A Liberal Democrat Foreign Policy

I want to begin by paying tribute to Robin Cook. He was a man who never allowed his devotion to his own party to descend into tribalism. On issues such as Iraq, constitutional reform and proportional representation, he was fiercely independent. Irrespective of party we should all recognise that political life is sadly diminished by his passing.

Globalisation is the all-embracing force which now shapes our lives for good and ill. Advances in technology have precipitated a transformation in communications, trade, travel and investment. News, information and ideas have instantaneous global reach.

But with these new opportunities, come new threats as well: the trafficking of arms, narcotics, and human beings; cross-border crime; and the proliferation of weapons’ technologies. Globalisation has created the opportunity for the emergence of extremism, which knows no boundaries, and which threatens us wherever we live, physically, politically and economically. Globalisation threatens and diminishes those who are unable to exploit its opportunities. One-fifth of humanity lives in extreme poverty. Global disparities of wealth are increasing, not diminishing.

How, then, should we meet these challenges? How indeed can we live in peace with each other, and in harmony with the environment?

To that question I say that what is required now, as much as it was after the Second World War, is sustained and effective international cooperation. In an inevitably interdependent world, cooperation is not only in our interests, it is essential to survival. In an inevitably interdependent world the rule of law is not a matter of choice but of necessity. Of course we must be resolute and determined in defence of British interests. But the way to secure these British interests, in a globalised world, is strong and effective multilateralism.

That is why we are pro-European. That is why we want a strong, credible and effective United Nations, yes, and one free from corruption too. Liberalism is needed at home to protect personal freedom and individual liberty. Liberalism is needed abroad to secure peace; to promote development and democracy; and to defend human rights.

But our commitment to institutions cannot be uncritical. Organisations founded in the twentieth century have to change to meet the challenges of the twenty-first. And our support for the European Union and the United Nations must be accompanied by our support for their reform.

The World Summit meeting in New York was a frustrating disappointment. Disappointment at the failure to write a manifesto for the United Nations in the twenty-first century. Disappointment at the failure to provide sufficiently for the poor of the world. Disappointment at the unwillingness to engage in the struggle against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

There is one gleam of hope. Member states have finally committed themselves to the ‘responsibility to protect’, what was previously described as humanitarian intervention. When human rights are systematically abused there is every justification for intervention to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

But we should be ashamed that we have failed the people of Darfur. If the responsibility to protect is to mean anything, cries for help must not go unheeded. Where lives are threatened, and human rights abused, we have a duty to act. And where sanctions or diplomacy fail we must be willing, as a last resort, to use force. Willing to use force, when international law allows it, for the protection of the poor, the vulnerable and the dispossessed. If we are serious about human rights, we must be serious about defending them.

How shall we tackle terrorism without cooperation? How can we prevent the perpetrators of these outrages from crossing borders or transferring funds between one country and another? Domestic intelligence and police work will be vital. But abroad we require to pool resources, to exchange information and to conduct joint operations. No country, however powerful, can expect successfully to protect its citizens without the cooperation of its allies. But this is not a ‘clash of civilisations.’ Those who destroyed the twin towers on 9/11 in New York, who murdered innocent commuters in London, or who killed and wounded without compunction last week in Baghdad, have no claim to civilised values.

How can we ignore the effect of foreign policy? The Iraq war was and is no justification for acts of terrorism in Iraq or elsewhere. But what we must recognise is that foreign policy decisions have contributed to the threat. It is disingenuous to say that military action in Iraq has not made Britain a more dangerous place.

Don’t take my word. Prior to military action in Iraq, the Joint Intelligence Committee warned that the war would increase the terrorist threat. And last year the head of the Foreign Office told the government that the conflict had boosted extremist recruitment. With diffuse and protean networks, we will never be able to detect and prevent all threats, in all circumstances, and in all places. This is not a ‘war against terrorism’ as George Bush declared in 2001. Although military action may be essential to strike terrorists when and where we can. It may even win battles, but military action cannot win hearts and minds. These will only be won over time. And a foreign policy which tackles legitimate grievances will make a difference. And in the formulation of that policy we must be candid and sometimes even blunt with the United States.

