Rifkind urges end of neoconservatism

Former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind has written for this week's Spectator (not yet online) and urged the Conservative Party to split with Tony Blair on three foreign policy fronts:

1. "There must be a clear recognition that the invasion of Iraq was a serious mistake that has helped the terrorists. It has also made Iran the power in the Gulf. While the government may be in denial, there is no need for the Conservative party to be. That does not mean, however, that British troops should be withdrawn from Iraq. It is essential that they remain there as long as their presence might help the Iraqis."
2. "Conservatives should not accept Blair’s simplistic belief that all Muslim terrorism is part of a single plot. Conservatives are rightly suspicious of a Manichaean division of the world into good and bad; terrorist and freedom-loving. The war in Chechnya, for example, is between Chechen nationalists and Russian nationalists, not between terror and freedom. The same applies to Kashmir. The Israeli–Palestinian issue is also much more than a battle against Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism."
3. "Conservatives should reject a philosophy of pre-emptive wars (or, as Blair prefers to call it, liberal interventionism) fought by ‘coalitions of the willing’."

If Sir Malcolm is focused on the general a muscular leader in The Spectator focuses upon the current situation in the Middle East:

"Any settlement of this conflict that allows Hezbollah plausibly to proclaim that it has successfully ‘resisted’ Israeli ‘aggression’ will be no sort of settlement at all. Israel is the victim of aggression here and, whatever some elements in the Tory party may say, her response has not been ‘disproportionate’. To allow Hezbollah to claim any sort of victory would hearten Islamists everywhere and send another signal that the West lacked the resolve to deal with terrorism. Iran would conclude that the international community did not have the staying power required to prevent Tehran fulfilling its nuclear ambitions."

Comments

[malcolm]

Absolutely spot on Sir Malcolm.You not only have a great name you're being wasted on the backbenches.

[leon]

I wonder with real interest what Harrys Place and the other pro war lefties will make of this...? Good to see someone has been reading Pickled Politics in the Tory party!;)

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/691

[A]

Good, solid and rational thought from a man that demonstrates considerable knowledge. A model Foreign Secretary that understands Britains role and necessary principles in a global conflict being fought by extremisim on either side. Hague is a good man, but surely better suited to a different post...Sir Malcolm Rifkind is the sought of man with both the political clout and expert understanding to steer our foreign policy into a more productive and realistic direction.

[James Maskell]

Good stuff from him. Of course this being foreign policy, you expect it from him. It also sets an interesting wider lesson about being your own man (or party) instead of fearing what might happen if you differ from the Blair line. Cameron heed the advice. Its alright to disagree.

[leon]

With the article in todays Comment is Free about Hague making a good Deputy Leader and now this I'm wondering if we're going to see a slight shuffle in the near future...

[Andrew Woodman]

I wonder what Sir Malcolm's future plans are. I saw he was advertising for a foreign affairs researcher a few weeks ago. Perhaps he's still eyeing up Mr Hagues job.

[Goldie]

It's pretty incoherent.

If Iran is the main problem (and I agree) then what exactly does Sir Malcolm propose to do about it if he doesn't believe in pre-emptive war?

Wait until they have the bomb?

This is the biggest issue of our time.
Maybe read this first:
http://tinyurl.com/r8rfg

[James Maskell]

Rifkind in Foreign with Hague in Chancellor? Come on Hague, you know it makes sense! That said where does Osborne go...as a good mate of Camerons I would imagine it would have to be a good job. But Home Affairs is definitely Davis's. Theres no place for Osborne in the big seats in a reshuffle.

[Andrew Woodman]

Cameron always said Education is the one job he always wanted. Stick Osbourne there would be the best idea.

[James Maskell]

The problem with Education is that its not the same as being Shadow Chancellor. Its a lower level and Osborne will think it rude. Cameron does the education announcements anyway...

[John G]

Good for Rifkind. This is what we want to hear.

A recent poll for The Independent has proved that most British Jews are aghast at what is being done in their name.

It's good to know we're all on side.

[Derek]

Should we be isolationists or interventionalists in our approach, and should we intervene pre-emptively to support the US or only after being attacked?

If we ae not pre-emptive then we risk leaving it too late, but we must have good intelligence. In the end all action runs a risk and taking no action is also a risk. The only thing any leader can do is weigh up the intelligence and the options and make a decision.

What is hopeless is relying on the UN.

[Chad]

Well said Sir Malcolm.

