Cameron Actually
by Charlie Edwards
‘I love that word "relationship"…I fear that this has become a bad relationship...We may be a small country but we're a great one, too. And a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward, I will be prepared to be much stronger’. British Prime Minister, ‘David’, played by Hugh Grant, Love Actually, 2005
‘But we will serve neither our own, nor America's, nor the world's interests if we are seen as America's unconditional associate in every endeavour. It all comes down to a sense of confidence. Your long-standing friend will tell you the truth, confident that the friendship will survive…Your newest friend will tell you what you want to hear, eager to please so as not to put the friendship at risk’. David Cameron, Conservative Leader, September 2006
It wasn't a brilliant speech. At best it was a much needed call for some new thinking on security policy to match the 'frightening new challenges' of the 21st century. At worse it confirmed the lack of depth in approach to security policy by the Conservative Party. While Cameron reiterated time and again for fresh thinking on foreign and security policy his speech sounded more and more like a veiled attack on Blair’s relationship with the US President. We will have to wait for Cameron’s national and international security policy group to present their work, but if this speech was anything to go by I wouldn't hold your breath.
Duncan O'Leary
Here's a thought: Cameron's speech yesterday may signal quite a pointed philosophical departure Blairite foreign policy - with no impact whatsoever on the position that Britain would actually take up on major world issues (such as whether to go into Iraq)The PM has argued recently that Britain's foreign policy should be based on 'values as much as interests', whilst Cameron suggested yesterday that foreign policy should be set according to our interests.This seems like a genuine difference in approach. The thing is, though, the interpretation of what is in our interests is what really matters. For example, the neo-cons in Washington think intervention all over the globe is in their interests because they are part of a global war on terror.So (i think) that Bush and Blair have completely different philosophies when it comes to world affiars, but there has been a convergence of what those values have meant in practice in recent years - and the same could still be true of the Cameroons.It's a funny old game, foreign affairs...