David Davis' global vision

I’ve just got round to reading David Davis’ foreign policy speech of yesterday.  It had five main themes:

(1) “An open Europe”.  In this section – the longest of the five – Mr Davis clearly has Mr Clarke in his sights and the idea that Europe is not going to be a big issue in coming years.  Mr Davis lists some big challenges that Europe has to face up to:

• The forthcoming decisions on the EU budget;
• Legislation on the Common European Asylum system;
• Decisions about further enlargement;
• Decisions about trade reform ahead of the WTO meeting in December.

“It is plainly wrong to believe that Europe is not a current issue or that the Constitution is dead,” he says, “In the next few years there is likely to be a fresh attempt to re-write the EU treaties… The most likely course is that different aspects of the Constitution will be introduced by stealth, so as to outflank the embarrassment of democratic consultation. The forces for integration never sleep. Indeed, we have just witnessed a significant judgement by the European Court of Justice which will allow the Commission, rather than member states, to create criminal offences.  This is unacceptable. It is also a reminder that vigilance will be required to check such encroachments…”

Unlike Germany’s CDU which used opposition to Turkish EU entry as an election ploy, David Davis makes it clear that he would never play the ‘Turkish card’:

“The Conservative Party has long advocated Turkish membership of the EU. I believe that we are right to do so. Saying “no” would be a serious setback to Turkey, the most successful, most modern Muslim country. It would do long term harm to relations with the rest of the Islamic world.”

(2) “The Atlantic Alliance”.  David Davis positions himself as a proud Atlanticist in this speech and says that Britain’s permanent interests demand that we stay close to America:

“Britain today needs America for very practical reasons. We depend upon American support in every region and continent where we have interests at stake. We depend upon American technology to maintain our defence, particularly our nuclear weapon. We depend, above all perhaps, upon special access to American intelligence to maintain our security.  Never has intelligence been more important than now. Those who complain that our closeness to America, in particular our support of the US in Iraq, has made us a target of terror, should think before they speak. Such remarks are a signal to extremists that we will adjust our foreign policy in response to their threats – which merely invites further attacks.  Without the intelligence support we receive from our American allies, our citizens would be more at risk, not less. Islamist terror does not respect the white flag.”

On Iraq, DD is steadfast:

“As for Iraq, there is no point now in looking back. The war against Saddam has been overtaken by a war against Sunni insurgents and Al-Qa’eda, which is far more dangerous. This war too must be won, unless the Gulf is to descend into turmoil and the West be put at still greater risk.  The Allies must stay until we can leave behind a stable and free Iraq.”

DD also demonstrates an understanding that Iraq is but one stage of the war on terror:

“Iraq is not the only headache. The current stand-off over Iran’s nuclear ambitions is a reminder that proliferation remains a deadly threat. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But there are other dangerous regimes that have them, or want them.   Each sign of weakness encourages more countries to become covert proliferators. The recent UN Summit’s declaration didn’t even mention proliferation. Yet the struggle cannot be shelved, if terrible outcomes are to be avoided.”

(3) “Security”.  Increased troop numbers and a better equipped military are priorities for a Davis-led government.  He notes existing military commitments in Iraq, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan.  “The demands will continue to grow,” he believes and says that Labour has been “wrong to reduce preparedness.”  “We should not be cutting manpower,” he continues, “We should be alarmed by emerging capability gaps in both air force and navy. In the procurement programme, key projects have repeatedly over-run schedules and broken budgets. This gives little confidence that even present plans will be fulfilled.  It’s nothing less than a scandal that British soldiers go into battle without the right clothing and equipment.”  And echoing George W Bush’s objections to the ICC, he says: “Subjecting soldiers to the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction demonstrates a failure to grasp the worth of morale in combat. The ideology of international human rights lawyers sits uneasily with the duties of servicemen.”

He identifies three priorities for “security”:

• “We have to prevent the extremists seizing a failed or failing state.”
• “We must pursue and destroy Al-Qa’eda wherever they gather.”
• “And time and again we must remind the moderate Muslim world that this is their struggle, as well as ours.”

(4) “International Institutions”.  If theme one identified DD as a EU-sceptic, theme four identifies him as a UN-sceptic.  Although he notes that “no other international body has the legitimacy and reach to perform the multiform tasks we expect of it”, he focuses on the UN’s “shortcomings”:

• “The Volcker Report on the Iraq Oil-for-Food Scandal was damning. Its conclusions reflect no credit on the Secretary General, or on the countries which connived at the abuses.”
• “Nor did the recent Summit distinguish itself. All diplomacy involves compromise. But if countries cannot even agree to define what constitutes terrorism, how can they agree to fight it?”
• “Gross abuses are still occurring despite the theorising and the law-making. They will continue unless there is a real resolution to act. The lessons of Rwanda have still not been learned. Darfur has seen state-sponsored genocide, and the response has been far too timid.”
• “We have a United Nations Human Rights Commission on which some of the world’s worst human rights abusers sit and pontificate.”

DD is also suspicious of the UN’s ability to pre-empt threats to world security and notes: “[UK] influence over the nature of the operation in Iraq was squandered by an obsessive insistence on prolonging UN-based diplomacy that could obviously yield no result. How much better it would have been to concentrate on ensuring that planning for peace matched the planning for war, before the campaign began.”

(5) “Democracy and Development” is DD’s final theme.  He advocates “enlightened self-interest” as the guiding principle for our relationship with developing nations: “Doing the right thing and doing what is in your own interests more often than not point in the same direction – particularly in foreign policy… Today it makes sense to be concerned for Sub-Saharan Africa - not just because of the unacceptable tragedies of suffering, poverty, and disease, but because glaring global inequalities breed instability. So we must use every lever at our disposal to attack corruption and advance property rights…. It makes sense to take vigorous action against the obstacles to development which we ourselves have created, because a richer, economically interdependent world will be more peaceful and secure. So, with Western protection and farm subsidies still costing developing countries almost $40 billion a year in lost earnings, it’s essential that the Doha Round be brought to a successful conclusion.”

Editor’s Comment: “I make no apologies for this longer-than-usual post.  In the coming years bold foreign and trade policies will be essential to Britain’s security and prosperity. This speech – hardly covered in the press (certainly compared to Ken Clarke's Iraq speech) – deserves reading.  It is (1) Proudly Euro-sceptic; (2) Committed to the Iraq phase of the war on terror; (3) Clear on the need for stronger armed forces; (4) Sceptical about the United Nations (the world’s most prominent institution-of-convenience for poseur multilateralists); and (5) Insightful about the links between Britain’s permanent interests and a more developed, democratic world.  I would state one big “however”: the development section is a little light.  There is little of Liam Fox’s excellent emphasis on human rights, for example.  Nothing on the need to curb the arms trade and scant attention is paid to the need for a ‘blue environmentalism’ based on technologically-driven growth.  These gaps on human rights, arms trading to repressive regimes and environmentalism are big gaps – not just because they are intrinsically important – but because they are vital to inspiring a new generation to become proud Conservatives.  Those important reservations aside, this was the best speech from any candidate in the race so far.”

Comments

[James Hellyer]

So, DD's a neo-con.

[James Hellyer]

Okay, it was fun to try out Ken Clarke's slur of choice ;-)

More seriously, this looks like it was a good speech, but I don't think it compares to Dr Fox's offerings.

While strong where the EU and Atlantic Alliance were concerned, it did little to break out of this "comfort zone" as Dr Fox's speeches have done.

It's relatively straightforward, and in keeping with conetmpoarary Conservatism, to be tough on the War on Terror (though Clarke and Rifkind may disagree) and scornful toward multilaterlaism. These are pretty much what I'd call the right wing comfort zone in foreign politics. It's what most of us think.

The thing is that it has little reach beyond that. It's Dr Fox's emphasis on human right and Michaelo Ancram's position on the environment that gives these fairly core policies the ability to reach outside the traditional Conservative vote (who are just happy with the EU bashing) and attract the additional support we need to win.

[malcolm]

I hate to disagree with you Editor, but I found this speech lightweight at best.On Europe he doesn't explain at all how a Eurosceptic Britain should react to a creeping federalism or what powers a Conservative government will seek to repatriate from Europe.The Telegraph eloquently calls today for the Tories to raise their Eurosceptic game and calls the party unambitous in their approach to Europe.
On Iraq, Davis' speech is worse than lightweight, it is frankly stupid. He completely ignores the threat from Shia militants to our forces, he says we must remain until 'there is a stable and free Iraq' but gives absolutely no clue as to how this will be achieved.
No wonder the Conservative newspapers,the Mail & the Telegraph chose to completely ignore this speech.
Davis has been extremely successful in attracting MPs to his cause despite running a very low key campaign, I really really hope there is more to DD and his ideas than this speech demonstrates.

