|
| |
Article on British Foreign Policy
and The Commonwealth
Published in The Yorkshire Post, Monday January 23rd. 2006
By David Howell
Britain urgently needs a re-orientation of its foreign policy to meet twenty
first century world conditions.
The present , predominantly Euro-centric approach (‘we must work through our
European partners’ is the guiding mantra) is not serving us well. Our interests
are not being protected and promoted as they should be, our contribution to
global peace, stability and development is not nearly as effective as it could
be and our own idea of ourselves and our purpose in today’s world is blurred and
diluted.
People like to say that the choice for Britain is between Europe and America,
that when it comes to global affairs we are condemned to choosing between being
plugged fully into the EU bloc, ineffective and divided as it is on major
issues, and being the lapdog of the United States .
But the antithesis is a false one. We certainly need partners in this highly
interdependent world. The days of ‘go-it-alone’ are long past – for the
Americans, as they have gradually come to realise, as well as for ourselves.
Talk of ‘a sovereign independent foreign policy ‘ sounds fine on the platform
but is actually quite meaningless.
But our partners must be the right ones. With the centre of world power shifting
to Asia, and with the need to repair the battered trans-Atlantic relationship,
it is crystal clear that the EU, while a valuable regional association, is not
up to the job internationally.
On the contrary it seems to amplify, rather than calm, trans-Atlantic disputes..
The Atlantic is growing wider ,and that is not at all in Britain’s or the
world’s interests.
So where should we look for like-minded friends and allies, and for a grouping
which can maintain a friendly but firm dialogue with the Americans – basically
supportive but not afraid to be candidly critical or even restraining - and
listened to in Washington with respect when it is .
One answer is on our doorstep. Britain is a key member of a ready made network
of enormous reach across continents, embracing many faiths and bound by common
ties of amazing intimacy - cultural, legal, sporting, linguistic, scientific ,
both governmental and non-governmental. This network is the Commonwealth.
This may understandably raise eyebrows because the track record of the
Commonwealth as a force for peace, development and stability has not in the past
been all that good . Is it not just really a history-based talking shop? Has it
not fumbled vital issues like the Zimbabwe tragedy? And anyway, with all those
impoverished Africa states as members, where’s the economic or political beef in
such an organisation?
But that could be yesterday’s snapshot. The image of the Commonwealth has not
yet caught up with some startling new facts. Today the Commonwealth contains six
of the most dynamic economies in the world - India, Australia, New Zealand,
Malaysia, Singapore and Canada – seven if we include the UK itself, although it
is now slipping.
Forget the old ideas of primary producers selling to the richer West, or Western
investment in the impoverished East or South. Today the growing capital flows
are beginning to be south-south, or even West-East – as Indian (and Chinese) and
other Asiatic enterprises nose their way into Europe The high tech wave is
coming from the East, and from India in particular, scheduled by 2025 to have a
national product larger than the whole of Western European – the jewel indeed in
the Commonwealth network of the future.
But despite all this some doubts remain valid . Can the Commonwealth as it
stands really cohere on vital issues, deliver real weight and power, argue the
corner of the smaller and poorer countries in a way that the EU most notably
does not do, and present one front on the really key issues of democracy, rule
of law, upholding of human rights, world policing and a general commitment to
free societies and free enterprise?
The answer is that the modern Commonwealth certainly has the right underlying
common values but if it is to be an effective platform the framework needs to be
strengthened and enlarged.
In effect the Commonwealth should develop its own foreign policy. It should
stretch out and work with other like-minded democracies who, along with many
existing members, want to be pro-American but not subservient, and have their
own perspective on key world issues, not an American-imposed one. Japan is one
obvious example. But so, too, are countries like Poland, Turkey, Norway, the
Baltic three, Thailand, and even some of the democratising Gulf states.
Put this group together with the existing membership and one would have a kind
of Commonwealth Mark Two, a rallying point for the planet’s ‘good guys’ and a
coalition of real might (it would contain over a third of the world’s GNP),
size, experience and influence. It would also be vastly greater source of soft
power and influence for Britain, the fons origo of the whole undertaking than
anything on offer from Brussels – or indeed from the battered UN [ Even on
issues like handling Iran, which is a matter for the Asian powers, plus Russia,
just as much as for the West, ((perhaps even more so) , a strong and wise voice
from this greater Commonwealth would get a better reception than threats of
force from Washington or the ignored diplomacy of the EU Three.]
A Mark Two Commonwealth is not the complete answer. But it could do better than
anything forthcoming from the dated twentieth century institutions we have
inherited. It would also be a golden chance for Britain to make her full
contribution , in a way which our feeble current foreign policy just does not
permit.
Ends
|
