User talk:Fanit Izzeddine

The New Directions of the British Foreign Policy

FROM Blair to Brown

By :	Mr. Fanit Izzeddine

Introduction

Foreign policy has been a defining feature of the Labour government under Tony Blair. Major initiatives, including the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, happened under Blair’s watch, and military campaigns were undertaken in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. However, it is Blair’s response to the post-9/11 ‘global war on terror’ and the invasion of Iraq that marks a watershed in British foreign policy. As Tony Blair approaches the tenth anniversary of his election victory, and his final year in power, … concludes that a more nuanced relationship with the United States will be a requirement for Blair’s successor. Although Tony Blair did not express much interest in foreign policy before becoming prime minister, in Labour’s first term it must be judged a qualified success. A key feature was Blair’s ability to demonstrate Britain’s European credentials while forging a close working relationship with President Clinton. The post-9/11 decision to invade Iraq was a terrible mistake and the current débâcle will have policy repercussions for many years to come. The root failure of Tony Blair’s foreign policy has been its inability to influence the Bush administration in any significant way despite the sacrifice – military, political and financial – that the United Kingdom has made. Tony Blair’s successor(s) will not be able to offer unconditional support for US initiatives in foreign policy and a rebalancing of the UK’s foreign policy between the US and Europe will have to take place. (Bulmer-Thomas)

Hot debates are carried out these days about how British foreign policy should be within Brown led-government. Accordingly, politicians are thinking of new political directions that may make up the British political face. So Britain must stop its former foreign policies and look for new ones. The ones that may respect the international law, the new emerging powers and weather challenges. The supposed to be the new directions of the British foreign policy are as follows:

Ⅰ. The Humanitarian activities In his speech accepting the leadership of the Labour Party on Sunday, Gordon Brown hinted that his foreign policy would be dominated by two themes: counter terrorism and international development. On counter terrorism he emphasized the need to win ‘the struggle of ideas and ideals’. On development he promised to ‘wage an unremitting battle’ against poverty. On

both these fronts, human rights and the rule of law are essential components of a successful strategy. In Egypt and Pakistan, the UK and the United States should stop working hand in glove with repressive dictatorships which are responsible for torture, arbitrary detention and suppression of non-violent opposition. This policy is playing into the hands of exactly those radical groups it is designed to contain, bolstering the popularity of forces that advocate political violence. In Afghanistan and Somalia, the UK and the United States should end their dependence on abusive warlords to fight insurgencies. They should work harder to ensure protection for civilians caught up in conflict. And they should put more effort into understanding the complex political environments of those conflicts. Otherwise they will continue to lose hearts and minds to the insurgents. On Iraq, Brown has said that the UK ‘will meet its obligations’. But there is little sign that it is meeting its moral and humanitarian obligation to help alleviate the suffering of the 2.2 million Iraqi refugees who have engulfed the Iraq’s neighbours as a result of an ill-prepared war of choice. Brown must address this massive crisis not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because if he does not it will spawn more resentment and radicalization. Brown recognises that ‘a Middle East settlement upholding a two state solution’ in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is ‘an essential contribution’ to winning the battle of ideas and ideals. But this is unlikely to come about unless the UK, the EU and the United States show scrupulous evenhandedness in upholding the rights of civilians on both sides in the conflicts simmering in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. The government has a clear duty to keep its citizens safe from terrorist attacks. But that does not excuse counter terrorism measures and policies which violate basic human rights. Brown should drop his plans to extend to 90 days the period for which terrorism suspects can be held before being charged. And he should end government efforts to deport foreign suspects to states like Jordan and Libya which practise torture, based on flimsy promises of humane treatment. Under Labour, the UK government has been at the forefront of international development efforts to reduce poverty in Africa and elsewhere. It has learned that foreign aid only works if it goes hand in hand with conflict resolution and better governance. But you can’t have effective conflict resolution and better governance without giving human rights and the rule of law a central role. Brown should work to put effective economic pressure on the Sudanese government to implement its commitment to allow deployment of a joint UN African Union force in Darfur, to stop the abuses there and to cooperate with international efforts to bring abusers to justice. To do otherwise gives a green light to other would-be abusers and will ensure that Darfur continues to bleed. The UK should also speak out much more loudly against the human rights abuses of repressive and corrupt governments in the developing world, even if they are allies. The UK is right to excoriate Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe or the government of Burma for their rights violations. But it should also acknowledge and criticize the serious abuses carried out by governments that are recipients of UK development assistance such as Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Oil rich Angola and Nigeria are important trade partners of the UK. But their governments have, without serious criticism from the UK, perpetrated massive corruption against their people. While their elites loot national and local government treasuries, schools and health clinics go un-built or are in shambles and 90 percent of

