Written evidence submitted by the Foreign Policy Centre (INR0019)

About the submission

The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) is an outward-looking, non-partisan international affairs think tank. Our mission is to provide an open and accessible space for the ideas, knowledge and experience of experts, academics and activists from across the world, so that their voices can be heard by a global audience of citizens and decision makers in order to find solutions to today’s international challenges. The FPC has a global perspective and a focus on Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and Asia. We also seek to examine what a progressive, pragmatic and internationalist foreign policy for the United Kingdom could be. A commitment to democracy, human rights, good governance and conflict resolution is at the heart of our work.

This evidence submission is based upon the findings of past research by the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC).[1] The ideas here will be expanded upon through a number of forthcoming publications as part of the FPC’s ongoing Finding Britain’s role in a changing world project. Some of the initial thinking, framed in terms of finding ideas for the Integrated Review, was published in early March 2020 in the FPC and Oxfam report Finding Britain’s role in a changing world: Building a values-based foreign policy which provides a range of different perspectives from experts and a cross-party group of Parliamentarians.

Informing the strategy: the international outlook and the UK’s place in the world

Even prior to the impact of Covid-19 the Integrated Review was seeking to chart a new course for British foreign policy at a time of significant international uncertainty. Issues have included: pressure on liberal democracy, both in international support for its principles and following its practices, in the face of renewed challenges from increasingly confident authoritarian, semi-authoritarian/hybrid and other populist political models; many international institutions struggling with crises of capacity and legitimacy (from the UN to the WTO), hamstrung by political tensions between leading powers;  climate change; the social and economic impacts of rapid technological change; global inequality; and of course now the pandemic response. How the UK responds to these challenges, many of which are now significantly magnified by the outbreak, will need to be central to the Integrated Review’s approach.

The priorities for the UK’s foreign-policy strategy should flow from both a clear articulation of the government’s (and wider society’s) objectives and a similarly clear understanding of our capabilities to help achieve any goals. The UK’s capabilities are built on a number of assets. It is one of the largest economies in the world, the third biggest international aid donor, the sixth highest country in terms of international military spending, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, as well as a member of the Commonwealth, NATO, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe (CoE) and a host of other international bodies. The City of London remains a global financial centre, facilitating trillions of pounds in investment. The combination of a significant concentration of international media organisations, world-class universities, major international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and cultural impact through film, television, music, literature and sporting competitions with a global audience gives the UK a soft-power presence that currently far exceeds its population size or economic clout. These networks and resources are what gives the UK capacity to punch above its weight in the world. However almost all of these critical soft-power tools are at risk of severe erosion in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The UK has grown used to leveraging these networks to amplify its power, seeking to act as a bridge between the United States, the EU and other partners, but now these ties are fraying. The UK has chosen to leave the EU, and under both Obama and Trump there has been a loosening of the sense of shared priorities of the UK and US – under the former due to a gradual pivot in priorities to Asia, and under the latter due to differences of opinion in key policy areas and inconsistency in strategic approach (though noting that US-UK trade talks are getting underway).

Defining the UK’s priorities and the long-term national interest

Securing the national interest in an uncertain world will mean helping to set the framework for the international system. It cannot be achieved through a transactional approach that only prioritises short-term, narrowly defined security and economic gains, which ignore longer term structural problems and institutional decline that will in the end leave the UK in a weaker position and less able to deliver on its objectives. The UK must actively help to shape, with likeminded partners, the international systems, norms and rules that it will have to work within for decades to come, or the influence of authoritarian states over these systems will continue to increase.

A foreign policy focusing on the long-term national interest requires a clear and consistent values dimension, learning and building on the successes and drawbacks of previous framings around ‘an ethical dimension’ under Robin Cook or ‘enlightened national interest’ under William Hague. Since the 1990s there has been a broad UK foreign policy-making consensus in favour of a rules-based international order, democracy, free trade, multilateral collaboration and collective security. The current Foreign Secretary has said that the ‘guiding lights’ for the current integrated policy review ‘will be free trade, democracy, human rights and the international rule of law’. These are all areas where at times there has been a gap between rhetorical goals and concrete actions, but now more than ever these goals are being challenged both ideologically and in practice. The coronavirus outbreak has highlighted some of the significant weaknesses in the international system, particularly in slow and disconnected responses from international institutions. It has given further opportunities for authoritarian states and populist governments to take more powers for themselves and project a perception that they are better able to respond to such a crisis (despite a lack of transparency and accountability being one of the key causes of the global pandemic in relation to China and of the poor performance of a number of countries - of all governmental types -in responding to the crisis). Regimes like China and Russia have been proactively promoting themselves through acts of international solidarity, of varying degrees of practical assistance, in a deliberate attempt to draw a contrast with the Western response.

