Douglas Alexander, the trade and development secretary, made his remarks in a speech in America, the first by a cabinet minister abroad since Mr Brown took power a fortnight ago."
[Mr. Brown is expected to come to Washington soon. Mr Alexander's comments on a day in which President Bush had been forced to defend his policy in Iraq after a report on the effectiveness of the "surge" concluded that the military situation had improved but political and economic "benchmarks" had not been met. ]
Brown message to US: it's time to build, not destroy
July 13: Minister signals foreign policy shift ahead of PM's Washington trip.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2125373,00.html
The speech called for the US to rethink its foreign policy, and recognise the virtues of so-called "soft power" and working through international institutions including the United Nations.
An indication that multilateralism will be stressed in Mr Brown's foreign policy was given by Alexander : "In the 20th century a country's might was too often measured in what they could destroy. In the 21st century strength should be measured by what we can build together. And so we must form new alliances, based on common values, ones not just to protect us from the world, but ones which reach out to the world." He described this as "a new alliance of opportunity".
He added: "We need to demonstrate by our deeds, words and our actions that we are internationalist, not isolationist, multilateralist, not unilateralist, active and not passive, and driven by core values, consistently applied, not special interests."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
I don't think Alexander was making comments on behalf of the Commonwealth,but only on behalf of the UK. (Just to ensure that when he DOES put his foot in it, the rest of the Commonwealth won't share collective responsibility!)
Call me cynical, but seems we've been there and done that and the result can be the same as the collateral damage from smart bombs. We'll have to see what "soft" really means and 'whose' core values he's talking about.
The MASTER MOVE by Bush now would be to refuse to see the new PM when he visits the USA next week. I wonder, if this likely event were likely to occur, IF our CONGRESS would then start serious deliberations about IMPEACHMENT because of 'bad manners'?
Dick
You can bet Bush and Brown will stage a dog and pony show! But I wonder about the new UK Foreign Minister. He may make some very interesting statements in future.
"We must have 'a new world order' to combat climate change, Gordon Brown proclaimed yesterday."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441881&in_page_id=1770
A global tax is what many such globalist(such as gore & brown himself) have pushed for & this strategy seems to appears quite succesful with the emergence of a carbon tax now. The point here is, leaders may change but globalist policies dont so i suppose people should not expect anyting too different.
On the issue of Multilateralism, of course it makes sense that other international concerns are consulted on such issues. However, we may be missing one fundamental assumption here and that is that the integrity of these are not comprimised. Sadly this isnt true and the fact is that most international institutions & large organisations(world bank(ibrd), IMF, BiS) are controlled & have been comprimised by the globalists & this includes the UN as well. In light of this i believe Missy W says it best, "Multilateralism" could simply be 'carving up the pie' and sharing it with others instead of being blythly hoggish. "
Using different mask when electing such leaders will not change those who stand behind the mask. They have & will continue to use the same language & will carry out the same objectives. What is required is a change of the entire system, begining with reforming centeral banking & then moving on to other areas.
"There is an Eastern tale that speaks about a very rich magician who had a great many sheep. But at the same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence about the pasture where the sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell into ravines and so on, and above all, they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and their skins, and this they did not like.
"At last the magician found a remedy. He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them, first of all, that they were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned; that on the contrary, it would be very good for them and even pleasant; secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them; and in the third place, he suggested that if anything at all were going to happen to them, it was not going to happen just then, at any rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further, the magician suggested to his sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to some that they were eagles, to some that they were men, to others that they were magicians.
"After this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again, but quietly awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins.
"This tale is a very good illustration of man's position."
Blair is less trusted abroad than in his own country, which is hardly at all. The danger is Blair doesn't realize it: he believes he is "morally right."
MissyW - 'Imperial'? Grodon Brown? He's a son of the manse. He doesn't 'do' imperial.
"British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will not be "joined together at the hip" with US President George W. Bush, one of Brown's foreign ministers said in an interview published Saturday."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070714/wl_afp/britainuspoliticsbrowndiplomacy&printer=1;_ylt=AqAb5myU3P7dWOTuZNzolR2ROrgF
This is a speech Malloch-Brown gave in June:
http://www.theirc.org/uk/6thIRCUKAnnualLecture.html
Does being a son of the manse automatically preclude thoughts of empire or a teensy tilt toward imperial thinking? I'm talking about Gordon now, not Malock-Brown. Perhaps you would enlighten us, rather than imply that americans are all naive, or ignorant. I don't actually know whether Blair was born with a sterling spoon in his mouth either. . .
