The new coalition government in the UK is expediting efforts to mark a differentiation from its predecessor. In regards to foreign policy, the Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs William Hague has identified human rights as the “irreducible core” in his initial speech of a four-part series intended to outline the new government’s priorities and approach.
It is interesting that Secretary Hague would choose “irreducible core” for a term which only appears once in a speech containing over 5,000 words. In comparison, “security” appears eighteen times and “influence” twelve. If human rights are indeed to form the core of British policy, this aspirational goal must be weighed against a few inherent realities which are currently challenging the government.
In Secretary Hague’s second speech within the series, delivered in Japan on July 15, 2010, the phrase “humanitarian assistance” was mentioned once, “human rights” was not mentioned at all and “economic” and “economy” combined were mentioned 38 times within the 3,425 word speech.
The true potency of human rights as the nucleus of policy development will be dependent on the level of priority the government places on this ambitious objective — and there are competing priorities, especially on the domestic front. The temptation to simply apply the rhetoric of human rights and not the substance will be overwhelming given the resource-intense nature that the protection and promotion of human rights demands.
A practical example of this is the coalition government’s renewed commitment to meet 0.7% GNI in foreign aid by 2013. If this was an easy objective, the previous UK government along with its G8 counterparts would have satisfied the commitment long ago. Justifying such resource allocation in recessionary times when domestic social security cuts are inevitable will be challenging to say the least. The G8, which includes the UK, has already acknowledged that 2010 AIDS treatment targets will not be met following the Summit in Toronto. Coming good or continuing the rhetoric on this initial 0.7% commitment will be indicative of the government’s true prioritizations.
In terms of utilizing a moral authority in foreign policy, it can be agreed that the high ground as a rights respecting nation, which the UK claims, has been visibly eroded following the military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as government complicity in torture and renditions following 9/11. Prime Minister Cameron has made overtures to increase accountability, announcing a judicial inquiry into torture and renditions, almost one year exactly after Gordon Brown announced the Iraq Inquiry.
In terms of Afghanistan, the new coalition government is encountering the problem of declaring a departure from the previous foreign policy approach while still maintaining previous foreign policy commitments. On July 21, 2010, Secretary Hague reported to the House of Commons the results of the Kabul Conference in which he fully endorsed the Kabul Process and the UK’s combat role for the next five years.
If the new coalition government is truly wishing to establish human rights as foreign policy’s “irreducible core,” a substantial effort (even in terms of paying lip service to the idea) remains. At such an early stage in its mandate, the only praise the government can expect is a cautious endorsement of the concept.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
