|
Unedited original version of an article published
in CROSSBOW, the magazine of the Bow Group, October 2004
By Benedict Rogers
Over the past two years, one country has dominated international
politics: Iraq. First, it was the build-up to the war, the arguments
within the United Nations, the fierce opposition, Tony Blair’s career on
the line. Then, it was the war itself, the stunning bombardment of
Baghdad that we watched on our televisions. After that, the astounding
victory, the statues of Saddam Hussein pulled down and trampled on by
exuberant Iraqis. But then came the dark clouds, the terrorist attacks,
the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the beheading of hostages. And then, the
handover, with Paul Bremer slipping away quietly into the night.
There are several lessons that we should learn from Iraq. One of the
most important – which is seldom considered – is that it is not healthy
for one single country to so consume our attention at the expense of
others. While our media and politicians devoted their foreign policy
coverage almost exclusively to Iraq, other brutal regimes – in Burma,
Zimbabwe and Sudan, for example – have been able to continue to
slaughter thousands, while repressive regimes such as Cuba, China, Iran,
Syria and Saudi Arabia are either ignored as insignificant, or co-opted
as allies. Never again should we pursue a foreign policy so focused on
one threat to the exclusion of others.
But one lesson that we should not learn is the lesson the anti-war lobby
wants us to, and that is that we should not have gone to war. For that
is wrong. The case for war was badly presented, the conduct of war badly
handled and the post-war occupation badly planned, but the war itself
was not wrong. There were two key reasons for war: the development of
weapons of mass destruction, and the repression of millions of Iraqi
people. Both were valid. Unfortunately neither President Bush nor Tony
Blair stuck firmly to them. Instead they shifted from one to the other
like ballerinas doing pirouettes.
It was clear that Saddam had possessed chemical weapons in the past, and
had used them on the Kurds, and there was little doubt that he intended
to have them in the future. Even the fact that they have not been found
is not evidence that he did not have them – he may well have buried them
or shipped them elsewhere. The clear threat that he would have posed,
either directly or, more likely, by selling them to terrorists is too
awful to ponder.
The fact that he was a brutal dictator who terrorised his people is
indisputable, and Iraq is undoubtedly better off without him. It may not
seem so now, but it will in the long-term. Some would say it was
hypocritical to remove him when we do nothing about other dictators. But
that is no reason to fail to act – it is a reason to re-evaluate our
foreign policy across the board. And the response to that argument is
that where it is possible to remove a dictator, it should be done. In
many countries of the world, such as China or North Korea, the
consequences of military intervention to remove the dictators are too
terrible to contemplate, and therefore it is not possible. In which
case, other means should be used.
For too long, Britain, along with our Western allies, has pursued a
foreign policy that is reactive, appeasing and unprincipled. We have
supported some dictatorships, including Saddam’s own, and failed to act
against others.
Some analysts advocate realpolitik, arguing that an idealistic notion of
intervention, whether military or political, on humanitarian grounds is
not in our national interest. It is time now to make the case for a
foreign policy that is pro-active in spreading freedom, the rule of law,
opportunity, democracy and human rights around the world, that is
Conservative in nature, and is unquestionably in our national interest.
A principled foreign policy is not simply about charity – it is about
Britain’s interest.
From a political, economic, social, security and environmental
perspective, dictatorships are fundamentally contradictory to our
long-term national interest. Dictators sow instability, reek of
corruption, create poverty, support the drugs trade, pollute the
environment, destroy forests and threaten their neighbours. Dictators do
not make good business partners or political allies.
Democracies rarely if ever go to war against each other. Their economies
fare better than those of undemocratic nations, the rule of law reduces
corruption, and their environmental records, while far from perfect, are
better than most dictatorships. Countries in which the people can
exercise choice are countries that flourish. The refugee crisis on
Burma’s borders or the humanitarian crisis of the internally displaced
within its jungles would not exist if it were not for the policies of
Burma’s brutal, and illegal, junta. The starvation of the North Korean
people would be significantly reduced if it were not for the actions of
Kim Jong-il. The catastrophe unfolding in Darfur would never have been
allowed to reach its current levels if Sudan were a democracy. And the
disaster in Zimbabwe, once the bread basket of Africa, could have been
avoided if Robert Mugabe had not been in power.
Former US Ambassador Mark Palmer, in his book Breaking the Real Axis of
Evil: How to oust the world’s last dictators by 2025, proposes some
simple but life-changing ideas. These are now set out in draft
legislation put before the US Congress, and, if adopted, would include
training for diplomats in democracy and human rights promotion, and a
philosophical change in the function of US embassies to become ‘freedom
houses’, centres where democrats in undemocratic countries can gather.
Ambassador Palmer proposes that western democratic leaders make more use
of radio and television broadcasts into undemocratic nations and, most
significantly, that the Community of Democracies, which first met in
Warsaw in 2000, be strengthened and developed. The legislation will
require the US State Department to consider “the most effective means of
non-violent force and methods of non-violent action to effectuate a
transition to democracy in a foreign country, including methods of
protest and persuasion, social non-cooperation, economic boycotts,
labour strikes, political non-cooperation and civil disobedience”.
The Conservative Party should look hard at this legislation, and
consider adopting similar ideas for its foreign policy. We should
consider how we can reform the United Nations to make it live up to its
declarations, and how those countries that blatantly and persistently
flout the agreements they have themselves signed up to can be penalised.
The UN is the only club in the world which you can join, sign up to all
its standards, and then daily disregard them without penalty. It is time
that countries that routinely disregard UN standards be suspended or
even expelled from the UN.
We should also review our attitude to arms sales. We should be bold, and
ban the sale of arms to countries that are not our allies – countries
that do not share our respect for human life.
To adopt these and other pro-democracy ideas would be not only in the
national interest, but also in the party’s electoral interest. People,
especially young people, are yearning for some higher calling from
politicians, some sense that there is a purpose in a party beyond the
spin and deceit that dominates modern politics. If we can offer them
that, we will regain their trust.
Conservatives believe in freedom, opportunity, the rule of law,
responsibility and small government. If we are to be true to those
values, we cannot restrict them to the shores of this island. If they
are true, then they must be universal. To suggest otherwise is racist.
Therefore Conservatives must develop a foreign policy that actively
promotes these values, through non-violent means, and seeks regime
change in its broadest sense – a change of heart, not just a change of
personnel – throughout the world. That is, if we really are the party of
freedom. The Iraq war was not wrong. But if we had had a foreign policy
that, through non-violent means, promoted democracy, we may not have had
to go to war.
Benedict Rogers is a journalist and human rights advocate, and is
on the Conservative Party’s Candidates List. He is the co-author with
James Mawdsley of New Ground: Engaging people with the Conservative
Party through a bold, principled and imaginative foreign policy,
available at
www.newground.org.uk |
