THERE IS A BETTER BRITAIN: DR. ALAN MENDOZA (THE HENRY JACKSON SOCIETY)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/09/foreignpolicy-eu
There is a better Britain
The way Britain behaves in the world reflects back on us. What should we stand for in the conduct of our foreign policy?
What does Britain stand for in the world? With an election taking place at the back end (we hope) of the worst economic downturn in decades, it is perhaps understandable that that is not a question you are likely to hear very often in the next few weeks. Understandable, yes; forgivable, no.
For the way that Britain behaves in the world not only defines us to those with whom we share the international stage, it reflects back on us and helps shape the story that we tell ourselves about who we really are. So, who are we and what should we stand for in the conduct of our foreign policy?
Here is one such vision to kickstart the discussion.
First, our would-be leaders should frame their vision inside a reading of the historical context which eschews the post-imperial defeatism and self-loathing of far too many in the current foreign policy establishment. Britain’s former colonies are voluntary members of the Commonwealth. If they aren’t ashamed of Britain’s past, why should we be? There is another way to see things.
As the mother country of parliamentary democracy, the leading power involved in the abolition of slavery in the 19th century and the inheritor of a liberal tradition stretching back to Magna Carta Britain has a right, a duty and a historic mission to partner with the United States and whichever allies will join them to spread democracy around the world. The best of left and right, and all who believe in political progress, can unite around such a vision.
Second, we need a vision of the present which correctly appraises our situation vis a vis the United States, Europe and the wider world.
On the United States, the “special relationship” does not mean that we can naively expect the Americans to do us any special favours, particularly in the context of a US administration that does not seem especially warm towards its traditional allies anyway, whether they be the Czechs, the Poles, the Spanish, the Israelis or Britain. But it does mean that our first foreign policy priority is to maintain our lynchpin position in Nato as the key European ally in the trans-Atlantic relationship. That relationship is nothing less than the ultimate guarantor of western civilisation. We should be clear in saying as much.
On Europe, we should put aside the tired old categories of “eurosceptic” and “euroenthusiast” and publicly reconfigure our relationship in terms of our core democratic values and strategic interests.
On the former, we must not waver in calling for a re-democratisation of the entire European project. We should be pro-Europe and pro-democracy. But if it comes to a conflict, democracy holds the trump card. The Lisbon treaty is a fact on the ground. But there can be no repeat of the disgraceful assault on democratic values and practices which occasioned its passing.
On the latter, we must be clear in stating that the best argument for the European Union is strategic. The EU (along with Nato) has a vital role in locking down a continent which has been plagued by conflict for centuries. There remains a multiplicity of potential flashpoints in modern Europe which most of us have never heard of (the Hungarian national problem, anyone?) precisely because they are held in check by the supranational structures of the post-second world war era.
The other strategic benefit of the EU is that via the multiplier effect of working with countries in our neighbourhood we can mitigate the problem of being tossed around by the emerging big players in a multi-polar world, communist China first among them.
The EU will never become a single pole in that multi-polar world – national interests will always tend to outweigh manufactured notions of unity on the big issues of the day – but it might allow us to hold the line from time to time on selected issues such as trade policy, energy and defence. It is imperfect, to be sure. But it is part of our tool kit, and it serves our national interests to use it if we can.
Third, much as we need allies we also need the power to be a force among them. The temptation to cut defence expenditure in the current financial climate is clearly enormous. But it should be resisted by anyone who believes Britain should play a role in expanding its values across the world. Second or third-class status is not the inevitable final destination on the long march back from the days of empire. What happens to us is a matter of will. A well-equipped military is a national priority, as is the nuclear capability which provides our last line of defence. Strong defence infrastructure is the sine qua non of a serious commitment to global democracy because its potential deployment as a last resort is the only credible deterrent to the tyrannies and terrorists who oppose us.
Fourth, we must be clear about who our enemies are in the world and who are our friends. And yes, such categories do exist. No dictatorship should be treated as a friend. This does not mean that we should not deal with them, or that our relationships with them should be defined by bellicosity. But they should be aware that we regard them as second-class citizens in the global community, just as they treat their own people as second-class citizens at home.
In practical terms, the most obvious shift that this would entail in our foreign policy would be with Israel and the states of the Middle East. The Arab states do not share our values; Israel does. We should stop appeasing them, and we should put an end to the abominable spectacle of British diplomats snuggling up with dictatorships at the United Nations to make a whipping boy out of the world’s only Jewish state. We must put the Foreign Office on a shorter leash. London, partnering with Berlin, should also be leading Europe against an antisemitic tidal wave in the Arab and Muslim world that has no parallel outside Germany in the 1930s.
Fifth, we must be clear that the number one security challenge in the world is the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by Islamist radicals. The problem has not gone away. Today, that means stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Since it is now clear that sanctions alone will not prevent an Iranian bomb we must put the use of force on the table as a last resort option. If Iran still fails to comply, we must be prepared to use that force.
Sixth, we must join with our allies in proclaiming a kind of Brezhnev doctrine in reverse for global democratisation: any country that is already a democracy stays a democracy. Reasonable people can disagree over the invasion of Iraq. But now that it is attempting to build a democracy we should unite in helping it to do so. The same applies to Afghanistan. We are there for as long as it takes.
Britain is a 50-50 nation: as much the country of Chamberlain as of Churchill. The spiritual descendents of the former will have a fit at what has just been written. But there is a better Britain. Which of our would-be leaders will now stand up for it and be counted?
________________________________________
Dr Alan Mendoza
Executive Director
The Henry Jackson Society
38 Craven Street
London, WC2N 5NG
T:Â +44 (0)20 7340 4520Â
M: +44 (0)7974 812 782
E: alan.mendoza@henryjacksonsociety.org
W: www.henryjacksonsociety.org
Comments are closed.
