Wanted: The Hague Doctrine
Daniel Korski 12:29pm
Out of the conference hall, and back on to the campaign trail, it would nice to see the Tories talking about the things which make them ready for government. In particular, William Hague should make a foreign policy speech setting out what ideas he has, and which would merit him being referred to as the likely “greatest foreign secretary in a generation” by David Cameron.
Hague’s past foreign policy speeches have been solid, but unspectacular. He ticks off the likely issues, talks about global trends and looks knowledgeable about the crises that could emerge. But there is no overaching concept, such David Miliband’s idea of Britain as a "global hub". There is no Hague Doctrine.
British governments – Tony Blair excepted – have not historically come to power with a commitment to a new foreign policy. In developing a Tory foreign policy doctrine there are two additional obstacles: first, an anti-intellectualism that makes developing a "vision" difficult; and unwillingness by the Tory leader to favour one of the different policy factions in the party over another. But so much has changed since 1997, that a new government should take the opportunity to lay out a strategic vision of where it wants Britain to be, covering at the very least the following issues:
1. China. The move by the West to make China a “responsible stakeholder” through engagement has failed (cf COP 15, Iran) while Beijing’s drive for regional hegemony is unabated. In ten years, the People's Liberation Army will be able to deny the US Navy defence of Taiwan. What should British policy aim to do? Bank on India to counter-balance China or let developments take their course?
2. International bodies. The international system set up after World War II is no longer fit for purpose; but any efforts to reform it wholesale seem unlikely to succeed. What can be done, and what should the UK prioritise?
3. Russia. Vladmir Putin’s Russia may have taken a hit in the economic crisis, but its anti-Western, revisionist foreign policy is likely to continue. How should this be addressed – with a view to confronting Russia or in a partnership, much as the German government wants?
4. The Middle East. The region is still run by corrupt, undemocratic regimes, challenged by popular Islamist forces, and is likely to be the scene of future conflicts. Though Al Qaeda has failed to ignite the Muslim masses, its message remains potent. Terrorism is a real threat, and the Middle East peace processes have stalled. What would a new Tory government do?
5. Nucelar proliferation. The growing availability of sensitive nuclear technology; the ability of North Korea to withdraw from the NPT with relative impunity; and Iran’s illegal nuclear programme - all show the dire situation of the world’s nuclear regime. Given the power, how would the Shadow Foreign Secretary update the ideas he laid out at IISS?
6. Involving Europe? European governments have failed to become more effective foreign policy actors though the EU, yet they cannot address many global issues single-handedly; while the US clearly wants to see more common European action. What does a sensible British policy look like, which brings Germany and France along on the big issues?
7. Afghanistan. Even if British troops remain in Helmand for another three years, they are not likely to remain in situ another ten. What does a post-American Afghanistan look like? And what should British policy towards the entire region be focused on in such a future scenario?
8. Dealing with America. As Will Inboden has said, “Cameron and Hague peer towards American leadership on front-burner issues such as Afghanistan, Iran, and the Middle East Peace Process, as well as relations with China or strategic shifts such as the ill-fated 'reset button' with Russia”. But is that Atlantic instinct still right in a post-American world?
The Tory foreign policy team is as strong as anything that the Labour government can muster: Hague is popular and commanding, Liddington is likeable and engaging, Mark Francois the team’s attack dog, and Keith Simpson its intellectual supplier. But the team needs a doctrine, a narrative about how they see the changes in the world - not a repetition of clichéd nostrums - as well as a clear view of what they would do in power.
Previous
John Ware
March 1st, 2010 12:48pm Report this commenta good post. And for all the talk about the Conservatives being ready for Government, it is extraordinary that they seem to have no clear answers on any of these questions
Richard
March 1st, 2010 12:48pm Report this commentI am sorry but William Hague will always be seen in Europe as a "Little Englander" the stance of the tories in Europe will do nothing to change that.
America does see the New Conservatives as lightweight and Cameron is slipping down the list of speed dials on Obama's ipod.
The Financial community around the world are split on The tories and any influence we may have can only fade should they win the election.
The truth is The tories are way down on the world stage........GB and DM are comanding more respect..(GB statesman of the year anyone remember)with Mr Milliband seriously courted by Europe for the big job in foriegn affairs.
Chris
March 1st, 2010 12:59pm Report this commentThis is in the realms of fantasy. Hague is not "popular and commanding". He lost an election because the electorate don't like him and don't take him in the least bit seriously. He'd be a complete failure as a foreign secretary because the foreign governments and international organisations he would need to work with don't like him and don't take him seriously. Being "as strong as" what Labour have is not a qualification for anything. What they have shows no sign of strength.
We all know some of the Tory rank and file love Hague. The electorate's already told the Conservative party what it thinks of Hague. He's a liability.
Publius
March 1st, 2010 1:12pm Report this comment"Intellectualism", Mr Korski, is not at all the same as wisdom. Nor is "anti-intellectualism" the same thing as philistinism or ignorance. Geddit?
