Skip to content

Results:

1 - 10 of 11

Documents

1902

Alfred T. Mahan, 'The Persian Gulf and International Relations,' (Excerpts)

The bulk of this long article, published in a London magazine and aimed at the British public, discusses international relations in the Far East, and in particular the Russian advance into the Chinese seas. The Middle East only receives cursory attention, with the exception of the Persian Gulf which Mahan describes as a geopolitical flashpoint. The American admiral defines the Middle East as a zone with fluid borders situated between South and West Asia and centered around the Gulf. More specifically, for Mahan it was a region where Britain’s dominance of the strategic land and sea communication routes between London and India was increasingly being threatened by the encroachments of imperial rivals.

December 10, 1992

Michael Reilly (First Political Secretary, UK Embassy in Seoul) to Ian Bond (FCO Security Policy Department), '1992 US Burden Sharing Report'

This document dates from the “lame duck” period of the George H.W. Bush administration, and centers on the renegotiating of the US defense position in on the peninsula. Amid pending changes in the early Clinton administration to burden sharing, the British were trying to pin down on what basis estimates of cost were being made on US Forces in Korea.

December 3, 1956

Middle East (Situation): Debated in the Commons Chamber, Monday, 3 December 1956

In July 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918-1970) nationalized the Suez Canal Company, surprising the world. The government of France, in whose capital of Paris the company was headquartered, and the British government, the company’s plurality shareholder, sought to reverse nationalization in court, but failed—even though they clad their case in the language not of imperial self-interest but, rather, of international public interest. The time in which such language was somewhat acceptable, even at home, was passing, and the Suez Crisis played a big part in this final act.

At the same time, the two governments early on after the canal nationalization decided to remove Nasser by force, for re-compensation was not their central concern. France believed Nasser was enabling the FLN, which in 1954 had started Algeria’s War for Independence, and Britain wanted some say in the canal, which had for decades been its worldwide empire’s “swing-door,” as a member of parliament, Anthony Eden (1897-1977), called it in 1929. In August 1956 France began discussing a joint operation with Israel, which wanted Nasser gone, too, and the Red Sea opened for Israel-bound ships. In early October the two were joined by Britain. On the 29th, Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. On the 30th, France and Britain gave Israel and Egypt a 12-hour ultimatum to cease hostilities, or they would intervene—and Anglo-French forces bombed Egyptian forces from the 31st and on November 5-6 occupied the canal’s northern tip. Although a power play, “Operation Musketeer,” like the court case, could not be an open imperial move anymore, then, and did not present itself to the world as such. No matter: especially in colonies and postcolonial countries, people were outraged.

More problematically for France and Britain, Washington was incredulous. This Middle Eastern affair triggered the worst crisis of the 1950s between America’s rising international empire and Europe’s descending empires, and indeed clarified and accelerated that descent. President Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969) fumed that Prime Ministers Anthony Eden and Guy Mollet (1905-1977) had disregarded his administration’s opposition to military action. Worse, they had deceived him about their intentions. And worst, their attack on Egypt undermined the supreme US tenet: Soviet containment. The Americans were by association tainted by their NATO allies’ imperialist move while the Soviets looked good—on November 5 they offered Egypt troops and threatened to nuke London, Paris, and Tel Aviv—and that although they had just repressed an uprising in Hungary.

On the very day of the ultimatum, October 30, Eisenhower washed his hands of that move on live US television, and the US mission at the UN organized a cease-fire resolution vote in the Security Council. France and Britain vetoed it. Although sharing its European allies’ emotions about Nasser, the US administration withheld critical oil and monetary supplies from them to bring them to heel and withdraw from Egypt—after which, it promised, they would be warmly welcomed back. It ceased most bilateral communications and froze almost all everyday social interactions with its two allies, even cancelling a scheduled visit by Eden. And it badgered its allies at the UN, supporting an Afro-Asian resolution that on November 24 called Israel, Britain, and France to withdraw forthwith. On December 3, the British Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd took the floor in the House of Commons.

September 22, 2016

Oral History Interview with John Simpson

Co-founder of the Programme for Promoting Nuclear Non-Proliferation (PPNN) and director of the Mountbatten Centre for International Studies (MCIS

December 10, 1957

Letter, Nikolai Bulganin to Dwight D. Eisenhower

Bulganin proposes a halt on nuclear tests among the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom beginning on January 1, 1958.

1956

Visit to the United Kingdom of Bulganin and Khrushchev, 19-27 April 1956

UK record of discussions with a Soviet delegation including Bulganin and Khrushchev.

October 17, 1944

Record of Meeting Held at the Kremlin on 17 October 1944, at 10 p.m.

Churchill and Stalin discuss the progress of the war in Europe and its brutality. They propose three alternative plans of German dismemberment and how German assets should be divided among the Allies. They discuss further punishments and reparations.

March 21, 1955

Letter from Humphrey Trevelyan to Zhou Enlai

August 24, 1954

Mao Zedong, 'On the Intermediate Zone, Peaceful Coexistence, Sino-British and Sino-U.S. Relations'

In this excerpt, Mao speaks with a delegation from the British Labour Party and argues that Britain changed its attitude toward China after World War II because of the United States. He emphasizes that China and Britain can not only coexist in peace, but can cooperate and trade with each other.

May 25, 1974

Meeting between Chairman Mao Tse-Tung [Mao Zedong] and Mr. Heath, Saturday, 25 May, 1974, approximately 1.15-2.45pm

U.K. Prime Minister Edward Heath and Chairman Mao discussed the following topics: U.S.-Soviet relations, Watergate, Chinese-U.S. relations, U.S. bases in Asia, a united Europe, Sino-Soviet relations, British-Soviet relations, and British-Chinese relations.

Pagination