David Lammy advocates a signature new foreign policy approach, “progressive realism”, which is radically different from Labour’s previous foreign policy discourse.This is not because of its content but because of its unusual emphasis on theory. In his recent article, “The Case for Progressive Realism,” Lamy details international relations (IR) theory and foreign policy analysis terminology. Foreign affairs. A series of concepts such as multipolarity, geopolitics, soft power, balance of power, globalization, hegemony, liberal interventionism, rules-based order, burden sharing, and collective security are used throughout the text. The presence of this degree of theory in British foreign policy discourse is highly unusual. Robin Cook’s 1997 Foreign and Commonwealth Office New Mission Statement (taken as Labour’s foreign policy agenda-setting statement) contained only one or two references to then-popular globalization theory, and the only mention In contrast to realism and realpolitik’s narrow definition of the national interest, New Labour’s approach would “provide moral content to foreign policy”.
The acceptance of the theory is significant because it suggests that Britain under the next Labor government will not only chart a different global course but also navigate the global political sea in a new way. new Way. Despite the somewhat saintly treatment of Robin Cook throughout the article, Lammy is clear that his predecessor’s worldview has been overshadowed. Lammy argues that progressive realism marked an improvement over Labour’s previous foreign policy precisely because it abandoned a naive view of the positive impact of globalization on trade within international society and instead embraced the realist view that international relations are governed by economic Dominated by competitive advantages and international relations.
The addition of the adjective “progressive” suggests that Lamy’s realism is a different variant of realism from the realpolitik that Cook rejects. Central to Lamy’s argument is that progressive realism will stand somewhere between the recklessly interventionist “Scylla” of liberal internationalism in the first decade of the century and the inaction-laden “Charybdis” of the second decade. Create a path. Realism consists in acknowledging the importance of confronting the threats posed by the rise of China, Russian revisionism, and the growing decoupling of regional middle powers from the West. In response to these developments, Labor proposed reinvigorating the Western alliance to protect European security through a greater commitment to NATO and rapprochement with the EU. Progressive qualities are reflected in a vow to put fairness at the center of Labour’s foreign policy, a virtue embodied in two aims: first, that the UK should become a development superpower; Secondly, the UK should prioritize tackling the global threats posed by climate change. Lamy asserts that the combination of progressive goals and realist means, coupled with the “robust honesty” of realist logic, avoids empty idealism and the worst cynicism of realism.
The potential positive contribution of progressive realism is further appreciated through comparison with the Conservative government’s foreign policy, a hodgepodge of “nostalgia and denial” that has led to Brexit chaos and damaged the Britain’s reputation as a powerful nation. Progressive realism, which combines a coherent theory that emphasizes power and competition with a commitment to fairness, will repair the damage done by the Conservative Party’s inward 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 concluded prince An exhortation to unify Italy and end the oppression of its people; Britain’s foremost realist theorist EH Carr concludes his classic twenty years of crisisRadical proposals were put forward to change the political and economic landscape of Europe along progressive lines. What distinguished these theorists from Lamy’s progressive realism was that both Machiavelli and Carr were willing to follow the logic of realism further than Lamy was prepared to accept.
The core difference between realism and “progressive realism” lies in the complex relationship between means and ends.Machiavelli did not shy away from the progressive goal of liberating Italy need: The Italian Messiah who would unite Italy must emulate political leaders such as Cesare Borgia, who achieved their progressive goals of bringing order and justice to Romagna through the use of force and deception.Borgia knew what he wanted and how Takes action in his environment to achieve his goals. In short, realism recognizes that politics often involves making strategic decisions under imperfect circumstances that require objectionable choices and courses of action that are nevertheless necessary if progressive goals are to be achieved Policies are necessary. One may not need to act in the manner of a latter-day Caesar Borgia or Italian Messiah, but any country operating in the twenty-first century that hopes to achieve ambitious goals of progress needs a similar level of awareness of what constitutes . necessary and ensuring positive outcomes on climate change and development in the contemporary international context.
The problem with progressive realism in this regard is that it mistakenly sees mechanisms such as the balance of power and the existence of institutions such as NATO and the EU as means to achieve progressive goals, or even as goals that are sufficient in their own right. The presence of NATO and/or greater institutional links between the UK and the EU will not have much impact on the actions of China and Russia.Likewise, Lamy also remained silent how These institutions will assist Britain in integrating Western countries and Their opponents campaign in the name of development and curbing climate change. What China and Russia need is a plan of action similar to George Kennan’s realist containment policy: a broad strategy that clearly outlines a set of identifiable parameters within which Western powers should operate.Kennan’s clear blueprint for containing Soviet power (occasionally distorted, but not fully abandoned until the end of the Cold War) was the exact opposite of progressive realism unrealistic The UK’s strategy of “simultaneously challenging, competing and, where appropriate, cooperating with China”. Likewise, solutions to climate change and the achievement of development superpower status will require detailed plans rooted in a deep understanding of what the UK is likely to achieve in the prevailing circumstances of twenty-first century international politics – Lamy’s These detailed plans were clearly missing from the plan.
The specter of Chinese power and Russian aggression haunts Lamy’s essay. Lamy’s response to the rise of China and the war in Ukraine had unfortunate consequences, highlighting the continuities between Labour’s progressive realism and the Conservative policies they condemned. In short, the days when Britain wanted to challenge or compete with China are over, but Lamy, like his Tory colleagues, cannot quite bring himself to apply the “tough honesty” of realism to the UK’s current position in international competition. Lamy recognizes that Britain’s relationship with China must form part of the wider Western response to the rise of the Asian superpowers, but this recognition does not square with a realistic assessment of the “West” as it currently exists, or Britain’s place within it. . Britain remained an important power, but it was not the one determining Western policy. The UK will have to make its own decisions, following the US approach: any competition, challenge etc. from China will be decided by senior partners, and junior partners like the UK will have to follow suit.
Although Lamy won’t admit it, British foreign policy will also have to deal with turbulence within The West itself. Navigating the choppy waters caused by the friction between the two behemoths, the United States and the European Union, will be a complex task that will inevitably drain the UK’s post-Brexit foreign policy resources and efforts: after leaving the EU, the UK will not Play the role of the European Union again.
Unpleasant choices will inevitably arise between the two parties type goals pursued under the banner of progressive realism. Lamy made it clear that European security would be Labour’s foreign policy priority. However, in terms of the parties that might be involved in any conflict, hot or cold, the threats to European security are global and necessarily involve trade-offs. Lamy, for example, recognized the importance of India to Britain’s future foreign policy but did not acknowledge the price India might exact for any future aid. If the UK hopes to gain Indian support for its efforts to maintain European security, or expand its influence in the Indo-Pacific, it may have to offer more than its “countless family ties” with its only rival, China. India’s current enthusiasm for Russian oil suggests that the task of ensuring India supports the UK in international politics – particularly its ambitious plans to tackle climate change – may be more complex than Lamy is willing to admit.
The dilemmas facing British foreign policy cannot be solved by a combination of mechanical realism and progressive goals. Realism requires a critical perspective to achieve the desired goals within the scope necessary; the key to unlocking this critical perspective is a firm willingness to view Britain’s own strength in both absolute and relative terms. Progressive realism marks a degree of progress over the incoherence of Conservative foreign policy because it recognizes the need for realism and progress in international relations. Nonetheless, if it is to become an adequate basis for British foreign policy, it must develop a greater capacity to gain real insight into the nature and limits of British power from the hard-hitting honesty of realism, especially in a world that is likely to trigger An era of multiple crises with ripple effects.
Further reading on electronic international relations
