Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary, discusses the Iraq war, Europe, the referendum and interventionism in an interview with Andrew Sparrow
Share 34
inShare1
Email 
Douglas Alexander Photograph: Martin Argles/Guardian
Often in the House of Commons statements on foreign affairs can be a little bit dull because all sides agree. But matters of war and diplomacy also provoke some of the most ferocious arguments in politics, causing divisions not just between parties but within them. Douglas Alexander is shadow foreign secretary and, in an interview, we covered a range of subjects, including two of the most contentious foreign policy issues of recent years.
• Alexander said the Iraq war did more harm than good. "If you look at the ledger with a 10-year perspective, the negatives outweigh the positives," he said. Alexander was a junior minister at the time of the Iraq war and in the past he has been less willing to criticise the decision to go to war in 2003 than some of his Labour colleagues. His comment about negatives outweighing positives echoes language used by David Miliband on this subject.
• Alexander said that Europe, and Labour's reluctance to support an in/out referendum, would not be the major issue at the general election. Last week Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, said that it would be "stupid" for Labour to allow itself be be portrayed as an anti-referendum party. But Alexander played down the suggestion that this would be a problem. "My judgment is the central, defining issue of the next election is not going to be Europe," he said. "It is going to be the economy. And it's my sense that, given the failure of the Conservatives to deliver growth and rising prosperity for people across the United Kingdom, that will continue to be the dominant issue."
• He said Labour should not be preoccupied with trying to win the support of the press. "If you talk to most people under 30, they don't read a newspaper," he said.
• He said the coalition's referendum lock law was working well and that Labour did not want to change it.
• He criticised the government for talking about a global war on terror. After the Alegrian hostage crisis David Cameron said Britain was in the midst of a "generational struggle" against violent extremism. Alexander said this language could be counter-productive. "One of the lessons that I've drawn from the last decade is to suggest ... that we're dealing a single, unified, transnational enemy, embodied in al-Qaida, actually gets in the way of an effective response," he said.
• He said the government's hostile approach to Russia was reducing the chances of positive international intervention in Syria. "I wish we had a government that shouted a little less at the Russians and talked rather more to the Russians because ... the arena in which change is most likely to be achieved quickly in relation to Syria is in the international community," he said.
We spoke on Wednesday afternoon, in Alexander's office in Portcullis House. In recent weeks he has been preoccupied with Europe, and Labour's response to David Cameron's call for an in/out referendum, and he will have more to say on Europe in a speech on Saturday. But, as became clear when I posted a blog inviting readers to suggest questions, the Iraq war and its aftermath is still the subject that arouses the strongest feelings for some people. Here's an edited transcript of the interview.
Cameron's vision for Europe
Q: Tony Blair said on the day of the David Cameron speech that he agreed with 90% of it [the bits about what Cameron wanted to achieve, not how]. Is that your view?
A: My general approach to opposition is where the government is getting something right, we should say so. And where we disagree with them, we should say so too. There were principles of such generality contained in the prime minister's speech that it would be quite difficult for anyone to object to them. Who could be against fairness? Who could be against accountability? I have some real concerns that an agenda focused on bringing powers back is in reality about taking rights away. But in the broader picture, we are clear and unequivocal that we see Britain's national interest as being served by being part of a reformed European Union, yes.
"Ever closer union"
Q: One thing Cameron was quite specific about was "ever closer union". He said he would like to get that written out of the treaties. Do you agree with that?
A: I actually said that in my speech in Chatham House the week before.
Q: You said that "every closer union" was no longer appropriate. But it was not clear whether you thought that this was something needed to be rewritten.
A: The history is that it was ever closer union of the peoples of Europe. Now, on one level, of course we want to see close cooperation between the peoples of Europe. But I was very clear in the speech that I made in Chatham House that it's not the lodestar by which Europe has navigated for some time, or will navigate in the future. So I felt there was a bit of a straw man wandering into the room when I heard David Cameron speak about that, as if it was a significant change on the part either of the Conservative party, or indeed of how Britain has seen Europe for many years.
Q: But if at some point in the next few years Cameron say that's definitely got to come out of the treaties, would you agree with him?
