The Chancellor’s chance

George Osborne has a PR problem. This became clear to me after he fell victim to the crude wit of David Mitchell and Robert Webb in the most recent series of Peep Show. Yet the Chancellor – an as yet reclusive, but influential, member of this frantic Coalition government – is more than the service-slashing stereotype that he plays in the mainstream of opinion. Eager to please an electorate who are naturally turned off by the Coalition’s cuts narrative, the Chancellor used this week’s Budget to create a vision for Britain beyond the fiscal consolidation, and in doing so will seek bolster his own leadership ambitions.

In many ways a Cameron clone, Osborne is a natural sidekick to his Prime Ministerial colleague. Privately and Oxbridge educated, he is a creature of Westminster, never having left politics since joining as a Conservative researcher in 1994. Unlike the previous occupants of Number 10 & 11, the pair are allies, sharing metropolitan and socially liberal instincts (Osborne managed Cameron’s successful 2005 leadership campaign). Along with Michael Gove and Oliver Letwin, Osborne belongs to the very inner circle of Tory ideologues and policy chiefs. His meteoric rise – at 39, he is among the youngest members of the government – owes as much to the Prime Minister’s patronage as to his own sharp intellect. However Osborne brings something distinct to the Conservative Party – a pragmatic Euroscepticism, an ideological bent and a taste for confrontation that may serve him well in the future.

This was a budget with 2015 firmly in mind. Thanks to the Lib Dems’ acute unpopularity, this is virtually guaranteed to be a five year parliament. At this early stage therefore, it is more important for Osborne to be respected than to be loved. Being seen to make ‘tough’ spending cuts whilst keeping the middle class on board with token gestures on fuel duty and marriage allowances will help in the long run. Fundamentally, the plan rests on eliminating the budget deficit and restoring growth in the economy so the government is able to offer something positive to a weary electorate in four years time.

Osborne’s credibility as a politician therefore is inescapably wedded to the success, or failure, of the deficit reduction plan. If the gamble doesn’t pay off, then its game-over for George, never mind the Coalition. Given the need for a private sector recovery, initiatives in this budget such as apprenticeships and enterprise zones will help, a bit, but as a plan for growth it seems fairly low-key, to put it mildly.

In the emergency budget last June, Osborne was bold in setting out a plan that will restructure the British State. But he has yet to explain in radical terms what a Britain without Leviathan – the overbearing central government which lends its name to Hobbes’ classic text – can look like, and how it would work. To fulfil his own ambitions, as well as those of his Party, this has to be explained. David Lloyd-George, arguably the greatest Chancellor of the 20th century, used his rhetorical genius at the dispatch box to create the early welfare state – in the ‘People’s’ Budget of 1909. Osborne can do the same, but the failure to explain and encourage that flip-side of the small-State – namely the ‘Big Society’ and the enterprise economy – threatens to make the government’s potential radical programme a mere footnote in history.

It is inconceivable that, sooner or later, he will not seek the leadership. Three of the past six Prime Ministers have come directly from the Treasury. Understandably, when the top job in British politics is only next door, it is difficult to resist. However Osborne is perceived as dangerously out of touch with the public. His management of the 2010 Tory election campaign is widely held by his senior government colleagues to have been a flop. Some now hold him in contempt, particularly those who due to the hung parliament had to sacrifice their Cabinet seat to make way for Lib Dems. The Deripaska scandal, in which he was accused of soliciting a donation from a dodgy Russian oligarch, also undermined his credibility in the eyes of his colleagues.

Fortunately his youth gives him plenty of time to win the public over and establish or inherit a power base with the Conservative Party. He will face more charismatic and less controversial rivals – see Jeremy Hunt at Culture for example – but he remains a favourite. Ultimately his fortune depends on the success of the Coalition, so don’t expect any Brown-esque wrangling. He has to demonstrate that the cuts are necessary, and that his economic policy is working. But more importantly he should articulate a vision of post-cuts Britain. If Chancellor Osborne can accomplish this, the move next door will become a matter of when rather than if.

Tom Beardsworth

How strong is Joseph Nye’s case for US intervention in Libya?

Photo: World Economic Forum

American neo-liberal founder Joseph Nye recently published an article in which he gave four reasons for which the American intervention in Libya is justified. Nye argued that the operation in Libya is a strong case for humanitarian intervention because of the danger of slaughter Gaddafi posed to the people in Benghazi.

Second, the action is a multilateral effort in which France and Britain have taken the lead. This might diminish the concerns that the US is trying to impose its interests in the Middle East. Third, the intervention is legitimate because it has the approval of both the UNSC and the Arab League. Finally, Nye states that the operation should have limited objectives and a limited duration in order not to become a long term engagement for the states involved.

There are two main problems with Nye’s arguments. The main one is the matter of legitimacy. Even though the Coalition forces intervened after having obtained the consent of the Arab League and the UN Security Council, the 5 members which abstained from the vote could raise new problems especially if NATO is given control over the operation.

Germany and Russia, along with India, China and Brazil have expressed their worries with regard to the extent of the operation. They opposed military action and they might take a different position in case NATO takes the lead. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, also opposes a NATO lead because it fears legitimacy might be at stake. Turkey and Norway have also expressed their concerns with regard to the command structure. Furthermore, the German representatives left the meeting of the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s decision-making committee after his country had been criticised for refusing to get militarily involved.

