Historical Aspects of British Foreign Policy - Essay Example

Introduction Governments have been involved in different policy making decisions and heads of s, minister and prime ministers play key roles in such decisions. There are different factors involved along with the challenges and problems that determine the moves of a government. Among all policy making decisions foreign policy has always been considered an important aspect of any government. Foreign policy is not an area where just foreign secretary makes decisions but at times whole cabinet and important personalities get involved. An important era of study has been the era of Lloyd George’s peacetime government, from 1919 to 1922 in the realm of foreign policy. Britain’s external relation in this period has been quite interesting and people have conflicting views about the policies in this period. This period has also been of significance for historians because of the role of the Foreign Secretary in the making of British foreign policy. Historical Background Secrecy has been a key characteristic of the foreign policy in the late nineteenth century. Small number of ministers and officials has been known to play crucial roles in the formulation of the foreign policy. Those were the times when press had its limited presence and it was not considered an important driver in the policy making. Also public opinion about different issues related to external relations of a country was not given any importance. Even among the government circles a selected elite group made key decisions. Prime Ministers directly controlled the affairs of the Foreign Office. If we look at the background history of foreign policy in Britain then we get to know that Benjamin Disraeli from 1874 to 1878 intervened constantly in the affairs of his Foreign Secretary. During the 1902 to 1905 period Arthur Balfour gave some respite in the direct intervention culture set by his predecessors but still kept a close eye on the developments in British foreign policy. Sir Edward Grey took the Foreign Office in 1906 and was given more independence in the foreign policy area. After Herbert Henry Asquith assumed office in 1908 Grey got even more freedom in the affairs of his department as other ministers and cabinet members got busy with their own domestic affairs. Foreign affairs got restricted to selected people. This scenario changed with war in 1914 and foreign policy was criticized by all & sundry. Different governments also started making comments about the way foreign policy was being tackled. President Wilson of the United States became the biggest critic of covert ways of foreign policy dealings and demanded that democratic process should be involved in the affairs. War continued till 1918 and then Paris Peace Conference took place in 1919 the attention shifted to foreign policy in the peace time. Again policymakers became conscious of the relationships between Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. After the Great War the importance foreign policy increases manifolds. Lord Curzon of Kedleston became foreign secretary from October 1919 to January 1924. British electorate also became more conscious of the foreign policy matters as many believed that poor foreign policies were behind the war. Lloyd George became the prime minister and realized the importance of foreign policy particularly in the eyes of electorates as a result of war. He realized that winning foreign policy can result in the success of a government in the eyes of public. Considering tits importance Lloyd made it a point to attend many international conferences in the period 1919 to 1922. Lloyd saw these conferences as the opportunity for both showing government presence as well as gaining economic benefits as most of these were related to trade, war debts and recompense. Foreign policy also held many dangers for the government of Lloyd George. The government could not have afforded any new wars with any other country as public opinion went heavily against war. It was during this scenario that the Chanak crisis took place in September 1922. This crisis brought the Lloyd George coalition down. The general election were to be held in November same year. These elections became a challenge for the candidates as foreign policy was not just considered important separately but people also related certain domestic issues with the foreign policy. For example common people who has burden of taxes for bear look towards Germany for reparation. “Curzon himself claimed: ‘Foreign affairs, if you examine it, are really domestic affairs -- the most domestic of all our affairs, for this reason. They touch the life, the interest, and the pocket of every member of the community’. This sentiment was certainly not one which Grey would have held, let alone expressed before the First World War. The sentiment behind Curzons claim was widely held, and it called for the process of foreign policy-making to be more open to public scrutiny, if not actually more open to wider influences. The prospect that the views of backbenchers, industry and unions, and the general public might more directly come to influence foreign policy was raised by the First World War” (Bennett 1999, p.467). Perspectives in History History provides interesting analysis of the era in which Lloyd George ruled and made foreign policies. A historical debate started because contemporaries developed different perceptions regarding Lloyd George. This happened because Lloyd George conducted the affairs in a way that created mystery. “In view of Lloyd George’s long parliamentary career -- from 1890 to the Second World War -- it is hardly surprising that wildly differing opinions were expressed about him. The pre-1914 biographies stressed his Welshness and his Radicalism, painting a sentimental and even heroic picture of a poor boy storming the English Establishment. This reached a brief peak around 1918 when he was dubbed `The Man who Won the War. But even in the Edwardian period colleagues had identified innumerable failings: his opportunism, his search for temporary expedients, his disregard for principle and ideology, his lack of scruple in financial and sexual matters, his tendency to be all things to all men” (Pugh 1998). This historical debate found its base in the work of Lord Beaverbrook by the title The Decline and Fall of Lloyd George. Beaverbrook portrayed the picture