BREXIT AND BEYOND: STRATEGIZING BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY IN 2020 THROUGH THE COMMONWEALTH

by George I. H. Cooke

As the United Kingdom exits the European Union, and Euro-skeptics draw parallels to a doomsday scenario, in which more members will opt to leave, it is relevant to reflect upon the United Kingdom, the country that is to be directly impacted in the months and years ahead. Member states of the EU still have each other and even have neighbours such as Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and even Turkey, all of whom are keen to gain membership. The EU will ride out the storm that hit it in the last five years since the now infamous referendum which David Cameron promised and held, and respected as he exited Downing Street. His successors have gambled as did Theresa May in holding elections and hoping to obtain a larger majority, but instead lost more seats. Her successor Boris Johnson, who was one of the architects of Brexit, who campaigned vigorously with Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Independence Party for Brexit in 2005, had more success in the polls in 2019 and is now prepared to lead his country out of the regional grouping. 

What options lie ahead for the United Kingdom? How will foreign policy be impacted? What will happen to the position of leadership the UK enjoys on the world stage? While questions abound, it is relevant to focus on the mechanisms within the United Kingdom which the country has relied on for centuries and attempt to understand how the UK has weathered many a storm and still retained its advanced place on the world stage

The United Kingdom, having ruled large swathes of the world for most of the 19^th and 20^th centuries and yet after giving up the empire in stages throughout the second half of the last century, has proved her ability to remain relevant and resilient against many odds. Having been a dominant naval power, which transformed into an industrial power house and built a remarkable empire which conquered countries across continents, the loss of one of its initial colonies, America, was soon overcome through a galaxy of other acquisitions of territory, earning for itself the designation of being an empire on which the sun never set.

As the 1^st of February 2020 dawns, the United Kingdom will turn another page in its dotted history, and gradually, but surely return to its position of prestige on the world stage. The referendum of 2015 is now a part of history and the steps being taken, although not irretrievable are certainly momentous for a country that shook the very fundamentals upon which two particular concepts of International Relations discourse, those of sovereignty and regionalism, have long been established.

Sovereignty challenged from within

The calls for the referendum centered on numerous issues, one being the diminishing sovereignty that the British people enjoyed over their policy formulation and implementation, as it was argued that Brussels, dictated terms and conditions. This, it was noted, was owing to the supranational form of cooperation that the European Union created. British people must decide on their own future, was the call, in a bid to strengthen sovereignty of a country that had delicately balanced and ensured a Union of its own for centuries. Yet the day after the referendum, when Nicola Sturgeon, first Minister of Scotland said that she intended “to take all possible steps and explore all possible options to give effect to how people in Scotland voted - in other words to secure our continuing place in the EU, and in the single market in particular”, alarms bells rang at Downing Street and the new Prime Minister Theresa May flew swiftly to the north to reassure Sturgeon.

The Scottish leader’s statement that she thought “an independence referendum is now highly likely but I also think it is important that we take time to consider all steps and have the discussions, not least to assess the response of the European Union to the vote that Scotland expressed yesterday,” was not what was expected by leaders in London, or even hard line Brexit campaigners. Even if they had not envisaged such an outcome, they certainly hadn’t bargained for such stiff resistance from Scotland in relation to the results.

Theresa May’s “commitment to preserving this special union that has endured for centuries” was a quick fix attempt to reassure the people of Scotland that despite their leaders’ sentiments, the central government would respect the “union, not just between the nations of the United Kingdom, but between all of our citizens.” Sovereignty and its preservation, which had been a crucial element of the Brexit campaign, was under fresh strain, not from Brussels this time but from within the United Kingdom itself.

Similarly, views expressed by Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein President that “the British government should respect the popular vote in the North for European Union membership by bringing forward a referendum on Irish unity. The Irish government, too, should act on this,” created further concern as another integral part of the country, which shares the only tangible border with the EU, was appearing to test sovereignty at its very core. Given that the Good Friday Agreement and relative peace in Northern Ireland, arrived at through a delicate and complex process, might be jeopardized, the cautious note of the Prime Minister led to her delaying invoking Article 50 to commence the process of leaving the Union.

