Description
During his tenure as British Foreign Secretary (2010-2014), William Hague announced that he wished to pursue an “activist foreign policy… in support of our values”. This article seeks to evaluate how far he was successful in achieving this aim. It begins by identifying the meaning of an “activist foreign policy” and the “values” which Hague was seeking to support, as conveyed in speeches and official documents. Hague tended to see activism and foreign policy as complementary and downplayed potential tensions between these approaches. However, using practice theory, this article will identify differences between the practice of activism and that of statecraft (which is core to foreign policy activity). Using the case studies of UK policy on Syria following the Arab Spring and the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative (PSVI), the author goes on to argue that “activist foreign policy” worked best when addressing issues that did not impinge on matters of statecraft. Conversely, it hindered effective policy in areas where the practice of statecraft was dominant. It therefore concludes by arguing that sensitivity to the tensions between practices is important in the future promotion of human rights goals.
