It’s not surprising that the Tories and Liberal Democrats have ducked the challenge of using the recent Strategic Defence Review and a series of ‘defining’ speeches by the foreign secretary to set out a new foreign policy. They no doubt see it as a hard task (and politically difficult) at a time when most people are focused on the mortgages and jobs.
In foreign policy terms the coalition has actually gone back to basics since the election. They’ve argued for the FCO and British diplomats abroad to shrink their focus back onto twin goals of increasing UK security and boosting trade. William Hague is calling this rather limp initial effort his ‘reappraisal’ of UK foreign policy.
This is fine as far as it goes, and it’s actually a lot less radical than many of our allies feared. In the run-up to the defence review and the spending reviews in the autumn of 2010 some allies expressed concerns that cuts would prompt a dramatic shift in UK foreign policy. Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates went so far in October to call the pending diplomatic and defence cuts a ‘concern’ for the UK’s relationship with the United States.
But the devil is in the detail. Firstly, speeches and statements from FCO ministers since the election have been void of a clear reference to the global threats that the UK faces in 2011. Globalisation is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon. However, the government has so far failed set out its view of Britain’s role in averting global crises which by their nature will impact on our own national interest.
The narrow focus on ‘reappraising’ the role of UK diplomats abroad will not suffice as a strategy to protect the UK while dealing with global problems such as failed states, financial and social collapse, unprompted military aggression, ethnic cleansing or global terrorism. For these problems, it seems, the government has not yet chosen a strategy or even an objective.
Secondly, however, in some ways the strategy is being set by the bean counters. The cuts announced in the defence review were highly criticised as preventing the UK from conducting another military mission on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan, with a future deployment limit of around 6,000 troops compared to the 10,000 currently serving in Afghanistan.
Some people may welcome this development as a brake on future unwelcome foreign wars, but by definition this change to defence capability will prevent a foreign policy based on strategic goals and objectives and will no doubt reduce the options for British diplomats and military commanders when the next global threat to our security emerges.
So where does this leave a Labour party that is still struggling with its own heart on the rights and wrongs of the invasion of Iraq, and has not yet found the confidence to articulate a clear post-Iraq foreign policy?
It’s right that the decision to send British men and women into combat should be scrutinised, and many involved may admit that there was not enough scrutiny at the time of the invasion of Iraq to help foster an open debate about the merits of military intervention. The problem that Labour now has is that it can’t see a future when it will either hold the voters’ trust on foreign policy issues, or even agree itself about the kind of world that British foreign policy should aim to create.
The splits within the PLP over our stance on Israeli military action in the Lebanon in 2006 are one example of this tension, and now that we are out of government and the bonds of collective responsibility are not as strong, it is a problem that will be more visible in the future.
The new shadow foreign secretary Yvette Cooper has made her first attempt to address this issue, giving a speech to the thinktank Chatham House at the end of last year, and setting ‘tests and challenges’ for the government in its foreign policy. She was right to highlight in her speech the need for a long-term approach to conflict prevention which doesn’t simply use development aid as a short-term cover for systemic problems. She was also right to push the government on issues such as climate change, which must be seen not only as an environmental issue but also a security one.
However, while it is right to praise governments when they take good decisions, Labour is in danger of agreeing too much with the coalition on foreign policy and not challenging them enough on Britain’s national security.
We haven’t yet developed a clear narrative on the link between global threats and domestic security, we have so far agreed too much with the government’s short-term tactic of a ‘back to basics’ foreign policy, and we should be pushing ministers to define their strategy for tackling international security threats to our country.
I admit that, because of the economic situation, it is a challenge for any political party to create space for a debate on global issues. However, Labour must take seriously the need for a bold and coherent foreign policy which doesn’t just appease the consciences of party members who are still angry about Iraq, but faces up to the real security threats which we face in 2011.
Agree we need to be thinking about what policy should be in 2015 or 2020 as we return to power but you seem to be talking as if there is a real threat of some kind which traditional military forces are the solution. At present there are 125,000 forign troops and a further 150,000 forign non military contractors in Afghanistan. The difference of 10,000 UK forces one way or another does not actually make the slightest difference. It is difficult to admit that but it is the truth. There is a threat from a mindset of extreme islamist ideology but UK presence in Afganistan increases that threat it does not reduce it but withdrawal would not remove the threat. The fight in the run up to the election over lack of support for the troops in Afganistan and the continued fight over lack of support for individual troops re body armour or vehicles in Iraq has stopped which shows most of it was got up by the right wing media to attack Gordon rather than real support for the frontline troops. However what it does show is the public are not willing to put up with death and injury of even a Proffesional military unless they can see a real threat and that is a threat to the UK not the interests of BP or other multinationals. Come 2015 we should be completely out of Afghanistan, we will have been out of Iraq for almost a decade and we need to be making clear that we have no intreats whatsoever in taking place in operations like that again.
so we are in no way to be involved in the oil in Turkmenistan being delivered via pipeline that does not have to go under Caspian ? It’s all to go to China is it?
The Party needs to consider a more radical approach that reduces the power of the defence and foreign policy lobby and considers the challenge of existing within our means, maintaining current and new imaginative alliances with former enemies based upon trust and common interest, not on a willingness to sacrifice soldiers and treasure for misadventures abroad. Britain has a responsibility to engage in a cooperative search for meaning in multilateralism based upon justice and deep universal values, not on the domination of the north Atlantic anglo-Saxon elite.
misadventures abroad ?wot,like imperialism! No longer an elite, but we still have responsibilities for the way the world has evolved AND to make energy provision so that resources are not simply speculation opportunities for yes,the ‘financial elite’ who operate globally whether or not they are say.an MP in this country. Surely we only seek now to ‘dominate’ oppression.
I agree absolutely that the government is too eager to reduce Britain’s defence capability, and that we should have armed forces ready to rapidly respond to threats around the world, but I also think we must be careful not to seek out ‘threats’ where none really exist. That is the kind of thinking that got us involved in Iraq. We should also be less concerned with whether the Americans approve of our foreign policy than whether our policy is fit and proper. There is also no need to actively seek to establish policies contrary to the government’s own. There are no shortage of areas where they’re fundamentally wrong without manufacturing reasons to attack them.
surely we were committed to some degree to ally with the Americans over Iraq as we still had outstanding loan to repay from WW2,(Tony Blair made final payment ) there must have been some sort of agreement there,and I still believe we went to try and temper the affects of the Americans who went with ‘kill em all ‘ written on their helmets .We had history with Iraq and the formation of that country of course ,and the Kurds were being wiped out for the oil in their territory,no? (but personally I was demonstrating outside American Embassy,day after 9/11 with Give peace A Chance and America Do Not Retaliate, the police chief who allowed me to stay said of my banner ‘I don’t have a problem with that ‘ !
Labour should advocate a humble foreign policy .Military intervention is not necessarily the most effective way in dealing with national security .Labour’s disgusting imperial adventure in Iraq had know relevance to British National security .It has alienated the British electorate and cost Labour millions of votes .Its time for Labour to make an apology for its slavish support for the United States in Iraq .