The Fabians have a new blog called Next Left, to which I will be contributing regularly.
Its at www.nextleft.org/
Showing posts with label Fabian Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fabian Society. Show all posts
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
Why Brown's Iraq inquiry pledge - to me! - matters
I very much welcome Gordon Brown's commitment to an inquiry " to learn all possible lessons from the military action in Iraq and its aftermath" - even aside from the unusual experience of this very welcome political development coming in correspondence between myself and the Prime Minister. (Naturally, one also expects that other Cabinet ministers will take note. We were very pleased with last week's budget commitments on child poverty and will be thinking about where else we should now be pressing for progress).
On Iraq, the Prime Minister's spokesman says "that there is nothing new in the letter to the Fabian Society". I am not particularly concerned about a Westminster village debate about how much we have learnt from the letter. If an inquiry has been the government's intention all along, then I very much welcome the fact that this is now clearly on the public record and in the Prime Minister's own words too.
For me, the most positive aspect of Brown's letter are that it adds to the sense that he is planning and ambitious and rather different foreign policy for the 'World after Bush' - a pursuit to which this blog is dedicated.
But the letter has also naturally been the subject of considerable political and media interest today because of that clear, personal commitment by the Prime Minister on behalf of his government. The Independent's powerful front-page coverage of the Brown letter helps to take forward the newspaper's own sustained campaign for an inquiry. It is striking too that The Times and the Evening Standard, two papers which were editorially supportive of the government's decision to go to war, also report that Brown's letter marks a significant development of policy. That is also reflected in reaction from Labour backbenchers and the opposition parties, with Nick Clegg and William Hague stepping up pressure on the issue.
The Times reports that:
The Evening Standard says that
I wrote my letter to the Prime Minister mainly to make the case as to why an inquiry is important, and why the fifth anniversary offered the government the right context to announce this. But, as I told The Independent, the letter was also motivated by the fact that I wasn't clear what the government's policy on an inquiry was, despite trying to follow these issues clearly. I am not omniscient about these issues, but I was not aware of any public statement from the current Prime Minister or current Foreign Secretary setting that out since the Brown administration took office in June.
Those of us trying to read between the lines of various statements as to what the final decision would be were coming to different conclusions. For example, David Miliband's comments rejecting an inquiry when interviewed by Fabian Review in December were reported as marking a significant cooling of the government's attitude towards an inquiry.
Certainly, his words then were much more sceptical than both Margaret Beckett and Des Browne had been before the transition, in seeming to accept that an inquiry in due course would make sense. But as I - blogged at the time -
And, despite that scepticism. Miliband did, in his keynote speech to the Fabian Change the World conference, make a significant argument about the need to 'learn the lessons' from Iraq and Afghanistan.
By contrast, Tony Blair was, for the most part, strongly opposed to an inquiry. Competing quotes can be found on both sides. The authentic Blair view is, I would suggest, is the claim that "We have had inquiry after inquiry we do not need to go back over this again and again." It was only well into injury time towards the end of Blair's Premiership that Ministers began to suggest they were open to an inquiry - and again there was something of a guessing game as to whether this had been inspired by the Prime Minister in waiting, or might rather have been a case of other Ministers seeking to anticipate
It is certainly true that the Brown letter does not go into any detail as to the nature of an inquiry or its timing. However, it would be more than pushing my luck to complain about that, and I hope that the government will set out more details of its plans as soon as possible. (More formally, I expect, but I would like to place on record that the Fabian letterbox remains very much open).
Now, I hope somebody at Number 10 is also paying attention to the very cogent case made in Saturday's Guardian against the extension of detention without trial.
UPDATE: Andy Grice of the Independent also blogs about the Brown letter, pointing out that Brown had not previously said any more than that "there will be a time to discuss the question" of an inquiry. So the Prime Minister's support for an inquiry is new.
