11 Jul A Year of Progressive Realism
It has been a year since the UK’s Labour Government came to power. Before the General Election, the now-Foreign Secretary, David Lammy MP, outlined his vision for UK foreign policy, a doctrine he called ‘progressive realism’.1 In a nutshell, this means a foreign policy that tries to achieve progressive ends – fighting climate change, defending democracy and human rights, modernising development – while recognising, as the Foreign Secretary puts it, “the world as it is, not as we wish it to be”. One year on, buffeted by the rise of Reform UK at home and instability abroad, the Labour Government has clearly felt forced to prioritise hardheaded policies that focus on notionally objective indicators such as economic growth.
This drive has led to some successful acts of statecraft – the UK being the first to strike a trade deal with President Trump, and settling a long tortured trade deal with India being two salient examples. However, the push for growth above all else is causing other areas of critical UK interest to lag. Cuts to the UK’s official development assistance (ODA) budget and likely reductions to BBC World Service funding run the severe risk of ceding significant UK influence in the global space. The world has become a more challenging place, but it would serve the UK well to identify clear ways to promote its values internationally. At present, much of the government’s foreign policymaking upholds an artificial division between hard power and influential ‘soft’ power, with a lack of appreciation for how global influence projection and values promotion serve the UK’s domestic and foreign interests.
The Security of International Development
International development spending is generally considered to be unpopular with the public and politically difficult to defend. The most common complaint – “why are we spending taxpayer money overseas when we have so much difficulty at home?” – is one that politicians struggle to answer. It is no surprise, then, that development spending will be cut by almost half by 2027 in favour of defence spending, which is broadly supported by the public.
There is, however, a lack of appreciation in Government for the ways in which development spending makes us more secure. Ministers have attempted to portray the cuts in part as a response to a changing world – that British expertise is now more sought after than British development work, and that a more partnerships-based model is needed between the UK and the Global South. We can agree with this notion while also understanding that an immense number of people are in humanitarian need globally – 305 million people by UN estimates. To fulfil both its ambitions and build its influence, the UK should offer both, developing more equal partnerships while also providing financial relief and structural support where it is needed.
Ceding the UK’s longstanding development leadership is arguably neither progressive nor realist. The world has indeed changed – but not in a way that necessitates less development or humanitarian spending. More focus on partnerships is long overdue, and the UK’s development offer does need to be modernised to focus on more equal-footed relationships based on the exchange of expertise and trade. However, it is hard to see how taking away vital support from Global South partners – likely causing illness, hunger, and deaths to rise – and replacing it with less tangible offers to share knowledge and expertise will win the UK any favour.
Reducing development funding is clearly not the ‘progressive’ choice. But neither is it ‘realist,’ given the further damage it will do to the UK’s global standing and the longer-term risks of instability, displacement, and radicalism to which funding reductions will contribute.
The UK-China Relationship
Few countries encapsulate the dilemma of values and practicality more than the People’s Republic of China (PRC). A major economic and trade power with some of the lowest rankings for freedom and human rights in the world, UK politicians and policymakers have struggled to define a clear plan for engaging with China for years, seeking the trade and investment gains of its immense market while struggling to articulate a proper response to the brutal human rights violations committed by its government or the very direct security challenges China continues to pose.
Labour has articulated its approach to this dilemma through a policy it calls the ‘Three Cs’ – cooperate, compete, and challenge. As the Foreign Secretary said in his speech on China last month, “the UK’s approach to China will be founded on progressive realism: taking the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. Like our closest allies, we will cooperate where we can and we will challenge where we must.”
In practice, the Labour Government has pursued a policy of open rapprochement with China, overseeing a programme of regular visits and bilateral engagements between key UK and Chinese officials. This marks a drastic departure from both the previous government’s approach to China, and from Labour’s own language about China in opposition, where, at one point, David Lammy pledged to work with international partners to seek a formal designation of genocide in Xinjiang.
There have been some moments where the Government has appeared ready to realise the ‘challenge’ aspect of its ‘Three Cs’ policy. The British Steel incident – in which British Steel’s Chinese owner, Jingye Group, apparently planned to let the UK’s virgin steel production capabilities go cold – was a stark example of how foreign control over critical infrastructure can pose serious risks to the UK’s economic security. For a brief moment, Cabinet Ministers were using stern language around the risks posed by Beijing’s involvement in critical UK industry.
