Oborne recommends that Tories distance themselves from Bush

David Cameron is receiving conflicting advice on relations with America.  The anti-war Peter Oborne thinks that drawing closer to Bush's America is a big error on Cameron's part.  He writes this in The Spectator:

"David Cameron has ruthlessly dumped Tory baggage on almost every pressing issue: tax, the economy, the environment, health, education, welfare, the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. There is, however, one exception. On foreign policy he has moved surprisingly sharply to the Right. In Europe he has broken with the centrist EPP and placed Conservatives uncomfortably alongside a miscellaneous collection on the semi-fascist fringe. More notable still, David Cameron’s Tory party is moving fast to improve links with the White House and the Republican party."

If Mr Oborne is worried that Mr Cameron is too neoconservative, other observers are concerned that the Tory leader may be ditching his hawkish credentials.  A previous enthusiast for Mr Cameron's neoconservatism - Brendan Simms - has turned distinctly cooler.  In a blog (for the Social Affairs Unit) Mr Simms worries about the appointment of "Pauline Neville Chamberlain" to chair the security policy group (a worry shared by this blog).  Simms writes:

"Dame Pauline is closely connected with the failed "realist" policies of Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind in the Major government. As Political Director of the Foreign Office, and a classic realist, she was strongly opposed to intervention against Serb aggression in Bosnia. After the war, Dame Pauline represented Natwest Markets in the negotiations with the Yugoslav leader Milosevic over the privatisation of Serbian utilities. The ethical implications of this move, much discussed at the time and since, are neither here nor there; what is worrying is the flawed judgment that Milosevic was a reliable partner to do business with. Scarcely eighteen months later, we went to war with him over the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo."

In terms of rebuilding links with America Mr Simms recommends that Mr Cameron invests in the mainstream voices of American politics:

"Mr Cameron should seek alliances with the vast middle ground in American politics which supports the principles underlying the removal of Saddam Hussein, but is in no doubt about the shortcomings of the administration which effected it. A major speech at, say, the National Endowment for Democracy, where many have received Cameron's Foreign Policy Centre speech with enthusiasm, would send an unambiguous signal. It would enable him to set out his stall not only on the other side of the Atlantic, but on both sides of the partisan divide as well. Men such as John McCain, who will certainly be a candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008, and the senior Democrats Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman are Mr Cameron's natural allies."

Mr Oborne seems a bit behind the times.  The anti-Americanism that once kept the likes of Schroeder in power looks distinctly out-of-date.  The Daily Mail and other Michael Moore Conservatives once hoped that the defeat of José María Aznar in Spain would be the first domino to fall in the 'Iraq coalition of the willing'.  It didn't happen.  John Howard was re-elected.  Then Bush himself.  Then Blair.  Then Koizumi.  The White House has taken great pleasure in this week's defeat of Paul Martin (who ran a virulently anti-American campaign) and the arrival of Angela Merkel.  Washington's Republicans hope that the days of opportunistic politicians exploiting the difficulties in Iraq are nearly over.  Mr Cameron should ignore Mr Oborne's latest piece of advice but Mr Simms' suggestion of building bridges to a broad cross-section of US political leaders is wise counsel.

Comments

[Mark Fulford]

No harm in being a friend to Bush, provided you don't adopt his hawkish ways!

[Richard]

What I would like to see is the Conservatives coming up with a distinctive BRITISH foreign policy, a policy that is our interests. Some people may have short memories, I don't and our relationship with America has not always been an easy one, in the past America has treated this country very shabbily. That said I am a supporter of America.

We need a foreign policy of our own, not one that is linked to Europe or America. Having our own policy means that we can set our own agenda, an agenda that may see us taking military action in Zimbabwe and it may see us saying no to supporting a future American invasion.

I really do hope that Cameron and co put some serious thought into what is Britain's role in the world. Is it to be a bridge between America and Europe? Is it to be America's lap dog? Is it something else?

Britain with it’s unique history has a huge role to play in the world.

[wasp]

What on earth would Cameron want to align himself with Bush for that would be idiotic.

The current administration will be out of power before the next general election and by this time next year will have been overtaken by the bidding for 2008 nominations.

The Bush administration is widely hated in this country and embattled at home. There's nothing for Cameron there.

