The Queen's Diplomacy

During her decades as sovereign Elizabeth II witnessed extraordinary upheavals in British foreign policy that few could have anticipated at her coronation—from decolonization to the war on terror, and the rise of the European Union to Brexit.

At her coronation, the country still rejoiced over its military and moral triumph in World War II. The queen's first prime minister, Winston Churchill, and others who contributed to the victory over Nazi Germany, expected a new era of British global influence.

However, over the next two decades, the United Kingdom lost most of what remained of this empire that had once covered large areas of North America, Australia, Asia, Africa, and small parts of Central and South America. Its economy had been ravaged by the war, so Britain struggled to meet its defense commitments and to maintain the pound as a leading international currency. With the Cold War between the two superpowers, it was left it in a supporting role.

Faced with a crumbling empire, Elizabeth had to adapt the job description. She decided to make theCommonwealth her defining mission, and gradually turned it into a tangible diplomatic construct. She visited the Commonwealth’s member states and attended countless meetings with heads of government. These inward and outward state visits created personal relations with many Commonwealth leaders. By cultivating these relationships – often maintained over several generations - she won the United Kingdom friends around the world. She also encouraged the Commonwealth Games, facilitated the yearly Commonwealth Day service in Westminster Abbey and put a palace at disposition as the Commonwealth’s headquarters. This entity allowed the government to reassert its influence and leadership at a time where its geopolitical status was shifting due decreasing military and economic power, as well as ongoing decolonization. The so-called dominions of Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa, had asserted their constitutional autonomy from the United Kingdom. The new description as ‘Commonwealth of Nations’ rather than ‘British Empire’ allowed to recognize the increasing political autonomy of The the previous so-called dominions of Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa while asserting their connection through their common sovereign.

Tensions during World War II tested these ties –the Irish Free State left the Commonwealth a few years after the war. There were also tensions between South Africa due to sympathies for Germany and only a hesitant decision to join the Allied side. Nonetheless, India and Pakistan joined the Commonwealthfollowing the war and in 1949 an agreement was reached to allow India to reconcile its membership with the Commonwealth with being a republic: India recognized George VI not as its sovereign but in the vague role of “head of the Commonwealth.” Elizabeth embraced this agreement when she became queen, realizing that the monarchy needed to adapt to the ongoing political changes.

The Commonwealth a multicultural, multiethnic, and multireligious organization thanks to these different member states. The queen sought to highlight this diversity and to mirror it in ceremonies, visits and activities in Britain where immigration from Commonwealth states increased significantly after World War II. For example, she met community and religious groups from the country’s ethnic minorities, and was the first British monarch to visit a mosque in the UK.

The Commonwealth clearly served to shape and amplify British foreign policy. But over the course of the queen’s reign, 16 countries – including Ceylon, Ghana, Pakistan, and Trinidad and Tobago – made the transition to republics and left the Commonwealth. In 2021, Barbados became the most recent Commonwealth country to do so. At her death, the queen reigned over 15 of the initial 32 realms, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and a few countries in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Many analysists think that Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, and Jamaica are also likely to renounce the monarchy.

So, despite the queen’s engagement, the Commonwealth has less and less international diplomatic prominence. Doubts about the organization’s role and the meaning of its activities have decreased its influence, and it is regarded as newsworthy only when a story about it has a royal angle. Attempts over the past years to reinvent the Commonwealth as a “values based” entity have mostly failed. Many member states fall short of the professed democratic and human rights norms. Among the challenges facing King Charles is assisting the survival of the organization at a time when the monarchy itself appears out-of-date. In her support for the Commonwealth, the queen showed considerable diplomatic skill. Yet, the decreasing relevance of the entity also reveals the limitations of royal influence. As head of the nation, the queen was not allowed to engage in overt political action. She had to represent the country to itself, and to represent the whole nation - to not just part of it - the monarch needs to be politically neutral.

