Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Commonwealth Military Operations
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Monday, 15th December 2008
So far as I'm aware, the last time there was a British Commonwealth or Commonwealth Military operation was the Korean War. How come, even if throughout the fifties the Commonwealth was considered important to British interests, there were no more Commonwealth military operations?
Would Commonwealth nations, by that I mainly mean the old Dominions, have been willing to contribute or offer support to British military operations in the 60s, 70s and 80s, most notably the Falklands?
Do the links still exist for a Commonwealth military operation to be carried out today? Or have the links been incorporated into other organisations, such as the UN or NATO? -
Message 2
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 15th December 2008
The Commonwealth of Nations dropped the prefix 'British' in 1949. That was a year before the Korean War broke out. The Korean War wasn't a Commonwealth military operation but was a United Nations war.
The last military engagement in which all Commonwealth countries took part (as the Commonwealth) was the Second World War and even then there was a question mark over this as the Irish Free State (which was technically a British Dominion and so a member of the British Commonwealth) remained neutral. Beyond that then we would have to go back to the First World War as the last time the British Commonwealth went to war. In 1914, however, the term British Commonwealth wasn't really used. Then it tended to be called the 'British Empire and Dominions'.
So we could, perhaps, say that there has never been a Commonwealth military operation.
As to why there were no Commonwealth military operations in the 1950s then this goes to the heart of the matter. Far from being important to British interests, the independent Commonwealth countries saw the very act of not slavishly following UK foreign policy as an affirmation of their newly independent status. What's the point of being 'independent' if your'e just going to o what the UK tells you to anyway?
That said - although there was no direct Commonwealth military support for the UK during the Falklands War there was considerable diplomatic support. For example on hearing news of the invasion of the islands, Australia is said to have broken off diplomatic relations with Argentina even before London did.
And, of course, Commonwealth military solidarity should cut both ways surely. This, however, did not stop Britain and Canada etc from staying out of the Vietnam War while Australia and New Zealand were both engaged in it.
It's feasible (but highly unlikely) that there could be a Commonwealth military operation although the Commonwealth Secretariat is not designed for this. Neither is NATO capable of such a thing as most Commonwealth countries are not NATO member states.
It's more likely that if such a scenario were to occur then it would be under a UN resolution along with many other non-Commonwealth countries. The closest such a thing came to pass was the Kuwait War 1990-91 when virtually every Commnwealth country contributed troops or otherwise actively supported the United Nations Coaliton. -
Message 3
Posted by JBsidetheseaside (U13725236) on Monday, 15th December 2008
The British, Canadian and Australian land forces in Korea were organised in the field into an ad hoc corps known as the Commonwealth Division.
Australia's attitude to the Falklands War was mixed. Their exchange pilots serving with the RAF and FAA were ordered home, but several Aussie pilots served full-time in the RAF and one of them bombed Port Stanley on one of the Vulcan raids. -
Message 4
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Monday, 15th December 2008
Canada is in an interesting position relative to the UK, the USA and NATO. Prior to WW2 it had a guarded friendship with the USA but strong ties to the UK. Its defense strategy relative to the USA would have been to hold on until British forces arrived.
Post WW2 the reliance on UK military support declined, and ties with the USA assumed greater prominence. NATO membership effectively creates collective security and defines military cooperation between Canada, USA and UK. Canada and the USA had shared air defences through NORAD (although at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis when WW3 loomed, the Canadian PM refused to put the Canadian air forces on alert status - he was miffed that the USA had briefed the UK and France before they briefed him).
Canada is making the point that it chooses its missions, that much is clear. It is politically necessary that Canada asserts that it is not a puppet of either the USA nor the UK. The francophone element in Canada is sensitive that Canada has its own national identity, and does not just hang on to the British part of its past traditions. The entire Canadian population is sensitive to the fact that Canada-USA looks like the realation between mouse and elephant.
There is the ability for joint Canada - UK military ties owing to the shared military traditions and shared Royal family. Canada has a regimental structure to its army. Many regiments are linked informally, and royals are Colonels-in-Chief of many Canadian formations. The liaison between countries is still very much alive. -
Message 5
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 16th December 2008
Old Hermit
As noted by others, the Commonwealth is not a formal military alliance and has no military structure or planning staff, but it can be used as a framework for a military arrangement.
The last Commonwealth military operation was the Commonwealth Monitoring Force in the then Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in 1979, which was British-led (Britain supplying the majority of the troops and logistics), with contingents from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Fiji and Kenya.
The last conflict conducted under Commonwealth auspices was Confrontation with Indonesia 1962-66, again British-led, with forces from Australia, New Zealand and the Malaysian Federation (whose territory it was, after all).
The Australians reintroduced National Service to in part support their contribution to Borneo, not for Vietnam as is often assumed.
