|
|
|
|
9th November 2006
Published in The Yorkshire Post By David Howell
Are Foreign Secretaries Redundant?
In the world of opinion pollsters and focus groups foreign policy does not rate highly. As an ‘issue’ or ‘concern’ it comes way down the list below schools, hospitals, transport, crime and the environment. People are said to be just not interested in foreign affairs and events far away from home. Odd, then, that it is foreign policy matters, above all, which have brought both President Bush and Tony Blair to their knees. And if there was one issue which finally felled Margaret Thatcher it was the fissile foreign policy issue of the UK relations with the rest of Europe. Foreign policy matters may lie dormant for a while but they have a habit of surging up and overwhelming everything. That is just how George Bush must feel these days as he contemplates the wreckage of his Middle East policies and the hostile ranks of a Congress and Senate which have turned against him. It is little wonder, then, that Presidents, Prime Ministers and Heads of State place themselves at the centre of the foreign policy stage. More and more nowadays, as the information revolution turns politicians into celebrities, it is the boss at the centre who feels that he or she need to be right at the front of the platform and leading the band. Foreign Ministers tend to be left the hum-drum daily tasks of attending dreary conferences and rescuing tourists. Recent history both here and in the United States confirms this vividly. Margaret Thatcher had little time for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which she saw as lacking the fibre to stand up for British interests. She was openly and witheringly rude to her Foreign Secretaries across the Cabinet table. Neither Robin Cook, nor Jack Straw nor Margaret Beckett, the three office-holders under Tony Blair, have been allowed more than walk-on parts in world affairs, as Downing Street dominates the scene. Over in America the record has been equally dismal. The cautious and wise Colin Powell, Bush’s first Secretary of State (or Foreign Minister in our terms) was by-passed over Iraq and post 9/11 US foreign policy, with fatal results. He and his officials were ready with a response which, while tough on the Taliban and those directly harbouring terrorists, sought to engage other Middle Eastern powers, and the rising Asian powers as well, in a combined assault on terrorist groups and cells everywhere. But this was all thrown to the winds by the White House which declared key Middle East players to be ‘evil’, refused to engage, or even talk, with them and ordered the invasion of Iraq. The chaotic results of ignoring that particular foreign minister are plain for all to see. Nor is his much-admired successor, Condoleezza Rice, the independent force some believe. Sounding suspiciously like a dutiful ‘Yes, Minister’ official, she tours the world echoing the President’s thinking. The reality is that ‘foreign policy’ is not really a political ‘issue’ like other issues at all. It is a state of mind, a view of ourselves and our purposes in this world. . Our foreign policy tells us who we are, where we stand , what kind of society we live in, how we relate to all the outside pressures beating at our door, (not least, the pressure of new arrivals and immigrants), and what part we can play, each individual, in the wider scheme of things. It is as much a question of identity as a political category. Contrary to the views of airy internationalists and theorists, people need to have a country to love and feel they belong to, and the shape of a country’s foreign policy gives that feeling proper focus – or not, as the case may be. (Of course ,football helps as well, but no political leader has yet found a way of deciding who wins on that front). At the heart of foreign policy is the need for a leader to purvey ‘ a certain idea’ of the country with whose direction he or she has been entrusted. People know very well that nowadays, as great global forces buffet every society there are all kinds of things over which political leaders have no control (although they often pretend they do) . And many other issues on which central government politicians eagerly pronounce are often far better decided and guided at local level. But the one thing a modern national leader is expected to do is to illuminate and give words to the nation’s role and purpose, to stand a little higher, peer into the darkness ahead and help make sense of the extraordinarily dangerous world into which we are heading. Of course Winston Churchill, whose understanding of social and economic policy at home was distinctly shaky, knew exactly how to fill this larger international role. But General Charles de Gaulle in France, too, was a marvellous example of how to play the part. One does not have to look back and buy into all Gaullist policies to see that, while he, too, stood loftily above the minutiae of domestic French affairs he personified his country and gave it direction in the way that it desperately needed. His legacy is a France which may be internally a bit of a mess but externally is utterly confident of its place in the world. Ever since his time it is the Presidents of France who have shaped France’s foreign and international stance, always in a distinctive way. – right up to the present incumbent, Jacques Chirac. But can you remember the name of his foreign minister?!
Ends
|
|
|
