No to a Foreign Office Acting to Impose “Universal Values” Globally!

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

No to a Foreign Office Acting to Impose “Universal Values” Globally!

The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has delivered another keynote speech on foreign policy. In the wake of his recent pronouncements on the so-called “democratic imperative”, the government’s spurious justification for the global imposition of “universal values” and the system of representative democracy, the Foreign Secretary has now addressed the issue of restructuring his own department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so as to enable it to be fit for purpose.

            Miliband’s speech to Britain’s ambassadors was based on the same premise as his previous elaboration on the “democratic imperative” – that Britain is a great power that must continue to meddle in the affairs of other countries but that it must do so in the conditions of a rapidly changing world. In particular Miliband stressed that this century is likely to become what he refers to as “the Asian century”, with the balance of power shifting towards China and India, but he also emphasised the fact that even if the world is not yet multi-polar, global institutions are becoming more important. In short, as a global player, Britain’s foreign policy and Foreign Office must be adapted in order to continue to operate in the interests of the big monopolies in this changing world.

            As set out by Miliband, the government’s priorities become apparent. They can be characterised as, to maintain its warmongering activities under the guise of combating “terrorism” and preventing those countries that do yet possess nuclear weapons from obtaining them; to intervene globally on the ground of “preventing and resolving conflict”, and working with “weak and faltering states”; to interfere in the debate and actions relating to climate change; and to strengthen the hegemonic domination of its “universal values” and make sure that they form the basis for the activities of global organisations and institutions.

            The government clearly does not consider its own possession of weapons of mass destruction, or indeed the other big powers’ WMDs, as acts of state terrorism, but it nevertheless hypocritically attacks even those states that attempt to develop peaceful nuclear power. Only this week the government, along with the other big powers, sponsored the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution which imposed further sanctions on Iran for daring to establish a nuclear programme. It was also noticeable that Miliband even found time to launch his own attacks on Iran for its continued opposition to Israeli Zionism, while at the same time, he has condemned as “terrorism” the military actions of the Palestinians in Gaza and supported the infamous state terrorism of Israel, which he presents merely as its “right to security and self-defence”. It is difficult to understand how such activity by the can be in any way presented as “preventing and resolving conflict”. Indeed the government’s warmongering activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and elsewhere has exacerbated conflict and created the conditions for even more instability in the future.

            For the Labour government the issue remains how to make Britain “great” again. In the present conditions Miliband argued that Britain must become more of a “global hub” developing stronger relations with rising powers such as India, China and Brazil and re-positioning itself not just diplomatically but also in terms of the global role it plays in the academic, financial and other sectors. This was a theme that was also elaborated during his recent visit to China. For the government, what must underpin all such activity is the hegemony of what it refers to as “shared” or “universal" values. In this vein, he lectured the Chinese in a speech at Peking University, Beijing, on the exercise of “responsible sovereignty”, as he coined it. He specifically took issue of what he called the “Chinese doctrine” of non-interference, in order to justify Britain’s intervention throughout the world to “fetter” sovereign states with “a set of universal values”.

            Miliband has stressed the continuing importance of the Anglo-American alliance and placed almost equal emphasis on the EU, the reactionary institution that is also firmly based on “universal values”, and which, he envisaged could assist so that global intervention was presented as multilateral rather than unilateral activity. But what was most evident from his speech was the requirement that the Foreign Office becomes even better prepared and suited to interfere globally, particularly in the “developing world”, in those “parts of the world where others find it difficult of impossible to operate”. In particular it must be better prepared for the battle for “hearts and minds” the struggle over values. To illustrate this issue in relation to Afghanistan Miliband pointed to the need for more Pashtun speakers and more anthropologists as well as greater expertise to develop new economic and political structures – in short it was a call for specialists who can assist in new forms of colonialism throughout the world.

            It is clear that the government is preparing its departments to continue to intervene throughout the world on behalf of the monopolies in the changing condition of the 21st century. Under the guise of promoting “universal values and democracy” and presenting and resolving conflict, it is continuing along the dangerous and warmongering path that places the global interests of the big monopolies in first place. It is the task of all democratic people to oppose and resist such a path, and to take a stand in defence of the sovereignty of countries and peoples. In order to guarantee a foreign policy that represents the interests of the majority, and that favours the masses of the people throughout the world, it is necessary for the working class and people to work to create the conditions for their own empowerment in the form of a genuine anti-war government.