The Iran crisis is testing the foreign policy of a Brexit Britain
It may seem a strange idea, that the foreign policy of Brexit Britain could be tested before Brexit has even taken place, and yet the crisis in relations with Iran is providing the ultimate stress test to the underlying logic that would guide UK foreign policy if it were to leave the EU.
Let's recap how we got here. As part of a series of withdrawals from international commitments under Trump's 'America First' policy, the US pulled out of the Iran deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) in May 2018. This was a deal that had been jointly negotiated by China, France, Russia, the UK, US, Germany and EU representatives. It had successfully steered Iran away from the pursuit of nuclear weapons, convinced the country to sign up to international monitoring of its commitments and avoided escalation in an already unstable region. It was an impressive feat of containment, dealing with a growing regional power that has clear ambitions in its neighbourhood. It was a triumph of multilateral diplomacy over armed conflict and the deal is still supported by all European countries, including the UK.
Trump, however, was less convinced. In his desire to trash all things related to Obama's legacy, Trump abandoned the Iran deal. When Trump did this, he acted against all the advice and pleas of America's allies in Europe. The UK consistently has tried to push the Trump administration to recognise the value of the Iran deal but to no avail. Instead we have seen a steady worsening of relations. First with a US drone shot down by Iran. Then an Iranian drone shot down by the US. These are warning shots in a conflict that would be incredibly damaging for the Middle East. To try and salvage the deal, the EU is attempting to develop an alternative international payments system (the special-purpose vehicle INSTEX), to circumvent the secondary sanctions deployed by the US against non-American companies doing business with Iran. The UK is part of and supports these efforts, though their success is very limited at this point.
Bringing us to the events of this week, when Iran seized a British oil tanker. Britain is being faced with a choice and it is here that we can see the test of Brexit for Britain. Will a separation from EU foreign policy really help Britain advance its interests? And can following the US replace decision-making in the EU?
It's useful to visualise the situation through three possible scenarios, demonstrating different ways the UK can respond, assuming it has the full ability post-Brexit to define itself in any way it wishes.
1. The UK alone.
Britain seeks to run a foreign policy that serves only itself and where the country acts alone. This is simply not credible and in a number of scenarios has no real meaning. Take this case with Iran. What would a 'Britain First' foreign policy even entail? Either we support the Iran deal or we don't. Either we engage in offensive operations against Iran or we don't. Taking a side will be mandatory. Even if, under different circumstances, a third way were possible, Britain simply does not have the military, economic or diplomatic capacity to consistently project power and defend our interests around the world without substantial help from others. Even many Brexiteers admit as much. For the UK, foreign policy requires working closely with others.
2. The UK follows America.
One such partner could, of course, be the United States. Indeed many Brexiteers would jump for joy at such a scenario. Yet this is almost entirely an ideological response - in reality there is little to be said in defence of this approach. In 2003, Britain made this choice, in contrast to many European states, in supporting the US invasion of Iraq. As we all, know the consequences that followed were disastrous.
And today, what would the UK gain from joining Trump's aggressive anti-Iran coalition? Involvement in yet another catastrophic war in the Middle East? When Iran's nuclear ambitions were already being successfully contained by the JCPOA, it is hard to see why the UK has any interest in supporting Trump's approach. Indeed this is likely why the UK is currently trying to support the European initiatives to save the Iran deal.
In addition, it makes a mockery of the idea that Brexit would be an enhancement of UK independence and sovereignty. Where the UK, as one of the EU's biggest states, carries significant weight in setting and coordinating European foreign policy responses, it has rarely had much influence at all on the actions of the US. It really would be a case of 'following' America and trusting that the incumbent US administration is willing to take into account Britain's particular requests. It would be servility to the world superpower, not independence.
3. The UK aligns with the rest of Europe.
Brexit might go ahead but it turns out independence doesn't make you into a world superpower and we've also realised that American has quite different interests to our own. The most likely scenario is that, even outside of the EU, we prefer to align our foreign policy with the EU for the very simple reason that it most closely reflects our own interests. In a world where we need partners in order to exercise an effective foreign policy, our priorities and preferences are consistently European in nature. And this is not just the assessment of government officials and civil servants. If you asked the public, you would likely find very little support for America's sabre-rattling and attempted escalation in its dispute with Iran. It may not be nearly as Anglo-Saxon as the US, but Europe better matches Britain's aspirations and values.
And so, just as with the economics surrounding Brexit, when it comes to foreign policy, as soon as Brexit hits the wall of reality, its logic falls apart. We would be removing ourselves from the institutions where we can influence and set European foreign policy, only to find that we are seeking to match up to that exact same policy. Or else, out of stubbornness and in order to 'prove a point' (as someone like Boris Johnson may well decide to do), we would end up falling in line behind America, naively hoping that the US would do anything other than look out for its interests. We could end up swapping a set of partners who support our foreign policy priorities and who, through European unity, boost our strength in the world, in favour of a partner that gives little regard to our preferences and where our actual interests can be seen to be in direct conflict.
