Ethics and Foreign Policy: The Antinomies of New Labour's ‘Third Way’ in Sub-Saharan Africa
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.00312 |
| Published date | 01 June 2001 |
| Author | Rita Abrahamsen,Paul Williams |
| Date | 01 June 2001 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Ethics and Foreign Policy:
the Antinomies of New Labour’s
‘Third Way’ in Sub-Saharan Africa
Rita Abrahamsen and Paul Williams
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
This article explores how New Labour has attempted to implement its ideas about a ‘third way’
foreign policy in sub-Saharan Africa. Through an examination of British foreign policy practices,
we explore whether New Labour has succeeded in finding a ‘third way’ between traditional views
of socialism and capitalism in Africa. In particular, the article focuses on New Labour’s attempts to
build peace, prosperity and democracy on the African continent. We conclude that although New
Labour’s claims to add an ‘ethical dimension’ to foreign policy have succeeded in giving Britain a
higher profile in the international arena, the implementation of such a policy is intrinsically difficult.
These difficulties in turn arise from the antinomies embodied in New Labour’s policy, or more
specifically from the tension between the liberal internationalism of the third way and traditional
concerns for the national interest, as well as the contradictions inherent in a commitment to both
political and economic liberalism.
New Labour’s foreign policy has been mired in criticism and controversy almost since
Foreign Secretary Robin Cook first uttered the by now infamous phrase ‘ethical
dimension’ (1997a). First, it was the so-called ‘arms to Africa’ affair, then the con-
troversial bombing of Iraq, the continued export of arms to Indonesia, and the state
visit by the Chinese President. More recently, events in Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe
have proved testing cases for the Labour government. There is nothing new, and
certainly nothing particularly ‘ethical’ about New Labour’s foreign policy, the critics
claim. Instead international relations under the Labour government are conducted
in more or less the same manner as under previous administrations, that is, with a
calculating eye to the national interest and Britain’s international reputation.
This article provides a critical assessment of New Labour’s policies in sub-Saharan
Africa. As part of its commitment to add an ‘ethical dimension’ to foreign policy,
the government has pledged to give the African continent ‘a new priority on
the international agenda’ (Lloyd, 1999). The article discusses three core themes of
New Labour’s third way in sub-Saharan Africa, namely peace, prosperity and
democracy, and reviews the way in which New Labour has sought to further these
causes on the continent. We conclude that although the government’s claim to
prioritize the ‘ethical dimension’ has succeeded in giving Britain a higher profile in
the international arena, the implementation of such a foreign policy is intrinsically
difficult. These difficulties in turn arise from the antinomies embodied in New
Labour’s approach, or more specifically from the tension between the liberal inter-
nationalism of the third way and traditional concerns for the national interest, as
well as the contradictions inherent in a commitment to both political and economic
liberalism.
© Political Studies Association, 2001.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
250
R I T A A B R A H A M S E N , P A U L W I L L I A M S
A ‘Third Way’ Foreign Policy?
After their election victory in May 1997, the Labour Party promised not only a radical
change in domestic politics, but also a new approach to foreign policy.1 Elected on
a commitment to the principles of social justice – to security, health, education and
equality – New Labour announced that these values were also to form the basis of
the government’s international endeavours. In an increasingly globalized and
interdependent world, the argument went, the separation of domestic and foreign
policy no longer made sense. Instead both had to be guided by the same principles
and the same commitments.
The debate about how Britain should seek to balance the promotion of the
traditional goals of foreign policy (national security and commercial prosperity)
with an ‘ethical dimension’ was initiated by the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook
only ten days into New Labour’s term in office (1997a).2 The notion of global
interdependence played a key role in this debate. Distant events, it was argued,
can have a direct and immediate impact on the daily lives of Britons, in the same
way as the decisions and actions taken by the people and government of Britain
can affect the choices and possibilities of other states and societies. Global warming,
deforestation, polluted and over-fished oceans, and the spread of AIDS are only
some examples of challenges that show no respect for national frontiers. As the
boundary between the national and the international is becoming increasingly
blurred, so the traditional distinction between domestic and foreign policy is also
eroding. This recognition led Labour to argue that foreign policy ‘should not be
seen as some self-contained part of government in a box marked ‘abroad’ or
‘foreigners’. It should compliment and reflect our domestic goals. It should be
part of our mission of domestic renewal’ (Blair, 1997). For the Foreign Secretary
this means that the ‘Labour Government does not accept that political values can
be left behind when we check in our passports to travel on diplomatic business’
(Cook, 1997a).
