India's path to independence can be seen as a blueprint for the decolonisation of the Empire. Liberal policy led to an organised intellectual class among the ruled peoples. Influenced by Western ideas, they strove for independence for their nations, while their old colonial masters lost relative power before being decisively weakened by World War II. Confronted with the loss of control, Great Britain tried to shape its colonies into democratic states quickly and peacefully.
Those in Southeast Asia gained independence in the late 1940s. The possessions in Africa followed in the 1950s and 1960s, those in the Caribbean until the early 1980s - if they wanted to.
Despite this wave of independence, however, the British did not bury their imperial aspirations. After a first phase of Empire with a focus on North America and a second with a focus on India, a third phase was to follow in which they wanted to limit themselves territorially to small bases and influence world affairs through the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The Commonwealth was gradually created with the Dominions after World War I. These were now officially separate countries, but linked to Britain by an oath of allegiance to the Crown, a common culture and common interests.
With the accession of more former colonies, the British hoped to preserve the economic realm of the Empire and forge a military alliance. The leading nation, morally, militarily and economically, was naturally the United Kingdom.
But the new countries confidently stood up for their own interests, and it quickly became clear that the British hope for a third Empire under their leadership would not be fulfilled. India and Pakistan agreed to join the Commonwealth, but as republics, without recognition of the British Crown. They also insisted on renaming the Commonwealth. The British had to be dropped. And the individual nations should no longer be called Dominion, but (fully independent) Commonwealth Country.
Within the Commonwealth, decisions were made democratically. The members showed only limited consideration for the sensitivities of their former master. After the admission of the African states, countries with a predominantly Caucasian population were in the minority. The new members opposed all forms of apartheid, a policy that was mainly directed against South Africa. In order to avoid expulsion South Africa declared itself a republic and withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1961.
Over the next decades, the majority of Commonwealth members continued to advocate a tough policy towards South Africa. The United Kingdom was often the only state to vote against resolutions and sanctions. (After the end of apartheid in 1994, South Africa rejoined the Commonwealth).
The hope for a strong bond between the member states was not only undermined by the United Kingdom's stance on apartheid in South Africa. To promote cohesion, Commonwealth citizens were granted freedom of movement: entry into the UK, and thus immigration, was possible without major bureaucratic hurdles. In the 1950s, the number of immigrants skyrocketed. The new citizens came mainly from the Caribbean, India and Pakistan, and were not welcomed everywhere in the UK. Social unrest followed. Freedom of movement had to be restricted. From 1962, for example, Commonwealth citizens needed a work permit to immigrate.
Britain's claim to military leadership and its image as a morally superior nation suffered a bitter blow with the Suez Crisis in 1956. The cause was the nationalisation of the British-French Suez Canal Company by Egypt. The canal was of enormous strategic importance for the United Kingdom; among other things, Persian oil was supplied through it. To regain control, the two old colonial powers attacked Egypt with the support of Israel. The war began on 29th October.
Contrary to what the UK Conservative government had assumed, the action was not supported by the US. Both the United States and the Soviet Union did their utmost to stop the fighting, putting themselves at the forefront of global outrage.
They introduced draft resolutions in the UN Security Council and an emergency session of the General Assembly declared the actions of the aggressors to be contrary to international law. The USA cut off developmental aid to Israel and Great Britain and threatened to crash the exchange rate of the British pound. The Soviet Union even threatened military intervention.
The aggressors were forced to give in. On 6th November, hostilities stopped and a ceasefire was signed. In December of the same year, the British and French withdrew their forces and the last Israeli troops left Egyptian territory in 1957.
Besides the moral disgrace, the conflict showed just how much circumstances had changed 100 years after the Opium Wars. Great Britain could no longer push its own interests without consequences. Their amoral behavior was condemned by world public opinion. Even worse: Great Britain had to bow to the wishes of foreign powers.
The Suez Crisis represents in many ways the end of imperial Britain. NATO, with the United States as its strongest member, became the most important military alliance in the Western world. Australia and New Zealand concluded their own mutual assistance pact with the US. The United Kingdom had served its time as the most important strategic partner.
From an economic viewpoint, British hopes for the Commonwealth were not entirely unwarranted. While the Caucasian colonies had initiated industrialisation as in Britain, the remainder of the Commonwealth nations served as a source of raw materials, agricultural products and as a sales market. The Empire had left behind a large, developed economic circuit with mutual dependencies.
But again, the former colonies turned to the new superpowers instead of cultivating exchange within the Commonwealth. And for Britain, trade with mainland Europe became increasingly important. Consequently, from the 1960s, the UK sought membership of the EEC, which was granted after a change in French leadership. Through NATO and the EEC, Britain was more closely linked to the continent than to its former colonies.
Today, the Commonwealth of Nations is still a confederation of states whose members are bound together by common history, values and a shared culture. There are increased exchanges between museums, schools and universities, as well as joint sports competitions. Similar to the Olympic Games, the Commonwealth Games take place every four years. Up to 5,000 athletes take part. The Commonwealth is especially important for smaller nations, for whom the regular meetings at various levels give a voice and enable an exchange.
The Commonwealth can be a wonderful instrument for international understanding. But it does not at all represent an economic or even military power.
Note: If you would like to be informed about new blogposts by e-mail, please register at the top right of the page.