Come on then Dave and Gove, let's hear you clearly confirm your agreement that the Iraq war was a serious mistake as Sir Malcolm urges.

[Yet Another Anon]

Iran was already a power in the Gulf, they have been for some years now - they have huge economic growth not just through the massive population growth of the past 20 years but also through sizeable growth per head; really they won the war they had with Iraq in the 1980's, the Iraqi regime made peace at a time in which Iranian forces were counter-attacking and all set to march onto Baghdad and string the Ba'athist leaders up from the lamp posts.

Iran has used it's increased economic strength to build up it's military including financing their own designs of tanks, ships, submarines, missiles and fighter aircraft.

The 2003 Iraq War removed a major enemy to Iran (and most other countries it has to be said) and enabled Shiah Clerics to move more freelybut essentially Iraq is a poor prospect for an Iranian style revolution because of it's large Sunni minority and because the Shiah in Iraq tend to be moderate which really is the only reason that they have had mainly Sunni lead regimes.

I don't recall Tony Blair saying that all Islamic inspired terrorism is part of a similar plot, even the White House haven't quite said this although certainly there has been too little emphasis on the fact that groups such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have very different aims and are as much rivals to each other as they are to other groups and that they are only 2 among many.

I'm actually rather sympathetic towards the cause of Chechen rebels, the fact is that Russia just can't let go of the country, their actions inside the country aren't attempts at routing out terrorist groups, after all the government that Chechnya had that Russia effectively removed was a reasonable government not interested in spreading international revolution\terrorism who Russia should have worked with, Russia's aim remains to complete the process of annexing Chechnya that the Czars started.

So far as pre-emptive wars go, the Ba'athist regime had given a lot of trouble to other countries in the region including attacks on them and attempts to seize territory, they had had at one time a nuclear programme that was military in nature and maintained ambitions along these lines, they had used chemical weapons and had extensive programmes of ethnic cleansing inside Iraq, they were also destroying the economy and permanently wrecking the environment of especially the province of Basrah - Syria it has to be said while not as bad has also a bad record along these lines.

[John G]

Gove is one of the most dangerous influences within today's Conservative Party.

David Cameron needs to marginalise this would-be "Neocon". People like Gove could lose us the next election.

[John G]

The editor has just asked me (on another thread) not to be rude to Gove.

Well I don't think I need mention him again. I've made my feelings clear.

[Michael McGowan]

Sir Malcolm Rifkind means well but we all know the upshot of the policy of masterly inactivity pursued by him and Douglas Hurd in the Balkans: Srebrenica. And that policy went a long way to convincing a lot of Muslims that the West was quite content to see them murdered in large numbers by racists flying the banner of Christianity.

I have absolutely no idea what Sir Malcolm's alternative would be. The precedents are not encouraging. I think that the aftermath of the Iraq War has been very badly handled but that is different from the decision to go to war in the first place. Saddam Hussein had long since become a regional menace and was in no sense a bulwark against Iran.

[Disillusioned]

Michael Gove should be in the shadow cabinet, Malcolm Rifkind should retire to the Lords..

[Tam Large]

Yes, yes, yes !! You are right Sir Malc. Rifkind for Foreign Secretary is top of my shopping list. At last a Conservative with sound and non-Blair views - I thought they had all left us.

[Matt Davis]

For all those who doubt that Islamofacism is the greatest threat facing the world today perhaps you might like to check out:
http://www.prophetmohammed.co.uk/muslimonly.html

Oh and Goldie, don't believe everything that you read in the Independent, in fact don't believe anything you read in the Independent!

[Hmmmm]

it is simply not true to maintain as the spectator does, that Israel is the victim here. They still occupy the Shaaba farms, the wall is a naked land grab, they daily visit humiliation and brutality and racism upon arabs, and they were quite obviously waiting to have a go at Lebanon. Funny how the story has changed from just wanting their soldiers back to an existential struggle....

[Hmmmm]

Plus, ask youself these questions.

1. As a british politician what should be your first concern in the gulf? I would suggest to safety of our armer forces.

2. Has Israeli action made them safer? has it made their job easier? or has it probably intensified the hatred and militancy towards the UK armed forces?

Israel has done no one any favours, and will come the rue the day Olmert made his disastrous decision to go to war. He has unwittingly ushered in two decades of death and destruction on all sides....

[G-MaN]

But Israel isnt apart of "The West", and they are just plain wrong in this situation.

[Richard]

While my sympathise are with Israel I don't see what business it is of ours to intervene in this conflict.

