In Iraq and Israel, British foreign policy has died

By Dan Hodges 

August 13th, 2014

Source Link

Yesterday, British foreign policy died. The concept of constructing a structured, strategic method of engaging with our global partners and allies (and even our potential enemies) – one that has existed in its modern incarnation since the formal establishment of the Foreign Office in 1782 – was formally suspended.

Appropriately enough, the announcement was made not by the Foreign Secretary, but the Business Secretary, Vince Cable. If hostilities in Gaza resumed, he said, the United Kingdom would impose an arms embargo on Israel.

To some people that may have come as a welcome announcement. But there is a problem. Cable’s statement does not represent British foreign policy.

British foreign policy is unambiguous. Israel has a right to defend itself from attack. Indeed, that is a fundamental principle of international law. In particular, British foreign policy is that Israel has a right to defend herself from the terrorists of Hamas. Throughout the month-long conflict the Prime Minister and his government have been clear. Israel is within its rights to respond to the Hamas rocket assault and the tunnel incursions.

There is a second strand to British foreign policy in the region. Britain has called on Israel – and Hamas – to introduce an unconditional ceasefire. And Israel has done so (as have Hamas, though Hamas keep threatening to resume attacks if the blockade of Gaza isn’t lifted). As far as I’m aware, there is no precedent in British foreign policy for threatening to penalise an ally with sanctions precisely at they moment they accede to your foreign policy request.

Cable, in his announcement, identified combat aircraft, tanks and radar systems as weapons that would be denied export licenses if hostilities were renewed. The rationale being that these were not weapons that could justifiably be used in a “proportionate” anti-terrorism role, and could only be used in this context for “internal repression”.

Except again, it is not the view of the British government that such systems cannot, or should not, be used by states to protect their citizens from terrorists. We ourselves have deployed tanks in an anti-terrorist capacity at Heathrow. Since 9/11, British combat aircraft are on a permanent state of readiness against the threat of terror. During the Olympics I had a Rapier missile battery and radar system deployed outside my bedroom window. An aircraft carrier was positioned on the Thames. Vince Cable, and his colleagues who attended the Games, no doubt welcomed the protection they provided.

But the main problem with Cable’s announcement is this. When he talks of “the resumption of hostilities” what he means, of course, is the resumption of attacks on Israel by Hamas. No one, except perhaps Israel’s most blinkered critics, seriously expects the IDF to unilaterally resume its assault without some form of significant provocation from that terrorist group or its allies. So what Cable – and Her Majesty’s government – are literally saying is “If Hamas renews its rocket attacks we will penalise Israel by imposing an arms embargo”. Think about that. If a sovereign state is attacked, the British government’s position is that it will punish the state being attacked, and reward its attacker.

That, by any rational definition of the term, is not a foreign policy. Morally, logically. It’s not a policy at all. It’s utter insanity. A foreign affairs doctrine right out of Dr Strangelove.

But at least the Cable Doctrine has some perverse clarity to it. Unlike Britain’s stance on intervention in Iraq.

Here there is not even a black hole. A black hole at least has a delineable boundary. A semblance of structure.

I don’t normally buy into the modern anti-politician narrative. But over the past week – in the face of an ongoing genocide in Iraq – each of the leaders of our three main parties have shamed themselves.

Ed Miliband is once again gaming a major political crisis. A strong case can be made that our failure to intervene in Syria – a failure exacerbated by Miliband’s reversal of support for a response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own people – was a significant factor in the advance of Isis into Iraq. Now he’s up to his tricks again. On Sunday, Labour’s stance was that it rejected direct British military intervention in the region. But as it’s become clear the balance of opinion within the Labour Party is shifting in support of action, so Miliband’s position is shifting as well. While Miliband does not support intervention "at the moment,” a spokesman said yesterday, he was “keeping the situation closely under review”.

Under review. What precisely needs to be “reviewed”? What atrocities do Isis have to perpetrate before Ed Miliband says “enough”?

But at least Miliband has the excuse of not being in government. Unlike Nick Clegg. When the eyes of the world – and Lib Dem activists – were on Gaza, he was forthright in his condemnation. Now he has disappeared from view.

But that doesn’t mean he isn’t attempting to pull some strings behind the scenes. Or tie them round the legs of those who would go to the aid of the Iraqi minorities facing extermination. According to today’s Guardian, "the Government may not join in arming the Kurds amid signs that that may be a step too far for the Liberal Democrats".

I remember when Paddy Ashdown was Lib Dem leader. Every Tuesday and Thursday – back when PMQs was still twice a week – he would rise and demand action to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. The House would groan, and shout “boring”. Nick Clegg needs to have the courage, and sense of leadership, to start boring people like that.

Which brings us to David Cameron. It would be easy to construct excuses for him. He is indeed scarred by Syria, where he tried to do the right thing, and was undone by Miliband’s duplicity. He is hamstrung by the practicalities of coalition, and partners who are desperate to arrest their own slide towards oblivion. The shadow of Tony Blair’s catastrophic incursion in Iraq still casts a deathly pall over Westminster.

But Miliband and Clegg and Blair are not Prime Minister. And the time for excuses is over.

Cameron needs to lead now. He needs to gather the press and explain, clearly and unequivocally, that Britain is going to join the United States in commencing military operations against Isis. Not that we are reviewing options. Or providing aid. Or conducting reconnaissance. But that we are going to fulfil our obligations to the people of Iraq, and start killing the maniacs who are trying to kill them.

We cannot go on like this. Staggering day to day from one random micro-policy announcement to another. A Chinook here. A Tornado there. Maybe an SAS squad at some time in the future.

Are we acting, or are we not? Are we intervening, or are we not? Most importantly are we going to come up with something – anything – that even resembles a coherent foreign policy?

Yesterday British foreign policy died. Unless we act, the innocents of Israel, Gaza and Iraq will die with it.