Like most people who opposed 42 day detention I was surprised by David Davis’s resignation. I have mixed feelings about both why he has adopted this tactic and how effective it will be. However, the more relevant question is what position should those who oppose the 42 day detentions should take towards the forthcoming by-election?

It seems likely that Labour will not field a candidate against him and then try to argue that the whole thing is an empty gesture. But, if there is not a Labour or Liberal candidate then there is no reason why members of the Labour and Liberal parties who disagree with the 42 days decision should not throw their support behind Davis.

Whether we like it or not, David Davis is now the most important symbol of opposition to a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.
Continue reading…

Iraq has become the elephant in the room in some discussions of international relations amongst a certain section of liberal-left opinion. David Miliband opened his recent speech about democracy by saying that it had ‘clouded the debate’ about how to promote this, but the main lesson he seemed to draw from it is that future ‘interventions in other countries must be more subtle, better planned, and if possible undertaken with the agreement of multilateral institutions.’

The speech was actually more thoughtful than this extract suggests, but by failing to make it clear the exact circumstances in which the British government would use military force, the Foreign Secretary tied himself to a policy which by every measurable standard has been a complete disaster.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Continue reading…

Ten years ago, Labour took office with a clear and credible policy of putting human rights at the heart of its foreign policy. It would have been difficult to imagine back then how badly this could have crashed and burned or its significance in eventually forcing Tony Blair from office.

Foreign policy, the conventional wisdom goes, is simply not an issue on the doorsteps. Yet there are few people today who do not have an opinion about the ‘legality’ of invading Iraq, the wisdom of incorporating of the European Convention of Human Rights into domestic law or our policy towards refugees and economic migrants.

International law seems an obscure topic at first sight, but it provides a set of rules for how countries relate to one another and govern their citizens in a rapidly globalising world economy. The liberal-left understood this ten years ago, but has been increasingly forced onto the defensive. We often come across as unsure of our arguments or out of our depth.

I think that part of this is that we do not discuss these issues often enough and partly that we do not discuss them widely enough. It is noticeable how small, for example, the British delegations have been to the last two World Social Forums in Nairobi and Porto Alegre, where progressives from around the world come together to debate strategies and ideas.

Too often discussion on international issues in Britain starts and stops with the Middle East and the war on terror, or simply results in patronising cliches about ‘saving the world’ which reek of old fashioned colonialism. David Milliband recently remarked that we will never understand the world until we can see it through Indian eyes, which is certainly an encouraging start. China’s growing economic influence in Africa also needs to change the way we think about that continent and we need a more nuanced understanding of the different forces that are currently moving Latin America to the left or shaping the Indian sub-continent.

We need to have a genuinely dialogue with the rest of the world and to listen and learn from the emerging forces in a new multi-polar world. I hope that the liberal conspiracy can draw in as many other voices as possible.