Posted by Mr Steven A Zyck
Thursday night's debate, half of which was intended to focus on international affairs, did a surprisingly good job of avoiding the role that Britain has played and will play abroad. In between questions about what personal steps the prime ministerial candidates had taken to "green" up their travel habits and what they thought about an impending visit by the Holy Father, very little was offered with regard to daunting challenges that the UK faces: a now-nuclear North Korea and a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, an Israeli government which conflates bravado with foreign (as well as domestic) policy, a Pakistan which is experiencing destabilising internal security challenges, a Sudan heading into a fraught referendum on the independence of the country's South in 2011 and a series of other countries, Yemen perhaps chief among them, which have been undergoing slow-motion disintegrations.
Gordon Brown, while clearly grasping these issues, attempted to offer more fear than solutions. His answers to security and foreign policy questions focused on "getting real about the dangers we face", including improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that "kill and maim" our troops and a "chain of terror" linking extremists around the world. While in many respects – aside from his Bush-esque references to a "chain of terror" – I found myself agreeing with what he said (as in "yes, the world is a dangerous place"), the Prime Minister's answers offered little in the way of justifications for past decisions (Iraq) or strategies for the future. The same could be said of Nick Clegg, whose comments regarding international conflict focused upon his (admirable) opposition to the war in Iraq and the need to ensure that we work with partner countries and regional powers better next time circumstances force Britain into the fray. However one gets the impression that he may be a more reluctant warrior – even when a warrior is called for – than his opponents.
David Cameron's retorts were perhaps the most informative though also perhaps inconsistent. His answers regarding Afghanistan – which admittedly interested me the most – were apt (though vague) in noting the need for a more effective political strategy and for "getting the aid right" in order to wage a more integrated stabilisation campaign. Yet he also came across as the most isolationist – a fact which does not mesh with his party’s manifesto – in seeming to question the link between fragile states abroad and British national security at home. Of course, such a tactic was likely a ploy intended to spark the attention of voters hoping to see troops home from Afghanistan in short order, though I personally found it troubling. The pressure on any future Prime Minister to declare a premature victory in Afghanistan and withdraw – thus allowing the country to become a launching pad for the attempted overthrow of the Pakistani government – will be great, and mixed signals should not be sent.
At the end of the debate, I am still left wondering where, in particular, Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron stand on a number of key issues. What implications will their administrations have for funding of the Department for International Development (DFID), the Foreign Office or the Stabilisation Unit? Will they use reconstruction and civilian stabilisation assistance as a means of addressing fragile states? Will they work with others, such as the African Union, Arab League or ASEAN to promote the capacities and involvement of these regional bodies to address conflicts within their domains (rather than sending troops abroad)? Will they plan to continue the Labour government's virtuous use of budgetary support – working directly with governments in developing and conflict-affected countries – to deliver between a third and half (depending on how you calculate it) of Britain's overseas development assistance (ODA)? What do they see as more integral, building large and effective security services in war-torn environments – with police reform having been the only sector of intervention specifically mentioned – or social or economic activities such as agriculture or education?
Another unaddressed question – and perhaps I am more sensitive to this issue as an American – is what sort of partner will the UK be for America. Right now we have a window. The Obama Administration will need British support for cementing security gains in Iraq, for pursuing a decisive agreement which combines Palestinian liberty and Israeli security, for preventing Iran from getting closer to "the bomb" (and triggering a likely devastating response – for everyone – from Bibi's administration) and for reducing global poverty. Mr Brown rightly raised the Anglo-American relationship (primarily in accusing Mr Clegg of anti-Americanism), though doing so perhaps made him appear a bit of a second fiddle. The other candidates gave little indication as to where they stood on this broad issue and, most urgently, upon the Obama Administration's re-invigorated attention to a Middle East peace agreement. One might assume that they would continue to support American efforts, particularly if they appear likely to bear fruit, though some reference to this issue would have been beneficial (and may have been a useful signal to constituencies abroad).
Yet, still, after that debate and the divergent views provided, I'm still looking for the meat in the debate. I'm looking for the issues that went ignored or under-addressed, particularly those pertaining to international development and the stabilisation of fragile states. What have we done wrong in the past – besides perhaps taking too long to get better kit to the fighting men and women – in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how will we do it better next time? There will be a next time.
That said, there are no votes in making other countries' citizens safer and richer, and I should be impressed that international assistance is mentioned at all. Still, one has to admit that a debate on international affairs in this day in age which, by my count, managed to avoid a single reference to China or India is impressive indeed. While I am thrilled to see the British adopt my homeland's love affair with the televised political debate, the UK may wish to cease allowing ordinary people – the "Joe the Plumbers" of Bristol and elsewhere – to set the agenda for these debates. America's tendency to allow the debate moderators, who are commonly highly regarded media figures and policy experts, to select questions may not be as democratic, though it at least ensures a far more comprehensive treatment of the issues which deserve attention.
