Britain's Hung Foreign Policy

For the first time in 36 years, Britain's political parties are in the unusual position of not knowing who will form the next government. As I write, David Cameron's Conservatives are in pole position to form either a minority administration or a formal coalition with the third-largest party, the Liberal Democrats, after Thursday's inconclusive election.

But one thing is certainly clear: The next British government is going to be leaner and less interventionist than the last, with broad implications for its global allies. Whoever moves into No. 10 Downing Street will be faced by a daunting in-tray, including a huge budget deficit that all parties agree must be drastically reduced over the next few years.

This will mean deep cuts in public spending, which -- almost all observers agree -- will inevitably affect Britain's global role, dependent as it is on a large diplomatic service and relatively large armed forces capable of expeditionary missions such as the current Afghan deployment, where British forces are the second-largest international contingent after the United States. A new government will probably just not be able to afford to maintain Britain's current foreign policy, already a diminished one.

Despite the serious global impact of a smaller-pocketed Britain, foreign policy was barely an issue during the campaign. Politicians warned the voters that tough choices would need to be made because of the financial crisis, but they hardly touched on what this might mean beyond the domestic.

The campaign, particularly Clegg's candidacy, may have been energized by the first-ever television debates between the three main party leaders in British history -- it only took British politicians 60 years after the United States invented the idea to agree to this innovation -- but the question of Britain's role in the world hardly arose in the discussions.

123NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

NORBOOSE

11:11 PM ET

May 7, 2010

Lets be Honest...

...We already would have forgotten any pretense of the UK as a great power if not for its involvement in Iraq. The UK, along with much of Western Europe is one of those strange nations that exist as they do, in spite of what has happened in the last 70 years, not as a result. They have internal stability and modest detterence capabilities, but nothing really secures their futures. Without the strategic power of the US, Russia, or China, the economic dynamism of the developed pacific rim, or even the strong demographic and geographical base of India or Brazil, they seem to exist in a bubble. They are at no risk of anything instant like invasion or civil war, but their gradual decay and subjugation simply seems inevitable at some point. Im not predicting any immenent collapse or anything. Im not afraid to visit Europe, but my Great-grandkids probably will be.

On a lighter note to my fellow Americans, if youre talking to a Briton about world affairs, DO NOT make the Batman-Robin analogy, unless youre sure you can kick his ass.

FREETRADER

3:09 AM ET

May 8, 2010

But how about...

MacMillan's Britain = Ancient Athens/ US = Imperial Rome analogy? The Brits seem to like that one.

1:34 PM ET

But...

Doesnt that story end with Rome kicking greeces ass, followed by 1000 years of Byzantine Roman occuptation then by 500 years of Turkish occupation. Why would the Brits like that story?

EMBRA

2:24 PM ET

No, not Robin....

More Alfred - old, tired and worried that young Master Bruce is off his rocker.

7:56 AM ET

May 9, 2010

Because...

all upper-class Brits were deeply respectful of classical Western civiliations, learning Latin and Ancient Greek in their poncey schools. The idea is that the Greeks get the credit for 'inventing' Western civilization, while the much more powerful Romans commoditized it and spread it to the far corners of the globe, and then had to deal with all the problems of the world. The underlying premise is that the wise Brits need to help manage the clueless Americans, who aren't mature enough to understand how to wield that power. Whether you are Roman or American, the role of global policeman/empire is a thankless one, while the Greek/British role of inventor of Western culture and wise counselor is relatively glamorous.

10:00 AM ET

Fair Enough

Your arguement has substance and I have little interest in arguing about classical history. (Now post-classical history, that is the shit)

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

6:09 AM ET

Three cheers for a hung parliament!

Only political expediency or relative poverty will provoke leaders to listen to the people. Had the voice of the populace been taken into account, the UK would not be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Overseas adventures are luxury items and becoming somewhat quaint, like hats at Ascot,

The British would prefer referenda on major issues; they were promised one on the Lisbon treaty but it was fudged before their eyes in the conflation of two dubious half-truths; that the revised constitutional proposal was no longer “Lisbon”, and that leaders are elected to do what is best for the country. A “hung” parliament is comfortingly more democratic than a substantial majority, particularly when you consider that, if given full rein, the Prime Minister’s powers are greater than those of other elected leaders, for the reason that they devolved from absolute monarchy. This, by the bye, is why one never finds anti-Monarchist Prime Ministers; whatever their political antecedents, it would be a route to self-castration.

It is not wise to underestimate the British people; historically they have been in the forefront of the major social movements in Western society. This view does not imply any kind of comparison, it simply means that where the UK goes others are likely in time follow, and standing aside a bit from support for US “strategic interests” falls in there. I can imagine Brits happy in future to aid a cause like peace in the Middle East, but not bellum cum aliquo gerere.

9:07 AM ET

Moreover

Insofar as the above brushes in any way on US policies, do not imagine it just a temporary blip. The Liberal Democrats, most of whose other policies are fanciful, have one really serious objective they will trade for their support, and that is to so alter the UK electoral system as to render impossible a future single party Commons majority having less than majority popular support. It is an illustration of mature democracy at work that the electorate has provided them just enough seats to achieve that, and no more.

10:05 AM ET

Proportional representation is also...

a formula for endless, unstable, coalition governments that cater to the populace's worst instincts...

PCDE

12:32 PM ET

May 10, 2010

Empire making ...

is exhausting and expensive work. Take a look America, this will be us in 50-75 years.

RM1

7:14 PM ET

UK Foreign Policy

To the Journalist.
Quote 'it only took British politicians 60 years after the United States invented the idea to agree to this innovation.'
Britain does not run a Presidential System, it is a Party system. It therefore remains inappropriate to have TV debates between party leaders. We are not choosing a leader. As we have seen, these turn into X Factor type competitions on presentation rather than meaningful or useful debate on the important issues. We do not need our leader chosen on the merit of absurd remarks that impress the electorate of certain countries and can swing a vote ( 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!').

As for Britain's role in the World. We all agree it is time for a bit of Isolationism so that we can sort out our serious domestic and economic problems created by New Labour. The US is making the same interventionist mistakes that the were made during the British Empire. A lesson to us all, do not elect clowns as leaders (Bush) or Parties with no concept of how to govern and manage an economy during a boom (New Labour). Sadly as a member of the UK Military we need to be honest and say as with the Great Game of old, we are unlikely to be successful in Afghanistan, although no one has actually spelt out the measure of what success would look like.

Britain will never cease to be a player on a world stage, but it is certain that as Western influence and power declines with the rise of the East, that voice will be quieter, as one day, will that of the US.

Foreign Policy Magazine

Britain's Hung Foreign Policy

Whoever prevails in the parliamentary power struggle, the country's role in world affairs will be diminished.

BY ALISTAIR BURNETT | MAY 7, 2010

(11)

Slate Highlights