During Nick Clegg’s Q&A session at the Spring Conference in Liverpool there were three questions that in their different ways touched on Liberalism in the international environment. Ones on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), NATO spending and Hong Kong. Nick’s replies were I reminder of why Liberalism is best placed to shape the 21st Century.
With much of the Middle East in turmoil and Russia busy advancing into Ukraine, it is perhaps superfluous to point out that Liberalism is not yet a universal creed – and there is also China. Home to a millennia old Legalist tradition, which practiced totalitarianism long before Stalin made the word well-known, the outcomes of China’s rise are not yet known. History teaches it is wise to be prudent.
Thus TTIP is essential, as Nick said, so as to give the US and Europe a chance to set the rules and standards of trade – perhaps for the last time. The pact will also help strengthen transatlantic relations at a time when autocrats everywhere are challenging the post-1945 order. It would also promote growth: reasonable estimates put the figures for a robust agreement at 0.4% GDP for America and slightly more for the EU. The trade pact is also likely to be more liberal than any other that would emerge elsewhere and to help preserve power in the most liberal parts of the globe at a time when it is shifting remorselessly elsewhere. This is not to say Western trade policy is all benign, much more liberalism is needed in Agriculture, to take a notorious example, but that is another story.
Holding NATO spending at or around 2% is also essential at a time when we need to be encouraging our European allies to do more to share the global security burden with the U.S. In aggregate Europe is bigger, more populous, and wealthier than America. Our combined military spending already dwarfs Russia’s, and we face no other major geopolitical challenges. Together Europe should be able to manage its neighbourhood rather than defer to Washington.
Nick might be right to argue that we mustn’t get too caught up on exact percentage of GDP figures, and Sir Nick Harvey has written elsewhere here that expecting major procurement projects to fit inside an arbitrary percentage of GDP rather than being led by the defence needs of the country is, perhaps, not really appropriate. Nevertheless, the 2 per cent commitment has huge symbolic significance – with Congress, the White House, Europe and the World. If Britain cannot meet its NATO target, who else in Europe will?
But Nick was right to state that Europe does not currently have the capacity to carry out military operations in Ukraine to counter Putin. The best hope to defeat this menace is, as he argued, not a new EU army, but generous aid, linked to economic and political reform. Only by becoming a prosperous liberal democracy will the Ukraine be able to defeat Putin and win back its lost regions.
Finally, Hong Kong. The Gentleman who questioned what the British Government was doing to support the demonstrators in Hong Kong was right to do so. The Tories silence on the matter is a cowardly betrayal of responsibility and the good faith the people of Hong Kong put in Britain as a beacon of Liberalism.
Britain gains much from its values as a democracy and its ability as a permanent member of the Security Council to galvanise coalitions. By seeming unwilling to use our influence to defend our values we signal that these traditional sources of strength are failing.
As the Economist has written: “Britain alone might not curb China’s behaviour. But other countries, including America, are alarmed at Chinese bullying in neighbouring seas and distant continents. If Britain were willing to stand by Hong Kong’s liberties, they would be prepared to do so too. If Britain kow-tows to China, why should they bother?”
In government Nick has been the only one to speak out about Hong Kong. The response in commons has been, as he put it, “mealy mouthed.” Liberalism is open to the world and faces it courageously. It’s not only those in the UK who would be worse off without Britain’s Liberal voice.
* Matthew McGinty joined the Liberal Democrats in 2014
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Meg Thomas
David Garlick
Paul Fox
Andrew Tampion
9 Comments
Whether or not trade in agriculture needs a lot more “liberalism” depends very much on how you define “liberalism”. Throwing it all open to the mercies of the multi-national global corporations is very much not what we want to see.
As for the TTIP, more vague generalisations about what a good thing it is…the truth is that the jury is very much out. Until people start to explain in detail why the arguments against are wrong, I will continue to be very, very suspicious.
