Where is the national interest in arming Syria's opposition?

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

The Government is committed to giving battlefield assitance to parts of the Syrian opposition, as William Hague confirmed at yesterday's meeting of the G8.  There is a plausible case for the policy.  The Assad regime is a criminal kleptocracy, which appears to have used chemical weapons against its own people.  Furthermore, it is a catspaw of Iran, whose nuclear push threatens a regional arms race - and whose own Government is not, to put it mildly, an ally of this country.  The vile conduct of the regime has driven a refugee crisis that threatens the region's stability.  Yesterday's G8 statement counted the number of refugees outside Syria as a million.  That's roughly the equivalent of the entire population of Birmingham.

More narrowly, it is hard to see how Assad and his cronies can hang on indefinitely.  All the more reason, therefore - it can be argued - to back the winning side.  The Syrian Opposition has already been granted representation by the Arab League, which represents the Sunni majority both in the region and the wider middle east.  Hague will be telling Russia that the longer it continues to help prop up Assad, the more likely it is that Al Qaeda and other fanatical Islamist groups win the upper hand within the coalition of forces opposed to him.  The Government's view is shared by France and, to some degree, America, so it's scarcely as though the Foreign Secretary doesn't have allies in his diplomatic push.

Continue reading "Where is the national interest in arming Syria's opposition?" »

Why Samantha Cameron went to Syria

By Paul Goodman
Follow Paul on Twitter.

Two of the behind-the-scenes players in the Syrian drama are Britain and Russia - Britain, because it is one of most intervention-leaning western countries, and Russia, because it is the Assad regime's main diplomatic backer (Iran excepted).  The possible emergence of a hardline Sunni Islamist government, were the regime to fall, is an important part of their conversation.  Russia argues that this would be a disastrous outcome for the region, that other evils could govern Syria that are even worse than Assad, and that backing the Syrian resistance is therefore unwise.

Britain agrees the appearance of such a government would be alarming and that, were Al Qaeda to have institutional influence in Syria, this would obviously be even more so.  But it disagrees strongly with Russia about how to deal with Assad.  The longer he clings on in government, the Foreign Office argues, the more time Al Qaeda and other extremist elements will have to strengthen their position.  In a nutshell, its case is that all Russia is achieving by helping Assad to cling to power is making the outcome that it fears more likely to happen.

Continue reading "Why Samantha Cameron went to Syria" »

David Cameron uses PMQs to confirm that he's considering more intervention in Syria

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

Ed Miliband asked a first set of questions about the banking crisis in Cyprus. Cameron replied by saying that the UK has exempted itself from €urozone rescue deals but, on a general point, he stated that deposit protection schemes should be respected.

Ed Miliband's second set of questions focus on whether the arms embargo to Syria should be lifted. David Cameron replies by saying that the current set of policies are clearly not working and 70,000 people have already died under Assad's "hateful regime". The Labour leader struck a very cautious note, worrying that the situation could be made worse if the arms embargo was lifted. The PM replied that the discussions of EU leaders that he had intended reminded him of the arguments made in the 1990s with regard to Bosnia. The British government - along with France - is clearly tip-toeing towards a more interventionist policy.

David Cameron reaffirmed Britain's commitment to the aid budget. He said that Britain should be proud of its help for the hungriest people of the world. The IF campaign ran the above photo stunt yesterday to urge the Chancellor to maintain aid spending. He has. This year Britain will become the first major economy to hit the UN's 0.7% development target. I am proud that that has happened under a Tory PM and Chancellor.

Hague and Cameron are right to consider arming Syria's rebels but the region's wealthy oil states need to deliver more life-saving aid. And quickly.

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

William Hague and David Cameron are seriously considering sending arms to help the Syrian opposition in their civil war with the Assad regime. Assad's armed forces are being financed and equipped by Russia and are getting a helping hand from Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The combination of Russia and Iran is a particularly horrible one. Moscow's fingerprints are all over the Grozny-style bombing of Syrian cities that means many of them now resemble 1945 Berlin. Tehran's contribution has been to help brutalise the Syrian regime's anti-insurgency operations. Many prisoners of war aren't detained but are mutilated before being killed.

