The UK's stand against BDS: Local bias and foreign policy - opinion

The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) bill published this week is a profoundly important legislative step by the UK government. While eventual legislation will have domestic application, the mischief against which it is directed concerns the subversion of UK foreign relations by public authorities through certain acts or statements of disapproval. During a particularly fraught period of geopolitical realignment, ensuring that foreign relations are not undermined is absolutely vital.

The bill responds to repeated attempts by activists supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against the State of Israel to corral public authorities into passing resolutions or taking action to advance their cause. They advocate boycotts of the sovereign State of Israel as well as independent companies they deem to be its proxies – despite the facts and the law saying otherwise.

The day job for public authorities is statute-based and therefore clear. For local authorities, the clue is in the name. They are concerned with local issues: potholes, garbage collection and homelessness. To step into the international arena requires a quantum leap.

Stepping into the international arena 

It is do-it-yourself foreign policy. In this case, it comes at the cost of community cohesion and risks giving the impression that UK foreign policy is multifaceted and thus woolly at the edges. Local council resolutions in support of BDS certainly do not contribute to peaceful coexistence 4,000 km. away, and they certainly do not fill in the potholes or get people off the streets.

Last year, in one of the most eloquent and masterful speeches ever delivered in the House of Commons, MP Robert Jenrick observed the effect of the curious obsession with BDS by some local government pension scheme administrators. He postulated, “Pity this poor individual, who, instead of going about his normal work as a respectable, hard-working local government officer, must suddenly spend hours, days, weeks or months attempting to understand the intricacies of the Israel-Palestine question.”

The bill, therefore, provides that public authorities must not have regard to a territorial consideration in a way that would cause a reasonable observer of the decision-making process to conclude that the decision was influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct. It applies to both procurement decisions and fund investment decisions made by the scheme manager of a funded local government scheme. For some schemes, this may therefore require revisions to their environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies.

BDS supporters and freedom of expression

THERE IS a wide range of political views on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Those who support BDS and complain that this bill is anti-democratic or infringes upon their freedom of expression miss the point entirely. It is not concerned with their agendas or their politics and does not infringe upon their freedoms. Their views on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and their support for BDS are matters of low politics. 

This bill is concerned with the conduct of foreign affairs and ensuring that a coherent UK foreign policy is not undermined. That is a matter of high policy.

Put another way, it is a question of institutional competence. The executive is better placed than local councils to make such assessments of the national interest when it comes to the conduct of foreign relations. 

Role of the executive in foreign affairs

The rationale for this is, in part, founded upon the proposition that the attitude and approach of one country to the acts and conduct of another is crucially connected to the conduct of the relations between the two sovereign powers. For a local council to sit in judgment on the conduct of another state would imperil relations between the states.

Two hundred years ago, in the Court of Common Pleas, Justice James Burrough described public policy as “a very unruly horse.” That being the case, the UK government is now, quite rightly, taking that horse by the reins.

The writer is partner and head of ESG, Boycotts and Sanctions at the international law firm, Chancery Advisors.