David Lammy’s promotion of a new approach to foreign policy, “progressive realism”, is a significant departure from previous Labor foreign policy discourse. This is not because of the content, but because of the unusual emphasis placed on: theory. In his recently published paper ‘The Case for Progressive Realism’, Lammy highlights the terminology of International Relations (IR) theory and foreign policy analysis. diplomacy. A variety of concepts appear throughout the text, including multipolarity, geopolitics, soft power, balance of power, globalization, hegemony, liberal interventionism, rules-based order, burden sharing, and collective security. It is highly unusual for theory to exist to this extent in British foreign policy discourse. Robin Cook’s 1997 ‘New Mission Statement for the Foreign Office’, an important example of an agenda-setting statement of Labour’s foreign policy, contained only one or two references to then-current theories of globalization and the only reference to realism. There was. New Labor’s approach was that it would give “ethical content to foreign policy”, in contrast to Realpolitik’s narrow definition of the national interest.
Embracing the theory is important because it suggests that under the next Labor government, Britain will not only chart a different global course, but will navigate the seas of global politics as one. new method. Despite his somewhat hagiographic treatment of Robin Cook throughout the article, Lammy makes it clear that his predecessor’s worldview has been overshadowed. According to Lammy, progressive realism is an advance over previous Labor Party foreign policies. This is precisely because it abandons globalization’s naivety about the positive effects of trade within the international community and instead accepts that IR is dominated by competition for economic interests. Seeking security.
The addition of the adjective “progressive” means that Lammy’s realism is a different variant of the realpolitik rejected by Cook. The crux of Lammy’s argument is that progressive realism will steer the path between the Scylla of liberal internationalism with its reckless interventions of the first decade of this century and the Charybdis of typical inaction of the second decade. Realism is found in recognizing the importance of responding to the threats posed by China’s rise to power, Russian revisionism, and the increasingly separate challenges of the West and regional middle powers. In response to these developments, Labor proposes a greater commitment to NATO and a revitalization of the Western alliance through rapprochement with the EU to protect European security. The progressive character is expressed in a pledge to put fairness at the heart of Labour’s foreign policy. This virtue is expressed in two goals. First, the UK must become a development superpower. Second, the UK must prioritize responding to the global threat posed by climate change. The combination of progressive goals and realist means, Lammy argues, avoids both the empty idealism and the worst cynicism of realism, along with the ‘rugged honesty’ of realist logic.
The potential positive contribution of progressive realism is further illuminated by contrast with the foreign policy of the Conservative government. This is a hodgepodge of ‘nostalgia and denial’ that has thrown Brexit into chaos and damaged Britain’s reputation as a symbol of power. It squanders the UK’s leadership in tackling climate change with the rule of law and undermines its position as one of the key players in international development in the Global South. Progressive realism, combining a coherent theory that emphasizes power and competition with a commitment to fairness, will redress the damage caused by the Conservative Party’s callousness and denial of the complex realities of the modern world.
The combination of realism and progressive goals is not uncommon. For example, Niccolò Machiavelli concludes: Prince With recommendations to unify Italy and end the oppression of the Italian people; EH Carr, Britain’s most important realist theorist, concludes his classic. 20 years of crisis, with radical proposals to change Europe’s political and economic landscape along progressive lines. What distinguishes these theorists from Lammy’s progressive realism is that both Machiavelli and Carr were willing to follow realist logic further than Lammy was prepared to take.
At the heart of the difference between realism and ‘progressive realism’ is the complex relationship between means and ends. Machiavelli is not ashamed of the gradual end of Italian liberation. need: The Italian Messiah who would unite Italy should emulate political leaders such as Cesare Borgia, who used both force and fraud to achieve the progressive goal of bringing order and justice to the Romagna. Borgia knew what he wanted how It is about acting within one’s environment to achieve one’s goals. In short, realism recognizes that politics often involves making strategic decisions in imperfect situations that require choices and courses of action that are irregular but necessary to achieve progressive goals. There may not be a need to act like a latter-day Cesare Borgia or an Italian messiah, but any nation wishing to achieve ambitious progressive goals in the 21st century will need a similar level of awareness of what a nation is. necessary The goal is to secure positive outcomes related to climate change and development in the modern international context.
