The origins of British foreign policy

Listening to David Miliband when he stepped down as shadow foreign secretary following his brother’s victory in the leadership election, it occurred to me that the shape of British foreign policy is something which is not shared with all nations.

There are broadly three strands to British foreign policy, at least as far as the level of conscious discussion in the public square. The need for peace in the Middle East and around the world; the need for aid to be given to developing nations and for corruption in government to be stamped out around the globe.

What struck me as Miliband’s farewell speech was followed on Radio 4 by an interview with settlers in the occupied territories was that these three attitudes towards foreign policy are not based on human instinct and so are not universally held. The instinct of the settlers is not to do what leads to peace, nor to lend a hand to their neighbouring developing nation but to do what makes them feel at home, in the land which they believe is theirs by divine right.

Now I don’t want to get involved in a discussion about Zionism and the rights of people to occupy parts of God’s world. I want to ask, where do the three attitudes to British foreign policy come from if they are not simply instinctive? Who says they are right?

Let’s take each one in turn. Peace between the nations of the world. Human instinct is to defend what is ours and to survive. Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9). For he himself is our peace (Ephesians 2:14). Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). The New Testament is riddled with references to peace and reconciliation.

What about the assumption that aid should be given to developing nations? Human instinct is to hoard and save for a rainy day. Jesus said “Love your neighbour as yourself.” (Luke 10:27). Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law. (Romans 13:10). This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow (Jeremiah 22:3).

And as for corruption, there is an abhorrence to bribery and corruption in Britain which is not based on human instinct as there is a culture of acceptance around the globe where bribes are known to be wrong but are seen to be just a part of life. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous (Exodus 23:8). Extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe corrupts the heart (Ecclesiastes 7:7). Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent (Isaiah 5:22-23).

British Foreign policy in these three areas is not instinctive but is a legacy of centuries of biblical moulding and shaping of the collective conscious. It is time that our nation’s leaders acknowledge this. What we accept as good and right is not universally upheld around the world. Unless what we believe to be right is attributed to God in the bible then we must assume or even claim some sort of racial superiority, “Britain knows best”.  Otherwise, we can only say that for some unknown reason we, the British, believe that these are good policies but that we have no real authority by which to insist on them.  It is only our “good” will against the will of others which will inevitably and ironically lead to war as we impose our will on others like benevolent bullies in the global playground.