Britain’s Role in the World
Tony Blair set out a new vision of liberal interventionism after he entered office in 1997 and established a new impetus for engaging in military intervention. Under Labour, the UK has engaged in numerous military interventions, from Kosovo to Afghanistan and Iraq, typically but not always alongside the US, and sometimes with other NATO and EU allies. Tony Blair also launched, with Jacques Chirac, the project to build a European Security and Defence Policy, and British forces have participated in European operations in the Western Balkans and Africa. This approach to international politics may well fit with a vision of a ‘strong Britain in the world’, but it is not clear this is the right role for Britain in the 21st Century. Even if the UK continues to seek to play a global role, there is a need to re-consider who its partners and allies should be and whether or not to rebalance its international commitments. For example, Liberal Democrats have been sceptical about a US missile defence system. Is there, however, a role for a system under multi-lateral control?
- What scope is there for interventionism in the twenty-first century? Is this an altruism we can no longer afford or an integral part of our security strategy? If we still support this, do we need to make any modifications post-Iraq?
- Do Liberal Democrats wish Britain to play a global military role?
- Should the UK reduce its dependence on the US? Should it deepen its military ties with its EU neighbours? Need these approaches be exclusive?
The Liberal Democrats have consistently recognised the importance of international institutions in ensuring global security and recognise that the challenges of globalisation mean that operating through such institutions is vital to ensure domestic security. Nonetheless Liberal Democrats must address whether international institutions are fit to meet these challenges in the 21st Century.
- Are there any conditions under which the UK might realistically wish to intervene militarily on its own? What principles should govern our decisions to intervene, and the partners with which we cooperate? Are NATO and the EU, or coalitions of the willing, acceptable frameworks within which to operate? How far is specific UN authorization also essential, e.g. in cases such as Kosovo when a UN mandate is certain to be vetoed by Russia and/or China?
- What is our vision for the UN’s role in security (international norms and standards setting; international peace and security; post-conflict/failed states), what about the EU? What reforms do the UN/EU need to undertake? What about regional security organisations e.g. OSCE? What is the role of NATO?!
March 29th, 2008 at 12:36 am
20, There continues to be scope for intervention in the UK’s enlightened self-interest, undertaken with other states for the purpose of dealing with threats to peace and security. Such action might be under authority of the UN or (not to be forgotten) the doctrines and principles of customary international law. The 2003 Iraq invasion was an aberration in having no international law basis, either in customary or treaty law. Such aberrations should not take place in future.
21. Yes on condition that it does so as part of a multilateral coalition of liberal democracies.
22. Yes because dependency deprives the UK of freedom of action where its interests diverge from the US; and because the US is unreliable being irrationally fundamentalist, unduly reliant on military technology and with foreign policy driven by domestic voter groups. Yes the UK should strengthen ties with EU neighbours because of their proximity, the close convergence of interests and the advantage of group strength. Good relations with the US may be maintained as there are ample matters for shared concern and co-operation and there is much pro-US sentiment in the EU especially ex-Eastern bloc Member States based on values of liberty and democracy.
23. It is just conceivable that the UK might intervene militarily on its own e.g. if invited in by pro-democratic groups in an ex-colony. The intervention would have to (1) be defensible under international law (customary or treaty-based), (2) have an objective of promoting self-determination and stable government by consent evidenced by democratic process, (3) have a reasonable prospect of attaining that objective in the intervened-in country within a definite period (4) be in the UK’s own interests (5) be less undesirable than any available alternative including doing nothing. A UN mandate is not the only possible basis for lawful action. E.g. humanitarian intervention is to be recognised as a developing doctrine.
24. The UN’s existing roles are indispensable and we envisage the UK continuing to support it and encouraging allies to do so. The UN needs to crack down on corruption. The UK has little say in UN reforms on its own but our vision is for the UK to continue to work with others constructively for reforms. As a long term aspiration the UK should work towards the Security Council being enlarged with more permanent members and reforming the veto mechanism. NATO is anomalous but appears to partly fill a gap in EU security. There is strong logic in developing appropriate structures in the EU for development of defence capability to match its economic importance.