ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

William Hague: Religious faith is needed to help tackle today's greatest injustices

Earlier today we highlighted a wide-ranging lecture by Iain Duncan Smith about the Conservative Party's poverty-fighting mission.   Also speaking last night - on this side of the Atlantic - was William Hague.  He was giving one of the lectures in Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor's Faith and Life in Britain series.  Watch the full forty minute lecture here.

The Shadow Foreign Secretary spent much of his time talking about the religious faith that motivated William Wilberforce and inspired the Clapham Sect's battle against slavery.  He noted Wilberforce's belief that “religion is the business of every one, but that its advancement or decline in any country is so intimately connected with the temporal interests of society, as to render it the peculiar concern of a political man…”.  Mr Hague listed the legacy of the Clapham Sect, which Wilberforce was a part of:

"The Clapham community was a place of fellowship, inclusiveness, and understanding, and represented a set of values in polar opposition to the prevailing social ills of the day. Wherever there was a need or an injustice, they applied their considerable resources to the problem. From cancer clinics to prisons, Sunday schools to orphanages, asylums for disabled children to education initiatives in Africa, virtually no cause was left untouched by their efforts. They founded the Society for Religious Instructions to the Negroes in the West Indies, the London Missionary Society, the Society for Bettering the Condition and Increasing the Comforts of the Poor, the Church Missionary Society, the Religious Tract Society, the Society for Promoting the Religious Instruction of Youth, the Society for the Relief of the Industrious Poor, the British National Endeavour for the Orphans of Soldiers and Sailors, The Asylum House of Refuge for the Reception of Orphaned Girls the Settlements of whose Parents Cannot be Found, the Institution for the Protection of Young Girls, the Society for the Suppression of Vice, the Sunday School Union, the Society for Superceding the Necessity for Climbing Boys in Cleansing Chimneys, the British and Foreign Bible Society and the wonderfully named, Friendly Female Society, for the Relief of Poor, Infirm, Aged Widows, and Single Women of Good Character, Who Have Seen Better Days."

Although William Hague noted that interpretations of religion brought many problems he was of the overall view that it was needed by society today - not least in fighting human trafficking.

Bribery is sometimes necessary, says Tebbit, when British jobs and security are at stake

Last week the Editor of ConservativeHome celebrated the Court's criticism of Tony Blair's decision to halt the SFO probe into the BAe-Saudi arms deal.  Lord Tebbit offers an alternative view in The Daily Mail.  Here are highlights from the former Party Chairman's piece:

Bribery is unfortunately necessary for British jobs and security co-operation with Saudi Arabia: "To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling's poem, Mandalay, "somewheres East of Suez, where the best is like the worst/where there ain't no Ten Commandments", they play by different rules to the ones we stand by here. I thought of this again when the High Court last week wrongly denounced the Government for abandoning the bribery investigation into the massive British Aerospace arms deal with Saudi Arabia... This is Britain's biggest-ever arms deal, signed more than 20 years ago and worth £43billion - yes, £43billion.  If we abandon it, we will put thousands of British jobs on the line and jeopardise relations with Saudi Arabia, a vital ally in the struggle against terrorism.  At the bottom line, without Saudi's cooperation, British lives could be lost to jihadist terror.  I have personal experience of this affair.  As a junior trade minister and then as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, under Margaret Thatcher, I had the job of promoting British exports - whatever they were.  The driving principle of the task was relatively simple: no one has to buy from us, but unless they do, we are unable to pay for the food, oil and raw materials we need to survive."

We should aim to eliminate corruption in the long-term: "Eliminating bribery throughout the world should of course be a priority, and it is utterly wrong to use it here in Britain or in other countries where it has been largely eradicated.  But let us remember that some British companies have to operate in places where the world is not as we would like it to be."

Our judges' double standards: ""No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice," they said.  Come off it. Which of them stood up and objected when the Government let out of jail IRA/Sinn Fein and Loyalist terrorists by the busload, claiming that the bombings and killings would start again if they were not released?"

Judges are increasingly behaving as lawmakers: "More and more judges are being tempted to find not according to what the law is, but according to what they think it should be.  And more and more they are using foreign law - whether from Brussels or so-called International Law - to impose their views.  As far as they are concerned, national security can take a back seat.  It seems to me that the judiciary is in danger of forgetting that policy and law are made by politicians.  And for good reason.  If politicians get it wrong, we can sack them at the next election.  They are accountable. Not so the judges."

Nick Herbert MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, will be writing for ConservativeHome on these subjects in the next few days.

Related CentreRight links: Samuel Coates wonders what Tebbit would have said to Wilberforce, Matt Sinclair on the 'judicial aristocracy' and Peter Franklin on Britain for sale

Hague calls on Brown to press China on human rights

"If the Prime Minister is going to welcome the Beijing Olympic torch to No. 10 Downing Street he should clearly remind the Chinese government of their public commitment to improve their human rights record in the run up to the 2008 Olympics.