their populations live on less than $2 a day. Brown should fight this devastating corruption by strengthening the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and other international and local anti-corruption mechanisms. Whether governments like the UK are engaged in a struggle against terrorism or one against poverty, human rights and the rule of law are not luxuries they can afford to discard when the going gets tough. The relegation of human rights in recent years has made the world a more dangerous place. Three of the biggest powers in the world, the United States, Russia and China are discounted as credible champions of human rights because they are also abusers of human rights, albeit to different degrees. Gordon Brown should revive the UK’s dormant championship of human rights and push the EU to fill the leadership void so that at least one strong global player stands up to the worst abusers and speaks up for the abused. That’s how to win the ‘struggle of ideas and ideals’. (Porteous)

Britain's ability to help stop genocide, mass war crimes and human rights abuses has been seriously undermined by the Iraq war and other foreign policy errors, warns Oxfam today. Its report, A Fair Foreign Policy, is launched almost ten years after the Labour government announced a new "ethical dimension" to UK foreign policy. A YouGov opinion poll released by Oxfam today shows that the British public see Kosovo as Labour's most ethical intervention, with nearly half of respondents considering it ethical. Iraq is seen as Labour's least ethical intervention with 59 per cent of respondents considering it unethical. However, the poll shows that, despite Iraq, 67 per cent of people would support Britain sending troops as a last resort in future to stop genocide and other atrocities in the future.

During the conflict in Lebanon in 2006, aid workers reported strong anti-British feeling after the UK government failed to call for an immediate ceasefire by all sides. Oxfam had to refuse UK government funding in both Iraq and Lebanon, in part to demonstrate that there is a clear separation between its work and UK foreign policy.

The report argues that the only way for Britain to rebuild its reputation and effectiveness overseas is to act consistently, criticizing both its friends and its enemies for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.

"Day in day out, Oxfam sees the human consequences of Britain's foreign policies at first hand, both good and bad. Labour's foreign policy has been at its best when it has been in tune with public opinion and international law. However it is now clear that the invasion of Iraq, and the government's failure to stand up to all governments when they break international law and harm innocent people, have seriously

damaged Britain's capacity to be a force for good on the world stage," said Barbara Stocking, Director of Oxfam.

The most likely contenders to become Prime Minister in the near future have yet to outline their foreign policy proposals in detail. Oxfam's report is a challenge to them. "The Iraq war was a terrible misadventure. But it must not cause future Prime Ministers to return to the caution of the previous Conservative government. That administration stood by while the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda unfolded. We must say 'never again' as much to our failure to stop these atrocities, as to repeating Iraq," added Stocking.

Oxfam is proposing five principles upon which future British foreign policy should be based: 1. Actively working to protect civilians, as a cornerstone of British foreign policy. 2. Consistently challenging abuses of humanitarian law and human rights, whether committed. Whether committed by allies or others 3. Delivering on good policies, such as achieving an international Arms Trade Treaty by 2010, and ensuring other government actions bolster rather than undermine this. 4. Adapting to the changing balance of world power, by finding new ways to influence emerging powers, and pursuing more just and equitable relations with the developing world as a whole. 5. Strengthening multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations, so that these bodies can effectively protect innocent people.

Oxfam works directly and through partners in conflicts across the world, including in Darfur, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Lebanon, northern Uganda, Somalia and Sri Lanka. ( Britain’s ability…policy errors) Ⅱ. Strengthening Multilateralism For much too long multilateralism has been used as ascapegoat for the failings of the major world powers who have underestimated the magnitude of current and future global challenges, both in terms of their real priority and in terms of tackling these challenges. The recent unipolarity that has characterised world order since the late 1980s, is transforming into a multipolar system, where the shift in global power lacks coherence and is yet to take real shape. Consensus on a new design is far from agreed. Rising (or emerging) economic global powers such as China, India and Russia eagerly