[Drew]

Rifkind has proven why he was not fit to be our leader. There really needs to be nothing more said.

[Phil "Avenge 1832" Jackson]

Perhaps he's still eyeing up Mr Hagues job

Rifkind is one of the Missing Sandwiches from the great picnic of 97. Most of the others have already been carefully unhampered by Dave and placed in the party’s ‘shop window’: Heseltine, Clarke, Gummer and Dorrell. Organic, green and fustian they will each be reporting their policy deliberations in the summer of next year - a decade clear from the party’s worst election shock since 1832 - and every one of them reminding the British viewer of what he had so emphatically rejected all those years ago.

So why shouldn’t Rifkind join them?

It seems appropriate to quote Oliver Kamm (yes, a neo-con – so what?). Despite the gulf between his New Labourism and my odd brand of right-wing Toryism, I think the following pretty accurately sums up Rifkind’s talents:

‘The most abject failure in British foreign policy in my lifetime was the abandonment, under the Conservative Government of John Major, of Bosnia's multi-ethnic democracy to Serb aggression in the early 1990s. The issue - and the state of transatlantic relations - reached a nadir between 1993 and 1995 in the person of Malcolm Rifkind, then Defence Secretary, later Foreign Secretary, now Tory candidate in the safe seat of Chelsea (he lost his Edinburgh seat in 1997, and failed to win it back in 2001), and probable future Tory leader. [may the Lord have mercy on our souls] As related in Brendan Simms' superb book Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia, 2001, p. 96, Rifkind refused to countenance a policy of 'lift and strike' (i.e. lift the arms embargo, so Bosnia could defend itself, and for Nato to strike Serb positions directly) being proposed by critics of UK inactivity. At the end of 1994, when Mrs Thatcher was pressing for a pro-Bosnian stance, Rifkind condemned her "emotional nonsense". He also remarked to despairing American senators that, "You Americans don't know the horrors of war." The particular senator he was addressing was Bob Dole, who was permanently disabled and nearly killed in WWII. Dole replied, with commendable restraint, "Don't talk to me about sacrifice." Simms also records that Senator John McCain, a POW in the Vietnam War, became so heated in meeting Rifkind that he almost hit the man (according to a staff member).’

[tory2]

on hmm's comments on the Lebaonese situaton

it is simply not true to maintain as the spectator does, that Israel is the victim here. They still occupy the Shaaba farms,

which have never been Lebaonese -they were part of Syria before 1967 and Syria has not ceded them to Lebanon

the wall is a naked land grab,

of whose land? the land it's built on was part of Jordan which has renoucned all claims and part of a UK league of nation mandate before that (and we don't claim it!) and what do you think should happen to all the Jews/ isreali citizens who live on the West Bank, expelled, killed?

they daily visit humiliation and brutality and racism upon arabs,

literaly these things are true in any society-but Isreali arabs have the vote and are more prosperious than arabs in any of Isrealis neighbours save Lebanon-and what's happene to all the Jews who lived in Arab countries-they're no longer there because their lives were made genuinely unberable, note the arabs under Isreali control are not following suit

and they were quite obviously waiting to have a go at Lebanon. Funny how the story has changed from just wanting their soldiers back to an existential struggle...

perhpas because they withdrew from Lebanon to Isreal-and they've got raids in their territory and hundreds of shelling for their troubles .

[Hmmmm]

1. You can spout the Israeli mantra about Shaaba farms, but it is accepted by the UN to be Lebanese soil.

2. The wall has separated Palestinians from their own land, farmers have their lives made particularly difficult in crossing the wall, in the vain hope that they will give up rights to their land, or the old Israeli trick of declaring it derelict then giving it to settlers.

3. You sound like a pre-apartheid south african. Its OK to be racist because our population is more prosperous than any other in Africa. No its not. and Arabs in the occupied territories dont have the vote. Arabs treating jews badly is not an excuse for Jews to treat Palestinians like animals.

4. You seem a bit incoherent here (and indeed for the rest of the post) - but as we all know, the Israeli version of events changes to suit the climate, but they have overstepped the mark here and will regret this for years to come.

[John G]

I hope that David Cameron will indeed show that Compassionate Conservatives stand forusquare with Sir Malcolm.

When normal, modern, well-balanced British people in our tolerant multicultural society see that there is stil a far-right fanatically pro-Israel war faction within Cameron's Conservatives they have every right to ask whether the party has changed at all.

