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.”
Recent Comments