The PM should also be clear that the international community is looking to China to end repressive measures against human rights activists, to give immediate access to Tibet and surrounding areas to UN and other independent observers, and to allow full and free reporting of the Olympic Games including access for journalists and unfettered use of the internet."

Boycotting the Olympics' opening ceremony - an idea that Sarkozy and Kouchner have floated but Labour ministers have been critical of - seems to be an ideal way of sending a clear message about the importance of democracy and basic human rights.

We personally know scores of Tories attending human rights and Tibet rallies as the torch comes through London tomorrow. Click here for details.

Sins of omission

Labour survived yesterday's Conservative attempts to force an inquiry into the Iraq war.  Twelve Labour MPs voted with the Opposition but William Hague's arguments (summarised on our Parliament pages) were not enough to persuade more Government backbenchers to defy their whip.

Yesterday's motion was an attempt by the Conservatives to say something about a war that is now five years old.  Many Conservatives genuinely believe that there will be benefits from an inquiry but many others simply see this exercise as a way of putting the Government on the back foot.  One Tory MP, Mark Field, admitted as much on Radio 4's Westminster Hour on Sunday night.  Tory opponents of the Iraq war were most evident in yesterday's Commons debate.  They hope that a key result of an inquiry will be further public opposition to the Iraq war and to a hawkish foreign policy.

Our key question is this: Should a call for an inquiry into the origins of the Iraq war really be the top priority of the Conservative Opposition?

Most of the current Tory leadership - David Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne, David Davis, Liam Fox - all voted for the Iraq war five years ago.  They may have a responsibility to investigate the background to their 2003 votes - and, more importantly, the votes of the governing party - but they also have a responsibility to see the liberation of Iraq concluded in the most satisfactory way possible.

But on the one strategic decision that has delivered most improvement to the people of Iraq - the Petraeus-led troops surge - the Conservative frontbench has been silent.  We asked CCHQ yesterday for a statement in support of the surge.  Nothing was forthcoming and nothing apparently exists from the last 12 months.  There have even been attempts to attribute the reduction in violence to other factors.

Britain could not have delivered a troops surge for southern Iraq because Labour has left our armed forces under-resourced and over-stretched.  The Conservatives' response to this situation has also been inadequate.  We have failed to make the case for the rebuilding of Britain's armed forces.  There's no new money on the table for our military although the defence of Britain should be any Government's first and overriding priority.  ConservativeHome proposed our own modest plan for £3bn of extra defence spending a couple of weeks ago.

The coming together of evil men, rogue regimes and devastating weapons technology is the security challenge of our time.  Yesterday's debate didn't take us much closer to a coherent Conservative response to that challenge.

3pm: James Forsyth at The Spectator encourages William Hague to go beyond "cheap publicity"

Putting human rights at the heart of foreign policy

The next theme in our Agenda 2008 is for the Conservative Party to take the lead on international human rights policy. David Cameron, in his first speech devoted to the subject, could build on the progress William Hague has made in emphasising the importance of human rights to foreign policy by setting out a commitment to properly integrating human rights advocacy into the machinery of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - which is due to release its annual human rights report this afternoon - and the United Nations.

The Party's Human Rights Commission has done much of the thinking for them. You can download its most recent annual report here or view our summary of its recommendations here. This agenda is simply translating the principles in David Cameron's speeches on social responsibility, into foreign policy.

The phrase "human rights" needs to be reclaimed from those on the Right who see them as always contradicting responsibilities and common sense, and those on the Left who blur natural rights with socio-economic expectations and lack a sense of proportion when it comes to the West's own transgressions. There's a need for a hard-headed back-to-basics championing of the basic freedoms, speaking out against torture, imprisonment for political or religious beliefs, state-sanctioned rape*, forced labour, conscription of child soldiers, restrictions on religious freedom, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Brown's government has downgraded the issue - Ian McCartney had a genuine concern for human rights but his remit was simply too big and included the competing interest of trade. His successor, Mark Malloch-Brown doesn't even have the human rights remit mentioned in his title, as it is just one of his many large and competing responsibilites.

Internationalist: Ben Rogers

Ben Rogers has won the Internationalist Award, "for tirelessly campaigning on human rights issues, notably Burma which he has visited over twenty times".

Through his work with Christian Solidarity Worldwide and other organisations, Ben is a prominent human rights advocate. As a Conservative candidate in Durham in 2005 he surprised many left-leaning voters with his clear compassion and commitment to human dignity and freedom around the world. There aren't enough Conservatives in this field.

Click here for an archive of Ben's articles on ConservativeHome.

The nomination also recognised the ongoing work of the Conservative Party's Human Rights Commission, of which he was the founding Deputy Chairman (the Chairman is Stephen Crabb MP).

The other shortlisted nominees were Linda Whetstone of the International Policy Network for continuing the work of her late father, Sir Anthony Fisher, in helping spread freedom around the world through the active creation of a global network of think-tanks, and Philippa Broom for her work in the Conservative Party's international office, forging strong links with sister parties around the world.

* More than 8000 people voted on the 2008 ConservativeHome Movement Awards. The previous award announced was Culture Warrior, which went to Jeremy Clarkson and the Top Gear team. 

