This election has exposed Britain’s foreign policy vacuum
The 2020 US presidential election will be heavily influenced by foreign policy debate.
So was the last one, and the one before that.
Barack Obama initially stood out against Hillary Clinton by defining himself in opposition to the Iraq War. Donald Trump represented a break from the typical interventionist nature of Republican candidates, and so attracted thousands of Americans tired of “endless wars”.
And in the current over-crowded Democratic primary field, one of the few points of contention so far has been the candidates’ differing views on America’s place in the world.
Joe Biden is adopting a more aggressive stance towards China, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are taking flak for not opposing Trump’s defining “America First” policy to the Middle East, and candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris are distancing themselves from much of Obama’s foreign policy legacy.
So given the prevalence of foreign policy debate in American politics, it is striking that British elections typically have next to none.
Why is foreign policy so seemingly absent in the British election season? The journalist Martin Kettle has argued that our foreign policy is on auto-pilot — and he’s right.
Think back to major global events from the past year: the row over Huawei’s role in international infrastructure, Emmanuel Macron’s shock attack on Nato, climate diplomacy, the disintegration of the Iran nuclear deal, Vladimir Putin’s dismissal of liberal democracy. Where has Britain been?
Yes, our politicians may have offered a cursory response to these events, but nothing in-depth or inspiring. And as this election campaign gets fully underway, foreign policy (beyond rehashing the tired old arguments on Brexit) is barely being mentioned.
This is bizarre. Foreign policy and the UK’s standing in the world shouldn’t just be on the agenda — it should be a defining issue of this election. Britain faces an existential choice about where to pivot: align ourselves with America and the Commonwealth, particularly Australia and New Zealand, or to tie ourselves back to Europe?
We are a soft power giant, a major economy, with an integral role in the UN Security Council and in Nato. While we will never have the clout of major superpowers, there are key questions for our politicians to answer about the future of the global order — on trade, security, diplomacy, and aid.
Brexit at first seemed like a gateway to a genuine conversation with ourselves about our country’s role. But it has since descended into a squabble over domestic politics and the state of the establishment.
Amid these divisive and petty rows, we are neglecting the big-picture questions. Are existing global institutions fit for purpose in the twenty-first century? How can the world be more prosperous and secure? How can we shape our trading systems for the defining social issues of tomorrow? Are there ways to update notions of borders and national sovereignty to be more compatible with a hyper-connected globalised society?
Since the disaster of the Iraq War, British would-be-leaders have been almost too scared to take a stand on defining global issues. Perhaps there are good reasons for this; the public mood is that intervention has had its day, and when leaders get it wrong it can go really wrong — as Tony Blair found out.
But now, Britain stands at a key juncture in determining its future place in the world. This election isn’t just about which way we will pivot, but about what our role should be as the global order reshuffles itself.
The next Prime Minister will be the UK’s representative on the world stage as the cornerstones of our post-war international order — Nato, the UN, the WTO, the G20 — begin to redefine themselves.
It’s imperative that we don’t continue to coast through without at least asking the big foreign policy questions.
Main image credit: Getty