Projecting Power Peacefully

The UK has a long history of projecting power with results both good and bad. Even today, despite the noise from some little Englanders, it is probably fair to say that a desire to influence and improve the world is in the nation's psyche. I believe that this is a reasonable goal. There is much that is wrong in the world and much that is good in the attitudes of the British. So the question is, how can power be projected with positive results?

Firstly, we should probably describe why we wish to project power. On the whole, life in the UK is calm. The citizens and residents enjoy more freedoms than those in many other countries. The transition from one government to the next occurs routinely and peacefully as a result of a democratic vote. Activities in the UK are conducted in accordance with the law rather than according to the whims of crooked police and judges. Corruption is minimal. Tolerance is high amongst differing people and groups.

Of course, none of the statements above is wholly true and it is not hard to argue with most of them. Nevertheless, in comparison with other countries, the UK is a reasonable place to live. Consequently, many of its citizens consider it justifiable to want to bestow such a good life on others around the world. Probably a better reason to want to improve the world is that by stopping wars, promoting freedom and alleviating economic hardship, there are fewer incentives for people to try to come to the UK, whether as economic migrants or asylum seekers. Furthermore, economically successful and well goverened countries make better trading partners.

So, taking as a starting point the desire to project power, the question is: how should this be done. Traditionally, the answer has been: militarily. When the UK saw bad things happening, it would try to intervene with wildly variable results. To a lesser extent, the UK has projected power via aid and radio broadcasts. I would argue that these latter methods should be greatly increased. They are rarely seen as a method of projecting power; rather, they are seen more as charity. Consequently, many people argue that as "charity begins as home", these initiatives should be cut back in difficult economic times. I would argue the opposite. Using peaceful means to make the world a better place can benefit the UK.

Although the world is a violent and turbulent place, it is time to consider how problems can be resolved peacefully. The alternative is an increase of conflict everywhere. This is because two things have changed over the last 50 or 60 years.

The first is the ending of the cold war. During this period, the two sides did not fight because the consequences would have been too devastating. That constraint no longer applies (or is perceived not to apply). Additionally, the major powers kept most of the rest of the world as client states and dissuaded them from fighting amongst themselves.

The second change is technology. This has had multiple effects. It has made almost everything cheaper in real terms. It is now much cheaper to fly across the world, purchase the components for a deadly device and then detonate it. It has also made it easier to spread messages of hate.

These developments will only continue if no one seeks an alternative strategy. I am arguing the "miltant peace" is the answer. This involves using all peaceful means to project a message of peace, tolerance and cooperation. We should not be afraid to state clearly that we are spreading a message of reasonableness with an objective of influencing hearts and minds  everywhere. Militant peace should be an integral part of an ethical foreign policy that does not turn a blind eye to wars and injustices but attacks them with messages of peace and reconciliation.

The BBC World Service has recently had its funding transferred from the Foreign Office to the domestic TV licence payer. This cannot be beneficial either to domestic output or World Service output. The World Service should be greatly expanded to extend its number of delivery channels and languages and global coverage.

Foreign aid should be increased. Likewise English language teaching via the British Council with an emphasis on spreading British culture.

I do not argue that we are in a position to disband our military forces or even to leave NATO with its mutual defence pact. There will still be occasions when they are required. However, much more emphasis should be put on developing new techniques of peace enforcement. Billions of dollars, some from governments and some from business, go into R&D for military and civilian technology. This needs to be matched by R&D in peaceful methods of preventing and stopping wars and of finding better ways of managing societies, especially those in danger of conflict.

Ban Military Drones

Militarily powerful western nations are increasingly using drones to carry out attacks on their enemies. I propose that drones be banned. Ideally, this should ultimately be a worldwide ban with the consequence that any country or organisation using them would be contravening international law. This is unlikely to happen soon, since the USA has invested so much in drone technology and sees drones as an invaluable part of their weaponry. However, I see no reason why the UK should not lead the way with a unilateral declaration that it will not use this dangerous technology.

Clearly, drones are an attractive solution for the countries that currently use them. They can attack enemies far from anywhere with no risk to their own military personnel. This is important in a society where military casualties are increasingly seen as unacceptable (and expensive, as bereaved families expect compensation and wounded soldiers require long term after care).

On the other hand, any benefits are likely to be short lived. There have been numerous accounts of innocent people being killed by drones. Some of these accounts may be untrue but, whether true or not, they provide invaluable propaganda for the groups under attack.

It is only a matter of time before terrorist groups start using their own drones. These do not need to be as sophisticated as those currently in use by the UK and USA. A small drone can be easily bought for a few hundred dollars. It would not be hard to strap explosives to it and land it in a large crowd or on a politically significant building. When this happens, many will perceive it as morally equivalent to the West's use of drones in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It may be seen as unlikely that drones be banned but that was once the case with landmines. I believe that a sufficiently high visibility campaign by a well known and respected person could yield results. The late Princess Diana helped ban landmines. Who can do the same for drones?