04 Sep Should We Care What People Think About Foreign Policy?

There are, as we’re always told, no votes in foreign policy. So it isn’t worth spending too much thinking about public opinion, then? This would seem to be the implicit view of much of the foreign policy establishment. After all, just look at what happened when someone was “courageous” enough to ask a big question about Britain’s relationship with the outside world.

But those who actually make our foreign policy don’t seem to agree. One senior British official told me that they were very interested in public opinion as it’s a “leading indicator for policy”. Go figure…

In which case, I’m sure that official will want to read the British Foreign Policy Group’s 2023 Annual Survey of Public Opinion, published in July. There are plenty of gems, from the finding that a majority of Leavers are in favour of establishing closer economic ties with the EU, to impressively high levels of support for Ukraine – and NATO. And strong support is in fashion: we found it among Brits both for the UK leadership on climate change and for the Government’s illegal migration policy.

It’s also interesting to see how interested people are in foreign policy, and how much they think they know. Brits absolutely are interested – overall some 77% say they are, though their (self-reported) knowledge lags some 20 points behind interest, with, of course, significant demographic and even political differences.  

Of course, the world is a complex place and there is plenty to confuse even the greatest geopolitical experts. For people in the majority of countries, this is arguably not a big problem. National interest is pretty clear: to survive and prosper, you manage your way through the opportunities and threats and deal with (almost) anyone you can do a deal with.

But for Britain, with its heavy historical legacy, a ready-made foreign policy consensus is increasingly hard to come by.    Should our foreign policy be driven by national interests (in which case, what are they?) or by values (same question)? Are they in fact the same? As Foreign Secretary, David Miliband came up with “Better World, Better Britain” as a purpose statement. But does that help us decide what to do? In foreign policy especially, trade-offs are going to be unavoidable.   How easily are they encapsulated in slogans, whether of the “Better World” or the “Take Back Control” type?   

One reason for the lack of clarity is that Britain has long shied away from a real debate about what we want to do in the world and why, perhaps for fear of having to admit that we’re not quite the Great Power we still like to believe we are. This is something on which left and right seem to agree. Whether we want to save the world or project power, it seems to many self-evident that we should “play a leadership role” in diplomacy, development or defence. But is this good enough? If David Miliband’s “Better World” was vague, it’s not clear that William Hague’s hankering after an “active and activist” foreign policy was much better. Doing something can become the goal, particularly when it’s left to the “industry” (the politicians, diplomats and – yes – think tankers) to decide what foreign policy is actually for.

This kind of foreign policy can sound, to us, noble, described in terms of universal values rather than base interests. But it risks coming across as (at best) post-Imperial and tone-deaf and (at worst) disingenuous, especially when it presupposes that we have the answers and are eager to spread them around the world. Does it achieve what we like to think it’s doing?   Has anyone really asked? More importantly, has anyone really asked the British people? Well, on the latter at least, BFPG has tried in this report, and on the former, we regularly seek the views of a wide range of foreign representatives for their take on British policy. 

You might say this is the wrong moment to be asking these big questions. The world’s obviously a very dangerous place right now. But the public gets that, witness the overwhelming support for Ukraine. Surely, if we want our foreign policy to be sustainable, this is precisely the moment to start building a lasting consensus, and that means understanding what people think and understand.

In today’s world, foreign and domestic policy – and therefore our country’s prosperity – are increasingly intertwined. There are big trade-offs which can’t be avoided. Sanctions against Russia might seem an easy call. While it may be the right decision from a national security perspective, decoupling from China will be felt by citizens, companies, and universities across the UK. Does being a world leader on climate change mean taking more ambitious domestic measures than our competitors, and at what cost? Should we always follow international law – on refugees or cluster bombs for Ukraine – even if other vital interests point in a different direction?   

When we don’t have these discussions, we too easily drift into following Sir Humphrey’s Law: we must do something – this is something – therefore we must do it. And having started acting, our “credibility” requires us to continue to destruction – the diplomatic sunk cost fallacy. We don’t need more Iraqs and Afghanistans.

The political establishment and foreign policy industry should have the courage to have these discussions now. A clear foreign policy requires us not only to decide what we want to achieve, but also to understand our place in the world and our capabilities. Then we can have a realistic sense of where we go from here. And, above all, we should ask the people what they think.