interlocking themes;

• 
  
  

• illustrations of British foreign policy drawn from popular culture;

• 
  
  

• analysis of Britain's role in the world, particularly in regards to the UK's 'special relationship' with the US and its decision to leave the EU;

• 
  
  

• a range of in-text features including essay questions and seminar/discussion topics.

This timely book will be essential reading for anyone interested in British politics, foreign policy analysis and British history.

1 Foreign policy and International-Relations theory

Introduction

Despite the growing popularity of International Relations (IR) as an academic subject, it presents considerable intellectual challenges. Not the least of these is International-Relations theory, which confronts students with questions relating to ontology, epistemology and levels of analysis. Those who find such issues somewhat daunting at first glance can at least console themselves with the thought that they can also pose problems for their teachers.

It is, at least, quite easy to understand why theory is so important in the study of IR. The student’s task is not merely to accumulate evidence relating to an increasingly complex and fast-changing world. This evidence must be analysed; and even the least sophisticated interpretation will, to some extent, reflect the perspective of the observer. The various IR theories thus represent a range of interpretive ‘lenses’, which give rise to a variety of judgements. As in all academic disciplines, there is a danger that IR theory can be misused: specific evidence which fits a preconceived theory can be emphasised at the expense of other material which has at least comparable explanatory relevance; foreign policy actors can even be criticised for failing to behave in conformity with an intellectual framework they have never heard of. Nevertheless, IR theory provides crucial equipment for those who seek a deeper, clearer understanding and new insights into this fascinating subject.

The influence of theory is evident in contests over the nature of IR itself. For example, while some suggest that it should focus upon the diplomatic and strategic relationships between states, others argue that it should also encompass transactions across borders. Broadly speaking, the study of IR is the exploration and examination of the interaction of a range of different types of actor within what is commonly referred to as the international system; it deals with the interaction of myriad actors, ranging from states to charities, transnational companies to religious leaders.

The emergence of a discipline of IR can be traced back to the end of the First World War, when a number of scholars sought to explain the path to war in the hope of contributing to the task of avoiding a similar catastrophe. The term ‘international relations’ can be traced back much earlier, to the time of the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). A number of thinkers have exercised a profound and continuing influence over the academic study of IR, among them Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx and, more recently, Michel Foucault. This list highlights two serious problems with IR as a discipline. The first is the dominance of male voices, a problem that haunts philosophy more generally but particularly IR theory. The second is the ‘Western’ orientation of these authors. One of the most damning criticisms of IR as a discipline is its over-reliance upon Western experiences. Indeed, if one traces the roots of modern diplomacy back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, one can appreciate that Western ideals have dominated the discipline since before its existence. In recent years a number of scholars have sought to feed non-Western ideas and values into the study of IR, yet for now it remains dominated by Western voices.

In the formative years of the discipline IR was shaped by what has been termed the first ‘great debate’, between Realism and Liberalism. Since then other controversies have emerged – for example, between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘behaviourists’ (in essence, a debate about epistemology), and between ‘rationalists’ and ‘reflectivists’ (a dispute concerned with ontology). We need to clarify what we mean by these unfamiliar terms. ‘Epistemology’ is concerned with knowledge and how we acquire it; ‘ontology’ is concerned with what constitutes reality and how we understand existence. These are important differences that shape how we see the world and what processes we use to build our personal interpretations. Different theories have different beliefs and approaches to these questions.

Historically, the discipline of IR was driven by a desire to analyse inter-state relations, yet in recent years the growing prominence of ideas, networks and transactions that transcend the ‘black box’ of the sovereign nation state has posed a serious challenge to ‘state-centric’ assumptions. As a consequence, a number of scholars have begun to offer alternative approaches that give more attention to non-state factors and actors.

Many of the theories discussed in this chapter arise from different ontological and epistemological positions and, as such, we should also be aware of the problems associated with them. From this, we can make a crude yet important distinction between positivism (the quest for ‘objective’ knowledge), post-positivism (also designated as reflectivism), which stresses the subjectivity of events, and Critical Theory, which focuses on social, cultural and economic factors. Positivism is grounded in the ‘hard’ sciences and asserts that facts relate to concrete realities which are amendable to objective analysis. By contrast, post-positivist and Critical Theorists argue that ‘facts’ in the sphere of human interactions are subjects of endless contestation as a consequence of the biases and subjectivities which inevitably affect the researcher.