This proves once again that even though multilateral action is enjoys a higher degree of legitimacy, it can be doomed to failure particularly because of the large number of actors involved. The decision making process becomes more complicated which eventually affects the outcome of the intervention.

The second problem with Nye’s argument of which he is aware is that Gaddafi continues to have some supporters among the Libyan people. US President Barak Obama stated that the operation should have limited objectives and a limited duration, but this might not be the case. Neither of the states involved in the intervention would be willing to engage in a long term operation. For Libya not to become another failed humanitarian intervention on the UN’s list the members of the coalition need to agree upon the course of action and decide what role should each play.

Anca Voinea

In Defence of Liberal Interventionism

Photo: Fibonacci Blue (Flickr)

The recent events in Libya have sparked a discussion about foreign policy that is central to the West remaining a bastion of the universal values it so often preaches in its rhetoric but equally often lacks in its action. This revolves around ‘Liberal Interventionism’ which has for too long been jettisoned in favour of turning a blind eye to atrocities in the name of self-determination. It has long been portrayed as merely a good intentioned excuse for regime change, from potentially hostile governments to ones more likely to stay in the pocket of the West. This conclusion is one that must be challenged head on to avoid Liberal Interventionism from being permanently consigned to the Neo-Conservative creed. It must instead be taken up by the left and redefined as a tool with which great things can be achieved.

Liberal Interventionism has two tenets upon which it can, and should, be justified. The first is one of morality. It must finally be accepted that there are things in this world which are universally good regardless of culture. Many people dispute this but there are in fact a basic set of principles which should be promoted. They include basic liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest and, perhaps most controversially, political freedom. Political freedom characterised by universal suffrage and the very basic ability to have a degree of control over the very people who rule you. There appears no better evidence for the universality of these than the recent uprisings in pursuit of them. This appears to lead, rather harmlessly, to an endorsement of democracy. This is the foundation for what David Miliband termed the ‘democratic imperative.’ A commitment to nurture democracy and the essential basic liberties it is unarguably founded upon.

The second tenet is far less important than the first and must only be considered as a mere contributory factor for interventionism, never as the primary or deciding factor. It is this separation and ordering of the two which lies at the very heart of the divide between Neo-Con and Left of centre thinking. This second factor is also unavoidable in our increasingly globalised world. Globalisation has led to an interdependency between nations; this has in turn created an international community where events on one side of the globe have profound consequences for those on the other. In this sense not only is it morally wrong to turn a blind eye to evil and authoritarian regimes, it is against the interests of the world as a whole.

This second justification however, must always have the caveat of being subject to the first. Never can we act on the sole basis of self-interest. This is where interventionism can quickly mutate into the hypocritical and unjust doctrine many would have it characterised as.

These considerations do not necessarily manifest themselves in the form of strong military intervention; this must always be the last and most carefully evaluated option. Intervention can take many forms and so when people discuss it they should not forget the plethora of tools available to try and help those who need it most prior to the use of military force.

To truly understand and see the potential power that Liberal Interventionism has to be a force for good one must look to Kosovo and Sierra Leone. These two events are arguably the two most understated achievements of Blair’s time in office. He must be commended for his devotion to stopping the abhorrent ethnic cleansing of Milosevic and saving Sierra Leone from rule by nasty and brutish thugs. However, these two triumphs of a moral foreign policy will forever be overshadowed by the events in Iraq. Iraq is too divisive and far too important for me to discuss and evaluate in just a paragraph so I shall refrain from dissecting it in detail. I will though say that it was a step too far and Liberal Interventionism should not be judged through the prism of Iraq. It should be a consideration, particularly with regards to the long term planning and initial justification for any similar intervention. With this in mind, to judge the wider theory of Liberal Interventionism as a referendum on Iraq would be unwise and in fact negate our moral duty to fight for values which we take for granted.

This fight will never be easy; it will always be the harder choice to take a stand against evil. Worse than failing to act if possible is failing to act under the pretence of morality and the very values you are ignoring but preach devotion to. What could be more devoid of principle and morality than ignoring the opportunity to give people the basic freedoms we enjoy and that will enable them to flourish as human beings? Basic human rights and the entrenchment of democracy should be integral to any foreign policy and this is why when examined and followed to its true end, Liberal Interventionism is a doctrine that the left should embrace and not shy away from.

For these reasons Labour has a question of overwhelming importance to discuss as it wrestles with its reinvention. It must not duck the responsibility for fear of discussing the past. To once again accept Liberal Interventionism and pledge to be at the forefront of the fight for democracy and basic human rights is a decision which will be fundamental to Labour not just becoming a credible party of government again, but a worthwhile party as well.

Above the challenge of Labour once again becoming a party that fights for fairness and justice abroad as well as at home lays a more pressing challenge for the World. It is imperative that the West pressures Gaddafi towards an outcome where the people of Libya prevail, where the people of Libya no longer live in fear and where, most importantly, the people of Libya have a true right to self-determination. This is the challenge that faces the world and it will enable us to show if we truly treasure the values we profess to promote.

Jack Curtis