Gordon Brown's Foreign Policy Balancing Act
Gordon Brown is finally getting to grips with Britain's foreign policy. As with his domestic policies, it's a mixed bag. There are some improvements over Tony Blair's approach (he could hardly do a worse job) but they don't go nearly far enough. On the positive side, Brown has done something that Blair refused to do - he has criticised American foreign policy albeit in the most gentle way possible and through a close ally rather than personally.
The first clear signs that Gordon Brown will reorder Britain's foreign policy emerged last night when one of his closest cabinet allies urged the US to change its priorities and said a country's strength should no longer be measured by its destructive military power.
Douglas Alexander, the trade and development secretary, made his remarks in a speech in America, the first by a cabinet minister abroad since Mr Brown took power a fortnight ago.
The speech represents a call for the US to rethink its foreign policy, and recognise the virtues of so-called "soft power" and acting through international institutions including the United Nations.
In what will be seen as an assertion of the importance of multilateralism in Mr Brown's foreign policy, Mr Alexander said: "In the 20th century a country's might was too often measured in what they could destroy. In the 21st century strength should be measured by what we can build together. And so we must form new alliances, based on common values, ones not just to protect us from the world, but ones which reach out to the world." He described this as "a new alliance of opportunity".
Downing Street, of course, denies that the statement was a criticism of US foreign policy, and while that message won't go down too well with the neocons there are signs that an increasing number of Republicans will be more receptive to it as more and more of them acknowledge the hopelessness of the situation in Iraq and try to distance themselves from the mess. Brown has also told the UN secretary General, Ban Ki-moon that he wants to work more closely with the UN in future.
Gordon Brown has promised the UN that Britain would try to secure a multilateral solution if the world faces a repeat of the Iraq crisis of 2003.
In another break with Tony Blair, Mr Brown assured Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, that he would seek the widest possible international support and agreement through the UN before intervening in another country.
After talks with Mr Brown at Downing Street, Mr Ban was asked whether he could envisage the Prime Minister sidestepping the UN in the way Mr Blair and George Bush did before the Iraq war. He replied: "Different circumstances will require different leadership. I am sure the new administration in the UK will have a new leadership under new circumstances." Mr Ban added: "The situation is different from three or four years ago when the international community was divided over this Iraqi situation. Now I am seeing more recognition of multilateralism and I am quite confident of the continuing strong support of the new administration of the UK."
While this is, of course, to be welcomed, we all know that Blair did try to get UN support for the Iraq war and then carried on regardless when he failed in that attempt. In the desperate effort to get a second resolution so that he could legitimise the invasion, the world was lied to; countries were bribed or bullied and ambassadors were spied on. Merely trying to secure a multilateral solution simply isn't good enough, what is needed is a commitment to abide by whatever decision is reached even if it goes against Britain and the USA. Just as worrying is the implication that Britain may seek further interventions. Foreign Secretary, David Miliband hasn't ruled out an attack on Iran, although with the current state of Britain's overstretched military and Brown's lack of a mandate I think participation in such an attack seems unlikely at present. The last thing anybody needs is a repeat of the Iraq crisis - with or without UN backing. Surely it would be far better to focus on ensuring that such a catastrophe isn't repeated instead of working on getting a consensus for a future disaster. This, for the moment at least, seems to be a step too far for Gordon.
Both Gordon and the more intelligent members of the Bush administration realise that Brown needs to distance himself from Bush and Douglas Alexander's speech will be viewed in that light. When Gordon goes to Washington to meet Bush he will play down any weakening of the 'special relationship'. In fact he already has even before the trip.
"I think people have got to remember that the relationship between Britain and America and between a British prime minister and an American president is built on the things that we share, the same enduring values about the importance of liberty, opportunity, the dignity of the individual," he told BBC Radio 5 Live. [My links added]
"I will continue to work, as Tony Blair did, very closely with the American administration," he added.
Marvellous! That doesn't exactly correspond with the "Let the work of change begin" speech he made when he became Prime Minister. As was predicted, Gordon's foreign policy changes look like being largely cosmetic. Once again Gordon has thrown a sop to anti-war left while placating the neocon faction. This ambiguity seems to be Gordon's trade mark. However, as his premiership progresses he's going to have to be a bit more straightforward than he has so far.
If we work on the premise
If we work on the premise that Gordon believes that it will be a very short time before the UK is part of the European Empire, then he is using the Alexander speech as an opening shot, a warning if you like, that a united europe will have the economic strength to begin to change the tide, and begin to dictate some policies to America rather than just accept theirs.
Whilst the neocons still hold sway in Washington however, it is diplomatic to distance himself from the message, but the message will have been received loud and clear by those in waiting in the US.
Bush only has a limited time left in order to complete his own programme, which includes the integration of the North American empire (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070713&articleId=6313), and part of the message was that the UK in particular, and Europe in general will be unwilling to go along with any further US overseas adventures.
Beyond that, whether Democrat or Republican, the new American leadership needs to understand that the European Empire can outbid America in most areas of the globe.
In the world of energy, the establishment of the PetroEuro is nearly complete, with many of the worlds suppliers now happy to conduct their international business in Euros rather than Dollars. This will continue to add pressure to the dollar and will mute some of the influence that the US can impose economically.
so the lines are being drawn, not with military might, but with economic power, which the Americans will fail to listen to at not only their own peril, but that of the wider world. American power over the next 10-20 years will be on the wane, whilst that of Europe will only rise.
However, only time will tell whether that swinging of the pendulum of influence will be done by truly democratic nations, which will be a peaceful swing by and large, or whether both the US and Europe will slide into totalitarianism, which may see the world as it changes in for a much rougher ride for everyone.