await a reconfiguration of today’s global institutional architecture to reflect a real balance of power opposed to how the world stood in times past43. Confronting these obstacles requires a redefinition of the roles of international institutions and global security organisations that in spite of their numerous limitations would possibly need to be invented if they did not already exist. The process of redefining their responsibilities and re-organising their activities means that transparency and better representation (of all stakeholders) needs to be given high priority44. This will not only help underpin legitimacy, credibility and buy-in but, go some way to embracing the opportunities and deal with the inevitable challenges that better multilateralism brings. There are a number of urgent challenges that could swiftly generate improved global cohesion such as climate change. Such challenges can be used as building blocks for greater co-operation, as increasing interdependence (where responsibility is shared) remains the only effective way forward. Nonetheless, the absence of innovative, imaginative and bold political leadership suggests that tackling these global challenges remains a difficult. (Osikena) In December 2003, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) each published White Papers that go further than before in highlighting Britain's dependence on the United States in relation to defence, security and foreign policy. The FCO Strategy White Paper, UK International Priorities,1 describes the UK's relationship with the United States as a "vital asset... essential to achieving many of our objectives, especially in ensuring our security". The Defence White Paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World,2 states that, "The most demanding expeditionary operations, involving intervention against state adversaries, can only plausibly be conducted if US forces are engaged, either leading a coalition or in NATO". Britain's International Priorities The FCO White Paper looks at a range of international trends and drivers for change over the next ten years, including security, ideology and religion, economics, population changes, environmental change (including global warming), demand for energy, and technology. It identifies eight international strategic policy priorities: a world safer from global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction protection of the UK from illegal immigration, drug trafficking and other international crime an international system based on the rule of law, which is better able to resolve disputes and prevent conflicts an effective EU in a secure neighbourhood promotion of UK economic interests in an open and expanding global economy sustainable development, underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights security of UK and global energy supplies security and good governance of the UK's Overseas Territories. The FCO notes that the UK's "security and prosperity depend on the willingness of other states to cooperate in an international system based on the rule of law and shared principles. It will be in the UK interest to seek to increase the effectiveness, legitimacy and co-ordination of the UN and other international organisations." The UK aims to strengthen "the ability of the international community to agree on timely action against threats to international peace and security" and the "capacity of the UN, the EU and NATO to conduct effective stabilisation and humanitarian operations, including post-conflict reconstruction". It also aims to "adapt the UN system and other multilateral structures to respond better to the growing influence of business, NGOs and other non-state actors". Future of the Transatlantic Relationship Just as Margaret Thatcher's special relationship with Ronald Reagan dominated UK foreign policy in the 1980s, Tony Blair has put his relationship with President George W. Bush at the heart of Britain's foreign policy since 2001. The current FCO and Defence White Papers reflect this strategic choice. Whilst it is clearly advantageous to Britain to be closely aligned with a powerful state, however, increasing dependence of British foreign and defence policy on the position of the United States is not without risks. In the past year, it has led Britain into war in Iraq - a war, which attracted unprecedented public and parliamentary opposition to the Blair government, and which is far from over, requiring a heavy and ongoing commitment of British forces and resources. It has also led to Britain quietly dropping from many of its foreign and defence policy statements arms control goals that do not meet with the approval of the Republican administration. The UK has dropped its support for "preserving" the ABM Treaty and START III negotiations. This could be justified as mere recognition of the fact that US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty has killed off not only the ABM agreement, but also START III. However, since George W. Bush became US President, the UK has also fallen silent on the subject of the CTBT, and the NPT, once described as the "cornerstone" of non-proliferation regime is rarely mentioned in public. The relationship between Blair and Bush exacerbates concerns within the Labour Party that the Blair government is increasingly out of step with its own supporters. As a Guardian editorial put it, "Where the [defence] white paper goes wrong is in proposing to further develop "expeditionary force" capabilities interoperable with US forces, thus increasing the potential for more all-out wars of conquest like Iraq under US/NATO command."14 The UK may also have difficulty maintaining its position as a "transatlantic bridge" between the US and Europe. As noted by Guardian journalist Nick Clegg, the FCO strategy paper suggests that, "the Foreign Office is greatly unsettled by the persistent political and economic tensions between Europe and America...This strategy paper... is yet another anguished squeal of pain from a British foreign policy establishment confronted by a widening divide across the Atlantic. Disagreements on Iraq, steel tariffs, the international criminal court, the Kyoto treaty and much else besides have suddenly stretched the Atlantic divide, yanking the UK awkwardly in two opposing directions."15 The extent and effectiveness of British influence on either side is also debatable. Whilst Blair was able to encourage the Bush administration to take the Iraq issue to the UN Security Council in Autumn 2003, he was not able to alter the fundamental direction of US policy, so, despite Britain's stated support for the UN, the UK was made a leading party in the attack on Iraq without Security Council authorisation. Similarly, on the question of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Blair has been able to win some concessions for British prisoners, but he has been unable to prevent them being subjected to what, under British and European law, amount to egregious breaches of their human rights.