{"id":19635,"date":"2019-11-25T10:00:10","date_gmt":"2019-11-25T10:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/?p=19635"},"modified":"2023-11-23T16:39:50","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T16:39:50","slug":"the-manifestos-mark-the-end-of-british-foreign-policy-consensus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/2019\/11\/the-manifestos-mark-the-end-of-british-foreign-policy-consensus\/","title":{"rendered":"General election manifestos mark the end of British foreign policy consensus"},"content":{"rendered":"

Next month\u2019s election has been variously framed as a \u2018once in a generation\u2019 opportunity, or an existential threat, with the future of Brexit, the NHS and our economic model all at stake. For the first time in many decades, so too are each of the three largest parties offering truly distinct foreign policy platforms \u2013 meaning Britain could be set to embark on an unchartered pathway in our global affairs.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now that the <\/span>Conservatives<\/span><\/a> have joined <\/span>Labour<\/span><\/a> and the <\/span>Liberal Democrats<\/span><\/a> in announcing their manifesto, we can not only compare their foreign policy commitments, but also the tone and emphasis they place on the very nature of our role in the world.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As the incumbent party, the Conservatives would traditionally have been seen to uphold the status quo position, but the as-yet-unresolved nature of Brexit means even their most run-of-the-mill pledges are influenced by their desire to shift the paradigm of Foreign Office thinking away from our European neighbours. Labour, meanwhile, extend their radical vision in domestic policy-making to the world, championing a human rights-led, values-based approach that would represent a true step-change in our global relationships. As ever, the Liberal Democrats fall somewhere in between \u2013 denouncing excesses and ideologies on both sides, and positioning themselves as the defenders of the rules-based liberal world order.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Brexit plays a considerable role in shaping the parties\u2019 unique approaches. The Conservatives are almost at pains to avoid mentioning European cooperation, rather highlighting a wide-ranging suite of other \u2018alliances and institutions that help project our influence and keep us safe\u2019, such as the UN Security Council, NATO, the Commonwealth, the Five Eyes, the G7 and the World Trade Organisation. Indeed, they rather bizarrely claim that Britain will be free to champion its values \u2018more freely\u2019 once it has left the EU. <\/span>The British Foreign Policy Group\u2019s surveys on public opinion<\/span><\/a> about foreign policy confirm that the EU is the only multilateral organisation that Conservative voters do not emphatically support.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Labour Party is typically keeping all options on the table, leaving the door open to close cooperation with Europe, but also wanting the UK to take a more forthright role in global humanitarian issues. The Liberal Democrats, in turn, see Europe as the primary vehicle through which Britain can project power and influence, including on a regional approach to climate change, a European Magnitsky Act, and reviving the Iran Nuclear Deal.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another reason for the significant divergence between the parties is the differing way in which they conceive of global threats. The Conservatives seek to challenge, \u2018terrorism, rogue states and malign non-state actors\u2019, while the Liberal Democrats cite <\/span>\u2018the rising tides of nationalism and isolationism\u2019 as a threat to global peace and prosperity, and Labour condemn the \u2018outsourcing of UK foreign policy to US President Donald Trump\u2019 and the \u2018bomb first, talk later\u2019 status quo mind-set.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

One of the most prominent areas of consensus comes in the area of defence capabilities and spending, with all <\/span>parties committed to spending at least two per cent of GDP on defence, as well as boosting funding for veterans\u2019 services and care. The parties\u2019 prioritisation and application of our defence activities, however, fork apart in small but meaningful ways. While all pledge to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats emphasise that this would take place alongside broader efforts to promote nuclear disarmament. It is important to note that the SNP have made clear that the renewal of Trident would be a \u2018red line\u2019 for them in any coalition negotiations.<\/span><\/p>\n

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats highlight the challenges of digital warfare and cybersecurity, with the Tories committing to launching the UK\u2019s first Space Command. Distinct from the Labour Party, they also explicitly commit to defending media freedoms as part of the UK\u2019s international engagement activities, and to expanding the soft power potential of the BBC World Service and the British Council.<\/span><\/p>\n

