I note that David Cameron used his visit to Pakistan this week to criticise US foreign policy, and specifically the 'neo-con' desire to impose democracy 'at the barrel of a gun', rather than through the use of 'soft power'. This is all very well, but it doesn't seem particularly consistent with his rush to Tbilisi to support embattled Georgia against Russia, where he was by his very presence making himself an advocate for US foreign policy of the neo-con variety. Perhaps he needs to sit down and think a bit more about formulating a coherent approach towards foreign policy generally, rather than pronouncing case by case, as it seems, to please particular (and different) audiences.
 |
Open House |
You are here : Home » Open House Home
"...Perhaps he needs to sit down and think a bit more about formulating a coherent approach towards foreign policy generally, rather than pronouncing case by case, as it seems, to please particular (and different) audiences."
Speaking of "pleasing particular audiences", I'd say that you are a master at that Mary.
Also, your minister is doing his job. And that job SHOULD be aiming at a coherent foreign policy, and not a "consistent" one which you suggest. In other words, Pakistan and Georgia are NOT anything alike.
In order to advance your apparent agenda, perhaps you should become more coherent?
Just a suggestion...
Posted by: TripleRLtd | Friday, 05 September 2008 at 06:26 PM
The word that Mary seems to be looking for is hypocrisy, there has been no shortage of that recently. Condoleeza Rice's complaint about the use of military force in the 21st century is a hilarious example. Dick Cheney raging about Russia "illegally changing Georgia's borders" while himself supporting the illegal change of Serbia's borders contrary to UN resolution 1244 is another example (before some self appointed Bill O'Reilly stand-in sticks his oar in, I should point out that far less than half the world, measured either by individual state or by population, has recognised Kosovo's 'independence')
The UK populace are not yet as dumbed down as the US population that the neo-cons are accustomed to dealing with. Belatedly, David Cameron has realised that unconditional support for US war-mongering is a potential vote-loser. Too late David, you have done your bit to bring world war three just that little bit closer, anything that you say now just seems hypocritical and irrelevant. Meanwhile, the march to a nuclear showdown continues apace.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4678456.ece
The next time that US asset Saakasvili attacks S.Ossetia and Abkhazia (as he has vowed to do) then NATO will be involved.
Posted by: Mark Underwood | Friday, 05 September 2008 at 08:16 PM
Just read that Mark. Interesting, to say the least. Plus, I will agree with you on one thing:
NATO should NOT be involved with any of this. It is much too provocative.
That said, the EU should be. Sadly, the EU is, and has proved to be impotent, and at various times incompetent. This so-called Union, can not and does not seem to be a "union" in anything important. Perhaps it would be best to just revert to being a Common Market?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080905/wl_time/russiainsearchofunity
PS
There is still the case of Russian troops in country in Georgia. Plus, ZERO countries recognize the breakaway regions that Russia just recognized. NOT even Cuba, or Venezuela. Frankly, that speaks volumes...
Posted by: TripleRLtd | Friday, 05 September 2008 at 08:38 PM
Rubbish.
Supporting an existing democraticly elected (and allied) government in Georgia is a world apart from trying to impose democracy 'at the barrel of a gun'
Posted by: James | Friday, 05 September 2008 at 08:49 PM
TripleRLtd:
The article that you posted is very biased, where for example was the concern for the principle of territorial integrity when Kosovan 'independence' was proclaimed? It talks of Russian ambitions, what of US ambitions? 'full spectrum dominance' 'ability to defeat any opponent' etc. I thought that this piece was far more impartial:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9622
If you are of the opinion that involving NATO in the Georgian situation is "much too provocative" then we agree on what is by far the most important issue, why don't we leave it at that for the moment?
Posted by: Mark Underwood | Friday, 05 September 2008 at 10:50 PM
I think it was Goering, who said of "culture"--when I hear the word "culture" I reach for my gun. Much the same thing may now be said about "democracy" and the way the word is abused--especially by the Neocons--who really mean International Market and American hegemony. The US support of dictators, when it suits their Market and political interests, proves this. David Cameron is not yet in the same lying league as Cheney and Rice, but then he only represents British bumlicking, whenever the US craps on its allies or enemies alike.
Posted by: Diogenes | Saturday, 06 September 2008 at 07:54 AM
First of all, I would say that David Cameron is a mealy mouthed coward. Are we to believe that the Tories will really criticise Republican foreign policy, when they helped to get us into the war with Iraq? There may have been a very good reason for backing Georgia, the fact that they were supplied with US and Israeli aid. The fact is, that Georgia were willing to let Israel use their airfields for a possible strike against Iran (something else which the Tories would probably back).
Anyway, back to Cameron - or is that Chameleon? Is he a man for all seasons, or a man who will change his policies (what policies though?) to appeal to everyone?
Posted by: AndyUK | Monday, 08 September 2008 at 08:39 AM
Davind Cameron and his anti-Russian rhetoric.. He never said he was sorry for the Ossetians killed by the Georgian assault and quite willing to antogonize the Great Nuclear Power jeopardising this country.
He lost my vote.
Posted by: Alex | Monday, 08 September 2008 at 02:20 PM
The USA has 761 bases around the world. More added every year as they get former East European states to join their club. The UK still has plenty, some called RAF bases and ole Sarkozy is about to turn back the clock and let em back into France. Cameron would never request the removal of the UK bases, perhaps because by secret treaty they're there like with most others for ever. The US has done pretty well. It has brought Nato in as a surrogate to fight it's wars, again bound by treatys. When I see ANY UK politician question this I would vote for them. Sadly none will, as with the American public who don't know or even care what their government is doing around the world in their name. Anyone seen the harrowing film of the attrocity which killed 90 in Afghanistan? To see this is to understand the true nature of this war and the likes of Cameron will do nothing to stop the UKs involvement.
Posted by: Alan | Tuesday, 09 September 2008 at 04:40 PM