Michael Fabricant MP establishes Conservative Friends of America

Lichfield Tory MP Michael Fabricant has won the backing of David Cameron and William Hague for a new party group: Conservative Friends of America.  Mr Cameron will be CFA's President and Mr Hague its Vice President.

Mr Fabricant told ConservativeHome that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan meant that the special, transatlantic relationship could no longer be taken for granted:

"Like any successful relationship, you have to work at it.  We have therefore decided to establish a Conservative Friends of America whose stated aim is 'To promote friendship and mutual understanding between the Conservative Party and the people and government of the United States of America'."

Initially the CFA will be restricted to MPs and peers only but other party members will be invited to join from next year.

CFA joins Liam Fox's Atlantic Bridge and Michael Howard's Atlantic Partnership as two organisations already concerned with the UK-US relationship.

Hague: America needs to restore its moral authority in the world

William Hague has given an interview for today's Telegraph and has called for a restoration of America's moral authority.  The call is enthusiastically endorsed by The Telegraph's leader-writers.

His remarks come at the end of a week in which Britain's view of America has taken another battering.  Foreign Secretary David Miliband had to apologise to the House of Commons after US authorities revealed that British sovereign territory had facilitated extraordinary rendition.

Okay then: What should America do to restore its standing in the world?

Keeping it in perspective

There's been a lot of focus on this site about economic matters of late, but whilst we worry about an X% downturn, a Y% increase in government spending, etc, we mustn't forget about pressing issues affecting people elsewhere:

• On Thursday Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague wrote on ConservativeHome about the dangerous dithering on the part of Gordon Brown and the United Nations over Darfur. He set out five steps that needed to be taken asap. All credit to Hague for trying to keep this ongoing tragedy in the spotlight. Read his article here.
• Despite the crisis in Darfur, China still supports the Sudanese Government. China still persecutes and executes thousands of political activists, Christians, Falun Gong followers et al. Steven Spielberg may have laudably pulled out of his official role in the Olympics but no UK political party is close to representing the strong moral standpoint taken by half of the UK population that the Olympics should be boycotted. Edward Macmillan-Scott MEP has been the most prominent politician in the media calling for a boycott. He made his case on ConservativeHome recently.
• Burma is another country we are in danger of forgetting, and is ruled by another regime supported by the Chinese. Over on CentreRight Ben Rogers reminded us yesterday of the price some people pay for fighting for freedom with the news that Pado Mahn Sha, the father of Zoya Phan (who has spoken on the main stage at the last two Conservative conferences) and spokesman for the persecuted Karen people (who fought bravely on our side in WWII), has been murdered in his home. Ben provides other recent examples of leaders being violently targeted for standing up for human rights. Read his post here.

Liam Fox welcomes ConservativeHome poll on national security

The December ConservativeHome.com survey closes at midnight.  If you haven't had your say yet please click here.

Today we publish the final set of results from our November survey - on foreign and defence policy...

The results show that, despite the damage done by the Iraq war, most Conservative members retain a robust attitude to national security:

• By nearly two-to-one they reject the idea that military action must be authorised by the United Nations.
• Just over half agree with the controversial doctrine of pre-emption.  Winston Churchill would have approved.  He famously quipped: "You must never fire until you have been shot dead?"
• 86% want a bigger military.  This confirms an earlier ConservativeHome Panel finding that defence should be the party's number one public expenditure priority.

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox warmly welcomed the findings.  He issued the following statement to ConservativeHome:

"When it comes to security there is a strong Conservative belief in being masters of our own destiny.  While international co-operation is to be valued we must as a nation maintain the tools to act separately when our national interest requires it."

Benazir Bhutto killed in bomb blast

6.45pm Alan Collins has the reaction of our Gillingham and Rainham candidate Rehman Chishti: “I have lost a dear friend who was not just a political friend – she was more like a mother. She was my mentor too. When I went to work for her in 1999 she was my mentor.  She was the greatest politician I ever could have worked with - sincere, humble and down to earth. The world has suffered a great loss.  My heart goes out to her three children and husband. I can’t believe she has gone.”

5.15pm: Video memories of Benazir Bhutto

4.25pm: BEN ROGERS HAS WRITTEN FOR PLATFORM: BENAZIR BHUTTO'S DEATH IS A TRAGEDY FOR PAKISTAN; A CRISIS FOR THE WORLD

4.25pm: Rudy Giuliani's response:  “The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us.”  Washington Wire has other US reactions.

4.05pm: EU Referendum: "With probably over a million Pakistani immigrants in this country, there is also a strong domestic dimension. There are justified fears that violence in Pakistan might spill over into the streets of Bradford, Coventry and other major British towns and cities, or that perceived wrongs to Pakistan will visit the sort of action meted out to Benazir Bhutto.  Either way, the assassination of Bhutto is a profound and dangerous development, and one from which no good can come."

4pm Fraser Nelson has already noted that Bhutto's Wikipedia entry was updated within minutes.  YouTube also has a large number of videos capturing coverage of her death.  This rudimentary video is the first tribute uploaded.