Regionalism threatened

The European Union is held up as the most integrated, progressive and visionary regional grouping of all those that exist at present. From its initial steps through the Coal and Steel pact, to the complex, multinational union of today, the EU has been the epitome of regionalism. Yet the results of the 2015 referendum sent shudders through this hugely consolidated structure with nationalist frontrunners such as France’s Marine Le Pen claiming that “this is the beginning of the end of the European Union. And I hope the birth of the Europe of nations, a Europe of cooperation that we’ve been propounding for years.”

Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom in Netherlands proclaimed that “We want to be in charge of our own country, our own money, our own borders, and our own immigration policy. As quickly as possible the Dutch need to get the opportunity to have their say about Dutch membership of the European Union.” Related issues such as the Euro were being raised in Italy with Luigi Di Maio, Vice President of the Lower House of Parliament stating that “We want a consultative referendum on the Euro. The Euro as it is today does not work. We either have alternative currencies or a 'Euro 2’”. The decade long process of building a region of stability and certainty upon this overarching concept of regionalism was facing its gravest threats.

Other regional blocs, which aimed to emulate the EU and its comprehensive progress, especially in understanding mechanisms such as the European Commission, which remains one of the most unique apparatus aimed at protecting regional interests over national interests, were suddenly faced with the daunting question of whether integration needs to adopted only up to a certain stage, and if the EU had integrated too much.

United Kingdom: Having it her way

The ensuing crisis created by the referendum and the need for its implementation, given the democratic form of governance prevalent in the United Kingdom, was yet another scenario unfolding in which the UK had had her way. From the refusal to convert the Sterling Pound to the Euro and the rejection of the offer to join the Schengen Agreement, the UK has consistently ensured that she was able to chart her own course despite being within a grouping such as the EU.

In the developments post January 2020 it is apparent that the United Kingdom will once again push for swift settlement of the multitude of issues arising out of this move to depart. From travel to savings, pensions, investments, personnel, the value of the Pound, the proposed Free Trade Agreement, the border with Northern Ireland and numerous other issues that require settlement, the task ahead for British leaders is daunting to say the least, but undoubtedly a challenge they will accept and emerge from relatively unscathed, if past experiences are to be relied upon. 

The United Kingdom is today a United Nations Security Council Permanent Member, a position retained through her victorious alliance during the Second World War. The Prime Minister is the current Chair-in-Office of the Commonwealth, a position which will be relinquished later this year to Rwanda. The UK is a leading power in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), an integral member of the G7, possesses the fifth largest economy with a $2.83 trillion GDP, and also has the eighth strongest military in the world with an estimated defence budget of $47.5 billion. 

This is a country which gave up an empire and gained the Commonwealth. It is a nation that despite many trials and tribulations has always been able to survive and remain resilient in the face of much resistance and strife. The foreign policy trajectory actively pursued in the UK indicates a nation state which, through centuries of experience, is at the top of her game, still, and doesn’t appear to be about to lose that exalted position among nations. 

West Asia referred to as the Middle East

Countries that fall within the West Asian region or those to the north of Africa that straddle global territory from Europe to Central and South Asia have long been termed the Middle East. From peace accords to conflicts, this terminology has remained in use. Yet a clear viewing of the map would clearly indicate that the region hitherto referred to as the Middle East isn’t the middle of the East by any stretch of the imagination, especially in the current context of world affairs. At a time when Britain ruled a major portion of the world, and power was centralized within the context of Europe, it was understood that everything beyond Europe was the East and it stretched to the Far East where countries like China lie.

In the 21^st century, when global affairs are widespread, and the United Kingdom plays an important role, it is relevant to note that it is not the most dominant force it once was. Yet even at this juncture, when the subject of International Relations requires evolution and appropriate terminology suitable for the times, the term Middle East remains part of the vocabulary of the West and is even used in countries within this particular region. This century is argued to be the Asian Century, and thus usage of terms, especially by countries in Asia, in identifying this region as West Asia is appropriate and timely, but it is yet to happen.

High Commissioners and not Ambassadors

Whilst non-Commonwealth countries exchange ambassadors, it is an accepted norm within the Commonwealth for countries to exchange ambassadors who are identified as High Commissioners. India, which took on the British with Gandhi and Nehru at the helm, is a significant example of a country that, despite a bitter struggle with her colonial master, opted to join the Commonwealth and retain this terminology as well.