( Butler) Ⅲ. The Climate change Climate change is probably the greatest long-term challenge facing the human race. That is why I have made it a top priority for this government, at home and internationally. The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Since 1990, global temperatures have risen by 0.2C and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from 354 parts per million to over 380 parts per million and are still rising. If the anticipated growth in emissions is left unchecked, global average temperatures could be as much higher by the end of this century, with a devastating impact on our economy and natural world, in the UK and, above all, in the most vulnerable developing countries. We have to accept that some climate change is now inevitable. We must adapt to this and provide greater support for the poorest nations. We can, however, avert the worst global scenarios if the world acts decisively, but there can be no delay. The longer we put off action, the more dramatic and costlier the changes we will have to make. Our 2000 Climate Change Programme has already helped put us on track to meet our Kyoto greenhouse gas reduction commitment. Indeed, we are projected to go significantly beyond our Kyoto commitment and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 23-25 per cent by 2010, one of the best records of any Kyoto signatory. Without the measures introduced since 1997 and the package of new measures being announced today, we estimate that carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 might only be about 1 per cent lower than in 1990, rather than 15 to 18 per cent lower. But we are not complacent. This programme contains further commitments to help achieve our national goal of reducing carbon dioxide by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010 and, in the long-term, reduce emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Domestic action is essential, not least to underline the fact that emissions reductions and prosperity can go hand-in-hand. But national action can only be part of a much bigger strategy. The UK is responsible for 2 per cent of global emissions, and this figure is falling. Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. That is why our new programme sets out our strategy for both international and national action. The UK has already taken a strong lead internationally on climate change. We played a major role in negotiating the Kyoto Treaty. In the Hadley Centre, we have one of the world’s leading climate change research centres. We have also taken a policy lead, through the climate change levy and UK emissions trading scheme. In 2005 we took this to a new level, through our Presidencies of the G8 and EU. We made important progress. Crucially, the G8 countries agreed to a new Dialogue with the Leaders of China, India, Brazil and other emerging economies that will hold meetings annually and culminate in 2008 when it reports to the Japanese G8 Presidency. The progress made at the G8 and in our EU Presidency helped to secure a positive outcome to the UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal. But the progress made last year has, in truth, simply got the world to the starting blocks for the real race – to secure agreement to the long-term goal of global action on climate change and on the action needed to deliver that goal. This document sets out our plans for working, with other countries, to secure agreement on the scale needed. They include a strong focus on a stabilisation goal to frame future international action, progress through the UN Framework on Climate Change and the G8 Dialogue, and a much greater role for the European Union. We will work with our EU partners to take further action both internally and internationally. The UK will push hard for greater certainty on European plans for implementation of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme beyond 2012. The scheme remains the most important mechanism for stimulating international investment in low-carbon technology. We will also seek agreement for much more ambitious collaboration with emerging economies. Our EU Summits with China and India in 2005 were a useful step forward. But again we need to go much further, to scale up these actions to make a real difference. We will also work with the G8 and developing countries through the Dialogue to accelerate the deployment of clean technologies and provide incentives for investment in low carbon technologies. We will co-operate closely with the World Bank and other multilateral development banks to deliver an effective framework for investment in clean energy, and with the International Energy Agency. Targets matter, at home and abroad. But recent events have shown that no government can control emissions in any one year, due to factors such as changes in international fuel and energy prices that are outside our control. Our approach seeks to secure steady emissions over time, through a framework that recognises the importance of maintaining our economic competitiveness and our responsibilities to all members of society – particularly those experiencing fuel poverty. This programme will take us close to our domestic target. But it is by no means the last word. We are launching the consultation today on the UK’s approach to the next phase of the EU emissions trading scheme, which will provide a vital signal to business of the parameters from 2008–12. I am a strong supporter of the scheme. We look forward to hearing people’s views prior to our final decision this summer. We will also be considering other future policy options through the Energy Review and the annual Budget process. We will report to Parliament annually on emissions, future projections, the impact of these measures and forward plans. Government will play its part and give the necessary lead. But we won’t succeed without the support and active participation of all sectors of society. If every household and business took measures to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, by reducing energy used in the home, in buildings, and by changing how journeys are

