Want to be truly ‘radical’, Ed? Don’t bomb Iraq.

As we know all too well, Labour’s take on foreign policy has in the past put far too many peoples’ party membership cards at serious risk. Instead of offering a considered approach to complex political situations in countries around the world, recent Labour governments have been rash and reactionary in their decision-making processes.

I’d like to offer one piece of advice to the Labour leadership. When they’re crowded around a map of the world, discussing Iraq, Palestine or the fate of the lesser-known Diego Garcia, they should take a moment to think of what German philosopher Hegel was warning when he said: all we learn from history is “that we do not learn from history”.

The latest reason for considering Hegel’s cautionary quote? Iraq.

In a disappointment but not unsurprising turn of events, Douglas Alexander has joined politicians from across the politician spectrum by offering his support for America’s air strikes in Iraq. This could prove to be a fundamental mistake. America’s actions run the risk of fuelling sectarian divides (notably between Sunni and Shia Muslims), which were stoked by military intervention in the first place. As Iraq’s recent history proves, such divisions will only serve to stymie any attempts made by the people of Iraq to create a unified government in the long term.

But this isn’t just about Iraq. Time and again history has shown us that intervention often falls short of its goals (Haiti is a prime example). In conflict and post-conflict countries, unless state-building is a grassroots process – a logic that Ed Miliband is championing through his devolution agenda in the UK but has, so far, failed to apply to foreign policy – institutions lack legitimacy; social rifts persist; and the state contradicts its very purpose as a motor of stability.

This doesn’t mean people in Iraq should be abandoned. Rather, Labour should recognise (as David Wearing has suggested) that for the purposes of long-term stability, a united Iraqi force should fend off the threat of the Islamic State. So, amidst increasing calls for the UK to intervene militarily, Alexander should, as he has done today, continue to support humanitarian aid and denounce military involvement. This could help to create the space for much-needed dialogue within Iraq.

If Labour were to adopt this approach, this could mean that the leadership would be willing to apply one of the words that’s fast become the sustenance of their domestic policy agenda to foreign affairs: ‘radicalism’. To be truly radical, Labour’s foreign policy shouldn’t be about military might or imposition, as it so often has been in the past, but discussion, understanding and true diplomacy.

This is by no means an easy stance to take. It’s difficult to challenge the status quo, ever more so when so many lives are at risk. But a glance at history should encourage Labour that if they really do see the lives of people in other countries as equal to those at home, they must tread more carefully when it comes to Iraq. And once they’ve done so, they must fundamentally change Britain’s approach to world affairs, which is characterised by a superiority complex that seems to be a hangover from colonialism.

Otherwise, much to the detriment of people across the globe, it seems that Labour politicians are on course to prove Hegel right.