Unit thirteen

International relations

The attitudes of a country’s people to the rest of the world and the relationships of its government with other places in the world can tell us a great deal about that country. All countries foster myths about themselves, for they are essential to a national self-image. One of Britain’s myths is to do with its world position, based on the lingering afterglow of a bygone glory. For 200 years, until 1950s, Britain’s view of the world was dominated by its overseas territorial possessions and trade. Britain was reluctantly involved in Continental Europe, usually only when its own security was directly threatened. Since the disappearance of its empire and the comparative decline in its power, Britain has adjusted its world view with difficulty. There are still occasions when Britain acts as if it were of greater importance than it is. As a result, Britain’s foreign policy has tended to lag behind the reality of its world position and to conflict with its true economic interests.

Britain found it difficult to adjust following the loss of its colonial territories in the 1960s. Britain seemed uncertain where its primary interests lay, whether it was with the United States, its most important military ally, or with the European Community, its most important economic arena. It remained a keen advocate of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), in which it plays a leading role. Behind its strategic concerns lay another fear, that without the role it plays in NATO, it might return to what it was until the seventeenth century, an offshore island on the edge of European affairs.

British people and the rest of the world

In the days when ‘Britannia ruled the waves’, British people had a rather patronizing attitude towards people in other countries. Foreigners were often considered amusing, perhaps interesting, even exotic, but not really to be taken seriously. What really mattered was what Britain and British people did. But this attitude has disappeared with the dismantling of the empire. These days, many foreign ways of doing things are admired (although perhaps a bit resentfully) and there is a greater openness to foreign influences.

• The Commonwealth – The dismantling of the British Empire took place comparatively peacefully, so good relations between Britain and the newly independent countries were established. As a result, and with the encouragement of Queen Elizabeth II, an international organization called the Commonwealth, composed of the countries that used to be part of the empire, has continued to hold annual meetings. Some of these countries have even kept the British monarch as head of state. There are no clear formal economic or political advantages involved in belonging to the Commonwealth, but it helped to keep cultural contacts alive. Until quite recently, there were special trading agreements between members. But since Britain became a member of the European Economic Community, most of these agreements have gradually been discontinued.

• Britain lost its empire in the second half of the twentieth century. However, some small remnants of it remain. Whatever their racial origin, the inhabitants of Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falklands/Malvinas and several other small islands have all wished to continue with the imperial arrangement (they are afraid of being swallowed up by their nearest neighbours. For British governments, these wishes are a source of pride on the one hand but embarrassment and irritation on the other: pride, because they suggest how beneficial the British imperial administration must have been; embarrassment, because the possession of colonial territories does not fit with the image of a modern democratic state, and irritation because it costs money.

• The old imperial spirit is not quite dead. In 1982, the British government spent hundreds of millions of pounds recapturing the Falklands/Malvinas Islands from the invading Argentinians. We cannot know if it would not have done so if the inhabitants had not been in favour of remaining British and Argentina had not had a military dictatorship at the time. But what we do know is that the government’s action received enormous popular support at home. Before the Falklands War, the government of the time was extremely unpopular; afterwards, it suddenly became extremely popular and easily won the general election early in the following year. Here was a rare modern occasion for the British people to be actively patriotic. Many of them felt that here, for once, Britain was doing something right and doing it well.

• The loyalty towards the government of the British armed forces has not been in doubt since the Civil War (1642-51). In addition, the army has only rarely been used to keep order within Great Britain in the last 100 years. These facts probably help to explain why, over the years, opinion polls have shown the armed forces to be one of the few institutions that British people are consistently proud of. Another possible reason is that there is no period of compulsory military service for British citizens. (‘National Service’, as this was called, was abolished in 1957.) The British military is divided into three branches: the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the army. The navy is the oldest and for this reason is sometimes known as ‘the senior service’.

The modern British are not really chauvinistic. Open hostility to people from other countries is very rare. If there is any chauvinism at all, it expresses itself through ignorance. Most British people know remarkably little about Europe and who lives there (although not as little as most Americans). It is indicative that most people have caricatured stereotypes in their minds only for the larger nations of Europe, but if they are asked what they know about the Belgians, the Czechs or the Portuguese, the most honest answer would be ‘nothing’.

Moreover, the British are very bad about learning other languages. The British do not refuse to speak other languages; they are just lazy. The role of English as the world’s language makes it too easy for them. The preference for an American future over a European one is coupled with the issue of language. British people often take some pride in the fact that most of the world’s population is coming to speak their language (but perhaps it is ‘American’ they are learning).

Transatlantic relations

Ever since the Second World War, Britain has believed in a ‘special relationship’ with the United States. This relationship is based upon a shared language and Anglo-Saxon culture, and particularly strong relationships between their leaders (Churchill and Roosevelt, Thatcher and Reagan, Blair and Clinton). British governments are fond of referring to the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the USA. There have been occasional low points, but generally speaking it has persisted.

Public feeling about the relationship is ambivalent. On the one hand it is reassuring to be so diplomatically close to the most powerful nation in the world, and the shared language gives people some sense of belonging with America. On the other hand, there is little distrust, but remarks are often made about Britain being nothing more than the fifty-first state of the USA. Similarly, while some older people remember with Gratitude the Americans who came to their aid in the Second World War, others resent the fact that it took them so long to get involved.

• The Americanisation of cultural identities is a global phenomenon. The spread of American culture has been most clear it its corporate signs, such as Coca-Cola, Levi Strauss, Budweiser, Disney, Nike and McDonald’s. Perhaps one of the most significant elements of what might be called the McDonaldisation of Britain has been the increased importance of standartisation and quantity. The best selling ‘Big Mac’ is prepared in exactly the same way with same ingredients throughout the world; it is also not principally ‘delicious’ or ‘tasty’ or anything other than ‘Big’. In fast-food restaurants today it is impossible to by ‘small’ anything – even bags of fries only come in ‘regular’ and ‘large’ sizes.

• The process of Americanisation in industry and the new service economy underlies many shifts, particularly regarding work identities. Alongside purchasing habits, work and mass culture are also becoming largely American. British cultural and political rhetoric became Americanised as stockbrokers and financial managers embraced a much more established view in American that ‘greed is good’, a phrase taken from the American film Wall Street. Terms such as ‘wealth creation’, ‘total quality management’, ‘go for it’, ‘the bottom line’ and ‘achievable goals’ have entered the common speech of British work life, as certain traditional skepticisms about the power of money and business language have been eroded for a ‘brave new world’. The changes in the new economic climate have also helped to break down some of the ‘old boy networks’ that have traditionally occupied the institutions of power in Britain. None the less , the institutions of official culture have in some cases been more resistant than others, in particular, Whitehall, the BBC, Law, Oxford and Cambridge Universities as compared to the City – most private City institutions are now foreign-owned and London is home to over five hundred overseas banks. Businesses have relinquished some of the British ‘tradition’ oriented around being ‘one of us’, ‘fair play’, ‘security’, ‘seniority’, ‘loyalty’, for the priorities of the global market: ‘profit’, ‘risk’, ‘meritocracy’ and ‘individual goals’.