[malcolm]

I would agree with that Richard.It is in Britains interest to be on good terms with the US at all times even 'though as you say it has not always been easy.
Cameron should not make the mistake John Major did by too obviously favouring one presidential candidate.I often wondered after the odious Clinton was elected and relations with the Major government were frosty whether Clinton exacted his revenge for the help Major had tried to give Bush Snr by giving so much support and succour to the IRA.
I think most of us would probably agree that GW Bush is inept and has been a disappointing president both for the USA and for the world.But it is beholden upon Cameron to establish good relations with him in Britains interest as it is also beholden upon him to establish good relations with the leading Democrats in case they win the next election.

[Andy Peterkin]

It's right that we should be espousing a British foreign policy geared first and foremost around Britain's national interest.

Often, our national interest coincides with that of the United States, but sometimes it doesn't. We must be alert to this distinction.

[Richard Bailey]

"More notable still, David Cameron’s Tory party is moving fast to improve links with the White House and the Republican party."

No actual mention of Bush here. If DC is mending fences with the Republicans, that would be entirely sensible since Bush will be gone in 2008 and clever money is on the Republicans winning again.

Anyway, its not as if Bush will go to war again between now and 2008!!

[Andy Peterkin]

I'd not put too much store by the Democrats. They are in deep trouble. Sensible people like Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman have been throughly sidelined by the hard left in the form of such creatures as Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Jack Murtha, Harry and Howard Dean.

And if they select Hillary Clinton in 2008.... well, current polls suggest that 45% of voters (and 60% of male voters) would vote against her on principle.

[Account Deleted]

Personally I voted Blair (I can't bring myself to think of myself as endorsing Labour) at the last election, because I felt Tony Blair's stand on Iraq meant he had some kind of moral compass, something that an increasingly incoherent and opportunistic Tory party lacked. I felt uncomfortable doing it, but the alternative was (as I saw it) a minority Lib Dem/Gordon Brown gov. (as we were never going to win in any case.)

I suppose it comes down to what kind of Conservative you are to whether or not you support Bush.

If you are someone who is basically one of those rich liberal types who is only Tory as Mummy and Daddy own a lot of land (Zac Goldsmith springs to mind), I can see why you'd hate Bush and the Iraq war.

If you are someone who believes that Britain shouldn't care about what goes on in other countries and mass mudering fascists being just 'how it's done over there' (Simon Heffer and the Mail spring to mind), I can see why you'd hate Bush and the Iraq war.

If you believe that Conservatives should believe in the principle of democracy, that it does matter what goes on in the rest of the world, and sometimes that doing the right thing means offending people's ideological viewpoint of the world, (i.e. UN fanatics, pacifists and the 'those Arabs don't want western democracy forced on them' relativists (obviously the half million killed by Saddam directly, one and a half million killed by his illegal wars, and one million killed by sanctions don't get a say)) then I fail to see how you can't support Bush and the US in terms of current foreign policy in the middle east.
(I say current before the old diversion of "but the US armed Saddam etc" begins - well yes, but that is the kind of realpolitik view that current opponents of Bush support, and it has caused much of the current world's problems in the first place.)

As for Bush's domestic politics, I am not a huge fan, but, in a democracy, that is for his own people to judge, and Cameron should take that line as well.
He should of course reach out to those, like Joe Lieberman who share his (I hope) views on foreign policy across both parties, but making disparagaing noises about Bush would be cheap populism at its worst. (Am I the only one who cringed at his 'sucking up to the rich and dropping bombs' comments?)

[Victoria Street]

1AM. Taking your last comment... I agree wholeheartedly; that 'joke' was not worthy of the sixth form common room and was Cameron's first failure on the floor of the House in my opinion. His line about "the first thing you did as PM was to abolish grant maintained schools and the last you will do is to bring them back" was much more effective. Funny, political and to the point, as opposed to unfunny, childish and politically unsound.

[EU Serf]

In Europe he has broken with the centrist EPP and placed Conservatives uncomfortably alongside a miscellaneous collection on the semi-fascist fringe.

Why does he repeated Labour's lying propaganda?

The EEP is centrist, in that they are Eurocentrist, stark raving mad Europhiles, totally at odds with normal Conservative, and UK feelings on the matter.

