The Changed Character of British Foreign and Security Policy

The Changed Character of British Foreign and Security Policy T h e significance of the clear Conservativevictory in the British general election of May 1979has already become apparent in relation to domestic politics in that country. In the area of financial and economic policy in particular, almost every decision taken by the Conservative government suggests that Prime Minister Thatcher’sadministration intends to apply the rigorous monetarist doctrines that she spelled out during the election campaign, and to make a sharp break from the policies of post-war governments in such matters as taxation. In the area of foreign policy, however, the implications of the change of government are not as evident. Foreign policy is to a large extent a subject on which there is a good deal of consensus between the parties and where the influence of official advisers ensures continuity. Yet there are aspects of British foreign and defense policy which are undergoing distinct changes now that the Conservative Party, rather than Labour, is in office. Many of the differences, it is true, are differences of personality and style rather than radical changes in the substance of policy; but in foreign policymaking and diplomacy, there are obviously occasionson which the nuances of a government ’s approach to a topic will be as important as its more tangible and explicit objectives. In this commentary, it is my intention to underline some of the distinctive features of Conservative attitudes towards international affairs as well as to draw attention to the way in which the internal politics of the Party have already influenced, and may continue to influence, the behavior of the leadership. The Domestic Context In the Conservative Party, policy has traditionally been the preserve of the leader. He or she not only has a free hand in choosing senior colleagues in government and in oppositionbut is alsoable to determine to a much greater extent than in the Labour Party the content of party policy. The formal constitutional constraints which limit the autonomy of the Labour leader have no parallel in the Conservative Party. To illustrate, while Labour in This commentaryresults from the author‘s involvement with the Working Group on European Securityand Arms Control at the California Seminar on Arms Control and Foreip Policy. Gillian Peek is a Fellow and Tutor in Politics, Lndy Margaret Hall, at Oxford University. During 1979, she was a Visiting Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. 185 International Security I 186 opposition has a front bench team which is primarily elected and while the National Executive Committee now has sole responsibility for drafting the party manifesto, Tory backbenchers and the extra-parliamentary party do not enjoy such opportunities to participate in the framing of party policy. Informal constraints on the Conservative leader do operate, however, and the fact that the nature of these constraints has changed since 1965 complicates the analysis of an issue such as Rhodesia, over which party sentiment is strong. In 1965 the Conservative Party introduced permanent machinery for electing the leader. The system of election provided for the leader to be chosen by the whole body of Conservative M.P.s in the House of Commons, rather than by a small group of Conservative notables who, however senior and respected, might have little feel for contemporary attitudes among Tory backbenchers. Following the loss of two general elections in 1974, the first Conservative leader elected under this new system-Edward Heath-had become sufficiently unpopular to prompt the 1922 Committee (the organ of Conservativebackbench opinion)to engineer a change in the rules for electing a leader. The effect of those modifications to the rules was that the machinery could be brought into operation not only when the leadership was vacant (as in 1965)but also when there was enough dissatisfaction with the incumbent to cause his position to be challenged directly. It was that procedural change which enabled Mrs. Thatcher to become the leader of the ConservativeParty and ultimately prime minister. The alteration in the rules of election to the Conservative leadership and the precise circumstances of Mrs. Thatcher’s victory over Mr. Heath remain importantbecause they altered subtlythe relationshipbetween the leadership and backbench...