Australian, New Zealand and Rhodesian troops also took part in the Malayan Emergency (as did Malayan troops, Malaya not yet being independent)
The Australian and New Zealand contributions to Vietnam could not be done as a "Commonwealth" force, as other members of the Commonwealth (particularly India and African states) would have objected. Canada had to remain neutral, as it was a member of the international Monitoring Commission set up in 1954 (one of the reasons, incidentally, Cnada did not extradite draft-dodger back to the States). Britain did not send troops (much to the annoyance of some Australians and Kiwis), but did provide logistic support and deliberately vague arrangements.
Korea was fought under UN auspices. The initial response by Commonwealth states was as individual nations, not as a formal Commonwealth response. The British scraped together a scratch Brigade from the Hong Kong garrison and the Aussies sent an occupation battalion from Japan. The British and Australians both intended these forces to be stop-gap measures while properly organised forces were put together.
The Canadians decided to raise a force specifically for service in Korea - Special Force - which would be organised on US lines and would operated alongside the US forces independently from the British. By the time Special Force was ready, the Australians had brigaded with the British, and it had become obvious a full division would be more useful than a number of smaller units (the British and Australians had also become worried about the risk of misuse of maller contingents). Canada therefore agreed, reluctantly, that Special Force would form a third brigade for the Commonwealth Division, rather than be independent. This accounts for the rather "standoffish" initial attitude of the Canadians noted by British and Australian commentators. The Division was properly constituted and established, not ad hoc, and the New Zealandes also contributed. Unfortunately, India changed its policy and withdrew its highly respected Para Field Ambulance from Korea.
During the Falklands, New Zealand sent a frigate to the Persian Gulf to relieve an RN frigate, but I think the British frigate in question went to patrol duties in the North Atlantic rather than to CORPORATE.
The Commonwealth could be used again, but it is difficult to see a major operation where the UN or NATO wouldn't be more appropriate - afghanisatn being a case in point. -
Message 6
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 16th December 2008
And this blasted keyboard is still playing up.
Among all the typos, one major one.
Fifth paragraph (the Vietnam one), last sentence:
"..did provide logistic support UNDER deliberately vague arrangements." -
Message 7
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Tuesday, 16th December 2008
Thanks chaps for the replies. I understand the Commonwealth doesn't have a military structure though but thank you for the explanations.
Can anyone shed any further light on Commonwealth response to the Falklands though?
I noted that some said that a future Commonwealth could possibly happen. In what sort of situation would that occur? -
Message 8
Posted by JBsidetheseaside (U13725236) on Tuesday, 16th December 2008
Well there were two Commonwealth territories who were very anxious about the Argentine use of force to 'resolve' a territorial claim.
Approx one-third of Guyana is disputed by Venezuela, and Guatemala has claimed the whole of Belize. It seems reasonable that both would have been attacked if Britain had accepted the seizure of the islands and, as some suggested at the time, paid the islanders to go and live in Canada or New Zealand. -
Message 9
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Tuesday, 16th December 2008
JB, there are also long disputed border questions for other South American countries, which had Britain decided to vacate the Falklands (Malvinas), armed squabbles would have occurred according to some authorities. Seem to have kept the lid on for some time. Believe Chile is friendly to Britain, heard some help had from them. France would not supply more missiles and America no spare parts for American built aircraft for Argentina, Britain would have quite a job if on its own according to experts in such matters.
-
Message 10
Posted by Malleeboy (U6917879) on Tuesday, 16th December 2008
Would the FPDA (Five Powers Defence Arrangments) be considered a commonwealth defence arrangment? It is designed to create a coordinated defence of Malaysia and Singapore with Australia, UK and NZ co-operating. It is very much a do what you want and what you can arrangement but it has lasted quite some time.
-
Message 11
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 17th December 2008
Malleeboy
That is an example of the perceived need to have a formal arrangement following Singapore's independence, rather than the existing informal arrangements under British rule. Although all five are Commonwealth nations, and the mutual defence interests arise in part from those ties, the arrangements are between separate sovereign nations.
UK, Australia and New Zealand had put their wider South East Asia defence interests into SEATO, again as individual nations, not as a "Comonwealth bloc", but that came to an end in 1977.
Interestingly, it is not a single treaty, but a series of bi-lateral agreements, and it only commits signatories to consult if one of them is threatened, not necessarily to send forces. -
Message 12
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Monday, 11th January 2010
Re-activating a very old threat I know and I apologise for it.
But does anybody have any idea of a book, journal article etc which would mention Commonwealth responses to the Falklands War, specifically the old Dominions like Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. -
Message 13
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 11th January 2010
FOH
The second volume of the Official History (ISBN 978-0-415-41911-6) covers the response of Commonwealth nations, but not as a specific topic; it wraps it all up in the diplomatic chapters.
If you have access to a decent library, there is a very good book "The Falklands Twenty Years On" (ISBN 978-0-415-35029-7). This a collection of papers given at an academic conference at Sandhurst in 2002. One of the papers was specifically on the Commonwealth response.