As for sitting with facists, that is not and never has been the plan.

[Tory T]

I agree with both 1AM and Victoria Street about that PMQ joke - it was both ideologically dodgy and contrary to Cameron's proclamations about an end Punch and Judy politics.

But 1AM is being deeply unfair to Zac Goldsmith when he says "If you are someone who is basically one of those rich liberal types who is only Tory as Mummy and Daddy own a lot of land (Zac Goldsmith springs to mind), I can see why you'd hate Bush and the Iraq war."

Zac is clearly a Tory. Anyone who heard his answer to the question about Radio 4's abolition of its patriotic theme tune on Question Time last night couldn't doubt that. It was unspun and from the heart. Certainly not the answer of a 'rich liberal'.

[Mike Christie]

I have to disagree, the 'came into politics' jibe was excellent. I imagine the intent was to drive the wedge between Blair and the Labour party a little deeper. I roared laughing at it, but I imagine the likes of Glenda Jackson and Claire Short were furious, not least because it was true. Blair is a cuckoo in their midst. It was a throwaway line, not a statement of policy.

In a fortnight no-one will remember it outside the narrow band of people like us who are genuinely interested in politics. However, it will have stoked the flames of Blair resentment a little higher in the old socialists.

Lets not get too hung up on PMQ, Hague was quite good at it, and it didn't do him much good.

[john Skinner]

I assume you hadn't seen the The Times when you wrote this thread, Tim. On page 44 John McCain is fulsome in his assessment of Cameron. I'd like to hear what you think of that.
Incidentally the interview was done by Tom Baldwin and Tim Reid. I can only imagine that Reid insisted that the "Cameron is good" stuff stayed in. New Labour stooge Baldwin must have been gnashing his teeth.

[Andy Peterkin]

"Zac is clearly a Tory. Anyone who heard his answer to the question about Radio 4's abolition of its patriotic theme tune on Question Time last night couldn't doubt that. It was unspun and from the heart."

In which case, Austin Mitchell must also be a Tory:

"EDM 1479

Mitchell, Austin

That this House recognises the pleasure given to early rising listeners to BBC Radio Four by the subtle and evocative medley of British folk tunes in Fritz Spiegl's UK Theme which starts daily broadcasting and has become embedded over the years in the affections of listeners; and urges the BBC to reconsider its decision to drop this popular medley and to continue to use the UK Theme in the proud place is has occupied with such success and charm for so many years."

Support for the UK Theme is clearly not a reliable benchmark. Goldsmith deserves a chance, but someone handed me some back issues of The Ecologist last week, and I was simply aghast. Watermelon environmentalism at its very worst.

[Less effusive]

On page 44 John McCain is fulsome in his assessment of Cameron.

And says he's Prime Minister. It's like Reagan: the Alzheimer's Years!

[malcolm]

'I voted Blair......he had some kind of moral compass'.Really? Can't say I've ever seen it myself.A more morally bankrupt politician would be hard to find (OK I'll give you Mandelson,Hoon,Byers).

[James Maskell]

How many people actually get up at 5.30am to listen to the UK Theme? I never really knew it was that important to people...

[Julian Morrison]

I'd say Bush is right about "the war on terror" (codeword for: war on murderous Wahabbi nutcases). He's wrong about a lot of other things, he's asking for unnecessary abridgements of human rights and unnecessary war powers, when he should just go through channels, and his economic record sucks. But the one thing he's least popular for, he's actually right about.

IMO history and politics are kinder to parties and leaders who are right, than those who are populist. It would be better to support Bush and his war (and OUR war, after the July bombings) than to snub him merely because of the opinions of the public. Note that the public certainly don't seem to punish TB for sticking to the war, they aren't flocking to Respect or the Lib Dems.

[True Blue]

'I voted Blair......he had some kind of moral compass'.Really? Can't say I've ever seen it myself.A more morally bankrupt politician would be hard to find (OK I'll give you Mandelson,Hoon,Byers).

What a short memory...
Aitken, Hamilton and Archer?

[Selsdon Man]

That is IMO the best article by Oborne in the Speccie. But why has he turned against David Cameron so soon after call him a "joy to behold"? Has he been snubbed (or even "snobbed"?) by the Cameron team? Very strange!