A: But one of the many problems for Cameron is that there's no agreement that there's going to be treaty change. That was one of the many difficulties that Cameron fell into by committing to make a speech on this timetable, and with this timetable. The certainty that there is going to be treaty change is only in David Cameron's mind. The Germans seem to have moved away from that in recent weeks and months. It is far from clear that on a timescale by the middle of 2017 there will be agreement as to the need for treaty change to achieve what is the focus for most Eurozone members, which is stabilisation of the Eurozone.
A referendum on Europe
Q: A few days before Cameron's speech Vince Cable gave a speech saying there were arguments in principle in favour of a referendum. Do you think there is a case in principle for a referendum?
A: Well, firstly, the Liberal Democrats are not the best guide to principle in British politics, I would respectfully suggest, on the basis of their last campaign and their conduct in government. On the substantive point we don't believe that the case has been made for an in/out referendum on Britain's membership.
Q: Is that because there is no case in principle for a referendum? Or did Vince have a point when he said there are, in theory, advantages?
A: What were the advantages that he identifed?
Q: He said there was a lot to be said for a referendum because it would "lance the boil of suspicion that British membership is primarily supported by a deracinated Europhile elite disconnected from and distrustful of the public". He also said having a referendum in Scotland had forced the supporters of independence onto the back foot because they were having difficulty making their case.
A: Listen, I know a lot more about Scottish politics than Vince Cable and I seem to recollect that the Scottish National party won an election in the Scottish parliament, which is why that change happened. I think his comments probably reflect his own need to reconcile previous Liberal Democrat thinking, and perhaps previous personal statements. My point of view is clear. It is not that we are opposed in principle to referendums. We've accepted that, given the sovereignty act, if there is a significant transfer of sovereignty form Britain to Brussels, there will be a referendum. That is different from saying we believe the national interest is served by committing now to an in/out referendum in circumstances that we can't yet anticipate, on the basis of negotiations that haven't begun, on a timescale that remains uncertain, with an outcome that is far from certain.
Q: You've run general election campaigns. How difficult would it be for Labour to get through a general election campaign without offering a referendum if you have conservative papers going on about it?
A: My judgment is the central, defining issue of the next election is not going to be Europe. It is going to be the economy. And it's my sense that, given the failure of the Conservatives to deliver growth and rising prosperity for people across the United Kingdom, that will continue to be the dominant issue. Now, the speech by the prime minsters that was so long anticipated has turned out to be something of a souffle speech. It rose up the agenda and then it fell down the agenda more quickly than the Conservatives expected. The party that seems to have gained most out of the speech is Ukip.
Q: I take it from that that you are not worried about being perceived as "the anti-referendum party".
A: I've said that if there's a significant transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Brussels, then there would be a referendum.
Q: That's a different sort of referendum, isn't it? It's not an in/out referendum.
A: Part of the difficulty is that those distinctions are sometimes lost.
Q: They won't be lost on the Daily Express, which come a general election campaign would dub you as the anti-referendum, which is obviously what Ed Balls thought might be a problem.
A: Newspapers can make their own judgment in terms of who they support in a general election. Our responsibility is to make a considered judgment about where the national interest lies. My judgment is people are worried about jobs, prosperity and economic stability. Listen, what we had from the prime minister was really a dignified handling strategy for his own backbenchers. This speech was not really about public consent as much as about party management.
Q: On the referendum, are you able to say that it's probable that you will maintain your current stance on a referendum up until 2015?
A: Well, the party that shifted its position was the Conservative party. They came through the division lobby with us in November 2011. William Hague was on record as saying that, at a time of economic difficulty, it did not help to add to the instability. When I asked him in the Commons last week if, given he thought it would add to instability to have an immediate referendum, why did it not add to instability to commit now to a referendum many years away, he couldn't answer the question. So, in that sense, we have the same position this year as we did last year. The Conservatives have a different position.
Role of the press
Q: Coming back to the role of the press in the Europe debate, do you sense they are becoming less powerful?
