It's a strange thing, isn't it? One week your foreign secretary is all over the media discussing everything under the sun – even grinning cheekily when collared by a television reporter - and the next week, when a full-blown international crisis erupts, he has vanished from the global map.
The first British minister on the media circuit over the Georgia-Russia conflict was, so far as I am aware, Des Browne, who gave a series of television interviews from somewhere that clearly wasn't Westminster. He did not betray a deep understanding of either the history or the geography involved, but he did establish a) that he was working in August and b) that he saw himself not just as Secretary of State for Scotland. As Russia and Georgia were already effectively at war, it was not unreasonable for the defence secretary to take the lead - as they say in politics-speak.
Next up was the Europe Minister, Jim Murphy, on the BBC Today programme, and again on Newsnight, yesterday. He displayed, if anything, an even more lamentable grasp of history and geography, let alone the regional political reality, than Mr Browne, and appeared to have taken his cue almost verbatim from the White House. In his book, the Russians were without doubt the aggressors, the plucky little Georgians were defending their fledgling democracy against the big bad bear, and we supported them absolutely (but, of course, not to the point of supplying more than moral support).
In between Mr Murphy's appearances, the Prime Minister issued a statement – a couple of hours after David Cameron had denounced the Russian "bully" – in which he also treated Russia as the aggressor, but called, statesmanlike, for a ceasefire. Still no word, though, from the foreign secretary, even as his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, fetched up in Tbilisi.
The closest we came to a sighting was word from Mr Murphy on Newsnight that he "and David Miliband" would be attending a Nato ministerial meeting on Wednesday (i.e. tomorrow). The word is that Mr Miliband is holidaying on one or other of Spain's Balearic islands. Now everyone deserves a holiday, but when a foreign crisis of this order blow up, the foreign secretary is the minister you most expect to hear from.
Can it be that, with his sights set on higher things, he has already "moved on" - as Blairspeak might have it - from his foreign affairs portfolio?
Checks calendar. Confirms that it's silly season. Moves on to The Sun to read something less trivial.
Posted by: Labour Matters | Tuesday, 12 August 2008 at 03:01 PM
That's what I call 'leadership'!
Posted by: Robert11 | Tuesday, 12 August 2008 at 03:32 PM
Why bother? We know that he'll only parrot what he's told by the Whitehouse and as we've already heard it there's now reason to hear it again.
Posted by: flipped | Tuesday, 12 August 2008 at 03:47 PM
Even Miliband is smart enough to realise that massacring 1400 people in S Ossetia was not a smart move by his neocon pals.
The Govenment in Georgia is a US Puppet State, and the President is actually a US Citizen.
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Tuesday, 12 August 2008 at 06:09 PM
I agree Mary as I say here: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/brights-blog.
Not sure it's that Miliband has moved on. Rather that he's keeping his head down. What if he dealt with the situation well? Where would that put Mr Brown?
Posted by: Martin Bright | Tuesday, 12 August 2008 at 06:35 PM
Yes, I'm in a state of suspense over what Miliband might say:
'I thought it sounded a bit stupid, the Americans preaching that it was entirely wrong for the Russians to protect an ethnic minority that was being bombed out of existence by Mikhail 'I'm good because I said I was, and the dumb Western media believes me' Saakashvilli. After the Yanks used white phosphorus on civilian populations in Iraq they have some nerve talking of peace'.
Or:
'That old fruitcake John 'lets stay in Iraq for a century to bring freedom and huiman rights, and lets nuke Iran' Maccain was blabbering on about how the Russians need to practice peace. According to Condi he wears incontincence pants, dont you know? He'll be a nightmare to work with.'
or:
'If we ask other countries to respect national sovereignty then we have to respect the sovereignty of other countries'
Or:
'If I had a spine I would say that the Russians actually did the morally right thing by defending a civilian population that was being bombed by a savage neo con cowardly fanatic. I don't have a spine, or any interest in geography or ethics so I'll just stick to parroting Condi'
Anyone want to bet money that Miliband will not follow the Neo con line?
Posted by: gregor | Tuesday, 12 August 2008 at 07:00 PM
The PM stopped the war, when he spoke out against war russia stopped. People forget Russis is as dependent on the EU as we are on the oil. 60% of Russian exports are to us. We have a lot of power over them. So it was good of the EU to speak for peace. The whole point in the EU is to create peace and prosperity accross the continent and to stop big nations playing other nations in geoopolitical games.
I think euroskeptics owe the pro europeans a big apology on this issue.
Well where is it then.
If we were not united then any big nation could bully any small nation.
History has shown when europe is divided big nations may awake and try to destory the continent.
The european leaders were brave and took their teim but they have been brave. This shows why we would do even better with european foreign minister to speak for us all. :
Posted by: DES | Tuesday, 12 August 2008 at 10:30 PM
The PM did a good job with Sarkozy in getting peace. Sarkozy as temporary president of the EU has done a fine fine work in getting peace. Why are the conspiracy never big ebnough to recognise the EU has created peace here. Only the great unionm can ensure small nations are not used in power games for the russians the usa and the chinese. So where is the thanks from the euro skeptics. Where is it then?
