Labour has been in government for 10 years, with an associated legacy and baggage in foreign affairs. Over that period it has moved human rights and good governance up the agenda by doing a great deal more nationally and through the European Union to monitor the countries to which Britain sells arms; sending UK troops to protect civilians in Sierra Leone, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan; setting up the Department for International Development; and significantly increasing aid and debt relief. Labour has also been influential in taking the debate on ‘the responsibility to protect’ forward.
However, much of this receives regrettably little attention in the media due to the big elephant in the room. How Gordon Brown deals with Iraq in his first 100 days, and indeed how he plans to assist a more stable and democratic Iraq over the next few years, will be fundamental to domestic and international perceptions of his government.
Several other issues confront Brown as he takes over as prime minister. The most important is how to manage relations with the world’s only superpower and Britain’s closest strategic, political and military ally, the United States, at a time when an unpopular President George Bush faces a Democrat-controlled Congress.
Chancellor Brown has shown his commitment to using ‘soft power’ – the use of economic resources and approaches to the resolution of international problems. This includes his work with Tony Blair on the Commission for Africa, his plans for the economic development of the Palestinian territories, and above all the trebling of the UK aid budget disbursed through the Department for International Development since 1997.
As we face a comprehensive spending review later this year, Prime Minister Brown has an opportunity to be more appreciative of the role of UK diplomacy and political engagement by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it works within international organisations including the UN, EU, NATO, the G8 and the Commonwealth. ‘Soft power’ could also be used to assist the resolution of a number of longstanding and complex issues, including the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, the deteriorating situation in Iraq, the difficulties in Afghanistan, and the threat from Iran.
Over recent years, the budget for the FCO has stayed flat. Furthermore, as a result of increased security costs and technological investment, it has seen a reduction in the number of posts abroad, and Britain’s diplomatic footprint has shrunk in smaller African and Commonwealth Pacific countries. There needs to be a rebalancing, and a recognition of the FCO’s consular, diplomatic and negotiating role is vital.
‘Soft power’ also has a vital role to play alongside ‘hard power’ in combating the rise of asymmetric warfare and terrorist activity. Prime Minister Brown should make a concerted effort both for international and domestic political reasons to carefully reposition the UK with regard to US foreign policy. This may in fact not require any major change in actual policy. There are, after all, existing differences on issues such as climate change, terrorism and human rights, world trade, and the International Criminal Court.
But a conscious effort, starting with an end to use of the term ‘war on terror’ and followed by a move away from Blair’s ‘hug them close’ strategy of seeking on all occasions to minimise public differences with the Bush administration, could signal a new approach. Labour’s electoral popularity would certainly benefit from a perception of clear public differences with the waning US president.
But Bush and his administration will still be in power until January 2009, perhaps just before the next UK general election, and there is no guarantee that there will be a Democrat successor. Brown has to both work with Bush and keep his distance, so as not to be seen to interfere in the US elections and undermine relations with any potential successor, Democrat or Republican. While there is no question of giving succour to gratuitous anti-Americanism, Brown must be aware of the danger of British policy towards Iraq or Iran being seen to be decided in Washington – in Capitol or Congress – rather than London.
Brown comes to the highest office at a time of great opportunity in Europe. If he can stand up to the likely rabid Eurosceptic onslaught from the tabloid media, he could move things on significantly to open up a real debate about practical institutional and economic reform and cooperation with the 27 member states of our largest trading partner, as well as maintaining the vital European perspective for the aspirant and applicant countries in the Balkans, Turkey and elsewhere in the European neighbourhood.
Two other issues have rapidly risen up the agenda in recent years: climate change and energy security. Related to this is the importance of EU and UK relations with an increasingly assertive Russia. It is not yet clear who will succeed Vladimir Putin as president next year, but it is unlikely to be a less authoritarian and more pluralistic leader.
At the same time as Russia is asserting itself towards its former satellites and republics, it is building closer relations with the growing economic power of the 21st century, China. This century will see an accelerating shift of economic power and demand for energy and raw materials to China and India, as well as the growing importance in international negotiations of countries like Brazil and South Africa.
This has already been shown at the stalled world trade talks. The director general of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, recently warned that there could be a total failure of the blocked Doha round unless there is a breakthrough soon. The incoming prime minister must put strong pressure internationally, and on the EU trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, for a more flexible EU negotiating approach.
Blair’s last European Union Council of Ministers meeting takes place in Berlin on June 22, immediately before Labour’s special Manchester leadership conference. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, will hope to have steered the 27 EU-member states to an agreed framework for future acceptable institutional reform without requiring referendums in the Netherlands, France or the UK. However, the final details will be decided later this year at a special intergovernmental conference under the Portuguese presidency, and then ratified by each national parliament in the first half of 2008, under the Slovenian EU presidency.
Prime Minister Brown is likely to go on an early European tour to meet key leaders, including the French president Nicolas Sarkozy and the German chancellor. But he should also make real efforts to build closer relations with left-of-centre European leaders, including the Italian prime minister Romano Prodi, his Spanish counterpart Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and the new Swedish Social Democrat leader of the opposition, Mona Sahlin.
Attending an early meeting of European Union social democratic leaders would send a positive signal, which I suspect would be well-received on the European centre left. European Christian Democrats may also see it as a sign of a more positive approach to engagement with Europe, at a time when David Cameron’s Conservatives remain dominated by Euroscepticism and are planning to leave the European People’s Party.