If we're to move forward into the 21st century and win the next election we have to drop this neo-colonialist Neo-con element. It has to be put in the same "sin bin" as the far-right Monday Club.

The people are calling for peace. For we Conservatives is is a time to act, and we MUST marginalise the warmongers.

[Matthew]

Just to prove Sir Malcolm right, this morning's news is "a terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the US has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said." This would not have happened without the Blairite/neocon fools

We would have no Islamic terrorist threat without our stupid stupid foreign policy of allying ourselves with Israel and the USA, a policy which gives us nothing and brings us only terror and death.

[Serf]

The wall has separated Palestinians from their own land

It has also seperated terrorists from their innocent targets, which is, I think, more important.

[Nigel Wright]

Rifkind was a useless Foreign Secretary who disguised his cynicism and limpness behind a veil of pseudo-sophisticated, "we Brits understand the world" bluster.

Imagine him in charge post-9/11? He's a verbally dexterous defeatist and his prescriptions for (not) dealing with the rise of revanchanist Islam would lead to a slow, inexorable decline characterised by futile appeasement of the rising power of the East.

[Nigel Wright]

Matthew says, "We would have no Islamic terrorist threat without our stupid stupid foreign policy of allying ourselves with Israel and the USA, a policy which gives us nothing and brings us only terror and death."

We'd have no nazi threat without our stupid, stupid foreign policy of allying ourselves to Poland and France...

[Matthew]

what are you ranting on about Nigel Wright?

"futile appeasement of the rising power of the East."

What rising power is that? The Chinese?

There is not one big scary enemy out to get you. There is no 'East'. The Muslims in Indonesia, Lebanon, etc. pose no threat to us. Even Iran poses no threat except if we went and invaded them. They are not stupid.

Before the fool Blair decided to get involved in US wars, there was no threat from anywhere else either. There is no single Muslim enemy for you to hate.

[TomTom]

Rifkind had a short unhappy spell as Foreign Secretary and an unsuccessful spell as Defence Secretary...............he has the typical lawyerly ability to dissect a case and make it appear pointless without the ability to construct a case coherently.

Would it be possible for Malcolm Rifkind to structure a Foreign Policy since 1990 that did not involve BSE tantrums with the EU, disastrous forays into Kosovo and Serbia, and a defence funding policy that would make his pretensions credible rather than risible.

The greatest problem that Great Britain has today is simply that it could not win either World war without the manpower of The British Empire or the materiel of The United States - and Chamberlain was desperate for an ally in the USA but was rejected by American politicians and forced to negotiate Britain's role in Europe and Asia from weakness.

[Matthew]

Let me see Nigel Wright. Poland and France, hmm, invaded by a foreign power attempting to take over the world.

Israel, invading other countries, illegally occupying their land, founded by anti-British terrorism still celebrated to this day by the country's leaders cheering the deaths of our men 60 years ago even while we support them today. Yes, of course, exactly the same as the Nazis in Poland, silly me, it's obvious that we need to support them.

And it's obvious we needed to start the civil war in Iraq, as heaven knows we've sorted out all the other murderous regimes acting in Burma, West Papua, etc. And any fool could see that Iraq is a better place with daily explosions and murder.

It's good to see you know what's best for Britain.

[Phil Jackson]

"futile appeasement of the rising power of the East."
What rising power is that? The Chinese?

Matthew. You might find this prescient book from 1963 to be a useful read:
C Northcote Parkinson: East and West

[tory2]

in response to "hmm"

1. You can spout the Israeli mantra about Shaaba farms, but it is accepted by the UN to be Lebanese soil.

then why did the UN attest they'd withdrawn in accordance with the Un resolutions on Lebanon , and why did the Isrealis not withdraw from there, when they withdraw from South Lebanon-the reason is because Syria has refused to abandon their (probally valid certainly better than Lebanon's ) claim to the area so it's covered by the ceasefire between Syria and Isreal

2. The wall has separated Palestinians from their own land, farmers have their lives made particularly difficult in crossing the wall, in the vain hope that they will give up rights to their land, or the old Israeli trick of declaring it derelict then giving it to settlers.

obviously any protective wall causes problems in a time of war( it also causes inconveinces for Jews who live beyond the war who bitterly oppose it being built generally) , but the fact is when you have people coming in to blow up pizza parlours and nurseries any democracy has to do something to stop them. In any case your response ignores my point. in what sense is the wall a land grab? ie it's no one else's soveriegn territory so Isreal has every right to build it, the restrictions on movement exist not because of the wall but because of the war (started by the PLO)

