Pub Date : 2023-08-18DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2023.2239157
Leon Gooberman
{"title":"‘A state of almost surreal vice versa’: the devolution referendums in Wales, 1979 and 1997","authors":"Leon Gooberman","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2023.2239157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2239157","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44157198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-14DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2023.2237308
Lauriane Simony, M. Torrent
Diplomacy is the classic example of the Spanish proverb, ‘Traveller, there are no roads. Roads are made by walking’. We need to keep flexible and innovative and be less worried about strategic priorities which may need to be displaced at short notice or added to with no commensurate additional resources 1
{"title":"Introduction. Diplomatic departures: negotiating Britain’s international outreach in the contemporary world","authors":"Lauriane Simony, M. Torrent","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2023.2237308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2237308","url":null,"abstract":"Diplomacy is the classic example of the Spanish proverb, ‘Traveller, there are no roads. Roads are made by walking’. We need to keep flexible and innovative and be less worried about strategic priorities which may need to be displaced at short notice or added to with no commensurate additional resources 1","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":"37 1","pages":"473 - 488"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42221849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-11DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2023.2237311
M. Torrent
ABSTRACT On 18 December 1965, a little over a month after Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence, Algeria broke off diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom, in protest at the Labour Government’s decision not to use force against the white minority government in Salisbury. On one level, the diplomatic break seemed of secondary importance, and by the time relations resumed in April 1968, there had been no significant change in Britain’s or Algeria’s position on Rhodesia. However, as this article argues, the management of Britain’s relations with Algeria between 1965 and 1968 sheds important light on the place and views of Africa in Labour and diplomatic circles, at a time of decolonisation, of a second, unsuccessful, application to the EEC and of the creation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The article focuses on four areas of policy in turn: the place of Rhodesia in Anglo-Algerian relations; the influence of Labour contacts on the management of relations with Algeria; the influence of the crisis on Britain’s relations with the French in Africa and the impact of Franco-British exchanges on the evolution of British views and interests; and finally, the shifting place of Algeria in British diplomacy.
1965年12月18日，在罗得西亚单方面宣布独立一个多月后，阿尔及利亚与英国断绝了外交关系，以抗议工党政府决定不对索尔兹伯里的白人少数政府使用武力。在一个层面上，外交破裂似乎是次要的，到1968年4月两国关系恢复时，英国或阿尔及利亚在罗得西亚问题上的立场并没有重大变化。然而，正如本文所述，1965年至1968年间英国与阿尔及利亚关系的处理，在非殖民化时期，在第二次申请加入欧洲经济共同体(EEC)失败的时期，在外交和联邦事务部(Foreign and Commonwealth Office)成立的时期，为劳工和外交界对非洲的地位和看法提供了重要的启示。本文依次探讨了四个政策领域:罗得西亚在英阿关系中的地位;劳工接触对处理与阿尔及利亚关系的影响;危机对英法在非洲关系的影响以及法英交流对英国观点和利益演变的影响;最后，阿尔及利亚在英国外交中地位的转变。
{"title":"Failing to ‘do a de Gaulle’? The break in Anglo-Algerian relations (1965-1968) and the reassessment of British policy","authors":"M. Torrent","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2023.2237311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2237311","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT On 18 December 1965, a little over a month after Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence, Algeria broke off diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom, in protest at the Labour Government’s decision not to use force against the white minority government in Salisbury. On one level, the diplomatic break seemed of secondary importance, and by the time relations resumed in April 1968, there had been no significant change in Britain’s or Algeria’s position on Rhodesia. However, as this article argues, the management of Britain’s relations with Algeria between 1965 and 1968 sheds important light on the place and views of Africa in Labour and diplomatic circles, at a time of decolonisation, of a second, unsuccessful, application to the EEC and of the creation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The article focuses on four areas of policy in turn: the place of Rhodesia in Anglo-Algerian relations; the influence of Labour contacts on the management of relations with Algeria; the influence of the crisis on Britain’s relations with the French in Africa and the impact of Franco-British exchanges on the evolution of British views and interests; and finally, the shifting place of Algeria in British diplomacy.","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":"37 1","pages":"525 - 554"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48080480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-02DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2023.2237315
A. Hadfield, C. Turner
ABSTRACT Brexit has been a game-changer for Britain, and its key partners. Strategic shifts as well as historic relations have impacted the UK’s relationship with France in a number of unexpected ways. This article explores some of the key historical events that have caused both agreement and strife between the two states, looking at the bilateral treaties established to deepen cooperation on security and defence, specifically the Lancaster House agreements, and considers the series of intriguing accords and conventions that have arisen from the mid-1980s, as well as the logistical challenges of the shared border and juxtaposed border controls of Britain and France. Post-Brexit diplomatic forums in which Britain and France are joined by Germany are then explored, before assessing Britain’s attempts to forge its new role in relation to long-standing commitments to France and an evolving relationship with the EU.
