This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/11/miliband-withdraw-support-middle-east-autocracies

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Miliband should withdraw support from Middle East autocracies Miliband should withdraw support from Middle East autocracies
(1 day later)
Peer deep enough into the chasm between the Labour party's claimed progressive values and the reality and effects of its foreign policies, and you'll find what remains of the reputations of Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon and others. Ed Miliband's politics are different from Blair's, but it would be complacent for him to believe that his fortunes are not equally vulnerable to events on the international stage.Peer deep enough into the chasm between the Labour party's claimed progressive values and the reality and effects of its foreign policies, and you'll find what remains of the reputations of Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon and others. Ed Miliband's politics are different from Blair's, but it would be complacent for him to believe that his fortunes are not equally vulnerable to events on the international stage.
During the Labour leadership election, Miliband noted that of the 5 million voters the party lost between 1997 and 2010, only 1 million switched to the Tories while 4 million went either to the (previously centre-left) Lib Dems, or abstained. Clearly, Labour needs to recover and mobilise as much support as possible from the liberal-left side of the spectrum, from opinion formers and civil society groups to ordinary voters, since without the backing of this broad constituency it will struggle to beat even a historically weak Conservative party.During the Labour leadership election, Miliband noted that of the 5 million voters the party lost between 1997 and 2010, only 1 million switched to the Tories while 4 million went either to the (previously centre-left) Lib Dems, or abstained. Clearly, Labour needs to recover and mobilise as much support as possible from the liberal-left side of the spectrum, from opinion formers and civil society groups to ordinary voters, since without the backing of this broad constituency it will struggle to beat even a historically weak Conservative party.
Foreign policy may not be a key electoral issue in a narrow, direct sense, but Miliband appears to take the view that it matters. His repudiation of the Iraq war and criticism of Israel over the Gaza blockade in his maiden speech as leader are likely to have been aimed at winning back the trust and goodwill of Labour's natural supporters. Fundamentally, Labour needs to portray itself as "progressive" in order to be successful, and having a morally questionable foreign policy can have a negative impact on its wider credibility in this regard.Foreign policy may not be a key electoral issue in a narrow, direct sense, but Miliband appears to take the view that it matters. His repudiation of the Iraq war and criticism of Israel over the Gaza blockade in his maiden speech as leader are likely to have been aimed at winning back the trust and goodwill of Labour's natural supporters. Fundamentally, Labour needs to portray itself as "progressive" in order to be successful, and having a morally questionable foreign policy can have a negative impact on its wider credibility in this regard.
Miliband's problem is that the foreign policy issues that did so much to alienate New Labour from left and liberal Britain were the product not just of the policy choices made by Blair and those around him, but also of Britain's deeper and continuing commitment to maintaining a US-led regional order in the Middle East. The Arab uprisings, which are likely to continue into the forseeable future, render this a position fraught with danger for Miliband. Put aside the regime in Syria, always a strategic opponent, and that of Muammar Gaddafi, easily the most expendable of allies, and what remains is a series of autocratic regimes that have enjoyed longstanding support from Washington and London. For many years to come, we are likely to see ordinary people risking their lives to wrest their democratic and human rights from regimes currently backed by the British government. This will place Miliband in a very uncomfortable position, especially after any Labour election victory in 2015.Miliband's problem is that the foreign policy issues that did so much to alienate New Labour from left and liberal Britain were the product not just of the policy choices made by Blair and those around him, but also of Britain's deeper and continuing commitment to maintaining a US-led regional order in the Middle East. The Arab uprisings, which are likely to continue into the forseeable future, render this a position fraught with danger for Miliband. Put aside the regime in Syria, always a strategic opponent, and that of Muammar Gaddafi, easily the most expendable of allies, and what remains is a series of autocratic regimes that have enjoyed longstanding support from Washington and London. For many years to come, we are likely to see ordinary people risking their lives to wrest their democratic and human rights from regimes currently backed by the British government. This will place Miliband in a very uncomfortable position, especially after any Labour election victory in 2015.
