British Ethical Foreign Policy And Humanitarian Intervention Since The New Labour

In1997, British foreign secretary Robin Cook proposed for incorporating an "ethical dimension" into British foreign policy, which largely meant Britain needed to promote human rights, peace and democracy in its foreign policy-making. This seemingly fresh concept was unprecedentedly debated by the media, the politicians and the academics. Some regarded it as an empty rhetoric, while others believed it to be of genuinely altruistic considerations. Despite the controversy, it was applied to Tony Blair’s foreign policy actions, especially the use of force on humanitarian grounds, for example, in the Kosovo war in1999. The Iraq war however largely undermined the ethical agenda. Maintaining the special relationship with the US proved to be the main driver behind the war. Oil interests were also an important concern. The later Coalition government also emphasized promoting values of protecting human rights and democracy in a "networked world." Britain conducted military intervention in Libya despite economic austerity at home in2011. In the Syria crisis in2013, however, Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposal to conduct possible air-strikes was vetoed in the House of Commons. Cameron accepted the veto and said that Britain would not conduct military intervention in Syria. This thesis traces the evolution of British ethical foreign policy from the New Labour to the Coalition government and through case studies of British military intervention in Iraq, Libya and inaction in Syria, analyses the essence and continuity and change of British ethical foreign policy. The author of this paper tries to argue that British ethical foreign policy remains largely driven by its attempt to play the global role of great power, yet this attempt has been constrained by changing international and domestic environment.