{"title":"Entente Cordiale Redux: the impact of Brexit on British and French foreign and security policy","authors":"A. Hadfield, C. Turner","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2023.2237315","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2237315","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Brexit has been a game-changer for Britain, and its key partners. Strategic shifts as well as historic relations have impacted the UK’s relationship with France in a number of unexpected ways. This article explores some of the key historical events that have caused both agreement and strife between the two states, looking at the bilateral treaties established to deepen cooperation on security and defence, specifically the Lancaster House agreements, and considers the series of intriguing accords and conventions that have arisen from the mid-1980s, as well as the logistical challenges of the shared border and juxtaposed border controls of Britain and France. Post-Brexit diplomatic forums in which Britain and France are joined by Germany are then explored, before assessing Britain’s attempts to forge its new role in relation to long-standing commitments to France and an evolving relationship with the EU.","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":"37 1","pages":"633 - 655"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43281334","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2023.2237313
Bent Boel
ABSTRACT In the mid-1970s, no Western leader on an official visit to a Soviet Bloc country wasted any thoughts on whether or not to meet a dissident, even in countries where dissidents actually existed. By the late 1980s, such encounters had become part of an almost obligatory ritual. This remarkably swift and dramatic transformation was both preceded and accompanied by a similar change in the relationship between diplomats and dissidents. All of this happened despite considerable resistance on the part of the regimes in the host countries, which sometimes resorted to retaliatory measures, including expulsions. This article examines the role played by the United Kingdom in this normative and practical change. It identifies the different layers of relationships between the British government and Soviet Bloc dissidents, distinguishing between ‘para-contacts’, political contacts, and diplomatic contacts. It shows how political and diplomatic face-to-face contacts with the dissidents increased in frequency and scope during the 1980s, and how ministers’ and diplomats’ contacts furthered each other. Finally, it discusses possible explanations for this change.
{"title":"Avoiding (unwanted) departures: British diplomacy and Soviet Bloc dissidents during the Cold War","authors":"Bent Boel","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2023.2237313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2237313","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the mid-1970s, no Western leader on an official visit to a Soviet Bloc country wasted any thoughts on whether or not to meet a dissident, even in countries where dissidents actually existed. By the late 1980s, such encounters had become part of an almost obligatory ritual. This remarkably swift and dramatic transformation was both preceded and accompanied by a similar change in the relationship between diplomats and dissidents. All of this happened despite considerable resistance on the part of the regimes in the host countries, which sometimes resorted to retaliatory measures, including expulsions. This article examines the role played by the United Kingdom in this normative and practical change. It identifies the different layers of relationships between the British government and Soviet Bloc dissidents, distinguishing between ‘para-contacts’, political contacts, and diplomatic contacts. It shows how political and diplomatic face-to-face contacts with the dissidents increased in frequency and scope during the 1980s, and how ministers’ and diplomats’ contacts furthered each other. Finally, it discusses possible explanations for this change.","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":"37 1","pages":"573 - 604"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45421116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-26DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2023.2241373
Freddy Foks
{"title":"British Culture after Empire: race, decolonisation and migration since 1945","authors":"Freddy Foks","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2023.2241373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2241373","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44880840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-23DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2023.2238636
Emily Robinson
{"title":"Penguin books and political change: Britain’s meritocratic moment, 1937-1988","authors":"Emily Robinson","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2023.2238636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2238636","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48233943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-21DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2023.2237309
Alice Byrne
ABSTRACT There are grounds for considering the creation of the British Council in the interwar period as a manifestation of post-World War One internationalism and the search for a ‘new diplomacy’. Yet, as an arms-length body established by the Foreign Office (FO), it was expected to support not supplant traditional diplomats. If the creation of a body dedicated to cultural relations did indeed represent a new departure for British diplomacy, to what new destinations did it hope to carry that diplomacy? Focusing on the first decades of the Council’s existence, this article shows that the British Council’s growing commitment to cultural internationalism did not prevent it from continuing to function as a vector for British cultural propaganda. It also argues that the transition to Commonwealth did not diminish a commitment to the Empire, and shows the importance of recognising the tensions at work within the model of cultural internationalism adopted by the Council given that development would represent an increasingly significant proportion of its work from the 1960s onwards.
