Foreign Policy: The View From Oxford University Labour Club

Alex Chalmers, writing from OULC

The Labour Party’s approach to foreign policy is in a state of flux. After attending Labour Party conference, the myriad of paradoxes is even more apparent. On the one hand, the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn declared his unwavering opposition to Trident during his keynote address to rapturous applause, whilst the conference unanimously approved the ‘Britain in the World’ policy report that committed Labour to a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, the like of which sounds suspiciously like Trident. The Shadow Cabinet is similarly divided with rumours circulating that Maria Eagle, Hilary Benn, and Andy Burnham (shadow defence secretary, shadow foreign secretary, and shadow home secretary, respectively) would resign if Labour abandoned Trident. 

A similar contradiction is in evidence with regards to Labour’s approach to authoritarian regimes. During the leadership election, our new leader called for the imposition of sanctions on governments with a poor approach to LGBTQ rights. So far, so worthy. His other policy stances, however, muddy the waters. Vladimir Putin of Russia sees no distinction between gay men and paedophiles and has taken the abhorrent step of banning trans people from driving on the grounds that they are mentally unstable, whilst the Iranian regime continues to punish homosexuality with death, and yet Mr Corbyn has called for the relaxation of sanctions on both and expressed active support for Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. During his keynote address, Jeremy Corbyn claimed that he had always opposed dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, but his appearances on Russia Today and Iranian state channel Press TV are widely known. His descriptions of Hamas and Hezbollah as his ‘friends’ are not made any more palatable by his supporters’ unconvincing attempts to spin them as engagement in some kind of peace process. 

The third and final core contradiction lies in party policy over Europe. Chuka Umunna resigned from the Shadow Cabinet after failing to obtain any assurances that Labour would campaign for an ‘In’ vote come what may. Hilary Benn then subsequently obtained these reassurances, but again in his main speech, Jeremy Corbyn appeared to row back on this, claiming that Labour would campaign in support of the seemingly nebulous concept of a ‘social Europe’.

“opposition to Trident cannot become party policy””

The above is not intended as some kind of character assassination or an attempt to besmirch the new leader’s name, it is simply a reflection of the building existential crisis at the heart of Labour Party’s approach to foreign policy and the lack of joined-up thinking that has unsurprisingly accompanied the cohabitation between a broadly social democratic shadow cabinet and a hard left leader. Each of these contradictions needs to and can be resolved if the Labour Party is to have any hope of achieving a coherent foreign policy. Some of these decisions will be tough for those who joined the Labour Party to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, but at the same time, it will be more than possible to preserve an important space for the values of peace, human rights, and tolerance that he expressed with such energy in his speech.

Firstly, and perhaps most painfully, opposition to Trident cannot become party policy. Conference has already indirectly consented to its renewal and the government’s majority almost guarantees that renewal will happen. An energetic campaign against this is doomed to failure, will alienate a number of major trade unions whose workers depend on the maintenance of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and will allow the right to claim that their dramatic claims with regards to Labour and national security have been vindicated. Nevertheless, it will be impossible to dragoon many life-long committed unilateralists into the ‘No’ lobby, so a free vote seems by far the most logical approach to take.

The second contradiction is much easier to solve. Few beyond a small core of obsessive ‘anti-imperialists’ who will act as cheerleaders for any regime hostile to western liberal democracy feel a shred of sympathy for Russia. In return for Jeremy Corbyn rowing back on his ill-judged words and support for Russia, it would not be unreasonable to ask those those on the right of the party who in the past have avoided condemning the appalling human rights situation in Saudi Arabia due to ongoing military ties to change their attitude, a unifying compromise that also makes the party look credible when it speaks about solidarity and universal human rights.

“the Labour Party cannot afford to argue for a policy of complete non-intervention in Syria””

In the same spirit, the party must work to delay the gradual lifting of sanctions contained in the Iran nuclear deal; Labour positioning itself as the party defending universal human rights by delaying the influx of money and weaponry to a country that has shown no sign of softening its authoritarian character is both politically and morally consistent. In the same way, the Labour Party cannot afford to argue for a policy of complete non-intervention in Syria. Intervention can sometimes have undesirable consequences, whether it be in lives lost or an escalation of violence, but from a purely strategic standpoint, it makes little logical sense to strike ISIS in Iraq, but not in Syria. Moreover, with Russia aiding Assad, who himself is tacitly co-operating with ISIS, the west has a moral as well as a strategic obligation to help protect the territory gained by the mainstream, moderate rebels.

