Power Without Autonomy? Reassessing the Role of the British Government in Foreign Policy

‘A reputation for reliability’, Henry Kissinger wrote, ‘is a more important asset than demonstrations of tactical cleverness’. Applied to the peculiar situation of British foreign policy in current times, Kissinger’s quote is quite illuminating. The referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU or remain in the EU has understandably put British foreign policy in the spotlight. However, the reputation of European governments in the post-Cold War period has depended on a wide variety of factors located at the international as well as domestic level. Throughout the post-Cold War period, European governments have gone through a process of adaptation of their foreign policy. During the Cold War, the stance of a Western European government, for instance, was relatively easy to determine due to the rigid bipolar standoff between the US and the Soviet Union. However, in the post-Cold War period, governments have often been able to choose their foreign policy course as there was less pressure over siding with the Western or Eastern camp. This has brought about an increased level of opportunity but also of uncertainty in foreign policy. Ideally, one would think that a strong agenda setting chief executive would be at least part of the solution to the problem of uncertainty. Still, the contrary seems to have been the case as the reliability of governments’ foreign policy stances over the long term can be called into question. Most notably, in the UK, the failure of Prime Minister David Cameron to authorise UK military action in Syria in 2013 following a defeat in the vote in the House of Commons is evidence of a possible weakening of the role of the UK Government to set and pursue a foreign policy course and to implement a decision. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which the seeming decrease in the autonomy of the UK Executive translates into a loss of international influence. This is an empirical issue. However, also an issue that raises wider theoretical expectations about the role the UK can play as a foreign policy actor in international relations. On the one hand, it is admirable that MPs and the public have greater involvement in foreign policy decisions. Yet, on the other hand, greater scrutiny of the Executive from different directions raises timely questions on the influence of a foreign policy course and the necessary speed of response to foreign policy crises. More specifically, the role of great powers in international relations. The objective of this article is to examine the extent to which the reduced autonomy of the UK Executive in foreign policy matters limits the international influence of the UK in international relations. We ask the following questions: is the UK able to behave as a great power in international relations? What does it mean to be a great power in the 21st century? Is a level of autonomy of the Executive in UK foreign policy the conditio sine qua non for influence?