Opinion: War of the colours: the battle of foreign policy

With terror on the streets of the UK, Labour and Conservatives lock horns on policies over ideals and practical application.

In the aftermath of the tragic attack on the Manchester arena by Salman Abedi, Leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn stated that western foreign policy was to blame for the acts of terror now inflicted upon innocent civilians:

“We must be brave enough to admit the ‘war on terror’ is simply not working. We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism.”

Referring back to a failure of the Conservative government in policing these events, Corbyn appeared determined to utilise the disaster as a spearhead for his election campaign. He is not alone in desiring a re-think of political strategy; more than half of the public agreed that a new strategy for countering extremism was needed in light of the disasters befalling the British people. While demonstrating an affluence of ideas on how Britain can change course at home and overseas, an American saying was that the people’s favourite sportsman is the substitute quarterback in Football; able to make otherworldly promises without having to make them come true.

In the months that followed and hundreds of miles away, Iraqi forces pressed the assault on Mosul culminating in Prime Minister Haider Al-Abedi declaring ‘the end’ of the caliphate in Iraq, their forces were driven from a city now recaptured from a two hundred and sixty-seven-day siege. While the liberation stands as a unique morale boost, the deeply seated struggle for consolidation of these areas, as well as a Kurdish referendum in September threatens the balance of power in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.

This new state of affairs gives rise to the need for considering alternatives to the previously tested approaches to foreign policy in the Middle East. Arguments over the Prevent strategy, as well as the continued aspects of trade with partners such as Saudi Arabia, are lauded as a few of the key reasons for continued Islamic extremism both in the UK and overseas.

PREVENT:

Originally set up as part of a larger counter terror strategy named CONTEST, PREVENT was established in 2003 in light of escalating incidents of terror across the world and tragically, in the United Kingdom a couple of years later. 2017 brought with it one of the worst terror attacks on July 7th, 2005, one which millions could remember with tragic precision.

The structure of both CONTEST and PREVENT aimed to catalogue terror organisations while also generating a framework by which to identify, report and challenge behaviours which may lead to terrorism. Since its conception, its annual budget has ranged from thirty to eighty million pounds to reflect its developing projects across the UK in the last fourteen years. Over the course of 2015, Prevent has been successful in keeping one hundred and fifty people including children from entering conflict zones such as Syria and aided more than 42,000 people in the same year. From 2015 onwards the strategy underwent expansion in order to provide awareness training to local communities including services such as the NHS.

The events which unfurled in Manchester opened up a line of inquiry into the effectiveness as well as the issues with PREVENT as a strategy, with independent groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain seeking its removal, despite the council’s own suspicious activity. The strategy has garnered a number of critics of which the Muslim Council of Britain being one of them along with the National Union of Teachers and Students who find themselves on the same side as its extremist opponents such as Hizb Ut-Tahrir, CAGE and the Islamic Human Rights Commission in calling for its removal but do not specify alternatives, and who support particular speakers who have expressed homophobic, anti-democratic and sexist views.

Labour has come forward in suggestions for re-evaluating the Prevent strategy, advocating for its reform in stark contrast to independent groups looking for its removal, observing it as a form of ‘big brother’:

“Prevent, contrary to popular belief, is a voluntary programme, requiring parental consent.”

But the fact remains that reform of Prevent appears to be first and foremost over calls to remove it. Corbyn himself suggesting that such a strategy should not centre on Muslim communities alone and in desiring reform finds himself in accordance with counter-terror experts such as Maajid Nawaz, who illustrates the need to teach liberal values over what can be seen as the more rigid British values.

In PREVENT a cross-party consensus appears to exist, and with attempts to remove it being rejected by the High Court, groups such as the Henry Jackson society suggest a greater transparency into the success of it as a system, as well as the challenging of misinformation that arises over its application. With Manchester acting as a stark reminder, a drive for clarity of success as well as a strengthening of its application appear to be far more likely and much more effective.

Arms Trade:

Yemen’s failed transition forced the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh of the nation’s previously authoritarian regime in 2011. The internal issues along with sectarian conflict spiralled into civil war, pulling in Saudi Arabia as part of a Sunni coalition to stabilise the region in 2015, but far from stabilising Yemen, it has led to the continued suffering and death of civilians in what is regarded as a world crisis according to the UN.

The crisis is compounded by Saudi intervention which has led to continued deaths in the region, and with Britain as one of the Kingdoms key arms traders, the UK’s relationship has been one of controversy. Britain is known as one of the largest arms manufacturers and traders, second only to the USA and with a two-hundred and eighty-three million pound trade deal with Saudi Arabia, individuals including Jeremy Corbyn and the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ which he is strongly affiliated to have advocated for an end to these deals with the Kingdom as well as the other Gulf States, which is totalled at 3.3 billion from the beginning of Saudi Arabia intervention.

Aspirations to end these sales have proven an uphill struggle due to the High Court ruling their lawful practice, the difference in approach between Conservatives and Labour appears significant. Labour has long since been opponents to arms trade with states whose intentions for them are unknown, Shadow International Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner had since alluded to a renewed focus on ending this practice while preventing a financial shortfall by boosting British industry.

While ruled out by High Court and opposed by the current government, the next best resolution appears to be finding out the intended use of weapons sold, intentions which have resulted in a staggering number of unlawful attacks on civilians. The Conservatives are currently under pressure amid Brexit as well as over trade after leaving the EU, making the likelihood of a boycott of trade unlikely but a push for greater transparency as more likely and desired by groups like War on Want.

The need for a positive relationship with Saudi Arabia remains paramount, with the Lords commission believing that the current economic dynamic proves both essential to Saudi’s necessary developments, but also to the continued British political relevance in the region as well as being in the latter’s better economic interests:

“Given the importance of Saudi Arabia as a global economic oil producer and regional security actor, the capacity of Saudi Arabia to succeed in its ambitious transformation is of critical importance to UK interests.” – Rt. Hon Liam Fox, Lords Commission.

The Middle East is encountering a period of turmoil, one perceived only to get worse was there a partial or complete boycott such as what Corbyn would desire. A greater transparency appears the more realistic solution, by advising and preventing unlawful acts while still being able to exert economic pressure and political advice in a stronger relationship, which doubles on regulating activity but also placing Britain in a strong position in Middle Eastern affairs.

Labour can be commended on their idealistic plans for creating a safer Britain and a more peaceful Middle East, but the implications of broad sweeping sentiment present a clear and present danger in other areas which have the potential to cripple and relegate the UK in a way that it may never recover from. In the interest of a prosperous country which can do right by its people, and for a safer more liberal future for the Middle East, The government must take a pragmatic and realistic stance, and not give in to idealistic, quick well-intentioned but wrong policy.