‘Global Britain’ — A force for good or free trade power?
Is it possible for the UK to maximise trading relations and maintain a moral foreign policy?
A few weeks ago, I posted an article on Twitter about the UK Government’s halving of aid to Rohingya refugees. It was always the fear when the Government announced their intentions to cut foreign aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income, that it would disproportionality affect those who most desperately need assistance. Despite the government’s insistence that they would protect the most vulnerable, the cuts have still been made.
It is, of course, true that our foreign aid budget has not always been spent wisely; a fact which is often used to discredit the concept of foreign aid in general. However, such cases, though deeply frustrating, ought not to detract from the multitude of legitimate and worthwhile projects funded by the UK which provide a lifeline for millions.
During the 2016 Brexit Referendum, there was much talk about ‘Global Britain’ — a phrase that many politicians still like to quote. But what does it mean in practice? Is it a significant commitment to the global common good, backed up by actions (and money) or merely words? Sadly, it appears that the cut to foreign aid indicates an insularity that is far removed from the dream of ‘Global Britain’. The Foreign Secretary when announcing the newly merged Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office spoke of ‘Global Britain, as a force for good in the world…leading by example.’ A somewhat contradictory and worrying statement as we cut our financial assistance to the world’s poorest.
Over the past 16 months, the focus of the global Covid-19 pandemic has diverted attention from conflicts in the developing world. Armenian and Azerbaijan’s brief war created thousands of Armenian refugees, and despite being formally resolved, allegations of border incursions by Azerbaijan as well as the torture and murder of Armenian prisoners of war have gone largely unnoticed. Very little in the way of condemnation or offers of mediation have been forthcoming from the UK Government.
The ongoing conflict in Tigray, Ethiopia is perhaps the pandemic period’s most brutal and tragic war. According to the UN, over 1.7 million people have been displaced, and there have been widespread allegations of murder, torture, rape and the desecration of religious sites. It was reported in The Telegraph that 78 priests belonging to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church were deliberately murdered by the Ethiopian Government and their Eritrean allies. As someone who has campaigned for freedom of belief for all people, I fear we are losing ground in this part of the world. The UK Government said that ending the conflict will be a test of the UK’s claim to be a ‘force for good’. Yet no ceasefire is in place and human rights abuses continue.
Across the globe, minorities continue to live under hardship, oppression and even ethnic cleansing. Many of the embattled Rohingya remain trapped in Bangladesh, living in squalid conditions, such as the Cox Bazar refugee camp. The threat of human trafficking and violence constantly hangs over their head. They remain stateless and unwanted. The perpetrators of their ethnic cleansing, the Myanmar Military, refuse to recognise them as fellow citizens, a situation which is unlikely to change following the military coup against Aung Sang Suu Kyi. Meanwhile, China continues its systematic program of forced sterilisation, detention and re-education against the Muslim Uyghur minority of Xinjiang. A highly oppressive program that some commentators have labelled as genocide.
As a Bishop with the privilege of sitting in the House of Lords, I regularly use my position to question the government on the UK’s response to global conflicts, freedom of religion and rights of minorities. The responses I receive from the Government often contain the phrase ‘We are deeply concerned by the…’ followed by statehood concluding that ‘We are working with…’ or ‘We will continue to monitor the…’, without any substantive detail (A link to my questions can be found here).
I realise that the Government may not be able to disclose sensitive material relating to ongoing negotiations. But at some point, assistance, support and solidarity must move from the realm of rhetoric to the realm of action and pressure.
When there is action, it can sometimes feel disproportionate when compared to the inaction and vocal condemnation other matters receive. Following Belarus’ grounding of a Ryanair flight to arrest an anti-Government journalist, the UK and EU swiftly banned airlines from entering their airspace, barred Belarussian airlines from entering their territory, and are even urging sanctions against the country. In contrast, the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic games are to go ahead despite the Chinese Communist Party’s inhumane treatment of the Uyghurs. Not even an economic boycott appears forthcoming.
There is usually an economic cost when taking a moral stance in the realm of foreign affairs. The economic links between the UK and Belarus are small enough to allow for a free hand. In other instances, the choice comes with a clear cost. British Petroleum holds lucrative oil contracts in Azerbaijan, something the UK government will be acutely aware of and is keen to maintain. The economic importance of China needs no introduction, accounting for $92.3 billion in bilateral trade. A pricey relationship to potentially damage.
Should material wealth trump the moral obligations we have to support the world’s victims? At some point, the Government will have to decide which ‘Global Britain’ they want — the ‘force for good’ or the free trade superpower. I suspect the two will not be compatible. Meanwhile, I will continue to campaign for the ‘force for good’ whatever the cost. Anything else will betray the vulnerable who are forced to pay the real cost.
