UK Government's foreign policy 1980-present

[adrock1976]

As a side thread for the Manchester attack the other day, perhaps on reflection it is the UK Government's foreign policy that may have caused an increase in incidents like this?

In the 1980s, both Thatcher and Reagan supported Saddam Hussain during the Iran - Iraq conflict. Even Donald Rumsfeld sold arms to both sides.

The former Soviet Russia occupation of Afghanistan from 1979-89, where al-Queada were supported by both the UK and USA. Al-Queada subsequently turned against the USA and UK in the early Noughties.

The selling of arms to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the Sultan of Brunei, and Israel, of all which have an appalling human rights record.

The present ongoing conflict in the Yemen is using arms from Saudi Arabia, which the UK sold them to.

The present conflict in Syria. Former Prime Minister David Cameron sold arms to a group of rebels who were opposed to President Assad. However, it was the wrong group of rebels, as apparently, it turned out to be members masquerading as ISIS.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq - this left Iraq in a far worse state than what it was in before the invasion, with an internal tripartite conflict between the various factions. Plus former US Vice President Dick Cheney (who was a director of Halliburton, which was almost on the verge of going into liquidation) did well out of the invasion when he got Halliburton to take control of most of the oil there.

The 2011 invasion of Libya that ousted Gadaffi from power. This created a power vacuum that allowed ISIS/ISIL to emerge into the mainstream.

The above are just a small selection of the UK foreign policy over the last 30 odd years or so. Perhaps it is time for a rethink on foreign policy, in particular to stop selling arms to regimes that have dubious human rights, and not to invade other sovereign states in pursuit of capitalist interests and ego trips?

Also, perhaps maybe in a future constitution of the UK (or what may remain of it in the future if not in its present form) to only have the army going on humanitarian peacekeeping missions under the guise of the United Nations (the blue berets I believe)? After all, Costa Rica has it in their constitution (since 1949) that they have no requirement for armed forces - perhaps maybe it is because they do not intend invading anybody?

EDIT: I would like to mention that what I have posted above could get heated, but I would like everybody who posts in this thread to be nice to each other. I know I am stating the obvious here.

 

[Iskra]

It's an interesting and thought-provoking question.

I do believe the UK has been too eager to intervene without good cause or a well-thought out strategy. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are good examples and they have in my opinion contributed to the terror attacks the country is facing.

I would like the UK to pursue a more cautious foreign policy. However, there are times when intervention is necessary: the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait being a good example.

Costa Rica faces little external threat and their security is basically guaranteed by the US so hardly a representative case.

 

[DarloRich]

Harry Truman is supposed to have said "He's a b'stard, but he's our b'stard" about the terrible Nicaragua dictastor Anastasio Somoza García. I supscribe to that view.

We should support people who are useful to us. We should sell them arms (they are going to buy arms so why not let them buy ours?) and if they opress the lunatic elements in thier country then good. I know that wont be popular witrh many here but tough. It is a sensible application of realpolitik. The problems in many of the countires listed above started becuase we removed the "strong man" and didnt have another puppet lined up.

 

[EM2]

We should support people who are useful to us. We should sell them arms (they are going to buy arms so why not let them buy ours?) and if they opress the lunatic elements in thier country then good.

And when they decide to no longer be useful? Then they have a massive arsenal that we've sold them, and they're happy to use it against us.

 

[DarloRich]

And when they decide to no longer be useful? Then they have a massive arsenal that we've sold them, and they're happy to use it against us.

We kill them. Actually we have a local kill them. It was the corner stone of British imperial policy for nearly 300 years and it worked. You keep the natives too busy fighting each other for power and reliant on you for that power, position and wealth that they behave.

 

[najaB]

As DarloRich said, if you look at UK foreign policy over the period, it was largely driven by the realpolitik - especially Cold War politics.

To my mind there were three key moments where 'The West' got it wrong:

• 1989 - 1990: The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and dissolution of the USSR caught the West largely by surprise. There wasn't an effective plan for what happened next, and previously useful allies lost their usefulness. The Mujahadeen were just one of several examples, and their sense of abandonment turned into resentment towards the Western powers.
• 1993 - 1995: UNOSOM II - the decision by President Clinton not to pursue the warlords in Somalia was tactically sound (it would have been impossible to avoid significant civilian casualties) but strategically it was disastrous. It showed those opposed to the West that our stomach for conflict wasn't as strong as theirs. Osama Bin Laden famously described the US as 'a paper tiger' in the aftermath of the US withdrawal. This emboldened him and his followers to attack the West with seeming impunity.
• 2001 - 2003: On September 12th 2001 the world was on the US's side. By March 31st 2003 all the goodwill had been completely squandered. Going into Afghanistan without a clear, realistic strategy that distinguished between the Taliban and Al Qaeda was a fatal flaw (the former could be controlled while obliterating the latter) and the rush to invade Iraq and depose Saddam on the most trumped up of excuses set the scene for much of what followed in the next decade.

