Sunder Katwala says a new President will give Britain a chance to advance a multilateral agenda in foreign policy

ON JANUARY 20 next year, as the Washington clocks strike noon, you might just hear a huge sigh of relief as it travels around the world. That’s when George Bush’s presidency enters the history books as his successor takes the oath of office. Whoever he or she may be, that moment feels tantalisingly close as one theme is dominating the primaries: change. After the catastrophe in Iraq, Bush’s revolution will not leave the legacy the neo-conservatives intended. There is no viable Bush continuity candidate for the House because, according to the opinion polls, 70 per cent of voters in the United States say their country is currently on the wrong track.

So what happens next? Progressives need to promote a new internationalist agenda for the world after Bush. This means more than a critique of what should have been done differently since 2001. Those who have argued against unilateralism have an opportunity to explain the practical policies to make a new multilateralism possible. If 2008 is a year of change and new ideas, there must changes in British foreign policy, not just in the US. This is the theme of the Fabian Society’s “Change the World’ conference tomorrow (Saturday January 19).

There are already warnings of a “crisis of raised expectations”. Of course, Bush’s departure will not change everything. But thinking nothing can change would be to repeat the catastrophic error of those who could find no difference between Al Gore and the Bush who offered in “compassionate conservatism” in 2000. There is growing bipartisan awareness in the US of how Bush’s presidency has damaged American global reputation and influence.

The next President may have to be more multilaterally minded, by force of circumstance, if not conviction, just as Condoleezza Rice has had to be in the Bush second term. Simply not being Bush will help his successor. But a Democratic victory, boosted by the symbolism of the first female or black President, would offer the chance of more substantial re-engagement.

What we can influence is whether the winds of change from across the Atlantic lead to a new British foreign policy. Tony Blair’s legacy, dominated by Iraq, is that Britain’s role in the world is contested as rarely before. And Blair failed to end Britain’s history of semi-detached ambivalence about the European Union, while his relationship with Bush called Britain’s Atlantic links into question.

Gordon Brown’s Government has shown it understands the need for change on foreign policy. There have been positive shifts in tone and language. Brown has talked about a “new multilateralism” – a coded critique of unilateralism and the Blair-Bush relationship – and demonstrated a businesslike distance from the US President at their first summit. Ministers no longer talk about a “war on terror”, because they recognise that this can undermine the long-term agenda of winning the battle for hearts and minds and play into the agenda of those who argue that the world is defined by a conflict between Islam and the West.

Brown’s “new multilateralism” must now be developed into concrete plans for how Britain and the EU can contribute to an effective multilateral agenda when the next US President picks up the phone. It must offer new foreign policies which can help to rebuild Labour’s fractured electoral coalition, offering a positive internationalist argument for the next general election manifesto.

One problem is that these two goals may conflict. Diplomacy and democracy do not easily mix. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will stress the diplomatic reality that they must work with the incumbent US administration for another year, while preparing to work with any successor afterwards. Yet this will prove politically frustrating to many Labour supporters. If there can only be new thinking on foreign policy behind the scenes or of it can only be discussed in code, this limits the chances to re-engage and repair the political damage.

The doctrine of non-interference in domestic politics is rather old-fashioned, when we are so frequently told by our politicians that the domestic and the international – “over there” and “over here” – are inseparable. Few could claim that the identity and agenda of the next US President will not make a major difference to hopes of progress on key issues, such as climate change and international development.

Political values cross national boundaries. Every member of the Labour Party wants Democratic candidates to beat Republicans. That our Government cannot say so strengthens the case for making a distinction between it and political party activities.

The Government must stick to diplomatic etiquette. But there should be little problem with senior backbench MPs and party elders speaking openly about what the US race could mean for the issues we care about.

This strengthens the case for an institutional change in the Labour Party: the introduction of an elected chair, who remains outside the Government, and who can articulate the views and values of members, including taking a lead about the new foreign policy we need.

There are important international issues– particularly concerning Pakistan – where a change in Western strategy is needed. Benazir Bhutto’s assassination ended the questionable strategy of brokering a fragile alliance between her and President Pervez Musharaf and there must now be a much greater focus on democratic institution building as the country’s best route to stability.

Many of the most important issues now depend on engaging with the next US President.

Iran is one. Many feared that 2008 would be the year in which the war drums beat louder. That fear has receded because of the success of EU-led diplomacy. Continuing to frustrate the Washington hawks depends on developing diplomacy. There should be a “grand bargain” with Iran on civil nuclear power, full diplomatic relations with the US and a statement that Iran’s future democratic development is for Iranians to decide.

Reaching a climate change deal by the end of 2009 means that transition in the White House will be crucial. People will only sign up to a fair deal. We need to begin a debate about what happens to “free riders” this time. Gordon Brown should propose that, from 2015, membership of the World Trade Organisation should depend on a binding commitment on carbon emissions.

Labour’s record on international development has shown that global issues can mobilise political energy. We need to go further, including by making a new commitment to British development aid reaching 1 per cent of gross domestic product by 2025, with new resources focused on a push for universal primary education and healthcare.

And a new foreign policy agenda must deal with the legacy of Iraq. We should recognise our continuing responsibility to post-war Iraq by increasing our contributions to the Iraqi Reconstruction Fund and our support for trade unions and others who are building social institutions in that country.
The new agenda we need for the world after Bush also needs closure on the past and a willingness to learn the lessons of our failures. The Prime Minister should announce that there will be a full public inquiry on Iraq once British troops leave.

Sunder Katwala is general secretary of the Fabian Society. “Change the World”, the Fabian new year conference, takes place on Saturday January 19. For more details, please visit: www.fabians.org.uk