Tony Greaves
Matthew McGinty, thank you for your article with which there is a much to disagree.
I will just restrict myself to commenting on one point on which I think your view of the world is not very Liberal.
You say —
“…Britain gains much from … its ability as a permanent member of the Security Council to galvanise coalitions. ”
This is the sort of Imperial British view of the world that was already out of date in the 1940s when the UN was set up.
Being a permanent member of the Security Council gives our more self-serving Prime Ministers (eg Blair) the chance to strut around the world in their retirement gathering a personal fortune of £ Millions courtesy of some of the most dubious regimes on earth.
How does Britain gain from that?
Hi Tony, thanks for your comment. The rich world, including Japan, all protect and subsidise their farmers, spending more on subsidies than is given in developmental aid. A liberal economic view dislikes subsidies as they benefit only a few (farmers) and impose costs on everyone else. Rich world citizens are hit by their taxes being paid to farmers. Trade barriers mean they aren’t getting access to the cheapest goods. Developing world citizens loose as they are priced out of very large, lucrative markets. I’m not sure were MNCs fit in? If the market, was liberalised they might conceivably come to dominate developing country agricultural trade, but this is unlikely and would still bring huge benefits to developing countries.
Regarding TTIP, 0.4% GDP growth, a stronger transatlantic alliance and the chance to set the rules of trade for another decade – that’s not that vague.
Liberalism equals helping the rich set the rules for the poor?
Liberalism equals viewing the ravaging of our democracy by corporations as a necessary price to pay in imposing a greater ravaging of democracy and culture on the rest of the world, thereby restoring imperialism’s status quo.
@ JT – “This is the sort of Imperial British view of the world that was already out of date in the 1940s when the UN was set up…. How does Britain gain from that?”
Is it because we have an interest in promoting an international rules based system where laws and norms are adhered to. Responsibility to Protect, a ‘norm’ now quite accepted in International Relations is a case in point. Britain’s position on the Security Council is in part justified by the strategic bargain with friends and allies that we will work to achieve collective security in the widest sense.
Thus do we need a force structure that provides an expeditionary capability in addition to meeting the basic and local requirements of collective and national defence.
Thus is it important to fund our expeditionary capability in line with our commitments to those same allies as a demonstration of good intent.
Paraphrasing Mr. Spock: “It’s Liberal Internationalism Jim, just not as we know it” 🙁
Looking at TTIP the element which I think is indefensible is ISDS – whereby corporations would be entitled to refer trade disputes against nations to a special tribunal made up of corporate lawyers without recourse to judicial appeal. This could be triggered merely by allegations that a legal provision – such as a ban on something considered harmful or a preventive measure such as plain paper packaging for cigarettes – could be deemed to affect the profitability of the corporation concerned. There is much opposition to ISDS forming part of any TTIP agreement, particularly in Germany, and the Liberal Democrats should unquestionably be a part of that opposition. Where does our leadership stand on this?
John, stating that Britain gains much from being a Liberal Democracy and being able to galvanise coalitions because of its position on the Security Council is stating a fact. This is not to suggest that the Security Council is not in need of reform to better reflect today’s distribution of power.
I am not sure where this links in with Blair’s post Prime Ministerial career, it is not like he is going around peddling British influence on the Security Council? He is acting in an independent capacity.
Simon, TTIP is about the rules governing trade between the US and EU, by setting an example of what works they will likely become the global template, something poorer countries would benefit from by having a set of ready-made rules for them to use. True, these rules may not be as favourable to them as if they had negotiated them themselves, but I stress again TTIP is mostly at the high end of trade – services, it is agricultural reform that is most needed to benefit the poor. This is why the Lib Dems take a Liberal stance and support reform of the CAP. Also, the argument is about preserving power during a time when it is flowing rapidly to a very illiberal China not to the world’s poor.
Finally, Dennis. This looks like a genuine concern about a specific component of TTIP and you ask an interesting question regarding what the party’s stance is?