On the 17th and the 23rd of October, Lord Mandelson and Lord Hague respectively, spoke at the Oxford University International Relations Society at Corpus Christi College. While they were both at the time running for the Chancellorship of Oxford University, Hague has now been elected as the next Chancellor, and Mandelson has since been tipped to become the next British ambassador to the US. Both men remain influential, and The Oxford Blue wants to cover how these men are thinking about foreign policy. For readers wanting to know more about Hague and Mandelson, check out Ethan Penny’s profile on the candidates running for the Oxford Chancellor.
The President of the International Relations Society, Haitong Du, began the event by asking both Hague and Mandelson about their views on China. Their attitudes towards China dominated the discussion. Mandelson began with a searing criticism of UK foreign policy under the last Conservative governments. He pilloried UK governments which had “zigzagged on China”, contrasting the golden era of the UK-Sino relationships under David Cameron with Truss’ “violent opposition” to China. He also disagreed with the Sunak government’s approach which he characterised as ignoring China and placing it on the “naughty chair”. Instead, Mandelson proposed that UK foreign policy towards China should involve dialogue (including challenging China) and cooperation on matters such as the environment. Mandelson admitted Britain should be prepared for the worst and pledged to support Taiwan in the event of an invasion if he was Chancellor. Though Mandelson argued that China is neither Britain’s ally nor enemy, he characterised China’s current foreign policy as resulting from a “mixture of hubris and insecurity”, pushing China in the direction of other autocratic states such as Russia and North Korea. As EU Commissioner at the time (where Mandelson worked with other EU counterparts on integrating China into the economic order) he said that he had never expected that economic pluralism in China would have translated to political pluralism. Mandelson did mention that he expects that after Xi Jinping’s departure, there will be a (non-dramatic) reaction towards liberalism.
Du posed the criticism to Hague that the ‘golden age’ UK foreign policy towards China implemented when he was foreign secretary had failed. Hague responded by claiming that while engagement with China was difficult, he argued it was necessary as you can’t solve “most of the worlds’ great issues without China”, like tackling nuclear proliferation or the ivory trade. Additionally, Hague argued that while engagement has got “more difficult with some very fundamental issues particularly around national security”, it is irrational to not cooperate with China regarding other issues. Hague recognised that there were problems with China as one should be concerned about “one man coming into power indefinitely”, and that China is not sticking to agreements on espionage and theft of intellectual property.
On Europe, Mandelson went on the attack, labelling Hague as the “chief architect of Brexit”. Hague disputed this by arguing that he was against Brexit and campaigned against it. Hague admitted that he did support holding a referendum which was Conservative party policy. However, he believed that a referendum on Europe was inevitable. Without a Conservative commitment to holding a referendum, Hague argued UKIP would have made greater gains, resulting in a Conservative government reliant on Nigel Farage. In fact, Hague labelled the previous Labour government as the “chief architect of Brexit” by accepting “uncontrolled migration” from Eastern European countries. Relating to Britain’s relationship with the EU, Mandelson argued that the UK cannot be treated like a supplicant as “Britain is not like Switzerland” nor a “regulatory satellite like Norway.” Norway is in the European Economic Area, meaning that it is in the single European market and has to align their regulations with the EU, while the EU and Switzerland have agreed upon 120 bilateral deals relating to specific sectors. Mandelson accepts that Brexit cannot be “reversed [only] mitigated” adding that students have “paid too big a price” because they have lost the freedom to work and travel across the continent.
Throughout the event, Mandelson and Hague were asked many other questions by attendees. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and Gaza and the past war in Iraq were raised. Mandelson provided a charming anecdote in response to the question of whether he supported the Oxford Action for Palestine protests. He recalled how he had occupied the SCR as JCR president during rent negotiations, and how he had technically been part of another occupation of Exam Schools, while reporting for The Cherwell. However, Du did press Mandelson to answer directly: he clarified that he didn’t support the disruption of other students’ studies. Meanwhile, Hague brought up his time as President of the Oxford Union and how it inculcated in him a belief in freedom of speech as well as the ability to think of arguments on either side of an issue.
Overall, both guests received a hearty round of applause as the event finished. One woman, after the Mandelson event, remarked to me that she had found Mandelson quite charming and had quite liked what he had to say. It seems that the rest of Oxford preferred Hague.