More on David Cameron's recent overseas speeches
Cameron has proved himself – as Obama's useful idiot
On his travels, Cameron made relations with Israel, Pakistan and
Europe just that little bit harder. But he made a friend of Obama
Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 July 2010 16.45 BST
If you're determined to tell it how it is, it's important to know it
how it is – and on the evidence of his travels in foreign parts this
week, it is uncertain whether David Cameron really does. Regarding
Turkey and Europe, Israel and Gaza, and India and Pakistan, the
inexperienced British prime minister's blunt interventions left a
trail of overseas outrage as well as surprised approbation. Fans
admired his plain talking. Critics said he plainly doesn't know what
he's talking about – and risked damaging Britain's interests.
Cameron stood his ground in Delhi, vowing always to speak his mind
frankly. In fact, his truth telling has been highly selective.
Turkey's EU membership, for example, could advance more swiftly
On his travels, Cameron made relations with Israel, Pakistan and
Europe just that little bit harder. But he made a friend of Obama
Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 July 2010 16.45 BST
If you're determined to tell it how it is, it's important to know it
how it is – and on the evidence of his travels in foreign parts this
week, it is uncertain whether David Cameron really does. Regarding
Turkey and Europe, Israel and Gaza, and India and Pakistan, the
inexperienced British prime minister's blunt interventions left a
trail of overseas outrage as well as surprised approbation. Fans
admired his plain talking. Critics said he plainly doesn't know what
he's talking about – and risked damaging Britain's interests.
Cameron stood his ground in Delhi, vowing always to speak his mind
frankly. In fact, his truth telling has been highly selective.
Turkey's EU membership, for example, could advance more swiftly
if it fulfilled prior undertakings on Cyprus. He barely mentioned that
– or discrimination against minority Kurds. Pakistan's behaviour might be
less paranoid and duplicitous if India were less threatening. In
deference to Delhi's hypersensitivity, Cameron eschewed all mention of
Kashmir – an incendiary issue overdue for open, international
discussion, as proposed long ago by Robin Cook.
Clues as to what lies behind Cameron's conditions-based candour may be
found in his discussions with Barack Obama in Washington last week.
This was the trip in which the prime minister described Britain as
America's "junior partner". During the talks, most, if not all, the
foreign policy issues raised by Cameron this week were rehearsed with
the US president. In their subsequent joint press conference, Obama
acted like the cat who got the cream.
"We can never say it enough. The United States and the United Kingdom
enjoy a truly special relationship … Our alliance thrives because it
advances our common interests," Obama said. "I think we've had a
brilliant start as partners who see eye-to-eye on virtually every
challenge." He enthusiastically endorsed the "Cameron Direct"
leadership style.
No one is accusing Cameron of following in Tony Blair's poodle
footsteps – not yet at least. But the so-say British positions he
vigorously espoused in Ankara and Bangalore are mostly America's,
less paranoid and duplicitous if India were less threatening. In
deference to Delhi's hypersensitivity, Cameron eschewed all mention of
Kashmir – an incendiary issue overdue for open, international
discussion, as proposed long ago by Robin Cook.
Clues as to what lies behind Cameron's conditions-based candour may be
found in his discussions with Barack Obama in Washington last week.
This was the trip in which the prime minister described Britain as
America's "junior partner". During the talks, most, if not all, the
foreign policy issues raised by Cameron this week were rehearsed with
the US president. In their subsequent joint press conference, Obama
acted like the cat who got the cream.
"We can never say it enough. The United States and the United Kingdom
enjoy a truly special relationship … Our alliance thrives because it
advances our common interests," Obama said. "I think we've had a
brilliant start as partners who see eye-to-eye on virtually every
challenge." He enthusiastically endorsed the "Cameron Direct"
leadership style.
No one is accusing Cameron of following in Tony Blair's poodle
footsteps – not yet at least. But the so-say British positions he
vigorously espoused in Ankara and Bangalore are mostly America's,
too – raising suspicion that wily Obama saw him coming, wound him
up, and sent him off to spread the word, much in way George Bush
used Blair.
When Cameron likened Gaza to a prison camp, "was he doing a
transmission job for Obama?" asked Martin Peretz of the New Republic.
"Probably not … I suspect Cameron was freelancing on this one … But
I'm not sure Cameron was working the Turkish street on his own in
telling an Ankara audience that he was desperate for the EU to take
them in. For some inexplicable reason, Obama shares this enthusiasm …
Of course, this is not how the rest of Europe feels."
