The Belgravia Dispatch: Recommended

September 12, 2006

In that context, what should be the outline of British and American foreign policy in the post-neo-conservative world? Let me start by making clear where I agree with the neo-conservative approach. I fully appreciate the scale of the threat we face. I believe that the leadership of the United States, supported by Britain, is central to the struggle in which we are engaged. I believe that the neo-conservatives are right to argue that extending freedom is an essential objective of western foreign policy. And I agree that western powers should be prepared, in the last resort, to use military force. We know from history that a country must be ready to defend itself and its allies. More than that, we and others are justified in using pre-emptive force when an attack on us is being prepared, and when all means of peaceful dissuasion and deterrence have failed. Furthermore, I believe that we should be prepared to intervene for humanitarian purposes to rescue people from genocide.
But I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making. Humility, and patience. These are not warlike words. They are not so glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have grown used to in recent years. But these sound-bites had the failing of all foreign policy designed to fit into a headline. They were unrealistic and simplistic. They represented a view which sees only light and darkness in the world - and which believes that one can be turned to the other as quickly as flicking a switch. I do not see things that way. I am a liberal conservative, rather than a neo-conservative. Liberal - because I support the aim of spreading freedom and democracy, and support humanitarian intervention. Conservative - because I recognise the complexities of human nature, and am sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world. A liberal conservative approach to foreign policy today is based on five propositions. First, that we should understand fully the threat we face. Second, that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside. Third, that our strategy needs to go far beyond military action. Fourth, that we need a new multilateralism to tackle the new global challenges we face. And fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Posted by Gregory at September 12, 2006 04:14 AM

Comments

Humility AND patience? Man, you can tell he's not an American. Or a Republican. "Conservative" must mean something REALLY different over there. Gotta be a British thing, like how "fag" means a cigarette instead of a guy who talks with a lisp.

Posted by: LL at September 12, 2006 07:52 AM | Permalink to this comment

Thanks for this link.
LL is right. It seems the notion of loyal opposition has been sullied in the popular mind to the equivalent of treason. I cannot remember an issue that has so polarized the country. Only in the last forty-eight hours have I heard sound-bites indicating that perhaps, just maybe, the administration is catching on.
It strikes me as too little, too late.

Posted by: Hootsbuddy at September 12, 2006 12:46 PM | Permalink to this comment

with all due respect, Greg, I took your advice, and read the whole speech -- and while isolated aspects of it make a great deal of sense, taken as a whole it is simply a thinly disguised political attack on Labour that offers no clear alternatives to Blair's policies, and consistently tries to "have it both ways". (Indeed, its not difficult to imagine Blair himself giving at least 95% of the speech.)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 12, 2006 06:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Indeed, its not difficult to imagine Blair himself giving at least 95% of the speech" I fully agree with you P.Lukasiak.

Posted by: Prashant at September 12, 2006 10:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Indeed, its not difficult to imagine Blair himself giving at least 95% of the speech"

If you mean in regard to Iraq, etc. that’s because there are no ‘clear alternatives’ for what happens next. No easy outs. That’s why Hillary and McCain, the two presidential frontrunners, sound 95% like Bush when talking about Iraq – they’re all between an ‘Iraq and a hard place’ (sorry, couldn’t resist): dammed if we stay, double-dammed if we go.

Posted by: Jay Jerome at September 13, 2006 03:11 AM | Permalink to this comment

True enough, Jay, but (IMHO) given Britain's parliamentary system I think its incumbent upon the leadership of the opposition party actually have an alternative. (in the same way that a Presidential candidate shouldn't be allowed to get away with "I can do better" but not articulate what he would do differently.) The fact is that the Tories would probably not be substantially different from Blair vis a vis Iraq -- but Cameron doesn't want to come right out and say that.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 13, 2006 03:45 AM | Permalink to this comment

It is a nicely crafted speech.

Guido Fawkes's blog here in the UK has pointed out though that while its argument draws heavily from Fukuyama's last book, it reaches a different conclusion on Iraq - which Fukuyama sees as a mistake, but Cameron still backs. (http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2006/09/camerons-fukuyama-moment.html).

