McCain and Cameron, close for now
Daniel Korski 12:00pm
It is common knowledge that John McCain and David Cameron get on. By convention, politicians do not enter into electoral politics in other countries, but the Conservative leader has made clear how McCain impressed him when he spoke at the 2006 Conservative Party Conference while McCain has described Cameron as a Kennedyesque figure. Their staffs are said to be in regular touch and the two men talk on the phone.
At first blush, the Russo-Georgian War show how close they really are. Looking at their respective statements, it is hard to distinguish between the views of the two politicians.
In response to the invasion, it was McCain who struck a tough tone, denouncing the Russian move and called for a withdrawal from "sovereign Georgian territory," an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council, and the creation of "a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force.
With Gordon Brown worrying about his autumn re-launch, David Cameron visited Georgia and gave a strikingly similar statement to McCain’s, warning Moscow to immediately end its "illegal" invasion. He also called for NATO to speed up Georgia's application for membership and for Russia to be expelled from the G8. Kicking Russia out of the Group of Eight conclave of major industrial nations was, of course, initially mooted by Mr. McCain in a Foreign Affairs essay last year .
Both men have come out of the conflict looking better than their domestic counterparts. Gordon Brown took the humanitarian angle, and ended up looking like he misunderstood the strategic implications of the conflict. Barack Obama seems to have been caught napping, issuing the occasional press release from his Hawaiian vacation, whilst George Bush’s frolicking with the U.S volley ball team in Beijing will enter the pantheon of poor photo opportunities, only a few notches below the infamous “Mission Accomplished” snapshot on USS Abraham Lincoln .
Yet the seemingly close coordination between the McCain and Cameron camps may run into trouble when McCain presses home his advantage, raising the anti-Russian stakes. In his weekly radio address, the Arizona senator zeroed in on energy, arguing that Europe should guard against becoming too dependent on Russia’s energy supplies.
Few people doubt that Russia wants a stranglehold on Europe's energy market, and is pursuing that aim through a cordon of natural gas and oil pipelines that would make most European countries – although not Britain - heavily dependent on the Kremlin for hydrocarbons. But most analysts agree that to avoid this, Europe will need to create a European integrated and flexible gas market. This could re-establish a more equal relationship between Europe and Russia; and break up the cosy connection between Gazprom and large utility importers in Germany, Italy and France. But how does this idea sit with the Conservatives’ European policy?
The McCain-Cameron foreign policy link-up worked well on this occasion, probably because it reflected not only the two men’s similarly good political instincts but also their shared foreign policy principles. However, the next phase of developing the West’s response to Russia may see the two political friends struggle to keep as close as they have been until now.
Previous
Comments
Disraeli's Ghost
August 18th, 2008 1:47pmWell, Dave's an opportunist. Look at how he made nice with Obama just the other week.
Verity
August 18th, 2008 2:14pmMcCain said Cameron is Kennedyesqu? And he's a friend? Who do Cameron's American opponents compare him to? Castro?
I would imagine Cameron would fare very poorly in America if he's looking for friends. Their conservatives don't toe the EU socialist line.
John McCain knows perfectly well that "Kennedyesque" is not a compliment to a real conservative.
James
August 18th, 2008 2:25pmThere is an interesting comment on this by Peter McKay in the Mail today. McKay’s stance on this is to say that we should all walk away with our tail between our legs. That also seems to be McKay’s stance to every other foreign policy problem.
He decides to belittle Cameron’s stance as schoolboy machoness. A bit weird really when you consider the facts of world history. Appeasement simply strengthens the aggressor.
Just look at the success of Reagan, he squared up to Russia – result? It imploded from the inside. This aim is achievable again with Russia, by making it reform itself from within, and was possibly achievable with Iran (I fear, it is too late to sort that out now by collapse from within).
I have to say I am fed up to the back teeth with people like Peter McKay and Max Hastings saying there is nothing to be done so let’s do nothing. How does that amount to leadership, exactly? It might lead us into a Caliphate or under the cosh of Russia, but it doesn't lead anywhere good.
It’s thanks to people like McKay, Hastings and Peter “let’s sell the Saudis lots of war planes” Oborne that poor old Britain is now in the grip of precisely what Iran and Russia should be in the grip of – crumbling from within. These are the handwringing schoolboys, simpering in the corner of the playground hoping the bullies won’t go for them if they say nice things about them.
It really isn’t rocket science. Not everything in life can be achieved by sitting their hoping people won’t hit you. Not everybody is motivated to act decently.
Often ridiculed as a simpleton, Reagan could see what so many wise folk in their ivory towers can’t see.
You don’t have to hit the nuclear button, but you do have to say: “Back off, bud, or there’ll be consequences”. Doing nothing is simply not an option – not if you want freedom, anyway.
thomas
August 18th, 2008 3:04pmIt fits fine. Conservative policy is favourable to the EU but not to the loss of national sovereignty to it. Like public opinion, conservative opinion is happy with a common market in energy as well as other markets. A common defene policy and foreign policy is a whole different ball game.
Daniel Korski
August 18th, 2008 3:19pmThomas,
Many Tory politicians have, indeed, spoken up for liberalizing the European energy market.
In a rare, pro-European statement, Liam Fox wrote in the Times last year: "The EU has an important role to play, especially in countering the difficulties posed by Russia. An end needs to be brought to the divide and rule which the Kremlin operates through single nation “sweetheart deals”. The commission must act to remove protectionism and national monopolies, creating a genuine free market in energy. Better interconnections will reduce the risk of supplies being cut off to those who displease the Kremlin." Tory MEPs have also backed liberalization.
But the issue is not only a question of improving the internal market - an effective foreign energy policy will undoubtedly have a CSFP dimension, and I'm just pointing out that I can't see how a Conservative British government could opt for one element and not the other - at least not if wants to make a difference to the EU's relationship with Russia and ultimately try to affect the Russian bear's behavior....
Ian C
August 18th, 2008 5:00pmJames, You have said it. This is the so caleed 'realists' at work. They are what we used to call the 'pseuds' at school - eloquent intelligentsia who were more nimble with their mouths open than with their brains engaged. Douglas Hurd as Foreign sec. and Rifkind are others - they all would avoid a confrontation today and consequently make one inevitable tomorrow.
Verity
August 18th, 2008 5:07pmIan C - Chris Patten drifts into mind ...
Alex
August 18th, 2008 6:03pmDisraeli's Ghost - I think you've missed a trick in your political bias.
I can't see much evidence in the political media who've seen Cameron's trip to Georgia as opportunistic (even the left wing press / BBC have been pretty supportive).
If Cameron had waited until the dithering Brown / Miliband had done anything, he'd have waited forever, and would have been critisised for not doing acting quickly enough.