by Sir Timothy Garden
On the late May Bank holiday, Newsnight majored on foreign and defence policy. That morning the Guardian had rated defence as one of the bottom ten issues for the election: it had received only 0.6% of the media interest. Nevertheless, BBC 2 had assembled a 20 minute item looking at the key issues of future European military arrangements, common foreign policy and transatlantic relations. In the studio were the opposition heavyweights of Menzies Campbell for the Lib dems and Francis Maude for the Conservatives. The Labour party fielded a virtually unknown face: Brian Wilson a junior foreign office minister. Nor did he appear particularly confident on the main issues.
The total absence of Robin Cook from the public spotlight during this election campaign may be good for the spin doctors, but is bad for democracy. Not surprisingly, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are focusing their campaign on domestic issues. European monetary union has been an area for debate, but more at the level of the symbolism of the Pound, and the detail of the syntax of the referendum question. The government appears unwilling to lay out its perceptions of the implications for the future of the UK economy inside or outside of the Eurozone.
But where is the debate over the wider foreign policy choices?Public appearances by Robin Cook and Clare Short may be seen by Millbank to be vote losers, but the public should be able to debate where our foreign policy is going. The Labour Government has shown considerable willingness to intervene abroad. Kosovo was conducted with strong British involvement, despite the dubious legitimacy under conventional international law interpretation. The commitment in Sierra Leone emerged after a somewhat murky start by freelance British security organisations. It might have been a major disaster for the government if the captured British soldiers had not been successfully rescued. We have helped in East Timor, and we continue to be active in the Balkans, where problems are far from being solved.
It is often said that the use of the military must remain a national responsibility. Sovereignty is at its most important when soldiers lives are to be put at risk. Yet in the UK, there is no wish by the Labour party to debate the issues with the electorate before an election; and there is little inclination by any government to give Parliament a role in the authorising of the use of force.
Robin Cook should be telling us what his Party's approach will be ,if elected, to a number of difficult policy issues. Relationships with the United States are particularly problematic at the moment. The litany of arrogant self serving moves by the Bush administration continues. To the threat of withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the abandonment of the Kyoto protocol has been added the abandonment of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). All three of these important international arrangements have been dear to the heart of British Government. In each case, there is a suspicion that US business interests are taking priority over international cooperation. The defence industry wants to kill the ABM treaty to promote a new arms race. The oil and automobile manufacturers wanted to stop greenhouse gas constraints under Kyoto. The chemical and biotech industry worry about commercial espionage under the BWC verification arrangements.
In looking at the world, the US is reluctantly being forced to take a slightly more even handed approach to Israel and Palestine. It seeks to reduce its presence on the ground in the Balkans. Indeed the President indicated last week that he will be focusing defence policy on missile defences and long range air power. The US army may find itself under pressure everywhere.
All of these US moves are complicated by the change in power structure in the Senate. The key Committees will be now chaired by Democrats. What will the next British Government do as a result? Will relations with the President be more important than influence in the Senate? Does Alastair Campbell's full support for missile defence proposals still stand?
There are other foreign policy issues for the next British Government. What will its approach be to the next phase of NATO enlargement? What is going to be done in sub-Saharan Africa to address the growing chaos? Will there be a serious attempt to clean up the arms sales business? How can Europe grow a capability to act in its own security interests?
Perhaps the absence of Robin Cook is an indication that he has moved on to other things in anticipation of a post election reshuffle. With so many difficult policy issues on the boil, we had better hope that there is a serious contender in the wings. It will presumably be too early for Peter Mandelson to be raised again (and that is perhaps a pity). Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon may be the most likely hopefuls. Of the two, Straw might be more likely to stand up to the pressures from across the Atlantic better than Hoon. If Blunkett is to move to the Home Office, the PM will certainly need to find a good job for Straw. Perhaps that means that Foreign Policy will get a better shot in the 2005 General Election campaign.