Foreign policy

The US Army's cuts are good for Britain. They will force our European allies to think about their own defence and re-evaluate their policies. This will highlight the benefits of NATO’s guarantees and put the focus in the EU on what matters. For over twenty years European members of NATO have had a free ride. They've enjoyed the protection of a shield on land and a fleet at sea wherever needed, and have prospered as a result. Insurance without premiums has been one hell of a gift. It has also led to what Sir Humphrey would call 'courageous' assumptions. Just think what hasn't happened. The Baltic States haven't been invaded, Poland hasn't been cowed like Ukraine or Belarus, Japan hasn't feared China, oil hasn't hit $300 a barrel and piracy has had little impact on world trade.

Colin Freeman, the Telegraph's fine chief foreign correspondent, made a remarkable claim the other day that merits wider attention. What, he asked, was Britain's view on the crisis in Ukraine? The answer was revealing for many reasons, not the least of which being the extent to which eurosceptic myopia has, according to Freeman, caused Britain to misjudge the dramatic events unfolding in Kiev and elsewhere. According to Freeman: The depth of Euro-scepticism in Britain meant it cared little either way when Ukraine was gearing up last year to sign an EU trade agreement that would have brought it out of the Russian orbit. In Downing Street, the view was that Europe’s outer borders were already quite extended enough.

As we approach next week’s Geneva II Conference, the desire of the majority of Syrians, the moderate majority, for a just and sustainable resolution to the conflict in Syria must be addressed. At Sunday’s meeting of the ‘Friends of Syria’ Foreign Secretary William Hague, Secretary of State John Kerry, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and representatives from the Gulf States were of one voice in supporting President Jarba and the Syrian Opposition Coalition and were in full agreement that Assad has no future in Syria. Even privately the Russians and Iranians are increasingly coming to the realisation that it is a question of ‘when’ not ‘if’ Assad goes. The question is how much blood, innocent Syrian blood must be spilled between now and then.

A muddle and a cock-up. For all the talk of parliament reasserting itself, last night's vote on Syria showed a parliament that voted, twice, to oppose actions it actually supports. David Cameron has been humiliated but this was hardly a banner day for Ed Miliband either. The House of Commons has, for now, cut off its nose to spite its face. Perhaps surgery can repair the damage. Perhaps it can't. Because the longer and more deeply one contemplates yesterday's events the more evident it seems that there were no winners. The government motion was defeated. So was Labour's amendment. Since these motions were, in essence and in most practical respects, identical one wonders what on earth has happened.

What is the one consolation for an MP who has beaten all their colleagues to the top job? It can hardly be the luxury of having your life, circle and income open to alternate snorts of envy and derision. Nor can it be the quagmire into which nearly all attempts to solve the nation’s domestic problems now fall.  Only one thing allows prime ministers of a country such as Britain to feel they have power. That is exercising it. And nothing exercises power more than deciding which wars to fight. In opposition, David Cameron did not much like the idea of war, and derided his colleagues for their admiration of Tony Blair. Yet in office — as Syria is revealing — he is treading a very similar path.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband this afternoon gave statements on Britain's response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. There were important similarities between the statements which are worth examining. Here is what we learned: 1. The action must be legal. Miliband told the cameras after the meeting that 'when I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him that we the Labour party would consider supporting international action, but only on the basis that it was legal'. Meanwhile Clegg and Cameron both insisted that the measures being considered were legal. Clegg said: 'Any steps we will take will have to be legal. This Government, this Coalition Government, of course is not going to act outside the remit of international law'. 2. The action must be proportionate.

David Cameron and his colleagues have made fairly carefully-worded pledges on whether or not Parliament should be consulted if the government starts planning for a military intervention in Syria. They could feasibly stick to the precise wording of those pledges this week without recalling MPs for a debate, but this will be a very difficult position to maintain as pressure is growing on all sides for a recall. Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander said this evening: 'If, in reality, the Prime Minister is now considering military options involving UK personnel then of course I would expect him to seek a recall of Parliament and to come to the House of Commons and make his case in advance of a decision being made.' It's not just the opposition pushing for a debate, though.