Sunday, September 26, 2010

Ed abroad

So after a long and generally uninspiring contest for the Labour party leadership, Ed Miliband was crowned last night as new leader. We know a lot about his older brother David, who he defeated, and we know a lot about his sibling’s views on foreign policy. David was Foreign Secretary for just under three years – the entire length of Gordon Brown’s premiership. We know David’s role in the torture controversy surrounding the security services. We cringed at his swooning relationship with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. We were impressed by his strong stances on the Conservative’s dubious European alliances and the Israel-Dubai assassination. Interpreting how his foreign policy would continue is easy, but what about Ed.

One of Ed Miliband’s campaign messages was his opposition to the Iraq war. As he wasn’t an MP at the time of the invasion, he was arguably spared the difficulty of rebelling against the government. Taking a stand against Blair and the majority of the cabinet could have hindered his progression. Nevertheless he opposed it and this has been one strand of a so-called left wing approach to his leadership. His criticisms of the war have also been important in presenting himself as an honest politician who is prepared to accept past mistakes and learn from them. The loss of trust in 2003 has never been restored for many voters.

Learning from the mistakes from Iraq is a relatively easy thing, there are so many to choose from. So this stance doesn’t really give him any differentiation from most, although it did create a clear difference with his brother. But creating a new ethic for foreign relations requires more depth. Ed has advocated a values based approach, as opposed to a traditional alliance based one.

David Cameron congratulated Miliband on his victory and promised to share information on issues of national security. Being privy to this information will probably help form Miliband’s foreign policy. He has stuck to the national consensus on Afghanistan during his campaign – that a withdrawal should take place only when a degree of security is achieved. But as issues arise – he will have to react in a pragmatic way, rather than playing solely to the Labour left. The withdrawal from Afghanistan and Trident renewal will test the theory that he owes the Unions for his win.

Another clue to Miliband E foreign policy lies in Miliband D. Ed has stated that he wants to use David’s talents within his shadow cabinet. The position of Chancellor might be some sort of consolation but it would be unpopular with Ed Balls, an important cabinet figure, and David’s new labour tendencies would contradict Ed’s social democracy message. A real likelihood is that David will retain his foreign affairs brief and as shadow foreign secretary he will be aloof from the core of power. Ed might give David free reign over the foreign brief. David will be able to retain a degree of independence that will ease the pain of losing to his younger brother.

Labour’s stance towards foreign policy for the next parliament will mostly be underpinned by two resounding factors. Firstly the Blair era provided a torrid experience to party members and nearly destroyed Labour. The leadership won’t mistake the same mistakes again. Secondly the economic situation will enforce a conservative approach to foreign affairs. Domestic politics will be of the main concern to UK voters when facing cuts – they will expect Labour to show the same focus.