[Editor]

You're always disagreeing with me Malcolm but I still love you!

The solid position on Turkey's EU membership (a vital model for Old World-Muslim relations), the defence of the Atlantic partnership in terms of Britain's permanent interests, support for a bigger UK military (in contrast with 'Malcolm Options For Change Rifkind'), UN-scepticism, and making development one of his five big themes are among the reasons that this is an important speech.

[James Hellyer]

"You're always disagreeing with me Malcolm but I still love you!"

Does this mean Dr Fox would have large reservations about your relationship? ;-)

[James Maskell]

I disagree with DD over Turkey. Turkey has to fulfil the requirements as laid down and Britain should not support Turkey's application on the basis of improving relations between Christians and Muslims...its fake and ignores the poor human rights record of Turkey. The EU is already unwieldy with its 25 members...do we need yet another one?

[James Hellyer]

"The EU is already unwieldy with its 25 members...do we need yet another one?"

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?

James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times.

James Hacker: But if that's true, why is the foreign office pushing for higher membership?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: I'd have thought that was obvious. The more members an organization has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.

James Hacker: What appalling cynicism.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: We call it diplomacy, Minister.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I disagree with DD over Turkey" - James Maskell

Me too. Not only because a token gesture to Islam is not a good enough reason to add another member to the EU, but also because it won't achieve anything whilst we continue to turn a blind eye to Israel riding roughshod over UN resolutions.

[James Hellyer]

The UN is deeply prejudiced against Israel. The list of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and the alleged complicity of UNIFIL in the October 2000 Lebanon abduction of three Israeli Engineering Corps soldiers, by Hizbullah is evidence of this.

In August 2004, the United Nations Association of the United Kingdom (UNA-UK) published a report analysing thirteen years of United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In light of the study’s conclusions, Malcolm Harper, speaking on behalf of the UNA-UK (of which he was director until recently), called for an examination into how, if at all, the lopsided resolutions contribute to the Middle East peace process:
http://www.unwatch.org/pbworks/UNA-UK_Report.pdf

makes the following principal findings:

1) The texts of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions are "often unbalanced in terms of the length of criticism and condemnation of Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories as against Palestinian axtions such as suicide bombings."

2) The United Nations is "palpably more critical of Israeli policies and practices than it is of either Palestinian actions or the wider Arab world."

3) In resolutions of the UN General Assembly, "violence perpetrated against Israeli civilians, including the use of suicide bombers, is mentioned only a few times and then in only vague terms."

Israel is a democracy under siege. The fact that Arab nations abuse to UN persecute it, does not change that.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

And there was me thinking Israel's illegal annexation of territory and subsequent persecution of the population within was the problem. Silly me.

[James Hellyer]

Oh yes, because the Arab nations have never repeatedly launched wars of aggression, supported terrorist attacks and then used the Muslim bloc vote in the UN to condem their enemy.

It must be nice in your black & white world.

[Editor]

Israel is an oasis of democracy in a desert of totalitarianism. It deserves our support.

[James Maskell]

Both Israel and Palestinians are attacking each other...its like the Chicken and the Egg..God knows which came first... Israel hasnt helped matters with its wall. Israel has just pased more operations for its forces to go and kill who it sees as attackers.

The problem with the Israel comflict is that its very much like Iraq right now...the Palestinians are angry that Israel keeps controlling it and essentially retaining land it considers its own. Iraq is similar...the insurgents dont want the "Coalition of the Willing" in control of its land.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I'm not condoning terrorism or Arab wars of aggression, I'm merely condemning what prompted some of the anti-West, anti-Israel attitude amongst Islamic nations...

Oh, by the way, Arabs and Moslems aren't the same thing...

[James Hellyer]

" I'm merely condemning what prompted some of the anti-West, anti-Israel attitude amongst Islamic nations..."

That's rubbish. The anti-Israeli sentiment has existed since the day that state was called into being.

The real reason is anti-semitism - simple as that. Actons of the Israeli state may have fed the resentments, but that's all. Israel's very existance is the cause.

