Peace: The Place of Britain in the World
The challenges we face
Liberalism, from the Midlothian campaign of 1880 onwards,
has always been an outward looking ideology.
We understand that there are core democratic principles that do not
change, no matter what the country or the culture. These principles are
enshrined in the United Nations Charter and include an unbreakable commitment
to the dignity of the individual, the equality of men and women and to promote
the progress of human rights and social justice. The “scourge of war” can only
ever be used as a final resort and in the defence of these collective values. These
are fundamental Liberal principles, and indeed many Liberal politicians and
thinkers have made major contributions to the cause of world peace and
international justice. As Gladstone in 1880 spoke up against the crimes of the
Ottomans in Bulgaria (for which, by the way he has a street named after him in
Sofia), so each subsequent Liberal generation has campaigned for international democratic
freedoms and against injustice.
This is why Liberals, from the beginning, have supported the
European Union, because from its inception it was conceived as a project that
would build peace in a continent that had experienced three major wars and
several more minor wars in a single lifetime between 1870 and 1945.
In the past five years the grinding battle over British
relations with the rest of Europe has overshadowed all else. The result has been an economic and political
crisis that has destroyed our international reputation and threatens our very
integrity as a state.
Leaving the EU has made Britain far more vulnerable to
political and economic pressure from China, Russia, the US and indeed from the
EU itself. In fact Britain has also been made vulnerable to subversion and
corruption, and yet the report of the
House of Commons Intelligence and Security committee, finally released on 21st
July this year could not assess the scale of this subversion threat in the UK,
because the intelligence services had been purposely denied permission to
investigate. Nevertheless it would be safe to assume that a significant and
ongoing Russian subversion operation against Britain has been active for
several years and that it is likely that similar bribery and subversion
techniques proven to have taken place in other Western states have been used
against us. Such activity has included proven financial support for The Front
National (now renamed Rassemblement National) in France. In the United States there are highly credible
allegations of Russian support, practical and financial, for Donald Trump.
Therefore in Britain close personal relationships between proven Russian
intelligence operatives and several domestic political figures, such as Alex
Salmond (employed by Russian propaganda channel RT) and several leading
Conservatives, including significant financial contributions by Russians to the
Conservative Party, is and should be, a great concern to us.
Britain is facing new threats on a daily basis. Subversion,
hybrid war, and cyber war are being waged against us and we have been
struggling to find an effective response. The collapse of the national standing
of our country has already increased the damage inflicted from contending
Russian, Chinese and indeed even American and European interests.
The cynical, transactional foreign politics of China, and
Russia, and even- under Trump- the United States, are a direct threat to the
principles of the UN charter which are designed to defend the interests of
smaller and weaker states from larger and stronger, and as such they directly
threaten British national interests. The fact that the Johnson government
itself has been prepared to jettison even basic principles of international law
is an act which Liberals should take very seriously, up to and including
seeking prosecution for those responsible.
As part of our commitment to international justice Liberals
have promoted British commitment and funding of international development. In
fact, the DFID has been a noted success, promoting technology transfer and
improving the lives of millions of the very poorest in the world. That success has rested on expertise and a
non-transactional approach. We promote genuine goodwill to our country because
we do not generally put strings attached on the assistance programmes we have
funded. The decision by the Johnson government to merge DFID and the Foreign
Office and to explicitly link projects to British interests will not promote
Britain, and in fact will diminish the effectiveness of our programmes and the
positive image we have had.
Yet the greatest, international challenge is climate change.
It is only in concert that humanity can use the tools we have to stop and even
reverse climate change. Again, our European allies have been most aligned in
facing this challenge. Vast investment in new technologies will need to take
place, and Britain, as a country vulnerable to sea level rises, must become far
more active in addressing the crisis. Coordinating our own measures with those
across the planet is a huge challenge, and
The continuing challenge of Putin’s Russia, the growing
challenge of XI Jinping’s China and the disaster of Donald Trump in the USA
underlines the need to Britain to continue to work for the principles of the UN
and Atlantic charter and to restore our damaged links with the European Union.
As Liberals, we believe that our national interests are best
served by an unshakable ideological commitment to these ethical norms of
democracy, global justice and peace. We fought the Cold War in order to protect
those core beliefs, and our support for our membership of NATO is rooted in the
Atlantic Charter, upon which rests both the NATO treaty and the UN Charter. The
damage that the Trump administration has done to these principles underlines
why we may need to establish a foreign policy less aligned with the United
States.
