Book Reviews : Soviet-British Relations since the 1970s edited by Alex Pravda and Peter J.S. Duncan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press in association with the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1990. 263pp. £30, $49.50
| DOI | 10.1177/004711789101000310 |
| Published date | 01 May 1991 |
| Author | Nigel Clive |
| Date | 01 May 1991 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
284
Soviet-British
Relations
since
the
1970s
edited
by
Alex
Pravda
and
Peter
J.S.
Duncan.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press
in
association
with
the
Royal
Institute
of
International
Affairs,
1990.
263pp.
£30,
$49.50.
This
collection
of
essays
by
Sovietologists
with
different
forms
of
acknowledged
expertise
covers
every
important
aspect
of
Soviet-British
relations.
The
concept
for
a
study
of
this
nature
grew
out
of
the
process
of
formulating
research
projects
for
the
new
Soviet
foreign
policy
programme
at
Chatham
House.
Each
contributor
had
his
draft
text
critically
discussed
at
a
series
of
study
groups,
which
contained
four
former
Ambassadors
to
Moscow,
in
addition
to
other
Soviet
specialists,
as
well
as
officials
from
the
Foreign
and
Commonwealth
Office,
the
Ministry
of
Defence,
the
Department
of
Trade
and
Industry
and
the
British
Council.
The
result
is
a
valuable
synthesis,
concen-
trating
mainly
on
the
last
twenty
years
but
starting
with
an
appropriate
historical
perspective
by
Curtis
Keeble,
who
was
Ambassador
to
Moscow
from
1978-82.
Keeble’s
account
traces
the
historical
pattern
of
oscillation after
the
October
Revolution
moving
from
Lloyd
George’s
de
facto
recognition
of
the
Soviet
government
in
1921
to
Ramsay
MacDonald’s
de jure
recognition
in
February
1924,
which
was
upset
nine
months
later
by
the
Zinoviev
letter.
Then
came
the
police
raid
on
the
Soviet
trade
delegation
in
1927.
The
Metropolitan-Vickers
trial
and
sentencing
of
British
engineers
in
1933
involved
the
imposition
of
trade
embargoes
by
both
the
British
and
Soviet
governments.
There
was
a
momentary
upturn
when
Eden
visited
Moscow
in
1935,
but
the
mood
of
mutual
suspicion
throughout
the
wartime
alliance
was
more
than
con-
firmed
by
Attlee’s
denunciation
of Soviet
’ideological,
economic
and
strategic
imperialism’
just
before
the
Czechoslovak
coup
in
February
1948.
Eden’s
hopes
for
a
new
relationship
with
Khrushchev
were
soon
blocked
by
the
Hungarian
invasion
in
1956.
Likewise,
Macmillan’s
visit
to
Moscow
in
1959
and
Wilson’s
in
1975
brought
only
short
breaks
in
the
dominant
theme
of
basic
antagonism
between
the
two
sides.
Peter
Duncan’s
analysis
of
Soviet
perspectives
on
Britain
reaches
the
conclusion
that
despite
Britain’s
economic
decline,
Soviet
specialists
still
recognize
Britain
to
be
of
major
importance
in
the
world
economy.
Moreover,
Mrs
Thatcher
as
the
longest
serving
Western
leader,
now
viewed
as
a
quite
different
kind
of
Iron
Lady,
has
given
Britain
a
special
status
as
the
most
influential
power
in
NATO
after
the
United
States.
From
the
British
side,
there
has
been
a
constant
search
for
a
modus
vivendi
with
Moscow.
In
this
connection,
Christopher
Bluth’s
discussion
of
the
centrality
of
the
security
dimension
in
Soviet-British
relations
shows
how
British
influence
facilitated
the
compromise
over
SDI,
which
was
a
prerequisite
for
the
signing
of
the
INF
Treaty.
While
Margot
Light
describes
the
key
role
played
by
the
International
Department
of
the
Central
Committee
in
the
implementation
of
foreign
policy
with
capitalist
states
and,
like
others,
points
to
Britain’s
role
in
the
Western
Alliance
taking
precedence
over
bilateral
relations,
Mike
Bowker
and
Peter
Shearman
reveal
the
pitiable
performance
of
the
Communist
Party
of
Great
Britain,
whose
main
contribution
to
Soviet
interests
has
been
to
strengthen
the
left
wing
of
the
Labour
Party
and
gain
influence
in
the
trade
unions.
They
also
describe
Moscow’s
’uneasy
and
ambiguous
relationship
with
the
British
peace
movement’,
and
rightly
show
that
neither
the
Campaign
for
Nuclear
Disarmament
and
still
less
E.P.
Thompson’s
European
Nuclear
Disarmament are
Soviet
front
organizations.
John
Morison
deals
with
Anglo-Soviet
cultural
contacts
since
1975
and
argues
the
case
for
moderate
continuing
funding
for
scientific
and
cultural
relations,
as
opposed
to
ostentatious
gestures
of
cultural
diplomacy.
If
the
Cultural
Agreement
of
1987
provided
the
framework
for
a
higher
level
of
exchanges,
it
is
a
shameful
statistic
that
the
British
Council
spends
only
one
half
of
a
percent
of
its
budget
on
the
USSR;
France
spends
nearly
three
and
a
half
times
as
much
as
Britain
on
cultural
diplomacy.
If
Britain
was
the
first
country
to
sign
a
trade
agreement
with
Moscow
three
and
a
half
years
after
the
October
Revolution,
and
remained
its
biggest
Western
partner
through
the
1920s
To continue reading
Request your trial