CNN has world leaders' reactions | BBC has pictures of Bhutto's final rally

3.30pm: David Cameron's reaction: "This is an appalling act of terrorism. Today Pakistan has lost one of its bravest daughters. Those responsible have not only murdered a courageous leader but have put at risk hopes for the country’s return to democracy.”

Poll shows Conservative commitment to human rights abroad

Our most recent survey asked members their opinion on this statement:

A Conservative Prime Minister should always raise human rights issues when he meets the leaders of nations that oppress their citizens

A strong majority of 73% agreed, with 18% disagreeing. That so many Conservatives sign up to the principle that we should always raise human rights concerns with foreign leaders is very encouraging, particularly as so many Conservatives are understandably wary of the phrase "human rights" after some of the non-sensical domestic incarnations of it. When Sam Burke proposed the idea of a Human Rights Minister who would take responsibility for such issues, an idea advocated by the Conservative Human Rights Commission this year, most of your comments were pretty hostile about the concept.

In this context we're more interested in, for example, the right not to be used as a human minesweeper (or, if you prefer, the freedom to have legs). The fusty diplomatic attitude that such things are internal affairs that we shouldn't rock the boat over seems to be fading away in this country, if not in China! Happily, the 73% can be confident that the next Conservative PM will do as they wish as William Hague has said at least three times that human rights should be at the heart of our foreign policy.

The survey also questioned members about whether:

Britain should increase aid spending every year as part of our commitment to tackle global poverty

Just 26% agreed with this one, with 60% disagreeing. Many would have been dissuaded by the open-ended commitment to increase spending year on year, but support for the sentiment is still surprisingly low. Conservatives have good reasons to be sceptical of the long-term effectiveness of aid, fearing that it disincentivises home-grown solutions and perpetuates poverty. Conservative councillor and former aid work Jack Perschke recently articulated these concerns on our Platform section.

There's no doubt though that if managed and targeted well, aid can save and dramatically improve lives at relatively little cost to us as an advanced and prosperous nation. Samuel Coates visited refugee camps on either side of the Thai/Burma border last month. In such camps families either have access to medical care provided by aid agencies, or don't have any at all. It's not a case of them getting on their bike.

Britain currently gives 0.5% of national income to international development, the highest share since 1964 but still short of the agreed international target of 0.7%. If you translate all the principles that David Cameron has outlined over the last two years about social responsibility from the domestic to the international arena, this doesn't seem too unreasonable a proportion for the government to contribute alongside third sector initiatives.

An Englishman's home may be his castle, but it's ultimately not in his interest to stay behind the drawbridge. Britain is one of 192 villagers in this world. We have a duty to not only build up and defend our own house but to stand up to the neighbour beating up his wife, and help feed the neighbour at the other end of the road who has fallen on hard times.

As some (by no means all) on the Left continue to equivocate and appease, can we add this principle to the reasons why Conservatives are today's progressives?

Criticism with a smile - Cameron tells China to be more responsible at home and abroad

Key extracts from David Cameron's speech in "China's Chicago", Chongqing (update: now it's on WebCameron). The theme of it is essentially Jesus'/Churchill's/Spiderman's uncle's dictum that "with great power comes great responsibility". He buttered them up with compliments but didn't shy away from calling on China to stop its aid to Zimbabwe, to do its bit on the environment, and to work towards greater political freedom domestically...

We must recognise the connection between wealth and fairness: "If we want to continue to lift billions of people in our world out of poverty…if we want to continue to spread opportunity ever more widely…and if we want to continue to transform and modernise societies…then we must continue to expand the economic freedom on which economic growth and the creation of wealth depends. Yes to free trade. No to protection. Being clear that globalisation is good for Britain, China and the world."

Wealth can bring inequality and anxiety: "When I worked in Hong Kong briefly as a student in 1985, Shenzhen was barely more than a small town, surrounded by paddy fields and waterways. Today, Shenzhen is a city with a population larger than London. It makes most of the world’s iPods - and one in ten of the world’s mobile phones. But these changes – the product of economic freedom – can bring social unease. We see greater inequality – here and in the West. We see greater anxiety as jobs are lost as well as created – here and in the West."

China is starting to accept the case for tackling climate change (no mention of action): "Some argue climate change isn’t happening. Fortunately, the weight of scientific evidence is steadily destroying their credibility. More worrying, others argue we shouldn’t bother to act, because nothing we do will make a real difference. "China’s building two coal-fired power stations every week", they say. "Why should we act if they won’t? These people have got China wrong... There is growing awareness across China of the fragility of your environment."

Conservative Party's Annual Human Rights Report

William Hague has just launched the Human Rights Commission's Annual Report into the state of human rights around the world. Hague, who wrote for ConservativeHome about human rights earlier today, was very welcoming of the report and told the gathering of diplomats, NGO representatives and Party activists that human rights should be at the heart of our foreign policy - the third time he has said so in a speech.

The headline recommendation is on reforming the FCO - calling for a minister within it to be dedicated to human rights, a code of conduct on what is expected of FCO employees with regards to human rights, and more co-ordination of embassies on these issues.

The pdf of the full report can be downloaded here, and ConservativeHome has summarised each chapter below:

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS: THEMES AND TRENDS

1. Slavery Today

This year we celebrated the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade yet around the world there is still widespread forced labour and sexual. The Commission has been particularly active on the issue of human trafficking this year, which is in fact the third largest source of income for organised crime. We recommend the immediate ratification and implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, and the setting up of designated help-lines for victims of trafficking and for men who believe that a prostitute is working against her will.

2. Rape as a Weapon of War

The co-ordinated victimisation of women through sexual violence is a relatively recent element to conflicts, such as in Burma and Darfur. In these cases rape has a more calculated purpose than mere sexual gratification; it perpetuates Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and in ethnically divided regions it is even used to dilute the ethnicity of persecuted populations. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Geneva Conventions specify rape as a war crime. It’s time to stop these crimes being committed with the impunity that they are, by rigorously enforcing UNSC 1325 which calls for states to prosecute its perpetrators.

Hague calls for Mugabe, and those who welcome him, to be shamed in Lisbon

William Hague comments on Mugabe's attendance at this weekend's EU summit in Lisbon:

“It is a shameful episode for Europe that President Mugabe is to be feted in Lisbon.

“Whilst I support the Prime Minister’s decision not to attend, now that Mugabe is there, it is important that Baroness Amos, the Minister representing Britain, lays his crimes bare before all those attending.

“The British people will want to know that these points have been made and that every leader attending the Summit from Europe and Africa has had to take heed. Mugabe should not go home without being made to feel deeply uncomfortable and those who welcome him should not go home without feeling ashamed."

Hague won loud applause at party conference in Blackpool when he not only called for tougher sanctions on Zimbabwe but for Mugabe to be stripped of his honorary knighthood.

This morning's Times leader also concluded that the summit should now be used for pointing Mugabe's cruelty out to him, and despaired that not only have African leaders criticised Brown's rightful boycotting of the summit but some European leaders have questioned the need for it. If there is any doubt as to the extent that Mugabe's presence brings the summit into disrepute, read these stats sent out by CCHQ:

• Zimbabwe’s economy has contracted by 40% in the last decade and it is the only country in Africa which will experience negative growth in 2007
• Four out of five of the country's twelve million people live below the poverty line, a quarter have fled, and unemployment is at 80%
• Four million people will be dependent on food aid by Christmas due to famine
• The water and sanitation systems in Zimbabwe’s main cities have collapsed, and thousands are at risk of life-threatening waterborne disease
• In violent attacks on the opposition between March and April 2007, the regime arrested or abducted 600, hospitalised 300, and killed three.

Gillian Gibbons is free but two-and-a-half million Darfuris remain refugees from the Khartoum regime

Gillian Gibbons - the 'Teddy Teacher' - has been released and thank God for that.  Credit to Sayeeda Warsi for her part in helping to negotiate her release.

I only wish that as much attention had been paid to the injustice of Ms Gibbons' situiation as should be paid to the much greater outrages taking place in Sudan.

After Rwanda the world said "never again" but at least 200,000 people - possibly as many as 400,000 - have died in the Darfur region of this country.  But the peacekeeping force promised by the world to protect the refugees from the conflict has only reached a quarter to a third of the promised strength.  None of the 24 helicopters needed as "force-multipliers" have been provided.

Baroness Cox told Radio 4 last week that people are being forced to convert to Islam in return for desperately needed aid.

The Khartoum regime - propped up by China - is odious.  Sudan's President (pictured) deserves no thanks for his pardon.

If you want to make a small contribution to Darfur please visit Aegis' Fund for Darfur.

Sayeeda Warsi on mission to Sudan to free Gillian Gibbons

New Tory peer, Baroness Warsi is accompanying Labour peer Lord Ahmed on a mercy mission to Khartoum to attempt to secure the release of Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who has been jailed as punishment for her naming of a teddy bear as Mohammed.

The BBC reports that the two Muslim peers are travelling on their own initiative.  That's important.  They may need to offer soothing words to the Khartoum regime in order to secure Ms Gibbon's release.  Those soothing words should come from them - not from the British Government.

Other thought-leaders should have been more careful with their words.  The unholy alliance of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, in separate interventions, called the response of the Sudanese government  "disproportionate".  No. No. No.  I couldn't agree more with what Danny Finkelstein wrote on Comment is Central yesterday:

"And the verdict was not disproportionate.  The arrest and imprisonment of this teacher was a political act, not a cultural or religious one. Its aim is not cultural preservation but terrorising the population. It is the classic move of a totalitarian state supported by a mob.  Why wasn't it disproportionate? This word implies that some sort of censure was required but that imprisonment was too much. The punishment wasn't out of proportion. It was unwarranted, outrageous, insupportable.  The use of the phrase "disproportionate" is offensive."