Since 1998 this project has become incorporated into the notion of a ‘third way’.
Under Tony Blair’s leadership, and with the help of several intellectuals like Anthony
Giddens (1998; 2000) and Will Hutton (1996), the Labour government has tried to
translate this rather nebulous concept into concrete political strategies for dealing
with the challenges arising from globalization (see also Hargreaves and Christie,
1998). Blair regards the third way as ‘a new politics arising from the ashes of the
struggles of the twentieth century between traditional views of capitalism and of
socialism’, a politics that ‘seeks to combine economic dynamism with social justice’
(1999). He further contends that the third way ‘is founded on the values which
have guided progressive politics for more than a century – democracy, liberty,
justice, mutual obligation and internationalism’ (Blair, 1998, p. 1).
A commitment to a third way foreign policy is by implication a commitment to the
poorer countries of the world. The extent to which the third way has occasioned
a substantial change in Britain’s relationship with Africa thus becomes one way of
evaluating New Labour’s performance. In the post-cold war era Africa has become
increasingly marginalized as both its economic and strategic importance has
declined, and the Labour government has stated its intention to push the continent
higher up the international agenda (Lloyd, 1999).3
E T H I C S A N D F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
251
In its most general pronouncements, the third way in Africa is about promoting
and supporting positive change through equitable relationships based on mutual
respect. Positive change is here defined with reference to the accepted tenets of
contemporary development discourse, namely ‘good governance, human rights and
sound economic policies’ (Lloyd, 1999). The third way also embodies a commitment
to international co-operation, and a desire to strengthen Africa’s own regional
organizations as well as the Organization of African Unity (OAU) (Cook, 1998;
Lloyd, 1999). A notable initiative in this respect was the Anglo-French St Malo
summit, which attempted to overcome old imperial divisions and to pool resources
in order to maximize development benefits. Other examples of such co-operation
include the UK-South Africa Declaration signed in Pretoria, 7 January 1999, as
well as British support for the development of the East Africa Community.
In more policy specific terms, the third way in Africa is designed to build lasting
peace, prosperity and democracy. According to New Labour, these are the three key
challenges facing Africa at the dawn of the twenty-first century, and consequently
they form the core of British policy towards the continent (Cook, 1998; Hain,
1999a; Lloyd, 1999). The rest of this article is devoted to a more detailed discussion
of these policies as they relate to sub-Saharan Africa.
Preventing Conflict and Building Peace?
In its first annual report on human rights, New Labour recognized that ‘the most
effective way to end human rights violations in conflict is by preventing conflict
in the first place’ (FCO, 1998, p. 19). The British approach to conflict prevention
was subsequently given more definition in Robin Cook’s speech to the UN General
Assembly, and the major themes he identified have since been reiterated by a num-
ber of ministers (Cook, 1999; Hain, 1999b). In this speech, Cook pointed to five
priority areas for action. First, Britain must help tackle the root causes of conflict,
that is, it must fight poverty and promote sustainable development. Second, human
rights and good governance must be encouraged to ensure government that rules
with the consent of its people. Third, the supply of weapons (including small arms)
that fuel conflicts must be curbed. Fourth, the illegal trade in diamonds and other
precious commodities that have paid for huge quantities of small arms and mercenaries
must be prevented. Finally, the emerging ‘culture of impunity’ must be countered.
‘Those who break international humanitarian law’, Cook argued, ‘must know that
they will be held to account’.
Despite...
To continue reading
Request your trial