A very thought-provoking piece which encapsulates the missed opportunity to create the ethical foreign policy espoused by Robin Cook in 1997.

However, it will need strong minds at the MOD and FCO to face down the vested interests of the industrial-military complex and its lobbyists in Parliament.

Good start to a much needed debate though.

Well reality dictates that wars for oil and resources, though grubby, are essential to the national interest, what with energy being the lifeblood of our economy, keeping us from starving to death and so on.

If say Iran started blockading the persian gulf, cutting off trade routes to the west, would it be right for any Government, even ones with those ideals, to just sit back and let it happen?

Even taking early intervention, in order to prevent such a situation from ever occurring, is just as important?

I’m not entirely sure why intervention in Europe would be so much more effective. Except inasmuch as it’s unlikely to happen, natch.

@1: “However, it will need strong minds at the MOD and FCO to face down the vested interests of the industrial-military complex and its lobbyists in Parliament.”

Quite. As a legacy of New Labour governments, BAE systems is now Britain’s largest manufacturing company.

For more detail try: “BAE is the world’s largest military contractor by sales revenue as of 2008.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems

“What would a new humanitarian foreign policy for Labour look like” – lovely, so long as they remain in opposition – once in power I’m sure they’ll trot out the usual stuff stuff about ‘difficult decisions’ or other rationalisations to justify all manner of violence and mayhem.

Anyway I’m sure we are due for a bit more rebranding now Ed & Co have dropped the title “New” from the party’s domain name?

A bit of violence around the world is good for arms exports – and jobs in Britain. And TV news is sooo much more exciting with clips about British forces in action than all the boring stuff about sofa government – and Cherie Blair does like to be excited in all possible ways. Let’s face it, an ethical foreign police isn’t good for business. No wonder Robin Cook couldn’t stay as foreign secretary.

I must be missing something. Why on earth would we need different policies for countries within or without Europe? What changes when you go to another continent?

@7: “What changes when you go to another continent?”

Britain is party to some friendly regional military alliances – such as NATO, WEU (*) and the European Security and Defence Policy – but not others, such as SEATO.

IMO not many in Britain’s electorate appreciate why some British governments feel an imperative obligation to selectively police the world or to maintain reportedly the fourth largest military budget in the world – after the US, China and France:

“The British armed forces are the largest military in the EU in terms of professional personnel and reserves. In addition the British armed forces have 191,300 regular reserves. Britain has the fourth largest declared military defence budget in the world, after the US, China and France. The United Kingdom has the largest air force and navy in the European Union and the second largest in NATO. It is one of only five recognised nuclear powers, and is deemed to have the second highest power projection capability in the world, behind the United States. In terms of gross tonnage the Royal Navy is the second largest navy in NATO. It possesses an array of ships, such as ballistic missile submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, guided missile destroyers and nuclear powered attack submarines. Apart from the United States Navy, it is the only navy currently building supercarriers. The UK also possesses a large air force which has — and is in the process of procuring — some of the most advanced aircraft in the world, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 Lightning II multirole combat aircraft, and C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces

Surely, there are many policy areas with higher social priorities on which to spend taxpayers’ money than on weaponry, military personnel and military posturing.

(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union

Yep, I can agree with all that. All that now remains is for it to be adopted as policy.

Somehow though, given the number of jobs in the arms industry that this ethical approach would kill off (if you’ll excuse the pun), I can’t see it getting the backing of the unions.

Oh well, that’s the end of that one then.

@ Dirk and Chaise-

This blog post is a much shorter edit of an essay I have been working on, with the justifications for my positions (and nuance) removed. For example, I do support naval efforts to keep trading lanes open but the footnote was not included in this edit.

My position on intervention relates to the theory of ‘Institutionalisation before Liberalisation’ by Roland Paris. The argument is that states are most violent in periods of transition and any intervening actor must ensure functioning institutions (including police) are there to manage political and economic disagreements (which are often the focal point of more violence). The Dayton Accords in Bosnia worked because NATO ensured the ceasefire, had troops/police on the ground, rewrote the constitution, took a long-term approach and was able to hand over to the EU, who had a direct interest in Bosnian stability. This has cost many billions and taken decades, but it has worked. Whereas, French interventions in Bunia (2003), attempts to democratise Rwanda and state-building in Afghanistan have either had negligible effects or have actually caused greater harm. This is due to a mismatch of capacity, goals, local knowledge and will. Not only are we better able to solve European problems (more friendly military bases, EU money, better overall understanding of the region, almost indefinite ability to commit) but there are historical sensitivities which the War on Terror and the Blair doctrine trample on. To put it differently, non-intervention would be better for race relations in the UK.
Interventions are being decided off-the-cuff because the govt do not have a doctrine to follow. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine is being abused and it is unlikely (as seen in Afghanistan) that the public or MPs have the patience for all that R2P entails. Regional-only intervention, whilst is imperfect, is a rough attempt to match the benefits of properly resourced intervention with the reality of our political institutions.