If we had got it right (or at least less wrong) at any of those points the world would be significantly different to the mess it is in now.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's difficult to know where to start with the OP. Costa Rica, a small banana republic under the wing of the USA, is not exactly a good comparator with a post-imperial secondary power with a seat on the G7 and NATO.

Many liberal-minded people who voted Remain like to have idealistic dreams about what our foreign policy should look like. Essentially, the policy ends up being "defence only, never attack, be insular, don't be forthcoming in assisting allies" which seems rather at odds with some of the principles liberal people endorse.

Essentially, to reach that stage you'd have to manage your allies, which at present include most European big nations, the USA and NATO. I don't foresee the UK having that much influence in that bloc to the extent of ensuring we can rely on a "defence only" policy.

Other ideals about installing puppet governments in vassal states are somewhat more practical but less responsible in my view.

I think we should strongly revisit our strategy in the Middle East, but whether we actively get involved or not as a nation has little bearing on whether we are an actual target for attacks. It should be borne in mind that the vast majority of casualties of Islamic terrorism are other Muslims, usually ones of the "wrong" flavour. I mentioned elsewhere that my belief is that ISIS and others are utterly nihilistic and don't seek to effect political change. The terror inflicted is simply pure Islamic jihadism to kill and cripple the infidel regardless of what the infidel has or hasn't done to the jihadi.

 

[DarloRich]

I think we should strongly revisit our strategy in the Middle East, but whether we actively get involved or not as a nation has little bearing on whether we are an actual target for attacks. It should be borne in mind that the vast majority of casualties of Islamic terrorism are other Muslims, usually ones of the "wrong" flavour. I mentioned elsewhere that my belief is that ISIS and others are utterly nihilistic and don't seek to effect political change. The terror inflicted is simply pure Islamic jihadism to kill and cripple the infidel regardless of what the infidel has or hasn't done to the jihadi.

I agree with that. As a Western, liberal democracy we are a target.

 

[TheEdge]

Harry Truman is supposed to have said "He's a b'stard, but he's our b'stard" about the terrible Nicaragua dictastor Anastasio Somoza García. I supscribe to that view.

We should support people who are useful to us. We should sell them arms (they are going to buy arms so why not let them buy ours?) and if they opress the lunatic elements in thier country then good. I know that wont be popular witrh many here but tough. It is a sensible application of realpolitik. The problems in many of the countires listed above started becuase we removed the "strong man" and didnt have another puppet lined up.

Well quite, the Middle East was in relative calm because we had a collection of stable maniacs keeping the unstable maniacs and lunatics under control. But then we decided to help topple the stable maniacs, upset the maniac cart and now all the maniacs are running free being maniacs to each other until the strongest and most maniacal remains, like some sort of maniac Highlander.

 

[DarloRich]

Well quite, the Middle East was in relative calm because we had a collection of stable maniacs keeping the unstable maniacs and lunatics under control. But then we decided to help topple the stable maniacs, upset the maniac cart and now all the maniacs are running free being maniacs to each other until the strongest and most maniacal remains, like some sort of maniac Highlander.

We didn't even manage to pick the right lunatics to back and the one left standing is certainly outside of our control!

 

[Cowley]

Well quite, the Middle East was in relative calm because we had a collection of stable maniacs keeping the unstable maniacs and lunatics under control. But then we decided to help topple the stable maniacs, upset the maniac cart and now all the maniacs are running free being maniacs to each other until the strongest and most maniacal remains, like some sort of maniac Highlander.

Very well put (and amusingly put too).
The problem is that many in the west don't understand that the use of very unpleasant force has been necessary at times for various different leaders in countries and cultures (which again we don't really understand) to put the fear of god into those that would dare to rise up against them (and plenty of people would have wanted to rise up against them).
Unfortunately this doesn't sit with the way we live and we have difficulty comprehending that our democracy may not work in those countries and cultures.
This has the potential to be a very interesting thread.
Just as an aside my father met Gaddafi once in the 70s and told me he was absolutely terrifying.

