Nerveless Cameron: true son of Blair?

David Cameron’s dash to Georgia at the weekend completely caught out Labour. The man with no discernable foreign policy outwitted the specialists and made Labour look slow witted by comparison. But can he live with his promises to back Georgia?

, ,

  • Prionsa Eoghan

    >>But can he live with his promises to back Georgia?<

  • billie-Joe Remarkable

    “David Cameron’s dash to Georgia at the weekend completely caught out Labour”

    But, of course, as bodies lie in the streets this “dash” did nothing at all for the people of Georgia who neither invited him nor had even heard of him. In no position to effect any change whatsoever, it was shameless opportunism.

    Mr Cameron looked at bombed buildings and nodded intently as aides told him that the destroyed buildings were caused by shelling and air strikes.

    A local man, seeing the VIPs said: “Who are you? What can you do for my destroyed home, my family or our town?”

    “Hi! I’m Dave,” said Mr Cameron, smiling for the press.

    “Tomorrow I am off to Africa and will be making a keynote speech stating my firm belief that famine is bad and should be eradicated,” the shiny-faced, Eton-educated millionaire added. “And Aids, too. It’s a bad thing, too.”

  • Brian Walker

    It’s all explained by Conservative cheerleader James Forsyth in this Friday’s Spectator.

    The need to instil clarity into foreign
    policy pronouncements will only increase in government, given the institutional pull of the Foreign Office.

    The last few days suggest that Cameron’s instincts tend towards aggressive containment. He also has a keen sense of the importance of a British Prime Minister; something that will lead him as it did Blair into a more interventionist stance if elected and closer to Washington, still the
    locus of global power.”

    Crikey! Can we expect to go to war five times a a decade, as we did under Blair? Answer, QUITE POSSIBLY!

    “The Tories would be wise to carry on thinking about foreign policy. After all, there is a real chance, as colleagues have warned Cameron, that they could find their first year in office dominated by an international crisis. For
    instance, intelligence estimates suggest that late 2010 could well be the five-minutes-to-midnight moment at which the United States feels obliged
    to act against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Intriguingly, on this issue both the
    Tory foreign and defence teams take a hard line.”

    This is a very speculative piece of journalism. I hope. And, you will note, not a single word about Europe.

  • Rory

    “But can he live with his promises to back Georgia?”

    I find myself at odds with Eoghan’s contemptuous dismissal here. Of course he can – albeit within the limitations of his authority and power. He may well, for example, persuade Conservative Ladies Groups to embark on a knitting drive to provide wooly hats for shivering Georgians in the coming winter. I would certainly approve as the sound of clicking needles has long stirred up atavistic, yet pleasant, feelings within my breast. Strange though, I have never before associated this with Conservative ladies.

  • When I consider today’s papers, digging this item up seems necrophiliac.

    Two thoughts:

    1. Russian aggression was a direct response to US support for and involvement in Georgia, and consequent Georgian swagger, bravado and miscalculation. None of the three nations can be exculpated. However, if this were a site purely concerned with “Northern Ireland politics and culture”, we might have greater regard to the interests of small regional peoples, not excluding the national ambitions of South Ossetians.

    2. I admit I am suspicious of all those siren voices (Irwin Stelzer only the most recent, today, in Mick’s featured Daily Telegraph) that the best way to preserve the “special relationship” is a UK foreign policy in which William Hague guides PM Cameron into a loving, caring embrace with President McCain.

    I have not the time now to expand those thoughts with extended references. Even so, the conclusion seems obvious …

    Cameron has a very clear, simple, very Tory and therefore Europhobic foreign policy agenda.

    It’s just that it is unstated because it is totally unmarketable to the great UK electorate.

  • Further to my post above, I now see that the Tories have resiled from their commitment to the “European Democratic Group” on the Council of Europe. New readers should realise that the EDG includes such committed social-fascists “democrats” as United Russia (Putin’s trained claque), the Polish Law and Justice Party and the Czech Civic Democrats.

    Readers of page 8 of the current issue (i.e. 22 Aug – 4 Sep) of Private Eye might detect a reason:

    The party of the thoroughly modern David Cameron ought to be able to work with those other successful centre-right politicians Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. But because Sarkozy and Merkel support greater EU integration, the Tories will have noting to do with them. They ally instead with assorted deadbeats and nutcases from fringe nationalist parties in the European parliament. When they move beyond the EU, they cut deals with Putin’s far more formidable and far more dangerous United Russia Party and try to advance the careers of its apparatchiks.

    There then follows six more paragraphs, detailing how Tories in the Council of Europe pushed a former KGB man for president, tried to prevent Saakashvili of Georgia speaking at Strasbourg, and generally acquired the reputation of being Putin’s pawns.

    What was that about “a week being a long time in politics”?

  • baslamak

    Dave has a cunning plan, he intends to bring the Russian bear to heel by stopping the Oligarchs from shopping in Selfridges