Politics
Old friendships, new alliances: Brown's foreign policy emerges
Published 15 November 2007
The reality was a good deal more sophisticated than the spin and the headlines. Gordon Brown did certainly cover his right flank (a perennial habit of his), by proclaiming his "lifelong" admiration of the United States and his condemnation of "anti-Americanism", but his first major speech on foreign policy had other priorities. Indeed, such was the concern that the substance of his thinking might antagonise Washington that, in order to calm nerves, emphasis was laid on these unequivocally friendly lines.
Brown focused little on foreign affairs during his time as chancellor (with the exception of financial institutions and international development, notably Africa); he is seeking to catch up now. His more distant approach towards the Bush administration in his first weeks as Prime Minister was designed less to snub the Americans, more to show that he had learnt the mistakes of his predecessor. Tony Blair's undoing was not so much his excess of interventionist zeal, but his sacrificing of national interest to a mix of fear and love of US power. Blair took the view that Britain derives its status in the world only through its friendship with America. Brown, a more deliberative figure, did not refer to any "special relationship" (a phrase used by Americans merely to humour the British). Instead, he talked of the UK's "most important bilateral relationship", but specifically in a broader European context.
So strong is Brown's instinctive caution about the EU that any words of praise are coded. But his Mansion House address did mark a further positive shift. He spoke of a "unique opportunity to work together on economic, environmental and security challenges". Indeed, rather than going it alone, Little England-style, he wants more collective action. He is privately frustrated at the EU's inability to reach united positions on problems from Zimbabwe to Iran.
Brown argues that only by strengthening economic sanctions against Tehran, and applying other pressure, will the Bush administration be persuaded to hold off military action. When a British premier warns Iran of "our seriousness of purpose", one has every right to fear the worst; but equally his approach need not be seen as a repeat of the Blair position towards Iraq in 2002-2003, when UN resolutions were a ruse to justify a war that had already been decided upon.
Brown spoke intriguingly of an "enrichment bond or nuclear fuel bank" to help non-nuclear states acquire the new sources of energy they need. He must set out this proposal in detail, but any move that engages with Tehran can only be welcomed.
Brown's proclaimed "hard-headed internationalism" remains vague. He is right to advocate institutional reform at the UN, to broaden membership of the Security Council (to include India, Japan, Brazil and others), but how will he succeed when others have failed? He is right to promote stabilisation, reconstruction and development as tools of conflict resolution, but how does that translate into practice?
Most importantly, Brown talks of returning to the original concepts of the Responsibility to Protect, an admirable mission statement published by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001, which was later traduced both by so-called liberal interventionists and neoconservatives. He is seeking the middle ground between the extremes of non-intervention of the early 1990s that led to the west standing back and watching the atrocities in Bosnia, and the Manichaean delusions of Blair and Bush.
David Cameron, in a speech in Berlin last month, appeared to endorse a return to isolationism, cobbling together a "doctrine" of "liberal conservatism" and "national security first". In our interview on page 12, Nick Clegg, favourite for the Lib Dem crown, aptly described this as parochial. Brown, too, must define the scope of "soft power" and on what terms he would contemplate "hard power", or armed force.
There is much to be done, but this marked a sensible first step. One must hope that Brown, after dabbling in jingoism at the Labour party conference, is now genuinely seeking a path towards an internationalism shorn of hubris and naivety.
The stones of Croydon
As we go to press, the weather in Barcelona has been a temperate 16C, with a gentle 7mph south-westerly breeze and humidity a pleasant 48 per cent. We picture residents and visitors strolling down La Rambla, stopping off at the tapas bars of the Barri Gotic, or taking in such world heritage sites as the extraordinary Sagrada Familia and Lluís Domènech's music palace.
In Croydon, it was rather chillier at 9C, distinctly windy (17mph) and humidity was 82 per cent - damp in other words. If Croydon wants to be the new Barcelona, it will need to fix its weather.
But we have no intention of joining those who scoff at the ambitions of London's concrete southern suburb to raise £3.5bn, house tens of thousands more in the city centre, and rebrand itself the Barcelona of the North. These are noble ambitions.
Barcelona may have its famous sons such as Antoni Gaudí and Joan Miró and adopted artists and writers such as Pablo Picasso and Jorge Luis Borges. But Croydon can boast Kate Moss, Dame Peggy Ashcroft and the comedian Roy Hudd. John Ruskin once lived nearby yet still managed to develop the famous architectural sensibility that led him to write The Stones of Venice.
Emile Zola, who exiled himself from Paris after accusing France of anti-Semitism, chose Croydon over bookish Bloomsbury. And so should we. Tear down those office blocks and build the new Eden.
Go, Croydon, city of the future!
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