On Iraq, the Prime Minister's spokesman says "that there is nothing new in the letter to the Fabian Society". I am not particularly concerned about a Westminster village debate about how much we have learnt from the letter. If an inquiry has been the government's intention all along, then I very much welcome the fact that this is now clearly on the public record and in the Prime Minister's own words too.
For me, the most positive aspect of Brown's letter are that it adds to the sense that he is planning and ambitious and rather different foreign policy for the 'World after Bush' - a pursuit to which this blog is dedicated.
But the letter has also naturally been the subject of considerable political and media interest today because of that clear, personal commitment by the Prime Minister on behalf of his government. The Independent's powerful front-page coverage of the Brown letter helps to take forward the newspaper's own sustained campaign for an inquiry. It is striking too that The Times and the Evening Standard, two papers which were editorially supportive of the government's decision to go to war, also report that Brown's letter marks a significant development of policy. That is also reflected in reaction from Labour backbenchers and the opposition parties, with Nick Clegg and William Hague stepping up pressure on the issue.
The Times reports that:
Since succeeding Mr Blair last summer Mr Brown has stopped short of calling outright for an inquiry. Last September he said the time would come to discuss whether one should be held. His letter to Sunder Katwala, the Fabian Society’s general secretary, suggests he has accepted that one should be conducted.
The Evening Standard says that
There have been hints before of an inquiry but this was the first confirmation from No 10.
I wrote my letter to the Prime Minister mainly to make the case as to why an inquiry is important, and why the fifth anniversary offered the government the right context to announce this. But, as I told The Independent, the letter was also motivated by the fact that I wasn't clear what the government's policy on an inquiry was, despite trying to follow these issues clearly. I am not omniscient about these issues, but I was not aware of any public statement from the current Prime Minister or current Foreign Secretary setting that out since the Brown administration took office in June.
Those of us trying to read between the lines of various statements as to what the final decision would be were coming to different conclusions. For example, David Miliband's comments rejecting an inquiry when interviewed by Fabian Review in December were reported as marking a significant cooling of the government's attitude towards an inquiry.
"I am obsessed with the next five years in Iraq, not the last five years in Iraq. And I think that the best 'inquiry' is putting the best brains to think about how to make sure the next five years in Iraq get that combination of political reconstruction, economic reconstruction and security improvement that are so essential."
Certainly, his words then were much more sceptical than both Margaret Beckett and Des Browne had been before the transition, in seeming to accept that an inquiry in due course would make sense. But as I - blogged at the time -
I think is too early to say "Government rules out inquiry into Iraq conflict". I don't see that Miliband has given a definite indication of future government policy ... The case for an inquiry will continue, within and outside government.
And, despite that scepticism. Miliband did, in his keynote speech to the Fabian Change the World conference, make a significant argument about the need to 'learn the lessons' from Iraq and Afghanistan.
'democratic institutions need to be built from the bottom up not just the top down; and military victories are never a solution in themselves; they need the backing of economic and social reconstruction'
By contrast, Tony Blair was, for the most part, strongly opposed to an inquiry. Competing quotes can be found on both sides. The authentic Blair view is, I would suggest, is the claim that "We have had inquiry after inquiry we do not need to go back over this again and again." It was only well into injury time towards the end of Blair's Premiership that Ministers began to suggest they were open to an inquiry - and again there was something of a guessing game as to whether this had been inspired by the Prime Minister in waiting, or might rather have been a case of other Ministers seeking to anticipate
It is certainly true that the Brown letter does not go into any detail as to the nature of an inquiry or its timing. However, it would be more than pushing my luck to complain about that, and I hope that the government will set out more details of its plans as soon as possible. (More formally, I expect, but I would like to place on record that the Fabian letterbox remains very much open).
Now, I hope somebody at Number 10 is also paying attention to the very cogent case made in Saturday's Guardian against the extension of detention without trial.