of Lloyd George in a way that made people believe that he was solely behind the formulation and execution of British foreign policy while Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office were nowhere in the scene. Others like Charles Hardinge, a former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Alan Sharp and even Winston Churchill subscribed to same point of view. All of these people agreed that foreign office and the role of foreign secretary became negligible during Lloyd’s rule. Another concept that became popular was the concept that Lloyd created special Prime Ministers secretariat which also became known as ‘Garden Suburb’ and used some key people from its staff in the decision making and policy making. The name ‘Garden Suburb’ got associated with Prime Ministers Secretariat as it was installed in temporary huts in the garden of No. 10 Downing Street One opinion group suggests that the concept of ‘Garden Suburb’ was exaggerated by the historians yet they agree that foreign policy went through a different phase. The criticism on Lloyd George was on the shifting of decision and policy making but it was more severe on the use of unelected aides of Prime Minister actively participating in the process. Names of Philip Kerr and Edward Grigg became well known for their interference in the matters of foreign policy. Some historians did not make a final judgment on the influence of these people on Britain’s foreign policy during Lloyd’s rule while some even went on to claim that these people and not foreign secretary controlled all affairs. Lloyd George Lloyd George was the the only Welshman ever to hold the office of Prime Minister in the British government. Lloyd George’s poltical carreer can be traced back to the days when he started and established his law practice. Lloyd became an admirer of Chamberlains unauthorised programme of reforms for Welsh grievances while he actively campaigned for the Liberal Party in the 1885 election. His early involvement in the political issues finally landed him in the House of Commons in 1890. He soon became an eloquent speaker on Liberal issues. By the end of the century Lloyd became a nown figure oarticua,larly because of his views on war, education and other government policies. “He gained national fame by his vehement opposition to the Second Boer War. He based his attack firstly on what were supposed to be the war aims – remedying the grievances of the Uitlanders and in particular the claim they were wrongly denied the right to vote saying ‘I do not believe the war has any connection with the franchise. It is a question of 45% dividends’ and that England (which then did not have universal manhood suffrage) was more in need of franchise reform then the Boer republics. His second attack was on the cost of the war which prevented overdue social reform in England, such as old age pensions and workmans cottages” (David Lloyd George). David Lloyd became a Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1908 to 1915 while Asquith became Prime Minister. World War I broke and political landscape changed bringing the coalition government of the Liberals and the Conservatives and Lloyd George became the Prime Minister. Due to the coalition set up position of Lloyd George can not be considered completely powerful as he had other key members to deal with in a 5-member war cabinet. Positive Aspects During the war time Lloyd George became a well known figure. Many appreciated his abilities to lead the nation during the troubled times of war which he did successfully. His ability as a Prime Minister was also applauded a great deal. “The source of his leadership lay in the fire and zeal which burned within him; in his active, agile, planning, and executive brain; besides, he radiated authority and force not only to a commanding but to a dominating degree. He had a musicians eye for the large and rapidly turning pages of an operatic score, while con-ducting chorus and orchestra. He was an artist, but he was not an academician. He was born fresh every morning. He arrived in the Cabinet room with his batteries fully charged, with ideas which he wished discussed and, brushing aside irrelevant secretarial programs, he issued a whirl of lightning instructions” (Jones 1951) 89 The fall of Lloyd Lloyd George came successful out of the war and ran his campaign on the promises of reparations from Germany, rehabilitation, and particularly nade foreign policy a key ingredient of his campaign. The reparations issue also became important as he assumed the office of Prime Minister again. He even took the issue to international conferences like Versailles Peace Conference. Some even criticsed him for his stance on reperatrions. The coalition government became problematic for Lloyd George after the war as it became difficult for him to unite different opposing views and political thoughts. The start of the second decade of the new century brought bad news for Lloyd George. He got al sorts of criticsms ranging from corruption to his dealings in ‘Garden Suburb’. It was Chanak crisis in1922 that finally brought his government down. “1921 ushered in two cruel years which were to rip away all the gold brocade and the tinsel too. The illusions were being shattered and a great tragedy was being enacted for all to see. The Greeks told us of a man in high position, self- confident, so successful as to be overpowering to all others. Then his virtues turned to failings. He committed the crime of arrogance. His structure of self confidence and success came tumbling down. He struggled against fate, but he was doomed. So it was with Lloyd George in the year 1921 and into 1922. Then all was over. His plans good and bad came to nothing. He fell and never rose again” (Beaverbrook 1963, p.10). Perspectives on Lord Curzon Lord Curzon has been described as an ineffective foreign secretary who failed to make his and his department’s presence felt in the eyes of Prime Minister. Curzons biographers David Gilmour defined him as the foreign secretary most subservient to the Prime Minister. Curzon could not defend his position and role of his department while Prime Minister was accused of snatching away all powers from the foreign office concentrating it to his own post. Curzon expired in 1925 and left very little written evidence of his own views and feelings about his own situation. Some of his written words