[Account Deleted]

Regarding Blair's moral compass, it more refers to what he does, or wants to do in Iraq (and to some extent public sector reform, though each day reveals his waning authority in this area), than the spin and lies which he practices (although of course it is hard to know what exactly he IS doing sometimes given the discrepency between his rhetoric and action.) Still, I preferred it to Howard's 'liar, liar, pants on fire' approach to Iraq and opportunistic freewheeling.

About Cameron and PMQ's, well, it is true no one but the committed watches it, and the Labour backbenches are increasingly quiet in defence of their man, and it was 'clever'. But as has been pointed out, the comment about schools was 'clever' without being cringworthy. People do get an impression sometimes from the evening news from PMQ's on what a leader is like, and you have to be careful - Cameron may end up coming across as someone who is all over the place rather than the sensible centre/centre-right if he makes too many glib comments. Much preferred his schools jibe against Blair, not only was it good, and completely true, but I could 100% agree with the ideological point behind it.

I should really leave Goldsmith alone as there is a separate thread, but I can't ever endorse someone who makes comments such as those below in an interview to (surprise) The Guardian.

"Globalisation has changed the way we live massively and not in good ways," says Goldsmith. Since the World Bank was established in 1944, he says, there has been a 12-fold increase in global trade and a five-fold increase in economic growth. "Life expectancy is falling. Three billion people live on less than two dollars a day. Agricultural land is shrinking. Globalisation is responsible for all these things."

From
http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,7369,1656818,00.html

With comments like these I don't give a damn on his views on the axing of the bbc world service theme tune. He is not a true conservative, no matter which public school he attended and how many nice organic shops in West London he bumps into David Cameron in.

(I endorse Cameron's support for the environment as a higher priority, but there are different ways to help the environment, and I have a feeling I won't like Zac's at all -as someone put it, watermelon enviornmentalism

[Account Deleted]

Apologies for the spelling above.

[P.J.Titchener]

Peter Oborne is basically a Liberal and is not taken seriously by Conservatives.
The world as we know it today was created by we British through the dominance of our Empire.
The USA has taken over from where we left off. We live in an Anglo-American world of liberal democratic values, the English language, and free market capitalism. Its not perfect but it is benign, and thank God the world isn't run by any other country. We have a duty to support America in order to preserve our Anglo-American hegemony, and prevent malign powers
becoming too strong and threatening.

[Sean Fear]

"That is IMO the best article by Oborne in the Speccie. But why has he turned against David Cameron so soon after call him a "joy to behold"?

Oborne is, to say the least, erratic. He's not a right winger, in any case.

[malcolm]

1AM,you don't think Blair practiced 'spin & lies' in the run up to the Iraq war? How about allowing Campbell to copy from the internet a thesis written by an American student and present it as 'intelligence'.How about the 45 minute claim in the foreward to the other 'dossier'.You seriously don't think these were lies?
Blair, lied about this war as he lied and lied again about a host of subjects.
You might not like what Michael Howard did but he was right.

[malcolm]

The difference True Blue,is that Aitken,Archer (belatedly) and to some extent Hamilton have paid for what they did, the 'axis of liars' I've mentioned still have their snouts in the taxpayers trough.

[wasp]

I like Oborne a rare example of a columnist who is imaginative and forward looking.

He didn't support Cameron though but Ken Clarke for the leadership.

[Selsdon Man]

"He didn't support Cameron though but Ken Clarke for the leadership."

Imaginative and forward looking?

[Mike Christie]

I'd say that a bigger difference was that Archer, Aitken and Hamilton's lies did not lead the country into war and put the lives of members of our armed forces at risk on the basis of falsified evidence and flimsy reasoning

[Account Deleted]

I don't defend how the war was sold. I don't think there were outright lies, but Blair came so close to it that the difference is almost semantic.

I don't defend the appalling lack of post-war planning. Donald Rumsfeld should have gone, gone long ago.

What I do defend is the decision to remove a Fascist dictator who killed over two and a half million of his own people and install some kind of democracy in a region where such democracy is pretty thin on the ground, and there is the hope that in 5, 10, 15 years, more people in the region will be able to see it and think, 'if Iraq can run itself, why do we need these corrupt cronies to tell us what to do'.