The usage of this term to date signifies the importance of the Commonwealth and the monumental role that the United Kingdom has played in this grouping. This role has seen the gifting of Marlborough House, the former residence of Queen Mary, for the establishment of the Commonwealth Secretariat; Commonwealth scholarships that have benefited thousands of students over the years in undertaking higher education and granting them opportunities in other Commonwealth states; the impressive quadrennial games which are said to be the third largest sporting event in the world after the Olympics and Paralympics; and the numerous programmes and initiatives, including the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy (QCC) which is designed to generate a network of forest conservation projects across member states and connect them through programmes of preservation for future generations. All of these initiatives have been possible owing to the dynamic leadership and cooperation stemming from Downing Street, which has ensured that the Commonwealth is relevant and Britain’s contribution is not overlooked or underestimated.

In its initial years the Commonwealth faced pressure and much doubt was expressed over its potential to exist. Then Australian Prime Minister Robert Gordon Menzies, who served twice from 1939 to 1941 and 1949 to 1966, opined that “there has been a great stirring of minds on the subject of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Its name; its structure; its internal rights and duties; its means of family consultation; its place in the world -- all are in debate. In the nature of things, uniformity of ideas about it would be unlikely.”

Relevance of the Commonwealth

Decades later when we reflect upon the Commonwealth and its achievements, which abound in multiple sectors, it is possible to note that its very existence in 2020 is one of its greatest accomplishments, and the British deserve a significant amount of credit for this feat. Even when the UK opted to move closer to Europe and get deeply involved in the activities of the EU, at gradual stages of growth and integration from 1973 onwards, the Commonwealth remained a key foreign policy priority for the British government.

The inability for Vanuatu to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in 2017 led to the United Kingdom stepping in and offering to host it in London in 2018. This was yet another momentous opportunity for the British to take over the Chair-in-Office position which will be retained until the next CHOGM. Prince Charles’ position as the next Head of the Commonwealth was also established at this meeting at which The Queen requested that her son continue what her father started.

It is in and through the Commonwealth that the United Kingdom will seek its greatest source of support post-Brexit, and the mechanism through which the country will look to work more with fellow member states in this grouping. Likewise member states of the Commonwealth will see renewed interest, formidable policies, favourable trade, fresh opportunities and above all a rejuvenated platform from which regionalism in its newest form, which Peter Katzenstein defined as “regions (that) are politically made”, wherein there is less emphasis on the geographic aspects of regions altogether and instead focus is on the political and ideological characteristic of the regions.

It is at this stage that the Commonwealth is being reborn. Serving the interests of the UK, and its member states, it also possesses the potential to become the new, innovative form of regionalism, which would also bode well for other aspirant groupings and unions.

Winston Churchill played a fundamental role in leading the United Kingdom and the allied powers to victory in the Second World War. Similarly Boris Johnson is determined and resolute as he takes on the challenge of leading the United Kingdom out of the European Union and into a new form of existence. Despite the challenges faced a century ago and throughout the 1900s, and through the difficulties forecast for the country in the short to medium term after leaving the EU, the United Kingdom will bounce back reinvigorated and re-energized to take on the world and continue to secure the special place the country has on the global stage, owing to her timeless policy of strategizing amongst all else, her foreign policy.

A CENTURY OF MULTILATERALISM: WILL IT LAST ANOTHER 100?

-         George I. H. Cooke

Wilsonian idealism gave birth to multilateralism a century ago as nation states emerged from the ravages of the Great War, which came to be identified as the First World War in ensuing decades. The depth of the devastation, the incomparable loss of lives, the gravity of the disaster and the determination to avoid a recurrence of such atrocities led to countries considering positively the words of the then American President Woodrow Wilson. 

Addressing the Congress of the United States of America on 08^th January 1918, Wilson highlighted fourteen salient aspects for the achievement and preservation of peace and stability in international interactions, chiefly in Europe and America, but also with the world. It was the fourteenth point that had the greatest impact, leading to it being brought to fruition through the League of Nations that was established on 10^th January 1920 – thus creating the platform for multilateralism and multilateral engagement as we know it today.