The Integrated Review gives the UK an opportunity to articulate a powerful vision for ‘Global Britain’. It should help define and refine these principles into a clear and codified statement of the values of ‘Global Britain’ that would give an unambiguous signal to the international community and to stakeholders across the government. If the UK is unable actively to stand up for its values, this will be seen as a sign of weakness and decline at a time when there is uncertainty about Britain’s standing and role in the world as well as more general global instability.

Particularly post-Brexit, clearly demonstrating the UK’s commitment to multilateralism will be an essential part of reassuring the international community that it is still a reliable partner. This includes in particular providing reassurance that it remains engaged in its European neighbourhood, taking the Council of Europe (CoE) and OSCE more seriously as forums for engagement in the European and post-Soviet spaces, in addition to NATO, while working to reform all three and ensure they meet both their founding objectives and the values and priorities which the UK is seeking to promote.[2]  This regional engagement is important not only in the regional response to Covid-19 but also in relation to longer-standing pressure on Europe’s eastern flank from Russia. It will be important to ensure that the contentious domestic debate about the current incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, through the Human Rights Act, is held in a way that does not undermine the UK’s commitment to the Convention itself or the UK’s membership of the CoE, which could encourage other CoE members to ignore their responsibilities under the Convention and place local human rights activists at greater risk or reduce their ability to obtain recourse for abuse.

Cross-departmental collaboration and the FCO’s capacity

There are significant cultural roadblocks to achieving a whole-government approach to the UK’s international strategy, and the Integrated Review needs not only to set a strong vision for what it wants the government to do, but  must also give some sense of how it wants all departments to support that vision. There needs to be a clear steer to help guide the considerable work needed at both ministerial and administrative levels to ensure the machinery of government is pointing in the same direction to meet the same goals. Again short-term priorities (such as the specific requirements of securing particular trade deals or day-to-day security) can be an impediment to delivering longer-term strategic objectives.

There has been considerable debate about the future of the Department for International Development as an independent government department. In the most recent reshuffle the department’s independence remained, but all ministers were shared with the FCO with the exception of the Secretary of State. The recent FPC and Oxfam report Finding Britain’s role in a changing world: Building a values-based foreign policy sets out in detail, in a range of different essays from those with experience of working with both departments such as from Baroness Anelay, the many reasons why removing an independent DFID would have a damaging impact on the UK’s standing in the world and its ability to deliver the government’s values agenda.  The Integrated Review has an opportunity to further in strengthen interdepartmental working in support of the overarching strategy, such helping ensure areas of a values-driven strategy that have a strong overlap with DFID’s core poverty reduction mission (such as human rights, anti-corruption, democratic institutions and governance reform) do receive a stronger focus. It should do this while guarding against the risk of UK aid being used as a conditional tool for trade promotion that could severely undermine the UK’s global credibility (separate from the positive externalities of DFID work such as increased trade through goodwill generated or by expanding that nation’s economic capacity). 

In relation to FCO’s capacity, in the absence of a deep strategic partnership with the EU in foreign and security policy the UK will find it more difficult to pool resources with other EU states or automatically expect to have the same level of information-sharing available to its embassies if the British Embassy is excluded from local meetings amongst EU diplomats. If the UK does not wish to see its capacity to act diminished, both in-country and from King Charles Street, then the government will need to find additional resources to boost its capabilities.

New tools and partnerships to deliver on the UK’s objectives

Once the Integrated Review has a clear understanding of the UK’s capabilities and has clearly defined its strategic objectives, it can assist in indicating the types of policy approaches and instruments the FCO and other departments can use to help deliver these objectives.

