Additionally, the Suez Crisis of 1956 again saw a lack of realism from Britain which inevitably allowed the occurrence of a foreign policy failure. As, it is argued that Britain failed to acknowledge the changing world attitudes where it could no longer act as a colonial power in order to assert its power and throw its weight around. To add to this, the Imperial illusion (the belief that Britain remained to be an Imperial power) continued to circulate Britain which prevented any changes in attitudes in Britain as well as delaying the decolonisation of Africa until the ‘Wind of Change’ speech. As well as the fact that Britain according to Dougla Hurd continued to ‘punch above its weight in the world’ in terms of finance particularly. Hurd can be seen to argue that through global commitments like British troops fighting in the Korean War as a member of the UN, occupying West Germany as part of NATO as well as the nation’s participation in the Cold War placed immense pressure upon the country’s finances such as building nuclear weapons which it could no longer afford. Hence, Britain at this time was simply delusional in believing it remained to be the power it once was because the country lacked realism.
Whereas, other historians can be seen to argue that the rise of independence and nationalist movements contributed towards foreign policy failures. The independence movements which derived during World War II are recognised as momentous turns in history saw the occurrence of individual and political protests as well as strikes and boycotts across global colonies in the demand for independence. Therefore some may argue it to be inevitable that Britain found such movements very difficult to control. This is includes the violent Mau Mau Rebellion of 1952 which is proclaimed to have been unexpected, but believed to have triggered reform and Kenyan independence in 1963. Also, Malaya and Cyprus too saw the occurrence of popular and unexpected demands for independence which increased Britain’s expenditure on defence causing in some cases the problem to escalate and therefore creating foreign policy failures. Establishing the fact that Britain was no longer financially secure, like many previous Imperial powers at the time Britain could no longer supress these nationalists because it simply could not afford to and consequently decided to undergo decolonisation. Thus, we can argue that foreign policy failures such as the Suez Crisis happened because Britain was now a pawn in a Kings game; therefore the emergence of new superpowers like the USA meant Britain could no longer throw its weight about, it had to comply to the rules of its superior (USA) which led to the creation of foreign policy failures.
Furthermore the great strain placed upon the limited economic and military services can also be responsible for causing foreign policy failures. The fruits of victory for Britain after World War II are known to have been short lived, as the consequences soon came to light such as the big hole in the British economy. Britain the once supreme Imperial power now became helpless, so helpless that it was forced to ask its former colony, the USA, for support representing a shift in power. Therefore not only was indebted to the USA but realisation can also be argued to have hit home- they could no longer afford their Empire. The maintenance in terms of troops needed in the colonies proved to be too costly to uphold. Also Attlee’s government held huge /debts of their own by moving towards financial recovery at home through the likes of the welfare state illustrating that Britain placed itself as a greater priority than its colonies, therefore foreign policy failures can be argued to have occurred because some countries may have felt neglected and their needs weren’t being taken care of. In some cases because of stop- go economics of the time financial problems reached new heights which would require Britain to depart from its Empire towards financial security that could be obtained through Europe with it mutual financially beneficial systems in the EEC. Globally Japan and Germany may be recognised as the defeated countries of World War II, but financially in comparison to the likes of Britain they reaped great economic success during the post war era after rebuilding their economies. This impacted Britain severely and could be credited to have caused foreign policy failures. Japan and Germany both developed upon various markets such as car manufacturing and the iron and steel industry with the loans from the USA. The German and Japanese economy were growing on a huge scale which hindered British growth, as the advancements made by Japan and Germany made British goods seem old fashioned causing trade to decrease. Whilst, the Suez Crisis saw Britain put into its place by the USA by enlightening the public that it was no longer strong enough to stand up to the USA as it was suffering from huge economic losses.
The role of individuals such as Eden and De Gaulle can be recognised to have caused foreign policy failures. De Gaulle for one vetoed Britain’s application into the EEC, creating foreign policy problems for the country by preventing it to be in with the political and economic inner circle. The French president can be seen to have brought Britain into its place by understanding Britain would be an awkward partner in the EEC. De Gaulle wanted to limit the growing influence the USA was obtaining, especially in Europe therefore by rejecting Britain’s application, De Gaulle was objecting to American interference that were pushing Britain to get into the EEC. Whereas Edens personality conflicted his judgement in the case of the Suez Crisis when responding to Colonel Nassers actions. Although Eden proclaimed himself to be an expert in foreign policy he created the biggest foreign policy failure which would in the coming decades always degrade Britain. Believing that Britain was still an Imperial power he is accused of literally forcing the cabinet to agree with him in dealing with the Suez situation which would turn into one of the biggest scandals in British history.