LW -
Message 14
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 13th January 2010
not sure about a book but i believe
firstly thay gave us full support in the united nations debates
secondly - didnt NZ and Aus navies replace RN warships in certain areas thus releasing RN warships to the falklands
ST -
Message 15
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Thursday, 14th January 2010
NZ PM Bob 'Piggy' Muldoon was very pro-British and sent HMNZS Canterbury to the Middle East to allow the RN Guard ship to head south.
The Australian PM Malcolm Fraser was a Conservative, a monarchist and pro-Commonwealth, and so it may be that his failure to offer similar support may have been personal following arguments with Thatcher over Southern Africa where the recently released papers confirm the depths of her simplistic racism.
More widely, the loss of Singapore led to a wider disillusionment with Britain's ability to come to their aid by the Antipodes, and saw them looking to the USA, joing both SEATO and ANZUS, although NZ fell out with the USA later on over the anti-nuclear feeling in that country caused by French nuclear testing. -
Message 16
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Thursday, 14th January 2010
Malcolm Fraser is an Australian republican, not a monarchist. He did have an interest in Africa and not much time for Thatcher's views regarding that continent. He verbally supported Thatcher wrt the Falklands and cut some Argentine imports but that was about all
I think Australia was always more invested in ANZUS than was NZ, it was Australia which sought an alliance with the US postwar, and has maintained it since.. Australia was attacked during WW2, NZ was not and the AIF was withdrawn from North Africa, It was clear in 1942 that Australia and Britain had different strategic priorities. This was less felt in NZ
I think Vietnam was a further influence, By the time of the Falklands, both Australia and NZ had been involved in an Asian war with the US and without Britain. -
Message 17
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Thursday, 14th January 2010
By the time of the Falklands, both Australia and NZ had been involved in an Asian war with the US and without Britain.Β
By the time of the Falklands, both Australia and New Zealand had been involved in an Asian war with the UK and without America too.
I dont think the movement away from Britain is as simple as the way you portray it there Wollemi. Establishment wise, Australia remained very friendly with the British even after ANZUS. ANZUS wasn't the holy grail its been treated as. -
Message 18
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Thursday, 14th January 2010
Apologies for the double post but LW, do you have years of publication for those two books? I do have access to a decent library thankfully!
-
Message 19
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Thursday, 14th January 2010
#17
I think you're underestimating the effect of the Vietnam War on its participants. It was very much a test of ANZUS to remain committed to such an unpopular war and one that was eventually lost. There simply was not the same dynamic wrt to Malaya and Konfrontasi -
Message 20
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 14th January 2010
FOH
The Official History was published in 2005, author Prof. Lawrence Freedman. Vol. II is entitled "War and Diplomacy".
The Sandhurst book was published in 2004.
As to Commonwealth response, what was provided byt he "Old Dominions" was diplomatic support, which they all gave immediately. I think wollemi is slightly off-track by suggesting Australia's support was less whole-hearted than New Zealand's; Australia actually suspended diplomatic relations with Argentina before the UK did.
I don't think the lack of UK boots on the ground in Vietnam had any effect on response to the Falklands. It was a factor post-Falklands, in particular in Grenada the following year, where the US military were determined the UK should not participate (it can't have helped that the British Speahead battalion at the time was one of the Falklands para battalions. You can imagine the Sun headline; "Falklands Heroes Do It Again!")
The formation of SEATO, incidentally, had been driven in large part by the UK and did not long outlast the US withdrawal from Vietnam; the alliance was wound up in 1977. From the US perspective, it proved a hollow reed on Vietnam. The hope had been that the alliance would be the umbrella for intervention in South Vie3tnam, but instead the ad-hoc Orwellian-titled "Free World Forces" had to be invented.
Militarily, there wasn't a lot that the Commonwealth could have supplied in the necessary time frame, even if asked. New Zealand's offer of a frigate was made much of, but it in fact released a frigate for the North Atlantic,replacing one that had already gone South (nonetheless, most appreciated). The Canadians (and the US) increased their presence in the North Atlantic, compensating for the RN and RAF assets that had been withdrawn, but this was under NATO auspices, not direct support.
The NATO factor tends to be forgotten about these days. The UK and allies were looking over their shoulders at the Soviet Bear in case the whole thing was a set-up, or that the Sovs might take advantage. It also impacted on what military assets could be employed - the ships and 3 Cdo Bde were merely "earmarked" for NATO in general war, whereas most of the Army formations were "declared" and could not be released without NATO agreement. This is why 5 Bde was reconstituted with public duties battalions instead of the fully-equipped 1 Inf Bde being sent.
LW -
Message 21
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Thursday, 14th January 2010
You've misquoted my post, LW
I made no comparison between Australia and NZ's response over the Falklands
What I wrote was that Australia had always been more invested in ANZUS than NZ due to being attacked in WW2. This was in reply to JB's post about NZ's current disconnection with ANZUS -
Message 22
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 15th January 2010
wollemi
You're right, I was responding more to JB's post.
Apologies.
LW
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.