Member News
Britain needs to redefine its place in a world of shifting tectonic plates, writes Lord Hurd in this article for The House Magazine.
Globalisation means more diplomacy, not less. Diplomacy is more important than ever, and there is more of it around.
We live in a world of 192 nation states, which are immortal and incompetent. Immortal, because they are not willing to give up their essential powers, but incompetent, because not even the most powerful can meet the needs of their people by their own efforts. So they have to deal with each other, either directly or within international institutions.
The result is endless negotiation. In the old days, states negotiated mainly about dynasties and frontiers. The new diplomacy deals with almost every human activity, the most modern examples being energy, climate change and now financial regulation.
Britain has been, is and will remain at the centre of this huge turmoil of diplomatic effort. As I am once reported to have said, “we punch above our weight”. This happens because of a mixture of history, geography and our present assets. It is more than 50 years since Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden talked about Britain thriving as part of three interlocking circles: the Anglo-American relationship, Europe and the Commonwealth. Each of the circles has changed its nature.
The British often mistake the fundamental nature of the Anglo-American relationship. It is not handed to us on a plate, and it cannot be preserved by rhetorical allusions to past comradeship or shared heritage. Our influence with the United States has to be earned with each change of personalities. In particular, we need to learn and re-learn the art of the junior partner.
In his memoirs, we watch Churchill painfully learning a task for which he was not temperamentally suited. I watched Margaret Thatcher, again not one of nature’s junior partners, practising the same lesson. Tony Blair believed that a junior partner had to be subservient. He failed to ask the right questions and put the necessary arguments; as a result he gained a Congressional medal and lost the confidence of his own people. The Anglo-American relationship now needs to be refashioned to meet Britain’s needs and the agenda of the new administration.
Europe too has changed fundamentally over the last 50 years. Our membership of the European Union provides Britain with opportunities which we have not yet fully grasped. Our reluctance stems from the widespread fear that when we act together as Europeans, we are sliding into a European superstate.
The fear was never real and is now absurd. We British retain our monarchy. We organise our own taxation and our own interest rates. We choose to go to war at the behest of the Americans, not of Brussels. These are the basic characteristics of a nation and they would remain in British hands even if the Treaty of Lisbon came into effect.
If we could banish the nightmare of the ‘superstate’, we would find at our disposal institutions for a common European effort, not under compulsion but whenever such an effort would bring benefit to us all. One example is the relationship with Russia. We have tried for too long to flatter Putin’s Russia as individual European countries instead of adopting the cool, long-term European policy towards Russia which we obviously need.
The third circle was the Commonwealth. This circle must now include British dealings with all the emerging powers, of which India and China are the most substantial. Successive British governments have managed to keep these relationships in good order. We must be ready to find a greater space for these countries in international institutions, in better proportion to their importance.
The British presence in the three circles gives us a strong place in the modern world – provided that we keep in good repair the British assets for which we are admired and respected. Sometimes, as with the British Army or Foreign Service or our universities, this is a matter of money. In other cases, for example our financial sector, the malaise goes deeper and the damage will be long-lasting unless we deal with it effectively and soon.
These are all matters for parliamentary vigilance and debate. That debate will sometimes take place in a mood of disquiet, but should not degenerate into despair. The foundations for an effective British role in the modern world remain in place.
Lord Hurd of Westwell is a Conservative peer and a former foreign secretary
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd