Labour’s struggle for a viable foreign policy | thearticle

The Labour Party’s leadership contest has been characterised by the candidates’ attempts to distance themselves from what came before — but not too far so as to spook members who were

invested in the Corbyn project. Labour has spent the weeks since the election “reflecting” on what went wrong. Depending on where you sit on the political spectrum, the answer ranges from

the party’s Brexit policy, to Corbyn’s leadership, to its radical manifesto. Labour’s domestic policies won both ridicule and admiration — but the party’s foreign policy offer has been

largely absent from the leadership contest. Given the basis of many attacks on Corbyn’s leadership was that he was “anti-Western”, a “security threat”, or a “terrorist sympathiser”, this is

puzzling. Candidates have chosen to avoid foreign policy topics for different reasons. For Rebecca Long-Bailey, the so-called “continuity Corbyn” candidate, any discussion would risk her

being attacked with the same jabs that were directed at Corbyn. Indeed, when she has mentioned international issues — Iran, Trump, and nuclear weapons — she has sought to distance herself

from Corbyn’s more pacifist, ardently values-based approach. On whether she would use the UK’s nuclear deterrent, she said: “The PM needs to send a message that they are willing to use it if

necessary.” Long-Bailey has also spoken in favour of patriotism combined with internationalism, saying the trade unions have a proud history in this regard. Others are steering clear of

foreign policy for risk of appearing too distant from Corbyn’s international agenda, which was largely popular with the members — one of multilateralism, conflict resolution, and

values-based alliances. The candidates must walk a fine line between taking what was popular from Corbyn’s offering, while appearing more willing to engage with Britain’s traditional allies.

At least on military intervention, Corbyn has mostly been on the popular side of public opinion. Polling by YouGov in 2017 revealed that 55 per cent of Brits agreed that the UK and the US

were wrong to take military action against Iraq in 2003, compared to just 18 per cent who believed the decision was right. Corbyn, a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, has spoken out against

proposed UK military intervention time and again. In championing issues like conflict prevention, peace-building and climate diplomacy, Labour was once again in line with mainstream

thinking. Fifty-four per cent of voters before the election said that climate change was an important enough issue to influence their vote. The figure was 74 per cent for those under 25.

Labour’s foreign policy agenda at the last election was largely in step with public opinion. Far from avoiding discussion of foreign policy, the candidates should embrace it, and show that

they can champion a humanitarian global agenda, while also bringing the Labour Party firmly back into line with the UK’s more traditional allies. While foreign policy is normally confined to

the sidelines of political debate, the UK is facing its biggest foreign policy upheaval for a generation. Leaving the European Union will bring with it questions as to what role the UK

should play on the world stage, and the leadership candidates should be prepared to answer them. It would be a mistake for Labour to sit on the fence for that debate. As the government

prepares to position the UK as a champion of key international issues, like climate diplomacy, media freedoms, and girls’ education post-Brexit, Labour will need a rival offer. While the

next Labour leader is unlikely to make it into No. 10 for the next five years, Labour will still play a role in shaping the public debate. By championing the international policies that have

proved popular among the public, the next Labour leader can ensure the party will stay true to its values, while playing an active role in the reinvigoration of British foreign policy.