The dilemmas of an ethical Tory foreign policy

Foreign policy is an ethical minefield - or at least it should be. The crusading left-wing journalist John Pilger once wrote about an interview he conducted with the late Alan Clark MP, who was then defence minister. Pilger repeatedly asked Clark why he wasn't bothered that Britain was supplying arms to the Indonesian regime occupying and suppressing East Timor. Pilger told Clark that he found this strange in a man who practiced vegetarianism and defended the rights of animals. Clark failed to see any contradiction. But in his parliamentary renaissance in the late 1990s, Clark was outspoken and almost alone on the Tory benches in his condemnation of NATO's bombing of Serbia.

I quote this episode not only to highlight the refreshing bluntness and free thinking of my former MP, but to support my view that in ethical foreign policy - which was supposedly Labour's policy at the time of the NATO attacks on Serbia - there is rarely agreement as to how ethical concerns should be applied in practice.

Of course, there are always going to be times when 'national interest' or 'realpolitik', nebulous though that term often is, will trump concerns about ethics. One such occasion was the visit in October 2007 of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to the UK. The visit was not long after Tony Blair personally scrapped a Serious Fraud Office inquiry into alleged corruption over Saudi arms deals. Foreign Office minister Kim Howells rather absurdly lauded Saudi Arabia and Britain's 'shared values'.

I found myself quite isolated in criticising this assertion, although my friend and colleague Dan Hannan wrote a devastating critique of the matter. What values do we share with Saudi Arabia? Are British jobs more important than the rule of law? And if so, how many jobs does it take to tilt the balance in the Saudis' favour? The decision to end the SFO inquiry was a controversial one, but who's to say that we in government would not have taken the same decision?

Let's take a few more examples. Margaret Thatcher pursued a policy of constructive engagement with apartheid South Africa, although clearly the Nationalist regime pursued unacceptable social policies. In this case the importance of South Africa as a trading partner and serious military player in a region susceptible to Soviet manipulation was more important than ethical concerns. There were plenty of people at the time who thought that constructive engagement as an ethical choice achieved far more than sanctions and isolation would have done.

Taiwan is a prosperous democracy that shares our values, whereas the People's Republic of China is a communist dictatorship that does not. This was amply demonstrated by China's veto, alongside Russia, of planned UN sanctions against Robert Mugabe's brutal regime in Zimbabwe. Yet the PRC's vast economy and geo-strategic power demands our exclusive attention. Or do they? If we were more critical of the PRC, and more morally supportive of Taiwan (within, of course, the context of the One China policy), would Britain suffer devastating consequences? Or does the PRC need Britain just as much? Is it ethical effectively to reduce the Taiwanese to invisibility in the world? I don't think so, especially if Britain remains devoted to spreading democracy and human rights around the world.

As a firm supporter of Israel I have no qualms in defending that country on the international stage. This, however, does not inure me to the suffering and the plight of the Palestinian people, even if much of that suffering is caused by Palestinian leaders themselves. And, yes, there must be times when we friends of Israel must criticise, confident of the fact that Israel will listen to us more than it will to those committed to its destruction.

In posting this piece I am not seeking to claim I have definitive answers to any of the thorny foreign policy dilemmas that face our country every day and will face our party in government, hopefully sooner rather than later. I am seeking merely to prompt a debate. I am especially keen to do so in the context of the renewed interest in human rights and ethics in politics that is growing within the parliamentary party and David Cameron's recognition of the EU's role in the relief of global poverty.

It's been said that politics is the art of the possible and I think foreign policy needs to be seen in that context: we should only set out to achieve what we think we can achieve. It's a trade-off. But I think we should be aiming for much more consistency and firmness in our diplomacy. Ironically, Britain is more likely to achieve and implement this consistency within the umbrella of a (unanimous) EU Common Foreign and Security Policy than it is alone. However, this piece is not about the EU or the pros and cons of the CFSP.

On a final note, with regard to foreign policy I think there's also something to be said for politicians seizing back the initiative from civil servants. Much as I admire the Foreign Office and its staff, I think there has been in the past a tendency to allow policy to be developed by mandarins and executed by ministers, rather than the other way round. Margaret Thatcher fought fiercely against this although even she was not entirely successful in changing the culture. Politicians must have the courage to take these difficult decisions and be prepared to do the necessary homework in understanding the complexity of many areas of foreign policy, mindful of national interest but also observant and proud of the ethical values that still make our country so admired around the world.

Comments

[David_McD]

We will not have to worry about a foreign policy at all, if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, since the job will by taken over by the EU “High Representative”.

Incidentally, Dr Tannock, what are you doing about the EU Commission’s spending on the Office of the "High Representative" even through the Lisbon Treaty has not yet been ratified and may never be?