Sudan is a state that has become a master of obstructionism.  It has played the United Nations at every turn.  It has used every trick in the book to delay the deployment of an international force to protect the people of Darfur.  And as Baroness Cox told yesterday's World at One it is using aid from Saudi Arabia to force people to convert to Islam in the nation's south.  If the sad Gibbons incident forces people to wise up about the Sudanese regime it won't be all bad.

Cameron reflects on thirty minute meeting with President Bush

Flanked by two Stars & Stripes flags (no Union Flag!) David Cameron and William Hague have just completed a press conference at Washington's Hay Adams Hotel (which serves the very best corned beef hash I've ever tasted).

Here are the highlights:

• David Cameron held a "very positive" thirty minute meeting with the President.
• They discussed Iran, Afghanistan, the importance of a free trade deal and the need to include India and China in action against climate change.  [I wonder if this emphasis on China, India and other developing countries may be strategically important as international conservatives consider next steps on the environment.]
• Later today, David Cameron will be meeting the Treasury Secretary, the Head of the World Bank and Secretary of State Rice.  That's about as high profile a visit as you can get.
• I asked David Cameron if he agreed that the surge in Iraq was delivering results.  He agreed that it had created space for political improvement but the "political surge" was yet to happen.  William Hague added that there had been a significant improvement in the security situation but this was partly due to the decision of tribal leaders to turn against al-Qaeda and its sickening violence.
• In reply to a question from John O'Sullivan, Mr Cameron said that America was Britain's single most important relationship.

Cameron reaffirms special relationship

I'll report a lot more later on David Cameron's Washington visit.  The day began (photo above) with David Cameron paying respects to the American soldiers who have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He's just spoken at the Brookings Institute about the Balkans.  A very authoritative speech and cleverly chosen.  Mr Cameron raised a neglected issue of looming seriousness but avoided the minefields of Middle East policy.

William Hague is accompanying the Conservative leader.  Andy Coulson is also here in a sign of the media importance of this trip.  The Tory delegation enjoyed dinner with Mike Bloomberg in New York last night and also saw Chuck Hagel, the most anti-war Republican Senator.  Meetings are also scheduled with Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley (National Security Adviser) and, I'm 99% sure, George W Bush himself.  Mr Cameron won't be meeting any Democrats but his choice of Brookings, a left-leaning organisation with little influence on this administration, to host his speech was interesting.  If Mr Cameron had chosen the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute, for example, he would have been guaranteed a bigger audience with better connections to Team Bush.  But if that was one 'Im-a-different-kind-of-Conservative' message, the overall flavour has been decidely pro-American.  These are the opening paragraphs of Mr Cameron's Brookings speech:

"This is my first visit to Washington as Britain's Leader of the Opposition.

I wanted to mark it this morning by paying my respects at Arlington National Cemetery, where so many of your country's heroes are buried.  Men and women who have served not just the United States, but the cause of freedom the world over.  In Europe, we will never forget the sacrifices Americans have made for our liberty.

I and my colleagues represent a new generation of leadership in the Conservative Party.   But the Party I lead today in Opposition, and which I hope to lead in Government, is proudly Atlanticist, proud of the ties of history and family that bind our two nations.  Britain and America have stood alongside each other in so many of the battles for liberty over the last century.  In two World Wars. My own grandfather landed with the liberation forces on the Normandy beaches and fought alongside our American allies before he was wounded and evacuated to Britain.

We stood together in the battle against Soviet expansionism.  And today we must stand together against global terrorism fuelled by a perversion of the Islamic faith.  I've seen our soldiers serving together in the deserts of Afghanistan and the dust of Iraq, and I pay tribute to their professionalism, their courage, and their comradeship.

The relationship between our two countries is indeed special.   And it will remain special for any British Government I lead - grounded in the long history we share together, and the ability to talk freely to each other as only old friends can.  My view is clear: the cause of peace and progress is best served by an America that is engaged in the world. And the values we hold dear are best defended when Britain and the United States, and the United States and Europe, stand together."

DC in DC

I'm currently in Washington DC (have been for two weeks) and will be attending all three public events of David Cameron's visit here, including his speech to Brookings on the precarious situation in the Balkans - a subject close to the heart of the Tory leader's Chief of Staff, Ed Llewellyn, who was adviser to Paddy Ashdown when the latter was High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

At the afternoon press conference I will, as promised, attempt to ask a question on the special relationship from a ConservativeHome reader.  Please use the thread below to suggest one.

The Conservative leader's visit will begin with a visit to Section 60 of Arlington cemetery to pay respects to the American soldiers who have died in the Iraq and Afganistan wars.  A moving choice.

I'll blog as much of the visit as I can, as soon as I can.

David Cameron to challenge Saudi leader on funding of extremist literature

This morning's Times reports that the Conservative leader will confront King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia later today about Saudi Arabia's financial support for extremist literature that is available in British mosques:

"The Conservative leader will ask the Saudi King to curb the export of fundamentalist religious ideology in books and pamphlets that advocate the suppression of women’s rights, hatred for non-Muslims and the execution of lapsed Muslims."