Danny Kruger, who is said to have written the speech for Cameron, also has the cover story on this month's edition of Prospect here, which is worth a look: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7735

Posted by: Alex Evans at September 16, 2006 12:42 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« Query \| Main \| The View From My Window » September 12, 2006 Recommended A very impressive speech by David Cameron, the U.K.'s Conservative Party leader. In that context, what should be the outline of British and American foreign policy in the post-neo-conservative world? Let me start by making clear where I agree with the neo-conservative approach. I fully appreciate the scale of the threat we face. I believe that the leadership of the United States, supported by Britain, is central to the struggle in which we are engaged. I believe that the neo-conservatives are right to argue that extending freedom is an essential objective of western foreign policy. And I agree that western powers should be prepared, in the last resort, to use military force. We know from history that a country must be ready to defend itself and its allies. More than that, we and others are justified in using pre-emptive force when an attack on us is being prepared, and when all means of peaceful dissuasion and deterrence have failed. Furthermore, I believe that we should be prepared to intervene for humanitarian purposes to rescue people from genocide. But I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the absence of two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign policy-making. Humility, and patience. These are not warlike words. They are not so glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have grown used to in recent years. But these sound-bites had the failing of all foreign policy designed to fit into a headline. They were unrealistic and simplistic. They represented a view which sees only light and darkness in the world - and which believes that one can be turned to the other as quickly as flicking a switch. I do not see things that way. I am a liberal conservative, rather than a neo-conservative. Liberal - because I support the aim of spreading freedom and democracy, and support humanitarian intervention. Conservative - because I recognise the complexities of human nature, and am sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world. A liberal conservative approach to foreign policy today is based on five propositions. First, that we should understand fully the threat we face. Second, that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside. Third, that our strategy needs to go far beyond military action. Fourth, that we need a new multilateralism to tackle the new global challenges we face. And fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority. Read the whole thing, as they say. Posted by Gregory at September 12, 2006 04:14 AM Comments Humility AND patience? Man, you can tell he's not an American. Or a Republican. "Conservative" must mean something REALLY different over there. Gotta be a British thing, like how "fag" means a cigarette instead of a guy who talks with a lisp. Posted by: LL at September 12, 2006 07:52 AM \| Permalink to this comment Thanks for this link. LL is right. It seems the notion of loyal opposition has been sullied in the popular mind to the equivalent of treason. I cannot remember an issue that has so polarized the country. Only in the last forty-eight hours have I heard sound-bites indicating that perhaps, just maybe, the administration is catching on. It strikes me as too little, too late. Posted by: Hootsbuddy at September 12, 2006 12:46 PM \| Permalink to this comment with all due respect, Greg, I took your advice, and read the whole speech -- and while isolated aspects of it make a great deal of sense, taken as a whole it is simply a thinly disguised political attack on Labour that offers no clear alternatives to Blair's policies, and consistently tries to "have it both ways". (Indeed, its not difficult to imagine Blair himself giving at least 95% of the speech.) Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 12, 2006 06:06 PM \| Permalink to this comment "Indeed, its not difficult to imagine Blair himself giving at least 95% of the speech" I fully agree with you P.Lukasiak. Posted by: Prashant at September 12, 2006 10:25 PM \| Permalink to this comment "Indeed, its not difficult to imagine Blair himself giving at least 95% of the speech" If you mean in regard to Iraq, etc. that’s because there are no ‘clear alternatives’ for what happens next. No easy outs. That’s why Hillary and McCain, the two presidential frontrunners, sound 95% like Bush when talking about Iraq – they’re all between an ‘Iraq and a hard place’ (sorry, couldn’t resist): dammed if we stay, double-dammed if we go. Posted by: Jay Jerome at September 13, 2006 03:11 AM \| Permalink to this comment True enough, Jay, but (IMHO) given Britain's parliamentary system I think its incumbent upon the leadership of the opposition party actually have an alternative. (in the same way that a Presidential candidate shouldn't be allowed to get away with "I can do better" but not articulate what he would do differently.) The fact is that the Tories would probably not be substantially different from Blair vis a vis Iraq -- but Cameron doesn't want to come right out and say that. Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 13, 2006 03:45 AM \| Permalink to this comment It is a nicely crafted speech. Guido Fawkes's blog here in the UK has pointed out though that while its argument draws heavily from Fukuyama's last book, it reaches a different conclusion on Iraq - which Fukuyama sees as a mistake, but Cameron still backs. (http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2006/09/camerons-fukuyama-moment.html). Danny Kruger, who is said to have written the speech for Cameron, also has the cover story on this month's edition of Prospect here, which is worth a look: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7735 Posted by: Alex Evans at September 16, 2006 12:42 PM \| Permalink to this comment		About Belgravia Dispatch Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries Lunch w/ the FT... Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search Search this site: The News Financial Times New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books American Scholar LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner Wine Terroirs The Burgundy Report Richard Kelley Andrew Jefford Archives Browse Archives Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2010 Belgravia Dispatch