UPDATE: Andy Grice of the Independent also blogs about the Brown letter, pointing out that Brown had not previously said any more than that "there will be a time to discuss the question" of an inquiry. So the Prime Minister's support for an inquiry is new.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Snapshots from the Fabian conference
Some musings from me on Saturday's 'Change the World' conference over at the excellent OurKingdom blog from OpenDemocracy.
My friend and former colleague Mark Leonard - director of the new European Council on Foreign Relations - made an important point at the event, that there is a danger that an obsession with America “infantilises” Europe:
The world after Bush debate we need should focus on what we can do - as progressives in Britain and Europe. That is also the best way we can engage with and help America's progressive voices in their own debates.
My friend and former colleague Mark Leonard - director of the new European Council on Foreign Relations - made an important point at the event, that there is a danger that an obsession with America “infantilises” Europe:
“We must not let a running commentary on American foreign policy become a substitute for having our own foreign policy”.
The world after Bush debate we need should focus on what we can do - as progressives in Britain and Europe. That is also the best way we can engage with and help America's progressive voices in their own debates.
Change the World
The big Fabian 'Change the World' conference on Saturday went very well, with over 700 people spending a day debating the big questions on the global agenda. A relaxed David Miliband was tie-less and jacket-less to give his keynote speech. I was suited and booted, so he got a laugh at the start by asking what the world is coming to when the Fabian General Secretary is better dressed than the Foreign Secretary.
Central to Miliband's argument was that we are experiencing fundamental shifts in power, including a new 'civilian surge'.
And there was a big argument - applying to both domestic and foreign policy - about the need to bring together the insights of the social democratic and liberal traditions - the necessity of combining the principles of equality with a commitment to individual freedom.
More on the conference will follow, on the Fabian website and on this blog.
Central to Miliband's argument was that we are experiencing fundamental shifts in power, including a new 'civilian surge'.
The left has talked a lot about the essence of globalization – a new interdependence born of rising flows of people, money, culture and trade across national boundaries. But we have not talked enough about its consequence – fundamental shifts in the distribution of power. Power is shifting from West to East. It is shifting from the national to the international level. But there is a third shift – in the balance of power between government and people.
And there was a big argument - applying to both domestic and foreign policy - about the need to bring together the insights of the social democratic and liberal traditions - the necessity of combining the principles of equality with a commitment to individual freedom.
More on the conference will follow, on the Fabian website and on this blog.
Monday, January 14, 2008
David Miliband to headline Fabian Change the World conference
We have announced that Foreign Secretary David Miliband will be the keynote speaker at Saturday's Change the World Fabian conference.
He gives some of the best and most nuanced speeches of any Cabinet Minister - his speech for us in his last job, as Environment Secretary, on the future of red-green politics was one of the most challenging ministerial speeches we have hosted.
I will be interested to see to what extent Miliband can make a strong pro-European argument in the speech.
He gives some of the best and most nuanced speeches of any Cabinet Minister - his speech for us in his last job, as Environment Secretary, on the future of red-green politics was one of the most challenging ministerial speeches we have hosted.
I will be interested to see to what extent Miliband can make a strong pro-European argument in the speech.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
The world after Bush: the positive agenda we need
On a bright, cold day in January as the Washington clocks strike twelve, you might just, if you listen carefully, be able to hear a swooshing sigh of relief as it travels around the world. As the 44th President of the United States takes the oath of office at noon on the 20th January 2009, George W Bush's Presidency will enter the history books.
But what happens next?
We will need much more than a critique of what should have done differently.
Those of us who believe we need a 'new multilateralism' to deal with the global challenges of our age must show that we can find the ideas, the policies and the political strategy to make it work.
The Bush revolution in foreign policy has failed. But that does not mean there will be automatic swing back to a more internationalist approach. Traditional realists, for whom foreign policy must be a values-free zone, and left oppositionists, for whom western iniquity is at the root of every global problem, feel vindicated by events, while many liberal internationalists are divided and demoralised.