It's possible Peretz is a little gullible himself. After a sulky,
Gordon Brown-like stand-off with Israel's prime minister, Binyamin
Netanyahu, Obama has been obliged to make nice of late in hope of
rescuing the moribund two-state process and preventing resumed West
Bank settlement building. But he may privately have encouraged Cameron
to add to the pressure on the Israeli leader while simultaneously
commiserating with the Turks over their shot-up Gaza flotilla.
The reaction of the American right was predictably hostile. "This must
surely have delighted his Turkish hosts. But it smacks of cravenness
and hardly serves the interests of truth telling … In a stroke, Mr
Cameron has managed to make himself irrelevant to Middle East
peacemaking," a Wall Street Journal editorial said. Washington
When Cameron likened Gaza to a prison camp, "was he doing a
transmission job for Obama?" asked Martin Peretz of the New Republic.
"Probably not … I suspect Cameron was freelancing on this one … But
I'm not sure Cameron was working the Turkish street on his own in
telling an Ankara audience that he was desperate for the EU to take
them in. For some inexplicable reason, Obama shares this enthusiasm …
Of course, this is not how the rest of Europe feels."
It's possible Peretz is a little gullible himself. After a sulky,
Gordon Brown-like stand-off with Israel's prime minister, Binyamin
Netanyahu, Obama has been obliged to make nice of late in hope of
rescuing the moribund two-state process and preventing resumed West
Bank settlement building. But he may privately have encouraged Cameron
to add to the pressure on the Israeli leader while simultaneously
commiserating with the Turks over their shot-up Gaza flotilla.
The reaction of the American right was predictably hostile. "This must
surely have delighted his Turkish hosts. But it smacks of cravenness
and hardly serves the interests of truth telling … In a stroke, Mr
Cameron has managed to make himself irrelevant to Middle East
peacemaking," a Wall Street Journal editorial said. Washington
Post columnist Jackson Diehl accused Cameron of "shameless
pandering" to Turkey's "Islamic" government. "The price will be
paid by Israel which has just seen the international campaign to
delegitimise it gain a little more momentum." But plenty of others
cheered his "prison camp" remark. Maybe Obama did, too.
Cameron's fierce championing of Turkey's EU candidacy, while
apparently at odds with government immigration policy, was wholly in
line with Washington's security-driven objectives. His criticism of
France, Germany and others opposed to Turkey's bid echoed recent
remarks by Pentagon chief Robert Gates. And his conciliatory
suggestion that sharp differences with Ankara over Iran's nuclear
programme could be ironed out was a move straight out of the US state
department's playbook. Washington wants the erring Turks back
Cameron's fierce championing of Turkey's EU candidacy, while
apparently at odds with government immigration policy, was wholly in
line with Washington's security-driven objectives. His criticism of
France, Germany and others opposed to Turkey's bid echoed recent
remarks by Pentagon chief Robert Gates. And his conciliatory
suggestion that sharp differences with Ankara over Iran's nuclear
programme could be ironed out was a move straight out of the US state
department's playbook. Washington wants the erring Turks back
on side. Cameron did his bit.
The pattern repeated itself once Cameron reached India. The Bush
administration launched a strategic partnership with Delhi to
counterbalance China, lifting controls on nuclear technology exports
and weapons sales – a policy Obama has endorsed. Likewise, ignoring
worries about proliferation and another Indo-Pakistan conflict,
Cameron duly followed suit with his own goody bag. And in voicing
concerns about Pakistan's alleged exporting of terror around the
neighbourhood, he could have been speaking for the Obama
administration.
The difference is, he wasn't. Cameron is supposed to be speaking
The pattern repeated itself once Cameron reached India. The Bush
administration launched a strategic partnership with Delhi to
counterbalance China, lifting controls on nuclear technology exports
and weapons sales – a policy Obama has endorsed. Likewise, ignoring
worries about proliferation and another Indo-Pakistan conflict,
Cameron duly followed suit with his own goody bag. And in voicing
concerns about Pakistan's alleged exporting of terror around the
neighbourhood, he could have been speaking for the Obama
administration.
The difference is, he wasn't. Cameron is supposed to be speaking
for Britain, not the US. Perhaps, when it comes to the really big
international issues, this inevitably is what being a junior partner
entails. You carry the message, you take the fall. And Britain's
relations with Israel, Pakistan and key European partners became just
a little bit more difficult this week as a result. On this reading of
recent events, Cameron is less brave soothsayer, more useful idiot.
international issues, this inevitably is what being a junior partner
entails. You carry the message, you take the fall. And Britain's
relations with Israel, Pakistan and key European partners became just
a little bit more difficult this week as a result. On this reading of
recent events, Cameron is less brave soothsayer, more useful idiot.