Posted by: DES | Tuesday, 12 August 2008 at 10:40 PM
In fairness to MiliBLAND, Mary there is not a lot to be done. The fighitng stopped when the Russians had achieved their objective. The huffing and puffing of Gordon really was quite sad. There was an element of pathos to it. A man who has no democratic mandate has no authority to speak on anything. The darling of the West Mr fascistvilain had not just put his foot in it; he had put both feet and most of his torso in it. Really he is indefensible and will have to go. I make this point again. There is a fetish for young politicians at the moment. Fascistvilain I believe is just 40 and many of his cabinet are in their twenties. This is quite ludicrous. Heads of government need wisdom, a wisdom built up over many years. The shambles of Georgia is what we get when we elect young, untried "youths" to high political office. It really is a seriuous problem and one exacerbated by the cult of youth much loved by the PR people.There is also another point I would make about newly formed/independent countries such as Georgia. They are immature and their people are politically immature. I believe there should be some type of mentoring process available to such countries which would allow them to mature in an orderly fashion without putting the rest of us in danger through their recklessness and political immaturity.I hasten to add that the mentor should be a country other than the United States which itself has never reached maturity and shows no sign of doing so.
Posted by: alan mcpartland | Tuesday, 12 August 2008 at 11:11 PM
Millie Band was waiting to hear what Rebus was going to do. And Rebus was wondering about what he should do. So nothing was done. Like a fairy story isn't it.
Posted by: albert hall | Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 08:43 AM
Don't worry yourself. Right at this very moment a senior mandarin is drafting a very firmly worded letter which will be delivered by hand to the Russian Embassy. Reports are that either the Russians are quaking in their boots or rocking with laughter at the sheer hypocrisy of Britain and the US.
Of course that wasn't your point was it Mary. What you wanted to say is how useless Milliband is against the titan intellect of Chairman Brown. At least Brown and Medvedev have got something in common. Neither was elected by their people to lead their country.
Where is democracy when you most need it hey chuck.
Posted by: Ray W | Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 12:28 PM
Think 2006, when Israel invaded Lebanon. Did anyone get excited in Britain, when the total infrastructure of that country and thousands of its civilians were being destroyed? No--Margaret Beckett allowed Parliament to recess. Such is the hypocrisy of this new International Corporate controlled world. It is known that Georgia has become the Patsy of the US, in its furtherence of making Europe the greater US battlefield for world dominion. MILIBAND will have a HIGH PROFILE for the short duration of this affair, but it will be for his own ends and not the puppet-led Georgians. George Bush has touched another country and is turning it to dust. Nor have we seen the last act of the treacherous MILIBAND.
Posted by: Diogenes | Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 12:43 PM
The question should be: "Where is a foreign secretary?" THE foreign secretary that we have been lumbered with is an inexperienced embryo - just another toady who does what he is told.
Posted by: Patricia | Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 01:42 PM
Actually the very concept of a British foreign secretary is a joke, like an Alaskan or Kentukian foreign secretary. Oh, and what a surprise, Millipede has just been quoted in Yahoo news asking the Russians to prove that the Georgian forces committed atrocities. Of course for Britain there is nothing atrocious about burning children alive in houses.
As for Ray I don't know what you're getting at. When has Mary Dejevsky written about how wonderful Brown is?
Posted by: Gregor | Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 02:22 PM
Miliband is politically irrelevant on the world stage and as far as the Russians are concerned, so is Gordon Clown.
The EU is equally as toothless; there is nothing this pernicious socialist club could do to harm the interests of Russia, it is dependent upon them for energy supplies.
The Russians halted their military operation in Ossetia because 1:They had achieved their objective, and 2:They wanted to avoid confrontation with the United States.
"Think 2006, when Israel invaded Lebanon. Did anyone get excited in Britain?"- No they didn't, and why should they have? Israel was attacked from Lebabnese soil and had a right to defend itself, as it had warned time and again that it would.
Posted by: Keith Lonsdale | Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 03:46 PM
It is clear who stopped the war.
Once the Russians realised that the hyperactive Sarkozy was on his way, they realised they would be overwhelmed.
Posted by: george | Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 03:52 PM
Diogenes:
"Because so many civilians were killed in return for some soldiers being killed on territory that has been seized by Israel." There was far more to this conflict than your churlish and simplistic claim, which you would know if you digested all of the facts instead of cherrypicking those that support your clearly anti-semitic views.
Had the Hezbollah terrorists that started this incursion not hidden themselves amongst the local people, the number of collateral civilian casualties would have been much lower.
Their blood is on the hands of Hezbollah, not the Israelis.
Still, if you have chosen to live in a barrel and isolated from the rest of the world, like your namesake, it is little wonder that you display such ignorance.
Posted by: Keith Lonsdale | Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 07:25 PM
Lonsdale: Cherrypicking over the bloody history of Israel would lead to a world-wide wholesale trade in cherries. Before you finish sucking your thumb READ the history of the Jewish State of Israel since 1948--and what Israelis are doing on a daily basis to the Palestinians. You have no concept of proportionality or justice. Nor am I anti-Semitic--only anti-Israeli and anti-AIPAC and anti-The Board of Deputies of British Jews--whom I see as having undue influence over the foreign policies of two great, but misled countries. As for Hezbollah--good for them--British people would have been encouraged to do the same to defend their country--they are patriots--your "terrorists" perhaps?
Posted by: Diogenes | Thursday, 14 August 2008 at 12:41 PM
"As for Hezbollah--good for them" - I see you are a supporter of Islamist terrorism. Another left-liberal bigot- for as long as you are islolated from its consequences, of course. Proportionality and justice?- you wouldn't know them if they bit you on the arse.
I don't need any history lessons, least of all from the likes of you.
What is your real name, or are you too much of a coward to come out from behind your facade?
Posted by: Keith Lonsdale | Thursday, 14 August 2008 at 01:01 PM
Where, indeed, is Anne Penketh? She was telling us for some time how Georgia was a perfect democracy while Russia was the big bad Bear.
I am so looking forward to her pronouncements...
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Thursday, 14 August 2008 at 10:29 PM