Cooperation is good, but not always easy
  
There was a long-overdue development in Britain's general election campaign earlier today when Labour opposition leader Ed Miliband gave a speech on foreign policy – an issue which has largely been ignored until now apart from interminable arguments about our continued membership of the EU.

Unfortunately, but perhaps inevitably, the speech has generated some inter-party bickering, especially over Miliband's remarks about the current government's performance regarding Libya. This is a pity because it distracts from important questions about how Miliband would conduct foreign policy if – as seems quite likely – he becomes prime minister a fortnight from now.

The full text of the speech is here, and it's well worth reading. 

The essence of a Labour foreign policy, Miliband said, will be "using Britain’s influence in cooperation with others".

He rightly pointed out that the foreign policy challenges that confront us now are different from those of the past:

"The threats we face now are not generally the old threat from single states. They cross borders and boundaries. And they are more complex than the deeply dangerous but more traditional inter-state rivalry of the past."

The examples he cited were ISIS ("motivated by an evil ideology that recognises no borders"), "mass migration caused by conflicts that stretch across entire regions", and climate change ("which threatens the future of everyone, no matter where they live").

The only way to tackle problems like these, he said, is through "concerted action by countries all round the world":

"So we need to begin working with our allies and partners in the community of nations once again in a genuine and hard-headed multilateralism because that is what the times demand. What the world needs now is an organised and sustained solidarity between like-minded nations."

In that connection he supported air strikes against ISIS in Iraq but added that military action on its own would not be enough: "A long-term multinational political strategy, with regional actors playing a central role, is essential to tackle the rise of extremism across the region."

He also highlighted three lessons to be learned from previous interventions:

• "Not seeking to solve the world’s problems on our own but working with international, regional and local partners.

• "Any intervention must be carried out with a clearly defined strategy.

• "This must include a comprehensive transition and post conflict strategy."

Miliband also emphasised that "our commitment to universal human rights will also be at the heart of our foreign policy across the world". To that end, a Labour government would appoint an International LGBT Rights Envoy "to help work towards the decriminalisation of homosexuality worldwide" and also a Global Envoy for Religious Freedom.

All-in-all, Miliband's outline sounds like a sensible and modern way forward: a collaborative and multilateral approach to international problems, recognising the limitations – and hazards – of military intervention, while also paying more attention to human rights.

Of course, I'm assuming that this is not just rhetoric and Miliband is actually serious. Britain's current practice in its foreign relations is to treat human rights as desirable but not essential – i.e. they can easily be over-ridden by other considerations such as lucrative arms sales.

That definitely needs to change, making human rights part of the policy core. Selling British warplanes to dictators may bring short-term gains but we ought to be taking a longer view: the less respect a government shows for human rights the more likely it is to be a source of problems later on.

Incorporating human rights more fully into British foreign policy does present some difficulties, however, especially when it's coupled with multilateralism. It's simple enough if we are working – in Miliband's words – in collaboration with "like-minded nations". But what about cooperation with those that aren't like-minded, as in the current battle against ISIS? The alliance against ISIS includes some particularly unsavoury bedfellows which, as I have argued before, can be partly blamed for the spread of ISIS-type ideology.

In the Middle East more generally, the policy outlined by Miliband suggests a move towards more nuanced relationships – no longer a region divided into friend and foe but one where countries can be neither or both, depending on issues and circumstances. In a complex world, that's an approach which makes sense. But it's probably not one that Arab rulers will readily adjust too, especially when Britain's newly-appointed envoys for LGBT rights and religious freedom come knocking on their doors.