Foreign Affairs

Introduction

India and Pakistan's recent testing of atomic bombs has reminded us that the world remains an unstable place. The internet is accelerating the spread of knowledge and the speed of communication, making many geographical barriers irrelevant and facilitating the growth of the global market. Meanwhile man is pushing against the limits of the environment and taking increasing risks with the planet's future. We would like to comment on those issues and what Britain's role in that world could be.

The Global Environment

First the environment. Herds of elephants increase in number, exceed the capacity of their natural environment, fall into steep decline, and slowly recover again. The decline is brutal but inevitable to allow nature to maintain a balance. Mankind, by virtue of continuing ingenuity, has managed to keep pushing back the natural limits of the environment.

Man has raised natural crop yields, dammed and diverted rivers, countered the ravages of disease, deflected the threat of starvation, protected himself against the elements - and started to consume the wealth of the earth. In the last 100 years, man has started to knock against the limits of capacity of the planet itself, for example in respect of global warming, and over fishing.

There is no doubt that engineers and scientists will be able to find clever ways to push the limits further, if communities ask them to do so, even though it is becoming increasingly risky. The crucial foreign affairs issue is that sooner or later the countries of the world are going to have to find some way to share the planet's environmental capacity, otherwise we all "go down" together. At present many countries are oblivious to the need or give it a low priority. There is no consensus as to what needs to be done, and, in any case no mechanism to do it.

So, for example the West has banned the making of CFCs, but China has not, and illegal supplies are leaking into this country and elsewhere. The West has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to dangerous levels, but even if the world agreed to per capita emissions at the present average (which would mean cuts of 50% in the EU and about 80% in the USA) the world as a whole would still be using too much, and the quantity would continue to increase due to population growth. China's next 5 year plan foresees $100bn of travel infrastructure. There are to be 110,000 km of road, a further 35,000 km of motorway and only 8100 km of railways. Not much sustainability there.

Recently forest fires in Indonesia affected Malaysia and other countries downwind. Ukraine seems content to keep its Chernobyl type reactors. If Europe is worried, they say, they can pay for different ones. We in the UK may demand higher standards for emissions to air, water and land, but we face competition from countries with much laxer controls, and fear companies will either move or dump there.

The Global Market

It is not the fault of the multi-national companies that they can play one country off against another. There is no inviolate rule that says nations own economic sovereignty. If we wish to compete on a level playing field, to deter environmental dumping, child labour and so on, protect patents and indeed cultures, we have to do this by international agreements. It seems starkly obvious to us that we will be infinitely more successful if we do this within the EU than outside. At the same time we should recognize that free trade in today's world should be interpreted as fair trade.

Global Conflicts

The curse of tribalism, whether it be based on caste, religion, ethnicity, colour or culture continues to sour the earth, and others still seek dominance and power. The countries of the world seem confused whether they should or want to interfere in internal conflicts. The roll call of Yugoslavia, Sudan, Ruanda, Somalia, Angola, and Grenada shows an interesting mix of reactions. The record of intervention and restraint in international conflict is perhaps better, but it is difficult to see what "the international community" could do if a militant India took on Pakistan or China.

Britain's Role in the World

It is often said that Britain has lost an empire, but not yet found a role. It seems to us that Britain could play a role covering all three areas above, and is uniquely qualified to do so.

There is a need for a country, working with others where possible, to anticipate the problems the world faces and create the necessary awareness so that timely action can be taken. There is a need for a country to understand the causes of tensions in countries and between countries and seek to defuse them (eg by quietly bringing opinion formers together).

There is a need to advance equity between rich and poor. There is a need for a country to set an example of fair and honest trading, of ethical sales, of excellent environmental standards, to other nations. We are saying that Britain could be that country. It's role could be that of the world's "good citizen" By virtue of its history, Britain is uniquely placed. Through its colonial past and global trade, through its membership of the EU and the Commonwealth, and through its close tie with the USA, it has an incomparable network of official and unofficial contacts. With its knowledge and experience, with English the language of the world, and as one of the most liberal, mature, and outward looking nations, it has the ability to fulfill this role.

At the moment the key global forum is the UN, but its power is heavily circumscribed. Britain would be supporting the UN, doing the groundwork, creating coalitions. It would commit a peace keeping force and offer intelligence gathering - a suggestion Paddy envisaged about 3 years ago. (Interestingly, technology is making it more difficult to hide "wickedness", be it armed aggression, massacre, pollution or whatever) All this would demand money: for example to increase the strength of overseas embassies; expand the BBC world service; support international institutes, retreat centres etc; provide aid in the form of expertise and technology transfer, not just cash; generously offering scholarships for the bright young from around the world to study and meet here; and so on. Britain would become a country looking beyond the selfish needs of the nation state. If the planet is to survive through the next century, it needs someone to start filling this role.

Contents