And by citing these UN resolutions, you are giving into organsised anti-semitism.

"Oh, by the way, Arabs and Moslems aren't the same thing..."

And I never siad they were. However there is a huge crossover.

[James Hellyer]

"Israel hasnt helped matters with its wall."

The very wall that has reduced the level and scope of attacks on Israeli civilians.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"That's rubbish. The anti-Israeli sentiment has existed since the day that state was called into being."

Undoubtedly so, but the Israelis certainly did not help their cause by their illegal annexation of territory and persecution of the problem within.

Also, I don't understand why you dismiss it as 'rubbish', when three sentences later you say 'actions of the Israeli state may have fed the resentments'. That seems to be along the same lines as what I was saying, although I'm sure you'll prove me wrong with one of your pedantic analyses of what we've both said...

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Oops, major error there (too much red wine!) from me. I meant to say 'persecution of the population within', not 'persecution of the problem within'!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Israel is an oasis of democracy in a desert of totalitarianism. It deserves our support." - Editor

I believe similar arguments were used to justify supporting undesirable regimes in the Third World during the Cold War (i.e. country x is an oasis of pro-Westernism in a desert of pro-Sovietism). Democracy does not excuse deliberate persecution (see apartheid - South Africa; racial segregation - United States; ethnic cleansing - Yugoslavia).

In the 21st century, there should be no room for the 'he's a bastard, but at least he's our bastard' approach to international politics (guess which subject I graduated in last year ;-) !).

[James Hellyer]

"Also, I don't understand why you dismiss it as 'rubbish', when three sentences later you say 'actions of the Israeli state may have fed the resentments'."

Quite simple, you said "Israel's illegal annexation of territory and subsequent persecution of the population within was the problem..."

Which is rubbish. And what you had asserted was the cause of the problem (as opposed to a symptom).

Even without its current policies, Israel would still be regarded as an enemy, and thus subjected to UN resolutions, by the Moslem voting bloc. it would still be subject to terrorist attacks. That's clear enough in the PLO Charter.

The way to secure peace in the Middle East isn't by helping Moslem nations criminalise Israel through a series of politically motivated UN resolutions. It's by helping Ariel Sharon follow current policies that represent demographic realities...

"That seems to be along the same lines as what I was saying"

But that wasn't the point you appeared to be starting from (as shown above).

"although I'm sure you'll prove me wrong with one of your pedantic analyses of what we've both said..."

Glad to oblige.

[James Hellyer]

"Democracy does not excuse deliberate persecution"

What deliberate persecution? The supposed mistreatment of Palestines in Israel as a sort of 3rd class is entirely down to themselves. People like the Druze made the decision in the 1950's that since they benefitted from israel, hospitals, security and so on then they MUST also be a part of that system, including serving in its defence - one of Israels best generals is a Druze - if the Palestines who wish to remain in Israel want to do so then they must support that nation.

If you benefit from the state - and Israeli Arabs are the richest Arabs per capita in the world last time I looked, then you should be part of the system. The Palestinians chose not to benefit from the state.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Well if we're going to be pedantic, the line you dismissed as rubbish was:

" I'm merely condemning what prompted some of the anti-West, anti-Israel attitude amongst Islamic nations..."

Note the key word 'some'.

I am pleased that we've abandoned our brief entente cordiale (regarding AnotherNick's cheerleading for Cameron) from earlier on though, James H ;-)...

[Samuel Coates]

I noticed a few very New Ground themes in the speech, I'm sure DD's team has read it.

[James Hellyer]

"Well if we're going to be pedantic, the line you dismissed as rubbish"

... started from the original precept that the starting poijt was the Occupied Territories, bot Israel's existance! In that light, your "some" would imply that the rest of the resentments came after those territories were occupied, rather than before, as I said.

" am pleased that we've abandoned our brief entente cordiale"

You seem to take such pleasure in that!

[Shaun]

When debating about the Isreali-Palestinian conflict people often tend to take sides, as if one side is good and the other side is bad (just like Hollywood's historical movies).
It's just not as simple as that. This is a conflict that cannot end without the cooperation of both sides. While the Isrealis continue to have settlements and lauch operations in the Palestinian areas, resentment toward Isreal will not be halted. While Islamic extremists continue to preach about driving the Jews back into the sea, Isreal's paranoia over its security will not fade away.