Thanks for the link to Malloch-Brown. He talks 'good,' BUT, this jumped out at me: [Humanitarianism]. . ."should not be an apolitical neutrality which gets into this naive innocence of just food and a clinic but a profound understanding that you don't help people unless you tackle the economic and political roots."
I worry about the words 'economic and political roots' vis a vis 'helping.' Sounds like democracy promotion to me.
Also, on Israel and Palestine: ". . .For the political side of the U.N., the refusal of Hammas to recognize Israel is a fundamental showstopper. No member state [of the UN] can do anything but stand in solidarity with a member state whose very existence is being challenged." [duh] BUT, I thought Hammas [and Arifat before him] has in fact made offers re recognition, right to exist, etc. Either M-B is being extremely disengenuous or considers his audience stupid, or both. Or, perhaps the showstopper, as usual, comes down to semantics and motivation and good will.
M-B has worked for many international agencies, as World Bank and UN, and he can do skillful PR for whichever one he is working for. In June 2006, Malloch Brown ruffled feathers when he criticised the US for allowing "too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping". He said that much of discussion about the UN was dictated by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
His comments drew a furious response from John Bolton, the irascible US representative to the UN. "I've known you since 1989 and I'm telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior UN official that I have seen in that entire time," Mr Bolton told Kofi Annan, M-B's boss.This was ironic as Malloch Brown counted among his friends some of the most powerful neo-conservatives at the time, Paul Wolfowitz and Elliot Abrams.
'Son of the Manse' would traditionally make you less of an 'empire' builder.
Bliar was not 'born' with a silver spoon. BUT, his father made money and then sent Tony Bliar to Fettes, Scotland's most prestigious (and expensive!) public (private over here) school.
And, BTW - I am NOT implying that ALL Americans are naive or ignorant... far from it. Please point out where I suggested any such thing. Our arcane system of Ministerial briefs can be difficult, even for British people to understand. It would be a given, surely, that foreigners might find it just a teensy bit difficult, don't you think?
Tony is still a teenage rebel . He gets bored and dramatizes. When he quit school, his parents sent him back. But instead of boarding his plane at the airport , he climbed into another plane , going he knew not where.
Still, being an envoy in the Middle East means we are all going to live in 'interesting times'!
Ishbel,
When you put it that way, yes. Thanks for the info. I whole heartedly agree with your assessment of Blair. I've always thought Bush was more the poodle than Blair [Blair is the fox], though a poodle with both a mean bark and a lethal bite.
I thought so. One day's sheep is the next day's shorn lamb. Today he's a magician in sharp sheep's clothing.
Re Ishbel's comment: "Interesting times in the middle east" [ with Blair as envoy] relative to "building not destroying."
From AP's Tom Raum in SF Chron 7/17/07 on Bush's call for mideast conference to restart the peace process: "Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said, 'Bush's statements come in the context of garnering suport for Abbas to fight Palestinian legitimacy, represented by Hamas. We affirm that all promises made by Bush are false promises. The promise to form a Palestian state is old. It will not be implemented. The opposite, instead, has happened. Instead of two states, he has divided our people into two governments'.'"
The Israeli's were pleased with Bush's statement and said they share his vision for two states and his support for the more moderate Palestinians. Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said, "moving forward in the peace process demands zero tolerance for terrorism."
Oh boy. The decider has 'decided' that Fatah are really the good guys. Off to the intended good start we go. . .another miraculous birth coming in the middle east -- which will be pricy. Raum says we pledged "$190 million in direct assistance. . .and that the "Overseas Private Investment Corporation, a quasi-governmental unit, was making another $228 million available in loan guarantees" and "a direct contribution of $80 million to help Palestinians reform their security services" will be made. [I expect we'll hear more about that "quasi-governmental unit."]
I recall Rice being questioned on the issue of "aid" for the Palestinians during her confirmation testimony, and the article noted that most of the $190 million has already been approved -- so not like it's an overnight or "eureka" decision. Mid-wifery has most definitely moved up town.
"We have been very clear that we are not willing to discuss at this stage the three core issue of borders, refugees and Jerusalem," Miri Eisen, a spokeswoman for the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told reporters.