British Foreign policy in an era of weakness


by Gracchi    
6:40 pm - March 4th 2008

      Share on Tumblr

British Foreign policy is an interesting beast at the moment. Politicians talk a lot about punching above our weight in the world- as though Britain was a middle weight boxer in a heavy weight world and the seat on the UN security council not to mention troops in South West Asia signify a country with aspirations to world power status. But the UK is in a rather odd position- a position mirrored by many of its European partners. We are a small island state- which for historical reasons has been incredibly powerful- and yet has a population of only 50 million.

Compare that to the behemoths of China and India with over a billion people each, the United States or Brazil with 300 million or even Russia with a population of 150 million. The truth is that the UK is only so powerful because proportionately its people are more wealthy than the Brazilians, Chinese or Indians- but its in the interests of the people of the UK that that doesn’t continue to be true.

It’s in our interests that that doesn’t continue to be true – because though proportionately we grow slightly poorer as the Chinese and Indians grow richer- absolutely we grow richer. That happens in two ways. Firstly we grow absolutely richer because they buy our products. Simple economic theory, and the experience of the world since the industrial revolution, demonstrates that central truth. The British have never been richer than they are today- never been in substantial ways because of technology a healthier people. Proportionately this century has seen Germany, the United States and later plenty of other countries pass the UK: but Britain has only been in relative decline, absolutely the country has got richer and is more prosperous today than at the height of the empire. Indeed the fundamental critique of British foreign policy since the second world war has been that if anything, we have been too concerned about our position in the world- say with the preoccupation with having a bloody Union Jack on a nuclear device (to quote Bevin) and too little with domestic tax cuts or spending.

Relative decline is a good strategy for the next century in foreign policy terms too. If we accept that, and I think its a fair point, increasing education and increasing wealth result in fewer wars, (Ok that can be a contentious point in detail, but I think as a broad generalisation its fair) then increased wealth say on the Indian subcontinent can only be a good thing for the UK. Education might lead to a softening of attitudes over Kashmir. Again if you are worried about immigration, then the only way to deal with it really is to create incentives for people to stay in their own societies- no fence or border police will ever be as effective as the opportunity to earn as much by staying as by going. In that sense making the rest of the world wealthier has real good consequences for the UK.

But that will come at the expense of the UK’s own position as one of the world’s premier nations- its not that the UK will not be wealthy, but that it will no longer be wealthier than India or China as they grow and industrialise. A rightwing view of the EU- say the Ted Heath view- is that Europe would provide a launch pad for the British to reassert their power, their imperial mission. I don’t think that Europe will ever be able to carry the weight of that expectation- though it can of course help us economically and in terms of our immediate security (Europe in NATO or through some other defensive arrangement, and through sharing policing information). The discussion about foreign policy though that we haven’t had in this country is not a discussion about the merits of intervening, but about how the UK can function in the future as we become progressively proportionately weaker.

Of course our current status is historically atypical. The period roughly from 1688 to 1990 was an aberration. Historically the UK has never been that significant- there have been moments when say as in the 15th Century briefly Britain had an impact on Western European politics through interventions in France, but more typical is the experience of Henry VIII, claiming vastly more importance than he had, or of England under Henry II, part of a much bigger entity including French territory. The real point is that we have for 300 hundred years been in a strange situation- and it will be odd not to be in that situation after so long a period. The British discussion of foreign policy still feeds too much off the American, when America is demographically and economically far more secure as a great power. We need to think about a world in which we are no longer a great power- and in which our capacity to intervene overseas is much more limited. We need also to recognise that it is in our interest to get proportionately weaker on the world stage- the objective of British foreign policy is to help other countries take up and over take us, as their citizens get richer. Pakistan, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil, they all have populations so much bigger than ours, that even were their citizens half as wealthy each as our citizens are, they would matter more economically.

Losing our status as one of the world’s great powers would be a good thing for us all- but it will require us to think in a different way about foreign policy. That challenge is scarcely being met in a Westminster culture that is still suffering an imperial hangover.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
'Gracchi' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He started a blog last year which deals with culture and politics and history, where his interest lies. He is fascinated by all sorts of things including good films and books and undogmatic discussion of ideas. This seems like a good place to do the latter... Also at: Westminister Wisdom
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Uncategorized


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Aaron Heath

Surely we lost real power decades ago. We simply haven’t accepted it yet.

