Sir: Your leading article suggests that a more moral foreign
policy would not be in the interests of either Britain or the most disadvantaged within the 'world communi- ty'. In doing so, you cite some rather odd examples to support your case.
You lambast Mr Cook for his concern over child labour in Third World countries, claiming that he would 'deny them [the children] the money to buy food'. Such a statement suggests that the author's con- ception of Third World child labour is something akin to a paper round. The reali- ty, unfortunately, is somewhat different: long hours, egregious working conditions, and very little money to show for their pains. Perhaps a more constructive approach on the part of Britain and the North as a whole would be to give greater financial support to those organisations that attempt to promote education within the Third World. Then, perhaps, those chil- dren could one day contribute to the devel- opment of their countries' economies, and their own children would not have to work in such appalling conditions.
The article then goes on to argue against a ban on landmines, pointing to their defensive attributes. It is true that land- mines effectively deny space to an enemy; but it is also worth pointing out that Britain has not been involved in a major defensive operation since the second world war. Sad- dam Hussein, for instance, during the Gulf war would probably have had far greater use for them than we did. More important- ly, with the increased emphasis on peace- keeping operations, landmines could con- ceivably put British soldiers' lives at risk.
It is no accident that landmines are so prolific in Africa and other war-torn areas of the Third World: their intrinsic nature means that they are best employed in guer- rilla warfare, particularly by a besieged gov- ernment attempting to deny land to a rebel force. Unfortunately, the real victims are almost always non-combatants: people who live and work in such areas either because they know no better, or because they have no choice. It is the indiscriminate nature of the weapon — a mine cannot tell the differ- ence between a combatant and a non-com- batant — that makes the case for a ban so compelling. Other indiscriminate weapons of war have been banned; there is no rea- son to suppose that landmines should be any different.
While one should be careful not to over- state the significance of a unilateral British ban on landmines, the symbolic nature of such a move would put (moral) pressure on other governments to follow suit. An international ban on landmines could be negotiated in the near future, and a unilat- eral decision on the part of the British gov- ernment would surely encourage other gov- ernments to sign such a treaty.
Your arguments in favour of the contin- ued sale of British arms abroad are equally spurious. While there may be a case for the need to maintain a British defence industry, a greater degree of selectivity with regard to some of its customers would not come amiss. While I think there are persuasive moral arguments as to why this should be so, one can equally couch them in terms of national security. Iraq's Saddam Hussein is a salient reminder that today's 'friends' can all too easily become tomorrow's enemies. The need to avoid another scenario in which we find our soldiers facing an enemy partly equipped with British weapons should be enough to instil an element of caution with regard to arms sales.
Moreover, even supplying long-standing friendly governments could be potentially dangerous. It is not inconceivable that gov- ernments like the Saudi royal family or King Hussein in Jordan could be replaced by ones much more threatening to British interests — and with access to British weapons.
Your article accuses Mr Cook of 'abstract moralising'; and yet it is perhaps you who are blind to some of the more unpleasant realities behind British foreign policy, carried out in the name of a rather abstract 'national interest'. I believe that a more moral foreign policy would be broad- ly welcomed by the British public — and not only those members of the Left.
Unfortunately, I too share your cynicism as to whether it is likely to be carried out. If Mr Cook does, though, we should not lament such a radical change in foreign pol- icy, but commend him for his courage.
Christopher Reeves
Department of International Politics, University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Previous page
