Here’s your starter for ten in our weekend slot where we throw up an idea or thought for debate…
The weekend debates have been light on foreign policy so far, so for those foreign policy buffs out there here’s one inspired by our former leader.
Over at Ted talks, Paddy Ashdown has been discussing ‘the global power shift’ from the West to the rest and in particular to the nations around the Pacific rim.
He touches on a lot of areas, including what the future of global governance might look like, how long American power might remain dominant and the growth of a multi-polar world.
He talks about how our alliances will begin to shift in favour of new common interests and beyond our traditional allies: “We are going to have to do business with people with whom we don’t share common values but we share common interests.” And we have to understand that: “Increasingly I share a destiny with my enemy”.
So is he right? Arguably we already do business with those who don’t share our values but are we at the stage where we can no longer draw a line in the sand? And if we did what would that line look like? Would it include dodgy arms sales, poor human right or inadequate environmental protections or perhaps something else entirely?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
St Paul's, Covent Garden: The Actors' Church
Free clinics for families affected by dementia
The Women of Mumbles Head
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
John Grout
Peter Martin
Jennie
Jenny Barnes
Mark
16 Comments
At first glance it wasn’t immediately clear that this was a foreign policy article
Well its a bit late now – the Lib Dems do it every day with the Tories.
Yes, it is absolutely vital that we do business with people who don’t share our values. There are only two possible outcomes here:
1. Do business with them
2. Don’t stop until they’re all dead
It is not possible to have a peaceful coexistence based on ignoring them. And I am not prepared to accept #2.
The terms on which we do business, and the ways in which we use that interaction to influence them, are negotiable. But we must always begin by being willing to come to the table and work out terms.
I agree with Andrew. The Liberal part of the Lib Dems always based their values on free trade: that it was a force for good, both in terms of the favourable and real prices that it creates, but also that it helps to forge peace and forms cultural relationships.
What we should also acknowledge is that today, if we don’t trade with a country, somebody else will. That’s the reality. They’ll do so with less available public scrutiny from their own people, and on their terms.
What, exactly, is Liberal about doing business with and enriching backward regimes where they execute homosexuals and refuse women the most basic of rights (Saudi Arabia)? Can anyone explain how it is true to our values when we do business with countries who torture or have horrid human rights abuses? Was it Liberal for Call-me-Dave to sell weapons to the Egyptians right after their revolution, only for those same weapons to be allegedly used against protesters later in the year? I don’t think so. I see nothing Liberal, at all, about working with nations who have not even the slightest concept of human rights.
When the USSR existed, we in the west made quite a principled stand about how we don’t work with brutal regimes and countries who suppress their own people. But times have changed, sadly. I guess in these days, the days of coalition, nobody believes in principles and taking a stand for what’s right anymore.
My contribution is to say that we increasingly share values with those we interact with, whether commercially, politically or personally. Burma is an example of a country coming out of the wilderness through dialogue. North Korea is the opposite. An historic example is Willy Brandt building bridges with East Germany 20 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Given that we in Britain can correctly claim to be the guardians of democracy and open society, one of our jobs in the world is to communicate our values, and persuade.
And, of course, to be persuaded ourselves.
Simon: When you wrote, “When the USSR existed, we in the west made quite a principled stand about how we don’t work with brutal regimes and countries who suppress their own people”, which countries do you mean a principled stand was taken over? The way it’s written, it sounds as if you mean the USSR – but in fact there were frequent dealings with the USSR (with liberals often calling for more dealings, if anything), so I’m not sure what’s the point you’re making?
We should make it as easy as possible for private businesses, individuals and charities to do work with nations with which we have a “difference in common values”. i.e. the people of the countries should not be discourages from forging common bonds and friendship through trade.
On the other hand, large scale industries which are highly regulated by the state (arms and energy primarily) should be dependent on the progression of negotiation towards a mutually acceptable understanding of common principles.
Finally, trade where the difference of common values relates to the commodity itself (e.g. war diamonds, products of slave labour, products that don’t meet a minimum of human or animal welfare standards, or which contribute to endangering animal species or destroying natural habitats) should be controlled in some way.
