Gordon Brown's foreign policy under fire

Heritage Foundation's Nile Gardiner has warned National Review readers about the "wobby Gordon Brown", the British Prime Minister's lack of interest in foreign affairs and Britain's inadequate defence budget.  Here are some of the problems highlighted within the article:

Retreat from Basra: "The decision to cut troop numbers may have been politically expedient with the prospect of a general election in the air, but it made no sense in military terms, and was a clear invitation to Iran to step into the vacuum left by the British in Basra and southern Iraq."

Mark Malloch-Brown's appointment: "The appointment of the former chief of staff to Kofi Annan was a huge slap in the face for White House, and sent a clear signal that the new Prime Minister was keen to demonstrate a sharp break with the close-knit Bush-Blair partnership. Just days into his new job, the gaffe-prone Malloch Brown gave an outspoken interview to the Telegraph in which he boasted that Britain and America were no longer “joined at the hip” prompting a swift slap down from Foreign Secretary David Miliband. He has also suggested that Britain might negotiate with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. More recently Malloch Brown has been the subject of intense media scrutiny over his taxpayer-funded grace and favor residence in London, a privilege also given only to the prime minister and the chancellor of the Exchequer in the current cabinet."

Outshone by Sarkozy: "He has been outclassed and outmaneuvered by his closest rival in Europe, the enigmatic French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose recent visit to Washington was a triumph for U.S.-French relations. The French leader delivered a brilliant speech to Congress that drew so many standing ovations that he almost had to blush. While 9 out of 10 Americans probably could not identify the British pPrime minister, a sizeable chunk would know who Sarkozy is."

Inadequate defence spending: "British defense spending must be significantly increased in order to deal with mounting threats to national security. The current spending level of 2.2-percent of GDP is pitifully inadequate, and stands at its lowest level since the 1930s. Realistically, Britain needs to be spending at least 3 to 4 percent of GDP to be able to handle several conflicts at the same time, from Afghanistan, to Africa and the Middle East."

Inadequate commitment to human rights: "Brown must also take a stronger stand on human rights issues, from Darfur to Burma to Zimbabwe, and demonstrate some real British leadership on these matters. The Foreign Office’s decision to send Mark Malloch Brown to the December 8-9 EU-African Union summit in Lisbon, attended by Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, instead of boycotting it altogether, is an act of political cowardice. Downing Street must send a message that there can be no welcome mat in Europe for leaders of odious tyrannies that brutalize and starve their own people. While the Brussels establishment continues to kowtow to despots in the name of diplomacy, Great Britain should refuse to play along."

What about Darfur?: "In addition to pressing for hard-hitting targeted sanctions aimed at the leadership of the Sudanese regime, London should work with Paris in exploring a possible Anglo-French military intervention to halt the genocide in Darfur, as well as building support for the establishment of a NATO-enforced no-fly zone. The West cannot stand by while thousands more innocents are slaughtered or raped by marauding gangs of barbaric militias backed by the al-Bashir regime. The over-hyped U.N. peacekeeping mission has barely got off the ground, and will only contain African Union troops at the insistence of Khartoum, a surefire recipe for inaction and failure."

Related link: Gordon Brown delivers his first foreign policy speech.

Comments

[James]

I think many would argue that although defence spending is critically important in a way most other public expenditure isn't, it is just as likely as any other big spending public service to be wasteful and inefficient. Just saying "increase spending to 3-4% of GDP" isn't good enough when we are wasting vast sums on the 'Future Rapid Effect System' (FRES), and other procurement projects designed to fight a 'future war' against a menacing, largish foreign power, when there are much cheaper, high quality alternatives available that we can actually use in our current wars. 'Future War'? Against? Well, nobody has any realistic idea who that future enemy might be.

It seems from this laymans point of view that this is largely a consequence of Tony Blair's 1998 St Malo Agreement, and the later commitmant to a 'European Rapid Reaction Force' (ERRF) - which commits Britain to joint European procurement for projects such as FRES, at the expense of equiping our armed forces for the fights they are actually involved in today.

This ties into the wrong application of expesive kit we already have. The war in Aghanistan, for example, does not arguably require the use of Apache helicopters - designed to combat Warsaw Pact forces marching across central Europe - that cost £46,000 per flying hour to use. This is just one example - I'm sure there are many more.

Until we have sorted out all these underlying structural deficiencies - for example, by pulling out of the ERRF and concentrating on procurement for counter-insurgency wars - then I'm not confident that throwing money at the armed forces will achieve the desired results.

I also freely admit that I've cobbled all these thoughts from Dr. Richard North's excellent 'Defence of the Realm' and 'EU Referendum' blogs. I thought I'd post them up here to act as a talking point.

[Malcolm Dunn]

What has Sarkozy done? He talks a good game but I see no French troops in combat in Afghanistan. Words are cheap just ask the Darfuris.
There is absolutely no chance at all of Britain or France sending any troops to Darfur in my opinion.We could however provide the rebels with weapons so that they could fight more evenly against the jangaweed and Sudanese Army.

[Maduka]

Malcom,

Well said. Sarkozy is all smoke and no fire. The British people don't want another Tony Blair.

[Jamma]

Threats to security? I want some of what you are on. People have said "fear the Jews" or fear "the communists" or fear "the terrorists", these people are people in power who need to make people feel insecure and vunerable so they can control them more easily. This argument can never die while people get scared over rumours weapons of mass destruction and other fear mongering tactics. In Europe we lived through the 2nd World War and we have an appreciation of how bad men get into power, seems something that the US still needs to learn. If you are talking about countries most at ease sending people to their deaths and using WOMD advocating torture then I can give you some pointers.