Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T11:44:20.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Role of The United Nations: Some British Views

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Geoffrey L. Goodwin
Get access

Extract

Charting the course of attitudes in Britain toward the United Nations is mainly a matter of defining small gradations within a fairly limited range, a range varying from sympathetic concern—and ritualistic commendation—at one end of the spectrum to barely dis uised indifference at the other. Among a small section of radical public opinion the Organization can still (August 1961) arouse fervent support, while the right-wing Beaverbrook press and its sympathizers lose few opportunities of pointing out its deficiencies. Nevertheless, during most of its fifteen years' existence, so far as public interest in Britain in its political activities is concerned, the limited impact the United Nations has had on most of the major issues of peace and war has discouraged “popular opinion” from waxing very enthusiastic-or bitter-about it; indeed, although a generally accepted part of international life, it has for long periods languished relatively unnoticed in a diplomatic backwater. Only at such moments of crisis as Korea, Suez, or the Congo, when the Organization has been forced into the mainstream of international politics has this rather tepid reaction been punctuated by heightened tension—and acrimony.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , Fall 1961 , pp. 581 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Minister of State (Rt. HonNoelBaker, P. J.), 02 20, 1946. House of Commons Debates (Vol. 419, col. 1262).Google Scholar

2 During the opening session of the General Assembly in 1946, Mass Observation found that 49 percent of its sample thought that another world war was likely within 25 years, as against 39 percent who thought it unlikely.

3 “Informed opinion” is treated in this article as a fairly small group (to be numbered in tens of thousands only) consisting mainly of those in politics, journalism, and the academic world with particular interest in world affairs, and members of such bodies as the royal institute of international affairs (chatham house), the institute for strategic studies, and to a lesser extent, the united nations association.

4 House of commons debates (Vol. 416, col.785), 11 23, 1945Google Scholar.

5 The Economist, December 11, 1948.

6 Calvocoressi, Peter, Survey of International Affairs, 1949–1950 (London: Oxford University Press for Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1953), p. 517Google Scholar.

7 Younger, Kenneth, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy,” British Journal of Sociology, 06 1955, p.171Google Scholar. Cf. “We must remembcr the lesson of Manchuria and the League,” MrAttlee, (then Prime Minister), House of Commons Debates (Vol. 477, col. 49), 07 5, 1950Google Scholar.

8 For text see Central Office of Information, Appendix I to International Survey, No. 145, 01 28, 1954Google Scholar.

9 For an authoritative comparative analysis of British and United States attitudes during the Korean War see: Britain and the United States, Problems in Co-operation, a joint report by Study Groups of the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London (London: RIIA, 1953), Chapter IVGoogle Scholar.

10 Frye, William, A United Nations Peace Force (New York: Oceana, 1957), p. 60Google Scholar.

11 Healey, Dennis, “Beyond Power Politics,” in Fabian International Essays (London: The Hogarth Press, 1957), P. 204Google Scholar.

12 The Times (London), 10 14, 1952Google Scholar.

13 Plamenatz, John, On Alien Rule and Self Gov rnment (London: Longmans, 1960), p. 20Google Scholar.

14 House of Lords Debates (Vol. 232, col. 811).

15 The Sunday Times (London), 09 18, 1960Google Scholar.

16 The Memoirs of Sir Anthony Eden, “Full Circle” (London: Cassell, 1960), p. 519Google Scholar.

17 With the result that a good deal of the bitterness on the Right was directed more against the Eisenhower Administration than against the United Nations.

18 Tie Times (London), 08 1, 1957Google Scholar.

18 Eden, , op. cil., p. 495–496Google Scholar.

20 Gaitskell, H., The Challenge of Coexistence (London: Methuen, 1957), p. 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Ibid., p. 34.

22 The Times (London), 10 12, 1944Google Scholar.

23 Witness the resignation of several junior Conservaive Ministers (e. g. Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. Antony Shifting) because of their disagreement with the Govjrnments Suez policy; a not insignificant minority of the Conservative Party were noticeably sensitive to united Nations criticism.

24 “When there are overwhelming majorities [in the Assembly), as over Suez, then this is a clear reflection of world opinion, which I believe a nation honestly desiring to follow the principles of the Charter ought to accept.” Gaitskell, , op. cit., p. 17Google Scholar.