A: I think politicians who suggest they are uninterested in the support of newspapers are not being straight with people. Of course politicians would prefer to go into a general election with the support of newspapers. But they can't be the compass by which you navigate what you judge is the right policy for the country. So, on the one hand, I'm not pretending that politicians are suddenly no longer interested in newspapers. On the other hand, if you talk to most people under 30, they don't read a newspaper. And the facts are that newspaper readership is falling rather than rising. That's because people consume their media in different ways from was the case even 10, 15 years ago. So it seems to me, whether newspapers matter as much in the next election will in part be shaped by the media environment that's changing all the time.
Q: Does that mean as party you can worry slightly less if you've got the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Express on your backs over a referendum?
A: I'm not pretending newspapers are of no consequence in helping shape the terms of public debate. But my strong sense is that the public want their politicians to make judgments not in reference to newspaper proprietors or newspaper editors, but to the lived experience of their own constituents and an informed judgment about where the country's interest lies. That's what I would want to see from all political parties, but certainly I would want to see from the Labour party.
Referendum lock
Q: You've mentioned the referendum lock legislation, and Labour has said it will keep that. Will you accept it in its entirety, or are there aspects of it that you might want to amend?
A: We didn't divide the House in the final stages of the referendum lock because we weren't in principle opposed to referendums involving significant transfers of sovereignty. We said that we wanted to see whether, in practical terms, the operation of that legislation inhibited common sense and straightforward, albeit minor matters, being addressed. Now, that has not been the experience to date. So I don't envisage at this time that we're proposing changes to the legislation that we support.
Labour and intervening abroad
Q: We know what New Labour's approach to interventionism was, because we had Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is becoming clear what a David Cameron foreign policy is now …
A: Is it?
Q: Interventionism lite, I think, doing the same thing as New Labour with less money and fewer soldiers on the ground, but an instinct to intervene if it's not going to cost too much and you don't put soldiers on the ground. What would the foreign policy of a Labour government led by Ed Miliband look like?
A: It's important to learn the right lessons from the past. We're coming to the end of a decade of conflict, and of course we should be informed by the experience in Iraq in shaping future policy, but we shouldn't be paralysed by the experience in Iraq. If you want to look not in the crystal ball but look in the book, look at the approach we took in relation to Libya. We said we were supportive. That was a difficult decision for the Labour party to agree to support the action of the British government, not least because it was taking place in the long shadow of the intervention in 2003 in Iraq. But I said at the time there was clearly international support expressed in the security council. There was regional support provided by the Arab League. There was more than regional support; there was practical, regional contribution to the effort. And in those circumstances, given the imminence of slaughter in Benghazi, it was right for Britain to join with other members of the international community in taking action.
Q: On the issue of military intervention, do you think there's a principled difference between Labour's stance now and Cameron's stance on issues like this?
A: Again, Labour's lodestar is what is the right approach for the United Kingdom, not must we be in a different place from a Conservative prime minister.
Q: Cameron would say his lodestar's the same, but sometimes a lodestar can lead you in a different direction.
A: So judge each of the examples on a case by case basis. Broadly, we were supportive of the action that was taken in relation to Libya. In relation to Syria, we think there is a strong case for engaging directly in the security council again to try to unlock the logjam that's been in place for two years. I wish we had a government that shouted a little less at the Russians and talked rather more to the Russians because, according to special representative Brahimi, the arena in which change is most likely to be achieved quickly in relation to Syria is in the international community. I simply don't understand why William Hague hasn't got on a plane to Moscow. I hope that John Kerry will take the opportunity, as the new US secretary of state, to engage in shuttle diplomacy on the issue of Syria because the scale of the suffering is so great that it demands the continued attention of the international community.
In relation to Mali, the third example, we've supported the action that the British government took in providing the two transport aircraft, and indeed the training capability for the African forces, but I've expressed real concern about some of the language that the prime minister used to describe the support that was being offered. I think the language of a global war on terror should be resisted, indeed rejected.
