Strategizing Britain's role in the world

Abstract

In recent commentaries on British foreign policy, the New Labour and coalition governments have been criticized for lacking strategic thinking. Academics describe a ‘strategy gap’ and note that old ideas about Britain's role in the world, such as Churchill's 1948 reference to ‘three circles’, continue to be recycled. Parliamentarians bemoan the ‘uncritical acceptance of these assumptions’ that has led to ‘a waning of our interests in, and ability to make, National Strategy’. This article argues that a primary problem has been the lack of consideration of how identity, strategy and action interrelate in foreign policy. Using the insights of role theory, the article seeks to address this by outlining six ideal‐type role orientations that the UK might fulfil in world politics, namely: isolate, influential (rule of law state), regional partner, thought leader, opportunist–interventionist power and Great Power. By considering how variations in a state's disposition towards the external environment translate into different policy directions, the article aims both to highlight the range of roles available to policy‐makers and to emphasize that policy often involves making a choice between them. Failure to recognize this has resulted in role conflicts and policy confusion. In setting out a variety of different role orientations, the author offers a route to introducing a genuine strategic sensibility to policy‐making, one that links identity with policy goals and outcomes.

Interpreting the Syria vote: parliament and British foreign policy

“…Gaskarth highlighted six distinct conceptions emerging from leaders' rhetoric: 'isolate, regional partner, influential (rule of law state), thought leader, opportunist-interventionist and Great Power'. 16 This proliferation can be problematic. The claims and implications attaching to different role conceptions can clash, a phenomenon known as 'role conflict'.…”

“…18 Britain's broadly solidarist view of international moral responsibility, 19 meanwhile, underlines the conflict between its commitments to liberal interventionism and to upholding the status quo. 20 McCourt rightly notes that most politicians use 'Britain's role in the world' as a rhetorical device to challenge one another's legitimacy rather than as an analytical tool to shape foreign policy. 21 Simply by arguing over role conceptions, however, MPs introduce an element of 'role contestation' into the policy-making process.…”

“…Gaskarth's 'Great Power' role conception was based strongly on Britain's claim to a 'special relationship' with the United States. 34 Holsti's original article described how a 'faithful ally' state makes 'a specific commitment to supporting the policies of another government'. 35 giving military support to the United States in the latter's own role as 'global policeman'.…”

British foreign policy after Brexit: losing Europe and finding a role

“…Second, role theory provides a broad perspective on the foreign policy orientation of post-Brexit Britain, moving us beyond the details of on-going negotiations between Britain and the EU- 27 and toward more fundamental role interaction processes that are playing out, thus offering 'a means of interpreting current events in the light of their long-term implications'. 8 We propose that Brexit significantly transforms roles available to and expected for Britain and offer a role theoretical take on British foreign policy for the post-Brexit environment.…”

Comparative leadership: pathways, scope and values in DRC-English 'urban' schools

“…There is a view that, despite its diminishing influence as a 'great power' right up to the cold war and now its withdrawal from the European union following the 2016 referendum, Britain has sought to regain its global influence as the defender of the law and/or as opportunist-interventionist. As a result, Britain has engaged in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Libya and many others that have potentially diverted huge resources away from productive projects, such as education (Gaskarth, 2014). With rising unemployment in the 1970s, there was a certain social militancy that emerged across Britain and the rest of Europe seeking to challenge inequalities in many spheres of life, including education (Jones, 2003).…”