Wilson’s fourteenth point stated that “a general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” The world had hitherto not experienced such an association albeit in the form of colonialism, wherein nation states cohabitated owing to their being invaded and conquered. Under such an arrangement weaker states were under duress from stronger ones who exercised influence, changed domestic dynamics, introduced drastically new concepts, which were for the better and the worse, and also plundered natural resources in massive amounts. This gathering of states under a single banner or common identity was forged through force, and not through the voluntary amalgamation of states.

Wilson’s idea of a gathering was unique as states had hitherto understood the nuances of bilateral engagement through which they sought to enhance ties with specific counterparts either in their own neighbourhood, or further afield in other regions of the globe. This was to be a foray into a democratic form of engagement, understood today to be the closest we have come to global governance.

With the conclusion of the Treaty of Versailles, which had been conducted from 28^th June 1919 to 21^st January 1920, the League of Nations ushered in a new system of diplomacy which called for and relied upon better world cooperation. The end of the First World War in 1918 and the two years to follow were filled with enthusiasm and determination to never return to conflict but more importantly to explore a whole new world of cooperation on a completely different proportion, that had not been witnessed thus far. This system of openness, public channels and summits, was to ensure Wilson’s “mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.”

The coming together of states proved the resolute nature of the leadership of these states to commit to change, new direction and more importantly lay claim to a new era. During the course of its existence from 1920 to 1946, the League was to be administered by three Secretaries General, namely, Sir James Eric Drummond of the United Kingdom from 1920 to 1933, Joseph Avenol of France from 1933 to 1940, and Ireland’s Sean Lester from 1940 to 1946. Whilst it is often argued that League failed to avert the outbreak of another World War, it is relevant to reflect upon the successes of the League that proved that joint decision making and collective defence were the need of the hour.

In 1921, the League was asked to intervene and resolve the issue of ownership between Finland and Sweden given that the islands were equidistant between the two countries. The decision that the islands should remain with Finland but that no weapons should be kept there remains in force to date.

In that same year, when violence broke out in Upper Silesia over a referendum result that had seen some 700, 000 voting to be a part of Weimar Germany and 500, 000 to be with Poland, the League decided to split Upper Silesia, with their decision found to be acceptable to the people of the area.

Similar adjudications on the port of Memel which was declared an international zone, the response to the humanitarian crisis in Turkey in 1923, and the resolution of the border dispute between Greece and Bulgaria, highlighted that the League wasn’t doomed from the beginning but was able to maintain peace and stability in its initial years. The multilateral arena was a new one, and one that depended on the goodwill of all stakeholders for its success to manifest on the world stage. Regrettably its failures, and specifically the inability to thwart Adolf Hitler and his draconian policies of Nazism, led to the outbreak of yet another devastating conflict from 1939 to 1945, and the subsequent death of the League, but the re-engagement in conflict, the death and destruction it brought and the fear it instilled in people directly affected, led to the creation of the United Nations Organisation in 1945.

The continuation of multilateral engagement in the reformed version of the United Nations proved that the world was not ready to abandon that which had started in 1920 and was instead the affirmation of an overwhelming belief that collective action was required for the maintenance of peace and stability in the world.

The coining of the name ‘United Nations’ by President Franklin D. Roosevelt when the term was first used in the Declaration of 1^st January 1942, whilst the war was still raging, saw the pledge of 26 nations to continue the fight against the Axis Powers. The stance that was taken by the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa and Yugoslavia would pave the way for states to pledge “to employ their full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government(s) is (were) at war.”

Secondly their commitment “to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies” indicated the collective nature of decision making and the ability for states to act cohesively when required. The deliberations of the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, from August-October 1944 led to representatives of 50 countries meeting in San Francisco in 1945 at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter.

With the United Nations officially coming into existence on 24^th October 1945, multilateralism triumphed once more as faith was reposited in collective action over unilateral or bilateral measures alone. The ensuing decades of the 20^th century were to prove some of the hardest given the impact of the Cold War which broke out so early in its existence. The ability of the UN to manoeuver through the intrinsic confrontation it generated, and the contribution made through a plethora of initiatives, international agencies and organisations, has seen the creation of a better world, but certainly one that is damaged. Reflection generates discourse on how much worse the situation could have been if bodies such as the UN had not been in existence.

The United Nations was bolstered further through the formation of regional groupings. Whilst regionalism is a scaled down version of what the UN and its affiliated bodies aspire to achieve through multilateralism, it is a platform from which UN principles and policies are reaffirmed in the enhancement of the overarching goodwill that the UN has been able to garner.