I will put the full essay on my blog-
http://www.andrewgibsondefence.wordpress.com

@9: “Oh well, that’s the end of that one then.”

Exactly – and arms manufacturers tend to pay good wages too so as to maintain union support and because arms markets are soft with limited competition from autonomous business rivals. Almost all sales deals are with government managed agencies which are open to political persuasion – or to pay-offs to client negotiators recouped from the contract cost paid for taxpayers in the country making the procurement.

Hence:

- Tony Blair halted investigations into a Saudi arms deal:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/court-condemns-blair-for-halting-saudi-arms-inquiry-807793.html

- BAE fined £500,000 in Tanzania radar case
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8217573/BAE-fined-500000-in-Tanzania-radar-case.html

- BAE Systems will admit two criminal charges and pay fines of £286m to settle US and UK probes into the firm.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8500535.stm

Lots I disagree with here.

International instutions are one of the ways that global problems can be dealt with – and I’d go along with the statement to the extent that I think that most international institutions are the best (not only) way to deal with global problems – but… which instutions count as global? If we are talking the UN, then it’s simply not up to the task. NATO? Narrower coaltions of the willing? To say that international insitutions are the ONLY way to deal with security issues doesn’t seem sensible.

I struggle to see why – or even how arms control can be at the core of an effective foreign policy. The number of foreign policy issues that directly, or even indirectly relate to arms control in it’s traditional form, is limited. As globalization continues apace, the ease for weak states and non-state actors to launch effective attacks using materials that fall outside of most arms control agreements only grows stronger – undermining the usefulness of arms control further. The issue of tactical nukes in NATO/Russia seems largely a distraction. One can make the economic argument that it is a waste of money, but in terms of Foreign Policy, I don’t see a reduction in nukes having much impact in FP terms. The marginal benifit of nuclear weapons falls off steeply after you’ve got a few. The level of disarmament that would be required for this to be influential isn’t realisticly achievable.

As others have said, why should intervention be in Europe and Europe’s borders only? Doesn’t sound like a very ethical foreign policy to me. You say that the only exception to this would be UN Charter Chapter 7 operations – but what operations can you envisage happening in Europe or on it’s borders that would not be covered by Chapter 7?

Included in Chapter 7 is article 51 providing the use of force in self defence. Your FP proposal restricts the UK’s right to self defence by requiring it to be under a UN chain of command (presumably after UNSC authorisation). Doesn’t seem sensible to me. Art 51 actions often need to be taken quickly, without time for further UN involvement – and even in cases where there would be opposition to the self defence action from other members of the UNSC – the UK can have a legitimate claim to self defence and proceed regardless.

What do you think about the Responsibility to Protect doctrine? That is only going to grow in significance. How does that fit into your FP proposals? I hope you aren’t suggesting that R2P should be restricted to those living in the European area?

What about a broader notion of security? Energy security? water security? economic security?

So humanitarian intervention only available for white countries?

Charming.

@ 12

So humanitarian intervention only available for white countries?

So only “white countries” are capable of performing humanitarian interventions then?

Charming!

Mr. X

No you’re quite right. The resources and expertise necessary for these operations are equally spread throughout the world. How silly of me.

Still not grasping the progressive argument for limiting help to Europeans, but perhaps I’m being slow.

“Still not grasping the progressive argument for limiting help to Europeans, but perhaps I’m being slow.”

From whence comes the mandate for Britain to police the world?

Support for humanitarian interventions I can understand and applaud but military interventions?

No one is picking up on why Britain, with a population of just 61 million, needs to have the fourth largest military budget in the world after the US, China and France.

@ 15

No you’re quite right. The resources and expertise necessary for these operations are equally spread throughout the world. How silly of me.

