Foreign Secretary's address to Congress 2006

Foreign Secretary's address to Congress 2006

Speech by the Foreign Secretary, Rt. Hon. Margaret Beckett M.P. 13^th September 2006

Thank you Gloria and thank you for the invitation to address Congress. I am proud to stand here as Foreign Secretary and as a member of the T&G - the third T&G Foreign Secretary, in fact: the first, Ernie Bevin, was by comment consent probably the greatest Foreign Secretary Britain has ever had.

It is absolutely mainstream in the tradition of our union movement that we have and share an international vision for social justice and solidarity.

And from the individual contribution of trades unionists - men and women like our own Jack Jones who fought in the Spanish Civil War - to the debates and decisions of unions and of congress down the years, it is one of the finest of our traditions.

No-one has done or is doing more than the trade union movement to advance social justice in every corner of the world.

That depth of engagement will, I am sure, be reflected in the very wide range of concerns and interests which I am sure delegates here today will have.

I don't intend even attempt to address them all in this short speech. There will be an opportunity to address specific issues in questions.

But what I would like to do is to say a little about the wider framework of this government's international agenda - and say something about how I see the trade union movement as playing a vital role in realising that agenda.

It was Ernie Bevin who said: 'Foreign policy isn't something that is great and big, it's common sense and humanity as it applies to my affairs and yours'.

I like that definition because it seems to me a very distinctive Labour view of foreign policy - one rooted in our concern for and our understanding and appreciation of our common humanity.

It's an approach which doesn't confine itself to the traditional big ticket items that grab all the headlines - that arise from a focus solely on the world stage. It's a less obvious but more solidly grounded approach in which we endeavour to promote sound global values and build multilateral systems within which nations and individuals can co-operate, co-exist and each achieve their potential.

If we get the fundamentals right - Bevin's 'common sense and humanity' - and the rest - 'the great and big' as he called them - stand a better chance of being achieved.

Bevin was speaking in 1950. But if anything his words have even more resonance today. Half a century of technological progress, of massive global population growth, and of increased demand on shared and limited resources have given us a world more obviously and self-evidently interdependent - mutually dependent - than ever before.

And in such a world, the idea that any government can provide prosperity and security to its citizens in isolation through solely unilateral action or what people call machtpolitik - the old great game, balance of power view of foreign policy - is now patently absurd.

We used to argue that tackling some of the underlying problems of global insecurity was mainly about showing solidarity: that it was in 'their interest' - the people who were most directly affected or at risk - that we should act. Increasingly today we realise that it is in our direct interest too.

If as an international community we fail to build the pillars of global security: food security, water security, energy security, climate security then we are living in a house with extremely shaky foundations indeed. Put simply it is as a human race that it is now clear that united we stand, divided we fall.

When I spoke at the John Hopkins University at the beginning of summer I called for 'a globalisation of responsibility' - an understanding, in other words, that in a world of global threats, dangers and risks, the self-interest of individual countries is inseparable from the common interest of the international community as a whole.

I am not, of course, suggesting that a focus on underlying causes should be to the exclusion of tackling individual problems and crises. We can't afford to do that. We deal with those as and when they arise.

But - in line with that globalisation of responsibility I was talking about - increasingly this means the international community as a whole taking action. I was delighted, for example, to see a UN Security Council resolution at the end of last month on the worsening tragedy in Darfur refer - for the very first time in a country-specific resolution - to our collective responsibility to protect.

And recognition of that responsibility is increasingly evident in sheer practical terms. In Lebanon troops from the European Union will be working alongside Muslim troops from Indonesia and from Turkey trying to maintain a durable peace there. One of the most noticeable aspects of the ongoing negotiations over Iran's nuclear ambitions has been the breadth and strength of the international consensus of concern. And all parties - in the region and outside it - are going to have to make concerted efforts to work together if we are going to get the Middle East Peace Process moving again.

So any government has to and will react to individual instances of insecurity in the world around it. But what differentiates this Labour government is that we don't see the underlying causes to that insecurity that I have identified as some kind of fluffy alternative agenda: a luxury we can allow ourselves when more pressing matters have been resolved. We recognise that if we don't want to be constantly dealing with the eruption of new fires, we have to douse the smouldering embers of global insecurity.

So to tackle conflict or the flow of refugees, or to minimise global pandemics, you have to deal with poverty: hence the massive increases in development aid under this government, and the progress on debt relief and immunisation.

If your focus is on the danger that economic growth in China might falter, on further famine in Sub-Saharan Africa or on water stress - already serious - in the Middle East then you have to deal with the climate instability which will have a direct impact on all these areas. So at the beginning of summer we announced a new international strategic priority for climate security that looks at what we can do now to slow global warming rather than waiting to adapt to each new impact as it hits us.

And if you are concerned by failed states offering havens to organised crime or to terrorists, you have to be committed to building the culture of human rights and democratic governance which will bring more stability in those vulnerable countries.

We must never fall into the trap of thinking that pushing democratic values in the world is some sort of unacceptable cultural imperialism. When millions of Iraqis braved bombs to go to the polling stations, when men and women in Burma face prison or worse for advocating change, when eighty-year olds walk for miles to vote in the Democratic Republic of Congo, then surely the least we can do is lend them our active support.

As I said at the beginning, I know that this is what the trade union movement is doing and has been doing in various forms and contexts for years. More recently, British trade unions played a huge role, for example, in the 'Make Poverty History' campaign.

The TUC itself has at its very core a belief in those fundamental human rights and freedoms that empower individuals and which are the bedrock of true democracy. And just last week in Iraq I was hearing about the work that the TUC is doing in supporting and training the General Federation of Iraqi Workers: work which is as brave as it is vital.

People across the world have more freedom to meet, to speak their mind, and to earn a decent living wage because of what union activists in this country have done.

In some places the Foreign Office and the trade union movement are already explicitly working together. The TUC/FCO advisory council now meets three times a year. I know that both sides find these sessions very helpful. And it is leading to more co-operation on the ground. So, for example, we are running a project with the TUC in Brazil on dispute resolution and another on free media in the Ukraine with the NUJ. And in November the FCO and TUC are holding a joint conference on 'Strengthening labour standards in the global economy'.

But we are conscious that we should be doing a lot more with the trade union movement. As economic decisions become more global, so British trade unions have ever closer links and ever more influence with international organisations and with their counterparts overseas.

I would like to see a step change in the level of co-operation between the FCO and trade unions. And so I want to end on this point: I hope you will as Trade Unionists come to us with your ideas and your suggestions. We are open to ideas and willing to work with you to advance our common cause.