Foreign policy

As William Hague found before last year’s election, getting your voice heard on foreign policy is difficult for an Opposition. You are, at best, reduced to providing commentary to on-going events, vying not with the government for access to the media but with an array of better-informed foreign policy experts. Having a distinctive take on the changes in the world and practical ideas for how to affect change is harder still. You don’t have a 1,500-person strong Foreign Office.   For Labour, there is a different set of problems. Does the party opt for Blairite interventionism, tempered by the fiscal and political realities? If so, what’s the difference to what

William Hague’s conference speech caps a revival in his political fortunes, and it also showed how far the government has come since the pre-election period, when Tory foreign policy was indistinct. After one year in office, the government’s roster of foreign policy achievements is noteworthy. The coalition has overseen institutional innovations in the form of the National Security Council and organisational improvements at the Foreign Office. Embassies are opening, not closing. Diplomats are again being taught traditional skills, not trying to follow the latest foreign policy fad. Cooperation between DfiD and the Foreign Office is also much better than it was under Labour, with Andrew Mitchell and William Hague conferring regularly

William Hague’s speech to conference today wasn’t the barn-burner of years past. It did include some jabs at Balls and Miliband. Hague joked that “their shadow Chancellor was Gordon Brown’s right hand man. And their leader was right hand man to the right hand man.”  But the overall tone was serious. Politically, two things struck me as significant about the speech. First, Hague showed how determined the Tories are to play the Cameron card. The speech ended with a long tribute to the Prime Minister which called him “the leader for a better future”. The Tories are convinced that of the three party leaders, Cameron is the only one who

James Forsyth has interviewed the foreign secretary, William Hague, in tomorrow’s issue of the Spectator. Here is an extended version of the piece that will appear in the magazine. Politicians normally have to wait for the history books for vindication. But for William Hague it has come early. All his warnings about the dangers of the euro, so glibly mocked at the time, have come to pass. But, as he makes clear when I meet him in his study in the Foreign Office days before the start of Tory conference, he is not enjoying this moment. Rather, he is absorbed with trying to sort out the mess that others have

The main event at the Labour conference this morning has been a long debate on Britain’s place in the world, featuring Douglas Alexander, Harriet Harman and Jim Murphy – shadow foreign secretary, shadow DfID secretary and shadow defence secretary respectively. The debate touched on liberal intervention, soft power and human rights; there was even a video message from Aung San Suu Kyi. But Murphy’s extended homily on the military covenant was the centre piece of the discussion. Murphy revealed a plan to allow servicemen to join the Labour party for just £1 and he also pledged to defend the pensions of retired servicemen and their widows from cuts, saying that reducing payments was

The Lib Dems have just had a brief Q&A on foreign affairs. Paddy Ashdown and defence minister Nick Harvey gave staunch their support to the Afghan Mission, but confessed to having misgivings. Ashdown described the Bush administration’s strategy as an “absolute model of how not to intervene, both militarily and politically”. This failure, Ashdown said, ensured that a “victor’s peace” is now beyond NATO’s grasp. Harvey admitted that NATO’s political progress in Afghanistan remained “very slow” despite ISAF’s recent military success; this is scarcely surprising given the litany of bombings and assassinations over the course of the summer. The debate touched on the need to forge new trade relationships and

“Russian democracy has been buried under the ruins of New York’s twin towers”, famous KGB rebel Alexander Litvinenko wrote in 2002. The West, he warned, was making a grave mistake of going along with Putin’s dictatorship in exchange for his cooperation in the global war on terror. He would never be an honest partner, and would try to make the Western leaders complicit in his own crimes – from political assassinations to the genocide of Chechens. As a KGB officer, Putin would see every friendly summit-meeting as a potential opportunity to recruit another agent of influence. David Cameron, whose summit-meeting with Putin coincided with the sombre jubilee of 9/11, would

David Cameron’s statement on Libya just now was cautious in tone and content. The Prime Minister stressed that “no transition is ever smooth or easy.” Cameron said that he wanted to see Libya become a “free, democratic and inclusive” country. He emphasised that the NATO mission there would continue for as long as necessary. In an attempt to reassure the country that the liberation of Tripoli will not be followed by the chaos that followed the fall of Baghdad, Cameron repeatedly mentioned the post-conflict reconstruction planning that has been going on. He also said that he had stressed to the National Transitional Council that there must be no reprisals. Noticeably,