Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Is Britain's 'ethical foreign policy' still intact?

Is Britain's 'ethical foreign policy' still intact?
Comment
Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:18:00 +0000

WHEN the Labour Government came into power, it pushed strongly what they termed the "ethical foreign policy". The then new Foreign Secretary Robin Cook pushed this agenda very vigorously. Today, that agenda faces a lot of derision, especially with respect to their handling of the bilateral conflict with Zimbabwe.

Is it realistic, given the experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan and the internationalisation of the bilateral conflict with Zimbabwe, to talk about the "British government's moral approach to world affairs"?

Was Robin Cook's agenda simply a gimmick, or the Labour Government has simply lost its 1997 touch?

An ethical foreign policy, in all fairness, must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for self-determination which they insist for themselves.

So when Britain or America talk about "British interests" or "American interests" are they respectful of the interests of other nations?

It took decades for the conflict in Northern Ireland to be resolved. It still hasn't been fully resolved. When there are hiccups in the running of the inclusive Government in Zimbabwe, which by the way is only a year and a few months old, the process is said to be stalled and relations threatened.

It is also interesting that those governments and individuals who are quick to pronounce the process stalled are clandestinely working against that process; through deliberate sabotaging of the process or subtly supporting subversive activity.

The Middle East peace process is one of the longest peace initiatives in the history of international diplomacy and conflict resolution; yet there has never been a desire to leave things as they are. World leaders have always been willing to find a peaceful resolution to that crisis.

Zimbabwe has gone through some unprecedented crises in the last few years. There have been mistakes made by the government in Zimbabwe; but such mistakes are not unique to Zimbabwe.

Governments make policy decisions, sometimes that are not-so-popular with people; e.g. Britain's involvement in Iraq over a "dodgy dossier", but that country was not sanctioned by any other government.

Afghanistan has gone through a flawed electoral process; but Britain and America were the first to congratulate President Hamid Karzai.

So how does Britain's "ethical policy" square up when it is involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places on the basis of a flawed PhD dossier?

How does it square up when sanctions in Zimbabwe bite the same people they are purportedly trying to protect?

And is the Labour Government's foreign policy really about morality?

It's much better to engage in international diplomacy without the great fanfare of Robin Cook and the Labour government of 1997.

If it wants to project the "ethical foreign policy" image, the Labour government should really put morality at the heart of its agenda, and altruistically so.

Labels: NEOLIBERALISM, UK

posted by MrK @ 5:32 AM