Cameron
shifts ground on foreign policy?
David Cameron chose the fifth
anniversary of 9/11 to make his first major foreign policy speech as leader of
the Conservative Party [1].
In it, he didn’t disown his
predecessors’ unswerving support for the foreign policy pursued by Bush and
Blair since 9/11 - on the contrary, he reiterated his support for the invasions
of
That was the first half of his
speech, in which he appeared to endorse the whole neo-conservative agenda. But, in the second half, he was highly
critical of how Bush and Blair have conducted foreign policy since 9/11,
without mentioning them by name. Thus he
said:
”... I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of
two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making.
“Humility,
and patience.
“These are not warlike
words.
“They are not so
glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have grown used to in recent
years.
“But these sound-bites
had the failing of all foreign policy designed to fit into a headline.
“They were unrealistic
and simplistic.
“They represented a view
which sees only light and darkness in the world – and which believes that one
can be turned to the other as quickly as flicking a switch.
“I do not see things that
way.”
This seems to recognise that the
world is a complicated place, which is a welcome advance on Blair’s view of the
world as a place where “sickness and evil” must be exterminated by
Anglo-American military action.
Cameron then produced a rather
clever sound-bite, describing himself as a “liberal conservative” rather than a
“neo-conservative”:
“Liberal
- because I support the aim of spreading freedom and democracy, and support
humanitarian intervention.
“Conservative
- because I recognise the complexities of human nature, and am sceptical of
grand schemes to remake the world.
“A liberal conservative
approach to foreign policy today is based on five propositions.
“First,
that we should understand fully the threat we face.
“Second, that democracy
cannot quickly be imposed from outside.
“Third,
that our strategy needs to go far beyond military action.
“Fourth,
that we need a new multilateralism to tackle the new global challenges
we face.
“And
fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority.”
On the threat to
“Part of the problem we
have encountered these past five years is that the struggle has been perceived
– as the terrorists want it to be perceived – as a single struggle between
single protagonists.
“The danger is that by
positing a single source of terrorism - a global jihad - and opposing it with a
single global response – American-backed force – we will simply fulfil our own
prophecy.
“We are not engaged in a
clash of civilisations, and suggestions that we are can too easily have the
opposite effect to the one intended: making the extremists more attractive to
the uncommitted. ...”
This doesn’t recognise that the
threat to
On imposing democracy on states:
“The second proposition
of a liberal conservative foreign policy is a recognition that democracy cannot
quickly be imposed from outside.
“In part, this is because
democracy takes time.
“The transformation of a
country from tyranny to freedom does not begin and end with regime change and
the calling of elections.
“Put another way,
democracy is not the foundation of freedom.
“Democracy itself has
foundations, without which it cannot stand. ...
“The ambition to spread
democracy is noble and just.
“But it cannot be quickly
achieved to suit a political timetable.
“Because it takes time,
it cannot easily be imposed from outside.
“
“So in many ways the
debate about whether
“You can't carry out
nation-building unless the people inside a country want to build a nation. ...”
On taking military action:
“As I have made clear,
there may be circumstances in which military intervention is the best way to
deal with security threats: we should never shy away from that reality. ...
“But it is not military
might alone which will deliver security to us, or freedom for the world.
“If we accept that
democracy takes time; that it is founded on the institutions of society, and
that it cannot easily be imposed from without ...
“... then we must put far
greater effort into helping undermine dictators and tyrannies from within, and
helping moderate regimes to move forward.
“Bombs and missiles are
bad ambassadors.
“They win no hearts and
minds; they can build no democracies. ...
“So force should be a
last resort.
“Even in a technological
age every war produces innocent civilian casualties.
“Every war, however
skilfully conducted – and our own armed forces have shown unmatched skill in
such conflicts – produces its quota of sorrow and anger, with consequences hard
to predict.
“The prospect of war may
attract too readily those who look for quick dramatic answers.
“Such answers often turn
out to be illusory.”
And he ended by restating his
criticism of detention without trial at
Whether this heralds a
major shift in Conservative foreign policy remains to be seen. As yet, there has been no sign of a
modification in the party’s blind support for the present British military
interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are getting British
military personnel killed to no purpose.
However, this speech, made on the 5th
anniversary of 9/11 and highly critical of the Bush/Blair foreign policy since
9/11, must signal a different approach to foreign policy, an approach that is
likely to prove more acceptable domestically (and therefore profit the
Conservatives at the polls) and may well be replicated in Washington now that
the neo-conservative approach has been so obviously damaging to US national
interests.
Neo-conservative commentators
certainly believe that Cameron has sold out on the dream. Listen to this from Melanie Phillips [2]:
“David Cameron’s speech this week
confirmed the worst suspicions about the trajectory of the new touchy-feelygreenyleftytrendy Tory party. It played to the gallery
of the rampant anti-Americanism now poisoning British public debate. At such a
time, with the forces of appeasement and prejudice against America and Israel
on the rampage in Britain and threatening to bring about our defeat in the war
being waged against our civilisation, there is an
urgent need for a statesman to deliver the kind of leadership which can turn
the nation away from the cultural cliff-edge towards which it is hurtling.”
“Instead Cameron’s speech - delivered in the most insulting
manner possible, on 9/11 - blamed anti-Americanism on
And the Wall Street Journal said of
his speech (quoted in [2]):
“We won’t soon forget David Cameron’s debutante performance.
The 39-year-old Tory leader claimed
“On the day marking the
worst terrorist atrocity in history, he even chided the
(Interesting that detaining people indefinitely
without trial is not regarded by the Wall Street Journal as an abuse of
detainees’ human rights).
Labour & Trade Union Review
www.david-morrison.org.uk
References:
[1] See www.conservatives.com
[2] www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?m=200609