by Charlie Edwards | Jul 22, 2009 | UK
Yesterday William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, gave a speech in London setting out what British foreign policy might look like under a Conservative government. Judging by the crowd at IISS , the pre-briefing before the speech, and bearing in mind the drought of Tory ideas on national security to date, this was an important moment for the Conservative Party – this was a blueprint.
So you might have expected the speech to ruffle a few feathers, go further than David Cameron’s Liberal conservatism speech in Islamabad, even set out a new vision or concept that might spark further debate and yet… it wasn’t to be. The speech provoked no more than a whimper from the papers: The FT highlighted the opposition plans to downgrade EU ties , The Guardian asked whether the Tories have a real foreign policy? Reuters felt the Conservatives were arguing for a less interventionist Britain while The Daily Telegraph led with news that the Conservatives wouldn’t shrink from tough defence decisions. Finally, the Chief Foreign Commentator of The Times felt the speech ‘strikes a realistic tone on Britain’s place in the world ‘ and awarded the shadow foreign secretary 6/10 and a silver star.
Using Global Dashboard’s in-house foreign policy speech check-list everything was here:
Call for a National Security Council Check
Quote David Kilcullen Check
Describe the world as uncertain Check
Reference state failure, terrorism, changing nature of conflict (in that order) Check
Describe effects of climate change on failing states Check
Argue that the EU should be enlarged to include the Balkans and Turkey but leave out how the UK would influence a larger European Union Check
Call for reform of international institutions Check
In his conclusion William Hague said:
My argument today has been that it will become more difficult over time for Britain to exert on world affairs the influence which we are used to… to do so will be to act not only in our national interest but in the enlightened national interest… for we have a responsibility to others as well as ourselves. Britain will not disengage from trying to shape global events. In trying to create and maintain a more peaceful world we will always be at the forefront. But we will so position and prepare ourselves that if the skies darken and new storms arise we will be ready for them.
Tony Blair said something similar when he was PM, Gordon Brown too. Paddy Ashdown and George Robertson argued along similar lines recently. In other words, British foreign policy looks like it will head on precisely the same course as the previous decade, which for internationalists and interventionists is no bad thing.
Yet the issue at the heart of Hague’s speech was the lack of drive or ambition – the idea, implicit in his speech, that nations can only ever respond to events – never instigate change.
Finally there was one curious passage that stood out and which I think was the most interesting part of the Shadow Foreign Secretary speech. Tucked away was the following:
The citizens of Britain have always been restless in trying to improve the wider world and global in our outlook.
That is a pretty bold statement. But I wonder how true it is, especially when polling indicates the public appetite for adventures overseas isn’t that strong and there are signs that the downturn is beginning to undermine previously strong public support for aid. It also contrasts with something that Tony Blair argued three years ago, when he argued that:
The British people are reluctant global citizens. We must make them confident ones.
Which is it – are we Brits restless in trying to improve the wider world or reluctant global citizens? Was it that the British public had had enough of Blair’s role on the international stage or that Blair wanted the UK to become a truly global hub – for business – innovation – influence on the world stage but never succeeded. Judging by this speech today William Hague has decided that Britain’s best approach is to drift – after all it will be in our national interest…
by David Steven | Jul 22, 2009 | South Asia
As we reported last week, Pakistan’s governments is attempting to crack down on seditious texts and emails. Its attempt to avoid ridicule, however, is being met by growing… ridicule. This from the Telegraph:
Pakistanis who send jokes about Asif Zardari by text message, email or blog risk being arrested and given a 14-year prison sentence.
The country’s interior minister, Rehman Malik, announced the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had been asked to trace electronically transmitted jokes that “slander the political leadership of the country” under the new Cyber Crimes Act.
by Michael Harvey | Jul 22, 2009 | Conflict and security, East Asia and Pacific, Economics and development, UK
– Writing in the New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell explains how “the roots of Wall Street’s crisis were not structural or cognitive so much as they were psychological”. Overconfidence among bankers, he suggests, in addition to the more familiar arguments about poor regulation and simple incompetence, played a significant role in the financial crisis.
– The Prospect blog, meanwhile, discusses how “the Indian Ocean is emerging as a focus for Chinese logistical and naval expansion” – something being felt acutely in Washington and New Delhi. Staying with the US and India, WPR takes an interesting look at Hillary Clinton’s recent trip to South Asia.
– Elsewhere, the Channel 4 News blog has more details about the UK’s upcoming Iraq War Inquiry – suggesting that it is due to hear “mountains of evidence” and, given the expansive nature of its remit, is unlikely to have lawyers present.
– Finally, Adam Roberts has an interesting piece in The World Today assessing the current state of the Geneva Conventions. Sixty years later, he ponders, are the laws of war still relevant to the changing nature of conflict?
by Richard Gowan | Jul 20, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security, Global system, North America
Over the last month or so, we’ve kept you up to date on the spate of attacks on Ban Ki-moon’s leadership at the UN and his responses. Ban’s willingness to address criticism – and accept that it is sometimes justified – has been impressive. This round of criticism has arguably had at least one positive effect: it has made the Secretary-General face up to the accusation (highlighted in the Economist piece that set the ball rolling) that he is a poor communicator. He has been communicating like crazy, and may have emerged as a stronger leader as a result.
The spirit of openness appears to have convulsed Ban’s advisers. A bunch of senior officials are quoted in an AFP piece out today. They’re loyal, but not cautious:
Ban’s aides view some of the criticism against their boss as grossly unfair and portray him as a compassionate workaholic whom they admire for his decency, integrity and fierce dedication to his job.
Nicholas Haysom, a South African who is one of Ban’s key advisers, thinks the issue of Ban’s lack of charisma is overblown. And “suggestions that he’s not outspoken, not very visible are simply wrong and not borne out by the evidence,” Haysom said. “On humanitarian crises and conflicts, he has been extremely active. The truth is that he’s not always reported, not always heard.”
Much has been said about Ban’s struggle with the English language.
“English is not his mother tongue so he sometimes appears scripted, stiff and uninspiring,” his spokeswoman Michele Montas admitted. “But he communicates in ways that are unfamiliar in the West and I think there is a cultural gap here,” she added.
Robert Orr, an American who is one of his top policy-makers, says of Ban’s English: “It’s a handicap but not a fatal flaw.”
“I’m not worried by the fact that he is not the most eloquent as long as he produces results,” he added.
“He is influenced by his diplomatic background,” says Haysom. “He put a premium on direct engagement. Face-to-face, he is effective, direct and straightforward.”
Orr said Ban’s major achievement is that he has brought the 21st century issues of climate change, global health and food security into the heart of the UN agenda. He added that his boss deserves credit for his willingness to take risks in undertaking missions that no other world leader could.
Orr said relations between the UN and Washington have significantly improved in large part thanks to Ban. “He has already produced a very different approach from the US Congress toward the UN both in terms of funding and a dramatic uptick in US payment to the UN,” Orr added.
Is it now UN policy to brand Ban as “reassuringly dull”? Or is the heat of the (much delayed) New York summer getting to people?