This chapter seeks to introduce the reader to the most prominent IR theories which have shaped the discipline as it approaches its centenary. It begins with a discussion of Realism, before turning to Liberalism, Marxism, Constructivism and Critical Theories. The discussion employs a comparative framework to facilitate a greater understanding of them. Each section begins with a survey of the philosophical traditions underpinning the various theoretical approaches. It then examines the ontological and epistemological presuppositions which inform each perspective, before exploring levels of analysis within each theoretical approach and identifying key questions which arise in relation to each theory. Far from aiming at a comprehensive account, the discussion is intended to give the reader a working understanding of what each theory can do, along with its limitations. Although we regard some perspectives as more applicable than others to an understanding of post-war British foreign policy, we have no conscious intention to act as champions of any one of them. Rather, we believe that all of them have important insights to offer those who want to understand the attempts of various British governments to come to terms with a world which was radically reshaped by the 1939–45 conflict.

The Realist tradition

Although Realism was not the first theoretical ‘school’ of IR, it has been the most influential of the various perspectives. Claiming to offer a ‘fact-based’ approach, its attractions seemed obvious following the failure of the League of Nations to facilitate global cooperation, and the process which led to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. The notion that Realism engages with the world ‘as it is’ rather than as one ‘wants it to be’ still exercises considerable appeal for students and policy makers alike; its focus on the pursuit of the ‘national interest’ seems especially relevant to the international policy of democratic states, whose governments seek to win the approval of their citizens. As such, it provides an appropriate starting point for our discussion.

An early exponent of what is now referred to as Realism was Edward Hallett Carr, whose seminal work, The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1939), provided a vivid commentary on the course of events which led to a renewal of global conflict. Shortly after the war, Hans Morgenthau’s Politics among Nations (1948) added conceptual depth to the basic Realist theory, establishing what became known as Classical Realism. However, the Realist approach is grounded in a broader canon of philosophical work within the Western tradition, dating back to the fifth century BC. In particular, three authors are worth noting: the Athenian soldier and historian Thucydides, the Florentine politician and author Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) and the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). It is, however, important to stress that these three were not themselves self-conscious ‘Realists’; rather, their work influenced the variants of Realism which emerged during the twentieth century.

Box 1.1 Key figures in the Realist tradition

Hans Morgenthau (1904–80)

Along with E.H. Carr, the German legal scholar Hans Morgenthau is regarded as a founding father of what is now understood to be Classical Realism. In Politics among Nations (1948) Morgenthau set out a theory of human nature that reflected the influence of Hobbes and Machiavelli. Later in life, Morgenthau served as a consultant to the US administrations of Kennedy and Johnson, although he would later be sacked by Johnson for criticising US policy in Vietnam. Aside from Politics among Nations, Morgenthau was also the author of The Concept of the Political (1933), In Defense of the National Interest (1951), The Purpose of American Politics (1960) and many other titles.

Kenneth Waltz (1924–2013)

Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics invigorated the Realist tradition when it was published in 1979, and it established Structural Realism as one of the essential theories within IR. Waltz served in both the Second World War and the Korean War – experiences which had a profound impact upon his thinking. In addition to his discipline-changing Theory of International Politics, he was the author of Man, the State, and War (1959), Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics: The American and British Experience (1967) and The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed (1995). Waltz applied a typically Realist style of reasoning in relation to nuclear weapons, arguing that ‘more may be better’, i.e. if more states possessed such weapons they would deter each other from conventional attacks and thus serve the interests of peace.

Hobbes’ work on political organisation, sovereignty and the ‘state of nature’ which preceded the institution of government provides much of the theoretical groundwork for the Realists. Moreover, the Realist tradition is infused with the Hobbesian understanding of human nature, defined by self-interest and fear. Hobbes’ hypothetical state of nature serves as an admirable illustration of his argument, suggesting that at the heart of action, in the international sphere as well as domestic life, is a quest for survival and security.

A key element of Realist thought is the contention that states are driven by the need for survival and a constant hankering for the power necessary to secure this objective. But how should power be understood? For the Realist, power is often equated to survival, self-interest and influence; yet the Realist canon tends to rest on assumptions in this respect, rather than detailed analysis. Recent scholarly attention has focused on the concept of ‘soft power’ (see below), yet this work has chiefly been conducted by Liberals.