And while British troops have died, the army is required to go to war when the Commander in Chief declares it. I can't imagine how terrible it must be to lose someone in the war. But I can't imagine how terrible it would be to lose someone in a car crash. Doesn't mean I think cars should be banned. Doesn't mean I think the war was wrong. Loss of life happens all the time because of the decisions we, as a society, make. Tragic but true. You may not like it, but that is how it is.

[Mike Christie]

1AM, taken in isolation I too would support the removal of Saddam. However, once it becomes clear to the rest of the world that almost all of the reasons the US and UK used to justify their actions were demonstrably false it doesn't do our long-term aims of a more stable and western-friendly Middle East any good at all.

Falsifying intelligence, misrepresenting information and all the other tricks used by Blair and Bush to justify the war must NEVER be condoned, even if their intentions weren't entirely misguided.

It frustrates me that so many people seem to be unable to seperate the fact that going to war to remove Saddam was a good thing, from the fact that Blair misled Parliament and took the country to war on information that seems to be utterly incorrect an act of either treasonable dishonesty or absolute unforgiveable incompetence.

[Mike Christie]

"What I do defend is the decision to remove a Fascist dictator who killed over two and a half million of his own people and install some kind of democracy in a region where such democracy is pretty thin on the ground, and there is the hope that in 5, 10, 15 years, more people in the region will be able to see it and think, 'if Iraq can run itself, why do we need these corrupt cronies to tell us what to do'."

If Blair had come to Parliament and said he was taking the decision to go to war on this basis, I would have cheered him to the rafters.

He didn't, he came with dodgy dossiers, tales of horrible weapons and rumours of nuclear programmes. Parliament was misled, the country was mislead and support for the war was gained under a false pretext.

[Selsdon Man]

"Donald Rumsfeld should have gone, gone long ago. What I do defend is the decision to remove a Fascist dictator who killed over two and a half million of his own people and install some kind of democracy in a region where such democracy is pretty thin on the ground".

Donald Rumsfeld sold arms to Saddam when he was murdering his people.

[Account Deleted]

Selsdon Man - note my earlier condemnation of realpolitik. Donald is not a real NeoConservative. He is just for the spread of US power, full stop. No wonder he made such a mess of things.

Mike - I agree that the deliberate spinning of documents and all the other half truths that Blair (and Bush) employed have weakened our position, and made it harder for democracy to spread than if they had been honest and upfront. That isn't to say that we know Saddam definitely didn't have weapons before the Second Gulf War, but it is true we thought he probably didn't.

But I still supported the decision to go to war. Of course Blair was full of spin. He always is. But does this make the war wrong? When you say

"I'd say that a bigger difference was that Archer, Aitken and Hamilton's lies did not lead the country into war and put the lives of members of our armed forces at risk on the basis of falsified evidence and flimsy reasoning"

you make it sound as if the reason that the lives of the armed forces were at risk was simply falsified evidence and flimsy reasoning. They were at risk because of a war, which was just, was in operation. To my mind. And more often than not the Tories sounded like your first post rather than your second. (Which I do have some sympathy with).

[Mike Christie]

"Of course Blair was full of spin. He always is."

Whilst it is bad enough that the British people now seem to accept blatant dishonesty as 'spin', surely on the question of when to invade a soverign nation, when to send our troops into war, we should expect a little more than either the blatant fabrication or sheer blind stupidity we got from Blair. I find it infuriating that so many people are prepared to dismiss this betrayal with a shrug of the shoulders.

"you make it sound as if the reason that the lives of the armed forces were at risk was simply falsified evidence and flimsy reasoning"

Without the falsified evidence and flimsy reasoning there would have been little justification for going to war. Iraq posed no credible threat to national security. British troops were sent into a unnecessary war. Whilst very few people are sorry to see the fall of Saddam, British troops are not despatched to overthrow every dictator in the world.

Honestly, if Parliament and the public had known just how flimsy all the WMD 'evidence' was, do you really think the war would have got support?

[malcolm]

Well done Mike.You've made these points more eoguently than I ever could.

[malcolm]

What a time to make such a series of typos!I hope you could guess what I meant Mike.I think I'll scuttle of in embarassment for a while!

[James Hellyer]

I thought you were very eoguent ;-)