Tuesday, 17 February 2009

FINANCIAL TIMES   17.2.09
A limp excuse for a Tory foreign policy
By Philip Stephens


Such has been the Conservatives' distance from power in recent years, 
no one has paid much heed to the party's foreign policy. Now the 
opinion polls tell a different story. By the middle of next year 
David Cameron could be Britain's prime minister. The Conservative 
leader's view of the world suddenly matters. The snag is that I am 
not at all sure that Mr Cameron has a foreign policy.

Let me correct that slightly. On one thing, everyone can agree: the 
Tories do not much like the European Union. This euroscepticism has 
been slightly more muted of late. But for many in the party, 
hostility to European integration remains the issue that most clearly 
defines their politics.

The antagonism has crystallised in vehement opposition to the EU's 
troubled Lisbon treaty. Mr Cameron will thus fight this summer's 
elections to the European parliament on a pledge to hold a referendum 
on the treaty. He also intends to withdraw the Conservatives from the 
European People's party, the loose coalition of centre-right parties 
in the Strasbourg parliament.

Were Mr Cameron to reach 10 Downing Street before the Lisbon treaty 
had been ratified by all of the other 26 EU member states, he would 
urge British voters to reject it.

It seems an odd proposition for a prospective government to advocate 
a plebiscite on an agreement it abhors - why not promise to cross out 
Britain's signature on the treaty? [Precisely because Camereon wants 
to be sure nobody can ever question the people's wish not to have any 
deeper involvement wit the EU -cs]  But Mr Cameron is hooked on a 
referendum. Either way, he sees the latest plans to strengthen the 
cohesion of the EU as an assault on British sovereignty.

Things could get complicated were Ireland to vote Yes to Lisbon when 
it holds a second referendum later this year. The treaty might then 
enter into force before a British election. If that happened, Mr 
Cameron says, he would "not let matters rest". What this last cryptic 
phrase actually means, no one knows. I once asked Mr Cameron. I 
received what you might call a non-answer. William Hague, who as 
shadow foreign secretary is still more eurosceptic than his leader, 
has hinted that there could be a renegotiation of Britain's wider 
treaty obligations - diluting, in particular, the EU's social 
dimension. Some Tory MPs see a more fundamental reappraisal as the 
route to eventual withdrawal.

On the other hand, Mr Cameron's recent decision to recall to the 
shadow cabinet the fiercely pro-European Kenneth Clarke could be 
interpreted as a sign he has begun to consider the realities of 
power. It is easy to be obsessive about Europe in opposition. Prime 
ministers have to work with their European colleagues. After 13 years 
in the wilderness of opposition, would a Tory government really want 
to devote its first years in office to a fight with Britain's 
partners? The voters, battered by recession, might not take kindly to 
such a diversion.

It would be a fight. Mr Cameron has recently sought warmer ties with 
Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy. The chill, 
though, will return if he withdraws the Conservatives from the EPP. 
An attempt to overturn Lisbon would put relations into the deep freeze.

There is one other possibility. The treaty could fall as a result of 
a second No vote in Ireland. Conservative honour could thus be 
satisfied without an open rupture with Britain's partners. I am not 
at all sure that in such circumstances other European governments, to 
adapt a phrase, would simply let matters rest. But there is a bigger 
point. Mr Cameron's determination, one way or another, to put more 
distance between Britain and the rest of Europe does not add up to a 
foreign policy.

In different times, the Conservatives would have said they planned to 
cuddle up to the US. For many in Mr Cameron's party the Atlantic has 
always been narrower than the Channel. The choice, though, has long 
been an illusion. Britain's influence in Washington depends on its 
capacity to shape events in Europe.

Barack Obama's administration intends to make the link explicit. On 
the big issues of the times - Iran, Afghanistan, climate change and 
the rest - it wants to deal with a more coherent, cohesive Europe. 
France is returning to full participation in the Nato alliance. The 
last thing Mr Obama wants, one adviser informs me, is for Britain 
simultaneously to loosen its relationship with the EU.

I am told by Conservatives that Mr Cameron has lots of other foreign 
policies. He would be tough on Russia; he backs the fight against the 
Taliban; he takes a hard line against Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. As 
for Mr Hague, he sometimes seems to hanker for the days when Winston 
Churchill fondly, and vainly, imagined Britain at the centre of three 
concentric circles of influence - the US, Europe and the Commonwealth.

What is missing is an anchor. Foreign policy has two essential 
dimensions - a range of objectives, some perhaps lofty, some 
practical; and, critically, a strategy or framework of alliances 
through which they can be pursued. The Conservatives, I suppose, 
could argue they have a set of impulses. There is no sign of the 
strategy. If he really expects to be prime minister, Mr Cameron 
should think harder about the wisdom of making enemies of natural 
allies. [We can't afford to pay them any more!  Though come to think 
of it nor can most other countries -cs]