A vote for peace? What the UK election contenders are saying on conflict issues
21 April 2015As the General Election nears, Saferworld hopes the new UK Government will maintain a firm commitment to conflict prevention and peace through its foreign and domestic policies, at a time of deep global instability. In this comment piece, Saferworld analyses the Conservative, Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UK Independence parties’ manifestos, assessing what they would do to improve the lives of those affected by conflict.
For Saferworld, any future government must have a vision for peacebuilding and conflict prevention that incorporates four essential policy aspects:
- A principled foreign policy that prioritises peace for all people and supports a constructive role for civil society in conflict prevention.
- A whole of government vision for peacebuilding and conflict prevention, free from contradictions between the policies, practices and approaches of different departments allowing foreign policy, defence spending, trade and aid (alongside key domestic policies, for example on drugs or immigration) to be harmonised under a common vision.
- International trade and aid programmes that are conflict sensitive, address the drivers of conflict, and understand the effect of said interventions on corruption and governance in recipient countries.
- Intelligent defence spending and investments including support for implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty, robust arms transfer controls, and thorough analysis of any future military engagements by the UK and its allies.
Saferworld has analysed the Conservative, Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UK Independence parties’ manifestos using these criteria, and drawn relevant conclusions below.
Overall, the 2015 UK election has been dominated by domestic issues. While understandable, Saferworld believes that global conflict and instability cannot be isolated from domestic policy issues and as such should have been more widely debated. For instance, domestic policies on immigration, drug use and ‘radicalisation/terrorism’ cannot be separated from their international dimensions. Any future government will need coherent policy responses at both domestic and international levels – but none of the manifestos offer a coherent vision in this regard.
Where foreign policy is mentioned, the focus remains on EU membership – a traditionally polarising issue in UK politics. Saferworld believes there is the potential for the UK to promote peace through the EU, as together with its Member States, the EU is the biggest development donor in the world – with a healthy commitment to promoting human rights and preventing conflict. However, the EU lacks efficiency and needs to do more to ensure its political, economic and development branches all push coherently for peace, human rights and development.
Happily, all parties are committed to promoting democracy and human rights around the world. Saferworld encourages all parties to maintain this as a core aim, but at the same time to reflect very carefully on the lessons from recent experience in countries such as Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq and how the use of democratic or human rights principles as justification for intervention have affected conflict around the world. These experiences all suggest that less violent, more people-focused approaches to promoting peace and rights are likely to be more successful and sustainable than the current model.
The Liberal Democrats present a sound vision for the UK’s role in preventing conflict at a global level, emphasising a whole of government approach where ‘all aspects of government policy – trade, aid and diplomacy as well as military cooperation’ focus on conflict prevention. They also emphasise robust arms export controls, including end-user certification on all future arms export licences and a ‘presumption of denial’ for arms exports to countries listed as of concern in the Foreign Office’s annual human rights report. While the importance the Liberal Democrats attach to peacebuilding is encouraging, the party should, however, be under no illusions about the weakness of multilateral institutions that they hope can protect the world’s most vulnerable: such institutions will need reform and enhancement before they can be relied on as the UK’s primary peacebuilding tools.
The UK Independence Party’s (UKIP) manifesto is alone in asking future governments to examine the motivations and intentions of key allies when considering future military interventions overseas. When looking at current protracted conflicts, UKIP recognises that the West’s historical interventions in these areas have played a role in fuelling conflict and instability. Saferworld encourages such reflection in mainstream political discourse. Nonetheless, UKIP’s overall vision is heavily domestically focused and does not consider the international dimensions of many of its key policy areas. Additionally, their plan to cut aid to 0.2% of GNI has the potential to deny life-saving relief in conflict-affected contexts. The party’s plan for aid spending prioritises non-transformative interventions (such as food relief and vaccinations) without acknowledging the need for complementary use of UK influence to address the structural causes of poverty, insecurity and violence. UKIP also oversimplifies the potential role trade can play in fostering global peace, stating that ‘nations which trade with one another are less likely to go to war with each other’. Economic liberalisation, trade and investment can either support or undermine peace and therefore cannot be relied upon in and of themselves to promote peace.
The Labour Party explicitly commits to working in fragile and conflict-affected states to improve the lives of those impacted by violence. This is welcome – especially their specific commitment to prioritising women in conflict who have distinct needs that are not always addressed. However, the exact roles and responsibilities of each department in assisting conflict-affected people needs to be made clear. This lack of clarity could be troublesome given Labour’s commitments to ‘grow defence exports’ and ‘secure defence jobs’ along with its failure to mention robust arms export controls. Labour does recognise an important role for the private sector in development, but also omits a commitment to ensure that economic growth is inclusive and conflict sensitive.
The Green Party’s manifesto contains useful analysis of how previous UK foreign policies have driven conflict and insecurity around the world, and is the only party to discuss peace as an end goal of foreign policy. The party does aim to transform arms sales and exports, but could offer a clearer explanation of how it would engage with current international mechanisms to do so. The Green Party’s recognition of the role of local people in preventing violent conflict is refreshing, as is its commitment to restructuring the UK’s security and defence establishments to take a leading role in developing local capacities to avoid, manage and resolve conflicts. However, Saferworld is concerned both with the lack of detail for how these changes will be implemented and with the Green Party’s proposals to increase aid spending to 1% of gross national income: raising the quantity of aid is currently much less urgent than improving its quality and effectiveness – and especially improving its impact on peace in conflict-affected contexts.
Finally, the Conservative Party manifesto includes a welcome commitment to take a ‘patient, long-term approach to preventing conflict and state failure’. The party justifies this in terms of its benefits both to UK citizens and the UK’s ‘national’ interest. While this is an understandable way to make the case for British support to peace and development, there is strong evidence that peace is better served by explicitly prioritising the security, well-being and rights of people in conflict-affected countries than by too strong a focus on our own security – which can actually worsen instability. Furthermore there is little evidence to show, for example, that ‘aid prevents failed states from becoming a haven for terrorists’, as the Conservative manifesto claims. The manifesto states that the party will participate in discussions on international aid rules to ensure they reflect the importance of peace, stability and effective institutions in reducing poverty. Saferworld welcomes all efforts to ensure that development works in favour of peace – which is often not the case – but would caution against any reforms that could risk diverting aid away from human security towards harder (military and defence) security purposes.
The contenders to form the next UK Government may all express the aim to advance peace and human rights in the wider world, but they will need to put more thought into how they could achieve this in practice – avoiding the pitfalls of contradictory policies and learning the lessons of past UK engagement. All parties have gaps in their vision and plan. Regardless of the results of the General Election, Saferworld will work with the next administration to ensure its policies prioritise the four key criteria for peace that we set out above and that its future programmes address the root causes of conflict, promote sustainable peace, and help those affected by conflict to live better and safer lives.
“Regardless of the results of the General Election, Saferworld will work with the next administration to ensure its future programmes address the root causes of conflict, promote sustainable peace, and help those affected by conflict to live better and safer lives.”
Brie O'Keefe
