Foreign affairs stay over the horizon for Labour’s hopefuls – so far

By James Valentine

Reading our candidates’ leaflets and pronouncements you would hardly know that “abroad” exists. David Miliband and Andy Burnham’s leaflets contain precisely nothing about foreign affairs, or the related issues of international development and defence. Ed Miliband doesn’t say much more. Diane Abbott talks a lot about Trident but surprisingly little about Iraq or foreign affairs generally.

That doesn’t of course mean a lack of interest on their part, or that their tactics are wrong. If you meet either of either of the Milibrothers it’s clear that they’re both passionately internationalist and pro-European. But because David Miliband is well known as a former foreign secretary, his ability to represent the country is a strength that he doesn’t need to emphasise. And the fact that all the candidates are concentrating on domestic politics is entirely appropriate because that’s where there’s a collective challenge to the Tories – on the economy, fairer wages, and standing up for public services.

The relatively new American President still presents an opportunity for Labour. The United States now stands as the progressive force aiming to keep the world economy going whereas, in a strange inversion, Labour’s traditional friends in Europe risk dragging us back into recession. Brown, of course was conscious of this, and his leadership in Europe is still missed. He thought he could do the same with the US, but his excruciating attempts to be Obama’s friend were rebuffed and relationships with the US government ended at a low point.

Ed Balls knows his economics and could in theory fill the gap on the international stage left vacant by Brown. But like his former boss, he is not exactly a diplomat. On the other hand if David Miliband wins then he will exploit his good relationships with the US. He may not yet be friends with America’s top man but his links with its top woman will do him no harm.

It’s good that the campaign isn’t being dominated by Iraq but I don’t agree with David Miliband’s rather meaningless statement that we should just “move on”. I prefer the approach of his brother who says we should “learn the lessons” from Iraq. Chilcot and his team, currently out of the spotlight, are helping this learning process. Their relentless uncovering of the facts still gives the Blairites sleepless nights.

The fact that Blair’s memoirs are coming out in September will also bring foreign affairs back into play. Blair will remind us of the popular intervention in Kosovo, probably the high point in his international leadership. Where he went wrong was try to develop this into a moral interventionist philosophy which he still uses, after the event, as an excuse for the Iraq adventure and which he will, no doubt, expound in his book.

Before making his “Chicago Speech” in 1999, Blair sought advice from the distinguished historian Sir Lawrence Freedman, now a member of Chilcot’s panel. Freedman, in his letter of reply, while pointing out that acts of genocide can never be an internal matter, emphasised that any military intervention must be practicable. And he certainly didn’t imply that you could ignore civilian casualties or walk away from the consequences; the basis of his and much of the panel’s subsequent questioning. This letter is still interesting and who knows, one or other of Labour’s candidates might find it good background reading for when the Iraq questions finally intensify.