Foreign policy

Foreign Secretary William Hague has arrived in Tunisia in order to support to the pro-democracy movement. Unlike his previous visit to Syria, which I think was poorly timed, this one is perfectly-timed. It could even end up looking like George Bush Snr’s visit to Poland in July 1989 when the US president publicly backed the revolutions sweeping across the European continent at the time and gave succour to the pro-democracy movements. Visits like this are so important to help the direction of travel. What people forget now is that in the Eastern Europe of 1989, the history of democracy was as limited as it is today in the Middle East.

William Hague must be feeling that the incoming rounds are coming closer and closer. The Spectator, The Daily Telegraph and now The Times (£) have each allowed their pages to be used as Forward Operating Bases from which to launch attacks against the coalition’s foreign policy. Even in the coalition’s own ranks, dissatisfied foot-soldiers (and a even a few senior officers) think that General Hague has lost his appetite for the fight. Tories talk about a man whose defeat in 2001left a permanent wound, and how the Christopher Myers fiasco left another gash. The government’s equivocal response to events in Egypt has provoked fresh criticism, while the army of eurosceptics,

A week ago, that would have seemed a foolish question. But after thousands of Egyptians have taken to the streets for two consecutive days of protest, even Hosni Mubarak is beginning to look vulnerable. It has placed the West in a dilemma, in a way that Ben Ali’s fall did not. For years, the fear has been that President Mubarak is the lesser of two evils. Though authoritarian, Mubarak’s Egypt is a pro-Western state willing to live with Israel and combat Islamist terrorism. On the hand, the Muslim Brotherhood opposition, which shares an ideological wellspring with Al Qaeda, is a grave threat to Western security. Unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton’s first statement

Tony Blair is beguiling the Chilcot Inquiry once again. He was majestic last time – quick witted, sincere and convinced. There was nothing in that benign hearing room to alter, as he might have put it, the ‘calculus of risk’. His ease was sufficient to crack subtle jokes at Gordon Brown’s expense, and most emerged from the hearing believing that Britain had actually been at war with Iran. He is already ploughing those same furrows, albeit with a barely audible note of impatience, irritated that these banal proceedings continue. Iran is the new Iraq, Blair says, and he publicly takes a ‘hard line’ against Tehran, just as his government, in

William Hague has been visiting Australia in the last couple of days, alongside half of the National Security Council. But you would not know it. Except for a few comments in the blogosphere, there has been little write-up of the visit in the newspapers. In many ways this encapsulates one of the government’s key foreign policy dilemmas. Many of the world¹s problems require cooperation with the US, Europe and the BRICs ­ but especially the BRICs, who, for all their flaws and faults, are the fast-growing countries on the planet. If you want to force an end to Iran¹s illegal nuclear enrichment programme, then you need China. If you have

Today’s Times splashed on the spat between Britain and EU foreign policy “czar” Catherine Ashton over the embargo barring arms sales to China. The embargo was put in place after the Tianamen Square massacre and has remained in place, largely at US insistence, ever since. But is it the right policy? The policy has not prevented China from becoming a military power — its annual defense budget officially stands at $70 billion, although the Pentagon believes the real figure to be twice as high. China is developing carrier-killing missiles that even NATO does not have, and will soon sell weapons rather than seek to import them. There is, of course,