For all intents and purposes, when you are not a global superpower, the only true independent foreign policy is one that is conducted in concert with others. For Britain, an independent foreign policy that supports our interests is a European foreign policy.
Image via Flickr
Let's recap how we got here. As part of a series of withdrawals from international commitments under Trump's 'America First' policy, the US pulled out of the Iran deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) in May 2018. This was a deal that had been jointly negotiated by China, France, Russia, the UK, US, Germany and EU representatives. It had successfully steered Iran away from the pursuit of nuclear weapons, convinced the country to sign up to international monitoring of its commitments and avoided escalation in an already unstable region. It was an impressive feat of containment, dealing with a growing regional power that has clear ambitions in its neighbourhood. It was a triumph of multilateral diplomacy over armed conflict and the deal is still supported by all European countries, including the UK.
Trump, however, was less convinced. In his desire to trash all things related to Obama's legacy, Trump abandoned the Iran deal. When Trump did this, he acted against all the advice and pleas of America's allies in Europe. The UK consistently has tried to push the Trump administration to recognise the value of the Iran deal but to no avail. Instead we have seen a steady worsening of relations. First with a US drone shot down by Iran. Then an Iranian drone shot down by the US. These are warning shots in a conflict that would be incredibly damaging for the Middle East. To try and salvage the deal, the EU is attempting to develop an alternative international payments system (the special-purpose vehicle INSTEX), to circumvent the secondary sanctions deployed by the US against non-American companies doing business with Iran. The UK is part of and supports these efforts, though their success is very limited at this point.
Bringing us to the events of this week, when Iran seized a British oil tanker. Britain is being faced with a choice and it is here that we can see the test of Brexit for Britain. Will a separation from EU foreign policy really help Britain advance its interests? And can following the US replace decision-making in the EU?
It's useful to visualise the situation through three possible scenarios, demonstrating different ways the UK can respond, assuming it has the full ability post-Brexit to define itself in any way it wishes.
1. The UK alone.
Britain seeks to run a foreign policy that serves only itself and where the country acts alone. This is simply not credible and in a number of scenarios has no real meaning. Take this case with Iran. What would a 'Britain First' foreign policy even entail? Either we support the Iran deal or we don't. Either we engage in offensive operations against Iran or we don't. Taking a side will be mandatory. Even if, under different circumstances, a third way were possible, Britain simply does not have the military, economic or diplomatic capacity to consistently project power and defend our interests around the world without substantial help from others. Even many Brexiteers admit as much. For the UK, foreign policy requires working closely with others.
2. The UK follows America.
One such partner could, of course, be the United States. Indeed many Brexiteers would jump for joy at such a scenario. Yet this is almost entirely an ideological response - in reality there is little to be said in defence of this approach. In 2003, Britain made this choice, in contrast to many European states, in supporting the US invasion of Iraq. As we all, know the consequences that followed were disastrous.
And today, what would the UK gain from joining Trump's aggressive anti-Iran coalition? Involvement in yet another catastrophic war in the Middle East? When Iran's nuclear ambitions were already being successfully contained by the JCPOA, it is hard to see why the UK has any interest in supporting Trump's approach. Indeed this is likely why the UK is currently trying to support the European initiatives to save the Iran deal.
In addition, it makes a mockery of the idea that Brexit would be an enhancement of UK independence and sovereignty. Where the UK, as one of the EU's biggest states, carries significant weight in setting and coordinating European foreign policy responses, it has rarely had much influence at all on the actions of the US. It really would be a case of 'following' America and trusting that the incumbent US administration is willing to take into account Britain's particular requests. It would be servility to the world superpower, not independence.
3. The UK aligns with the rest of Europe.
Brexit might go ahead but it turns out independence doesn't make you into a world superpower and we've also realised that American has quite different interests to our own. The most likely scenario is that, even outside of the EU, we prefer to align our foreign policy with the EU for the very simple reason that it most closely reflects our own interests. In a world where we need partners in order to exercise an effective foreign policy, our priorities and preferences are consistently European in nature. And this is not just the assessment of government officials and civil servants. If you asked the public, you would likely find very little support for America's sabre-rattling and attempted escalation in its dispute with Iran. It may not be nearly as Anglo-Saxon as the US, but Europe better matches Britain's aspirations and values.
And so, just as with the economics surrounding Brexit, when it comes to foreign policy, as soon as Brexit hits the wall of reality, its logic falls apart. We would be removing ourselves from the institutions where we can influence and set European foreign policy, only to find that we are seeking to match up to that exact same policy. Or else, out of stubbornness and in order to 'prove a point' (as someone like Boris Johnson may well decide to do), we would end up falling in line behind America, naively hoping that the US would do anything other than look out for its interests. We could end up swapping a set of partners who support our foreign policy priorities and who, through European unity, boost our strength in the world, in favour of a partner that gives little regard to our preferences and where our actual interests can be seen to be in direct conflict.
For all intents and purposes, when you are not a global superpower, the only true independent foreign policy is one that is conducted in concert with others. For Britain, an independent foreign policy that supports our interests is a European foreign policy.
Image via Flickr
Comments
Post a Comment