November 12, 2007
Brown’s foreign policy: visionary or short-sighted?
Gordon Brown’s promise to outline his "vision" for Britain after scrapping plans for a 2007 election has raised expectations whenever he makes a new speech and provokes the inevitable question: "Is this it?"
Anyone hoping for a new foreign policy vision in Mr Brown’s speech to the Lord Mayor’s banquet in the City on Monday night is likely to have been disappointed.
"My approach is hard-headed internationalism," Mr Brown said. As opposed to what? "Internationalist because global challenges need global solutions." Hardly original. Reading the substance, Mr Brown’s foreign policy approach sounds rather like that pursued by Tony Blair.
There is a tough (US-friendly) line on Iran. There are warm words about the US ("our most important bilateral relationship"). Mr Brown criticises President Musharraf of Pakistan - a key Washington ally - for imposing martial law, but holds back from calling for Pakistan to be suspended from the Commonwealth.
The speech is a lacklustre affair, which will only add to speculation in the Foreign Office that Mr Brown is not focused on - or especially interested in - foreign policy. For a landmark speech, it has none of the passion or verve of Mr Brown’s recent speeches on liberty or education.
What it does contain is further evidence of Mr Brown’s belief that reformed global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and UN Security Council hold the key to solving the international problems he identifies. He dwells on these reforms at length.
But characteristically only a short part of the speech is devoted to Europe, perhaps the most effective multi-lateral organisation in the world - through which Britain can leverage its influence on issues like climate change, trade and security.
Mr Brown has a golden opportunity to lead in Europe along with likeminded allies like Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel but so far shows little inclination to get stuck in.
With the unratified EU treaty hanging over him until at least the middle of 2008, Mr Brown seems to have Europe locked up in a box marked: "Toxic: open at your peril."
If he is serious about developing a global policy, he should look beyond reforming unwieldy bodies like the UN and IMF - worthy though that cause might be - and start using the tools he already has at his disposal.
The EU is the world’s biggest and richest trading bloc. It is being copied in Africa, South America and South East Asia as a model for small countries hoping to shape globalisation. And it is a multi-lateral organisation which, in spite of its flaws, already works. He should grab the steering wheel.











Surely he should wait until the eu accounts have been signed off?
Posted by: Tory | November 13th, 2007 at 12:13 am | Report this comment“‘Vision for Britain’ ought to have included ‘the future of the Union’”
Whether the Union of England and Scotland is over- is true or not- (due to Labour’s botched ‘devolution programme’), is not as important as planning- assertively- for the hypothetical occurance of this…
Formulas for the ‘post-break-up’ sharing/allocation of ‘pivotal’ “UK national resources”- such as oil/gas- amoung the nation’s components’ (IE: Wales, N Ireland, Scotland & England) need to be delineated in law/legislation or even within a “UK written Constitution”.
When a corrupt, selfish- and ‘minor’ partner in a company (read: Union of country’s)- finds him/herself in a position to, using false-logic, arbitrarily leave the firm, taking with him/her not only his/her proportionate share of the company’s equity->> but also a massive amount of the company’s other partners’ shares of equity as well…. should he/she be allowed to by the other partners to do this???
Considering the role that oil/gas/energy plays in the economy of the UK, and that oil/gas supplies are integral to security and prosperity- who but the most intellectually dishonest & self-serving would say yes??
A task for the current Labour govt- and/or the Official Opposition- during the current sitting of Parliament, would be to set out in legislation “rules/laws and/or formulas” for the sharing/allocation of UK resources such as oil & gas ‘post break up’…. rather than waiting for unilateral declaration of independence by 1 of the UK’s component parts, and having to do this then.
Who knows, once articulated a UK resources allocation-law might be a disincentive for ‘unilateral independence’ being declared by one of the UK’s component parts…
_________________
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | November 14th, 2007 at 4:43 am | Report this commentRoderick V. Louis
(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
rvlouis@patientempowermentsociety.com