and papers showed that he was very unhappy the way his department was ignored by the Prime Minister’s office. Lord Ronaldshay in his biography of Curzon published Curzons draft letter of resignation confirming the views about subversion of foreign office by the Prime Minister. The consensus among most seem to be on the views that Prime Minister and his political appointees played dominant role and foreign secretary and his office became submissive but still some differ from this idea. Among these was Harold Nicolson, who served in the Foreign Office under Curzon and portrayed a different personality of Curzon. He considered Curzon a very egotistic and self-important person because of which differences occurred. These different shades of his personality became known when he served as an Under-Secretary of State for India from 1891 to 1892 and later resigned as Viceroy of India in 1905 after a clash with Lord Kitchener, the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian army. His ill-health by the end of his term as foreign secretary was also considered a problem by some. Foreign Office Role British foreign office had to face different problems and issues particularly in the 20s. Foreign Office had the duty of getting those issues heard at Cabinet level for debate and formulation of policy. There was another department during those days that became active for tackling office issues. This department was that of treasury and the reason why foreign policy issues also came through it was its dealing with reparations and inter-allied debts. Britain had its commitments in Asia and the Middle East and it was actively making policies towards Iberia, Bolshevik Russia and the United States. Foreign office also had a lot of criticism to face because Central Powers defeated Britain and then it resulted in economic hardships for people. Foreign office also had to deal with the Cabinet Secretariat which was responsible for connection with League of Nations. This added extra responsibility for the foreign office. Some consider the creation of the Cabinet Secretariat as further reduction in the role of foreign office. Most of the issues regarding League of Nations were dealt by this new office while foreign office only liaised. Critics of foreign policy looked at Cabinet Secretariat and ‘Garden Suburb’ in the same vein. The foreign office role as mentioned earlier was being taken by the Cabinet particularly after 1918. Foreign office also increased its correspondence with the cabinet manifolds. There were also some other sources of advise on foreign policy other than foreign office and Prime Minister’s close aides. For example important people involved in politics in different region where Britain was present also made contributions. Foreign office had Lord Curzon as its bearer and so office also had to deal with issues that came with his personality. It was said that most cabinet ministers did not get along well with him as he had a very opinion of himself and his expertise on different issues. Its is because of these reason that foreign office only became a liaison or link with cabinet and other departments rather than a powerful influence on policy making. George’s Influence on Future Events George Lloyd was both praised and criticized equally in history. During the war he was called the hero but later his policies were heavily criticized. He made some decisions in the past that were even considered to have influenced world politics. The impacts of the decisions made in his era even reverberate today in the Middle East in particular. “The decisions made almost 100 years ago are still reverberating - after influencing events that led up to the Second World War; several other major conflicts can be traced back to his policies. Mr. Williams says, The consequences of Lloyd Georges policy in supporting an independent state for the Jews in Palestine and in establishing a series of small-scale states in Greater Syria and Mesopotamia are still evident today. The idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East has led to tension between Israel and Palestine; and the establishment of states in the Balkans would later create conflict in this region, such as the break-up of old Yugoslavia” (Lloyd George Knew the Future). Conclusions Lloyd George’s political career started in 1890 and continued till the Second World War. His political decision and his style of governance got mixed reviews from the historians. People like Winston Churchill even went on to say that Lloyd George van be considered a person who brought most misfortunes to Britain. Extensive research done in the realm of history also acknowledged him as a great statesman. His term in the office of prime minister is also characterized by a different style of decision making in consultation with men from outside party politics that had pertinent knowledge. His concentration on foreign policy also got flak from critics who claimed that he ostracized foreign office and its secretary from the decision making process. The "Garden Suburb" and prime ministerial interventions in foreign affairs became topics of discussion. He even got accused of excessively bypassing his foreign secretary Curzon. Curzon also at the same time has been accused of his disability to stress his position. Even though he enhanced his power in different ways but could not get absolute powers because of coalition government. Finally it was coalition that ended his government. The decisions made in his era became important in the world political scenario. References: Bennett, G., 1999, Lloyd George, Curzon and the Control of British Foreign Policy 1919-22. The Australian Journal of Politics and History. Vol. 45, Issue. 4, p. 467. Beaverbrook, M., 1963, The Decline and Fall of Lloyd George. Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York. Jones, T., 1951, Lloyd George. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Lloyd George, E., 1961, My Father, Lloyd George. Crown Publishers, New York. ‘Lloyd George Knew the Future’, 2006, Western Mail, March 20, p. 7. WALES: Lloyd George Is to Blame for Middle East Mess; Historians Claim over Former Prime Minister, 2006, Daily Post, March 21, p. 19. Pugh, M., 1998, David Lloyd George, History Review, p. 38. ‘David Lloyd George’, 2006 Wikipedia Encylopedia, Available from [10 Jan 2007]. ‘David Lloyd George’, Available from  [10 Jan 2007].   Read More