{"title":"The British Council and British cultural diplomacy 1934-1959: a new form of diplomacy?","authors":"Alice Byrne","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2023.2237309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2237309","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There are grounds for considering the creation of the British Council in the interwar period as a manifestation of post-World War One internationalism and the search for a ‘new diplomacy’. Yet, as an arms-length body established by the Foreign Office (FO), it was expected to support not supplant traditional diplomats. If the creation of a body dedicated to cultural relations did indeed represent a new departure for British diplomacy, to what new destinations did it hope to carry that diplomacy? Focusing on the first decades of the Council’s existence, this article shows that the British Council’s growing commitment to cultural internationalism did not prevent it from continuing to function as a vector for British cultural propaganda. It also argues that the transition to Commonwealth did not diminish a commitment to the Empire, and shows the importance of recognising the tensions at work within the model of cultural internationalism adopted by the Council given that development would represent an increasingly significant proportion of its work from the 1960s onwards.","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":"37 1","pages":"489 - 504"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45100202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-19DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2023.2237316
Thibaud Harrois
ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to study the evolution of Britain’s involvement in the EU’s foreign and security policy in order to highlight the reasons that led the issue to be left out of talks on the post-Brexit future relation. The paper argues Europeanisation or de-Europeanisation largely depends on the degree of politicisation of issues both in the EU, the EU-27 and in the UK. As long as foreign and security issues remained relatively low key, the UK was able to enjoy the magnifying effect of its participation in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and contributed to the decision-making process in order to successfully influence EU policies. Politicisation of foreign and security issues was due both to developments in EU-led or national initiatives and to the reaction they provoked in the UK. The EU insisted the UK was to be considered as a ‘third country’ and stressed the need for future cooperation to be institutionalised. On the contrary, in the UK, public distrust against a putative European ‘super state’, led successive governments to avoid any formal commitment to new EU initiatives.
{"title":"The politicisation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in the British domestic debate on Brexit: a challenge to EU-UK foreign and security cooperation","authors":"Thibaud Harrois","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2023.2237316","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2237316","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to study the evolution of Britain’s involvement in the EU’s foreign and security policy in order to highlight the reasons that led the issue to be left out of talks on the post-Brexit future relation. The paper argues Europeanisation or de-Europeanisation largely depends on the degree of politicisation of issues both in the EU, the EU-27 and in the UK. As long as foreign and security issues remained relatively low key, the UK was able to enjoy the magnifying effect of its participation in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and contributed to the decision-making process in order to successfully influence EU policies. Politicisation of foreign and security issues was due both to developments in EU-led or national initiatives and to the reaction they provoked in the UK. The EU insisted the UK was to be considered as a ‘third country’ and stressed the need for future cooperation to be institutionalised. On the contrary, in the UK, public distrust against a putative European ‘super state’, led successive governments to avoid any formal commitment to new EU initiatives.","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":"37 1","pages":"656 - 678"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45814416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-18DOI: 10.1080/13619462.2023.2237310
Lauriane Simony
ABSTRACT In 1948, when Burma became independent, the British colonial administration left the country and was replaced by a British embassy and a British Council centre, in order to establish new diplomatic relations. Cultural diplomacy appeared as a good, informal way of furthering the embassy’s initial goal of promoting peaceful and preferential diplomatic relations between Burma and Britain after the colonial era. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, the British Council offered English classes to the Burmese public and encouraged the development of academic partnerships between the two countries. Yet in 1962, a military coup led by General Ne Win overthrew Prime Minister U Nu’s democratically elected government and disrupted Anglo-Burmese relations. In the name of strict neutrality in foreign affairs, Ne Win’s Revolutionary Council restricted all foreign cultural missions’ actions in Burma, notably their ability to teach foreign languages to Burmese students, until the British Council was eventually forced to close down and transfer some of its remaining missions to the British embassy in 1967. Based on British Council archives gathered at the National Archives in London, this article examines a forced ‘diplomatic departure’, by focusing on the impact of the Burmese internal political crisis on Anglo-Burmese diplomatic and cultural relations.
{"title":"Cultural diplomacy in times of crisis: the British Council’s departure from Burma during the military dictatorship (1962-1966)","authors":"Lauriane Simony","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2023.2237310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2237310","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 1948, when Burma became independent, the British colonial administration left the country and was replaced by a British embassy and a British Council centre, in order to establish new diplomatic relations. Cultural diplomacy appeared as a good, informal way of furthering the embassy’s initial goal of promoting peaceful and preferential diplomatic relations between Burma and Britain after the colonial era. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, the British Council offered English classes to the Burmese public and encouraged the development of academic partnerships between the two countries. Yet in 1962, a military coup led by General Ne Win overthrew Prime Minister U Nu’s democratically elected government and disrupted Anglo-Burmese relations. In the name of strict neutrality in foreign affairs, Ne Win’s Revolutionary Council restricted all foreign cultural missions’ actions in Burma, notably their ability to teach foreign languages to Burmese students, until the British Council was eventually forced to close down and transfer some of its remaining missions to the British embassy in 1967. Based on British Council archives gathered at the National Archives in London, this article examines a forced ‘diplomatic departure’, by focusing on the impact of the Burmese internal political crisis on Anglo-Burmese diplomatic and cultural relations.","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":"37 1","pages":"505 - 524"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48180242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：