Interview with Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Former Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom)

27/05/2010 Interview conducted by Hannah Moysey

Malcolm_Rifkind.jpg
Q1. How do you think that the UK's relationship with Europe and the EU will change now that there is a coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats?

We're in for quite a constructive period. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats start with slightly different conceptions of Europe because the Liberal Democrats have in the past tended to support more European integration whilst the Conservatives are more skeptical. Both parties have agreed that for the next five years there should be no further institutional integration. Instead Europe must use the powers it already has to improve the quality of life of the people of Europe. We've also agreed that if there were any proposal put forward to reduce the power of the national government by transferring power to Brussels that it could only be considered in Britain if the public supported it in a referendum.   

Q2. What role will you personally play in the new government?

I am a member of parliament, because as I have been Foreign Minister and Minister of Defense and have done other jobs I can make a contribution on policy.  I support the government but not uncritically. I will ocassionally give my personal views which will contribute to the debate.

Q3. The Liberal Democrats have been strong advocates of electoral reform in the UK. What is your own view of the electoral system?

What tends to happen is the third party always wants electoral reform, but the first and second party are not so keen. When the third party becomes the second party it also stops being so keen. This has been part of our history. We have an agreement in the coalition that there should be a referendum in the next couple of years on what is called alternative voting. It is not proportional representation, as it is normally understood. It means instead that in each individual constitutency if a member of parliament does not get 50% of the vote then the votes of the other candidates are redistributed with a second vote. Some of us don't mind too much. In my particular constituency, I got 51% of the vote. So it doesn't matter what system you choose. I would have still been elected, I am pleased to say. It's an issue which is nevertheless a serious one because once you start tinkering with the electoral system it results in advantages and some disadvantages: no system is perfect. So personally I accept that we have to have a referendum. How we vote in that referendum is still to be decided. I am not keen on electoral reform because I don't think that the benefits justify the disadvantages.

Q4. New Foreign Secretary visited US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton within in days of assuming office. How do you think the new UK government will act in regard to the US and the 'special relationship' between the two countries?

It's not just Britain and the US. It's the US and Europe and the wider world because we went through a very difficult period during the George W. Bush presidency, when the United States for a period of time seemed to believe they could act unilaterally and expect its allies to follow. We had all the controversy of the Iraq war which was a very serious mistake. American public opinion is much closer to that of Europe and of the wider world and the American government and the British governement and other European governments are also much more in harmony. It won't solve all the problems but it makes it easier for some of these problems to be addressed. 

Q5. Pakistan is the only Muslim state with declared nuclear weapons, how much of a security threat do you think this is?

Whenever a country has nuclear weapons that hasn't had them in the past that is a big step backwards, whichever country it may be. The particular problem in the case of Iran is much more serious. Firstly Iran does not have a democratic government, and secondly it has a very aggressive foreign policy, not just toward the United States, but it threatens Israel. The countries that are most worried about Iran and nuclear weapons are not America or even Israel, but other states of the region, including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states ,Turkey and Egypt. They could do more to help themselves because they've gone for private diplomacy out there. They ought to publicly say we cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. We strongly support the Security Council of the United Nations putting whatever pressure is necessary on Iran to stop this. If countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were able to make public what they say in private, it would be very powerful.  

Q6. In the post 9/11 world, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the last ten years has seen a greater focus on the use of hard power. What role do you see for Soft Power and Cultural Diplomacy in bridging cultural differences, for example in the relationship between the West and the Islamic world?

What we've been increasingly realising, particlarly in the case of Afghanistan, but also in some other troubled countries is that you cannot have purely military solutions. Instead you need a combination of military and political initiatives. What you call soft power is another way of saying political initiatives, trying to improve the quality of life of people in terms of health problems. We have to realise that they can only be implemented on a different timescale. A military problem is likely to be solved in five, ten years at most. When you're hoping to change the culture of a country, to try and eliminate corruption, to allow women to have equal rights to get rid of drugs and the poppy trade, to create democracy etc. it's totally unrealistic to believe you can deliver that in five or ten years. If you appear to be saying that then the public will get disillusioned. They will say 'why are we doing this. It's obviously not working'. We have to be much more explicit and acknowledge that the military component is very simple but the economic and social policy,the soft power dimension, could take a generation to achieve. The quicker it's started the better.

Q7. The U.S. President has recently attempted to mend ties with the Afghan government following it's more direct, public diplomacy approach to corruption in the Afghan government, which led to difficult relations between the two nations. Does a more discreet diplomatic approach better serve the struggle to establish Afghanistan’s democratic institutions?

When we're dealing with difficulties between friends, then private disagreements are better than public disagreements. If you are dealing with a situation that is already public, for example Iran's nuclear weapons then sometimes private diplomacy can be counter-productive because it means that the world does not realise how strongly you feel. Instead you try and solve the problem as privately as you can. Sometimes you have to go public but you must also do it in a constructive way.