Do you agree with the amendment to the EU Budget, proposed in the EU Parliament., by Nigel Farage and supported by your colleagues Christopher Heaton-Harris, Roger Helmer, Daniel Hannan, Martin Callanan and Syed Kamall?

The amendment reads thus:

“whereas the Lisbon Treaty cannot enter into force until it is ratified by all 27 Member States; this not being the case, any and all new budget programmes contained in the unratified Treaty (such as the European External Action Service) should not be funded until such time as the Treaty is ratified by all 27 Member States “

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sce/data/amend_motions_texts/doc/P6_AMA%282008%290262%28011-011%29_EN.doc

[Charles Tannock MEP]

David_McD | July 16, 2008 at 13:14
The Office of High Representative of the EU has been around since the Maastricht Treaty which John Major signed-up to with a remit to defend the CFSP once agreed unanimously by all member states and the change you allude to I presume and proposed by Lisbon was that the High Rep would be enhanced by being double hatted with the same individual as Vice President of the Commission which brings a lot of Commission funding back under the Council ie becomes intergovernmental rather than Commission which is supranational.
I have submitted a PQ in the past which clarifes the EEAS ("EU diplomatic Service") cannot enter into force or be EU budget financed under the existing Treaties as there is no legal basis for it so the Amendment in question by my colleagues is largely academic. If to vote for this Am is the official Tory whip I will of course support it but I am neither spokesman on budgetary matters nor in the whips office.

[Sally Roberts]

"As a firm supporter of Israel I have no qualms in defending that country on the international stage. This, however, does not inure me to the suffering and the plight of the Palestinian people, even if much of that suffering is caused by Palestinian leaders themselves. "

Charles, I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on President Sarkozy's initatives via the new Mediterranean Union which it seems may be bearing some fruit - not only in relation to Israel's relations with Palestine but also with Lebanon and Syria!

[Arthur]

You cover a bit of ground here but in short, if you do not want foreign policy to become an "ethical minefield" don't make ethics the central pillar of that policy.

Foreign policy aims to achieve many things: balance of power, economic opportunities, marginalisation of destructive regimes and good PR to name a few, but they must all be underpinned by what we see as our national interest. And yes, we might decide that an ethical stance is in our national interest.

But, as noble as an ethical stance might be, it only makes it difficult to act in a pragmatic fashion. After all, how do we justify intervening in Iraq when we will not touch Zimbabwe or Sudan. Kind of makes a mockery of the ethical bit does it not?

[Alexander King]

A couple of somewhat contradictory thoughts:

1. The promotion of human rights might prove problematic in the short term but in the long term it should make us more admired and respected by people (if not regimes) around the world. Ultra-realpolitik can sometimes be less sensible than it seems - witness the disgust many people in the Middle East feel towards the US for propping up unpopular regimes. We all know, for example, what happened to Iranian policy when the Shah was overthrown.

2. More problematic, though, is that Western championing of human rights is often seen, rightly or wrongly, as neo-imperialism. We might be sincere in our concern for human rights but others often perceive it as meddling. We seem to have less respect for sovereignty than does, say, China. If anything is likely to cause a clash over the coming decades, it is surely these competing notions of the sanctity of sovereignty.

It really is a minefield. I don't envy David Miliband.

[Allan McKinley]

I have to say, I have never even considered envying David Miliband.

On a more sensible note (maybe): the problem is ethics, since our definition of ethical differs from our close relatives and allies the French, never mind the Omanis or the Central African Republicans to take two slightly random examples. This means to promote our ethics we are imposing our values, which is bluntly imperialistic, with no neo about it. However, it should not therefore be taken, as left-wing ideologues would automatically claim, as bad. If our ethics save innocent lives whilst those of another culture allow them to be lost in the name of race, progress or whatever, our ethics are clearly superior (at least in our eyes) and therefore our action is justifiable (to us). As concepts of right and wrong are tied into language, there will never be an agreed code of ethics or the like worldwide. Instead it becomes a question of following your own society's ethics at the cost of others if this is the ethical thing to do.

The question with an ethical foreign policy is not therefore whether it is right so much as whether we can bear the costs, political and financial. Ethically, there is often a right and clear decision - arrest Mugabe, invade Sudan - but can we live up to our ethical ideas.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Nick Clegg was supposed to have given a speech on when to intervene, militarily, in foreign countries. Does anyone know anything about it?

I think it's a good question, although I doubt whether he had the right answers.