Flattery and false steps as Cameron looks east
By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
FT
July 29 2010 22:00
Go east, young man! When David Cameron uttered this stirring slogan in
Bangalore on Wednesday, he was following his own advice. And yet his
eastern journey has not met with wholly happy results. Visiting India,
Britain’s prime minister seems to have been ignored by Sonia Gandhi,
the dynastic head of the Congress party, who cancelled a meeting. At
the same time, he enraged Pakistan, which he condemned for trying to
“look both ways”, as Islamabad affects sympathy for the west while
elements of the Pakistani elite covertly encourage terrorism. Asif Ali
Zardari, Pakistan’s president, will have things to say about this when
he visits London next week, assuming he still comes.
Since May, the coalition government has tried to fashion a new
approach to the world. William Hague, the foreign secretary, gave a
speech in which he formulated a “distinctive British foreign policy”,
moving beyond an obsession with the “blocs”, the US, Europe and Middle
East, to forge links with the emerging powerhouses of India, China and
Brazil. That is presumably what Mr Cameron thinks he has been doing
this week. He will no doubt gain goodwill in two of the emerging
powers in the new international order and perhaps lucrative
preferential treatment for British business. But he has also gained a
record of flattering his immediate audience while giving offence
elsewhere, and he has given the impression of making things up as he
goes along. This series of interventions raises questions over whether
his government has a considered foreign policy at all.
In Washington the previous week Mr Cameron did what he could to defuse
American anger over BP and the Lockerbie bomber, and to strike a note
of humility. But he over-egged it when he said that the UK was the
junior partner in the Anglo-American relationship, just as “we were
the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis”. As
conservative commentators have reminded him to his cost, while the
Battle of Britain raged the US was conspicuously and profitably
neutral.
That was arguably a slip of the tongue. But his intervention in Turkey
when he described Gaza as a “prison camp” was more than that. The view
was unexceptionable to most Europeans but it would never have been
heard on the lips of Barack Obama, US president, or any member of the
US Congress. Does this herald a change of stance? It is unclear. It
would however, have been braver if he had said it in Jerusalem – or
Washington – rather than Ankara.
When he expressed strong support for Turkish admission to the
By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
FT
July 29 2010 22:00
Go east, young man! When David Cameron uttered this stirring slogan in
Bangalore on Wednesday, he was following his own advice. And yet his
eastern journey has not met with wholly happy results. Visiting India,
Britain’s prime minister seems to have been ignored by Sonia Gandhi,
the dynastic head of the Congress party, who cancelled a meeting. At
the same time, he enraged Pakistan, which he condemned for trying to
“look both ways”, as Islamabad affects sympathy for the west while
elements of the Pakistani elite covertly encourage terrorism. Asif Ali
Zardari, Pakistan’s president, will have things to say about this when
he visits London next week, assuming he still comes.
Since May, the coalition government has tried to fashion a new
approach to the world. William Hague, the foreign secretary, gave a
speech in which he formulated a “distinctive British foreign policy”,
moving beyond an obsession with the “blocs”, the US, Europe and Middle
East, to forge links with the emerging powerhouses of India, China and
Brazil. That is presumably what Mr Cameron thinks he has been doing
this week. He will no doubt gain goodwill in two of the emerging
powers in the new international order and perhaps lucrative
preferential treatment for British business. But he has also gained a
record of flattering his immediate audience while giving offence
elsewhere, and he has given the impression of making things up as he
goes along. This series of interventions raises questions over whether
his government has a considered foreign policy at all.
In Washington the previous week Mr Cameron did what he could to defuse
American anger over BP and the Lockerbie bomber, and to strike a note
of humility. But he over-egged it when he said that the UK was the
junior partner in the Anglo-American relationship, just as “we were
the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis”. As
conservative commentators have reminded him to his cost, while the
Battle of Britain raged the US was conspicuously and profitably
neutral.
That was arguably a slip of the tongue. But his intervention in Turkey
when he described Gaza as a “prison camp” was more than that. The view
was unexceptionable to most Europeans but it would never have been
heard on the lips of Barack Obama, US president, or any member of the
US Congress. Does this herald a change of stance? It is unclear. It
would however, have been braver if he had said it in Jerusalem – or
Washington – rather than Ankara.
