Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

Notes on a post-Blair foreign policy

Published 19 February 2009

How the game has shifted

Blair’s idea of Britain’s “bridging” position won’t work for Miliband

Noted for his command of the ministerial brief, David Miliband is arguably the most cerebral occupant of the Foreign Office in a generation. The main challenge confronting him, and indeed Gordon Brown, since he assumed office in June 2007, has been the shaping of a foreign policy for the post-Blair years. This has proved a testing proposition – on the one hand trying to detach current policy from the more bitter legacies of the past decade, while on the other attempting to rekindle that sense of internationalism which animated new Labour’s first term in office, with Robin Cook at the helm.

One of his first moves was to abandon Tony Blair's "bridge" metaphor - Britain uneasily straddling the Atlantic between Europe and the US - a role that Miliband has suggested was "never quite right". The subtle shift in emphasis was further evident in the Foreign Secretary's "Democratic Imperative" speech in Oxford (12 February 2008), in which he steered the pursuit of democratic ideals away from military intervention and towards the use of "soft power" instruments. Miliband demonstrated a willingness to learn the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, stressing support for a multilateral order and its institutions, which were all too easily bypassed on the road to Baghdad.

This shift has been complemented by a focus on the role of the individual in global affairs. Highlighting what he has termed the "civilian surge", Miliband has argued that there are now "more people wanting and able to shape their own lives", a concept critical in tackling climate change, global poverty and internal repression.

In the latter case, empowering a foreign population against ruling elites is unlikely to result in anything but a bloody outcome, as people on the streets of Burma and Kenya will attest. But there is evidence of a greater willingness in government to move beyond conventional thinking when facing up to the challenges of the 21st century. It perhaps also reflects Miliband's position as the first British foreign secretary of the post-soixante-huitard generation, relatively unencumbered by the divisions of the Cold War.

By its very nature, foreign policy seldom offers a blank canvas, the legacy of the past and the unpredictability of events being ever present. These are lessons, Miliband's critics suggest, he is learning the hard way; his mishandling of the Georgia crisis and irritation caused to Indian officials on his recent visit remind us of the value of an experienced diplomatic hand. Unsurprisingly, the shadow of the Blair years continues to loom large, not least because of the ongoing entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter of which is likely to place further strain on British troops this year.

A renewed appetite for revisionism in British foreign policy has been evident over the past month. This largely stems from the arrival of a new US president, offering the chance for catharsis, both within the foreign policy Establishment and among the public at large. During his speech in Mumbai on 15 January this year, Miliband said that the discourse of the "war on terror" was "misleading and mistaken". Such revisionism was also apparent in the FO's recent attempt to re-energise debate on nuclear disarmament. This is an issue that had stalled over the past decade, having received interest in new Labour's early years. It now has fresh impetus following commitments from President Barack Obama.

Specifics aside, it is in providing a broader sketch of the future international order that a post-Blair foreign policy is likely to find definition. This is something that Gordon Brown addressed in the more propitious days of his premiership: a call to build a "global society" founded on shared progressive values formed the core of his Kennedy Memorial lecture (18 April 2008).

At a time of global instability the need to find common purpose is greater than ever. The success of such a vision will rest on how well it can be sustained during a time of deepening global economic woe. The first significant test of the revived, yet still fragile, multilateralism will be the G20 summit in London on 2 April. Yet the ultimate measure of a post-Blair foreign policy will be found less in the spectre of the past, but rather in remaining true to progressive aspirations while grappling with the crises of the present.

Post this article to

5 comments from readers

writeon
19 February 2009 at 20:40

More about Miliband! Like Obama, Miliband is also completely out of his depth on the world stage. There are no new ideas here at all, but a subtle change of emphasis, a different tone, Bush without the bluster, big deal. The last two years of Bush's rule are almost indistinguishable from Obama's new beginning.

After Blair, in the scramble to war with Iraq, turned his back on Europe, Britain only had one foreign policy posture, to stick as close to the US as humanly possible, without actually turning into a haemorrohoid.

Britain's foreign policy is an elaborate and ritualised charade, designed to give the impression of independence. In reality the UK is only 'independent' in relation to Europe, which it continually undermines in its role as America's Trojan Horse.

Riaz Ahmad
23 February 2009 at 19:57

Which foreign Michael Harvey is talking about? When Bush was in power, the British responded with ME TOO foreign policy. Now Obama is incharge and there is a shift in American policy, once again ME TOO has come in to action. Britain has a very simple foreign policy, it is called, ' unconditional subservience to American policy'. What is the reward? A petty joy ride on the back of US foreign policy in order to create a delusion of British power in international affairs.

BlairSupporter
24 February 2009 at 01:54

We all like to think of ourselves as "progressives" - whatever THAT means. It seems like a definition against "the others", and nothing else.

Politics is about power - winning it, holding it, persuading enough people that you deserve it and know what to do with it when you've got it.

Blairless Britain today is a sad.leaderless place, and not just because of the sad economy.

Miliband has nothing to offer us. No vision, no direction. Very similar to the Conservative party, in fact. Brown can talk all he likes about bridging the whole world if he likes. It signifies nothing, and no-one is listening anyway.

There is only one politician worldwide who knows what that means and who is actually doing it daily.

And it ain't Obama.

Btw, to your commenter above, Blair was right on Iraq, as was Bush. All confirmed by the Al Qaeda founder who blames bin-Laden and his deputy Zawahiri. They, he says, have blood on their hands and are responsible for ALL the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kind of puts a spanner in the works of the Blair hangers and floggers, don't you think?

Quiet, aren't they?

musafir
24 February 2009 at 19:34

Amazing...the comments by BlairSupporter

24 February 2009 at 01:54

Good example of tunnel vision. The damage done by

Bush and Blair administrations continues to hurt our

countries. True, that Brown and Obama show no signs of a radical shift to make things right. Obama has been in office for just over a month. One can hope for a saner foreign policy to emerge.

gsb2391
01 March 2009 at 13:55

I partially agree with the points made in BlairSupporter's passage that Blair, whether right or wrong at least seemed to provide very clear leadership on foreign affairs issues. Furthermore, Blair's willingness not to become too dependent on IGOs was a prudent move, considering previous failings over Bosnia and Rwanda. Nevertheless, i also support the statements that suggest British foreign policy was under US influence. Indeed, this is understandable as at the time it was the only option for enhancing Britain's global role. However, as the EU has developed we must now look to Europe to decide on our foreign policy priorities. This means Britain must take a far more active approach in Europe, especially in the areas of energy security (Russia) and development.