The problem with progressive realism in this regard is that it mistakes the existence of mechanisms such as the balance of power and institutions such as NATO and the EU as means to achieve progressive ends, or even as ends sufficient in themselves. Simply the existence of NATO and/or greater institutional links between the UK and the EU are unlikely to have much impact on how China and Russia will behave. Likewise, Lammy is silent. how These institutions would assist Britain in its efforts to rally Western countries. and They attack their enemies under the banner of development and combating climate change. For China and Russia, what is needed is a plan of action similar to George Kennan’s realist policy of containment, a broad strategy that clearly outlines an identifiable set of parameters within which Western powers must operate. Kennan’s clear blueprint for checking Soviet power (sometimes distorted, but not completely abandoned until the end of the Cold War) stands in stark contrast to the blueprint of progressive realism. unsubstantial It is a strategy for the UK to ‘appropriately challenge, compete and cooperate with China at the same time’. Likewise, climate change solutions and achieving development superpower status require detailed plans rooted in a firm understanding of what the UK can achieve within the prevailing context of 21st century international politics. This is a detailed plan that is notably absent from Lammy’s plan. Spread of progressive realism.
Lammy’s article haunts the specter of Chinese power and Russian aggression. Lammy’s response to the rise of China and the war in Ukraine has had the unfortunate effect of highlighting the continuity between Labour’s progressive realism and the Conservative policies it condemns. In short, the days when Britain could challenge or compete with China are over, but Lammy, like his Conservative colleagues, cannot apply the ‘rugged honesty’ of realism to Britain’s current position in international competition. Bespeak. Lammy recognizes that Britain’s relationship with China must be part of a wider Western response to the rise of the Asian superpower, but this knowledge does not correspond to a realistic assessment of the ‘West’ as it currently exists, or of Britain’s place within it. not. . Britain remains an important power, but not one that determines Western policy. Britain will have to cut its teeth following America’s actions. All competitions, challenges, etc. from China are decided by senior partners and junior partners such as the UK must follow suit.
Although Lammy did not acknowledge this, British foreign policy will also have to deal with the chaos. within The West itself. Navigating the uneven landscape created by the friction between the juggernauts of the United States and the European Union will be a complex task that will inevitably consume Britain’s foreign policy resources and efforts after Brexit. After leaving the EU, the UK no longer has a role in the EU. Once a bridge between the EU and the US, it is now unmoored and must quickly learn how to juggle between the competing demands of both sides.
Additionally, an unfavorable choice will inevitably arise between the two. type of goals pursued under the banner of progressive realism. Lammy makes a clear case that European security will be Labour’s foreign policy priority. However, the threat to European security will be global in terms of the parties likely to be involved in any conflict (hot or cold) and will involve power-dependent trade-offs. For example, Lammy acknowledges the importance of India to Britain’s future foreign policy, but does not acknowledge that India is likely to demand anything in return for its future support. If Britain wants to secure India’s support in its efforts to maintain European security or expand its influence in the Indo-Pacific, it may have to offer China, its only rival, more than mention of ‘countless family ties’. region. India’s current enthusiasm for Russian oil suggests that international politics, particularly the task of securing India’s support for the UK in India’s ambitious plans to tackle climate change, may be more complicated than Lammy acknowledges.
The dilemma facing British foreign policy cannot be resolved by a combination of mechanistic realism and progressive goals. Realism requires a critical perspective to achieve what is desirable within what is necessary. The key to unlocking this critical perspective is an unwavering willingness to examine Britain’s own power in absolute and relative terms. Progressive realism represents some progress on Tory foreign policy disagreements in that it recognizes that progress in both realism and IR is necessary. Nevertheless, only by developing a greater capacity for genuine insight derived from realism’s robust honesty about the nature and limits of British power can it become an appropriate foundation for British foreign policy. Certainly in times of multi-level crises. We are in a meta crisis.
Additional Resources on E-International Relations