When he expressed strong support for Turkish admission to the
European Union he was more than ingratiating. This was empty
rhetoric. He must know Turkey is not going to join the EU in any
foreseeable future. Whether it should is not the question. It won’t
happen. Why pretend otherwise? Again, it would have been braver
to have said that in Berlin or Paris, to Angela Merkel and Nicolas
Sarkozy given their hostility to Turkish admission.
There was an echo here of one of Mr Cameron’s more glaring missteps
since becoming Conservative leader. At the height of the conflict
between Georgia and Russia two summers ago, he flew to Tbilisi and
said Georgia should be admitted to Nato. This was utterly
irresponsible. His bright idea could have precipitated an
international war. Thankfully this was not going to happen, as an
older Tory reminded him. It was absurd to “talk about how Georgia
should join Nato”, said Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former foreign
secretary: “The United States, Britain, France, Germany are not going
to go to war with Russia over South Ossetia.”
Now to cap it all, while telling businessmen in Bangalore of a new
special relationship with India he denounces Pakistan. He could not
have chosen a venue better designed to provoke resentment in
Islamabad. We did not need the recent leaked documents to tell us
about the links between the Pakistani intelligence service and the
Taliban. But saying this in public – and in India itself – seemed a
calculated insult to Pakistan just when the west needs its help.
Forging a new foreign policy has been one of the more audacious of the
coalition’s aims. But it surely cannot be done on the hoof or off the
cuff. At the very least, when he next ventures abroad, he should
remember the saying “look before you leap”. And think before you
speak.
The writer is the author of The Strange Death of Tory England
There was an echo here of one of Mr Cameron’s more glaring missteps
since becoming Conservative leader. At the height of the conflict
between Georgia and Russia two summers ago, he flew to Tbilisi and
said Georgia should be admitted to Nato. This was utterly
irresponsible. His bright idea could have precipitated an
international war. Thankfully this was not going to happen, as an
older Tory reminded him. It was absurd to “talk about how Georgia
should join Nato”, said Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former foreign
secretary: “The United States, Britain, France, Germany are not going
to go to war with Russia over South Ossetia.”
Now to cap it all, while telling businessmen in Bangalore of a new
special relationship with India he denounces Pakistan. He could not
have chosen a venue better designed to provoke resentment in
Islamabad. We did not need the recent leaked documents to tell us
about the links between the Pakistani intelligence service and the
Taliban. But saying this in public – and in India itself – seemed a
calculated insult to Pakistan just when the west needs its help.
Forging a new foreign policy has been one of the more audacious of the
coalition’s aims. But it surely cannot be done on the hoof or off the
cuff. At the very least, when he next ventures abroad, he should
remember the saying “look before you leap”. And think before you
speak.
The writer is the author of The Strange Death of Tory England
canadafreepress.com
David Cameron's incredibly stupid speech in Turkey
By Barry Shaw
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, made an incredibly stupid speech in
Turkey that displayed his ignorance of international affairs.
Calling Gaza a `prison camp' his comments pointed to Israel as being totally
responsible for the restraints and conditions there.
Hamas and other Islamic terror groups that prosper and operate in the Gaza
Strip were airbrushed out of his speech. For Cameron, they do not exist.
They are, for him, no part of the problem.
Cameron knows that the current accepted legal method of moving goods into
Gaza in via the Israeli land route. This is accepted by all rational
countries to protect Israel's security after decades of Hamas terror against
Israeli civilians.
Cameron knows that hundreds of tons of aid flow into Gaza on a daily basis.
Yet none of this was mentioned in his speech.
Cameron failed to address the obsessive hatred of Israel that is rampant in
the Middle East and has spread, via a biased propaganda campaign, to public
opinion that is rooted in his own country of Britain.
Cameron stated that Turkey is a friend of Israel. Not any more it isn't.
Israel trusted Turkey. Israel developed an intimate relationship with that
country. It conducted close military exercises with Turkey. Israel supplied
Turkey with a lot of advanced military equipment and intelligence
information. Then Turkey turned around and bit Israel.
It is no secret in Israel that our military finds itself compromised
militarily for being so forthcoming with Turkey during the good old days and
now finding itself facing a potential enemy it supplied with excellent
military equipment and strategic knowledge.
More recently Turkey has joined the `kick Israel' mob with the IHH terror
group on board the Mavi Marmara flotilla ship, and Prime Minister Erdogan's
provocative anti-Israel insults.
Turkey has shown it's true extremist Islamic face in recent months. It
By Barry Shaw
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, made an incredibly stupid speech in
Turkey that displayed his ignorance of international affairs.
Calling Gaza a `prison camp' his comments pointed to Israel as being totally
responsible for the restraints and conditions there.