Whilst in 1968 Joseph Nye argued regionalism to be a “limited number of states linked by a geographical relationship and by a degree of mutual interdependence”, the emphasis on the geographic element of regions changed in the 21^st century with Peter Katzenstein claiming that regions are politically made” and Frederik Söderbaum observing that they comprise a “body of ideas, values and concrete objectives that are aimed at creating, maintaining or modifying the provision of security and wealth, peace and development.”

The direct outcome of multilateral engagement has been certainty, which Timo Behr and Juha Jokela argue is “one global public good that is in high demand in the evolving international environment and especially for the always jittery financial markets.” Yet that which provides solace can also endanger it. The deep degree of integration experienced in the European Union led to the grouping identified as the most integrated of bodies having moved to a supranational level of cooperation, but today it contends with calls to leave the Union, loosen the arrangement and even rethink the Euro. Yet on the other hand countries such as Turkey, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and Serbia are eager to enter the Union, owing to their seeing potential through joint action over their solitary existence.  

Attracting states to the concept of multilateralism has been the power, presence and potential they see through collective action. Groupings such as BRICS, which came out of a Goldman Sachs report and BIMSTEC, focus primarily of economic cooperation, while the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) places religion at the centre of collaboration. The Organisation Internationale De La Francophonie (OIF), emphasizes the importance of common linguistics and culture as the main amalgamating factor.   

Similarly other groupings which promote multilateralism such as the Commonwealth, have seen Zimbabwe, The Gambia and The Maldives leaving the body, while others such as Rwanda which does not share a colonial past with the United Kingdom, joined and would even be hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2020.

From an Asian geographical perspective, the founding of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967, and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1985 bolstered multilateral cooperation. A decade later, in 1996 China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan formed the Shanghai Five which eventually included Uzbekistan in 2001 and came to be known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). With India and Pakistan becoming gaining membership in 2017 the grouping represents almost half of humanity, includes two permanent Security Council member states, and enabled a new multipolar dimension in international relations.

In 2020, as the United Nations turns 75, it remains the largest international grouping which has grown in size and potential, evolved through varying global developments, endured internal issues including the perennial debate over the composition of the Security Council, expenditure, efficiency, among others, and yet remained relevant at the most challenging of times. This is one of its greatest victories. From the rigours of the Cold War, and the emergence of numerous states on the international stage with the ending of colonialism, to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the unipolar world that emerged thereafter, as well as having to contend with the rapacious manner in which humanity is consuming resources, developing technology and attempting to surge ahead, the UN continues to face daunting challenges but still ensures that sanity prevails.

As the next hundred years of multilateralism unfold, the UN would remain pivotal, unless a third World War were to erupt, and states would look for an alternate form of collaboration. While nationalism remains a formidable challenge in the short to medium term, it is manner in which the UN counters concerns and formulates strategies that would ensure its preservation and the sustenance of the multilateral mode of operation. The Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals were timely initiatives that set lofty targets that may be criticized for their abstract or sometimes unattainable nature, but of importance is the pursuit of such goals and progress to some degree down those roads, which would have not been accomplished if such targets had not been set in the first place.

The prevalence of non-state actors in the global arena remains a daunting challenge for multilateralism which is said to opt to operate among state actors. However given that the media, multinational corporations, terrorist groups, and individuals cross national boundaries and function within regional and international structures, their predominance will continue to evolve in varied forms. States and their global and regional groupings would need to contend with sharing the international stage, and combining efforts to cooperate rather than attempting to compete, with the acceptable while also enhancing cooperation to counter that which is illegal and detrimental.

Artificial Intelligence, if harnessed appropriately could be of immense value, but it could also function in a devastating manner, bringing life as we know it to an end and creating a new era, which rethinks the very basics of existence and transforms, while creating new norms. Engagement among states would thus need to be rethought.

Power, presence and potential remain the crucial, magnetic aspects of multilateralism, which have aided its preservation to date. Given the inherent nature of states, their leaders and humanity, to want more, and explore avenues of generating more, the aforementioned aspects of multilateralism will continue to grow, portending well for multilateralism as a whole. Of concern however is that that which is sought, notably power, presence and potential, could in turn generate desires for domination, leading to confrontation and conflict over the next century.