25 Compare Mr. Eyre Crowe's injunction in 1907 that British policy should be “so directed as to harmonize with the general desires and ideals common to all mankind, and more particularly that … is closely identified with the primary and vital interests of a majority, or as many as possible, of the other nations.” Memorandum by Mr. Eyre Crowe, F. O. 571/257, Foreign Office, January 1, 1907. Gooch, G. P. and Temperley, H., British Documents on the Origin of the War, 1898–1914 (London: H. M. S. O., 1928), Vol. III, p. 402–403Google Scholar.

26 See, for instance, a statement by MrLloyd, Selwyn (then Foreign Secretary): General Assembly Official Records (14th session), 798th meeting, 09 17, 1959Google Scholar.

27 Nicholas, H. G., The United Nations as a Political Institution (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 118Google Scholar.

28 The Times (London) of 07 24, 1961Google Scholar, reported that five Conservative right wing members of parliament “are showing their dissatisfaction with the United Nations by motions on the Foreign Office votes. In one they seek to reduce by £20, 000 the grant for United Nations civil assistance to the Congo; in another they seek to leave out an item for supporting the United Nations force in the Congo.” The signatories wereMr. Biggs-Davison, Mr. Paul Williams, Lord Hinchingbrooke, Mr. John Eden, and Mr. Anthony Fell. Nothing more has been heard of this motion.

29 House of Lords Debates (Vol. 228, col. 438–439), 02 8, 1961Google Scholar.

30 Ibid..

31 General Assembly Official Records (15th session), 877th meeting, 09 29, 1960Google Scholar.

32 Verbatim Records of the Meetings of the Ten Power Disarmament Committee, Appendix I, 09 1960 (London: H. M. S. O., 1960)Google Scholar. Cmnd. 1152.

33 The Economist, April 23, 1960, p. 310.

34 SirHayter, William (former British Ambassador in Moscow), “A Noble Ideal,” in The Observer, 02 12, 1961Google Scholar.

35 This possibility is hinted at in Bull, Hedley, The Control of the Arms Race (London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson for the Institute for Strategic Studies, 1961), p. 102 and Chapter 9Google Scholar.

36 Driberg, Tom, House of commons Debates (Vol. 641, col. 1935), 07 31, 1965Google Scholar.

37 Stephens, Robert in The Observer, 07 30, 1961Google Scholar.

38 House of Commons Debates (Vol. 645, col. 1145), 08 1, 1961Google Scholar.

39 Statement and Appeal of the World's Communist Parties, Moscow, November 1960, Part III, “Peaceful Coexistence”.

40 Ibid..

41 “Intervention Risks,” The Observer, April 9, 1961;see also Rt. HonYounger, Kenneth, “1961: Testing Year for the U. N.,” in The Observer, 01 1, 1961Google Scholar.

43 The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Heath) explained to the House of Commons on July 31, 1961, why the United Kingdom had turned to the Arab League rather than to the United Nations for a force to replace that sent to Kuwait by Britain. House of Commons Debates (Vol. 645, col. 952–953).

43 The Foreign Secretary (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), General Assembly Official Records (13th session), September 25, 1958.

44 For example, SirHayter, William, “Where the Troika Might Be Tried,” in The Observer, 07 16, 1961Google Scholar.

45 House of Commons Debates (Vol. 645, col. 1098–1100), 08 1, 1961Google Scholar.

46 The Times (London), 06 7, 1961Google Scholar.

47 House of Commons Debates (Vol. 632, col. 94–95).

48 Ibid., col. 303.

49 House of Lords Debates (Vol. 228, col. 438).

50 The Times (London), 09 16, 1960Google Scholar.

51 The results of these polls are the copyright of Social Survey (Gallup Poll) Limited, 211 Regent Street, London, W. I.

52 House of Commons Debates (Vol. 645, col. 972), 07 31, 1961Google Scholar.

53 Northedge, F. S., “British Foreign Policy and the Party System,” in American Political Science Review, 09 1960, p. 643Google Scholar.

54 “The process ‘of de-colonisation’ … however desirable and necessary, seems to have left us without any very positive and generally accepted notion of our position in the world and of the role which we should play, either alone or in conjunction with the Commonwealth and our neighbours.” Gladwyn, Lord, House of Lords Debates (Vol. 227, col. 1245), 01 25, 1961Google Scholar. It must be admitted that this uncertainty is sometimes apparent at the United Nations.

55 See “Must the United Nations Go Bankrupt,” in The Times (London), 08 11, 1961Google Scholar.

56 Cf. Social Survey (Gallup Poll) of November 1960 in which 75 percent thought it very important, and 12 percent fairly important, to make the United Nations a success.

57 House of Commons Debates (Vol. 228, col. 593), 02 8, 1961Google Scholar.