3. You sound like a pre-apartheid south african. Its OK to be racist because our population is more prosperous than any other in Africa. No its not. and Arabs in the occupied territories dont have the vote. Arabs treating jews badly is not an excuse for Jews to treat Palestinians like animals.

your point is techincally wrong in that some arabs in the disputed terrorteries can vote (eg those who serve in the Isreali army) , more broadly speaking the West Bank and Gaza have not been formally anexed by Isreal and so are not part of the central state. However arabs in Isreal proper do have a real vote- unlilke in any other arab country with the arguable exception of Lebanon. let's put it this way-do you agree that insofar as what Isreal is doing is wrong, every other arab country behaves worst ie Jordan, egypt ect are behaving worst than Isreal in that they oppress their arabs more?

it's also worth noting while those palestinians who live in Isreal proper have civil rights, this is not true of Palestinains who live elsewhere in the middle east-for example the minority in lebanon is refused even the right to own land.

4. You seem a bit incoherent here (and indeed for the rest of the post) - but as we all know, the Israeli version of events changes to suit the climate, but they have overstepped the mark here and will regret this for years to come.

what is any country supposed to do when a terrorist organisation, in the governmetn of a neighbour operates with impunity and kidnaps their soldiers? then whe nattmeps are made to rescue their soldiers not only doesn't given them up but starts shelling their country. If a terrorist group was behaving like this from Belguium the Uk would do something at least as fierce as Isreal is doing-and so I find it hard to condmen them. What would you do in such circumstances(or what would you tell the UK government to do)

as to matthew I can't respond properly due to the rules on double posting but I would point out that whilst I have sympathies to elements of what you've said your argument as a whole is indeeed precisely analagous to the Poland ect argument , in that you're saying if we leave Islamsits alone they're attack others not us, with the difference that Islamist thought makes it very clear they believe in world domination and an Islamic state-while Hitler was much more exclusively obsessed with eastern Europe.

[Matthew]

Tory2: "you're saying if we leave Islamsits alone they're attack others not us"

Except that they aren't attacking others. They are not invading other countries. The area around Israel is completely unstable due to uncertain borders, and aggressive Israeli tactics. This needs to be resolved. Building walls is not a solution. It just causes more resentment. This is a unique situation due to Israeli expansionism.

The Middle East will continue to burn until Israel's borders have been properly set.

[tory2]

Dear matthew

Thanks for your prompt response I'll go and explain where I disagree with you

Except that they aren't attacking others. They are not invading other countries.

I think Islmaists are attacking others- September 11th? indeed there are islamsit invovled wars whereever there are Muslim majoiryt areas near non Muslim majoirty areas, in some (eg Kosovo) Islamist involvement is v minimal , in most though eg isreal, Chechyna, Kashmir, Thailand, the Philippines it's v great. The fact a foe uses terrorist tactics rather than conventional means makes them more morally to be condemned. It doesn't make them peacefull!

The area around Israel is completely unstable due to uncertain borders, and aggressive Israeli tactics. This needs to be resolved.

But why are the borders uncertian because Isreal's neighours have continually refused to accept it's right to exist! there are plenty of other uncertian borders in the middel east-they don't cause the same problems because terrorist groups don't get launced in the same way. I also question the idea "aggresive Israeli tactics" are the problem- in that case why did Isreal get invaded four times by her neighbours? and why did years of concession in the 90's lead to a much more miliant terrorist campaign?

Building walls is not a solution. It just causes more resentment.

I'm actually quite sceptical of the wall myself in some ways( it woudl took too long to explan why) but the fact is the reason why the Isreal's do it is it's v sucessfull in massively reducing terrorists coming over and blowing up pizza parlours ect -, it ceritaly worked a lot better than the Isreali concessions in the 90's which eneded up with not less Isrealis getting killed, in that light it's scacely unreasonble is it?

This is a unique situation due to Israeli expansionism.

er? Isreal withdraw from Lebanon. That's what's caused this crisis! (or have I misunderstood your point?)

The Middle East will continue to burn until Israel's borders have been properly set.

But surely the present crisis is proof against that? Isreal withdrew from lebanon, but Hizballah now occupies the territory Isreal once did, still calls for Isreal to be wipped off the map and launces raids into Isreali territoy in furtherment of this goal. Now the Isrealis have been in a much worst postion than they were before they withdrew with hundreds of rockets being fired into their cities? Doesn't that suggest that's it the attempts to withdraw from non core territory that's part of the probelm (at least for now) not the solution?

