David Cameron's new world order

Security, cyberattacks and an end to the sofa of spin

David Cameron stood in front of a vast map of the world at Chatham House this morning. And in his new vision, he will be at the centre of it. The Tory leader outlined plans to set up a National Security Council, lopping bits off the MoD, Foreign Office and DfFID budgets to create a joint, "joined-up" approach that would include a "war cabinet" for Afghanistan.

There was a fair amount of policy (and he had Liam Fox, Pauline Neville-Jones and Chris Grayling lined up to boost him on that front), but there was a lot of politics, too. Of particular concern appeared to be the furniture of government:

We will end the culture of spin by making sure that decisions about national security are taken formally, not on the sofa, but round a table, and with all the right people sitting round the table.

Cameron, clearly enamoured by the table, made a series of unsubtle if timely digs at New Labour foreign policy, particularly on Iraq, after Alastair Campbell's appearance at the Iraq inquiry this week.

If you hire responsible people, people you really trust, who want to lift politics up, not stoop down to its lowest level, then you have your best guarantee against dodgy dossiers.

Strangely mimicking the language of Sarah Palin, he also referred repeatedly to the loss of "trust" in the "system", and promised a higher style of politics, a commitment to planning to avoid catastrophes such as the aftermath of Iraq, and a respect for the institutions of government. But his key point, about the "joined-up" approach, will be ruinous for most organisations working to promote development. As Oxfam said in a statement released shortly after the event:

Removing aid from the poorest people and using it for military goals rather than tackling poverty would be a big step backwards and would undermine the UK's leadership role on international development.

Cameron can expect a fight from NGOs if he tries to push all the government's development efforts into mopping up after costly wars. He promised to maintain a 0.7 per cent share of gross national income for development spending. But, as Oxfam's response shows, if this simply means taking funds away from current development projects to support his security strategy, it will be deeply unpopular.

The Tory leader did a speed tour round his other priorities -- cybersecurity, civil liberties and social cohesion. But he didn't stick around. After responding vaguely to questions about Conservative engagement with the EU and the future of the Met (and usually deferring to Neville-Jones or Fox), Cameron departed to address the Women's Institute in Chipping Norton. You're late for the Women's Institute "at your peril", he quipped, to much mirth from the gathered suits.

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Getty
Show Hide image

The economic and moral case for global open borders

Few politicians are prepared to back a policy of free movement everywhere. Perhaps they should. 

Across the world, borders are being closed, not opened. In the US, Donald Trump has vowed to halve immigration to 500,000 and to cap the number of refugees at 50,000. In the UK, the Conservative government has reaffirmed its pledge to end free movement after Brexit is concluded. In Europe, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic are being sued by the EU for refusing to accept a mandatory share of refugees.

Even Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has followed the rightward drift. Its general election manifesto promised to end free movement, and Corbyn recently complained of the “wholesale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe”.

Among economists, however, a diametrically opposed conversation prevails. They argue that rather than limiting free movement, leaders should expand it: from Europe to the world. Michael Clemens, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, likens the present system to leaving “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk”.

Economists estimate that allowing migrants to move to any country they choose would increase global GDP by between 67 and 147 per cent. A doubling of GDP (a $78trn increase) would correspond to 23 years of growth at 3 per cent. By contrast, the International Monetary Fund estimates that permitting the entirely free movement of capital would add a mere $65bn.

The moral case for open borders is similarly persuasive. As the Dutch historian Rutger Bregman writes in his recent book Utopia for Realists: “Borders are the single biggest cause of discrimination in all of world history. Inequality gaps between people living in the same country are nothing in comparison to those between separated global citizenries.” An unskilled Mexican worker who migrates to the US would raise their pay by around 150 per cent; an unskilled Nigerian by more than 1,000 per cent.

In his epochal 1971 work A Theory of Justice, the American philosopher John Rawls imagined individuals behind a “veil of ignorance”, knowing nothing of their talents, their wealth or their class. It follows, he argued, that they would choose an economic system in which inequalities are permitted only if they benefit the most disadvantaged. The risk of being penalised is too great to do otherwise. By the same logic, one could argue that, ignorant of their fortunes, individuals would favour a world of open borders in which birth does not determine destiny.

Yet beyond Rawls’s “original position”, the real-world obstacles to free movement are immense. Voters worry that migrants will depress their wages, take their jobs, burden the welfare state, increase crime and commit terrorism. The problem is worsened by demagogic politicians who seek to exploit such fears.

But research shows that host countries gain, rather than lose, from immigration. Migrants are usually younger and healthier than their domestic counterparts and contribute far more in tax revenue than they claim in benefits. Rather than merely “taking” jobs, migrants and their children create them (Steve Jobs, the son of a Syrian immigrant, is one example). In the US, newcomers are only a fifth as likely to be imprisoned as the native born. A Warwick University study of migration flows between 145 countries found that immigration helped to reduce terrorism by promoting economic development.

In a world of open borders, the right to move need not be an unqualified one (the pollster Gallup found that 630 million people – 13 per cent of the global population – would migrate permanently). Under the EU’s free movement system, migrants must prove after three months that they are working (employed or self-employed), a registered student, or have “sufficient resources” (savings or a pension) to support themselves and not be “a burden on the benefits system” – conditions that the UK, ironically, has never applied.

But so radical does the proposal sound that few politicians are prepared to give voice to it. An exception is the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, who argued in 2016: “Inevitably, in this century, we will have open borders. We are seeing it in Europe already. The movement of peoples across the globe will mean that borders are almost going to become irrelevant by the end of this century, so we should be preparing for that and explaining why people move.”

At present, in a supposed era of opportunity, only 3 per cent of the global population live outside the country of their birth. As politicians contrive to ensure even fewer are able to do so, the case for free movement must be made anew.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear