News from the New Party

The Democratic Imperative

The Foreign Secretary David Miliband has made an important speech setting out clearly that the commitment to advance democracy, freedom and human rights worldwide remains a concern of the present government.  We set out here some excerpts from his Aung San Suu Kyi Lecture at St Hugh's College, Oxford, this week, the full text of which can be found here:

"I have called this speech 'The Democratic Imperative' because I believe discussion about the Iraq war has clouded the debate about promoting democracy around the world. I understand the doubts about Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep concerns at the mistakes made. But my plea is that we do not let divisions over those conflicts obscure our national interest, never mind our moral impulse, in supporting movements for democracy. We must not be glib about what democracy means - it is far more than a five year ballot. We cannot be self satisfied about the state of our own democracy. We cannot impose democratic norms. But we can be clear about the desirability of government by the people and clear that without hubris or sanctimony we can play a role in backing demands for democratic governance and all that goes with it."

Miliband goes on to praise popular movements for democracy around the world such as the Burmese democracy movement of which Aung San Suu Kyi is a leading symbol, describing a "civilian surge" of increasingly literate and educated citizens seeking progressive democratic reform across the world.  He argues strongly that progressives should side always with this civilian surge:

"We must resist the arguments on both the left and the right to retreat into a world of realpolitik. The traditional conservative 'realist position' is to say that values and interests diverge, and interests should predominate. This will not do. Yet in the 1990s, something strange happened. The neoconservative movement seemed to be most sure about spreading democracy around the world. The left seemed conflicted between the desirability of the goal and its qualms about the use of military means. In fact, the goal of spreading democracy should be a great progressive project; the means need to combine soft and hard power. We should not let the genuine debate about the 'how' of foreign policy obscure the clarity about the 'what'."

In fact, Miliband turns the traditional conservative "realist" position on its head, proclaiming that liberal democracy is the best guarantor of peace, security and freedom:

"Democracy is the best custodian of trade. Free trade and investment rely on confidence that governments will protect property rights, operate in a transparent way, and avoid hidden subsidies and distortions.

I also believe that established democracies are less likely to fight each other. Their intentions and motives are more transparent. They are better able to build trust with other states.

But today, the main security threat, from terrorism and conflict, comes not from conflict between states, but within states. Local disputes and ethnic divisions escalate into wider regional conflicts. Groups that begin with local grievances increasingly become co-opted by Al Qaeda into global terrorism.

In weak states, there are no military solutions to the insecurity and injustice that helps to breed terrorism, only political solutions. Democracy provides a way of resolving competing interests and claims on resources in a peaceful way. Without democratic legitimacy, it is hard to sustain the increase in state capacity needed to maintain law and order.

In my mind there is no doubt: the rule of law in a democracy is the best long term defence against global terrorism and conflict."

Most importantly, Miliband does not shy away from the importance of an interventionist foreign policy for progressive goals.  While sanctions may sometimes be effective, in circumstances where they fail, handwringing and shroud-waving on the sidelines are not enough: military intervention is sometimes necessary.

"The UN has thirteen sanctions regimes; the EU has eight. They are an imperfect instrument. But targeted sanctions can send a powerful signal about the legitimacy of a state's actions, and offer substantive pressure for changes in behaviour. The most famous example of success is South Africa where they helped persuade the white political establishment of the need to change and dismantle apartheid. In some cases, sanctions are not enough. In extreme cases the failure of states to exercise their responsibility to protect their own civilians from genocide or ethnic cleansing warrant military intervention on humanitarian grounds." 

From all this it is clear that whatever else may be said of the present government, the ghost of Tony Blair still stalks the Foreign Office.  Good.