For example, it is one thing to condemn massacres perpetrated in Syria, but how would Britain react if security forces, armed and trained by the UK, committed similar atrocities in response to a future uprising in Saudi Arabia's eastern province? The relationship with Riyadh is central to Britain's strategic position in the Arab world. Would a Labour government response resemble Moscow's stance on Syria, issuing qualified verbal condemnations but maintaining material support? Even abandoning the Saudi regime in such circumstances would appear shifty and unprincipled, with the choice having been obviously forced upon the British, who understood the nature of the Saudi regime perfectly well to begin with. In either scenario, any credibility Miliband may have won as a progressive politician would be severely damaged. Disillusioned activists would leave the Labour party, protesters would pour on to the streets, many voters would abstain or switch to other leftwing parties. And every similar occasion in which Miliband found himself on the wrong side of history – be it in Jordan, or in the Gulf states – would place him in the same predicament.For example, it is one thing to condemn massacres perpetrated in Syria, but how would Britain react if security forces, armed and trained by the UK, committed similar atrocities in response to a future uprising in Saudi Arabia's eastern province? The relationship with Riyadh is central to Britain's strategic position in the Arab world. Would a Labour government response resemble Moscow's stance on Syria, issuing qualified verbal condemnations but maintaining material support? Even abandoning the Saudi regime in such circumstances would appear shifty and unprincipled, with the choice having been obviously forced upon the British, who understood the nature of the Saudi regime perfectly well to begin with. In either scenario, any credibility Miliband may have won as a progressive politician would be severely damaged. Disillusioned activists would leave the Labour party, protesters would pour on to the streets, many voters would abstain or switch to other leftwing parties. And every similar occasion in which Miliband found himself on the wrong side of history – be it in Jordan, or in the Gulf states – would place him in the same predicament.
Labour can wait for such events to occur, or it can pre-empt them. By echoing Macmillan, acknowledging that "the winds of change" are blowing in the Middle East and announcing a policy of withdrawing support for the region's autocracies, Miliband can make a major statement of principle now, both to his domestic political constituency and to future generations of post-revolutionary Arab leaders with whom London would presumably prefer to be on good terms.Labour can wait for such events to occur, or it can pre-empt them. By echoing Macmillan, acknowledging that "the winds of change" are blowing in the Middle East and announcing a policy of withdrawing support for the region's autocracies, Miliband can make a major statement of principle now, both to his domestic political constituency and to future generations of post-revolutionary Arab leaders with whom London would presumably prefer to be on good terms.
This change in stragetic posture would be commensurate with Britain's naturally diminishing status in the world, and could yield wider benefits. Instead of squandering resources and international goodwill attempting to project power overseas, Britain could leave its post-imperial hangover behind, slash its military budget into line with that of, say, Germany or the Nordic countries, and invest the savings productively. Government subsidies to the arms industry could be diverted to more worthwhile uses, helping to build the high-tech manufacturing base that Labour wants to create.This change in stragetic posture would be commensurate with Britain's naturally diminishing status in the world, and could yield wider benefits. Instead of squandering resources and international goodwill attempting to project power overseas, Britain could leave its post-imperial hangover behind, slash its military budget into line with that of, say, Germany or the Nordic countries, and invest the savings productively. Government subsidies to the arms industry could be diverted to more worthwhile uses, helping to build the high-tech manufacturing base that Labour wants to create.
The alternative for Miliband is to maintain the status quo, cross his fingers and hope that events do not conspire to douse his leadership in a wave of revulsion and disillusionment. One wonders though if it is too much to expect for him to effect the policy shift described above, not through political calculation, but simply because it is the right thing to do.The alternative for Miliband is to maintain the status quo, cross his fingers and hope that events do not conspire to douse his leadership in a wave of revulsion and disillusionment. One wonders though if it is too much to expect for him to effect the policy shift described above, not through political calculation, but simply because it is the right thing to do.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree
• This article was amended on 12 June 2012. The standfirst, 'Labour needs to rediscover a 'progressive' foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid ending up on the wrong side of history', was changed to 'Labour needs to adopt a 'progressive' foreign policy in the Middle East to avoid ending up on the wrong side of history' to more accurately reflect the content of the piece.