On hard power, it is clear that the long shadow of the Iraq War continues to hang over parties\u2019 approach to military interventionism. While both the Liberal Democrats and Labour promise to legislate to ensure Parliament is given the opportunity to vote to approve military engagement \u2013 the Liberal Democrats also offer an escape clause for executives to act unilaterally during \u2018emergencies\u2019. Labour, on the other hand, pledges to implement every recommendation of the Chilcot Inquiry. The Conservatives don\u2019t mention interventionism and \u2018boots on the ground\u2019 warfare at all, other than to say that they are investing in expanding our defence capabilities.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ground zero of the foreign policy debate in this election is likely to centre around the emphasis the Labour Party is placing on holding Britain to account for \u2018past wrongs\u2019, which the Conservatives denounce as fundamentally unpatriotic. \u2018Unlike those currently leading the Labour Party,\u2019 says their manifesto. \u2018We view our country as a force for good\u2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While Britons may be relatively relaxed about issues such as allowing the people of the Chagos Islands and their descendants the right to return, the particular focus Labour\u2019s manifesto makes on atoning for the transgressions of the British Empire may ruffle some feathers. In particular, the party\u2019s promise to undertake an audit of the impact of Britain\u2019s imperial legacy, \u2018to understand our contribution\u2019 to present day conflicts and unrest, may reinforce the sense amongst some voters that Jeremy Corbyn does not regard Britain as truly \u2018Great\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Like the Liberal Democrats, Labour also calls for an enquiry into Britain\u2019s \u2018complicity\u2019 in rendition and torture; however, there is a clear distinction in the tone. While the Liberal Democrats seek to \u2018uphold\u2019 the international rules-based order, the Labour Party pledges to \u2018reform\u2019 it, in order to ensure it is more accountable for breaches of human rights and international law.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This emphasis on challenging long-standing foreign policy conventions will likely flow into Labour\u2019s distinct approach to our international relationships \u2013 another area the Conservatives are keen to position as a \u2018red flag\u2019. <\/span>Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats pledge to officially recognise the independent state of Palestine, and set out their support for Israel’s ‘right to security’ (Lib Dems) and ‘a secure Israel’ (Labour). They both also commit to suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia \u2013 but Labour also guarantees to halt the sale of weaponry<\/span>\u00a0to Israel, which it claims are being used \u2018in violation of the human rights of Palestinian civilians\u2019.<\/p>\n

Labour specifies many of the international conflicts it would take a clear line on, including the protection of minorities in Sri Lanka, with the manifesto mandating that Labour would embed human rights advisers in the Foreign Office, and \u2018advocate for human rights at every bilateral diplomatic meeting\u2019. The Conservatives also mention Cyprus, Sri Lanka and the Middle East as priority areas for UK humanitarian and reconciliation work, but avoid taking sides in these disputes.<\/span><\/p>\n

For the Liberal Democrats, it is clear that Russia and China are seen as the two principal global risks to peace and security. They pledge to support Ukraine against an \u201cincreasingly aggressive Russia\u201d and to reopen the British National Overseas Passport offer to the people of Hong Kong, including the right to abode. Astonishingly, the Conservative manifesto makes no mention of Russia nor China whatsoever.<\/span><\/p>\n

While the British people continue to hold mixed feelings about the scale and nature of the UK\u2019s development budget, the spending commitment to aid will not be challenged in the next parliament. All parties emphasise the potential of development funding to improve women\u2019s equality and protections, girls\u2019 education, LGBTQ rights, and halt environmental degradation. Responding to the recent space of shocking aid charity abuse scandals, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats pledge to enforce more timely and comprehensive reporting frameworks.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The imperative to strike new trade deals has compelled all parties to set out the essence of their approach, and what is particularly notable is the extent to which each focuses on their red lines of negotiation. The Liberal Democrats would refuse to enter trade agreements with countries pursuing environmental policies contrary to the Paris Agreement. Labour is unequivocal that \u201chuman rights should drive our trade policy\u201d, and would therefore reject any Free Trade Agreements that would \u2018undermine labour standards or environmental protections\u2019, including safeguarding workers\u2019 rights. They also make clear that the NHS would be thoroughly off the table.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Curiously, there is no mention in either of the Labour or Liberal Democrat manifestos of agricultural standards \u2013 one of the most crucial areas of potential negotiation and a point of special public concern. The Conservative Party do highlight animal welfare and food standards as areas that will not be compromised, alongside environmental protections and the NHS. They also set out a wide-ranging suite of principals for negotiation, which will at once allay concerns about our free trading future ushering in a \u2018race to the bottom\u2019 in standards, and also raise questions about how meaningful these new trade agreements can be, when so many red lines are drawn.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A very significant contribution to the public debate on trade comes from the Labour Party, which pledges to introduce legislation to afford a greater degree of scrutiny to parliament for Free Trade Agreements \u2013 a policy that would be of even more pertinent use to them if they do find themselves once more on the opposition benches.<\/span><\/p>\n

All in all, these three manifestos \u2013 and the red lines being suggested from potential coalition partners the SNP \u2013 make clear that whatever the outcome on 12 December, Britain\u2019s foreign policy is moving beyond the age of cross-party consensus. The referendum on our membership of the European Union has ushered in a new era of contested diplomacy, throwing the gates open to a significant divergence from of our traditional relationships, priorities and the expression of our values \u2013 and this election will set us firmly on our new course. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Next month\u2019s election has been variously framed as a \u2018once in a generation\u2019 opportunity, or an existential threat, with the future of Brexit, the NHS and our economic model all at stake. For the first time in many decades, so too are each of the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":86,"featured_media":21293,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[133,169],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19635","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-uk-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19635","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/86"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19635"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19635\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21293"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}