"Even before her lucrative negotiations with the president on behalf of Natwest Markets, she had been christened 'Neville-Chamberlain' by American diplomats. "
http://zope06.v.servelocity.net/hjs/editorials/guardians_ed Guarding the guardians The Henry Jackson Society, 28th July 2007 The appointment of certain foreign policy 'professionals' by David Cameron and Gordon Brown may paradoxically be cause for concern. The pessimism and so-called 'realism' of 'experts' can often become reactive and passive when dealing with foreign powers. We need to keep a steady eye on their activities, making sure - as with politicians - that they are actively and effectively representing British and European interests and values abroad. The maxim 'trust the professionals' has become a fashionable piece of wisdom in modern British politics. Increasingly, the term has expanded beyond its common domestic references to encompass foreign policy 'experts', a breed voraciously pursued by the leadership of both major parties. Within twenty-four hours of his accession to 10 Downing Street, Gordon Brown was trumpeting the appointment of Lord (Mark) Malloch Brown, former deputy to Kofi Annan, as junior foreign minister, with responsibility for Africa, Asia and the United Nations. David Cameron's Conservatives duly responded by drafting in Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones as shadow security minister, her profile in political life originally earned as advisor to the Major government on Balkans policy. Neither of these appointments reflects the totality of opinion on either government or opposition front bench. Both parties sustain a set of competing foreign policy tendencies, and the battle between rival strands of opinion remains to be fought, largely within the traditional political parameters. Nonetheless, the elevation of Malloch Brown and Neville-Jones satisfies a demand recurring through the British media for a foreign policy centred on nostrums of scepticism and detachment, and a 'realistic' appreciation of the nation's place in the world. Both moves offer Britain's answer in kind to the unearthing of James Baker and his ilk at the Iraq Study Group: the return of the old guardians of the Foreign Office and the diplomatic corps. In his previous position, Malloch Brown was a strident opponent of the Iraq War, who seemed to delight in courting the enmity of hawkish voices in the United States. In 2006 he alleged that American dialogue with the UN was being configured by media 'shock jocks'. Lady Neville-Jones kept her own counsel, but it is not hard to decode the idea behind her pronouncements on world affairs: 'Political legitimacy means you've got to have widespread support which usually means that it needs to be multilateral© I think liberal intervention is jolly difficult, and we should be careful I think about being terribly gung-ho about the duty to protect, though that duty is an important concept'. For the proponents of multilateral legalism, for all who fear the prospect of intervention against dictatorships: a swelling of comfort. For those prepared to champion an active foreign policy against the sources of repression, extremism and terrorism, both appointments represent a pointed rebuke. The appeal of 'trusting the professionals' reflects a belief in the possibility of Platonic dispassion against partisanship, a desire to install barriers against democrats lunging to the caprices of public opinion. In Malloch Brown's own words: 'My hope is that foreign policy will become much more impartial'. Even leaving aside the fact that Lord Malloch Brown has been somewhat given to populist touches himself, it is a presumption that needs scrutiny. Professionals, as any reading of British diplomatic history will affirm, are equally inclined to act upon prejudice, partiality and vested self-interest: a trait far more dangerous when it can be concealed beneath the gauze of sceptical detachment. Those in search of new rigour and transparency and to British foreign policy might first like to consider Lord Malloch Brown's role in the United Nations oil-for-food scandal. After his repeated insistence that senior officials had been 'fully exonerated' even as the damning facts mounted up, his promotion threatens a death knell for hopes that Britain will play a major role in pressing for UN reform. Concurrently, Lady Neville-Jones took a prominent part in the last period when British foreign policy trusted the 'realism' of the professionals: lending her voice to a policy of non-intervention in the face of Slobodan Milosevic's assault on the Balkans. Even before her lucrative negotiations with the president on behalf of Natwest Markets, she had been christened 'Neville-Chamberlain' by American diplomats. Recently, Malloch Brown elaborated upon his principles in a self-revelatory interview with the Daily Telegraph. 'I am happy to be described as anti-neo-con', he proclaimed. 'If they see me as a villain, I will wear that as a badge of honour'. He mocked the Blair-Bush partnership: the 'emotional intensity of being war leaders with much of the world against them' would be 'enough to put you on your knees and get you praying together'. He boasted that with the impending overthrow of the neocons in Washington, the United States had 'already started doing what they did at the UN, calling me when they have problems that they want to see fixed'. Such remarks were slapped down with icy courtesy by his new boss, David Milliband. But, in truth, they reflect the visceral instincts of many opinion-formers in the foreign policy establishment, and form a mental architecture that the new prime minister and foreign secretary will need genuine courage to counterpoise. Malloch Brown, Neville-Jones, and their kindred spirits in Whitehall and the media are the apostles of a cherished notion of 'stability', embodying as the new minister puts it, a 'more pragmatic diplomacy', a dislike of 'broad-brush labels' such as 'war on terror', and a belief that Britain's role above all is to contain change, manage decline and identify the forces in the world best-equipped to assist them in the task. The conversion of 'neocon' or 'interventionist' into emblems of iniquity springs above all from disdain for those agents threatening the disruption of time-honoured consensus. But in pinning down liberal interventionists with this abusive term, 'realists' perpetuate a false notion of the neocons as an alien cabal set to diminish with the dying embers of the Bush presidency, or having died with the retirement of Mr. Blair. They neglect the fact that the stance currently dubbed 'neoconservatism' is a tendency earthed within the mainstream of American opinion, or that liberal interventionism is a particularly British tradition: both based on instincts towards optimism, an outward vision for democratic ideals, and if necessary, a belief in military intervention to back up political convictions. Moreover, they refuse to recognise that the modern world itself cannot be caged within a state of multilateral stasis: to cling to 'stability' in a landscape forever throwing up new political, military and environmental challenges is to risk becoming marooned. While the principle should by no means be considered a golden rule, it has been a visible phenomenon from Churchill to Thatcher, and on to Blair, that Britain's stock has risen in the world when elected politicians defied the advice of the sceptical foreign policy establishment. It would be folly to think that this tension has been put to an end. When calls for our intervention are currently increasing rather than receding - witness the recent appeal of the Catholic bishops in Zimbabwe, or calls from Chad's government for help over Darfur - any philosophy that does not take account of 'the duty to protect' will turn pessimism about British and European power into a self-fulfilling prophecy. For Britain's new democratic leaders, it may be time to set about guarding the guardians. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
