A Global conspiracy
7:18 pm - November 6th 2007
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
Ten years ago, Labour took office with a clear and credible policy of putting human rights at the heart of its foreign policy. It would have been difficult to imagine back then how badly this could have crashed and burned or its significance in eventually forcing Tony Blair from office.
Foreign policy, the conventional wisdom goes, is simply not an issue on the doorsteps. Yet there are few people today who do not have an opinion about the ‘legality’ of invading Iraq, the wisdom of incorporating of the European Convention of Human Rights into domestic law or our policy towards refugees and economic migrants.
International law seems an obscure topic at first sight, but it provides a set of rules for how countries relate to one another and govern their citizens in a rapidly globalising world economy. The liberal-left understood this ten years ago, but has been increasingly forced onto the defensive. We often come across as unsure of our arguments or out of our depth.
I think that part of this is that we do not discuss these issues often enough and partly that we do not discuss them widely enough. It is noticeable how small, for example, the British delegations have been to the last two World Social Forums in Nairobi and Porto Alegre, where progressives from around the world come together to debate strategies and ideas.
Too often discussion on international issues in Britain starts and stops with the Middle East and the war on terror, or simply results in patronising cliches about ‘saving the world’ which reek of old fashioned colonialism. David Milliband recently remarked that we will never understand the world until we can see it through Indian eyes, which is certainly an encouraging start. China’s growing economic influence in Africa also needs to change the way we think about that continent and we need a more nuanced understanding of the different forces that are currently moving Latin America to the left or shaping the Indian sub-continent.
We need to have a genuinely dialogue with the rest of the world and to listen and learn from the emerging forces in a new multi-polar world. I hope that the liberal conspiracy can draw in as many other voices as possible.
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |  |
Conor Foley is a regular contributor and humanitarian aid worker who has worked for a variety of organisations including Liberty, Amnesty International and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. He currently lives and works in Brazil and is a research fellow at the Human Rights Law Centre at the University of Nottingham. His books include Combating Torture: a manual for judges and prosecutors and A Guide to Property Law in Afghanistan. Also at: Guardian CIF
· Other posts by Conor Foley
Story Filed Under: Foreign affairs
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Great idea
We need to have a genuinely dialogue with the rest of the world and to listen and learn from the emerging forces in a new multi-polar world. I hope that the liberal conspiracy can draw in as many other voices as possible.
Try and get my some of my non-brit favourites to blog/comment here:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
And to the antipodes:
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/
Ken L is great there, such as:
It’s time Australians stopped thinking of Uncle Sam as the friendly big brother across the Pacific, our friend and comrade through two world wars who rescued us from the Japs and kept the world safe from the commies. It has never been an accurate narrative but even if it had been, it is now out of date. People change. Nations change. And we need in our own national interest to recognise the USA for what it is, not through a nostalgic sentimental haze coloured by the endless diet of Americana being fed to us via the media.
The United States is a global bully, ruthlessly using its power to fight imaginary enemies while desperately trying to protect its real economic interests. It has become a truly scary nation and the greatest threat to world peace since 1945. It’s time Australia realised the danger and jumped off the juggernaut before it’s too late.
Excellent piece, especially the last two paragraphs. I hope we’ll see more of this on here too.
Conor,
I’m really pleased that Sunny managed to talk you into writing for this blog. I think that the perspective that you can bring here will add enormously to it’s credibility.
Yes we do need to get beyond the Middle East. Conor I think you are entirely right on that- I’m not even sure that the Middle East will be the biggest issue in the world say looking on thirty years from now- the rise of China may well be the really incendiary issue and particularly how that effects politics both in the South China Sea and in Central Asia, particularly when accompanied by the rise of India. To put another, relations between India and Pakistan are definitely one of the biggest areas of concern- ultimately it wouldn’t take much to plunge them into a nuclear war. The list of issues which are outside the general litany (Iraq, Palestine etc) is extensive and we need to focus on them. This is a difficult issue, thanks for making a start on it.
“International law… provides a set of rules for how countries relate to one another and govern their citizens…”
More accurately, a set of optional rules – as demonstrated by both Saddam pre-2003 and Bush in 2003; as well as all the UN members ignoring the UN Declaration on Human Rights.
How, exactly, do we make countries follow the rules?
You say “we” don’t discuss these issues enough. You say “we” should change the way we think about the world. You call for “a more nuanced understanding”, “a genuine dialogue” and to “listen and learn” [!]
Yadda yadda yadda. All the usual lefty cliches – I’m sure most people would broadly agree – but then what?
What happens when talking fails? What happens when people say one thing and do another? Where are your proposed solutions?
Thanks for the comments and the links. I will be coming back to both international law and mulitlateralism in the future.
Dmatr: when multilateralism breaks down then States start to rely on unilateralism, whether that is putting up tarrif barriers, acquiring nuclear weapons programmes or invading other countries. It is not my prefered option.
The problem, of course, is that the existing multilateral system is deeply flawed and in need of reform. These are the sort of issues that I think it is useful to explore.
“Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments will be deleted.”
…
“The United States is a global bully, …”
If I adjust my screen resolution font size just right, and be very precise with the scroll bar, I can just about get these statements on the same web page view.
A great piece Conor.
It speaks to me a bit and I look forward to reading more about techniques, methods and ideas of pushing a more progressive liberal agenda in the UK and creating this genuine global dialogue you are referring to….
Just to chime in with a quick thought…
In order to create to create such a dialogue, especially with the countries you have named, isn’t it important to have an emphasis on real-life events where people can meet, interact, learn and engage with each other in person? I personally feel that maybe International law seems a little obscure to many people because bloggers and writers, much like the philosophers before them have turned the discussion of politics and history, into a mud-slinging playground, where normal people who haven’t done 700 hours of reading on the set topic are automatically excluded from the conversation and persecuted for being inconsistent with their opinions?
This ‘genuine dialogue’ needs to be sincerely inclusive, welcoming the very people we sometimes discuss such as refugees, asylum-seekers, ETC how can we open it up to people and make these issues not only footballs for experts sitting in ivory towers, but also for people that don’t know anything about History and European Human rights law?
as for the internationalist approach to learning etc, short of empathy studies…I would say that more International gatherings are needed for different economic/social cross-sections of society to meet and learn from each other.
I can just about get these statements on the same web page view.
Ian – I didn’t realise criticising countries had become racist these days.
Nyrone: I hope you will forgive me if I do come back to international law on occasion (in fact in my next piece!). I understand the point that you are making about ivory towers, but the basic concepts are actually very easy to explain and understand.
One of the major problems that I think the left has debating foreign policy, particuarly post-Iraq, is the way in which one group has attempted to appropriate the concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’. As someone who has been involved in human rights and humanitarian aid work all my professional life, I find it unbelievably frustrating to see debate about crises like Darfur reduced to a ‘yah booh, sucks to you’ type of squabble between ‘anti-imperialists’ and ‘liberal interventionists’ . I hope that this site can provide some space for serious discussion without all the trots and trolls that constantly interrupt things to show off their ignorance.
Other than that, I agree, it is mainly about ensuring that there are enough links to sites and contributions from people from a wider perspective. I think that it is particularly important to cover issues that challenge some of the lazy cliches.
Sunny, what about “xenophobic” then ?
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