What *you*, unsurprisingly, are seeking is an ideologue with a "narrative". Just more gobby, empty, ineffectual theorizing, and typical left-wing stuff. And where have we ended up? With the sorry apology for a Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.
TomTom
March 1st, 2010 1:14pm Report this commentYes, Hague could talk about Zimbabwe. He could use that country as an example of British Foreign Policy and what Britain will do...not the USA....not the EU....but Britain. It was after all the Lancaster House Agreement that turned the country over to Mugabe.
denis cooper
March 1st, 2010 1:35pm Report this commentInteresting thoughts about the positions the UK government should adopt during the formulation of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Snippets from Articles 22 et seq of the Treaty on European Union:
"... the European Council shall identify the strategic interests and objectives of the Union ...
Decisions of the European Council on the strategic interests and objectives of the Union shall relate to the common foreign and security policy and to other areas of the external action of the Union ....
The European Council shall act unanimously on a recommendation from the Council ... "
[Ie, at least at present we still have a veto in this area, although like other vetoes that couldn't be expected to endure forever.]
"The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence ...
The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by Member States, in accordance with the Treaties ...
Within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action, the Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States' actions ...
The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area ...
The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council and the High Representative shall ensure compliance with these principles ... "
M
March 1st, 2010 1:58pm Report this commentNice roundup. In today’s world leaders get wrapped up and bottom line is there are things that matter and things that don’t. History shows that presidents, PMs, FMs and recessions come and go, but the long processes that truly change our lives are still here, and they are not always the things that people are expecting or discussing…
Andy Carpark
March 1st, 2010 2:41pm Report this commentAll seductive mood music, all global visions and overarching concepts, all narratives, however vast, rambling and mesmeric, founder on the following unnegotiable fact.
He looks like a tellytubby. Next.
strapworld
March 1st, 2010 4:11pm Report this commentdenis cooper- hence nothing from Cameron about the EU in his oh so brilliant unscripted speech. Perhaps he should just have chanted:-
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party! Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party! Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party! Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party! then repeat.
Stronghold Barricades
March 1st, 2010 4:43pm Report this commentI don't really need hi8m to make a speech
I'd just like him to lay into banana boy millibland
Beer Moth
March 1st, 2010 7:09pm Report this commentWha? Even greater than Cook, Straw, Beckett, Milliband?
Beer Moth
March 1st, 2010 7:14pm Report this comment"The region is still run by corrupt, undemocratic regimes, challenged by popular Islamist forces, and is likely to be the scene of future conflicts."
ME or EU?
Fergus Pickering
March 2nd, 2010 3:32am Report this commentThere are no votes in foreign policy. I agree he looks better than anything Labour put up in the last thirteen years, but that isn't saying much. BUT there are no votes in foreignj policy. Justv don't go to war AGAIN, except overv the Falklands, that is. We could still win that one since the Argies have a lefty governmnt too and can't put a ship on the sea or a plane in the air. And there's MONEY at the end of that one. I think we could slide gracefully out of Afghanistan but that's not for now. Oh, and send plenty of islamic terrorists to the USA where they seem to know what to do, even with that posturing, long-winded idiot Obama in charge.
Incidentally, WHO respects Brown? I thought nobody in Europe could stand him. He's mad of course.
THX1138
March 2nd, 2010 7:53am Report this commentWill Hague be taking the Nom Dom to Qom?
Wyrdtimes
March 2nd, 2010 5:38pm Report this commentPlease don't insult proud "little Englanders" by making out that William Hague is one of us. He's a big Britisher just like the vast majority of MPs and more than happy to see England put last for the sake of his precious Union.
Verity
March 5th, 2010 1:55pm Report this commentChris, the house troll, writes “He lost an election because the electorate don't like him and don't take him in the least bit seriously.” Not in the least bit? Not even a tiny bit? In your dreams. Plus, you mixed up your tenses, in a sleight of hand I assume you believe was cunning. It was so subtle it jumped right off the page.
Hague lost the election because he was being advised by dead heads like the people who are advising Cameron to walk around without a jacket. Surely it was obvious at the time that Hague's moronic advisers were so frightened of Tony Blair they were peeing down their legs like nervous puppies. They became fixated on the idea that Conservatives wanted a similar oleaginous slimeball to vote for. Hague is a Conservative, steady, feet-on-the-ground Yorkshireman and would never have contemplated going to the far Left Notting Hill Carnival to wile away a few hours. It was patently false. It turned the Conservative voters off in droves.
So did the baseball cap. Hague is patently not a baseball cap wearer. But it was something Tony Blair would have done, if he'd thought of it.
It was the destructive, false, sleazy, wannabee presentation that turned Conservative voters off Mr Hague. They didn’t want a Tony Blair clone. He is older and surer now, and he is his own man. There is a sense of certitude about him that draws people to him.
“We all know some of the Tory rank and file love Hague.” Hey! Wait a minute! You wrote: “the electorate don't like him and don't take him in the least bit seriously.” Which is it, dear?
WyredTimes – “He's a big Britisher just like the vast majority of MPs …”. The Commie Troll Master’s sent for American reinforcements? What a hoot!
Back to top