Concerns about security and power are conceptualised in the ‘security dilemma’, first identified by John Herz (1908–2005). For Herz (a refugee from Nazi Germany), the security dilemma is a:

structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening.

(Herz, 1950)

The security dilemma is comprised of two separate stages: the dilemma of interpretation and the dilemma of response. A dilemma is a proposition that contains two potential resolutions, neither of which is unambiguously acceptable. The two components of the security dilemma contain within them uncertainty about the impact of an external ‘other’ upon state power and national interest.

From this a number of assumptions emerge, which underpin the Realist tradition. First, the international system is ‘anarchic’, which is to say that there is no overarching power capable of regulating the behaviour of states. Second, states possess a military capacity that will allow them to hurt and potentially destroy adversaries; in the case of the more powerful actors in the post-1945 era, this may be nuclear weapons. Third, uncertainty characterises international relations. Fourth, survival is the main goal of a state and, given the anarchic nature of international relations, self-help is a prominent feature of state calculations.

Within the international system states engage in a ‘zero-sum’ competition over relative power – that is, every encounter produces clear ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. The unequal distribution of power across the international system requires states to engage in a range of activities to ensure that their needs are met. For stronger states, the quest for ‘hegemony’, either internationally or regionally, drives foreign policy agendas. In contrast, weaker states fear for their security and habitually devise strategies to balance against the power exerted by other actors.

Over time Realist thought underwent a conceptual development, shifting the focus to ‘structural’ analysis. Kenneth Waltz proposed Structural Realism (also commonly referred to as Neo-Realism) in 1979, and subsequently the theory was developed by scholars such as John Mearsheimer. For Waltz, the structure of the international system – still anarchic – impacted upon a state’s ability to exert and maximise power. Waltz argued that rather than trying to maximise their power, states were primarily concerned with maintaining their security within the system. Mearsheimer, by contrast, contended that states do in fact try to maximise their power. Despite the obvious potential for conflicting conclusions – usually labelled ‘offensive’ against ‘defensive’ Realism – and given the general popularity of ‘structuralist’ analysis in North American universities, it was not surprising that Neo-Realism tended to supersede Classical Realism, whose emphasis on human nature had been a guiding factor in the formative stages of the tradition.

Despite the intellectual appeal of Realism, it has encountered a number of objections which apparently undermine its explanatory value. It is argued, for example, that Realism lacks sufficient depth and nuance to provide an adequate interpretation of international developments. Certainly, the confinements of their positivist epistemology and ontology prevent Realists from appreciating the role of ideas, identities and normative values in motivating international actors. This looks increasingly anomalous in view of the influence of religion and, more broadly, ideology upon the interplay of actors within the contemporary world.

Similarly, since Realists are wedded to the view that states are unitary actors which project coherence onto the world, they pay insufficient attention to developments within states. Yet even states which are not formally democratic are clearly influenced by movements of public opinion. Furthermore, the decisions of state actors are increasingly shaped by institutions (such as transnational corporations) whose activities are not constrained by geographical boundaries. Among these transnational forces are groups (including terrorist organisations) which have established a presence in numerous states. Since some of these groups are inspired by ideas, Realist assessments of their importance are doubly disadvantaged, since their analytical framework denies any meaningful role in international politics to either non-state actors or to beliefs.

The Liberal tradition

In the aftermath of the First World War populist sentiment focused on the need to identify and punish the culprits. Intellectuals in various countries sought to understand how the organisation of the international system could allow such savage and self-defeating devastation. The ensuing efforts to conjure tranquil order out of murderous chaos left a lasting imprint on the new academic discipline of IR. Ultimately, the goal of Liberal Internationalism was to develop transparent structures in the international system that would ensure collective security, removing the need for the secretive diplomacy that had helped to precipitate the tragedy of 1914–18.

At the heart of the peace negotiations to end the First World War were fourteen principles of world peace, outlined by US President Woodrow Wilson. On 8 January 1918 Wilson outlined his vision, drawing upon domestic considerations to shape his view of international relations (Box 1.2).

Wilson’s vision was favourably received in public, although the British and the French were privately sceptical. George Clemenceau, the French President, exclaimed that ‘Le bon Dieu n’en avait que dix!’ – ‘The good Lord only had 10 points!’. Liberal hopes were dashed by the Treaty of Versailles, in which Wilson’s stated principles on self-determination were repeatedly breached; the refusal of the US Congress to commit the US to the League of Nations was another serious rever...