I think this actually interrelates a lot with the problems we're having In Iraq (where I don't entirely agree with you but have a lot more sympathy) , attempts at comprosmise good will (eg holding electons or conceding territory ) which in say the UK or Isreal would be taken as signs of goodwill in the middle east (with its different traditions, recent history of totalitarinism ect) are seen as signs of weakness and cowardice and cause our opponents to reaffirm and increase the intnesity of their struggle to destroy us.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

A welcome return to form from Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

I still think it's a shame that he declined to serve on David Cameron's front bench and he is the sort of heavyweight presence who would bring the gravitas that the shadow cabinet seems to lack at the moment.

I also noticed his recruitment ad for a foreign policy researcher, and could only draw the conclusion that he's either angling for a position on the foreign affairs select committee or looking to launch a foreign affairs think-tank.

[TomTom]

founded by anti-British terrorism still celebrated to this day by the country's leaders cheering the deaths of our men 60 years ago even while we support them today

So many countries were founded on anti-British terrorism..........do we forget India ? Kenya ? Zimbabwe ? Zambia ? Pakistan ? The Irish Republic - which even celebrates The Easter Rising with military parades.......?

Who cares what political parties celebrate.......the Israeli Government does not and that is our interlocutor. There are a few old men who hobble in to Waffen-SS reunions but we cannot hold that against Lithuania...........nor can we hold July 4th against our American friends

[deborah]

Editor,

I liked the link to this thread:

>>> Blogged yesterday on ToryDiary

Perhaps you could use this format regularly to highlight where Conservative Home has run the story first?

[Sean Fear]

"We would have no Islamic terrorist threat without our stupid stupid foreign policy of allying ourselves with Israel and the USA, a policy which gives us nothing and brings us only terror and death."

I'm afraid that's rubbish. Belgium condemned the Iraq War - and had its consulate blown up in Morocco; France opposed the Iraq war - and has faced regular bomb attacks over the past 15 years. Spain withdrew from Iraq, and its police have foiled repeated bomb plots.

It's possible that a policy of complete subservience to the demands of Islamist radicals might spare us such attacks, but I don't see why we should let them dictate to us.

[KevinV]

What an insightful, intelligent analysis!

Why, in the first point *alone* he states that all must acknowledge that the war in Iraq was a horrible mistake AND that we must keep British troops there for as long as they're helpful.

What a message!

Go die for a mistake, Tommmy!

Sigh...

[Peter C Glover]

Good grief. David Cameron is already on course to end real conservatism and replace it with Neo-liberaliam. Now 'muscular' (that's a first) Malcolm wants to end neoconservatism.

It won't leave much worth talking about - except the incoherence of a view that beleives Iran is the problem but believes the UN can deal with it.

Jon G. no. Michael Gove won't lose the Party (as avers to conservatives - two different things these days) the election. David C. is wlel on course to do that. And forget the UN - David C. is the man to send to Lebanon. He is uniquely endowed to show them that no ideology, no policies and no convictions is the way to go. Of course, he can't get a place as yet. But he has his bike...

[TomTom]

"We would have no Islamic terrorist threat without our stupid stupid foreign policy of allying ourselves with Israel and the USA, a policy which gives us nothing and brings us only terror and death."

If British women would act more like Stepford Wives and wear either hijab or chadoor we would be on the way to having a society more suited to those who want to destroy the one we have.

If the media would show more respect and cut the sex out of soap operas and the drinking and the gays, and if women were removed from the TV screen, we would go a long way to building a society more in tune with the people who threaten to bomb us.

Afghanistan was a society that Al-Qaeda seemed to like, so if we ban music and men grow beards, maybe then they will stop blowing up things.

Surely society can adapt to whomsoever wants to kill people ? After all Al-Zawahiri said he wants The Caliphate from Spain to Iraq.

[outsider]

On Rifind I would say that there are two legitimate conservative traditions on foreign policy (I simplify) the Powellite and the Goveite, of course one can have a combination of the two

The former argues we should minimze international engagment in order to minimze costs and dangers, the latter that we should promoate regimes that are similar to us (pro Britihs pro-western, democratic ect) in order to do right and preserver out interests

Rifkind's foreign policy is neither and thus is not truly right-wing or conservative, it seems to invovle involvment but in favour of tyranical regimes, terrorist groups ect as much as against them

[Yet Another Anon]

the latter that we should promoate regimes that are similar to us
Or rather perhaps have similarities in how they set about policymaking and are not threatening towards other countries - Iran is a lot more like the UK than Japan in more ways than not culturally but because of their tendencies to intervene directly in neighbouring countries they are more of a threat, Japan is only not a threat because since WWII it has taken a cautious approach to Foreign Affairs.

