Tory Foreign Policy: Where's the Beef?

Tuesday, 9th June 2009

ConservativeHome interview William Hague and it's all very jocular and genial. Except for when it's being a little bit troubling and alarming. To wit:

ConservativeHome: Name three specific things you would change about British foreign policy.
William Hague: First, we would create a fully fledged National Security Council, comprising all relevant senior ministers and chaired by the Prime Minister. This would be a decisive break from the sofa style decision making of the last twelve years, which has often led to decisions being made without all the necessary information being considered or understood. Second, we would be firmly opposed to the greater centralisation of power in EU institutions, which reduces democratic accountability in Britain. Third, we would give a greater emphasis than in recent years to the role of the Commonwealth, a unique network covering a quarter of the world’s population. These are a few examples but I will be making a major speech defining our whole approach to foreign policy before Parliament rises for the summer recess.

Emphasis added, of course. Well, I'm glad Mr Hague is going to make a "major" speech because if this is all that Tory foreign policy thinking amounts to - a structural change that, whatever its merits, is scarcely earth-shattering, standard Tory euro-boiler-plate and bigging-up the dear old Commonwealth - then heaven help us all.

As it happens, I think Hague will be a perfectly fine Foreign & Commonwealth Secretary and I trust that there is indeed rather more to the Tory analysis of British foreign and defence policy than this. But, assuming there is, that makes it a little strange that he should concentrate on such trivial matters when given the chance to offer something interesting...

Where, as they say, is the beef?

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Anthony

June 9th, 2009 3:49pm Report this comment

Yeah. I agree that Mr Hague will probably be a good foreign secretary. I also felt that much of the mood music at least flowed in the right direction. But that's all it was - mood music.

I'd actually isolate a different part of the piece than the bit you flagged up:

"Several steps need to be taken to address the weaknesses: NATO needs to be modernised; the national caveats issue needs to be addressed; a common NATO operational fund needs to be set up to ensure the fair sharing of the burden between member states, and the relationship between the EU and NATO must be better arranged, specifically where ESDP and NATO meet."

Now, again, there's arguably not much to argue against here. But it's not a strategy, it's a wish list. And furthermore, it's a wish list that is actually pretty similar (with the possible exception of the Euro-emphasis) to the wish lists that have been trotted out in recent years under the present government. In order for it be be genuinely interesting, we need to know how Mr Hague's policy is going to differ in terms of the way in which he's going to try to achieve his ends (which are pretty uncontroversial and actually represent a fairly strong strand of continuity).

Rhoda Klapp

June 9th, 2009 3:53pm Report this comment

Seems to be in denial of what is in the Lisbon treaty. Will we still have a foreign policy?

MattF

June 9th, 2009 4:01pm Report this comment

"National Security Council"? Oh boy. Just what you need. The US experience here suggests that this is a bad idea. Obama's return to the older notion of a politically powerful Secretary of State is one of the smartest things he's done.

Ask yourselves-- Will anyone in particular be in charge? Will this Council have independent authority-- and if so, to do what, exactly? Will it have its own offices, apparatchiks, and lines of authority? If the answers to the above questions are "No, NO, NO, and OMG, NO", then how does this differ from what you've got now?

Anthony

June 9th, 2009 5:52pm Report this comment

MattF,

Interesting points which further flag up the fact that these things really, really do need thinking through carefully. I suspect this is an attempt to force through a greater degree of formalised inter-departmental communication and collaboration. Our war efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered from a fairly catastrophic lack of co-ordination and all the talk of "comprehensive" approaches has been fairly hollow thus far. That's not to say that Mr Hague is correct, much will depend on the substance.

Post comment