Liberal intervention in the foreign policy thinking of Tony Blair and David Cameron

David Cameron was a critic of Tony Blair’s doctrine of the international community, which was used to justify war in Kosovo and more controversially in Iraq, suggesting caution in projecting military force abroad while in opposition. However, and in spite of making severe cuts to the defence budget, the Cameron-led Coalition government signed Britain up to a military intervention in Libya within a year of coming into office. What does this say about the place liberal interventionism occupies in contemporary British foreign policy? To answer this question, this article studies the nature of what we describe as the ‘bounded liberal’ tradition that has informed British foreign policy thinking since 1945, suggesting that it puts a distinctly UK national twist on conventional conservative thought about international affairs. Its components are: scepticism of grand schemes to remake the world; instinctive Atlanticism; security through collective endeavour; and anti-appeasement. We then compare and contrast the conditions for intervention set out by Tony Blair and David Cameron. We explain the similarities but crucially also the vital differences between the two leaders’ thinking on intervention, with particular reference to Cameron’s perception that Downing Street needed to loosen its control over foreign policy-making after Iraq. Our argument is that policy substance, policy style and party political dilemmas prompted Blair and Cameron to reconnect British foreign policy with its ethical roots, ingraining a bounded liberal posture to British foreign policy after the moral bankruptcy of the John Major years. This return to a patient, pragmatic and ethically informed foreign policy meant that military operations in Kosovo and Libya were undertaken in quite different circumstances, yet came to be justified by similar arguments from the two leaders

Border collapse and boundary maintenance: militarisation and the micro-geographies of violence in Israel–Palestine

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Drawing upon subaltern geopolitics and feminist geography, this article explores how militarisation shapes micro-geographies of violence and occupation in Israel–Palestine. While accounts of spectacular and large-scale political violence dominate popular imaginaries and academic analyses in/of the region, a shift to the micro-scale foregrounds the relationship between power, politics and space at the level of everyday life. In the context of Israel–Palestine, micro-geographies have revealed dynamic strategies for ‘getting by’ or ‘dealing with’ the occupation, as practiced by Palestinian populations in the face of spatialised violence. However, this article considers how Jewish Israelis actively shape the spatial micro-politics of power within and along the borders of the Israeli state. Based on 12 months of ethnographic research in Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem during 2010–2011, an analysis of everyday narratives illustrates how relations of violence, occupation and domination rely upon gendered dynamics of border collapse and boundary maintenance. Here, the borders between home front and battlefield break down at the same time as communal boundaries are reproduced, generating conditions of ‘total militarism’ wherein military interests and agendas are both actively and passively diffused. Through gendering the militarised micro-geographies of violence among Jewish Israelis, this article reveals how individuals construct, navigate and regulate the everyday spaces of occupation, detailing more precisely how macro political power endures.This work was supported by the SOAS, University of London; University of London Central Research Fund

Foreign policy and globalization theory: The case of Israel

Since the early 1990s, international relations has witnessed a stimulating debate on globalization. This debate laid the foundations for globalization theory (GT), providing the tools for an empirical examination of the globalization of multiple activities: from politics and organized violence, to finance, trade and production, through culture and environmental degradation. However, examination of what appear to be the best-known works on globalization reveals that foreign policy has been virtually excluded from GT. In this context, based on what is described here as a synergistic transformationalist approach (STA) to globalization, I provide a critique of GT. The critique is geared towards examining why foreign policy hitherto has been overlooked by contemporary GT. I expose the problems this generates and address them by exploring how STA enables GT to incorporate foreign policy. I use the case of Israel heuristically to elicit how incorporating foreign policy into GT may provide a better understanding of the relationship between foreign policy and globalization. Three themes are highlighted: the role of foreign policy in inducing and reproducing globalization; determining the mutually constitutive relationship between globalization and the state; and shaping the interfacing between international politics and globalization

The Moderate Sharett against the Activist Ben-Gurion

‘The Moderate Sharett against the Activist Ben-Gurion’ in Yaakov and Rina Sharett, eds., Pursuer of Peace: Aspects and Views on Moshe Sharett [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Moshe Sharett Heritage Society, 2008), pp. 423-58