Showing the UK is still willing and able to work constructively with other like-minded partners will be essential to achieving any objectives. This should not only involve seeking to build a strong foreign policy and security partnership with the EU as part of current and future negotiations, but it should also seek to enhance or create a range of bilateral mechanisms with Member States that augment, but do not seek to replace, their or the UK’s relationships with the EU given that for many member states the EU remains their main foreign policy forum.[3] The UK must also seek to deepen relations with countries who share similar values and not-dissimilar strategic positions, such as Canada, Japan and New Zealand. The UK-Canadian joint Campaign on Media Freedom is an important example of the potential for joint working, though more can be done in ensuring this initiative delivers concrete results. The UK will also need to retain an active presence at international fora, both formal meetings and high-profile independent events (such as the Munich Security Conference and Halifax Security Forum), to project its continuing global role. With this in mind the Covid-related delay to the UK’s hosting of the UN COP 26 is a blow but, provided sufficient political commitment is retained and the time is used wisely, may still provide an important opportunity for the UK to demonstrate global leadership at a time of uncertainty.

As set out previously, the UK’s soft power reach is potentially imperilled by the financial impact of Covid-19 on the NGO sector (adding to previous uncertainty around the replacement of EU grant pools and the future of international development funding). The Integrated Review needs to consider the wider role of NGOs, universities and cultural institutions in supporting the UK’s international objectives and ensure this is not forgotten in the difficult post-Covid funding environment.

The UK needs to be consistent in the application of its stated values. The government’s stated intention of proactively using targeted sanctions (using the ‘Magnitsky’ clause in the 2018 Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act) is positive, but they will need to be deployed without fear or favour to those guilty of human rights abuses, irrespective of the nature of the UK government’s relationship with the relevant jurisdictions. The same principle needs to apply in relation to the increased use of Unexplained Wealth Orders.[4] It will be important to ensure that despite the economic and political challenges at the present time the long-overdue Registration of Overseas Entities Bill is enacted to improve transparency in the UK property sector. It is to be hoped that the Integrated Review will consider the role played by the UK’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, and how their lack of tax transparency currently undermines the UK’s international standing and facilitates international corruption to the detriment of the UK’s values. The new trade deals the UK is currently negotiating need to have human rights provisions at least as robust as the EU deals they are replacing or compensating for - to this end there is a need for a greater role for Parliament in scrutinising their progress. UK Ambassadors (and Ministers) must feel supported and encouraged to speak out on human rights and other abuses taking place as a way to show the UK still has the self-confidence to support its values. Such actions should often be coordinated with other like-minded partners to benefit from strength in numbers, whilst not being afraid to show leadership where necessary.

Once the Integrated Review has mapped out a clear set of values that should underpin the UK’s approach to the work, the government should consider enhancing existing consultation practices by setting a ‘Global Britain’ values test, previously proposed in the recent FPC & Oxfam report, for all major policy and spending decisions with an international dimension, including trade deals. Such an approach could set out the government’s impact assessment of how each government decision will affect the goals enumerated in the ‘Global Britain’ values statement, and examine its implications for the needs of future generations and the most vulnerable people in the world. The results of this assessment could then be published ahead of decisions being taken to encourage feedback, input and scrutiny from parliament, key stakeholders and the wider public.

The Integrated Review should seek to:[5]

• Set out a clear ‘Global Britain’ values statement of the principles underpinning the UK’s role in the world;
• Use the values statement to develop a ‘Global Britain Benchmark’ that assesses the impact of new policies against these principles;
• Demonstrate a renewed commitment to engage with and reform the regional and multilateral institutions the UK remains a part of, including particularly responsibilities in the European Neighbourhood, while building new partnerships for the future with countries that share its values;
• Defend and maintain the spirit as well as the fact of its commitment to allocate 0.7 per cent Gross National Income (GNI) to international development assistance by:
• Making the case for an independent but collaborative Department for International Development with its own secretary of state;
• Ensuring aid spending across all departments retains a strong poverty focus – in line with the International Development Act- while meeting wider commitments on human rights, anti-corruption and good governance.

• Support an approach to foreign policy that shows the UK still has the confidence and stature to stand up for its values by supporting those who defend them, and speaking out and taking action when they are abused, by:
• Encouraging ambassadors and ministers to condemn human rights abuses wherever they occur;
• Actively using and equitably applying new ‘Magnitsky’-style personal sanctions;
• Fully implementing new measures to improve financial transparency, and take further action on tax havens; and
• Increasing the proportion of the UK’s international spending dedicated to protecting democratic institutions, human rights standards and peacebuilding to counter increasing pressures from authoritarian states seeking to reshape the international order.

May 2020