12 September, 2006

Cameron's Foreign Policy


Yesterday, I reported David Cameron's five guiding principles for Conservative foreign policy and asked, "What does it mean?" Since then I have studied Cameron's speech, "A new approach to foreign affairs - liberal conservatism."

One significant headline-grabbing principle is that Cameron will not automatically agree to any policy America suggests; although a reliable ally, the UK will not give unthinking support but will be prepared to disagree with the US, as and when when necessary. Nothing new there. That sounds very much like the relationship between Tony Blair and George Bush over the invasion of Iraq. Then, the president went to great lengths to meet Blair's concerns, even to the point of causing himself domestic political problems by going down the UN route. Nothing unusual there either, it is how alliances work.

Another headline grabber is the need for international action:
There has always been scope for multilateral action that involves NATO, the UN, the G8, the EU and other similar institutions.
That sentence could be a piece of vintage Blair rhetoric. However, the UN is notoriously ineffective at defending anything from anything (Lebanon, Somalia, etc) and this blog has previously noted the dismal results of multilateral NATO (in)action in Afghanistan.

In fact, there appears to me to be nothing in David Cameron's speech which, if you substitute "New Labour" for "liberal conservative", could not have been said by Tony Blair, with the exception of some potentially hostile signals to the White House.

I conclude that the speech is a classic bit of politicking, saying nothing substantive but sending a message to the UK electorate that, "I'll be tougher than Blair when dealing with America; unlike the weak Blair, I won't be a pushover for a warmongering president."

In normal times, all good politics, no doubt, but these are not normal times: British and US servicemen are fighting and dying together in the Middle East. The Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition really should have more to offer than leftish anti-American electioneering rhetoric.

No comments: