Fabian Society - Labour Party Conference Fringe
Speech by Rt Hon David Miliband MP
21 September 2008
[check against delivery]
International diplomacy feels distant to the everyday insecurities and aspirations that dominate the political battleground: the economy, immigration, crime, the NHS. Few people would argue that foreign policy is normally the terrain on which elections are won and lost.
But security and opportunity at home – the twin foundations of
electoral success - depend ever more on what we do abroad. When high
street banks close their books on new mortgages, they are at the end of
a chain reaction beginning in Wall Street. Terrorists may be home-grown
but they are globally linked – most often to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Energy prices are affected by high demand from India and China, and
shortages in supply from the Middle East and Russia. Risks and
opportunities have gone global.
Political debate has not quite caught up with the reality of
interdependence: the constraints it places on unilateral action, and
the need for domestic concerns to be pursued through the messy business
of international cooperation. So at the next election, foreign policy
can be a winner for Labour, but only if we first demonstrate why it is
integral to Britain’s security and opportunity. If we can do that, I’m
confident we can win the debate because foreign policy needs our values
and our ideas more than it has ever done.
To win on foreign policy, I believe we must do three things. First, we
must provide an honest assessment of our record. By being candid about
the shortcomings, we can gain a hearing about the successes. Second, we
must set out a clear vision of British foreign policy based on
progressive values. Third, we must show why that vision can only be
delivered by Labour; why progressive ends cannot be delivered by
conservative means.
The Record
Last year, I said we need to learn the right lessons from Iraq, and
begin to move on. We went into the war believing, as Saddam wanted us
to, that Iraq had WMD. But that turned out to be untrue. And winning
the peace proved much, much harder than winning the war.
We cannot change those facts, but we can, and have, been trying to fix
the problems in Iraq. Right now, the security situation is improving,
as are Iraq’s economic prospects, and political reconciliation – the
basis of lasting security – is beginning. As a result, in the next
year, we expect a fundamental change of mission, a normalisation of our
relationship with Iraq as they develop their own capacity.
If we are honest about the successes and failures in Iraq, I believe we
can get a hearing for what we have done elsewhere in foreign policy.
The overthrow of the Taleban in Afghanistan and the work done at home
and abroad to prevent the terrorist attacks that emanate from the
Afghan Pakistan border. The humanitarian interventions in Kosovo and
Sierra Leone. The international leadership shown by Gordon Brown over
the Millennium Development Goals, where the UK has led the way in
increasing aid and eradicating debt. In Sudan, the North-South
Agreement that ended a 20 year civil war needs to be completed. Earlier
this year, Gordon Brown’s intervention was decisive in the agreement to
ban Cluster Munitions.
In each country, huge challenges remain. The Taleban have lost the
battle through conventional warfare, but the threat from asymmetric
attacks remains. More countries need to recognise an independent
Kosovo. Countries need to honour the commitments made on debt relief
and aid. The suffering in Darfur must be brought to an end. But those
challenges should not obscure the leadership shown by the UK.
And that leadership has been both bilateral, and through the EU.
Surprisingly, New Labour has been more successful at shifting the
debate in Europe about the future of the European Union than it has in
Britain. Within this country, we have failed to win the argument that
engagement in the European Union is critical to furthering our national
interests. But abroad our agenda has gained real traction: strong
action on the environment, enlargement, better regulation, a mission
directed at solving practical problems not the federalist superstate.
Vision
Conveying an accurate record since 1997 matters. It helps to counter
the sense of defeatism that says ‘nothing can be done’. Of course, the
world is changing. We are buffeted by global forces that are hard for
any nation to control. But let’s not forget, we can be a leading player
in the world, and by doing so, build a better Britain.
However, elections are ultimately about future promises not past
achievements. And this is where I believe we must be more confident
that it is our values that are in the ascendency.
Foreign policy used to be considered enemy territory for the left. It
was the realm where national interest had to take precedence over
progressive values.
I think that version of foreign policy is out-dated. Why? Because the
promotion of our values are not a distraction from national interests,
but the best way of securing them.
By progressive values, I really mean the two traditions that gave birth
to this party: the radical liberal tradition that emphasises individual
freedom and democratic rights; and the social democratic emphasis on a
more just and equal distribution of resources. Both are critical to
furthering our national interests.
Promoting strong democracy and human rights is a key way of protecting
Britain. The main threats to security emanate from countries in weak
states, with little rule of law, and no democratic accountability; or
authoritarian states where power is unchecked.
