Liberalism and ethics, a new frontier for British Foreign Policy in the MENA Region

 Callum Robertson* 

• A. Opening Statement:

I am going to talk about ethics and morality.

Ethics is one of those words, that cover all manner of sins and places one onto a moral plinth where it becomes easy to pontificate from a room in central London in the comfort of a stable and secure democracy.

It is this mindset that unpleasantly permeates behind British foreign policy, the symbolic elderly grandparent who looks back fondly and thinks to other nations “there there” without truthfully recognising the role we played in sowing the seats of division

I will address shortcomings in current foreign policy with an insight into what the United Kingdom’s future foreign policy could be

However I will begin by touching slightly on our past and how we can use a history of evil as a catalyst for good. Chiefly by the utilisation of economic links as the driving principle in a push for a lasting and positive change.

Herein lies the difference between real ethical conviction and meaningless small talk designed to obfuscate atrocity. The role of the past has been to defer to dictators in search of superficial peace, whereas the future must look to how we as a nation, use our influence to push for lasting change.

Real ethical and moral conviction leads to conversation and to change whereas the pontificating about ethics and morals does little to change the life of the political dissident in a police cell being tortured by British trained security forces.

History

Our history is important here, and, if you will indulge me, then I would like to talk about Northern Ireland because that is a success story in building an uneasy peace. I don’t mean uneasy in a negative sense, it is uneasy because it is a work in process, a process that will be ongoing for decades.

This time last year, I viewed a particularly moving exhibition at the Imperial War Museum where it focused on people’s experiences during the Troubles.

There were three ways of thinking that are identical in both Northern Ireland and the MENA region that to me, are clear as day.

Lessons from history

Firstly, that our history is complex, and that we cannot shy away from that fact. Efforts to simplify the issues that face our world, have the inevitable impact of making a situation immeasurably worse. We do discussion a disservice by not engaging with the full facts, rather than the facts as we see them. Often or rush to ideology prevents us from effectively accessing a pragmatic path forward.

Secondly, when we engage in brash calls for action, we forget that at the heart of these conflicts are millions of human beings, people with unique life stories who want to live in peace. By recognising the frailties of the human condition, we build a holistic approach to the solving of dilemma’s.

Finally, and potentially most importantly, foreign policy is not a clean business. We rarely agree with the person we negotiate with.

I attended a talk given by former Northern Ireland Minister Paul Murphy on his time as a Northern Ireland Minister last year and his insight that often the people negotiating were senior paramilitaries, with a visceral hatred of one another was profound.

It tells us that sitting down and being willing to discuss with your opponent is a precursor to change and that bullets cannot kill an idea.

So what are the ideas and the principles that should shape our foreign policy today?

There are five key points here, human rights, democracy, respect for national sovereignty, peacebuilding and economic stability.

• A. Human Rights

• Human rights are at the core of what everyone in this room believes. This is because when you discount the rights and relevance of the individual you reduce the debate to statistics.
• Human rights are also important because whilst they are about the individual, it is about the rights of the individual manifesting in such a way that they serve humanity as a whole. From the right to free speech meaning you can criticise your leaders, to the right to freedom from torture the framework of international human rights obligations has to be at the heart of our foreign policy.

• B. Democracy:
  • The principle of genuine democracy, is a principle upon which we cannot compromise. It is clear that when demagogues are allowed to purvey their poison, we all lose. This is a not a zero sum game. This is about who we are and what the United Kingdom stands by. By compromising with people with no respect for democracy, we do a disservice to the rights of the individual.
  • Equally whilst we cannot compromise with any nation, we must go further and not selectively apply our principles of democratic engagement. If you want to run your nation, you should win power in a free and fair election. We cannot tactically ignore human rights abuses in some nations because it is politically convenient.
• C. Respect for Sovereignty:
  • However, whilst we must advocate for democracy and the protection of human rights, we must simultaneously recognise that not everyone thinks the same way about how a country should be run. The sovereignty of the nation state is an important precursor to peace.
  • Equally paramount is the sovereignty of the individual. This requires balancing two often competing rights, the right of the individual versus the right of the state. This careful consideration of the rights of the individual and the right to self determination create a tightrope walk upon which there is an awkward and strong wind.
  • Let’s look at the Iraq War as an example. When or more importantly what is an appropriate intervention?

Is it over the fictious weapons or mass destruction? Of course it isn’t. Is it over the fact that on a fundamental level post 9/11, Bush had an irrational fear of Muslims? Of course it isn’t.

However, are human rights abuses a good reason for intervention? Arguably yes, but the question is what sort of intervention.

Take the Bosnian Genocide, military intervention had the effect of stopping a genocide. There are certainly incidences where military intervention against the nefarious actions of human rights abusing states isn’t just appropriate, it is necessary and the result of intervention is a better state that respects human rights.

Whereas sanctions against South Africa were a more effective approach to tackling apartheid. That eventually led to the conditions in which change was possible.

The key issue here is the question of when can national sovereignty be breached to protect the rights of the individual. This question is subjective and like any complex issue, must be dealt with on a case by case basis underlined by core principles.

• D. Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution:
  • Our fourth key area is the idea of building peace and resolving conflict. Ultimately a region that is divided over political and religious issues – cannot function effectively.
  • The peace we pursue must be genuine peace, there is little point in skin deep peace that leaves despotic regimes who target minorities in place. Who make life unbearable for the individuals. Peacebuilding and conflict resolution must mean peace for all people within nation states – not just between warring nation states.
• E. Economic stability:

• Finally we must strive for economic stability and partnership. That secures prosperity for the individuals in the state.
• In 2016 I was in a debate in a room full of about 400 people, engaging in a debate on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. Were we to stay or leave?
• We discussed the points about immigration and national sovereignty then we got onto the core of the idea. Why the EU is such a successful project, and the answer is economics.
• Fundamentally, when you build a bloc of people built on the principle of economic interdependence, you create the conditions in which direct conflict is basically impossible due to the sheer impracticality of it.
• However it goes further than this – it goes to the simple rule that governs politics, happy people do not wish for change. A government that is generally doing a good job and is delivering economic prosperity for its citizens basically never gets voted out of office. Therefore the value of economic stability cannot be underestimated.

In recognition of these five guiding areas or principles that should shape our foreign policy today – it sets a framework that puts human rights on a pedestal, underpinned by the principle of democracy and respect for the nation state alongside the proactive protection of the rights of the individual.

Finally – it places importance on both peace and economic stability. By combining these principles together – I remain resolute that we:

• can address and fix many of the problems facing the MENA region
• we can build together, a foreign policy that puts genuine ethics at its heart and start to move beyond some of the effects of colonialism.
• we build a bright and prosperous future with peace as the dream.

Callum Robertson

Director of Wilberforce Strategy Solutions – UK, and a media and political consultant with expertise in education and MENA foreign policy.