To address the final contradiction, the Labour left needs to drop this idea that if David Cameron manages in any renegotiations to secure an opt-out from measures that protect workers and consumers, then it should push for an ‘Out’ vote. Britain’s departure from the EU would not restore such protections, so it makes far more sense to hold on to the variety of benefits EU membership provides, whilst focusing on a general election victory with a manifesto commitment to restore any protections that have been lost. 

This set of compromises goes far beyond a pragmatic attempt to preserve fragile party unity. Such an attempt to find areas of common ground between the leadership and the shadow cabinet, as well as the left and right of the Parliamentary Labour Party, arrives at a vision that manages to merge both a strong support for universal human rights as well as a pragmatic approach to difficult geopolitical questions. Those who joined the party during the leadership election hoping for a revolution will have to accept that the laws of international politics rarely change so suddenly.

Hypocrisy at the Human Rights Council: backroom deals and the elevation of repressive Saudi Arabia

Amelia Cooper

The hypocrisy of the UN Human Rights Council has once again revealed itself, with the appointment of Saudi Arabia as the chair on a panel of independent experts.  

From high profile cases, such as the flogging and imprisonment of Raif Badawi, to systematic and entrenched discrimination against women, minorities and dissidents, the Kingdom demonstrates its disdain for human rights and civil liberties on a daily basis. 

Despite this, however, the country enjoys member status at the UN Human Rights Council. Not only does their position undermine a fundamental membership condition, to ‘uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights’, news recently broke that gaining their position included a clandestine vote-trading deal with Britain. 

Leaked diplomatic cables from the Saudi Arabian foreign ministry to the British state that “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would support the candidacy of the United Kingdom to the membership of the council for the period 2014-2015 in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom to the candidacy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”. Another cable revealed that Saudi Arabia transferred $100,000 to Britain for “expenditures resulting from the campaign to nominate the Kingdom for membership of the human rights council for the period 2014-2016”. How this money has been spent remains unclear; however, these cables suggest that Britain was essentially contracted to bolster the reputation of one of the most repressive and abusive states in the world. As such, Britain is complicit in the whitewashing of Saudi Arabia’s reputation and the subversion of the foundational principles of the Human Rights Council. 

As if this isn’t bad enough, Saudi Arabia has just been selected as head of a five-person panel of independent experts, charged with appointing experts to fill UN mandate positions. It is a highly influential role, with the power of shaping approaches to thematic and country-specific roles through the selection of specific candidates. Saudi Arabia’s appointment has been met with anger and indignation – justifiably so – by activists worldwide. Ensaf Haidar, wife of Raif Badawi and leader of an international campaign to free him, said that giving the position to Saudi Arabia was effectively “a green light to start flogging [him] again”.

Saudi Arabia’s position as a member of the Council makes an absolute mockery of the UN system, underscored by the dubious circumstances in which they were elected. Their recent elevation, however, pours salt in the wounds of those languishing under a repressive and brutal state. 

Climate Change Talks - Reasons to be Cautious

Rose Vennin

As the 2015 United Nations Summit drew to a close last weekend, optimism was de rigueur among key diplomats and heads of states regarding the outcome of this year’s climate change negotiations. With the twenty-first session of the Conference of Parties (COP21) fast approaching, the issue seemed to be omnipresent in speeches and talks. Pope Francis made an urgent moral environmental appeal to all countries during an address to the UN Friday the 26th; the Global Goals, approved during the summit and set to follow the Millennium Development Goals, place some emphasis on climate change; and Peru (the COP20 host country), France and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon co-organised a high level working lunch Sunday to ‘inject political energy’ into the quest for an agreement in December’s COP21. 