It is no wonder that, in Mr Hague's words, Syria is producing the world's "biggest human catastrophe of recent years". At least 70,000 people have already died. Four million people are in acute need. More than one million refugees have fled Syria and that flow is accelerating rather than declining. Last week, as a guest of the Save the Children charity, I visited the Zaatari refugee camp on Jordan's border with Syria.

Continue reading "Hague and Cameron are right to consider arming Syria's rebels but the region's wealthy oil states need to deliver more life-saving aid. And quickly." »

David Cameron’s trip to India – and two examples of change

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

So far, David Cameron’s trip to India has represented one quality above all others – change. And that change has come in two forms, which are:

1) Trade. Of course, it’s not a new Coalition policy to seek out trade with countries that are several time zones away: David Cameron visited India with exactly that purpose back in 2010. But that policy is still part of a grander shift. The Government wants to move Britain away from its traditional reliance on European and North American markets, and take advantage of fast-developing economies such as Brazil, China and India, where a growing middle class is—in theory—creating demand for British expertise and innovation in finance, luxury goods, engineering and so on. The thinking is simple: why hitch up to, say, the Eurozone when there’s gold to be struck elsewhere?

But, as the BBC’s James Landale points out, there is a difference between Mr Cameron’s previous visit to India and this one. This time, the trade delegation accompanying him doesn’t just contain representatives from British multinationals such as Barclays and BAE, but also from some small- and medium-sized enterprises. This, no doubt, is an attempt to extend the benefits of soft diplomacy to those who don’t normally receive them.

Continue reading "David Cameron’s trip to India – and two examples of change" »

David Cameron to spend next fortnight shoring up European alliances ahead of key EU budget vote

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

David Cameron is going to have a busy fortnight: the Independent reports that he is going to be visiting and receiving heads of government across Europe, attempting to re-forge a coalition of like-minded states, who he hopes will support his position during the upcoming budget talks. 

Mr Cameron's stance, a "real terms freeze" for the next budget period, was supported by Germany, France, the Netherlands and Finland back in 2010. However, Germany is now supporting an increase in the European budget, and the governments of France and Finland have since changed hands. Mr Cameron is expected to try and woo Denmark, Italy, Spain and Sweden in his attempt to avoid isolation.

Continue reading "David Cameron to spend next fortnight shoring up European alliances ahead of key EU budget vote" »

Five lessons for the Tories from the US election campaign

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

We shouldn’t overstate the overlap between American politics and our own, but some lessons can still be wrung from the campaign that ended with Barack Obama’s victory last night. Here, briefly, are five for British Conservatives, although you might care to add more:

i) Demographic change means that parties ought to change. The traditional Republican vote — broadly speaking, white, Christian and possibly wealthy — is quite literally dying out. And in its place come new voters: young, immigrant and often secular. Many of these new voters will be Democratic voters by instinct, as in the case of the young voters who turned out more strongly than they did in 2008, and who split about 60-40 in favour of Barack Obama. But some needn’t be. George W. Bush tended to poll quite well among Latino voters, for instance, yet Mitt Romney has failed to match that example. As the Daily Beast’s Andrew Romano tweeted:

“In 2008 Latinos were 9% of electorate & preferred Obama 67-31. In 2012 they're 10% & pro-Obama 69-30. Rs can't win if that trend continues.”

The lesson is that political parties need to account for demographic change. As it happens, Paul wrote on just this topic — from a British Conservative perspective — on Monday.

Continue reading "Five lessons for the Tories from the US election campaign" »

Tory backbenchers - and Alan Duncan - push for Cameron to claw back aid money from the European Union

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

There's something going on. In the Sunday Telegraph today, there is an offensive against wasteful spending of British money by the European Union.

This offensive comes in two parts. The first is from the frontbenches: Alan Duncan, the DfID Minister, complains that the European Union "forces" his department to hand over taxpayers’ money and then spends it however it wishes. The second part is from the backbenches: Tory MPs, "in a plan endorsed both by the Fresh Start Group of Eurosceptic Tory MPs and the Open Europe think tank" want David Cameron to demand the return of around £4.2billion of funding which the EU plans to spend on poorer countries in Europe.

