Foreign Policy

Apart from the war, people in the UK seem to be demanding a focus on internal policies. I’ve been picking up for a while now that we need to concentrate on sorting out this country first, moreso than ever, but obviously we still have international obligations. Good foreign policy benefits us immensely. The Lib Dems in particular have come under criticism for a weak foreign policy, so I thought I’d give it some attention. Firstly, something that seems to have gone widely unmentioned by the media recently is David Cameron’s alliance with the Ulster Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. This will undoubtedly unsettle the peace process and is a very bad move, condemned as ‘reckless’ by Secretary of state, Shaun Woodward. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/02/david-cameron-criticised-northern-ireland

But anyway…


When it comes to standing up for England and arguing the point against the Obamas/Merkels/Sarkozys of the world, the individual personalities of the 3 leaders really comes into play. Agendas on meetings with foreign leaders are set out well in advance and Think Tanks are brought in by the political parties to discuss exactly what strategy we should adopt as a nation. Now, to be sitting on a think tank, you really have to know your stuff. Regardless of whoever’s in power, great thinkers will be putting forward well thought through ideas that will then be carefully considered and finalised by the ruling party.

So what I’m saying is, no matter which party wins, they’ll be incredibly well prepared before dealing with any situation beforehand. The thing to consider, in my opinion, is how each leader will perform off the record. There will be a certain amount of socialising going on, and as far as I’m concerned this is the real opportunity to win people over, and indeed around to our way of thinking. If two nations are at loggerheads on certain issues, there is every opportunity that deadlock could be the outcome. This will delay progress on that issue and could potentially have far more dangerous consequences. Agreed? Right.

Sometimes, the only way to solve a situation is for both leaders to give a little bit of ground, to go out of their way to smooth the situation over, even if it’s not exactly what they want. Informal talks get things moving. Situations are avoided by late-night international phonecalls… I wouldn’t even be surprised if the wives get involved. It all comes down to human politics from time to time - the way individuals react with one another. So with that in mind, how do we think the Party leaders would do?

Let’s consider an informal after dinner drinks setting that would be commonplace in the world of international politics:

Gordon Brown seems incredibly uncomfortable in front of people. The awkwardness he displays, plus and apparent lack of social awareness suggest to me that he’d always be the outsider. Dishing out inappropriately manic grins (did you see the end of the debates after his final speech?!) when he thinks things are going well and repeating the same throwaway questions over and over and over (like he did on a recent Sky News coverage of a meet and greet in Tescos) Gordon Brown wants to be Prime Minister obviously, but he’d prefer it if he could run the country from behind closed doors and didn’t have to socialise. First to leave the party with a lame excuse and poor at building any relationships that could help the UK.

I imagine Cameron to be the much better than Brown in this scenario. He has a certain amount of swagger about him and he’s probably very confident in such situations. Everything he does though, seems too staged. I wouldn’t be surprised if he brought along a group of frends (advisors) who he strategically placed in the middle of the room... He'd keep nipping back to them for input on how well he’s doing and strategy on how to get ‘in’ with his next target. I imagine he’d be one of those people who can’t help but show on their face that they're judging you. He’d let certain issues that he fundamentally disagrees with pass without argument, throwing a false smile that can, and will be picked up by the other guests. His ultimate strategy would be to get whoever he ultimately wanted to talk to into a car, whisking them away to a much quieter place so they could have a one to one. When he’d have them where he wants them, he’d probably dismiss personal space boundaries and try to put pressure on them that simply wouldn’t wash with some of the big players.

I think Nick Clegg would be visibly happy to be there, or at least he’d convince everyone that he’s happy to be there. Unlike the other 2, he’d actually listen to the other guests, rather than simply waiting for his turn to talk. He’d be true to his word, candid, but fair in his reply, and would throw out the odd joke every now and again. (He’d probably even have a shot if he was offered one!) I’d put money on Clegg staying until the end of the night, staying focussed, but letting his hair down, playing the long game and winning the trust of the other guests. He’d be charming, confident and would end up being invited to an informal breakfast meeting to iron out some issues before the following day’s formal meeting.

So, when it comes to winning the game ON the pitch, we’re in a great position. Three strong leaders who argue well and have what they believe are the nation’s best interests at heart. But, if like me you’re keen to have somebody representing our nation who can build strong international relations with the other leaders of the world which in turn would benefit the UK, Clegg seems the obvious choice.