Foreign policy

Four weeks into the new government and the National Security Council machinery is still being put in place and ministers are still getting read into their briefs. The visit by William Hague, Andrew Mitchell and Liam Fox to Afghanistan was important, despite the brouhaha over the Defence Secretary’s comments. Such a visit was simply not imaginable under the Brown government. On the other hand, insiders say there is no real difference yet from the NSID committee that Gordon Brown created and the National Security Council that David Cameron has convened - except that the latter meets weekly, producing a torrent of tasks for officials. Permanent Secretaries are meeting regularly to support the NSC, but the subordinate structures are still not in place.

Правительство, в русском стиле Britain is being governed by a duumvirate. Britons may not understand how two-headed government works; but Russians should have no trouble at all. They have long been accustomed to a two-headed form of government. Perhaps at the next UK-Russian summit, the quartet of Cameron, Clegg, Putin and Medvedev can swap tips. Clegg’s importance to the Conservative-Liberal government will transform the previously honorific role of deputy Prime Minister. He will retain the right to fire Liberal Democrat ministers, if not directly then by threatening to remove their party whip.

Ed Llewellyn, David Cameron’s chief of staff, is going to be one of the most influential people in Downing Street these next few years. He has already played a crucial role in the negotiation between the Tories and the Lib Dems; having worked for Paddy Ashdown in Bosnia and being friends with Nick Clegg’s wife from his Brussels days he has good relations with the Lib Dems.   Llewellyn has extensive links across government and it is telling that Sir Peter Ricketts, who was appointed as the national security advisor this morning, has worked with Llewellyn twice. He was Hong Kong desk officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when Llewellyn was in Chris Patten’s office in Hong Kong.

In the last stretch of political campaigns, things tend to get ugly as the real cost of winning and losing becomes clear. This one is no different, with its suggestions of tactical voting and disagreements about tactical weapons. The latter has become particularly viscious with a former spymaster, an ex-general and a former CT chief calling into question the securty and defence policies Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. In their defence, the Lib Dems have positioned their biggest weapon, Paddy Ashdown, who fired a volley against Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, saying that "things had changed since he supplied intelligence to Tony Blair about Iraq and WMD". Bull's eye! But who is right - Britain's G-men or the Granola Army?

The foreign policy portion of tonight’s debate offers Nick Clegg several opportunities to bracket Labour and the Tories together. Both of them supported the war in Iraq, both won’t take the military option off the table when it comes to Iran and both believe in the centrality of the alliance with the US to UK foreign policy.   On this final point, it’ll be fascinating to see if Clegg launches a full-on assault on the view that the America alliance is the cornerstone of UK foreign policy.  He sketched out the arguments against thinking about the special relationship in a speech the other day and there’s no doubt he could score some populist points by accusing the other two parties of being overly deferential to Washington.

Compared to many CoffeeHousers, I don’t find the Liberal Democrat’s foreign policy positions as problematic. Nick Clegg is smart, internationalist and has – unlike David Cameron and Gordon Brown (and Tony Blair) – plenty of foreign policy pre-leadership experience. But looking through the Lib Dem manifesto, I came across its pledge on Iran, which is quite problematic for a party that is keen to shed its beardie-wierdie, peacenik image and whose leader may even end up running the Foreign Office. The manifesto says that, on the one hand, the Lib Dems support “action by the international community to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.” But the party also makes clear that they “oppose military action against Iran.

Only defuse.  That seemed to be the approach of all three participants in the Daily Politics' foreign affairs debate this afternoon.  The frequent questions from Andrew Neil and Mark Urban put David Miliband, William Hague and the Lib Dems' Ed Davey on the collective back foot.  It was all they could do to take some of the sting out of proceedings. In Miliband's case, that meant Iraq and defence spending.  On the former, he started with one of the bluntest statements we've heard from any government minister on the issue: "If we knew then what we know now," he said, "we wouldn't have gone into Iraq."  You can see the thinking: distance the Brown Government from Blair's War.

Today, President Barack Obama hosts leaders from 46 countries for a two-day nuclear security summit that will focus on how to better safeguard weapons materials, both old and new, and to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. Labour’s manifesto was also launched today. What do the two things have in common? Not a lot, really. But they could have had a lot in common – if the Labour government had been willing to be bold. Here's how. As preparation for the summit, the US signed a new treaty with Russia last week to reduce the nuclear stockpiles of both nations, and the Obama administration issued a revised nuclear arms strategy intended to reinforce the nation's nuclear deterrent.

The Civil Service is readying itself for a new government. The BBC has already reported a discussion of efficiency savings among senior officials. In another part of Whitehall, work is a foot on how to set up a National Security Council should the Tories win. I have in the last few weeks been interviewing ex-ministers and senior officials as research for a RUSI paper, due out soon after the election, on how to improve the government's security set-up. Traipsing around various departments, a number of interesting conclusions have come to light: - Conservative ideas for an NSC are not the same as the government's NSID committee, however much ministers say it is, but there is yet no clarity on the Tory detail of what one official called "the second layer" of reforms.

A lot of things, you will agree, have changed since 1983 - even in the world of diplomacy. For one, the EU has moved from a loose federation of states towards a new kind of polity - never a United States of Europe, heaven forbid, but more than just a loose arrangement of member-states. But reading George Walden's comment about Europe's putative diplomatic service in the Times I can't help but feel that he is still living in the age when he left the Foreign Office - when David Cameron was 17. The EU diplomatic service is not the novelty that pro-Lisbon politicians claim. To a large extent, it already exists in the more than 120 European Commission delegations and the 11 high-level EU envoys.