Editorial

A New World Order?

New Ground 62
Winter 2001

This edition of New Ground, with its international theme, has turned out to be timelier than we expected. The tragic events of Sept 11 have had dramatic effects on world politics and the UK’s response has had political, military and humanitarian dimensions. The crisis has placed international issues at the absolute centre of British politics and led to a renewed declaration by the prime minister of Britain’s commitment to internationalism.

This declaration came in Tony Blair’s speech to the Labour Party conference in October, in which he made a stirring and unequivocal commitment to combating poverty and injustice. He said: "The starving, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor from the deserts of North Africa to the slums of Gaza, to the mountains of Afghanistan: they too are our cause". Blair’s speech also brought to public prominence his interest in African affairs.

The speech appeared to herald a commitment to using the full gamut of international policy to tackle poverty and injustice. The implications of this could be enormous and could potentially cover international trade policy, developing world debt, climate change, implementation of UN resolutions and regulation of international business.

Since then we have had the start of the war in Afghanistan. These words have been also tested in the diplomatic arena, by events in Israel and Palestine and at the Doha trade talks. Regrettably, Britain’s actions have fallen short of Blair’s ringing commitment to internationalism, as Barry Coates’s excellent article on pages 6-8 of this publication makes clear.

Despite claims by the European Union that it sought a "development round" at Doha, the EU focused on extending the next World Trade Organisation trade round to include issues such as public service provision, against the wishes of developing countries. These countries’ negotiators, who were hugely out-numbered by those from rich nations, were forced into a battle on two fronts. They had to defend their countries’ interests against new threats as well as trying to ensure that the rich states honoured the commitment to cut tariffs that they had made in the previous trade round.

SERA’s ability to engage in international issues has always been limited by our resources. Our expertise tends to lie more in domestic policy, where we already have active volunteers and groups working hard. However, SERA’s new strategic plan for 2002–03 states that we would like to broaden our work to include international affairs, provided we get enough extra income to support the new work. SERA is a small, efficient organisation that will only continue to exert influence if we set clear goals that reflect our resources. So volunteers, donations or suggestions will all be gratefully received.

In his conference speech, Blair also promised greater equity in international diplomacy. Foreign Office Minister Ben Bradshaw assured a fringe meeting at the same conference that Britain would be consistent in its attitude to UN resolutions, a bold claim when one compares approaches taken to implementing, for example, resolutions critical of Israel and those critical of Iraq.

International diplomacy is not an easy arena in which to apply high-minded principles. There will always be counter pressures and compromises. But Britain can do more. Trade policy is one area where Britain can do better. Another is the environment. Blair’s speech contained the annual reference to the Kyoto Treaty, for which his personal support is in no doubt. But the environment must be given greater prominence in international policy. Near the top of this agenda is environmental security. Giving the go-ahead to the MOX reprocessing plant at Sellafield showed a wilful neglect of environmental and security risks, jeopardising relations with our neighbours across the Irish Sea, as David Lowry makes clear on page 26.

Finally, a few words on SERA’s attitude to the war in Afghanistan. At the request of Bristol SERA, the executive discussed Afghanistan at its November meeting. A range of views was expressed, but the meeting concluded it would be divisive and inappropriate for the executive to adopt a "SERA position" on the crisis. There is no precedent for SERA taking a stance on military conflict and SERA members may have differing opinions. The executive felt that attitudes to the war should be a matter of personal rather than collective conscience for SERA members.