Foreign policy

The government has been damaged by its response to the Libyan crisis and the SAS incident in particular. William Hague has been branded a 'serial bungler', and the FCO’s response was condemned as slow and ill-prepared. The consensus is that heads should roll at King Charles Street. Many commentators have also argued that the Prime Minister was too quick to call for a no-fly zone over Libya. Nobody, not even government loyalists, could argue that the last few weeks have been David Cameron’s finest.   However, one can be too critical. Let’s start with the SAS mission. Something obviously went wrong, but it is hard to believe that ministers could have done anything differently. Their job is to set direction, not to micromanage operations.

William Hague’s statement to the Commons this afternoon did little to clear up the mystery behind how a bunch of SAS soldiers ended up being detained by the Libyan opposition. Hague’s explanation was that they were accompanying diplomats trying to make contact with the opposition and it is a dangerous neighbourhood. But if that was the case, then why didn’t they just make contact with the transitional council based at the courthouse and why were the soldiers carrying multiple passports and explosives rather than just normal weapons?

Following the events in the Middle East, I have proposed a democracy review of UK bilateral relations and former Europe minister Denis MacShane has suggested that David Cameron set up a Foundation for Democracy Development in the Middle East and North Africa to "provide an all-party source of income, travel grants, and overseas seminars" It would make sense, I think, to do both in succession, starting with the review and then creating a new body that can undertake the work. However, instead of creating a UK-only organisation, the government should build on the links established with Turkey's government and set up a joint endeavour, chaired by William Hague and Ahmet Davatoglu, the Foreign Secretary's counterpart.

I've spent ten minutes reading the same passage and still don't understand what it means. It comes from Harriet Harman, quoted in the Independent, criticising the government's Libya strategy: "The response to the terrible events in Libya has been a shambles. The key to their shambolic response lies in their ideology. If your perspective is that government is a bad thing and you want less of it, you're not going to be on the front foot when the power of government is exactly what is needed." Do you get it? Is the Labour MP saying that her party would have harnessed the power of the state, principally the military, and ordered the bombing of Libya?

The government’s game of catch-up on Libya continues apace. David Cameron came to the Commons to update the House on the current situation. His main message was now that we have the vast majority of our citizens out, we can have a policy. Indeed, the government is today openly admitting that it was hamstrung last week by the continuing presence of a large number of British nationals in Tripoli. Cameron told the House that ‘we do not in any way rule out the use of military assets’; a dramatic shift from the tone of his entourage on last week’s trip. At the moment, the main military option on the table seems to be a no-fly zone and Cameron said he had asked the MoD and the chief of the defence staff to examine how this could be done.

Colonel Gaddafi’s strength appears to be diminishing: Foreign Office sources suggest that the latest YouTube footage suggests that the rebels are now 30 miles from Tripoli, there are reports of Libyan servicemen spiking their guns rather than fire on their compatriots and members of the Gaddafi family have failed to present a united front to the dissent that intends to depose them. But, chaos thy name is Libya. Communications have long been silent, except for the savage drone of state radio, conduit for Gaddafi’s prophesies of victory or martyrdom. Evacuees from Tripoli’s now hellish airport relate a city bristling with arms and testosterone – the fear is that Gaddafi and his dogs of war are sufficiently mad to fight to the last bullet.

David Cameron’s speech in Kuwait today did not take on his hosts in the way that Harold Macmillan’s ‘winds of change’ speech did. But it was a still fine, liberal speech. The key argument of the speech was that: ”As recent events have confirmed, denying people their basic rights does not preserve stability, rather the reverse. Our interests lie in upholding our values – in insisting on the right to peaceful protest, in freedom of speech and the internet, in freedom of assembly and the rule of law. But these are not just our values, but the entitlement of people everywhere; of people in Tahrir Square as much as Trafalgar Square.” This is the crucial point: crude realism is not realistic.

To date, this government has not had much of a foreign policy. Where there should have been grand strategy there has been trade promotion. But this appears to be changing. It is certainly striking that Cameron is the first western leader to visit post-Mubarak Egypt. Cameron himself is, normally, at the realist end of the foreign policy spectrum. But, as one close friend observes, one of the most important things to grasp in understanding the Prime Minister is that Garibaldi is one of his great heroes. As Cameron told Charles Moore, he admires Garibaldi’s ‘romantic nationalism'.