Yet this progress is only a limited one and large stumbling blocks lie on the road to a solid agreement on what is proving to be one of the biggest threats of the 21st century. Firstly, the negotiation process is a painfully complex and slow one: one of the many difficulties is that developing nations do not want to compromise their economic development nor do they want to appear to be bowing to Western pressure; thus so far refusing to set legal limits on their emissions. Instead each country has been asked to submit emission reduction targets by October 2015, and this without having to detail how it will meet the target. All major countries have done so throughout the year, yielding a wide range of promises and a seemingly political game in which many countries pledged the bare minimum that would avoid international condemnation at too low of a target. As a new study by MIT Sloan and Climate Interactive shows, even if every country were to meet its pledge the global temperature would still rise by 3.5°C, far from the 2°C limit set at the 2010 Cancun Climate Conference (COP16) and which is widely agreed upon to be a maximum given the drastic environmental effects it would cause. 

Secondly, another area of tension is the question of financing climate change adaptation and mitigation. Indeed, a key principle of the climate change regime inscribed in the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) is the notion of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’. That is to say that, while the phenomenon is a concern of all, it has resulted from the development of industrialised nations, making it their responsibility to lead emission cuts and finance adaptation. Relying on this framework, developing countries have not only demanded more stringent regulation from their developed counterparts, but also asked for monetary compensation for climate-related damage which will affect them disproportionately. The (disappointing) 2009 Copenhagen Summit sought to answer this demand by agreeing to the ‘goal’ of raising $100 billion per year by 2020 to help climate change mitigation in developing countries. By June 2015, on the $10.2 billion pledged thus far, only 4 had actually been unblocked by donor states, implying that the issue will certainly represent another obstruction in negotiations towards a ‘successful’ climate deal in December’s COP21. 

Climate change, because of its all-encompassing nature and its roots in essential human activities, poses a great test to international cooperation. Let’s hope that world leaders effectively meet this challenge and prove scepticism wrong. 

A Poisonous Smokescreen: Da'esh and Central Asia

Katherine Crofts-Gibbons

On the 15th of September, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), a Russian-dominated military alliance, held a summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. In the wake of major alleged terror plots in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Da'esh, the organisation terming itself "Islamic State", loomed large. The threat of radical Islam has been used across the region to justify increased border security and harsher repression, particularly of religious groups. The five Central Asian Republics (CARs) do face a threat from Da'esh and radical Islam more broadly, but the danger is not as grave as the heads of state suggested at the CSTO summit. Increasing authoritarianism dressed up as defence against terrorism poses a more immediate threat to Central Asia than Da'esh itself.

On 16th July in Bishkek, the Kyrgyz capital, special forces stormed a house, killing four men, and arresting seven. According to the official account, the men were part of an Da'esh cell plotting attacks in Bishkek and a Russian air force base in Kant. The authorities allege that Tariel Djumagulov, a notorious crime boss, was involved in the plot. Evidence that the men had anything to do with Da'esh is very thin on the ground, and Djumagulov is not known for radical Islamism. 

On 4th September in Tajikistan, at least 22 people were killed in gun attacks in Dushanbe and the nearby city of Vahdat. The militants appear to have been led by a sacked deputy defence minister, General Abdukhalim Nazarzoda. President Rakhmon told citizens that the perpetrators were ‘terrorists’ who ‘pursued the same goals as Islamic State.’ As with the Kyrgyz case, this has not been independently verified. 

Neither incident has been conclusively, or even convincingly, linked to Da'esh. The involvement of individuals who have long been prominent for reasons other than radicalism, suggests that they are iterations of the sort of political and criminal conflicts (the line between the two is very hard to draw) that have plagued Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan since the 1990s, rather than evidence of a new and immediate threat. That the authorities have been so keen to tie the attacks to radical Islam indicates how useful it can be to them. Across the region, presidents use authoritarian methods to keep the opposition at bay. Rakhmon in particular has been cracking down, and Kyrgyzstan has recently escalated pressure against religious groups. Harsh methods are increasingly being justified by the need to keep radical Islam at bay. Debate can be shut down by labelling opponents Islamic terrorists.

There is a threat from Da'esh. Central Asians are travelling to Syria. Estimates range from a few hundred to several thousand. The recruits include the occasional high profile defector, like the commander of Tajikistan’s elite police force, Colonel Gulmurod Khalimov. Tatyana Dronzina, a Bulgarian terrorism expert, argues that returning militants pose a particular threat in the CARs because their governments lack programmes to tackle the issue and, given the permeability of their borders, there is little they could do to prevent their return or keep tabs on them. 