This blog will seek to contribute to debate about the new ideas which can be turned into an effective multilateral agenda.
It will discuss the impact of the US election campaign, as voters prepare to elect a new President. But it will place at least as much emphasis on what those outside the United States - particularly in Britain and the rest of the European Union - must do to make a 'new multilateralism' effective.
The blog will draw on and debate the ideas of a significant Fabian Society strand of activity on the world after Bush, including the major 'Change the World' conference in January 2008, and further events and publications across the year, as well as drawing on a wider range of contributions and ideas.
The Fabian Society has run a series of activities on this theme over the last 18 months. Here are some selected highlights:
* Sunder Katwala's Fabian essay, 'The World After Bush' published in the summer 2006 Fabian Review, a global politics special issue, calling for a more confident 'neo-prog' agenda to challenge that of the neo-cons.
* Charles Clarke's Fabian Next Decade lecture, 'The World After Bush' in November 2006, argued for a recommitment to liberal internationalism and arguing that this requires a stronger British commitment to the EU, and a rethinking of the renewal of Trident.
* Glenys Kinnock's Fabian Review article ' in 'What needs to change in foreign policy, in December 2006, argues that returning ethics to the centre of foreign policy demands a rethinking of the 'special relationship' with the United States. Glenys Kinnock debated this with Hilary Benn
at the Fabian new year conference in January 2007.
* Tony Klug's Fabian freethinking paper 'How peace broke out in the Middle East: a brief history of the future, which has been widely acclaimed for its advocacy of the possibility and necessity of a just settlement for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Our fringe debate (full transcript) 'What do Iran's democrats want from us?' held by the Fabian Society and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Bournemouth in Autumn 2007.
But what happens next?
We will need much more than a critique of what should have done differently.
Those of us who believe we need a 'new multilateralism' to deal with the global challenges of our age must show that we can find the ideas, the policies and the political strategy to make it work.
The Bush revolution in foreign policy has failed. But that does not mean there will be automatic swing back to a more internationalist approach. Traditional realists, for whom foreign policy must be a values-free zone, and left oppositionists, for whom western iniquity is at the root of every global problem, feel vindicated by events, while many liberal internationalists are divided and demoralised.
This blog will seek to contribute to debate about the new ideas which can be turned into an effective multilateral agenda.
It will discuss the impact of the US election campaign, as voters prepare to elect a new President. But it will place at least as much emphasis on what those outside the United States - particularly in Britain and the rest of the European Union - must do to make a 'new multilateralism' effective.
The blog will draw on and debate the ideas of a significant Fabian Society strand of activity on the world after Bush, including the major 'Change the World' conference in January 2008, and further events and publications across the year, as well as drawing on a wider range of contributions and ideas.
The Fabian Society has run a series of activities on this theme over the last 18 months. Here are some selected highlights:
* Sunder Katwala's Fabian essay, 'The World After Bush' published in the summer 2006 Fabian Review, a global politics special issue, calling for a more confident 'neo-prog' agenda to challenge that of the neo-cons.
* Charles Clarke's Fabian Next Decade lecture, 'The World After Bush' in November 2006, argued for a recommitment to liberal internationalism and arguing that this requires a stronger British commitment to the EU, and a rethinking of the renewal of Trident.
* Glenys Kinnock's Fabian Review article ' in 'What needs to change in foreign policy, in December 2006, argues that returning ethics to the centre of foreign policy demands a rethinking of the 'special relationship' with the United States. Glenys Kinnock debated this with Hilary Benn
at the Fabian new year conference in January 2007.
* Tony Klug's Fabian freethinking paper 'How peace broke out in the Middle East: a brief history of the future, which has been widely acclaimed for its advocacy of the possibility and necessity of a just settlement for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Our fringe debate (full transcript) 'What do Iran's democrats want from us?' held by the Fabian Society and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Bournemouth in Autumn 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