The appalling bombing in Pakistan yesterday shows the challenges. But
when citizens campaign for democratic rights – in Burma, in Zimbabwe,
in Kenya – we should back them. This means using our development
budgets to make governments more accountable and more effective, and
our diplomatic and financial links to encourage economic openness and
political reform. But in extreme cases where governments turn on their
people it also means being prepared to use the hard power of targeted
sanctions, international criminal proceedings and, as a last resort,
military intervention to provide protection.
Reducing inequalities in income, wealth and power are not only
desirable things in their own right, they contribute to a safer world.
Conflict is often over material resources: land, water, energy,
minerals; illegal migration is driven by the pursuit of economic
rewards; the failure to find fair ways of distributing resources
within and between countries can lead to, or exacerbate conflict. The
suffering in poor countries, and the sense of injustice it imbues, can
be exploited by violent extremists.
That is why tackling inequality is at the heart of our foreign policy:
the Millennium Development Goals are about establishing a basic
standard that all people should have the right to. The Doha Trade deal
is about reducing the tariff barriers that prevent developing countries
selling produce in richer countries markets. The Nuclear Proliferation
Treaty is about getting nuclear weapon states to disarm, and stopping
non-weapon states from arming. A climate change deal is about helping
poorer countries develop low-carbon technologies and adapt to the
climate change that is already in train. Unless we can find a just
distribution of responsibility between richer and poorer countries, a
climate deal will remain out of reach.
Progressive ends, Conservative means
There was a time when the Conservatives would disagree with our goals
of spreading democracy and human rights, and tackling inequalities. No
longer. The party that use to cut aid budgets now says it is the party
of social justice. The party that failed when Bosnians were facing
ethnic cleansing, now claims to embrace humanitarian interventions and
the Responsibility to Protect.
The Tory U-turns can be disorientating. But we should celebrate them.
They show that we should have confidence in our values and ideas,
because it is our values that are making the political weather. The
Tories have lost the big arguments. The search for popularity has left
the party hollowed out of its core beliefs.
But there is a problem. David Cameron says that “progressive ends will
best be met through conservative means.” And that is the new con, in
Cameron’s conservatives. It just doesn’t add up. You cannot deliver
progressive ends by Tory isolationism and Tory anti-statism.
Think of the things we want to achieve in the world, and imagine how
you do them without a strong European Union. Democracy has taken root
in eastern Europe, in large part, because the attraction of joining the
largest single market in the world is a huge incentive for democratic
reform. Climate change can only be tackled if we move off oil-based
transport: when the EU sets new low-carbon vehicle emission standards,
it can transform the global car market. Inequality will only be
addressed by the EU playing its part in securing a conclusion to the
Doha trade round. Russia will only become a responsible power if the 27
countries of EU act together on energy. As power becomes distributed
around the major poles of the world economy: the US, China, India,
Brazil, the UK cannot go it alone. We have a strong national identity,
but acting alone, we are weaker than when we are with others. Our
closest ally is the US. We do not strengthen that relationship by
ignoring others, we dilute it.
The Tories excessive faith in an old fashioned view of the nation is
ill-suited to an interdependent world. But so too is the Tories
excessive scepticism in the power of the state. Climate change will
not be addressed without regulations and incentives to move from high
carbon to low carbon technology. Financial markets need more effective
rules and regulations. Conflict will not be averted without countries
pooling their resources and providing security guarantees. Poverty will
not be tackled without large transfers of income. On their own markets,
do not produce the global public goods we need; markets have to be
shaped by the states. Sometimes the role of the state is to create
them where they do not exist – as in carbon. Elsewhere, it is to curb
them, as we do through weapons control.
I was asked recently what would happen to foreign policy if the Tories
were in power. They would oscillate between hubris and fatalism:
between thinking they can achieve more than they can with the means at
their disposal; and then retreating to a more conventional foreign
policy, preserving narrowly defined national interests, forgetting that
poverty and authoritarianism will store up problems that will spill
over into our borders. Can you imagine the Tories corralling the world
to sign a treaty on cluster munitions? Can you imagine them showing
leadership on the Millennium Development Goals? Can you imagine them
working with mainstream European parties on climate change or
migration?
So my message is simple. We can win the next election because it is our
party that has the right values to deliver security and opportunity. We
must defend our record, by being candid about its strengths and
weaknesses. We must set out a bold vision. We must show why
conservatives means cannot progressive ends. With the right values, we
can turn it around. We can lead the change.
|
