After 9/11 the US and its allies could have decided that the most important thing to do was to strengthen international law in the face of global terrorist threats, and to enhance the role of multilateral institutions. They could have decided it was important that no single power or group should act as judge, jury and executioner. They could have decided that global hotspots like the Israel and Palestinian territories, which help feed global terrorism, should be the centre of international attention. They could have decided to be tough on terrorism, and tough on the conditions which lead some people to imagine (falsely) that Al-Qaeda and similar groups are agents of justice in the modern world. But they have systematically failed to pursue this agenda. In general, the world after 9/11 has become more polarised, international law weaker, and multilateral institutions more vulnerable.
The way forward involves, in many respects, almost the opposite of what has been promulgated: that is to say, the development of a human security agenda that is based on multilateralism and common rules, which seeks order through law and social justice, which seeks to re-link security and the human rights agenda, which seeks to strengthen global governance, and which aims to make the world safe for humanity, with global justice and impartial rules. To this end, the Gordon Brown administration should declare an end to Britain’s involvement in the ‘war on terror’. While the threat of terrorist violence is a serious one, it does not constitute a war in any conventional sense. Action to address terrorism cannot be pursued first and foremost through military means. Gordon Brown and David Miliband should focus their attention elsewhere on the deep drivers of terrorism, including: political and religious extremism, poverty and injustice, fragile and failing states, authoritarianism and repression, and feelings of powerlessness and alienation.
Will the Brown government move in this direction? At the moment, there are both positive and negative signals. The positive signals include the Government’s change of rhetoric, focussing on criminality, when talking about terrorism. They also include Douglas Alexander’s recent speech, emphasising the importance of multilateral institutions and the strengthening of global governance arrangements. Other significant signals include Mark Malloch Brown’s remarks that the UK and the US should “no longer be joined at the hip”. David Miliband’s speech at Chatham House continues some of these emphases while reaffirming some of the more familiar positions of the Blair years. The US will remain the single most important bilateral relationship, soft and hard power will be balanced, but we should not shrink from using hard power where appropriate, and responsibilities in Iraq remain. There are elements here to welcome as well as other things that might signal a worrying continuity of some of the flawed foreign policy objectives of the past ten years.
But rather than try to assess the meaning of these early speeches, it is more appropriate to build on our understanding of what has failed in the last ten years and to set out new priorities for UK foreign policy. There are a number of tests for UK foreign policy in the future – tests which will be a better way of judging the Brown years than too much early analysis of speeches.
These tests include:
• Support for a Dayton-style international conference on Iraq, involving the key regional states and a policy of sustained dialogue, not confrontation, with Iran over nuclear proliferation and other issues.
• Backing for the lifting of economic restrictions on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and support for the creation of a national unity government in Palestine. Attempts by the international community to play-off different Palestinian factions against each other, and to punish Gaza, will foster further radicalisation, not moderation.
• Press for urgent and decisive action on Darfur, including targeted sanctions against key members of the Khartoum regime.
• Take further action on aid, trade and development, and build a new focus on poor governance, failing states and peace building.
• Give an international lead on climate change by reducing further UK CO2 emissions, and work with Europe, the US and China to secure an effective multilateral agreement to follow up the end of Kyoto in 2012.
• Rethink the UK’s alliances, including building a relationship with the US based on a commitment to common principles (that is to say a relationship that lasts as long as the common principles are upheld), a more constructive approach towards Europe and support for reformed multilateral institutions like the UN and international financial institutions.