---

Foreign Policy

My Lords, it is a great honour to be asked to open this debate. When I saw the list of distinguished speakers, I felt greatly over-promoted. However, my deficiencies will be more than made up for when my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford replies to the debate from our side. All I can hope to contribute are some thoughts on the backdrop to a generally unhappy situation facing the world. A tidal view of history explains why it is so hard to decide in which direction events are moving. Tides rise and fall. The turn of the tide is especially hard to spot because, unlike lunar tides, there are no timetables, and surface storms can conceal what is happening in the longer term. Most political thinkers and leaders ride the tide, or are swept away by it. A few play a part in turning it. Martin Luther, Karl Marx, Deng Xiaoping and Margaret Thatcher were tide turners; so perhaps were Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. Now, Barack Obama has been elected on a wave of hope to lead his country. Each tide-turner has identified a need for change and met the challenges that change creates. What are the challenges from which new opportunities may emerge? The first and greatest challenge is for national leaders—and not only politicians—to understand how people really feel and, thus, why they react as they do. Nowhere is this more important than under the shadow of world economic collapse. Ordinary people do not understand what is happening and nor, indeed, do the pundits. Having been swept along by a tide of credit, much of it toxic to borrowers as well as to lenders, they are waking up to a day of reckoning. That tide could still turn into a tsunami. Part of the prosperity of the past decade has been an illusion. Consumers have now changed direction and it is no good economic and political leaders urging and expecting them to spend to support demand. A cat that lands on a hot stove will avoid stoves, hot or cold, for a long time. An early casualty of a depression is international altruism. It is replaced by domestically perceived self-interest. Protectionism leads to retaliation and so extends and prolongs a world recession. The bid by Congress to include the ““Buy America”” provisions in the American stimulation package was the first challenge that President Obama faced. He was helped to mitigate it by the immediate and very effective protests from the EU Commission. Perhaps predictably, China has indicated a determination to tackle the slowdown without resorting to protectionism. China was one of the first to spot and face the realities of our new economic situation. Countering protectionism is, I believe, the top priority for the EU today. It is far more urgent than haggling about Lisbon. I foresee serious problems, particularly in France where President Sarkozy is already advocating blatant economic nationalism. Admittedly, the shadow of 1968 hangs over Paris. However, if members of the EU introduce internal protectionist measures, whether for goods or workers, it will contradict not only the terms of the single market, but the whole concept of the treaty of Rome and its successors. Perhaps the greatest and most dangerous political challenge is the West’s present conflict with Islamicism. It is perceived through much of the Muslim world, especially in the fragmented Middle East, as a re-enactment of the Christian Crusades. The thousand-year memories of the massacre of Muslims by Christians in Syria and Palestine had faded until they were reawakened by European colonialist ventures in the latter part of the 19th century. With the end of the Ottoman Empire those memories slumbered again, but resentment of western exploitation—sometimes amounting to expropriation—of Muslim-owned oil led to the formation of OPEC in 1960. The subsequent oil shocks were the equivalent of huge tax hikes on the populations of oil-importing countries. Since then, there has been a tidal change, with the Islamists, whose ideology is sometimes so extreme as to be a perversion of Islamic teaching, setting the agenda. Al-Qaeda has been in the vanguard, invoking jihad partly to settle scores inside the Muslim world, but also evoking the history—and probably the myths—of Saladin against the West. President Bush’s use of the word ““crusade”” after 9/11, reinforced by his ““axis of evil”” speech of 2002, has empowered the fundamentalists and played into the hands of the jihadists. I believe that the West must show a new respect for the ancient and pre-Islamic civilisations of the Middle East. I believe that Turkey and Syria could then offer keys to progress on the Israel/Palestine situation, which continues to drip its poison into the area. This challenge is largely in the hands of the United States. Without American weapons and the annual military grant of some $2.4 billion, Israel would be defendable only with its own nuclear weapons. If a two-stage solution is achievable, it will have to be recognised by Israel as its only viable option. Even on a small scale, Israel has been demonstrating that military can now only reveal weakness. The failure of the 2006 Hezbollah war may have been repeated in Gaza this year because Israel’s declared intention of ending rocket attacks does not seem to have been achieved. History shows that eventually, however unpalatable, radical movements with popular support have to be engaged. Equally, Hamas and Hezbollah will have to accept that their own declared aims are not achievable. But with perhaps four years to get there, an American military commitment to a two-stage solution could produce peace. Iran is another country which has been sadly mishandled. The Shah, a weak and rather vain man whose overthrow 30 years ago was last month celebrated in Tehran, alienated his religious subjects by confusing modernisation with the introduction of some of the least attractive aspects of western culture. We should not be surprised that accusations of western global arrogance land on fertile ground in Iran. The Anglo-American monarchist plot in 1953 which overthrew the elected Prime Minister Mosaddeq because he had dared to nationalise British-owned oil is still remembered, and America’s decision to back Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran in 1980 cost more than 1 million Iranian lives. Iran is another country whose long and distinguished history entitles it to our respect. We, after all, are relative newcomers to civilisation. Yet we patronisingly appear to deny the Iranians the right to nuclear reactors for power generation lest they be used for building nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are probably as controversial as they have ever been. There are those who say that the great challenge is to rid the world of such abominations, and that every country which joins the nuclear club increases the chances of world disaster, so almost any steps are justified to prevent entry to it. I myself am not of that persuasion. First, science, however frightening, is irreversible. Secondly, had the bomb not been deployed against Japan, the world would never have recognised the horrors of its effects until uninhibited competitors, probably the United States and Russia, had resorted to a nuclear exchange. After that, there would have been little further debate because there would have been no debaters. Nuclear weapons have been clearly demonstrated as unusable. They kept the peace during nearly half a century of cold war, and perhaps what is most important is that they made conventional warfare between nuclear states too risky. Indeed in this they may in recent years have prevented serious conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. That there should be as few nuclear states as possible is desirable. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ensured that the number of states with nuclear weapons rose only from five to nine over 40 years. Next year there will be an opportunity to reinvigorate it, and it will be worth paying a high price to do so. For example, the idea of the central provision of nuclear fuel for those countries that wish to generate nuclear power should be fully endorsed. A price not worth paying is a pre-emptive military attack against a state thought to be acquiring nuclear weapons. I refer of course to the possibility of an attack by Israel on Iran. Nonetheless, progress towards nuclear disarmament with a considerable reduction in the thousands of warheads still held by the United States and Russia must be a priority. My instinct, but not yet my conviction, is that we should renew our own Trident nuclear deterrent. However, the two carriers are another large cost and the fleet of smaller ships is dangerously reduced. Nor are supplies for the Army or the Royal Air Force what they would like to have and what I believe they need. Our Armed Forces are already overstretched and it is an act of political immorality to commit to an operation without the best available—I deliberately say available rather than affordable—equipment. Equally, to embark on military action without adequate resources is to risk not only lives but also the reputation of our Armed Forces. That, sadly, seems to have been one result of our recent operations in the Basra area where the Americans had to sort out the mess. This brings me to changes in Russia. Russia, under the relatively benevolent if shambolic rule of Yeltsin, was revealed as having been a much overestimated enemy of the past. Sadly, under Vladimir Putin, Russia is not contributing to world stability. The reality is that Russia is unlikely to be a military superpower again. That combined with the humiliation felt by the old Soviet nomenklatura, of which Putin was a junior member, with the dismemberment of the Soviet Union conditions Russian actions today. The Russian economy has cashed in on the commodity boom but it has failed to develop in any other meaningful way. Russia manufactures little that anyone wants to buy, with the exception of a few sub-prime weapon systems. Its population is declining and its expectation of life dramatically so. Some in Russia look back with nostalgia to the Soviet days. Democracy has little appeal to the Russians. There is no concept of accountability for power. You have power and you use it. Putin, whose macho character is reflected in his judo black belt, is very popular and could decide to do another two terms as president, which would be 12 more years under the new rules, after the more reflective yoga-loving Medvedev. Meanwhile, Putin’s primary aim is to turn Russia into an energy superpower. However, he will do whatever it takes to prevent either the Ukraine or Georgia joining NATO. The Russians see the recent Georgian adventure as a successful humiliation of the United States, which fortunately lacked the means to counter it. It should not be necessary to argue the case for diplomacy rather than military action but I fear that it is. One rule of diplomacy should be that the more tyrannical a Government the nicer you should be to their people. Military action must always have a clear political objective and that objective must be achievable only by military means and not by diplomacy alone. The case for the 2003 Iraq war was at least arguable. Total removal of Saddam and his wicked brood has now left Iraq free to make a fresh choice between continued sectarian strife and some form of secular democracy. It is too early to say whether it has been justified. I find the case for military operations in Afghanistan far less arguable. History has repeatedly demonstrated that Afghanistan is a country where invaders can win battles but not wars. Not even the Russians have had a more painful experience than the British of the dark and bloodthirsty convolutions of Afghan politics where participants in warfare can change sides with lightning rapidity. However, one real challenge and opportunity for progress is to deal with the opium problem. I turn to our crucial relations with the USA. President Obama’s writings before he appeared on the presidential horizon suggest a strong Anglo-Saxon dimension in his credo. That gives us opportunities for a positive relationship with the new president with a dialogue on the basis of intellectual equality. We must never again play the role of lapdog to America, as I fear we have done in recent years. Tragically, America has used much of its military might to reduce its influence in the world. In spite of the disparity of power between us, we have much to contribute in one of the president’s top priorities: to reclaim the moral high ground. The climb to do so will be steep and hard. Of course, the current economic crisis will divert President Obama from spending the time he probably would wish on foreign policy. However, he has a strong Secretary of State and two envoys of distinction. In arguing for diplomacy, one must also argue for the time and resources for diplomacy to work. I recognise that there are some matters—including protectionism, to which I have already referred—in which our interests can be well met by EU representation. I would, however, be most unhappy if the projected EU foreign service was ever seen as a replacement for our own embassies. How could it replace our national, commercial and defence interests, or, indeed, conduct liaison on our behalf with foreign security and intelligence services? Do not let us forget that in Britain our ministry is not the Foreign Office but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It used to be staffed by the elite of British brains and talent; now it is of more uneven quality and morale inside it is falling. In recent years there have been many attractive and well-paid opportunities outside the Civil Service; however, there may now be some outstanding people who could be recruited to the FCO as late entrants. Do not allow the Treasury to nit pick pay and conditions; there is plenty of over-rip fruit to be disposed of in the home departments. Diplomatic postings are no joy ride; there are many uncomfortable and dangerous posts. I suggest that one talented diplomat is worth more to Britain than the cost of a dozen government checkers and inspectors. Political leadership of the FCO is crucial. We have had many distinguished Foreign Secretaries, two of whom are with us today. Jack Straw is a politician of substance. The FCO has been strengthened by the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown. I am sorry that he is not with us today but I entirely understand why he cannot be. David Miliband is very bright but I can think of no one better fitted by political experience and deep historical scholarship to take over responsibility for the conduct of our foreign policy than my right honourable friend William Hague. In 1848 Lord Palmerston declared: "““We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual and those interests it is our duty to follow””." The United Kingdom has two great privileges earned by our national history: first, we are a permanent member of the Security Council; secondly, we are the founder of the Commonwealth. These should help us to understand and respect how those in other countries feel. In that way we can advance our own perpetual interests by offering a guiding hand to friend and foe. I beg to move.