New Labour foreign policy: in the 'business interest'

Hugh Kerr MEP reviews Labour's statement of policy on foreign affairs, defence and international development.

When Britain in the World was presented to the National Policy Forum in May the key introductory chapter was missing. No doubt this was judged to be too important to be shown to the forum! The document seems to have little connection to recent events. Will Labour's foreign and defence policy be any different to the Tories? Remember Ernie Bevin, the right-wing Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government of 1945-50 said "Socialist foreign policy is what a Labour Government does in power".

The section on Europe is generally positive, talks about a peoples' Europe, and deals with the question of unemployment as a key objective. However, as we have seen during the past month when the Tories went to "war on Europe" Labour, instead of crucifying them for causing the crisis, coat-tailed them "in the national interest" and now seems to attack their capitulation from a position to their right. Blair and the spin doctors were terrified of being accused by the Sun of being "unpatriotic".

Donald Dewar recently visited the European PLP. He told us we weren't really supporting the Tories. We were engaged in "staged distancing" - ie. by being selective over the measures the Tories had vetoed in Europe, we would distance ourselves from them! As I write, the Tories have vetoed 78 measures and Labour supported 75 of these. Not a lot of distance, and I fear too sophisticated for the electorate!

The document's trade section is driven primarily by the desire for a Labour Government to increase links with business. Robin Cook stated recently that he is proposing to appoint top businessmen as ambassadors for key markets, something even Thatcher failed to do. The assumption that the "national interest" and "business interest" are the same is part of the central philosophy of New Labour. Socialists know that business's main interest at home and abroad is in maximising profit at the expense of workers here and overseas.

The document reaffirms our commitment to NATO (quite what it defends us against I'm not sure) and states firmly that we will keep nuclear weapons - ie. Trident - until "we are satisfied with progress towards our goal of global elimination of nuclear weapons". How long will that take?

There are other sections - on strengthening the UN, aid and human rights, but no timetable is given to restore our aid budget to the UN level of 0.7% of GDP (as and when resources permit is the phrase you will be familiar with). This is a worthy and "safe" document. It won't frighten the tabloids or the middle-class. It certainly doesn't frighten the Foreign Office: one of my colleagues recently met an ambassador and a top Foreign Office official, both of whom said they were looking forward to a Labour Government and a return to "stability" in foreign policy!

When you think that Blair's chief of staff, Phillip Powell, was a top Foreign Office official and number two in the UK embassy in Washington (reputedly dealing with the CIA), and is also the brother of Jonathan Powell, who was Thatchers' key foreign-policy advisor, it makes you realise that under New Labour foreign policy will be, as they say, "in the national interest"

previous article ·  July '96 index of LLB ·  write to LLB ·  LLB home page ·  next article