Well, let’s take Africa. There’s South Africa – they’ve got a pretty effective highly trained armed forces, very up to date kit (some of it puts our stuff to shame). Then there’s Nigeria of course – they know how to use what they’ve got… or we could take the Arab world, no shortage of ordnance there, and once again, they seem capable of using it when they want to. Most of Asia is also pretty well up on kicking ass when they want to. Nope, don’t see any problems there.

Still not grasping the progressive argument for limiting help to Europeans, but perhaps I’m being slow.

I don’t think anyone made an argument for help being limited to Europeans, in fact the piece specifically makes an exemption for Chapter VII operations under a UN chain of command.

You however seem to be unable to separate humanitarian actions from adventurism. Yep, maybe you should speed up a bit.

@16 – “From whence comes the mandate for Britain to police the world?” It’s not a matter of policing the world. It is a question of the protection of civillians. Where is a human rights abusing dicatorship’s mandate to govern? Where is their legitimacy?

I’m not going to pretend that interventions often happen only for the protection of civillians – but where these is also a self defence/regional peace concern – intervention (if possible) seems sensible and just. The “if possible” is effectivly dependent on money and in turn political will. Economic self interest of the intervening state is clearly a factor in this decision – but that in and of itself doesn’t make an intervention improper.

@17 – You are confusing military ability – with a willingness to provide public international goods. Even so, I’d venture that those nations don’t have the expertise and in many cases the equipment to carry out large scale interventions – but notwithstanding that difference of opinion – they certainly don’t have the will.

“I don’t think anyone made an argument for help being limited to Europeans, in fact the piece specifically makes an exemption for Chapter VII operations under a UN chain of command.”

But limiting non-chapter 7 actions to Europe as the post does, effectivley implies that in the great majority of cases – only Europeans would get help. The UNSC is paralysed. Let’s say that the citizens of “country-outside-europe X” are being massacered by their government, but country X has a good relationship with China, but not good enough to risk escalation should there be a non-UN intervention. China uses their veto at the UNSC. It is within the ability of NATO to intervene and alleviate suffering, provide a transition from repressive authoritarianism to imperfect democracy, the chance of success high, intervention would also improve the stability of the region. In a case like this, intervention is a good idea to me.

From the opening post:

the Conservative’s amoral isolationism

Eh? Libya?

I propose that UK armed forces should only embark on military intervention within the borders of Europe. Exceptions would be Chapter VII operations

Er,

ISAF has a peace-enforcement mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter

http://www.nato.int/isaf/topics/mandate/index.html

This blog post is a much shorter edit of an essay I have been working on, with the justifications for my positions (and nuance) removed. For example, I do support naval efforts to keep trading lanes open but the footnote was not included in this edit.

My position on intervention relates to the theory of ‘Institutionalisation before Liberalisation’ by Roland Paris. The argument is that states are most violent in periods of transition and any intervening actor must ensure functioning institutions (including police) are there to manage political and economic disagreements (which are often the focal point of more violence). The Dayton Accords in Bosnia worked because NATO ensured the ceasefire, had troops/police on the ground, rewrote the constitution, took a long-term approach and was able to hand over to the EU, who had a direct interest in Bosnian stability. This has cost many billions and taken decades, but it has worked. Whereas, French interventions in Bunia (2003), attempts to democratise Rwanda and state-building in Afghanistan have either had negligible effects or have actually caused greater harm. This is due to a mismatch of capacity, goals, local knowledge and will. Not only are we better able to solve European problems (more friendly military bases, EU money, better overall understanding of the region, almost indefinite ability to commit) but there are historical sensitivities which the War on Terror and the Blair doctrine trample on. To put it differently, non-intervention would be better for race relations in the UK.
Interventions are being decided off-the-cuff because the govt do not have a doctrine to follow. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine is being abused and it is unlikely (as seen in Afghanistan) that the public or MPs have the patience for all that R2P entails. Regional-only intervention, whilst is imperfect, is a rough attempt to match the benefits of properly resourced intervention with the reality of our political institutions.

I will put the full essay on my blog-
http://www.andrewgibsondefence.wordpress.com

The Labour party aren’t telling jokes about ethical foreign policies again? Sick bastards.

@19 – I will look at the full version when it is up. Are you aware of Philip Bobbitt’s writings on intervention? Is is largely buried in two very long books, but there is an interview with him (and also Michael Gove of all people) where he discusses his persepctive – its worth reading it all, but you can search “sovereignty” to jump to the relvant part or thereabouts). His discussion of transparent and translucent sovreignty that arises when a state is in principle a state of terror or starts to contravene the unalienable rights of it’s citizens (or a section of them) is worth noting. I’d be interested to know what you view on this is. I’m yet to read anyone clearer than Bobbitt on the matter.

