Re: What does this mean?

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:56:20 GMT, "DVH" <dvh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On page 12 of the conservative defence report published today:

"Pursuit of the national interest abroad by prominent use of hard power is
very expensive and ultimately unlikely to be successful. The UK in any case
does not have enough of it. We need to maximise the instruments of soft
power available to us.
We must approach foreign policy with humility and patience."

i think it is better understood in context
http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/securityreportfinal.pdf

as it says, it is a general approach...i.e and introductory outline
for a document that is listed as 204 'pages'

i see little of concern...the most likely question could be
"unlikely to be successful"
in the context of "prominent use of hard power"

it looks waffly introduction to me rather than a carefully worded
legal document....

what exactly do 'unlikely' and 'prominent' mean?

other comments in this intro. include

"Concrete national interests cannot be disregarded. They must be
defended and promoted."

and

"Fulfilling this responsibility may sometimes require military
intervention."

the full intro. follows

6. Our General Approach
We live in a world where it is no longer enough to have secure borders
in order to guarantee security. A global economy and normal movement
of peoples combined with such things as organised crime and
terrorism mean that we are vulnerable to transnational security
threats. What the UK does abroad affects our security at home and vice
versa. Our response to complex issues must be consistent, coherent,
competent and complete across policy at home and abroad and formulated
in the round. We must have a national security approach. How the UK
acts abroad matters too. Pursuit of the national interest abroad
by prominent use of hard power is very expensive and ultimately
unlikely to be successful. The UK in any case does not have enough of
it. We need to maximise the instruments of soft power available to us.
We must approach foreign policy with humility and patience.

This means we must work within, and strengthen, the framework of
international governance. Its revitalization is needed. A key element
of this is adapting the framework to take changes in the distribution
of global power into account. No one body is sufficient on its own.
Each of the elements that make up this system - the set includes the
UN political institutions and the agencies, the G8, NATO, the EU, the
international courts, as well as the international economic and
financial institutions - has a role. They all need to work together
with compatible strategies. The UN lies at the core of international
governance. A period of international political management in which
the United Nations has been largely sidelined has not produced
encouraging results. The use of power by governments requires
political and, often, legal legitimacy. The universality of UN
membership helps confer the first and the international law-making
role of the Security Council, based on a Charter embodying Western
concepts of the rule of law, uniquely confers the second. But while
the UN can bring broad coalitions together and provide
legitimacy to their actions, the motor power, purpose and priorities
have to come from member state leadership which have a duty to provide
it.

The way in which that leadership is exercised matters. Concrete
national interests cannot be disregarded. They must be defended and
promoted. But excessive ?realism? is also a mistake. For the UK,
reputation as a nation is vital. Given porous borders, we need to
understand that it is not possible to conduct the UK?s domestic and
foreign policies by different standards. Other countries and peoples
will not compartmentalise in this way and neither should we. The UK
will be judged both by how we treat our own people, and also by the
standards that prevail in our external behaviour. Inconsistency will
be spotted. Our human rights record, at home as well as abroad, is
probably the single most important aspect of our soft power, a term
that we use, following Professor Joseph Nye, to mean: ?the ability to
attract and persuade rather than coerce.? Exactly where to draw the
line between individual liberty and collective security is difficult
at the best of times and made harder by current circumstances. While
the British Government?s primary duty is to its own citizens,
indifference to the fate of foreign men and women is indefensible
morally and inadvisable politically. Our desire to protect our own
civil liberties should be matched by concern for the human rights of
others and the Conservative Party has recognised this by setting up
its own Human Rights Commission.

Our values stand on their merits. They have benefits too. They help
contribute by example to international peace and security. Countries
where the institutions of the open society thrive not only eschew
internal repression, but are also less likely to resort to aggressive
war. Furthermore, our policy should reward compliance with
international human rights standards. This is in our long term
interest even though it may make some short term goals more difficult
to achieve. The willingness to incur such costs is demonstration of
our commitment to our values. The West has lost ground in recent years
because it has cut corners. We must not let it fall back further.

Finally, belief in the rightness, universality and effectiveness of
the principles of the open society and their upholding in practice is
of paramount importance now that our security is most immediately
threatened locally and internationally by an ideological movement that
claims it has a better model of state and society than liberal
democracy. In that ideological struggle we need to practise as well as
preach attractive principles and demonstrate that it is possible to
protect security while limiting ourselves to principled methods.
Resort to repressive security measures fosters extremism.

This consistency can be difficult to achieve: two cases stand out ? in
our relationships with authoritarian countries with which it is
nonetheless in Britain?s interest to have good relations, and in the
case of military humanitarian intervention. The first dilemma is most
acute in the broader Middle East. There political reform in many
countries would not only be a good thing, but is necessary for our
security as well. We have proposed a ?Partnership for Open Societies?
(see pp 19 - 20) to assist such countries in making the changes
necessary. Uncritical support, regardless of how they treat their own
people, damages our moral authority.

As for humanitarian intervention, the Policy Group considers that this
country should not give the impression abroad that the creation of
civil society is chiefly a matter of the use of the sword.
Nevertheless we believe that the development of the concept of the
international community?s ?responsibility to protect? civilians from
grave crimes against humanity committed by their own governments has
been an important step forward in the progress towards more humane
international order. Fulfilling this responsibility may sometimes
require military intervention. Humanitarian intervention should in
future be undertaken provided it passes the tests that apply to any
use of force by the UK. These are: the potential operation is assessed
as being compatible with the protection of UK security; that the
likely benefits to the UK and the international community will
outweigh the risks to our servicemen and women; the realisation of an
operation?s objectives lies within the capabilities of our armed
forces; and that there is sufficient reserve to surmount the
unexpected.

We now turn to the main topics of our Report and the conclusions we
draw for policy.


regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

Relevant Pages