David Miliband in Bruges
(Apologies to those who are subscribers to my newsletter. You will already have received this.)
You can sometimes wait several months for a decent foreign policy speech from a government minister, and then, blow me, two come along in less than a week.
First, we get Gordon Brown talking about 鈥渉ard-headed internationalism鈥. I wrote about his speech on this blog earlier in the week. And then, yesterday afternoon, David Miliband popped up in Bruges of all places (remember Mrs T back in 1988, when, according to her supporters, she 鈥渞einvented Euroscepticism as an intellectually powerful and popular movement鈥?), to talk about the EU as a model state rather than a super state.
There are several ways to read these speeches 鈥 my preferred option is to look at them as a way of gaining an insight into how this post-Blair government proposes to order Britain鈥檚 affairs in the big wide world.
David Miliband began in Bruges by claiming impeccable personal Euro-credentials: 鈥淢y father was born in Brussels, my mother in Poland.鈥 Beat that. His key argument, hardly original, admittedly, was that 鈥渘ation-states, for all their continuing strengths, are too small to deal on their own with these big problems (religious extremism, energy insecurity and climate change), but global governance is too weak.鈥
The Miliband vision is of a Europe that reaches out to its poorer neighbours 鈥 not only Turkey, but also the countries of the Middle East and north Africa. It must, he said, be 鈥渙pen to trade, open to ideas and open to people.鈥
It must also be prepared to use both 鈥渉ard power鈥 and 鈥渟oft power鈥 鈥 in other words, military and non-military means -- not just to resolve conflict, but to prevent it. He spoke not only of past action in Kosovo and Macedonia, but also of current or potential future action in Congo, Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma.
So what did it all add up to? More fine-sounding words, more Blairite good intentions? Well, yes, the basic approach is little different from Blair鈥檚: we have responsibilities to our fellow-citizens; the EU can be a power for good; in the era of a globalised economy, isolationism is not an option.
But I think I detect a subtle change of tone. Gone are the certainties, the fervour, the sometimes Messianic-sounding zeal of the former Prime Minister. In their place, yes, many of the same ideas, but wrapped up in a less religious packaging. This, it seems to me, is very much foreign policy post-Iraq. Lessons have been learned.
Of course, both Brown and Miliband recognise that the US is still the sole dominant world power, at least until such time as either China or India 鈥 or both 鈥 match its overwhelming economic and military strength. But there鈥檚 no attempt to argue that the world鈥檚 problems can be solved by simple means: both men are proud to be known as intellectuals, and they are happy to engage with complexity.
I am well aware that two speeches do not make a New World. Sounding good is easy. We鈥檒l have to wait to see how they respond to deepening crises in Iran or Pakistan. But for those of us who take an interest in how Britain interacts with the rest of the world, it鈥檚 certainly been a fascinating few days.
I happen to agree with David Miliband's statement that global governance is simply too weak to deal with the world's 'big problems'. The problem is that the current EU set-up is simply not conducive to it having any effective role in global affairs either (excepting trade and regulation).
With already such a large number of member states (and indeed members such as Britain constantly pushing for further expansion of the Union) efficient decision-making will require deep political collaboration. However, with the democratic deficit that exists at present, the individual citizens of the EU (quite rightly, in my view) are resisting such a displacement of power. Perhaps paradoxically, I believe that the institutions of Europe must be brought closer to its citizens if it is ever to play an effective role in the world.
Complain about this post"But for those of us who take an interest in how Britain interacts with the rest of the world, it鈥檚 certainly been a fascinating few days."
The current British government can talk it up with the best of them. Sarkozy and Merckel have nothing on Brown and Miliband. The UK's government has no dearth of platitudes. If words were only Euros.
"David Miliband began in Bruges by claiming impeccable personal Euro-credentials: 鈥淢y father was born in Brussels, my mother in Poland.鈥 Beat that."
As I see it, where you came from is not relevant. Only where you are, what you are, and where you're going matters. Whither are the EU drifting?
"There are several ways to read these speeches "
I prefer backwards. They make more sense that way.
"It must also be prepared to use both 鈥渉ard power鈥 and 鈥渟oft power鈥 鈥 in other words, military and non-military means -- not just to resolve conflict, but to prevent it."
Britain sure showed the Iranian navy a thing or three. Did you see how scared they looked when they captured those 15 British Royal Marines?
"So what did it all add up to?"
I printed out his speech, put it on my kitchen table, and set out a row of garbonzo beans I took out of a can I lined up next to it. The beans won out easily, longer and more flavorful. Perhaps had he spiced up his speech a little it would have helped. But then again, the British are know for being "reserved." Stiff upper lip. (do people actually talk like that there? Bloody this and bloody that and cheerio or is that just in olde English movies?)
Personally, I'm eagerly awaiting that first "Yo Brown." Now that's what I call a special relationship. :-)
Complain about this post