However, the numbers are much lower than those for many Western countries. 1 in 40,000 Tajiks have joined IS, compared to 1 in 23,800 Belgians. Tajikistan is 90 per cent Muslim, whilst Belgium is only 6 per cent Muslim. A report by the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM), one of the only substantial studies on the issue, found that, despite fears of widespread radicalisation, support for Da'esh was generally low in the CARs.  

Central Asia does not appear to be very high on Da'esh’s agenda. The central command rarely mentions the region. Although the CAR’s governments portray Da'esh as an imminent security threat, the PISM study found that the organisation is simply not very interested in the CARs, having largely ignored the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’s declaration of support. That said, Central Asia is on Da'esh's radar. Recruitment videos have been released in local languages. The first such video was in November 2014 in Kazakh. A recently released Kyrgyz language video bears the Da'esh logo, but John Heathershaw, a British Academic, thinks that it was probably conceived and created by Kyrgyz radicals, rather than under the direction of the top brass, suggesting a limited interest in Kyrgyzstan on their part.

Da'esh receives little support in Central Asia, and Central Asia receives little attention from Da'esh. The threat posed by returning militants and radicalisation at home must be tackled, but, for the people of Central Asia, overreaction is just as threatening, as the official stories woven around the shootings in Bishkek and Dushanbe demonstrate. Central Asia is being pulled deeper into authoritarianism under the cover of defence against radical Islam.  

HRC30: Overcoming schismatic politics

Amelia Cooper

‘It was the way he lay: asleep, terminal, so profoundly sad – as if by lying in supplication before the waves that killed him he was asking for a replay, with a different outcome this time; and his socks and little shoes told us he was ready to try life again. But his cheek on the soft sand whispered otherwise, it made us choke. Shamed and disgraced, the world wept before the body of this little boy.

These speeches, these sessions, these protests by so many of us here for a world more humane and more dignifying of the rights of all humans, all humans – what good are they, when this happens? Not just once, not just to this tiny boy, Aylan Al Kurdi, but to so many across the world: the horror they experience, relayed daily to us through the news media, shreds our hopes for some mercy, some relief.’ 

This heartbreaking statement, delivered by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the opening of the Human Rights Council’s 30th Session, preceded a direct plea for States to take swift action and make practical commitments to alleviate the current global tragedies. 

We are at a crisis point, and it is not one of capacity, but one of politics. 

With regard to the refugee crisis, the pernicious narratives perpetuated by Western media about the ‘swarms’ of migrants are simply incorrect. The so-called ‘influx’ of asylum seekers and migrants who have entered Europe via the Mediterranean or Balkans this year makes up approximately 0.068% of Europe’s population. The combination of fearmongering, xenophobic tabloids and outright apathy to the immense loss of life that has taken place both on Syrian (and surrounding) soil and in the seas around Europe has been abhorrent. 

However, while there have been noted failures in the international response to the Syrian refugee crisis, silent tragedies continue to rage across the globe. The compassionate epiphany triggered by Aylan Al Kurdi’s photograph means nothing if we continue to turn a blind eye to crimes against humanity committed by the state in Eritrea, or the exodus of 180,000 people from Burundi, or the ongoing shelling of residential areas on both sides of the contact line in Ukraine. High Commissioner Zeid’s statement is a tragic list of conflict and pain, noting many cases which have eluded our consciences and newspapers thus far. 

The Human Rights Council provides a forum for discussion and debate of these issues; however, it requires both scrutiny and engagement to function to the best of its capacity. The High Commissioner implored states to transform verbal promises into actual implementation: you, too, can demand that national representatives are held to account for the promises that they make. As this session continues, the Council can be treated as a springboard for discussion of cases that would otherwise slip by unnoticed. 

We live in an increasingly interconnected world, but the current crises have seen the invocation of geographical distance and identity politics to sever our basic ties of humanity. It is our duty to resist such divisive tactics, and to instead redress this political turning point through a demonstration of solidarity and strength with our brothers and sisters worldwide.