Corporatism is not an adequate foreign policy

The events of the last two weeks have demonstrated that David Cameron needs a revamped foreign policy. This is not, in itself, a surprise. Foreign policies sketched out in opposition seldom survive contact with reality. Remember Bush saying he did “not do nation-building”? And who can forget the ignominious fate of Robin Cook’s “ethical foreign policy”? David Cameron sought to distinguish himself from the adventuring, idealistic Blair with what he regarded as a ‘pragmatic’ foreign policy – that is, promoting British exporters.
 
But as I say in my News of the World column (£) today, this rebounded spectacularly last week when his tour of the Arab world was overshadowed by the fact that he had six arms dealers in his 30-strong retinue. It was one of those head-in-your-hands moments: the Arab street protesters already suspect that the West doesn’t care about their freedom, and just wants to flog weapons to dictators and buy cheap oil in return. It fatally undermined Cameron’s message – a tragedy, because his trip, the timing, the speeches were otherwise very impressive.

Normally, Cameron learns from his mistakes – and quickly. This time, less so. He snapped at reporters who broached the subject last week. I gather No.10 had a bust-up with the foreign office over this: diplomats warned him that the arms dealers’ presence would undermine any message he had about democracy. But No.10 has a low opinion of the Foreign Office and overruled the advice. (The new, beefed-up No10, let’s hope, would make a more sensible decision). Cameron’s Arab tour was conceived of as a trade trip, so to eject the defence firms (or to say “lets do this again in the summer”) would be an admission that not just this trip but the entire strategy was misconceived. This, I suspect, is why it’s being so vigorously defended.

And wrongly. I’m pro-business – to the point where I defend bankers’ bonuses – but Cameron is in danger of reducing his own role to that of global door-to-door salesman, a high class Del Boy with better kit. He’ll never sell a speech about democracy if people think his real message is “take your time about it, boys, because I have some tear gas and missiles to flog”. Tony Blair was, latterly, dazzled by big oil contracts. Cameron is in danger of repeating this same mistake.

To paraphrase him, there is such a thing as the British national interest. It’s just not the same thing as British corporate interest. As we say in the leading article of this week’s magazine, if he wants to help British jobs, he should cut tax and regulation. Helping corporations land deals is a very slow, inefficient and dirty way of promoting an economy. And let’s not forget that these defence contractors are plenty capable of shipping in Poles from Gdansk to build British ships in Portsmouth. And, yes, the French operate a corporatist foreign policy. But the British should have higher aspirations.

Cameron blurred his message, and it rebounded on him. “I simply don’t understand how you can’t understand how democracies have a right to defend themselves,” an exasperated Cameron told the press conference in Kuwait. No one is arguing otherwise. But our brilliant, world-class defence sector is plenty capable of making its own way to the Middle East – why must they travel with him? Also, Libya is not a democracy – and we still sell it arms (or did, until Cameron’s commendably quick revocation of such licenses). And, thirdly, it’s not clear how items like tear gas (which we sold to Libya) constitute “self defence’’.

This kind of business – almost certainly some screw-up in arms licensing – badly damages Britain’s stature on the world stage. Just as those tear-gas canisters saying “Made in the USA” damaged America’s stature in the Egyptian revolution. It actively undermines our national interest. We’re already seeing signs that big business pre-occupies this government too much. Our best chance for economic recovery comes from incubating small business.

It’s claimed that Britain denouncing Gaddafi is helping Libyian officials abandon him. I doubt it. The most damaging thing I’ve heard so far is Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that Gaddafi is a psycho who has gone too far. Now, that’s bad – a bit like Gordon Brown accusing you of borrowing recklessly. At this time, Britain’s voice is – anyway – competing with the squeak of Baroness Cathy Ashton who purports to speak for Britain and the other 24 members of the EU.

The government’s job is to help Brits abroad in a mess. But I understand that oil workers in Libya were told two months ago that the Libyan embassy’s Tripoli emergency helpline was being withdrawn, due to some cost saving measure, and replaced with a London number. Dialling London is quite an ask in Libya right now – if they get any connection it’s likely to be a local one. The Foreign Office was hit badly by the cuts, so it’s making such measures everywhere. Yet the overseas aid budget is growing so fast that DfID is literally thinking about handing the wonga over to the World Bank because they’ve run out of ways to spend it. These priorities are obviously wrong. Again, a government’s first duty is to its people, those who pay its taxes.

Cameron was the first world leader in Tahir Square. His talk about democracy in Kuwait struck precisely the right note. Hague was the first foreign minister in Tunisia. I like to think that Cameron was mugged by this reality last week. The promotion of freedom and democracy – for its own sake, not because it suits any corporate agenda – should be Britain’s foreign policy. In the end, corporatism helps neither business nor politicians. I suspect that fate will have far greater roles for Britain, and Cameron, to play.