Mr Cameron will be drawing on yesterday's report from the Policy Exchange think tank which found that a quarter of UK mosques contained literature, much of it Saudi-funded, that was hateful to gays, Christians and Jews.

Mr Cameron is also expected to point to evidence compiled by Dame Pauline Neville-Jones' security report that Saudi Arabia's religious establishment is still exporting extremist propaganda across the globe.

There is something deeply objectionable about the way that the British state has given Saudi Arabia the red carpet treatment.  Yes, we should certainly talk to this important nation but do we really have to deck The Mall with its provocative flag and have the whole British establishment honour the leaders of this repressive, terrorist-exporting nation?  Dan Hannan writes this on his blog:

"Saudi Arabia is one of many dictatorships around the world, neither the mildest nor the harshest. We should deal with it in a brisk and businesslike manner, as we do the many other regimes which fall somewhere between the categories of “distasteful” and “rotten”... When a free democracy lowers its standards in order to accommodate a sleazy autocracy, the former is diminished and the latter magnified."

***
The video below from last night's Channel 4 News captures the hilarious moment when King Abdullah is greeted by the Queen.  And the music that is playing?  The music from Star Wars that accompanies Darth Vader's arrival.  I'd love to think that that was planned.

Related link: In past years the British state rolled out the red carpet for Ceausescu and Mobutu; it's King Abdullah's turn today.

Cameron distances himself from liberal interventionism

David Cameron has just addressed a conference of the CDU/CSU in Berlin.  He has used the speech to distance himself from the liberal interventionism of Bush and Blair.   The speech should not come as a surprise.  David Cameron has not visited Washington since becoming Tory leader and has ridiculed the idea that “you can drop democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000ft.”

There are good sections in the speech.  There is a reasonably strong statement on Afghanistan.  David Cameron announces a new security dialogue between Dame Pauline Neville-Jones and the German interior ministry.  He emphasises border protection and greater integration between domestic and foreign security policy-making.

But the speech is confusing overall.  First of all is Mr Cameron's promise to put national security first.  This, he says, is a change from Tony Blair: "To help protect international security, any state must put its own national security first."  This, surely, is a false choice.  Every sensible state will always do what is necessary to protect national security (clamp down on extremist groups, police the borders, invest in the intelligence services etc) but why does that have to be in tension with international security efforts?  Distancing the Conservative Party from Blair and Bush may be good politics but what does this 'putting national security first' really mean?

Those who are willing to believe that Cameron is not shrinking away from external threats can take some comfort from his commitment to "apply sanctions which really target Iranian financial institutions and trade."  There's not much else to go on, however.  The speech is most notable for what it doesn't say.  There's no commitment to increase investment in our armed forces.  There's no words about Saudi Arabia's export of subversive propaganda.  Nothing on missile defence.  There's no commitment to reform of the United Nations.  Instead we get a commitment to increase the size of the Security Council which only risks making the UN more unwieldy and less likely to intervene in places like Rwanda and Darfur.

Cameron says that he is against "liberal interventionism":

"We should replace the doctrine of liberal interventionism, famously propounded by former Prime Minister Tony Blair in a speech in Chicago in 1999, with the doctrine of liberal conservatism – conservatism not in its narrow party political meaning, but in the sense of a sceptical attitude towards the ability of states to create utopias."

All of us are wiser about nation-building after recent years but my overall view is that interventionism is often necessary, although sacrificial.  Many, many more people have died when we have not intervened (Rwanda, Darfur, Srebrenica) than when we have (Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan).  I am not in favour of the kind of badly-prepared interventions that characterised the Bush and Blair years but more responsible leaders - McCain, for example, said from pretty much day one that many more troops were needed in Iraq - would have avoided the situation that Petraeus is now beginning to redeem.

The loss of life and chaos in post-Saddam Iraq has rightly horrified the world although the situation may finally be turning around.  I emphasise "may".   What we cannot afford, however, is for the world to be blind to the situations in Pakistan, Iran, Syria and other nations.  There's plenty in Mr Cameron's speech that points in the direction of a more isolationist Britain but the text is confused enough for liberal interventionists like myself to still have some hope.

The threat of nuclear terrorism isn't going away

Liam Fox spoke about the threat of nuclear terrorism at Kings College today. He didn't use apocalyptic language but the facts he quoted show how frighteningly possible nuclear terrorism is:

• In 1997 Technical Area 18, a highly secure area of Los Alamos National laboratory in New Mexico, was successfully breached by US special forces in a special security exercise.  They were able to steal enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb.
• Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the German government reported more than 700 cases of attempted nuclear sales, including 60 instances that involved seizure of nuclear materials.  And that was only in the first three years.
• Following the collapse of the Taliban after the invasion of Afghanistan, American forces uncovered details of an Al Qaeda nuclear planning cell.  Osama bin Laden has called for the killing of 4 million Americans.
• The National Nuclear Security Administration in America has identified 220 buildings at 52 sites in Russia that are in dire need of treatment. In June 2001 two people in Russia's Murmansk region plundered a Soviet era nuclear powered lighthouse, one of 132 such lighthouses that lie unguarded and uninspected along Russia's northern coast.
• You could achieve a Hiroshima level explosion with about 100lbs of uranium 235 or between nine and 33 pounds of plutonium... of the 7 million cargo containers that will arrive at US ports this year, fewer than 5% will be open for inspection.