 

[edwin_m]

I agree with that. As a Western, liberal democracy we are a target.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

There will always be a hard core of jihadists*, but if a Western country does something that can be construed as oppressing Islam then those people will use it ruthlessly to attract wider support. That provides them with cannon fodder and the suicide bombers to use against their enemies without risking themselves.

For similar reasons and more controversially, I believe attacks on the West are likely to be calculated to create suppport for views and factions there that are more in favour of cracking down on Islamists and the societies they inhabit. See for example attacks in France, a country with significant military power and a realistic prospect that it might come under the control of an anti-Islamic party. 9/11 gave Bush and co the excuse to go into Iraq, and at a stretch I wonder if the general election explains the Manchester attack. All these could have been intended to provoke more oppression to serve the jihadists' cause (they don't of course actually care about the people they claim to represent). Those tactics originated in the Israel/Palestine conflict and have since spread to other theatres. They don't always work of course, especially if they provoke a Blitz spirit as appears to be happening in Manchester.

There wasn't an upsurge in terrorism in the West after the first Gulf war, which I believe nearly everybody saw as just punishment of an illegal act by Saddam. However the 2003 war turned a stable and secular if highly unpleasant region into a zone of anarchy with plenty of oppression for the jihadists to feed on.

*or supporters of other types of violence, in other eras and places.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Well quite, the Middle East was in relative calm because we had a collection of stable maniacs keeping the unstable maniacs and lunatics under control. But then we decided to help topple the stable maniacs, upset the maniac cart and now all the maniacs are running free being maniacs to each other until the strongest and most maniacal remains, like some sort of maniac Highlander.

Absolutely. That should be the end of this thread!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Unfortunately this doesn't sit with the way we live and we have difficulty comprehending that our democracy may not work in those countries and cultures.

The problem has been that "democracy" was seen as a good thing...right up until the people in a country decided they wanted socialism.

Al-Assad's father originally came to power on the back of the CIA, because he was able to take over the left-leaning Syrian Ba'ath Party and move them back towards The West. The CIA turned a blind eye to his extraordinary human rights abuses, including development of suicide bombers in the war with Lebanon, because al-Assad was useful.

We saw that with Lockerbie. The late Paul Foot, among others, made a strong case that Syria was responsible for that bombing, partly in retaliation for the US "accidentally" shooting down an Iranian passenger jet a few months before. But Syria were needed as an ally in the first Gulf War, giving it legitimacy in the Arab world, and so the blame went on Libya because they were a useful pariah.

It's been the same throughout the world. The US endorsed the fascist dictators in Spain and Portugal because they stopped the socialists in those countries. The US endorsed Pinochet. Anyone who would stop socialism was supported, regardless of how they did it or how many people they tortured in the process.

If you've not watched Bitter Lake and HyperNormalisation by Adam Curtis, it's well worth taking a few hours out of your life to watch them.

 

[Bertie the bus]

If we’re using the UK’s foreign policy as an excuse for inexcusable acts by Muslims in this country can we use the way ISIS and other groups have treated Christians as an excuse for the occasional attack on mosques in British cities?

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

If we’re using the UK’s foreign policy as an excuse for inexcusable acts by Muslims in this country can we use the way ISIS and other groups have treated Christians as an excuse for the occasional attack on mosques in British cities?

I think that the argument is that the recent 'inexcusable acts' are a consequence of the recent British (and Western Foreign Policy). Christians and Muslims have clashed across the World for centuries.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I think you'll find ISIS have commited very recent acts against Christians which have been classified as genocide. I have no idea why you have put inexcusable acts in quotations. Are you suggesting murdering kids at a gig is excusable?

 

[NSEFAN]

I think you'll find ISIS have commited very recent acts against Christians which have been classified as genocide. I have no idea why you have put inexcusable acts in quotations. Are you suggesting murdering kids at a gig is excusable?

It's not excusable in the slightest, but is perhaps explainable and to some degree attributable to our current or historical foreign policy, as is being discussed.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I think you'll find ISIS have commited very recent acts against Christians which have been classified as genocide. I have no idea why you have put inexcusable acts in quotations. Are you suggesting murdering kids at a gig is excusable?

No, of course not. Possibly poor grammar as I lifted the phrase from your comment....and as, NSEFAN said....

