Charles Kennedy

Liberal Democrats | Ross Skye & Lochaber

Global Visions: Liberal Democrats and Internationalism

Speech at the Institute of Contemporary Arts

Tuesday 12th July 2005

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
 

INTRODUCTION

It is an oft quoted aphorism of Lord Palmerston that the conduct of foreign policy is not about permanent friends but rather about permanent interests.

For Liberal Democrats our concept of the nation state is a distinct one, our critique of Britain’s place and role in the world both principled and consistent.

And I say that because it is striking – both in the years in national political power as well as in the years of near extinction as a national political force – how much international relations and foreign affairs have dominated and influenced the party’s course.

So I take as my starting point the assertion that for Liberal Democrats here in 2005, foreign policy should not be about either permanent friends or permanent interests. 

Instead it should be based on and conducted against the backdrop of permanent values.

During this Parliament, the Liberal Democrats must demonstrate that we are a mature political party, ready for the challenges of power, with solutions to the problems that local people face, and determined to represent the British people, both at home and abroad.

In this global age, security and prosperity at home, depend to a greater extent than ever before, on events beyond these shores.

So it is necessary that the Liberal Democrats define how we believe Britain should conduct its relations with the rest of the world in the 21st century.

INTERNATIONALISM

One of the most distinctive strands of liberal thinking is our tradition of internationalism.

It is a tradition that is self-confident and outward looking.

We recognise the benefits of international trade and competition.

We recognise instinctively that success for Britain requires partnership with like-minded nations, and engagement with those whom we seek to influence.

We believe that that is expressed best through strong international institutions under pinned by the rule of international law.

Internationalism for Britain is a necessity, not a luxury.

The threats to our security – international terrorism, regional insecurity, weapons proliferation, international crime – these cannot be tackled by Britain in isolation.

As a trading nation in a global economy, our prosperity cannot be secured in isolation.

We cannot hope to protect our natural environment when climate change is a potential catastrophe that faces the whole planet.

Only planet wide action will succeed.

We, as Liberal Democrats, recognise a moral imperative for Britain to use its influence and prosperity as a force for good.

But this is about much more than launching the somewhat ill-fated “ethical foreign policy”.

It is about being hard-headed and far-sighted too.

It is about seeing the longer-term benefits to Britain of locking into our and the EU’s single market economics the emergent economies of the developing world a la the Brandt report.

For instance, we can construct rational arguments as to why it is in the British interest to raise the level of the development aid we give and for the spread of human rights.

With investment abroad and the promotion of democracy we can spread stability.

We can create new markets and new opportunities for wealth creation.

And particularly in the current climate we face, we can tackle some of the inequalities that lead to kind of resentments that manifest themselves in support for extremism and terrorism.

But Liberal Democrat internationalism, while rooted in the British interest, recognises our shared humanity.

The world’s conscience is stirred by the horror of war or the tragedy of a natural disaster.

And it is to the credit of the people of Britain that their conscience is stirred, too, by poverty and deprivation and lack of opportunity and freedom.

As wealthy country, a prosperous country, we recognise that it is the duty of countries such of ours, with the means to help, to take action.

We Liberal Democrats also insist that humans are born with a set of inalienable human rights. 

The freedoms we enjoy here in Britain, and that require constant vigilance to protect, are freedoms that billions around the world yearn for.

As Voltaire wrote of our people:

“They are not only jealous of their own liberty, but even of that of other nations.”

BRITISH POLITICS

So how do both the necessity and the moral imperative for taking forward the Liberal Democrat principles of internationalism translate into a distinctive approach to foreign policy for Britain?

Traditionally, the British political parties have tended to operate in parliament in a non-partisan manner when it comes to international affairs.

Suez, obviously, was an exceptional case.

And it is to be hoped that Iraq – which I believe to be any British Government’s biggest foreign policy mistake since Suez, will prove to be another exception.

For instance, all parties have supported the Prime Minister’s focus on Africa and climate change.

We agree, in the main, on the challenges that face Britain and the world.

But there are clear differences between the parties in terms of priority and philosophy.

