Georgia sheds light on the mind of Cameron

20 August 2008

/article_images/articledir_1806/903026/1_listing.jpg

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

This casting of Cameron as an international tough guy comes as a bit of a surprise. Since 2003, Iraq has been used as the measure of a British politician’s foreign policy instincts. On this score, Cameron comes across as a David Miliband-style figure. He was never an advocate of the conflict in the way that Liam Fox, William Hague, George Osborne and Michael Gove were and no one imagines that if the Tories had been whipped to oppose the war he would have rebelled — heavy hints used to be dropped to journalists that Cameron privately opposed the venture from the off. As leader, his policies on Iraq have not inspired confidence. The Tories were sceptical of the surge which has helped transform the situation in Iraq so dramatically and have repeatedly made jejune calls for an inquiry into the war. But Iraq will no longer be a dominant issue in British foreign policy by 2010. For good or ill, no similar mission to Iraq is on the horizon. Instead, great power politics is returning to the fore to go alongside the challenges posed by failing states and terrorism.

The last few days suggest that Cameron’s instincts tend towards aggressive containment. He also has a keen sense of the importance of a British Prime Minister; something that will lead him — as it did Blair — into a more interventionist stance if elected and closer to Washington, still the locus of global power. It is noticeable that in private the Tories admire the energy that Nicolas Sarkozy has shown during this crisis and on the world stage generally. Stylistically, he is seen as a blueprint for how to behave. Some will see this as just a desire from the Tory leadership to appear on the ten o’clock news, but being in shot requires you to do something — to have an active not a passive foreign policy.

Previous page 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.