made, we could achieve our 20 per cent target. We can and will help make this happen. We are putting more funding into a new initiative to raise consumer demand for energy efficiency. The Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust will this year run awareness campaigns on what companies and individuals can do to help. Our Climate Change Communications Initiative will do more to inform the public of the threat and how we can together overcome it. Our emissions goals require leadership and action, by government and by us all. This programme will move us closer, and we will go further. But the solution is in the hands of us all – as businesses, citizens and consumers. Let’s achieve this together. (Blair) The UK Government is committed to addressing both the causes and consequences of climate change and has therefore committed to introducing a Climate Change Bill. The draft Bill was published on 13 March 2007 for pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation. On 29 October 2007 the Government published its response to the parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation in the Command Paper Taking Forward the UK Climate Change Bill. The Command Paper sets out how the Climate Change Bill will be strengthened and made more transparent. The Bill will create a new approach to managing and responding to climate change in the UK through: setting ambitious targets, taking powers to help achieve them, strengthening the institutional framework, enhancing the UK’s ability to adapt to the impact of climate change and establishing clear and regular accountability to the UK, Parliament and devolved legislatures. Climate Change Bill introduced into Parliament The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords on 14 November 2007. The aim is to receive Royal Assent by spring or early summer 2008. To accompany the Bill, we have published a finalised Impact Assessment, building on the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment published in March which formed part of consultation package on the draft Climate Change Bill. Background The debate on climate change has shifted, from whether we need to act towards how much we need to do by when, and the economic implications of doing so. The time is therefore right for the introduction of a strong legal framework in the UK for tackling climate change. The Climate Change Bill is the first of its kind in any country. The proposed Bill provides a clear, credible, long-term framework for the UK to achieve its goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and will ensure that steps are taken towards adapting to the impacts of climate change. Key provisions of the Bill Targets This Bill puts into statute the UK's targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through domestic and international action by at least 60 per cent by 2050 and 26-32 per cent by 2020, against a 1990 baseline. This target will be reviewed, based on a report from the new independent Committee on Climate Change on whether it should be even stronger still, and the implications of including other greenhouse gases and emissions from international aviation and shipping, in the target. Five-year carbon budgets, which will set binding limits on carbon dioxide emissions ensuring every year’s emissions count. Three successive carbon budgets (representing 15 years) will always be in law – providing the best balance between predictability and flexibility. These budgets will be backed by strong annual accountability and independent scrutiny. Emission reductions purchased overseas may be counted towards the UK’s targets, consistent with the UK’s international obligations. This ensures emission reductions can be achieved in the most cost effective way, recognising the potential for investing in low carbon technologies abroad as well as action within the UK to reduce the UK’s overall carbon footprint. Committee on Climate Change A Committee on Climate Change will be set up as an independent, expert body to advise the Government on the pathway to the 2050 target and to advise specifically on: the level of carbon budgets; reduction effort needed by sectors of the economy covered by trading schemes, and other sectors; and on the optimum balance between domestic action and international trading in carbon allowances. It will take into account a range of factors including environmental, technological, economic, fiscal, social and international factors, as well as energy policy, when giving its advice. Enabling Powers The Bill contains enabling powers to introduce new trading schemes, such as the Carbon Reduction Commitment, through secondary legislation. This increases the policy options which Government could use to stay within budgets and meet emissions targets, while maintaining the need for thorough analysis, consultation and scrutiny of proposals before a new scheme is intoduced. Reporting requirements The Committee on Climate Change will have a specific role in reporting annually to Parliament on the UK’s progress towards achieving its targets and budgets. The Government will be required to lay before Parliament a response to this annual progress report. Every five years, the Committee’s report will contain an explicit review of the UK’s performance over the last budget period, and the implications of this for keeping on track to meet future targets and budgets. Adaptation to the impact of climate change The Bill will require the Government, on a regular basis, to assess the risks to the UK from the impact of Climate Change  and report to Parliament. The Government will also be required to publish and regularly update a programme setting out how we will address these likely impacts, based on the principles of sustainable development to ensure that environmental, economic and social issues are all fully considered. Other measures to reduce emissions We will use the Bill to enhance the operation of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), which is expected to deliver significant carbon savings from the road transport sector by increasing the use of biofuels. We will also use the Bill to provide a power to pilot local authority incentive schemes for household waste minimisation and recycling - Waste Strategy for England 2007: incentives for recycling by households. (UK legislation)

Works Cited -Blair, Tony. “Climate Change”. DEFRA. March 2006. 21 Jan 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp06-pt1.pdf -“Britain's ability to be an international force for good seriously undermined by                     foreign policy errors” www.oxfam.org.uk. 11 apr. 2007. 20 Jan. 2008.  -Butler, Nicola “Disarmament Diplomacy”. The Acronym institute. 20 Jan 2008. < http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd75/75news01.htm> -Osikena, Josephine. “Re-exploring Multilateralism”. The foreign policy centre  21 Jan 2008.  -Porteous, Tom. “Make Britain a human rights Champion” Newsatatesman. 27June 2007. 21 Jan 2008.  -“UK legislation” DEFRA. 13 March 2007. 22 Jan 2008. 