[Eleanor McHugh]

It's good to hear Sir Malcolm expressing a more measured view to foreign affairs than the ideological obsessions so common to those who support the NeoCon crusade.

The world does not consist of "good people versus bad people", no matter how useful that shorthand might be in garnering public support for foreign wars.

We can have no doubt that there are forces of Islamic Fundamentalism that despise the Western Culture and consider our way of life decadent, but that ideology alone is not sufficient to explain the upswing in popularity of these groups: poverty, a succession of corrupt regimes supported by Western Nations and the creation (and continuing success) of the state of Israel have been far more successful in radicalising Arab opinion than religion alone.

Unfortunately there is no easy way to reverse this trend. For good or ill Israel exists and her people have as much right to safety and peace as those of her neighbours, but short of a decisive truly war with the Arab nations it is hard to see how she can ever reach a lasting settlement regarding her borders. Sharon's policy of unilateral disengagement was a brave move and a concrete gesture of peace but to Hizbollah and her backers there is no interest in peace, only in repeating the genocidal exploits of their medieval forebears.

Nor after decades of Superpower-supported corruption and repression in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, the Soviet Asian Republics, Libya and Syria can we expect the average Arab to embrace the democratic ideals which Western governments are now so keen to proselytise.

Even the vast oil wealth of the Middle East plays into the Fundamentalist hands, controlled as it is by small elites with little or no interest in encouraging economic and political reforms.

The War on Terror which Messrs Bush and Blair are currently pursuing appears to offer no remedies for any of these underlying problems and as such cannot hope to change conditions in the Middle East. A different strategy is required, one which divides the various fundamentalist factions and either brings them individually to the negotiating table or else isolates them politically and militarily so that their hold on the popular imagination of the region dissipates.

Whilst Sir Malcolm may not be laying forth such a policy, the Tory party could do worse than to follow his advice and distance itself from the Blairite position. It is time to evolve a distinct foreign policy which will tackle the root causes of Arab radicalism without signing Britain up to an unending series of inconclusive and expensive foreign adventures, to use our brains as well as our military muscle.

[outsider]

in regard to "Yet Another Anon" I was endevouring to give a broad defintino in order to include numerous tendncies ( some who fit into the same intervenionist category could be more religious, some more secular ect) within boht sides , I take Yet Another Anon's point on its own merits though I think it also boils down to particular attitudes towards aggressive policy which have cultural as well as political aspects

[Hmmmm]

tory2 - you totally give yourself away when you refer to them as the "disputed territories" - I would guess you are from the Israeli embassy, or maybe from a nonparty zionist organisation. Its land that doesnt belong to Israel which they took by force, and attempted (and still do) to steal permanently.

[tory2]

I have no connection with the Isreali embassy (Indeed I have lots of problems with the current government whose weakness and incompetence has a great deal to do with the problems they are facing) and have never worked for any pro-zionist organisation (unless you count the tory party ) and i'm not jewish either.

In any case none of those points would have anything to do with the valdity of my arguments which you noticebaly fail to comment on instead choosing to argue about terminology

As for the use of the term "disputed territories" I deliberately choose it as the most undeniable and least loaded term.

I rejected Judaea and Samaria because it only covers the west bank and makes explcity the Jewish link. This is despite the fact that for the West bank it's the oldest term and is indeed mentioned in the New Testament so can be said to have the oldest english usage!

I rejected occupied terrorteries partly because it deliberately tries to underrate the Jewish link and is thus equally loaded . I also rejected it because it's inaccurate. yes Isreal took it by force after they were invaded by Jordan- do you think Alsace-Lorraine is French occupied territory under the same logic? And if it's occupied hmm who owns it ie which country's land is being occupied? Land can't be stateless-even Antarctica is carved up. The only other state (as I pointed out) to have occupied that territoy since indepence is Jordan which has renouced all claim-so whose territory are the Isrealis occuping? Britain's? I think not

Disputed terroritieres struck me as excelltn title because some people lay clailm to them and so do others ( eg the more right wing Isreali right, Hamas ect) so that's one title that's accurate without saying whose land it is or is not by right!