Of course we do hold onto a nuclear arsenal – yet, as the Falklands proved, they mean little more than a place on the UNSC.

I think the idea that making everyone else richer will mean greater peace – on the face of it, makes little sense. Large populations with greater riches usually mean higher expectations and greater political pressures. America’s wealth has hardly led to a more peaceful foreign policy. It has constantly fought proxy wars and all out conflicts since 1941 – usually (at least in the case of its covert operations and more recently in Iraq) to sate the demands of its profit hungry corporatocrisy.

We can see with the tensions between Russia and Japan, Europe and Russia, China and Japan, and the US’s ongoing real and rhetorical battles with Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela, that in a world with finite resources, infinite demands mean someone will go without. The parallels between the Laissez-faire global free trade movement of the early 1900s and today’s globalized world are clearly evident. A large scale conflict within the next 50-years has to be a real worry.

There is an argument that a wealthier Chinese population will mean a demand for genuine political representation. It is often suggested that this will mean democracy and therefore peace. Maybe, maybe not. Communist China is operating insidiously in Africa and continues to occupy previously sovereign neighbours, but who’s to say a democratic Chinese people won’t make even greater demands of their politicians, who will be obliged to deliver…

Britain would do well to get over its own Imperial hangover. A headache that manifests itself in desperate Tory rhetoric about rediscovering past glories. The UK should relinquish its nuclear arsenal, cease all military entanglements and drastically reduce its military spending, and get its own house in order before worrying about elsewhere in the world.

2. Conor Foley

I think that speaking English (the international language) and being a bridge between Europe and America are quite useful (although the Irish can do both of those). Institutions like the BBC and the British Council are very respected internationally and the UK is quite good at being a ‘good international citizen’ in that it signs up to international treaties and generally abides by their provisions (Iraq was an exception and that is why it caused such heartache in the FCO). The Commonwealth is also a very widely respected institution and Britain is identified with qualities like fair play, honesty, etc. which help its reputation. London also really is seen as a world class city and, thanks to its financial services, I don’t think that you can argue that it is in any sort of decline.

3. Mike Power

It is possible to be strong, even powerful and not be a bully. Sounds like a good way for a nation to be, in my view. But I’m not holding my breath.

4. Aaron Heath

London also really is seen as a world class city

Only if you read its own press!

thanks to its financial services

Don’t you mean the readiness of the Chinese Government to invest in Anglo-Saxon economies – chiefly London due to its relatively deregulated banking system – as they offered the best risk/reward ratio?

I wonder, will the city-boys be crowing as loud in five years time?

5. Lee Griffin

It’s all about how secure you are in your own abilities I guess. I would love to see Britain become, as it is in some areas, the “wise old man” of the world. I think that the enhancement in safety and influence that such a status affords would far outweigh the loss of power. If we can become a country that is seen to have experienced a lot and learned along with it, this latter stage being what we really need to brush up on and achieve…as Aaron says getting our own houses in order…then while we wouldn’t be able to assert influence through fear and force we’d be a much richer nation.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with being a country that simple gets on with it’s own business impartially and objective to the situations in the outside world to my mind.

6. Gracchi

Conor, Lee I think you are right in that the role of British foreign policy will change. Personally I set less store on London as a financial centre and more on the vast immigrant populations say from South East Asia which mean that we have a cultural connection with the Indian subcontinent and hopefully an openness to it which will serve us well in the future.

Aaron I agree about the Uk’s imperial hangover- though its worth remembering at the moment we have one of the world’s top ten armed forces in terms of spending. I don’t think that will last and I think we need to be prepared for it. As to the correlation between economic growth and the growth of stability- I agree with you in part- I think in general say economic growth in India will fortify democracy there particularly with the expansion of education. In China I think its quite likely that we might see a Tocquevillian situation where the problem becomes the instability caused by temporary recession- amidst expectations of forever rising growth and there is a real issue as well with the Chinese regime using nationalism as a valve to release tension, whether its Taiwan or even Japan.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. British self-interest dictates we should lose our ‘great power’ status « pixelisation

    [...] Source. [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.