America, with its founding beliefs in freedom, justice and human rights, is our natural ally. Read again the preamble to the US Constitution. It could easily come from the constitution of a modern day political party committed to liberal values. Sixty years ago America was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations and a rules-based international order of which Rosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower were architects. Internationally, the rule of law means common values, rules and standards, but it also means respect for them – by every government of every country.

The Bush Administration denounces the abuse of human rights, but then casts them aside in the process called ‘extraordinary rendition’ in which suspects are removed to states where torture is known to be practised in the hope that they will provide information. And all the while our government affects to have no interest in reports that aircraft engaged in such rendition regularly land and refuel in the United Kingdom.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. The pursuit of strategic interest, at the expense of freedom and human rights, carries a heavy price. Supports for repressive governments creates conditions in which extremism thrives. The manifest injustice of Guantanamo buttresses support for terrorism. Prolonged detention without trial and without due process violates cardinal principles justice. It is incumbent on Britain, and Europe, to speak out against these injustices.

The transatlantic alliance must be a relationship neither of rivalry, nor subservience, but a partnership of influence. And Europe, in turn, illustrates the strengths of multilateralism. The recent expansion of the European Union to 25 members has been an unprecedented success, bringing good governance, human rights and economic opportunity to millions, providing a permanent escape from Communism. A demonstration of the fact that freedom and stability are not only compatible, but mutually reinforcing: That democratic values and economic opportunity march robustly side by side. And that as democracy and the rule of law are established, security is enhanced.

Cooperation on issues such as trade, investment, cross-border crime and the environment have been to the advantage of all. But the demise of the constitutional treaty has necessarily imposed upon us a period of reflection.

We must consider how best to reinvigorate a Union with which so many have now become disenchanted. The motion we have just passed sets out how best to do so. How to make the Union more accountable, more efficient, and more effective.

The Union is a globally unique alliance that has consistently spread democracy and stability, opportunity and human rights. And it has the potential to go further. Membership talks with Turkey should commence as planned on the third of October. If the conditions of membership are met, Turkey is entitled to join. Turkish accession would bring not only growth and stability, but would demonstrate powerfully the compatibility of Islam and liberal institutions.

The European Union has the potential for a pivotal role in world affairs. To work with America to tackle common threats; to defend the international rule of law; to make the case for engagement; and yes, to restrain current American exceptionalism.

Today, the dangers of exceptionalism are nowhere more visible than in Iraq. This was an illegal war, on a flawed prospectus, without the authority of the United Nations. And every leaked document confirms that judgement. It should never have been fought. Intelligence was misrepresented. The threat was manufactured not in the sands of Iraq, but in the corridors of Whitehall. The tyranny of oppression has been replaced by the tyranny of terrorism.

The misjudgement of war, matched only by the mishandling of occupation. Rudimentary principles of post-conflict stabilisation, state-building and reconstruction, were ignored. There was a manifest and inexcusable failure to plan for post-war Iraq.

The consequences are now all too clear. The terrible daily carnage is a savage illustration of failure. There are those who lay all of the responsibility at the door of the Prime Minister. But with two notable exceptions the whole Cabinet was complicit in this decision.

Why did they not speak up? If the cabinet had spoken up there would have been no military action. And now the insurgency threatens the unity of Iraq. The risk of dismemberment of Iraq increases, civil war is in prospect and instability threatens the whole region.

Between now and the constitutional referendum, all efforts must be made to incorporate Sunni Arabs into the political process. The priority must be to repair sectarian divides and to arrest the slide towards civil war. We must improve the effectiveness of measures to train and equip Iraqi forces; redouble efforts to deliver public services; and strengthen the sovereignty of the Iraqi government. And as Liberal Democrats have repeatedly said, there should be a strategy for the eventual withdrawal of British forces.