As for Eleanor's v thoughtfull post I would say the irony Eleanor is so much of what you've said is what the Us and Uk ahve done they have negota ted with some fundamentalists (eg the Saudi Government) , they have attmeped to end such great support of corrupt governmetns-overthrwing probaly the worst in the process , I would say just about all the postive action you've suggested has actually been done by the US And/or UK and it may yet. If it does not it will have done so despite realtively favouralbe ground in democratization-overthrwong a hated dictator and giving the country loads of moeny ect-which I think might suggest the probelm of tryanny and hatred is unovercomerable at least for now rather that your stratergy is a bad one!

[tired and emotional]

The concept of 'pre-emptive war' surely presupposes that a threat to the interests of Britain grave enough to justify war has been identified by the government of the day.

Sir Malcolm is apparently horrified by the prospect of Britain actually promoting and defending its own interests over those of other nations - no matter how aggressive or hateful the intentions of those nations or their leaders.

Rifkind is above all else reluctant to face the fact the we might have enemies who need to be defeated and not appeased if the light of democracy is not to disappear. Sometimes we have to say "You are my enemy, your views are evil to me" - let's face it our enemies are not squeamish about doing so. When times like these are upon us people like Sir Malcolm become the real home grown threat to the country.

[Gadfly]

Oh dear. Reading some of this commentar on Rifkind is rather depressing. Don't forget that this advice comes from someone on Majors team that brought us the failure in the Balkans. Remember how British troops were ordered to stand by whilst muslims were murdered by Serb nationalists. Hurd and Rifkind brought us the ghastly concept of the 'level killing field,' That it would be wrong to arm the muslims because that would create a level killing field....as though there was some moral purpose in an unlevel killing field. Serbs were armed by Russia and the muslims looked to us and we failed them. The phrase sounded so sophisticate in the newspapers here but it cost innocent lives abroard. I was ashamed to be a Conservative at that time, vacillation and indecision characterised our foreign policy. I am not sure that advice from that quarter is worth much.

Gadfly

[Robin]

Rifkind's ideas contain much to be applauded, but I feel they do not go far enough in marking out the battleground between the parties for the next election. Preparation should involve: a new arsenal of words and phrases; and new strategy- different approaches to view the problems in the Middle East. This preparation needs to invigorate public opinion and build trust among voters that a Conservative Foreign Policy will be substantially different from the current Administration's failures. It is as important as any of Cameron's assurances on public services. I will outline just a few approaches as examples, and ones that I think deserve consideration:

(1) A Rational Approach: In polarising the debate on Muslim opposition (not always extremism, not always a 'war on terror') at home and abroad, Blair has left Labour open to attack on a new front - how do we eliminate the motivation of those who resort to terrorism? This applies equally to Bradford as it does to Beirut. If Labour can't apply their own "tough on the event, tough on the causes" mantra to recent terrorism because of their mistaken justification of the Iraq war - then this is something the Conservatives should capitalise on.

(2) A Holistic, Geopolitical Approach: Why can't we drive the diplomatic effort in the areas where Muslims feel more aggrieved - such as Palestine; whilst properly stabilising and crushing the Taliban in Afghanistan where the role of our troops is not controversial? Maybe we should treat Iran with more respect as a major player in the Middle East and seek its help the regions troubles.

(3) Putting the Legal Approach before any moral considerations: Empowering the United Nations and putting more effort into building consensus, rather than acting in a ‘Coalition of the Few’ is always seen as worthwhile. Treating all countries by the same rules (Israel included) fairly and publicly is something that is as important to Muslims as well as non-Muslims. A focus on intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing rather than civil wars is an idea that enjoys far more support and is far less contentious.

Rifkind's attack on Labour's Foreign Policy is a good start but is more tactical rather than it is strategic. The strategy should look at the all aspects of rational, geopolitical, legal and moral frameworks. Good strategic thought now, will make any tactics on the battleground of 2008 that much easier to implement.

[Andy Stidwill]

I disagree with most of what Rifkind has to say. I think it's time for him to stand down and let someone else have a seat in Kensington / Fulham & Chelsea.

[Daniel VA]

That's one of the great things about our party, Andy - it's a broad church encompassing so many people with a diverse range of political perspectives.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind is the senior Conservative whose views I would most associate myself with, and as shown on Question Time tonight, he has a formidable political presence and speaks with a tangible sense of gravitas and authority that some might say is sadly lacking amongst many within the upper echelons of the party these days.

I too hope that his sojourn on the backbenches is a brief one, but where we differ is that I hope he will leave the backbenches to return to his rightful place in the front row.