Georgia sheds light on the mind of Cameron

23 August 2008

James Forsyth says that the Tory leader is more immersed in foreign policy than first seemed probable. Unlike Brown, he has ambitions as an international leader

The final phase of preparing the country for Prime Minister Cameron is under way. Having decontaminated the brand and marched ahead of Labour in the polls, the Tories are now introducing the country to Statesman Cameron.

Politics abhors a vacuum. So with Gordon Brown hunkered down planning his autumn ‘relaunch’ and David Miliband practising looking like an innocent flower while being the serpent underneath, Cameron had the opportunity to act the statesman during the Georgia crisis. He did so, even going to Tbilisi to convey Britain’s solidarity with Georgia. As one top Tory purred to me, ‘He’s combined the toughness of a Thatcher, with the tactical acumen of a Blair.’

It is a sign of the change in the political weather that during this episode Cameron appeared a plausible Prime Minister; the contrast to the Conservatives’ chaotic response to the war in the Lebanon could not have been starker. But the last few days have also shone a light on what foreign policy might be like under a Cameron government.

Predicting how a Prime Minister would handle world affairs is an art not a science; few would have foreseen in 1995 that Tony Blair would fight five wars as Prime Minister. We do not know who the next American president will be, arguably the most important determinant of what Cameron’s foreign policy would be — note how a conversation with John McCain was the precursor to a further toughening of the Tory position on Russia. Nor do we know what might happen in the next two years — a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a war over the Crimea — to reshape the international order. It is no surprise, then, that those inside the policy-making process stress that it is a work in progress. But the Tories are further down the road than you might think. They have developed relationships with pretty much every important world leader apart from Putin and the last few days have given us a sense of Cameron’s foreign policy instincts as well as confirming his ability to spot a political opportunity. Talking to senior Tories, one constantly hears that Cameron’s ‘robust’ response was ‘indicative’ of how the Tories would behave if they were in government.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: James Forsyth | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (11)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

BrianSJ

August 21st, 2008 8:42am Report this comment

An attack on Iran is of course complete insanity.
We will know how well the surge has 'worked' after the US election and not before.

john problem

August 21st, 2008 9:16am Report this comment

(Posted by a Georgian)
Pliss, not to send unknown politicians to us in Georgia. Is waste of time.

(Posted by a Russian)
Pliss, what has Georgia got to do with English opposition person?

H Taylor

August 21st, 2008 1:22pm Report this comment

Oh no, another vanity Cameron shares with the unlamented Blair, aspirations to be an international player. Look where that has got us in Iraq and Afganistan. Just stop it.

Agincourt

August 21st, 2008 1:30pm Report this comment

"...intelligence estimates suggest that late 2010 could well be the five-minutes-to-midnight moment at which the United States feels obliged to act against Iran’s nuclear ambitions..."
No, the danger point will come earlier, I suspect. If Obama wins the US election, a good time for the Israelis would be to make their attack very soon afterwards, while George W Bush is still President. If McCain wins, then that allows the Israelis more breathing space, but they would be advised to act as soon as they see Russian SAMs appearing in Iran, which - if there are any further deteriorations in NATO/Russian relations - may become likely.

Ideally,internal strife In Iran will make this scenario redundant. But if that doesn't happen to save the day, then an Israeli air strike may have to do so instead.

Julian Evans

August 21st, 2008 4:33pm Report this comment

What the hell was Cameron doing going over there like some rogue foreign minister? Winning electoral points at the expense of our international image...

And why did he go? Because he thought the UK's reaction to the conflict was too soft on Russia? Too soft? Miliband immediately weighed in and criticized Russia, without ever mentioning Georgia's attack on the population of South Ossetia, which just made him look ridiculously biased to Russians. hes an outspoken, immature and rash foreign minister. Yet Cameron seems to think his reaction was 'too soft'.

God help us.

jean shaw

August 22nd, 2008 4:28pm Report this comment

Sarkozy doing a good job , you have to be joking. Yes he has rushed around but it is clear that the Russians simply conned him. They happily agreed to sign an agreement which was so vague it could be interpreted every which way and then carried on doing exactly what they wanted. The EU and , for that matter , the USA can do little. The Russians will decide in their own sweet time how much damage to do to Georgia , when they will leave and whether they will continue to occupy any of Georgia.

Arthur

August 23rd, 2008 12:01pm Report this comment

Interesting article but could someone please explain why we find it acceptable for a leader of the Opposition to send diplomatic messages on behalf of Britain.

He is neither a minister nor an official from the Foreign Office. What would have happened if he had chosen to show solidarity with Russia?

People might think it churlish to argue this point but those who like to read these pages should have a concern for constitutional propriety his foray into Tbilisi seemed to ignore.

gunnar

August 24th, 2008 4:01pm Report this comment

Does anyone believe this suck-up teenage scribbler tripe? The move showed bad judgment: it was vacuous, ill-thought out, vain. With Milliband offering more of the same, it's back to normal in British politics: no choice for the punter. He's lost a voter here.