The current counter-insurgency thinking – since the Iraq Surge 2007 period are provind insitutions alongside interventions. The mantra is ‘full spectrum operations’ whereby not only is force used, but it simultaneously accompanied by providing local security, economic development, goverance from the very start of the operation.

“Interventions are being decided off-the-cuff because the govt do not have a doctrine to follow.” Indeed – and this is a wider problem, also noted by Bobbitt (although perhaps not in that interview) – there is no doctrine and there isn’t a practical international legal system to facilitate the interventions that are needed both on grounds of self defence and for humanitarian purposes. What is needed is comprehensive reform of the international system – but there are too many members of the international community – mainly non-democratic, human rights abusing states that see such reform only as their demise. Race relations as you put it will always be a problem when the international system continues to be effective and/or not reflect the actual power imbalances between states.

Forgot the link: http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/393/full

I still don’t get from where Britain has this supposed imperative mandate to police the world – apparently regardless of approvals by the UN Security Council, regardless of international law and regardless of the perennial costs to British taxpayers in maintaining the fourth largest military budget after the US, China and France so Britain is placed to intervene whenever and wherever our political masters feel the inclination. Btw when and how are these interventions to be sanctioned by Parliament or are the powers from the royal prerogative deemed sufficient?

“Surely, there are many policy areas with higher social priorities on which to spend taxpayers’ money than on weaponry, military personnel and military posturing.”

Completely agree, now if only there was an organisation comitted to finding examples of wasteful public spending and ensuring such examples were heavily publicised in the national press.

@25: “Completely agree, now if only there was an organisation comitted to finding examples of wasteful public spending and ensuring such examples were heavily publicised in the national press.”

Try:

National Audit Office: http://www.nao.org.uk/

Audit Commission: http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Pages/default.aspx

HoC Public Accounts Committee
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/

@ 18

@17 – You are confusing military ability – with a willingness to provide public international goods. Even so, I’d venture that those nations don’t have the expertise and in many cases the equipment to carry out large scale interventions – but notwithstanding that difference of opinion – they certainly don’t have the will.

They certainly have both the means, and in many cases the expertise to carry out interventions. As for “the will”, no, they don’t have the will to carry out interventions without a proper UN mandate. If we claim to believe in the rule of law, then maybe we shouldn’t have “the will” to do so either.

Or maybe yo’re right and we should just stick two fingers up at such sill outdated concepts as “law” and do what we think is right. After all that’s what we spent most of the last two hundred years doing, and after all that all turned out really well didn’t it?

They don’t have the expertise imo – the might have military hardware – but there are very few countries that have the expertise to deal with interventions in complex social settings. The USA military has many faults, but they are without doubt the source of the best military thinking, planning and counter-insurgency/nation building processes – and even in the mid-2000s they weren’t great at it.

As for “the will”, no, they don’t have the will to carry out interventions without a proper UN mandate. If we claim to believe in the rule of law, then maybe we shouldn’t have “the will” to do so either.

You are showing a misunderstanding of international law.The UN and international treaties are not the only source of international law. There is also international law derived from custom. In fact, treaty based international law is in principle only codified custom because it relies on the custom that ‘states should be bound by their agreements’ – new customs can develop (as they did during the liberal interventionist period prio to Iraq 2003). I agree that the international system needs more codified legal rules – but such legal rules can and will only be adhered to if they are effective – in the best interests of civillians and states. I take it you didn’t read the link I provided above, the guy being interviewed is a lawyer and strategist – one of his principle arguments is that the international system has a defecit of ‘law’.

The codified international order is a product of ideological division – it was framework for a functioning international system in a time of deep ideological division. It provided an element of stability – but its time has passed. It is unjust and not practical for the security interests liberal democracies and needs to change if we are to have a codified system to carrying out international actions.

At the moment the international system doesn’t recognise the actual power balances in the anarchical system. All nations are thought of as equal. This isn’t the case in practice, nor in principle. North Korea does not have a legitimate government, it is a gross abuser of human rights, etc etc. Neither is it powerful. The fact that is has equal standing as a sovereign state under existing international order is scandalous. If you are going to scream the benifits of keeping within your limited definition of international law – at least be aware of what the consequences are.