Clearly, the Conservatives have been in disarray for a decade and more when it comes to Europe.

They have signalled a desire to withdraw Britain from a series of international treaties and conventions.

The Conservative support for the Iraq war suggests an ambiguous commitment to international law.

Their approach tends towards the unilateralist.

If they espouse multilateralism at all, it is a loose multilateralism based on willing coalitions rather than concerted and united international action.

The Labour Government’s foreign policy has undergone distinct changes since its self-proclaimed ‘ethical foreign policy’ ground to a halt.

Witness the initial determination to control arms exports, particularly to countries with questionable human rights records, and its subsequent failure to follow through.

Britain has supplied over £2.5 billion pounds worth of arms to Africa since 1997.

9/11 and the events that followed have forced the Labour Government - and all of us – to reassess policy.

But Labour’s internationalist instincts have been undermined by the way in which it has followed the analysis and actions of the Bush administration;

An approach in which it often appears that the ends sought, justify the means.

This is not, in my view, either the correct approach or in the global interest.

In his speech in his Sedgefield constituency in March last year, Tony Blair came perilously close to endorsing the new US doctrine of preventative war – one which has no basis in international law.

Under the accepted doctrine of self-defence, states are lawfully entitled to use force pre-emptively where there is an imminent threat.

In the case of Iraq, there was no such threat.

International law needs to develop to encompass new realities, especially to provide for international intervention in cases of humanitarian catastrophe.

But the war against Iraq was never conducted on that basis.

The world’s most powerful states have a duty to respect and uphold international law.

The rule of international law should evolve, but through dialogue and consensus, not simply through force of will.

A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT FOREIGN POLICY

Liberal Democrat internationalism offers a real alternative.

I do not intend here to run through the gamut of individual policies – but let me set the themes under which Liberal Democrats believe British Foreign Policy should operate.

First – pro-Europe and pro-European reform.

Britain is a European power. 

We cannot change our geography.

Our involvement in the politics of European cooperation and evolution is one of historic sense and ongoing necessity.

It is desirable all round.

Why?

Because our wealth and our security depend upon it. 

The Liberal Democrats are, therefore, instinctively pro-European – but we have consistently argued for a European Union that is fit for purpose.

The difference between being pro-European reformists - as we are and always have been - and being so-called ‘euro-sceptic’ is that we recognise the value, validity and necessity of the European Union, and we recognise that the best way to affect change is from within – through the building of alliance and momentum for change.

For the ‘Euro-sceptic’, the Union is beyond reform. 

Their agenda leads irrevocably towards withdrawal and isolation.

For the ‘euro-sceptic’, the Union is an encumbrance.

For the pro-European reformist, the Union is the vehicle through which we can assert our national interest, in Europe and in the wider world.

I have argued that the demise of the European Constitution offers reformists an opportunity to take stock.

My party will be at the forefront of setting out the pro-European, pro-reform agenda and will be bringing forward concrete proposals over the course of this Parliament as part of our policy review process.

The second theme would be a focus on the support and development of the system of international law and international institutions.

Only active co-operation between states through international institutions can address the threats posed by terrorism, and tackle the underlying causes of conflict, including poverty, the abuse of human rights, repression, and competition for resources.

We favour a muscular multilateralism that empowers international institutions to be able to act.

We must recognise that organisations such as the United Nations are dependent on the political will of their constituent member countries to act and the will of those countries to reform the institutions so that action can be swift and effective.

We must also recognise that a system of enforceable international law not only protects, but it restrains too.

We need to strengthen the ability of the United Nations to hold member states to account for gross and persistent breaches of human rights.

It may be that the United States sometimes chafes under the obligations that international law imposes.

But we must also remember that this same international law can be used to restrain those whose motives we may not hold in such high regard.

If international law is undermined by one – it is undermined for all.

The third theme is a focus on development across the globe.

The facts about global poverty speak for themselves.

Over a billion people – a fifth of humanity – live in extreme poverty. 

Some 800 million suffer from hunger. 

Every day tens of thousands die from preventable diseases.