British forces have served with courage and distinction in Iraq. We owe them a debt of gratitude, particularly those who have been injured, and the families and friends of those who have given their lives. But we have an obligation not to expose British forces to unnecessary risk. And those same troops, as the Foreign Secretary himself has recognised, are part of the solution, and part of the problem.

Two and a half years on, we must begin to bring this occupation to an end. As Major General Lute, the Director of Operations at US Central Command, has put it: “You have to undercut the perception of occupation in Iraq. It’s very difficult to do that when you have 150,000 plus, largely western, foreign troops occupying the country.” Precisely, we could not have put it better ourselves.

Stability in this region cannot be achieved without a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Security for the Israelis depends on justice for Palestinians. Let us say it again, lest we should be misunderstood. Israel is entitled to a secure and peaceful existence free from terrorist attack and within recognised borders. The Palestinians are entitled to justice and a viable homeland.

Withdrawal from Gaza is welcome in itself but it must herald a return to the road map. Political momentum must be sustained. Palestinians must be shown a credible political and economic future. The expansion of settlements on the West Bank must be halted. There must be an end to the blighting of the daily lives of Palestinians by the illegal security barrier.

But let us spell it out, lest we should be misunderstood. Attacks against civilians, by suicide bombings, can never be justified. Dialogue and negotiation based on the Road Map, are the only means of achieving a just, viable and lasting solution. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology remains a major security threat to the Middle East, and wider world.

After the failure to make progress at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation conference, it is profoundly disappointing that so little progress was made in New York at the World Summit. And the apparent failure of the EU 3 dialogue with Iran should concern us all.

We must seek to re-engage the Iranians; to dissuade them, through incentives and security guarantees, from pursuing uranium enrichment-related activities. And if all else fails and the matter does reach the Security Council, Britain must press for firm but proportionate measures.

An excessive response will prove counter-productive. There could be no more excessive response than military action. The Foreign Secretary has described military action as ‘inconceivable’. He has our support.

Three summits ago, the G8 agreed measures to dismantle WMD in the Former Soviet Union, and secure nuclear and other dangerous materials. It is a grave disappointment that these measures have still not been funded and implemented in full. We have been sidetracked by Iraq: seeking weapons and materials which never existed, instead of securing those that present a real risk.

In this Parliament we shall have a debate about Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Our party has a responsible record on this issue. We were the first UK party to argue for minimum deterrence and that nuclear weapons should be weapons of last resort. Our opposition to nuclear depth charges, short-range nuclear weapons, and free fall nuclear bombs is well documented, and was timely and effective. The decision as to whether there shall be a successor, in any form, to Trident, will depend on cost, treaty obligations, the strategic environment, and threat assessment. You can be assured that in Parliament we will act responsibly and in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom.

And it is not only nuclear weapons which should concern us. More must be done to control the spread of conventional arms. Britain is one of the world’s biggest exporters of arms. Since Labour came to power we have exported over twenty billion pounds of arms, including over two and a half billion pounds worth to Africa. The government too often breaches its own rules on arms exports: issuing export-licences for weapons and military equipment to states known to abuse human rights. The government must put its weight behind the proposed Arms Trade Treaty.

Notwithstanding the disappointment of New York, we must continue to discharge our responsibility to promote economic sustainable development. What is needed is action by developing countries: to improve governance, tackle corruption and establish the rule of law. What is needed is action by countries such as our own: to provide more, and better, aid; wider and deeper debt relief, and crucially, free and fair trade. Britain deserves a better foreign policy. A policy founded on principle. A policy which defends the national interest, but is global in its understanding. A policy which seeks to achieve peace and security; to protect our interests and meet our obligations; to uphold justice and the rule of law; to promote freedom and democracy; to support development; and to defend human rights.

That indeed would be foreign policy of which Britain could be proud. It would be a foreign policy with an ethical dimension. It would be a Liberal Democrat foreign policy.

Locked