NewsBreakingOnline

The coalition government’s passivity and lack of ambition of a bilateral, mercantilist approach to foreign policy have been found badly wanting by these recent events The tempo of change in the Middle East and North Africa has barely slowed in more than a month. Every few days, there is another difficult decision on the desk of the foreign secretary: how to put pressure on the Mubarak regime; how to respond to the violence in Bahrain; how to ensure the safe passage of British citizens from the rapidly deteriorating situation in Libya. None of the policy challenges thrown up by these tumultuous events is straightforward or easy. Old assumptions have collapsed as swiftly as old regimes. But, regrettably, the British government has shown a strikingly unsteady hand on the tiller. Operational incompetence has now been followed by strategic incoherence. There was the fiasco over flights and a wider uncertainty as to who was in charge, as a trade mission was rather unconvincingly resprayed as a democracy tour. Then a no fly zone was talked up one day only to be talked down the next, as US defence secretary Bob Gates warned against “loose talk”. For good measure, the government also chose that day to announce the sacking of thousands of RAF personnel . Public squabbling then broke out as cabinet discussions on Libya were briefed and counter-briefed by ministers. People are entitled to ask what is going on and what has gone wrong. Certainly, there is inexperience at all levels of government and it’s showing in basic errors such as the failure immediately to convene Cobra (the UK’s emergencies team) and in the failure properly to align public statements with key allies. But there’s also a deeper issue. Previous generations of leaders came of age through geopolitical moments: 1989, the Balkan wars, 9/11. The world view of today’s cabinet has, in large part, been defined by the global financial crisis. Accordingly, the coalition government thought that if they stepped back from foreign affairs, a quiet period on the world stage would reflect and reinforce their domestic agenda of austerity. Perhaps, for the pre- Tahrir era, such strategic shrinkage seemed appropriate. But it’s the passivity and lack of ambition of a bilateral, mercantilist approach to foreign policy that have been found badly wanting by these recent events. These events have been driven from within the region and not beyond. But the challenge is to use British influence to support political transitions in North Africa – with countries that are just eight miles from Europe – rather than simply playing the role of a bystander. The real challenge for Britain today is whether we can match the “networked” revolutions we are witnessing with a networked foreign policy. Such a strategy should not deny the weakness of many of today’s international institutions. In fact, successful multilateralism demands fighting every day against institutional inertia. But Britain is uniquely equipped to pursue a coherent policy in each of the many different parts of the multilateral system. We are the one country that can operate simultaneously through the EU, the UN Security Council, Nato and the Commonwealth. So what would an agenda for action in the coming days look like? Sustaining pressure on the regime and protecting the people should remain the west’s strategic objectives. The EU has been slow off the mark on Libya. The UK government should now propose that Friday’s EU Council become a joint emergency summit held with the Arab League. The Arab League’s secretary general, Amre Moussa, is already emerging as an influential figure in Egypt. So the emergency summit should propose the immediate establishment of a “Friends of Libya Group”. A key objective of this group should be to establish contacts with opposition leaders with the aim of supporting their efforts running the large parts of the country they already effectively control. The EU should also sharpen the choice facing the Libyan military by offering sanctuary to deserting Libyan pilots, while making explicit the risks being run by those countries that continue to allow their citizens to serve as Gaddafi’s mercenaries. And in the Nato defence ministers’ meeting, Britain should be at the heart of working up the range of contingencies that may yet be required. Gaddafi, and his military backers, need to know all options remain on the table. The EU summit should also state explicitly that assistance will be available to a post-Gaddafi Libya. Britain should propose that work starts now on a package of trade measures that addresses the tariffs and quotas that presently lock out many North African agricultural goods. Funds should also be redirected within the external relations budget from areas such as Latin America towards North Africa. This government is always quick to talk up the Commonwealth, but has seemed slow to realise the extent to which the foreign worker refugee crisis on the borders of Libya affects Commonwealth citizens. There is a particular problem with Bangladeshi workers, 5,000 of whom crossed into Tunisia in just one day. Britain should propose a joint Commonwealth task force of members with heavy lift capacity such as Canada, India and Australia to try and assist in getting them home. To further address the humanitarian aspects of this crisis, Britain should use Department for International Development funds to support the World Food Programme and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in achieving a co-ordinated and comprehensive response. Having attended EU and Nato Councils, and UN and Commonwealth summits, I am not naive about the scale of the challenge. And I recognise that, unlike in 1989, the feelings evoked towards the scene of tumult in the Middle East are commonly not of triumph but of uncertainty. But that is not an excuse for uncertainty in government. The changes sweeping the region are challenging assumptions of the past and shaking visions of the future with a velocity in response. In this crisis, Britain can and must step up and not step back. Arab and Middle East protests Libya Egypt Foreign policy Douglas Alexander guardian.co.uk