The Alan Duncan story is rather good, because it touches, as the Telegraph notes, both foreign aid and Europe, which is bound to excite the right of the party. The complaint Mr Duncan has is that £1.4 billion of DfID’s budget is sent to the EU for its own schemes, many of which are in countries Britain considers no longer worthy of aid, such as Morocco. Mr Duncan says:

"We share the people’s anger on this. We are forced to give money to the European Union. We ask them to focus aid on poverty but they don’t, and we have no choice in the matter."

It comes with some strong words from a "senior Tory":

"Brussels insists it does not “impose” its choice of aid projects on Britain but - in an escalation of hostilities - a senior Conservative separately accused the EU of lying. “If you want an EU lie, this is a classic one,” said the senior Tory. “It is a 100 per cent lie. We have been arguing with the EU whenever we can that the money should have a poverty focus.”"

It also contains plenty of juicy examples of what DfID has been "forced" to spend money on: developing Centre Parcs sites in Morocco, sending Lancashire policemen to Jamaica, spending millions to "prepare Iceland for EU membership", and so on.

Continue reading "Tory backbenchers - and Alan Duncan - push for Cameron to claw back aid money from the European Union" »

David Cameron speaks to the United Nations General Assembly, attacks the United Nations

By Peter Hoskin
_{Follow Peter on Twitter}

This morning, it seemed that the stand-out point from David Cameron’s UN speech would be his relative optimism about the course of the Arab Spring. But now that the text of that speech has been beamed around for our reading pleasure, it’s actually a much gloomier passage that leaps from the page. Speaking of the situation in Syria, Mr Cameron launches a verbal volley against the United Nations itself, which includes a barely coded attack on countries such as Russia, China and Iran:

“If anyone was in any doubt about the horrors that Assad has inflicted on his people, just look at the evidence published by Save the Children this week; schools used as torture centres, children as target practice.

A 16 year old Syrian called Wael who was detained in a police station in Dera’a said: ‘I have seen children slaughtered. No, I do not think I will ever be ok again ... If there was even 1% of humanity in the world, this would not happen.’

The blood of these young children is a terrible stain on the reputation of this United Nations.

And in particular, a stain on those who have failed to stand up to these atrocities and in some cases aided and abetted Assad’s reign of terror.”

He goes on to describe how UN countries might help, including by increasing their humanitarian support for the Syrian people. But, really, it’s hard to see past the ferocity of that attack. One of the key trends of the past few years has been — concurrent with the gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan — an escalation in the war of words with Russia and Iran. Now it seems that the UN is catching some flak too, which makes you wonder how much confidence Western policymakers place in the organisation.

Forget the party conferences. Think instead about what will happen here if Israel bombs Iran

By Paul Goodman
^{Follow Paul on Twitter}

Cameron is worried that Israel may attack Iran...

I returned from Israel and Palestine recently, but in one sense didn't need to go.  For although much of the conversation there was about Iran's nuclear programme and Israeli military action, the most vivid news about it broke back in Britain.  The Daily Mail reported that John Sawers, the head of MI6, had made his own recent trip to Israel - to plead with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Prime Minister, not to order a strike on Iran.  "David Cameron," the paper reported, "is understood to have become increasingly concerned at the rhetoric from the authorities in Israel, who have been threatening unilateral military action to halt Iran’s nuclear drive".

Unlike, say, the Times, the Mail isn't especially interested in security stories, and this fact plus the detail above suggests that the tale came from a political source.  The Mail also said that the prospect of an attack "has been discussed by the Government's national security council", before turning to the Netanyahu Government perhaps launching an attack "before the US presidential elections in November, while the leadership in Washington is in a state of limbo".  (The paper might have added, as a domestic detail, "possibly during the party conference season").

Continue reading "Forget the party conferences. Think instead about what will happen here if Israel bombs Iran" »