The queen almost faultlessly embodied this political impartiality – sometimes at the expense of other values. Although she did not have an input in the appointment of prime ministers, as her ancestors did, she may well have influenced the thinking of her prime ministers through their weekly audiences. She could offer a far longer experience of public affairs than her PMs, and although she had no political power, she had influence. Some argue that she should have used this indirect influence to oppose imperialist policies - at the start of her reign, the UK had brutally repressed insurgencies and independence movements in Cyprus, Kenya, and Malaya. When British PM Anthon Eden tried to topple Egypt’s General Abdel Nasser during the Suez Crisis in 1956 to end Nasser’santi-British influence in Africa and the Middle East, Buckingham Palace distanced itself from the conflict. Critics argue that it should have opposed the government’s coercive colonialist policies.

Nonetheless, it is important to remember that the queen was a non-elected public figure. It would have been very controversial if she had used her role’s discretionary power to take a political stand. For example, her father George V ordered the three-party leaders to come together in a national government during the economic crisis of 1931. This move, which occurred at a conference held at Buckingham Palace, was highly controversial. He also played an active role as a facilitator of the national government.

Conversely, the queen thought that it as a fundamental condition for the success of her reign that she did not influence politics. In 2010 the queen and her advisers insisted that she should not involved in the aftermath of the election. So before the 2010 election, the so-called Fixed-term Parliaments Act removed the queen’s right to agree to or refuse a dissolution of parliament, and provided that she would play no part in the formation of a new government. Her role was solely to endorse the decisions reached by the politicians. Her political neutrality would not be compromised, and she even remained at Windsor, rather than returning to Buckingham Palace, during the days of negotiations that followed the election to symbolize her non-interference. The evolution in the monarch’s discretionary power reflects changingpublic attitudes towards the royal family. When Elizabeth’s father reigned, there was a strong reverence for the monarch. Today, there is more public scrutiny, and desire for accountability in public affairs.

Occasionally - sometimes even intentionally - the queen's views were nevertheless made known. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Commonwealth led a campaign against apartheid in South Africa. The queen appeared more inclined to side with Commonwealth member states that opposed apartheid than to endorse her British prime ministers who were close to the South African government. Members states who disapproved of apartheid wanted boycott the Commonwealth Games in 1968, but the action was threatened by Margret Thatcher, who opposed sanctions against South Africa. The queen’s press secretarybriefed The Sunday Times about her concerns about Thatcher, signaling to the rest of the Commonwealth that the queen supported them.

Shortly before the Scottish referendum of 2014, she told an onlooker at Crathie church near Balmoral, that she hoped that people would “think very carefully about the future” when they voted. The comment neutral in form but its implications were clear. And in 2016, she expressed her fears before thereferendum - over the possible break-up of the UK if people were to choose Brexit. Before the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow, the queen was also expressed irritation at lack of government climate action.

The paradox of the queen’s political success is that we mostly do not think of her as political. But over the course of the years, she has had subtle, yet important, political influence. Her opinion might not always have made the difference in domestic affairs, but her diplomatic achievements have served to guide and amplify British foreign relations.

After the state funeral on Monday 19th September, the show must go on. As inflation and living costs rise, it is yet to be determined whether the monarchy’s popularity will sink. People might want a more egalitarian system than a hereditary one. Charles’ lifestyle of palaces and polo has also long fueled accusations that he is out of touch with ordinary people. Or maybe tradition and stability will continue to be cherished amidst these turbulent times?

The queen was an essential element of stability amidst changing Prime Ministers - six in four years – Britain’s exist from the EU, the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and the looming economic recession and energy crisis. King Charles III, who formally became Britain’s king on Saturday, 10th, has strong credentials on certain issues that matter to Britain’s future, namely on climate change and Britain’s energy dependence. At first, the public is likely to be lenient with him. But on the long term, his ability to maintain the popularity of the monarchy will come down to his personality and whether he can inspire confidence and trust.

In an ever-changing world, the queen was the only constant. Only time will tell what the future holds for the monarchy, the Commonwealth and for Britain.

Written by Lia Goldman

Photo: Queen Elizabeth II, India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the Duke of Edinburgh. New Delhi, 17 November 1983. Image Credit: PA Images / Alamy Stock Photo