Secondly the notion of security is changing. There mere existence of ‘states of terror’ poses at minimum a mid-long term security threat to liberal democracy. There is no point waiting for an attack to happen and to then retalliate. Who would you retalliate against anyway? Would you even know who attacked you? If you did, what about the civilians that would be killed should you retalliate? How would that help ‘race relations’? Preclusion (rather than preemption) needs to be the order of the day.

@Pierre-

I started compiling my thoughts on this before the Libyan crisis. By ‘amoral isolationism’, I was referring to Major/Hurd/Rifkind’s foreign policy approach in government and Cameron’s statements entering office. Libya, in a sense, has thrown me.

Nonetheless, I think that fragile, post-conflict states need functioning institutions to avoid further conflict and I do not believe a pro-austerity conservative government has the right instincts or financial ability to commit to such a process. The wording of UN resolution 1973 on Libya made me uncomfortable, as it set limits on the nature of the intervention (ie. no ground troops).

@Everyone- The Responsibility to Protect doctrine advocates a comprehensive, basically universal, approach to conflict prevention and long-term peacebuilding/institution-building following interventions. On one reading, it implies global redistribution of resources and a new type of governance (very unlikely). On another, it is simply a restatement of the original dilemma. R2P has a very ambiguous definition of success and it’s subject matter is military, economic and political contingency, not the universal principles it purports to advocate.

Interventions cannot just be decided on whether something really bad is happening elsewhere and how that makes us feel. We need to make realistic judgements about the long-term consequences of intervention. Our institutional capacity and public willingness to commit are important variables here. Having watched the UK govt intervene all over the show, I do not trust the govt/public to be responsible intervening actors, to maintain concentration or to have a deep understanding of the countries whose fate they are influencing. In particular, the govt approach to Afghanistan is now more to do with saving face for us and NATO than what would actually help the country.
It is not that I think only Europeans deserve ‘help’, it is that Europe is the only place where we have the institutional and military facilities/capacity to actually help. Most politicians I have heard speak on the subject genuinely want to ‘help’ but they are really quite ignorant and have unwarranted levels of power to negatively effect other countries.

ps. sorry. I am in a rush and this might read like intellectual diarrhoea.

pps. I can see how someone with similar thinking to me would advocate intervention in Libya. We have use of staging bases near it in Italy/Cyprus, Europe has an interest, it is a relatively small and essentially rich country (ie. funding for essential post-conflict reconstruction/institution-building would be available).

I am highly sceptical about Nato’s approach so far but am willing to be proven wrong. Also, I am not sure there is any comparable regional organisation to play the role that the EU did in post-conflict Bosnia. In many ways, the EU would be the best organisation to play that role but I’m not sure that would work for geographical and historical reasons.

I agree that the limitation against ground troops re Libya is daft. Perhaps that was what was needed to make it pass though.

I also agree that poltical will/public opinion are important factors in a successful intervention – and the 4 – 5 year election cycle is not helpful for purposes of carryingout interventions. Reading Woodward’s Obamas Wars it’s quite alarming how determined Obama was not to provide the full resourced counter insurgency solution advocated by Pretraeus and co. Perhaps the bigger problem is that there isn’t an appreciation amongst the public of the self interest element in Afghanistan. As the world continues to globalise, geography is becoming less and less of a factor when it comes to assessing threats. Publics need to be educated on this.

Although I’m more inclined think along the lines of Bobbitt, who admitadly while not being a neo-con is somewhat pro intervention. Tom Farer also has a very good book on the subect – taking a less interventionist, yet still very sensible approach. Well worth a read: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Confronting-Global-Terrorism-American-Neo-Conservatism/dp/019953473X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302537707&sr=8-1

@Geoffff, re: your first post.

Nuclear arms control agreements, like the New START treaty, are useful in building diplomatic contacts and habits of co-operation, which have a knock-on effect in trade and energy talks. Also, verifiable arms control helps with intelligence and helps prevent terrorists from getting access to fissile material. There are new types of weapons that I would also like to see progress on. For example, developments with autonomous armed robots and the use of cyber war are troubling and any party who took on these issues would be showing initiative.
However, I accept your general point. I think arms control should be a large part of Labour’s foreign policy as it is politically sellable: it advocates engagement with other countries (politicians agree) but avoids endless intervention/war (public agree). In practice, there is much more to FP, like energy/food security.