Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, is urging Labour to resist isolationism and arguing that British foreign policy has to emerge from the long shadow cast by the 2003 Iraq invasion.

In comments that come after Jeremy Corbyn denounced the “jingoistic cheering” of MPs in response to Benn’s Commons speech backing the extension of the air campaign to Syria, Benn argues: “Our foreign policy must learn the lessons of the Iraq conflict, but not be shackled by it. It should not be a reason to retreat from the world and our responsibilities in it, or to rely on others to fight for our interests.

“If Labour is to become the party of government again, voters need to be clear that we will stand up for British interests and our values abroad.”

Admitting British foreign policy over the last decade has been conducted in the long shadow of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he urged Labour to think afresh about its international responsibilities.

His remarks were made in an essay welcoming a collection of pieces in a Fabian Society pamphlet urging Labour to focus on foreign policy issues such as interventionism, human rights, Russia, and middle east diplomacy from first principles. The essays include strong support for the renewal of Trident and strong criticism of David Cameron for subsuming UK foreign policy to trade interests as opposed to human rights.

Corbyn came to power broadly opposed to military intervention and renewal of the Trident nuclear submarine, and critical of Nato and the EU. His stance has led to continual clashes in both public and private with Benn, some of which remain unresolved.

“In this parliament, foreign policy is at the forefront of political debate. Interdependence defines the condition of humankind today more clearly than at any other time in human history,” Benn argues. “Our task is to balance the necessity for international cooperation – whether on climate change or financial regulation or peace and security – with the thirst that people have for power to be devolved to local communities so that they can take more decision for themselves. There are voices for isolationism in British and European politics. Labour should resist them.”

In one of the strongest chapters, Stephen Kinnock, the MP for Aberavon, calls for a genuine reset of UK relations with Russia and accuses Cameron of a crass grandstanding when he announced the UK had credible evidence that the downing of the Russian Metrojet in October was due to there being a bomb on board.



Kinnock writes: “His decision to make that public statement without first sharing that intelligence with the Russian authorities was a crass act of grandstanding. It was perceived to be deeply insulting to the families of the 224 people who lost their lives in that tragic incident, and the Russian government expressed shock at the failure to share information with them.”

Saying it is best to assume Vladimir Putin will remain in power for many years, he calls for the retention of existing economic sanctions against Russia, but argues “it should be unambiguously stated that the UK has no plans or desire to encourage Ukraine’s membership of Nato.

“The further expansion of Nato would not serve any military or strategic objective. Ukraine’s dilapidated military capability is certainly not going to add any tangible value to Nato’s firepower, and the strategic disadvantages of Ukraine joining Nato far outweigh the potential benefits. The Russians already know that Nato will step in to protect Ukraine if there were to be any further incursions by Russia into Ukraine.”

In Syria, he argues Russia seeks stability, but contends regime change enforced on Damascus would lead to “contagious anarchy”.

He writes: “President Assad must commit to stepping down at some point along the timeline, as a pre-condition for the conference of all the parties to take place. However, he should be invited to participate in the initial meetings, as this will facilitate the transition.”

He argues that a government of national unity is possible but would “have to be based on a balanced and equitable combination of the moderate opposition and the current regime, with ministerial appointments approved by both sides”.

The formation of such a government would be a precondition for the defeat of Islamic State and the formation of effective ground forces materially supported by an international coalition that should comprise the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, France and the UK.

Jo Cox, MP for Batley and Spen elected in May, argues British foreign policy in Syria has “been a masterclass in how not to do foreign policy and a shameful lesson on what happens when you ignore a crisis of this magnitude”.

“For those who needed a reminder about what non- intervention looks like, Syria has been a stark illustration.

“For too long, the UK government let the crisis fester on the ‘too difficult to deal with’ pile. There was no credible strategy, nor courage or leadership – instead we had chaos and incoherence, interspersed with the occasional gesture. It is all victim of the same lack of long-term strategic thinking about British foreign policy and the absence of a moral compass.

“This flawed approach has not only damaged our ability to have an impact but also limits our capacity to be a force for good,” she continues. The recent and sudden pivot in our relations with China (and the shame of being congratulated for not raising human rights), our relationship with Saudi Arabia, the rebadging of UK embassies as trade outposts and the lack of a comprehensive vision on a crisis the magnitude and complexity of Syria; all feel ill-thought through and incoherent.”

Writing on Labour’s coming defence dilemma, David Clark, the former special adviser to former foreign secretary Robin Cook, makes the case for renewal, arguing: “For the time being we live in a Europe threatened by the return of armed conflict. It is dangerous to assume that disarmament in all circumstances is a step towards peace.

“To those with aggressive intent, it can also be taken as a signal to act. Vladimir Putin has shown himself to be an aggressive risk-taker with no respect for international law or Russia’s treaty commitments. The last thing Britain should do is give him or his successors additional reasons to miscalculate. Whatever the intentions, a decision to scrap Trident now would be the wrong signal at the wrong time.”