Hamas and other Islamic terror groups that prosper and operate in the Gaza
Strip were airbrushed out of his speech. For Cameron, they do not exist.
They are, for him, no part of the problem.
Cameron knows that the current accepted legal method of moving goods into
Gaza in via the Israeli land route. This is accepted by all rational
countries to protect Israel's security after decades of Hamas terror against
Israeli civilians.
Cameron knows that hundreds of tons of aid flow into Gaza on a daily basis.
Yet none of this was mentioned in his speech.
Cameron failed to address the obsessive hatred of Israel that is rampant in
the Middle East and has spread, via a biased propaganda campaign, to public
opinion that is rooted in his own country of Britain.
Cameron stated that Turkey is a friend of Israel. Not any more it isn't.
Israel trusted Turkey. Israel developed an intimate relationship with that
country. It conducted close military exercises with Turkey. Israel supplied
Turkey with a lot of advanced military equipment and intelligence
information. Then Turkey turned around and bit Israel.
It is no secret in Israel that our military finds itself compromised
militarily for being so forthcoming with Turkey during the good old days and
now finding itself facing a potential enemy it supplied with excellent
military equipment and strategic knowledge.
More recently Turkey has joined the `kick Israel' mob with the IHH terror
group on board the Mavi Marmara flotilla ship, and Prime Minister Erdogan's
provocative anti-Israel insults.
Turkey has shown it's true extremist Islamic face in recent months. It
has hardened its line on Cypriot occupied land. It has refused to accept
its responsibility for the murder of one million Armenians. It is currently
occupying Kurdish territory and killing Kurds.
Yet Cameron promised to speed up Turkey's admission into the EU. Is this
what Europe really wants? Not according to the views of countries like
France, Germany, and Italy who reject Turkey's entry into Europe under
suspicion of the true nature of that country. They are right to be
concerned.
occupying Kurdish territory and killing Kurds.
Yet Cameron promised to speed up Turkey's admission into the EU. Is this
what Europe really wants? Not according to the views of countries like
France, Germany, and Italy who reject Turkey's entry into Europe under
suspicion of the true nature of that country. They are right to be
concerned.
Turkey promised Europe that it would maintain a secular government. It lied.
As mentioned earlier, Turkey promised Israel close and constant friendship.
It lied.
Turkey defied world consensus against Iran by cozying up to Tehran. Erdogan
embarrassed the United States and those nations trying to build sanctions
against Iran's nuclear ambition by forging a nonsensical, non-applicable,
agreement between Iran, Turkey, and Brazil.
Turkey's growing Islamisation
Under the shadow of Turkey's growing Islamisation, it's newly developed
friendships with Iran, Syria, Hamas, and even Hizbollah in Lebanon, it's
hateful actions and statements against Israel, and it's violent history in
the region, how could Cameron possibly claim that `Turkey can become a great
European power'?
What sort of power does Cameron want Turkey to play in Europe? Isn't Europe
Islamic enough already? Does Cameron really want an Islamic Turkey,
partnered with Iran, and other Islamic terror regimes, entrenched in the
heart of Europe?
Is that the sort of Europe that Cameron visualises as he blames Israel for
all the ills of the region centered on Gaza?
David Cameron needs to go back to first grade in international affairs, but
not at the British Foreign Office which is brimming with anti-Semitic
Arabists, and get himself an education.
Then, maybe, he will be able to give a fair and balanced speech that puts
things in proportion, that speaks up for an ally in the region, if Israel is
still considered an ally by Britain. The jury is still out of that question.
It would also enable him to criticise his Turkish host, in diplomatic
language of course, for the dangerous foreign policies, based on his
extremist religious belief, that is preventing his country from being
accepted as a European nation.
Britain's Prime Minister showed his lack of knowledge, lack of diplomacy
Britain's Prime Minister showed his lack of knowledge, lack of diplomacy.
Whoever wrote his speech should be sacked, but Cameron himself could have,
should have,regulated his words in a sensitive region where important
leaders words resonate.
His speech has isolated Israel even further. His speech has encouraged the
dangerous players in the region to dig in their heels. They interpret his
words as encouraging them in their anti-Israel agenda. Turkey can continue
its provocative and violent foreign policy as it has a champion of Britain's
Prime Minister. Hamas can continue its suppression of Gaza. It already
receives huge amount of funding from Britain. Now Britain's prime Minister
gave Hamas a free pass, and kicked out at Israel.
Yes, Cameron made an incredibly stupid and dangerous speech in Turkey.
No comments:
Post a Comment