Nuclear terrorism is so much more problematic than rogue nuclear states because "attackers have no return address and thus, traditional deterrence will not apply". Fox also said that for deterrence to work the enemy have to want to be deterred, but judging from what he saw in Tehran recently some people there positively welcomed the end of the world:

"These people hate us not because of what we do but who we are.  They hate our values, our freedom, our entire way of life.  They will never give in and, therefore, neither must we."

In the questions afterwards he said that some of his parliamentary colleagues had warned him against painting such a grim picture, but that he thought he should tell it like it is because it isn't said enough. He also criticised the press for being too interested in trivial matters like Big Brother to give such threats the coverage they need:

"A nuclear attack as an act of terrorist aggression would make 9/11 look like the most innocent of dress rehearsals.  The danger is clear and present and potentially cataclysmic.  We have been warned.  It is time to wake up."

Sadly I don't think this will sink in for most people until it happens. Download the full speech here.

Deputy Editor

Human rights at the heart of our foreign policy

It was standing room only in the Winter Gardens' Theatre Bar at lunchtime today, as hundreds of delegates missed Osborne's speech and umpteen other fringe meetings to attend the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission event chaired by Stephen Crabb.

Simon Coveney, a senior spokesman for Fine Gael and a former author of the European Parliament's annual human rights reports, offered an inspiring vision of how the Conservative Party and Britain could take a lead in using its power to protect people around the world. He said the Party should use its influence to try to change bureaucratic international institutions so that they are more responsive to crises like Darfur, "the biggest scandal of our time". He also passionately challenged Conservatives to see how it is in our interest to invest in developing countries because it reduces the supply of immigrants in the long-term, but more importantly because it is the right thing to do.

William Hague has twice said in speeches that human rights should be "at the heart of our foreign policy" and there was no backtracking today when he spoke of the "deeply held belief of the primacy of human rights". He attacked the government's prevarification on Darfur and the UN Security Council's failure to take action. The audience clapped loudest when he expressed admiration for the bravery of the monks in Burma, and spoke gravely of the "full-scale humanitarian disaster" in Zimbabwe.

Activist Ben Rogers, well-known to readers of this site, vividly described the brutality of the Burmese regime. One of the recent incidents he recounted was of the junta roasting a number of prisoners over a fire, stabbing them in the sides, and then rubbing salt into their bodies. They died in agony. He went on to criticise the Foreign Office's "can't do" culture, shown earlier this year when the Pakistan desk meekly shrugged off the "convert or die" threat to 500 Christians in North Western Pakistan as "an internal matter" that they wouldn't raise with the government. He also rightly expressed concern that Mark Malloch-Brown's huge array of responsibilities mean he is far from an effective human rights spokesman for the government.

Brown hides behind the UN as Burma's protestors join the list of the peoples failed by the "international community"

At least nine people have been killed during the latest Burma protests but the United Nations has failed to act.  In an emergency meeting last night China and Russia defied calls from democracies, led by France, to punish the Rangoon regime through a variety of economic measures.  Russia's Ambassador to the United Nations - explaining his nation's reluctance to act said that Burma needed a "return to security".

Conservative foreign affairs spokesman David Lidington MP has told ConservativeHome that the credibility of the whole UN is at stake:

"I want to see the UN work but it needs to show that it can defend the principles set out in its founding charter.  When it fails to take action against such brutal behaviour then its whole credibility is at stake."

This is not the first time the UN has failed to act, of course.  Think of Srebrenica, Kosovo, Rwanda, Darfur.  Saddam Hussein would still be in power if the UN Security Council had had its way.  Many more people have died because of the failure of the fabled "international community" to intervene than from intervention.

Whenever I think of the UN I'm reminded of that Yes Prime Minister sketch when Sir Humphrey explains standard Foreign Office tactics when faced with calls for intervention.  It went something like this...

• In stage one say that it is not clear that anything especially serious is happening.
• In stage two say that something serious might be happening but we need more information before taking a decision.
• In stage three say that something serious does appear to be happening but it is not clear that intervention would be effective.
• In stage four say that there was something we could have done but it's too late now.

In the world where multilateral institutions like the UN and EU are hero-worshipped we don't even need those Foreign Office lines.  Politicians like Gordon Brown can go straight to the 'action must be taken and the UN must take it' line.  They appear decisive but they can talk in the full knowledge that the UN won't act.  It is an institution of convenience for politicians wanting to talk tough but unwilling to walk tough.

John McCain has put forward sensible ideas for a new alliance of democracies to emerge so that nations like Russia and China cannot exercise unreasonable vetoes.  Even the serious possibility of such an alliance emerging might create the pressure necessary for the UN to fulfil its constant promises of internal reform.  It would be great if the Conservative Party matched Euroscepticism with UNscepticism.  Both organisations have similar flaws hardwired into their make-up.