British foreign policy, searching for a purpose
When the Conservatives wanted to damn Gordon Brown's stance on 42 days earlier this week, they accused him of putting "his own interest before the national interest". Last week, on the other hand, David Cameron promised that the Conservatives would respond to the financial crisis by "helping the Government" deal with "important issues regarding the national interest". Meanwhile, Gordon Brown has justified bringing that most controversial of politicians, Peter Mandelson, back into the government by making the same claim on - you guessed it - "the national interest". The phrase has become a standardised explanation of all sorts of expedient political actions. But in foreign policy, the area which relies most completely on a sound sense of what our national interest actually might be, the Government doesn't seem to have a clue exactly what it entails.
Pre-banana debacle, David Miliband’s big idea was the government's new National Security Strategy (NSS), which aims to articulate this national interest for a modern era. The NSS presents a motley collection of security challenges facing Britain, listing every recent panic from flu pandemics to transnational crime to civil emergencies and global warming.
The NSS rightly notes that the national interest derives from 'our way of life' and states that our national interest is about protecting a set of core values. After all, a coherent national security strategy must be based upon a clear sense of what the state wishes to defend. Foreign policy and the underlying national interest is not about what is out there, but primarily about what is in here. Hence, during the Cold War, Western political elites, including British elites, sought to defend capitalist domestic political systems against Communism. The national interest was entirely tied up with a clear view of defending 'our way of life': democracy against autocracy, freedom against tyranny and so on.
The current NSS reveals a vacuum not just at the heart of British foreign policy but at the heart of British society. Today the government cannot articulate what the national interest is because it cannot articulate what 'our way of life' is about. The NSS proffers a long formal list of our 'core values', which, while noble sentiments in themselves, amount to little more than a jumble of platitudes: human rights, the rule of law, justice, freedom, tolerance, and opportunity for all. How these relate to national interest or 'our way of life' is unclear. For example, does the government mean it will organize foreign policy around achieving opportunity for all here in Britain? Or is Brown's government now equal opps officer for the world?
The hope seems to be that by throwing absolutely every potential problem into the pot, a clear statement of national interest will emerge in relief against the onslaught. But this gets things the wrong way round. If we don't know what we stand for, how can we protect it? No wonder that the most innovative offering we get from the Prime Minister in the name of the national interest ends up being that has-been Prince of Darkness, Peter Mandelson.
Dr Tara McCormack chairs a debate, "What is the point of British Foreign Policy?", at South Bank University tomorrow night. Tickets here.
The Indy isn't really clear on the idea of blogs.
The idea that readers express their own opinions is obviously so deeply worrying that when readers actually DO SO, the remarks are immediately deleted.
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Wednesday, 08 October 2008 at 04:26 PM
Of course Brown doesn't have a clue, at least not until he's been told what this country's foreign policy is, by America. If there is a vacuum at the heart of British society that is because there is a lack of leadership at the heart of British government.
To paraphrase General Ludendorff; Lions lead by muppets!
Posted by: flipped | Wednesday, 08 October 2008 at 04:43 PM