Foreign politics and diplomacy does not normally take a front seat role in determining the news agenda. In fact, it does not really affect the great persuasions of the electorate when people come to vote. International events have caused politicians to resign and have certainly stained the careers of many in government; Eden over Suez and Chamberlain over Norway (though he is renowned for Munich). The Arab Spring, which may well define a new age of Middle Eastern politics, is posing many questions of our diplomats and the philosophy of international relations.
The main role of an Ambassador or anyone within the diplomatic corps based abroad is to be the eyes and ears for their government back home and to promote their country’s interests in their posting. The dilemma for any politician is that often these relationships and trades can come back to question their judgement and their own moral compass. A few weeks ago, when Egypt’s strongman, Hosni Mubarak, appeared determined to remain in the power, despite the widespread protests, the words from Western leaders’ evoked calmness and peaceful demonstrations; there were never forthright utterances to go. This is where the ambiguities lie; if bilateral relations are friendly and prosperous then it is not in a politician’s interest to clamour revolution or submission. It would appear spiteful and particularly short-sighted.
Many people have questioned British, American and Italian links to Libya but who was to know what was to happen? Colonel Gaddafi had been welcomed back into international theatre, and despite some odd cameos at the UN, he appeared happy to give up his nuclear/chemical weapon capability and reintegrate into the world of trade. The nature of these Arab revolutions was not expected thus it puts politicians in great difficulty. The obvious question is why did we trust them in the first place? The issue with dealing with any international statesman or woman is that they will always pursue their own interests, good or bad. It is inevitable that some countries do not endorse your views, but it is often in the ‘greater good’ (economically) to establish relations with such people. This is far removed from the ‘realpolitik’ of Cold War policy i.e. ‘my enemy’s enemy is my best friend’, where despots were tolerated because they weren’t communists, we have moved into a new era.
No longer do countries have to seek solace in wooing historical partners or America for favours, if they have minerals then they can turn to China. China’s foreign policy in the past ten years has been based on trade and investment only. No political meddling. The previous strings attached to aid and introduction of democracy are no longer binding. Africa and developing nations can establish growth via the Far East. The failed coup, involving Simon Mann and Mark Thatcher, in the tiny but oil wealthy nation of Equatorial Guinea highlighted the difficulties establishing long term and fruitful relations had changed. The contrived knowledge by Western governments was enough for the autocratic leader to turn to China; Western meddling was no longer an ultimatum. Even the tyrannical Robert Mugabe has held on in his economically dead Zimbabwe.
Values and principles are desirable in any circumstance when offering the hand of friendship, but often – and history reflects this – it is not the only way. In a rapidly changing and multi-polar world, British and Western politicians no longer hold the ace card. Often the undesirable can be an acceptable alternative.
The main role of an Ambassador or anyone within the diplomatic corps based abroad is to be the eyes and ears for their government back home and to promote their country’s interests in their posting. The dilemma for any politician is that often these relationships and trades can come back to question their judgement and their own moral compass. A few weeks ago, when Egypt’s strongman, Hosni Mubarak, appeared determined to remain in the power, despite the widespread protests, the words from Western leaders’ evoked calmness and peaceful demonstrations; there were never forthright utterances to go. This is where the ambiguities lie; if bilateral relations are friendly and prosperous then it is not in a politician’s interest to clamour revolution or submission. It would appear spiteful and particularly short-sighted.
Many people have questioned British, American and Italian links to Libya but who was to know what was to happen? Colonel Gaddafi had been welcomed back into international theatre, and despite some odd cameos at the UN, he appeared happy to give up his nuclear/chemical weapon capability and reintegrate into the world of trade. The nature of these Arab revolutions was not expected thus it puts politicians in great difficulty. The obvious question is why did we trust them in the first place? The issue with dealing with any international statesman or woman is that they will always pursue their own interests, good or bad. It is inevitable that some countries do not endorse your views, but it is often in the ‘greater good’ (economically) to establish relations with such people. This is far removed from the ‘realpolitik’ of Cold War policy i.e. ‘my enemy’s enemy is my best friend’, where despots were tolerated because they weren’t communists, we have moved into a new era.
No longer do countries have to seek solace in wooing historical partners or America for favours, if they have minerals then they can turn to China. China’s foreign policy in the past ten years has been based on trade and investment only. No political meddling. The previous strings attached to aid and introduction of democracy are no longer binding. Africa and developing nations can establish growth via the Far East. The failed coup, involving Simon Mann and Mark Thatcher, in the tiny but oil wealthy nation of Equatorial Guinea highlighted the difficulties establishing long term and fruitful relations had changed. The contrived knowledge by Western governments was enough for the autocratic leader to turn to China; Western meddling was no longer an ultimatum. Even the tyrannical Robert Mugabe has held on in his economically dead Zimbabwe.
Values and principles are desirable in any circumstance when offering the hand of friendship, but often – and history reflects this – it is not the only way. In a rapidly changing and multi-polar world, British and Western politicians no longer hold the ace card. Often the undesirable can be an acceptable alternative.
No comments:
Post a Comment