The initiatives agreed at the G8 summit in Gleneagles are an important step.

But we should not be too self-congratulatory.

They are only a small first step.

There is a long way to go before the global trading regime is both free and fair.

Distorting subsidies, especially in agriculture, will be difficult to unpick in the short-term.

Much of Africa is not included in the debt-relief initiatives.

Halting and then reversing the HIV-AIDS epidemic will take concerted and sustained action.

And pledges on aid are more easily made than implemented.

Politicians must be continually reminded that they are judged not on the promises they make – but on those that are kept.

All too often, in response to a public outcry or an international crisis, Governments will gather in conference and make financial pledges that go unfulfilled.

For instance, after the Asian Tsunami 7 months ago DfID announced a £65 million fund for reconstruction. 

So far figures suggest only around £6m has been paid out.

And of course lack of capacity, bad governance, and corruption make it far more difficult for Governments, charities and private donors to realise their pledges.

Of the £3bn pledged to Indonesia only a fraction has so far been spent on the ground.

So the problems of international development are not simply ones of debt relief, aid and trade deals.

The slow and insufficient international reaction to tragedy unfolding in Sudan-Darfur reminds us that swift and decisive action is often required and that issues such as conflict prevention and the arms trade, good governance and democracy are equally important in creating a stable and equitable world.

Fourth - care for our global environment must underpin everything we attempt to achieve on the world stage.

Climate change and resource depletion represent that greatest threat that we, as a planet, face.

No matter how much we do to help the poorest nations, we must recognise that central to the development agenda is tackling climate change.

It will be the developing countries who will suffer most if we don’t act.

Delivering the green agenda requires all countries taking tough decisions. 

Reducing harmful emissions will not be pain-free.

Protecting habitats, wildlife and the forests which are the oxygen engine of our planet, are particularly painful for developing countries that are rich only in natural resources.

Tony Blair has been making great efforts to draw the United States into the climate change consensus. 

But if the disappointing results of the G8 summit are the sum total of his achievements, he has failed.

The price of engaging the Bush administration has been to do little more than tread water.

But there are signs in the United States that the ground is shifting beneath the President’s feet.

Leading Republicans such as John McCain recognise that climate change is here and swift action is required.

So pressure and momentum need to be maintained.

With or without the United States, the rest of the world, including developing nations should get on with business.

What is needed is a concrete, target based successor to the initial Kyoto agreement.

In moving beyond the first Kyoto targets, the way forward is the adoption of contraction and convergence – a rather technical and obscure phrase unlikely to excite the electorate – but a concept that should appeal to the traditional British sense of fair play.

Contraction: reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions. 

Convergence: sharing out equally emissions across the planet on a head, not a wealth count. 

Without such an arrangement developing countries in particular will simply not sign up.

Only such an agreement will engage developing nations, including China and India.

Only such an agreement will serve to focus energies on new technology to achieve contraction.

IRAQ

The Liberal Democrat opposition to the war in Iraq distinguished us among the major political parties.

This position was based firmly on our principled internationalism.

We do not oppose military action as a matter of routine but we judge each case on its merits and we require a robust rationale when British troops are sent into action.

We have supported this Government over its actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan.

Military action against Iraq was not undertaken as a last resort.

It was calculated not to enforce disarmament but to secure regime change.

International law did not support the invasion of Iraq.

While Iraq may have slipped somewhat down the news agenda, the reality is that the situation there has been deteriorating.

We have seen the Iraqi insurgency go from bad to worse.

Over 1500 people been killed in Iraq since the elections.

And we must never overlook the British troops and their families, for whom Iraq has never slipped down the agenda.

The way we went to war in the first place, as well as the mismanagement of the aftermath have fuelled the conditions in which terrorism flourishes.

Iraq and 9/11 were two different and distinct security issues. 

But now we have the worst of both worlds.

An unstable Iraq, free of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, but facing the tyranny of the suicide bomber - and a training ground for terrorists who had no purchase in that country before.

One of the key parts of the intelligence advice given to the Prime Minister prior to military action, was the assessment from the Joint Intelligence Committee that the threat of terrorism would be heightened, not diminished, by war in Iraq.