What we have learned is that pacifism itself does not
preserve peace, it is our willingness to defend our freedoms that maintains
them and promotes them. Yet our ability
to defend ourselves is being compromised by new threats and the decline of a
key ally, the United States, which under Donald Trump, has seriously reduced
its commitment to NATO, and to a degree abandoned some of the principles upon
which the Atlantic alliance was founded.
What is to be done?
The battle against climate change may begin at home, but it
still requires Britain to reach out to all nations. However, we need to
interact with different nations in different ways. Britain may issue a
declaration of goodwill to all nations, but it will not be reciprocated. The
fantasy that we can return to global influence on the back of an abbreviated
form of the British Empire, CANZUK or some restructured Commonwealth is just
that, a fantasy. Australians, Canadians
and New Zealanders have fused their native cultures with cultures beyond the
British Isles to create new, hybrid nations which do not look to UK an any way,
and most likely will soon abandon the Monarchy, Neither has our historically
close relationship with the United States delivered much on the battle against
climate change. Meanwhile our immediate European neighbours face similar
challenges to ourselves.
It is clear that our first priority is to rebuild trust with
our European neighbours and major trading partners. An early goal should be to quickly restore as
much as possible of the links and cooperation that the Conservatives have
wilfully damaged. The problem for
Britain is that for practical reasons of administration and budget disruption,
immediate EU re-entry is likely to need some time to adjust to the new situation.
So, while a Liberal or Liberal coalition government might seek an immediate
restoration of the status quo ante, there will still need to be a period
of adjustment before any return to the EU is realistically possible. This is would
certainly be for a minimum of one budget round, which lasts 7 years. So Even if
a decision is made to seek re-entry today, then the earliest likely re-entry
date would most likely be in 2027, and the longer we delay reapplication, the
less likely that even this target could be achieved. So full re-entry might
need to wait until 2034. The truth is that for much of the next decade we will
not be able to repair the damage that the Conservatives have inflicted, and for
the time being there is not the political will to even begin such a process.
In the interim, Britain will need to tackle the failings in
its own defence and while aligning our trade and wider economic policies with
the EU, this will be on the basis of minimising the damage rather than
proactively contributing leadership to the European Union.
Meanwhile, even post-Trump, the United States will be asking
the European allies to contribute more to their own defence. In this area,
Britain can contribute greatly. Although the West European Union of European
NATO states was declared defunct in 2011, Britain could lead the drive for a
replacement that could co-ordinate the European NATO states, including non-EU
states such as Norway, Iceland, Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and
Turkey. Equally, relationships with neutral EU member states, such as Ireland,
Austria and especially Finland and Sweden could become closer. For historical
reasons Sweden and Finland have struggled to accept membership of NATO, even
while they acknowledge the deadly threat that Putin’s Russia is offering them.
A British policy of support and participation for a more independent European
security pillar will help the European security architecture and help to
rebuild trust and respect for British capabilities.
As part of that more open policy Britain should consider
changing our nuclear deterrence posture.
It is increasingly clear that our submarine based ballistic missiles
systems are out of date. Submarines are increasingly easy to track and thus are
becoming useless. More to the point, the UK Trident fleet relies on support
from the United States, and in particular relies on regular refitting at the
King’s Bay naval base in Georgia. It cannot be said to be an independent
nuclear deterrent in any meaningful sense of the word, and the advent of the
Trump administration underlines that this could be a very dangerous position
for Britain. If the country is to maintain at least a minimal deterrent, then a
lighter, more flexible delivery system, not to mention a cheaper one, should
now be developed.
British capabilities in intelligence remain formidable, and
this must be maintained. Cyber attacks are launched against us on a daily basis
and the state actors behind these attacks should be challenged and defeated.
This will require renewed support to operations such as GCHQ that are in the
front line in this conflict.
Climate change is an ethical as well as a technical and
economic challenge. The fact is that the poorest on the planet have little
choice about wither the things they do to keep themselves alive harm or help
the planet. One of the key successes in
British overseas aid has been helping to change this.
·
Make talking the climate emergency the policy
priority
·
Promote a foreign policy based on Liberal
principles
·
Rebuild our relationship with the EU, before
ultimately seeking to rejoin
·
Reinforce our defences against subversion and
corruption
·
Modernise and develop our armed forces
·
Seek a lighter and cheaper form of nuclear
deterrence, not dependent on the US
·
Extend our capabilities in cyber and hybrid
warfare
·
Work with our European neighbours on key matters
of military and political security
·
Maintain and develop our role in international
development
·
Support those in authoritarian countries who
wish to move to democracy and freedom
Comments