 

[Yew]

Realistically the whole region has been a mess since the fall of the Ottoman empire.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think that the argument is that the recent 'inexcusable acts' are a consequence of the recent British (and Western Foreign Policy). Christians and Muslims have clashed across the World for centuries.

I think it'd be more reasonable to argue that the recent inexcusable acts of terrorism are a consequence of certain extremist groups deliberately and knowingly engaging in this kind of violence, and indoctrinating other people into thinking this kind of violence was somehow good.

Separately you might well argue that recent British foreign policy inadvertently created conditions in which these extremist groups were able to thrive, but that's not quite the same thing.

 

[Butts]

I think the only "Popular" Conflict in my Lifetime was the Falklands Campaign of 1982.

Whatever the "why's and wherefores" of British Foreign Policy leading up to the Argentinian invasion, virtually the whole Country was behind it.

However this was British Sovereign Territory and not to act would have been a betrayal of the Falklanders.

A lot of people felt proud to be British when the Islands were retaken against all the odds. Indeed, even today, when you step off a tender boat at Stanley in mixed European Company to be greeted by a Union Jack, it still does.

 

[najaB]

I think the only "Popular" Conflict in my Lifetime was the Falklands Campaign of 1982.

I don't think it stretches to the level of "popular" but there was little controversy around and some justifiable pride in the role and conduct of UK forces involved in the Balkans Conflicts of the early 1990s. Equally, operating under the authority of a UN resolution meant that there was little dissent about the First Gulf War.

 

[Butts]

I don't think it stretches to the level of "popular" but there was little controversy around and some justifiable pride in the role and conduct of UK forces involved in the Balkans Conflicts of the early 1990s. Equally, operating under the authority of a UN resolution meant that there was little dissent about the First Gulf War.

The first Gulf War was a joke in respect of actual conflict - the famed Republican Guard turned out be best at "running away" as was the case with most of the other Iraqi forces.

 

[kermit]

I was going to chip in here with my view that drone attacks, which Obama (disappointingly) approved by the score, and which have a woeful record of killing and maiming bystanders, have been an obvious example of Western foreign policy giving free propaganda to ISIS and others.

Then I saw that somebody has apparently seen fit to scrawl "Love from Manchester" on an RAF drone.

I'm from Manchester. Not in my name.

 

[najaB]

I was going to chip in here with my view that drone attacks, which Obama (disappointingly) approved by the score, and which have a woeful record of killing and maiming bystanders, have been an obvious example of Western foreign policy giving free propaganda to ISIS and others.

Drones get unfair press. They are a tool, nothing else. It is like hiring a bad carpenter and them blaming the hammer for all the holes in the wall.

 

[Barn]

Is it fair to say that there is a difference between RAF, USAF and Russian airstrikes in terms of civilian casualties? The impression I get is that the RAF are exceptionally careful and would rather not strike an important target if there is a risk of civilian injury.

 

[Barn]

Corbyn will make a despicable speech today suggesting that overseas wars are the reason why we've suffered a nail bomb at a children's concert. It's both morally and factually wrong.

Morally wrong because, whatever he says about the guilt of the bomber, there is an inevitable conclusion that we are somehow to blame for being bombed.

Factually wrong because far less interventionist countries like Germany and Belgium have also been hit with disgraceful attacks.

 

[najaB]

Is it fair to say that there is a difference between RAF, USAF and Russian airstrikes in terms of civilian casualties? The impression I get is that the RAF are exceptionally careful and would rather not strike an important target if there is a risk of civilian injury.

My understanding is that the RAF's rules of engagement are tighter than the USAF's which are tighter in turn than that of both the Russian and Syrian air forces.

That said, any time you are dropping munitions from several thousand feet in the sky there is a risk of 'collateral damage'.

 

[AlterEgo]

Corbyn will make a despicable speech today suggesting that overseas wars are the reason why we've suffered a nail bomb at a children's concert. It's both morally and factually wrong.

Morally wrong because, whatever he says about the guilt of the bomber, there is an inevitable conclusion that we are somehow to blame for being bombed.

Factually wrong because far less interventionist countries like Germany and Belgium have also been hit with disgraceful attacks.

Quite.

I wish some people would get that - these attacks are not a hit back at us because of foreign policy, it's simply because we aren't Muslims, or even the correct "flavour" of Muslim. The attacks are an attempt to destroy our successful society and our way of life.