One of the lessons that I've drawn from the last decade is to suggest, notwithstanding the reality of the emerging threat in north Africa, that we're dealing a single, unified, transnational enemy, embodied in al-Qaida, actually gets in the way of an effective response. What we should recognise is that often the challenge is disparate groups and disparate grievances, and to use language that allows those disparate groups and grievances to be unified is actually to our disadvantage and not to our advantage in trying to frame an appropriate response as an international community.
Iraq
Q: You mentioned Iraq. Over the last 10 years, have you changed your view of that conflict and the British involvement in it?
A: Well, of course I regret the loss of life and accept that there was a loss of trust that followed. Had any of us who were in the House of Commons at the time known then what we know now, that the weapons of mass destruction weren't there, we wouldn't have voted, indeed there wouldn't have been a vote. So of course our understanding of the situation deepened and changed because the evidence pointed against the existence of weapons of mass destruction when the weapons inspectors did their work in Iraq after the conflict.
Q: It was clear within six months of the conflict that the weapons had not been found. But the way events have panned out of the following 10 years has, for many people, changed their views of the rights and wrongs of the conflict.
A: Sure, if you look at the ledger with a 10-year perspective, the negatives outweigh the positives. Of course, I don't regret the removal of Saddam Hussein, the relative safety of the Kurds compared with their previous position. But given the lack of post-conflict planning, the insurgency that followed the action in 2003, of course the negatives outweigh the positives in my judgment.
Rendition and torture
Q: When I posted a blog inviting readers to suggest questions, several people asked me to raise rendition. Are you happy with Labour's record on rendition?
A: My sense is that after 2001 and the events of 9/11 there was a need, perhaps inevitably, for procedures to be strengthened, vigilance to be exercised in circumstances that were, literally, unanticipated. But that ground has been well covered by the intelligence and security committee and other work. Of course where there are outstanding legal proceedings they should be allowed to run their course. But the lesson I draw is that we need permanent vigilance in relation to our national security, but permanent vigilance in relation to our values as well. And if there were actions within the bureaucracies that fell below that standard, then of course it is right that those lessons are learnt and they are never repeated.
Q: I got one very specific question on this [from Mundusvultdecipi]. "Mr Alexander, do you think it is acceptable that no senior figures in the previous US government has been prosecuted for enabling torture?"
A: On torture, it is not only illegal, it's abhorrent. And there's no doubt that what has emerged in the years after 9/11, unlike the situation in Britain, there were practices sanctioned in the US that fall far below the standard of conduct that should have taken place. It is for the American system of government, in all of its branches, to address that. It is not for a British politician. But, yes, some of the evidence that has emerged in terms of practices that were undertaken by the Americans fall far below the standard that they should have set for themselves, and that is expected of any nation, however powerful.
Armed drones
Q: Another topic that got raised by readers was armed drones. What do you feel about their use, and have you got concerns about the backlash that is creating in place like Pakistan?
A: There are three issues. There's a technology issue, there's a legal issue and there's a broader issue in terms of how to tackle violent extremism. It is already clear that because of advances in technology drones are going to play an increased role in warfare in the years ahead. It is therefore vital that the legal frameworks governing their use are robust and internationally recognised. But, in relation to the specifics of Pakistan, I have never taken the view that you can counteract violent extremism or insurgency on that scale simply by military force, deployed by whatever means. There is a much broader engagement that is required that requires diplomatic, political, developmental efforts, as well as a security response.
China
Q: Another reader [Johnbo] asked about China. Would a Labour government take a different stance towards China from the policy adopted by the coalition?
A: One of the things I've learnt in the past couple of years as shadow foreign secretary is that our public discourse in Britain is dominated,when it comes to foreign policy, by the reach of Brussels when the generational story is the rise of Beijing. In that sense, any government, be it Labour or Conservative, has a responsibility to engage directly with the country that will exercise greater influence, indeed power, in international relations in the coming decades than in past decades. One of the features of the Conservatives approach to China has been its striking continuity with Labour's record in office. It was Labour that established a high-level strategic partnership with China. That has been continued by the Chinese government. To be fair to the government, they have continued to raise concerns in relation to human rights,which were a constant feature of the dialogue of the Britain engaged in with China under the last Labour government. I would expect that that relationship will change and evolve as China's position in the international community changes and evolves.