Labour’s foreign policy values – between intention and impact

Standing in front of delegates in Manchester a day after US jets started pounding Islamic State positions, Ed Miliband said a Labour government would fight for human rights around the world. As proof, he offered the appointment of a new roving ambassador to promote LGBT rights.

Three days later, the Labour leader voted for British forces to take part in strikes against IS in Iraq, but explicitly ruled out extending them to Syria – where IS has caused the most damage. The challenge of responding to IS – which has pitched itself against both a (theoretically) allied government in Iraq and a hostile regime in Syria – makes plain how difficult it is to attempt to justify foreign policy decisions on the basis of values or principles.

But Ed has a point. As a Middle East specialist, I think that we are likely to see more state breakdown, civil unrest, complex regional interests and violent non-state actors in the future. A policy approach based on Labour values of international engagement and the promotion of rights could well provide the anchor for a coherent strategy that promotes stability while extending British influence. The problem is that if it is done badly, it will either have the opposite effect or become an embarrassment.

There is definitely an intention across the senior leadership of the party to inject Labour’s values into foreign policy. During fringe events, Shadow International Development Secretary Jim Murphy said Labour’s foreign policy would be to challenge established concentrations of power. But, this is where a good idea can get bedevilled in the details.

For a start, many countries that are vital for UK economic and security interests also have highly centralised concentrations of power – in other words, a small clique controls the money and the military. Offering support to domestic activists or working against the monopolistic interests of ruling families is not going to predispose them to continue sharing intelligence or renew commercial contracts that create jobs at home. Also, multilateralism – a word that came up a lot in the conference and a concept Ed alluded to later – becomes more difficult when countries such as Egypt or the United Arab Emirates feel you are working against their rulers.

The way to avoid undermining the values you seek to promote or risk having your roving ambassador languish at the bottom of a foreign government’s priority list is to embed a well-thought out approach consistently across foreign policy functions.

For example, a Labour government with a confident vision of Britain’s place in the world could start by communicating that it believes political reform and respect for human rights form the keystone for future stability. For failing states, like Syria, they provide the only sustainable basis from which to rebuild. For adversarial states, like Iran, they reflect the desires of a restive population. While for allied states like Bahrain, they provide the guiding principles for manageable reform. A Labour government could – and should – make it clear that expanded political and personal rights improve all our prospects for stability, security and prosperity

A successful values-based foreign policy approach can challenge concentrations of power by explaining to adversaries, today’s mobilised publics and allies alike that reform in the way power is wielded leads to manageable change, meets the needs of restive populations, and helps deny extremists the conditions they exploit to recruit and fundraise

The upheavals in the Middle East are not likely to settle themselves anytime soon. At the same time, similar dynamics are affecting countries in Africa, Asia and Europe. Britain has something to offer and much to gain from positive engagement, but to do so will require much more thinking on how to translate principles into action.

Amil Khan is political communications consultant specialising in the Middle East and he was a UK advisor to the Syrian National Coalition.