Labour won’t let David Cameron turn the UK into little Britain
|
Version 0 of 1. The past five years have shown that foreign policy will continue to be a defining aspect of any government’s record. And as we approach 7 May, the choices we face as a country become starker, and this government’s record of failure has become even clearer. As shadow foreign secretary, I have been as clear in my support for the government when it does something we agree with as I am in highlighting that which we oppose. But the truth is that over the past few months, the task of highlighting this government’s failures has not been left to opposition MPs alone. A chorus of public criticism has erupted from former army generals, business leaders, diplomats and allies who have spoken out against this government’s record, painting David Cameron as a “bit player” on the international stage. The prime minister’s adviser was pressed on this recently, and casually quipped: “There’s a general election on. You wouldn’t expect the prime minister to spend much time on foreign policy now.” Related: Downing Street denies Cameron is ‘diplomatic irrelevance’ in Ukraine talks But the start of a campaign does not mean the end of prime ministerial responsibility. And Cameron’s approach to foreign affairs was being called into question long before the countdown to the general election began. When Cameron came to office, the two strategic pillars that underpinned Britain’s foreign policy – a strong alliance with the United States and a leading role within Europe – were both at risk of being eroded. At the same time, the destiny of the Middle East hung in the balance, the risk of nuclear proliferation was growing and a generational shift of economic power from west to east was under way. This contributed to a growing anxiety that the future may not belong to the west, while here in the UK there is a palpable sense that Britain’s role as a global leader is in peril. The thesis of decline has been fuelled by a growing introversion among the public, who have become increasingly sceptical of global involvement, let alone leadership. I believe, as politicians, that we share a responsibility to avoid simply amplifying this public anxiety about Britain’s place in the world, and instead work to build public consent for a different vision for Britain’s foreign policy. But Cameron has clearly taken a different approach. Instead of challenging this politics of pessimism by setting out a coherent vision of Britain’s place in the world, he has refused to confront this tendency within his own party, let alone address the roots of why this attitude is taking hold across our country. EU leaders are reluctant to ally with Cameron because they think he already has one foot out of the door This thesis of inevitable western decline has taken hold among Conservative backbenchers who seem resigned to Britain becoming increasingly diminished on the international stage. While Cameron has allowed his foreign policy to be driven by a desire to appease those within his own party who promote a little Britain – and in some cases little England – approach. In response to the twin challenges of a United States administration whose stated aim was a diplomatic pivot towards Asia, and a eurozone considering even greater consolidation, Cameron’s has chosen to isolate himself in Europe, even if it meant he himself became increasingly irrelevant in Washington. His approach to Europe means that, whereas in the past there have been a number of member states who aligned with Britain on key economic and political issues, today, even when Britain’s position has support from other member states – such as last year’s budget surcharge negotiations – EU leaders are reluctant to ally with Cameron because they think he already has one foot out the door. His disregard of old alliances is matched by his mishandling of new ones. When he became prime minister, Cameron was disdainful of the previous Labour government’s approach to multilateralism, and said his government would prioritise bilateral links instead. Despite that he went on to spend months in the deep freeze with China’s leadership and unsteadied our relationship with India over his mishandling of changes to student visas. Related: Vladimir Putin describes secret meeting when Russia decided to seize Crimea His lack of vision has meant that his response to international and regional crises has often been characterised by confusion and ambiguity. As French and German leaders were working to resolve the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, Cameron’s advisers tried to brief from Downing Street that Britain was playing an “active role”. Their efforts were overshadowed by General Sir Richard Shirreff, the UK’s former Nato chief, warning that Cameron was making Britain an “irrelevance” at a time of global turmoil. Labour would take a different approach. In this age of growing interconnectedness, we understand that turning our backs on the world is simply not an option. As progressives, we have a unique responsibility to challenge an isolationist mood because an engaged British foreign policy remains the best way of responding to the changing context in which foreign affairs today are conducted. Because Britain is best served by a foreign policy that is committed to a future within the EU, Asia-aware, and multilateral in approach. Preserving domestic strength, while promoting solidarity among like-minded states and protecting global norms and institutions is the foundation of a progressive internationalist agenda in international affairs. That is why Labour will conduct a wide-ranging review of our international and diplomatic priorities, we will reform and repair our relationship with the EU and our European partners, and we will place a renewed focus on Britain’s relations with Asia. David Cameron’s approach has left Britain weakened and weary because to retreat from the world is as foolish as it is futile. Labour’s task for government is to build consent for an outward-looking Britain as the best way to advance not just our interests, but also our values at a time of challenge, both at home and abroad. |