[Mara MacSeoinin]

At last, a bona fide Pilger supporter...
The crux of the matter is that no government can realistically pursue any form of ethical foreign policy given our current status quo; nor can either democracy (of any flavour) or anarchy (ditto) replace the system with a more equitable one whilst the UN and the Security Council are in existence.
Democracy is *the* buzz-word of the moment and has been trotted out on so many occasions, often in situations so contrary to the fact that such pronouncements become laughable (see Hazel Blears in the Telegraph on 10/07/08: "When we look around the whole world from Burma to Zimbabwe we should recognise the struggle for democracy is universal, that the drive for people to want to control their own lives is actually part of human nature." This in a bid to force individuals to vote in local elections). But the UN is not democratic. Its voting system is not proportional (as ever nation is given a vote, despite their size or lack of it, there is a huge disparity in adequate representation of individuals’ views); it is subject to the diktats of the members of the Security Council who have the right of veto over any reforms to its constitution, to the election of ICJ judges, the inclusion of new UN members, and the appointment of a new Secretary-General. In effect, any member state can bring forth a new resolution; but, since the Security Council has absolute power of veto, very few states bring forth resolutions they know are going to be rejected by the Big 5. This kind of weary fatalism characterises modern global politics. At present, for example, we are calling for the removal of Mugabe and the trial of al-Bashir; both worthy cries of outrage, in their way, if our own record weren’t so muddied.
A month after the gassing of the Kurds, Britain offered Saddam Hussein £340 million in export credits. There are significant Whitehall reports indicating that the Conservative government knew about the gassing before it happened. The Labour government lied about the expulsion of weapons inspectors from Iraq; they were asked to leave prior to a carpet-bombing exercise by the US, known as Operation Desert Fox. Since the UK and US have waged war against Iraq, a country which was renowned for its medical systems, educational systems and development of new technology has tumbled into ruins; over 600,000 children have died as a result. We are directly implicated in this genocide, much as we are directly implicated in the mass deaths of thousands of Afghanis in Maslakh and Jalozai, to name a few of the hundreds of camps set up as a direct result of the war. We are implicated in the Sudanese crisis, oh yes, because we supplied arms and created conflict in that region, further destabilising it; ditto East Timor. We tacitly turned a blind eye to the US’s many acts against humanity; we talked of betrayal when the Falklands were invaded, having disenfranchised the people of Diego Garcia and exiled them from their land. We cannot take any sort of moral high-ground before we acknowledge that for which we have been responsible, and that for which we still are responsible; only then can we create a lucid foreign policy based not upon territorial acquisition and arms proliferation but on humanity, supported by an independent UN with the power to overturn hegemonic interests.

[David_McD]

The concept of an ethical foreign policy is dangerous, not least because of the problem of agreeing what is “ethical”.

We live in an uncertain world. British Foreign policy should be concerned firstly with the physical security and secondly with the material wellbeing and quality of life of the British People. By British People, I mean all those lawfully and permanently resident in the UK and its dependent territories (Channel Islands, Gibraltar. Montserrat, Isle of Mann, Bermuda, etc.). By material wellbeing I mean, amongst other things, GNP per head and NOT overall GNP. So, through it may be in the interests of some retail organisations to have an ever expanding population with mass immigration both to increase their customer base and to keep wages low, this is NOT so for the majority of the British people.

We should deal honestly with other nations, making our intentions clear and, wherever possible, keeping to our word. We should maintain our vital alliances (NATO is by far the most important). The British Armed Services (which require both expansion and re-equipment) should ONLY be sent into action the support the British national interest (i.e. the interests of the British People, see above) and NOT to “do good” in the wider world. Nor should we try to impose, other than by example, our values on other peoples.

Aid should be confined to assisting in the aftermath of natural disasters (typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis and the like). Giving aid to incompetent and corrupt governments in Africa or elsewhere tends to divorce the accountability of the rulers to the ruled.

Last but not least, we should pull out of the political EU which is a threat to our concept of democracy and repatriate the CAP/CFP. We should seek good relations with our European neighbours and negotiate appropriate trade agreements through the WTO, EFTA and similar organisations.

All this, until recently, would have been quite obvious to true Tories and many others!

[Charles Tannock MEP]

Charles, I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on President Sarkozy's initatives via the new Mediterranean Union which it seems may be bearing some fruit - not only in relation to Israel's relations with Palestine but also with Lebanon and Syria!

Posted by: Sally Roberts | July 16, 2008 at 13:59

Sally too early to say where the Med Union will go as we have seen a number of launches of new Unions in the past eg the WEU a few years back only to see them fizzle out. Originally the raison d'etre seemed to be keep Turkey out of the EU but now the objective seems to be peace in the middle east by getting Israel, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria to talk face to face which happens at Parliamentary level in the EU's Euromed Assembly. In summary the jury is out for Sarkozy's baby...

[Sally Roberts]

Thanks Charles, let's keep our fingers crossed..!! I have seen today's news about the prisoner exchanges although sadly I note that Regev and Goldwasser died in captivity.

[grumpy old man]

David McD@1610. Bingo! Retreat from leftist neo-colonialism, which we demonstrably cannot afford, either financially or politically and concentrate on what is best for the UK, which we have to afford. This includes putting UK interests first in our dealings with the Second Carolingian Empire based in Brussels.