I am not here implying some causal link between Britain’s involvement in Iraq and the terrible terrorist attacks in London last week.

Not at all.

The mass murderers who attacked London last week did not need Iraq as an excuse.

The blame for the deaths in London falls firmly on their shoulders and on their shoulders alone.

In the United States, President Bush has been forced to defend his Iraq policy in the face of increasing public and political opposition.

President Bush’s recent speech on Iraq at Fort Bragg did not mention weapons of mass destruction once, while terror or terrorists appeared over 30 times.

Those, like President Bush and Tony Blair, who have sought to link Iraq with the so called ‘war on terror’ can hardly be surprised when members of the public draw the same link when acts of terrorism occur here in the United Kingdom.

And the terrorist certainly will not shrink from using Iraq to increase resentment and as fodder for recruitment.

It is in no-one’s interests that the democratic process in Iraq should fail. 

But since the elections in Iraq we have seen just how difficult it has been to move that process forward.

Given the circumstances surrounding the elections, a 58% turn out was a truly significant achievement.

But we must not ignore the fact that the 42% who didn’t vote, mostly Sunnis - whether they did so by choice or through intimidation - form a sizeable proportion of the population who need to be brought into the political process if it is to succeed.

It is the correct strategy to divide nationalist insurgents from the jihadists and foreign fighters – and then to draw the nationalists into the political process.

But we have to recognise the occupation of Iraq by the multinational force itself contributes to the insurgency and attracts those from abroad who see the opportunity to spread violent fundamentalism.

In January this year, at the time of the Iraqi elections, the Liberal Democrats called for a phased withdrawal of British troops to coincide with the end of the United Nations mandate.

We proposed a clear timetable going hand in hand with political progress in Iraq, the hand over of responsibility for security and the necessary improvements in public services.

Last weekends press reports, suggesting that the MoD is considering a phased withdrawal of our troops and reduced future presence may have been dismissed by the Secretary of Defence.

But it is commonsense that the MoD is keeping under revision all possibilities.

I welcome that fact.

It is their duty to do so.

If nothing else, it is recognition that the status quo is not a credible option.

Iraq is part of a turbulent, volatile and deeply dangerous Middle East.

And it is the ongoing impasse there – where Israel and the Palestinians are concerned – which remains the greatest single obstacle to security and stability.

And probably the biggest single recruiting sergeant for terrorists.

There are two fundamental principles which need reasserting as often as possible if conflict is to be resolved. 

The first is that the State of Israel has a right to exist in peace and security within recognized boundaries. 

And the second is that the Palestinians are entitled to peace, justice and a viable homeland. 

The Liberal Democrats support the objectives set out in the Middle East road map of 2003. 

It envisages negotiations to achieve a final and comprehensive agreement - based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, and 1397 - which ends the Israel-Palestinian conflict and fulfils the vision of two sovereign, independent states living side-by-side in peace and security.

The Israel/Palestine logjam must be broken, which is why the G8 pledge of bn in aid to help build democracy in Gaza and the West Bank is welcome.

But it does require the Palestinians to increase still further their resolve to root our corruption and tackle terrorism from within.

This not only is an investment in the infrastructure of the West Bank and Gaza, but an investment in peace across the region.

CONCLUSION

I have set out today four themes that underpin the Liberal Democrat approach to foreign policy in the 21st century:

Pro-Europe and pro-European reform;

A support for international law and effective international institutions as the best way to address the threats we face including terrorism, conflict and instability;

International development including promoting democracy, tackling poverty and disease and free and fair trade;

And a focus on the Environment.

They are informed by our principled internationalism.

They are not exclusive, but central to our approach.

We base our foreign policy on liberal values, respect for the rule of law, and human rights.

But as we act to implement our principles we must always remember the caveat given by William Ewart Gladstone in his third Midlothian speech in 1879.

“Even when you do a good thing, you may do it in so bad a way that you may entirely spoil the beneficial effect”.

Let that be the warning:  that the ends and the means are equally important.