With incidents such as this in mind, strengthening the UK’s resilience against the key risks China poses, through steps such as precluding China from control of UK critical national infrastructure and diversifying sources of sensitive resources, would be one way of balancing the serious risks of engagement with the Government’s wish to maximise the economic gains of the UK-China relationship. As well as this, reversing the decision not to include China on the upper, enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS), is vital. FIRS requires those conducting activity on behalf of listed countries to register such work. Countries like Russia and Iran have featured on the enhanced tier, as “foreign powers considered to pose a risk to the UK’s safety or interests”. Despite China’s record of cyber attacks, attempt to control and undermine key infrastructure, and extensive efforts to influence UK politics, it has not been included this category.
This lack of desire to definitively describe China as a threat actor, alongside the refusal to publish the full findings of the Government’s China Audit reveal either a lack of desire to commit one way or another on China, or the wish to maintain an ambiguous approach.
Support for Ukraine
The Labour Government has maintained the UK’s steadfast and essential commitment to Ukraine in the face of Russia’s ongoing, unlawful invasion. Support for Ukraine fulfils both the progressive and realist elements to UK foreign policy – there are economic, security, and moral imperatives to helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia. The Government’s ongoing support – including using Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s defence – is proof that the UK can effectively hold its own in championing both values and interests, working to defend international rules against a highly adversarial state and a varyingly indifferent and antagonistic United States.
This proves that the ‘realist’ perspective of progressive realism need not be treated as a brick wall through which no ambitious policy can pass, and this boldness should be applied to other areas of major crisis such as Gaza.
The Middle East
The Labour Government’s response to the violence in Palestine has seen a notable departure from its predecessor government. The UK has sanctioned Israeli government ministers over inciting violence in the West Bank, there has been ongoing criticism of the Israeli government’s blocking of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the UK has voted in favour of United Nations resolutions calling for the cessation of violence, breaking with the previous UK Government’s tendency to abstain on such votes.
Gaza is also one of the three contexts to which the Government has explicitly committed to humanitarian support despite the punishing cuts to ODA. This is an important signal of prioritisation, but in practical terms is not an increase in support, with the UK’s overall ODA budget being cut by almost 40%, the commitment to Gaza simply means that humanitarian funding in this context will be cut less than other parts of the budget over the coming years.
As with Ukraine, taking a robust response to the mass civilian casualties in Gaza is both the principled and the pragmatic path. The significant loss of life cannot be tolerated by any ‘progressive’ nation, and the ongoing crisis is rapidly eroding trust in the rules-based international order and confidence in western states and the multilateral system. Indeed, the UK’s resolute stance on Ukraine has demonstrated that the Labour Government can work with, around, and – where necessary – against an unpredictable United States to achieve ‘progressive realist’ objectives. Greater diplomatic focus, resourcing for justice and accountability processes, and ensuring humanitarian funding for Gaza is as protected as possible will all be key steps in strengthening the UK’s efforts toward this crisis.
Interests Versus Values
Over the past several months, the world has become a harder, harsher place. The Labour Government appears to have embraced this new global order, successfully securing valuable trade agreements and committing to important increases in defence spending.
However, in other ways the government’s current approach fails to grasp international policy in a holistic way, instead focusing on activity that attempts to drive forward limited domestic political priorities. Values are not a ‘nice to have’, and international norms are not wishy-washy ideals that should be deprioritised in favour of hard power or economic gain. Values set the tone and timbre of international relations, for example, by limiting the once-normal use of force and aggression between states. Powerful actors like China and Russia are openly and effectively working to alter these values and structures to better suit their own interests, to the detriment of the UK.
This Labour Government is still in its early days, and the world will undoubtedly continue to change rapidly over the next few years. While responding to shifting realities is important, it would benefit the Government not to forget the values and international rules that have served the UK and allies so well. For the UK to be safe and prosperous in the years to come, defending those values will be essential. Otherwise, ‘progressive realism’ may simply become a byword for inaction and defeatism.
1. In this case, ‘realism’ refers to a policy that is pragmatic and guided by what is realistically achievable, rather than Realist theory of international relations.
The views expressed in this article are the authour’s own and do not necessarily represent those of BFPG.