I guess my take is: selling cars to Cuba and buying cigars and rum should be none of the government’s business. Selling arms to oppressive regimes and buying products made by people working as little more than slaves should be.
*discouraged in para 1, natch.
I don’t really see why selling weapons to people who agree with us is better than selling weapons to people who don’t. Weapons only have one purpose.
We don’t need to be arms merchants.
@Simon Bamonte
having principles is one thing, but in defining them you acknowledge that other people have different principles – so either you construct the acceptability of prejudices, or you find ways of communicating across those differences to overcome any prejudice and thereby advance the rights of all human beings.
The free exchange of goods and services carries with it a cultural exchange of ideas and knowledge, presenting all the choices under the sun. And by exercising our choices we demonstrate how the force of good is the most beneficial way of approaching these questions.
Trading with despots, dictators and demogogues gives you the means to influence them for the better by showing them politics constructive efforts always win out because politics is not about who you leader is, its about the lives of ordinary people.
For example when Napoleon went to war and blockaded British ports, he still sent his troops to Moscow wearing coats with labels in every one saying they were made in English mill towns – that represents a moral victory at the outset which set the tone for the future course of events. And while the grand armies laid waste to the continent Pitt funded the war machine by introducing income tax, basically levied against all the merchants and farmers who were getting fat off the war economy – meaning effectively Napolean paid us to defeat his egotistical warring!
Maybe some diplomatic insight will shift your fixed stance…
Yes! Why do we do business with the Israeli’s?
It is too general a question if it is a question posed of the economic realm. We do not do business with Israel. We do business with Israel companies or government organisations. The same goes for China, the USA or Burma. If we are more discerning and selective at that level we can do a lot of good. We can help grow companies that are doing “good” business no matter where they are, e.g. Tata, Infosys, John Lewis, Mondragon, Interface; and also NGOs or parastatals that are ethical.
We can also decide to never to do business with Nestle, Dow Chemicals who own Union Carbide, and BA Systems. That would show a bit of integrity.
It depends on the nature of the business and the practical consequences of the difference in values. If, for example, the government of a small country somewhere decided totally cynically that it needed to respect civil liberties in order to gain access to aid and trade, we should do business with it even though it actually shared none of our creditable values.
The government of Iran is currently decidedly repressive, but we should deal with it on climate change, safeguarding the marine environment and prevention of pandemics, for example. Selling weapons and exchanging intelligence information, on the other hand, should be out of the question.
Mike: to say that Liberals always based their values on free trade is open to misunterpretation, though you may not quite have mean it the way it sounds. Liberals believed that free trade would best advance their values (for example, by making war less likely). It did not necessarily follow that free trade was a value in itself, and from the late 19th century on many Liberals admitted limited exceptions. To argue that we should sell advanced weapons or anti-protester technology to repressive regimes because not to do so would be a restraint of free trade would be putting the free trade cart before the Liberalism horse.
Hmm, “What would Jesus do?” seems to be a question we’re allowed to ask once again. He had a friend who was a prostitute and a friend who was a tax collector (not nice helpful taxes to make life better; nasty ones to provide funds for the Roman occupiers.) He said, though not in these words, obviously since he didn’t speak English, “Give unto Caesar those things that are Caesar’s and to God those things that are God’s.”
Simon:
Well there are two sides to it: the social side, as you’ve said, preventing war, and as I said, extending cultural ties, but the specialisation allowed by genuine free trade is just as important for economic liberalism. It makes all parties better off, because of the principle of comparative advantage. Smith, Ricardo and Bastiat were some of my favourite C19th Liberals, they’re still some of the best promotions of why free trade is a good thing available today.
I’ve not advocated the sort of thing you’re talking about, and I’m not sure all of it should be legal to produce in the first place. However, it’s pointless to impose sanctions generally (for example refusing to purchase fuel) from countries like Iran, as it does pretty severe damage to the ordinary people living there and rarely changes anyone’s values. If you want an example of what it looks like, read up on the UN sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s. Horrific.