Category: Foreign policy

George W. Bush’s bombastic return to the world stage has reminded me of my favourite Bush anecdote, which for various reasons we couldn’t publish at the time. Some of the witnesses still dine out on it.

The venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain’s campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. “I probably won’t even vote for the guy,” Bush told the group, according to two people present.I had to endorse him. But I’d have endorsed Obama if they’d asked me.”

Endorse Obama? Cue dumbfounded look from British officials, followed by some awkward remarks about the Washington weather. Even Gordon Brown’s poker face gave way to a flash of astonishment.

To be fair, this wasn’t completely unexpected. The degree of enmity between Bush and McCain — particularly following their legendarily dirty fight in the 2000 South Carolina primary — is hard to exaggerate.

Indeed Bush is far from kind to McCain in the parts of his new book that relate his “complex relationship” with the Arizona senator. I’ve yet to see a copy, so I don’t know whether he mentions how he voted. But it might be worth asking. He was certainly wavering.

Sir John Sawers, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, has never been one for the shadows.

While he served as political director at the Foreign Office, his influence was unmistakable on almost all areas of policy — indeed he even earned the nickname “Jonny Blue Eyes” for his dashing diplomacy.

Those who have worked with him are unsurprised that his views on Afghanistan are heavily influencing the prime minister, convincing him to set clear limits on a mission that is hogging resources better deployed elsewhere.

My colleague James Blitz, in an insightful piece, describes Sawers as “privately spelling out the limited threat Afghanistan poses to UK national security”. He goes on to quote a Whitehall official who has seen him in operation:

“John’s view is that we’re overly focused on the static threat we have in Afghanistan, with 10,000 troops costing £6bn a year….He is worried that we have our largest intelligence effort focused on one corner of Afghanistan – but that is not where the threats to our country are currently coming from.”

Fascinating stuff. This only highlights the importance of the National Security Council approach to Afghanistan in the years ahead.

David Cameron’s closest allies think setting a clear deadline for leaving Helmand has been one of his top two achievements in office. But the debate is far from over.

Senior military figures will strongly resist leaving an unfinished job. A stand-off between Barack Obama and General David Petraeus in Washington could well be mirrored in London between Cameron and General Sir David Richards. The advice of Sawers at that point will be more important than ever.

It is now received wisdom in Westminster that Liam Fox emerged victorious from his battle with the Treasury over defence funding.

The official history has David Cameron making a last minute intervention to boost defence spending, particularly for the army. The Treasury were only able to secure cuts of around 8 per cent in real terms, rather than the 10 per cent cuts they were pushing for.

The alternative interpretation is that Fox was short-changed and that this will become clear in the months ahead. The argument runs in two parts:

Jo Johnson

The Commonwealth Games are in crisis and New Delhi wants to know where its friends are. If he wants to show real commitment to the “new special relationship” with India, David Cameron must make sure the English athletics squad turns up all present and correct, with big smiles on their faces. The Scottish team has already announced that it is delaying the departure of its 41 squad members, citing ongoing health and security fears over conditions in the athletes’ village. Now the Welsh have raised the stakes, giving the Delhi organising committee until five o’clock British time this afternoon to provide reassurances – saying that otherwise they might not travel. English officials have said the situation is “on a knife-edge”.

Jim Pickard

It’s not clear when he will do so but the prime minister has promised to make an “early visit” to Pakistan, according to the joint statement from Zardari and Cameron today.

There is also a key line about the “sacrifices” made by Pakistani security forces in fighting violent extremism – which is presumably an attempt to defuse Cameron’s comments last week. (He had said, while in India, that Pakistan should not ‘look both ways’ on terror).

The Prime Minister recognised the sacrifices made by Pakistan’s military, civil law enforcement agencies and people in fighting violent extremism and militancy and appreciated the efforts of the democratic government. Both leaders appreciated the close co-operation that already exists between respective police forces and other security agencies.

By George Parker, political editor

David Cameron was still glowing last night after his three-hour bonding session with President Obama, who took him on a tour of his personal apartments in the White House as well as the garden: a far cry from the short “brush by” offered to him when he was still leader of the opposition.

In spite of all the pre-meeting efforts to dampen expectations – Cameron wrote that he was not bothered by the “baubles” of the “special relationship” – his team were immediately anxious to tell journalists how well the meeting had gone.

In spite of the little local difficulty over BP, the two leaders joshed about the state of their children’s bedrooms and exchanged gifts: Sam Cameron bought a natty pair of pink and purple Hunter wellies for the Obama children.

By George Parker, political editor

David CameronDavid Cameron likes things to be strong. And he likes things to be stable. How do we know this? Well the prime minister has shown a fondness for using the two adjectives in tandem, not least ahead of his visit to Washington.

Cameron’s catchphrase on this trip is that BP must be “strong and stable” to allow it to keep supporting jobs and pension funds on both sides of the Atlantic.

His officials say that both he and President Obama agree that Britain’s austerity budget is a prerequisite of securing “strong and stable growth”, even if other countries with smaller deficits (like the US) are tightening their budgets less speedily.

Just flipping back through the cuttings I noticed that Cameron’s attachment to this phrase goes back at least to the creation of the coalition, when he promised to deliver “strong and stable government”.

Very Conservative, but starting to wear a bit thin. It almost has one hankering for a bit of weakness and instability.

Nick Clegg has an uncanny knack of finding agonising dilemmas to solve.

Before Sunday’s World Cup final, he will have to chose between upsetting his mother or his wife.

His formidable wife Miriam González Durántez and the Clegg boys will be backing Spain all the way.

But Clegg of course speaks Dutch, the native tongue of his mother Hermance van den Wall Bake.

When it comes to the inquiry into Britain’s complicity with torture, nothing is ever quite what it seems.

Why, for instance, did David Cameron make the announcement yesterday?

Here’s the spin. Cameron decided to tackle the “stain on Britain’s reputation” and finally draw a line under a costly and debilitating process, in which the government spends years fighting half a dozen cases through the courts.

The truth? The timing, at least, was probably more to do with this ruling from Mr Justice Silber. It is well worth a read.

Silber gives the government until July 9 to publish the highly contentious 2002 and 2004 guidance given to intelligence officers on interrogations.

Funnily enough, that deadline ends on Friday. A remarkable coincidence.

The departure of General McChrystal from the top military job in Afghanistan will undoubtedly strengthen the arguments of those in Whitehall who have concluded that Britain is fighting alongside the US in an unwinnable war.

It will also likely stir further doubts in David Cameron’s mind about the conflict. The prime minister is said to believe that British troops should not stay a moment longer than is necessary to avoid a open rupture with the US; that means that as soon as the Americans start coming out – and Mr Cameron hopes that will be in mid-2011 – so too will be the British.

William Hague just colourfully summed up what sounds like a pretty poor Israeli effort to offer consular access to detained activists.

Because of the Israeli “lack of preparation” and confusion over the status of some detainees, Hague said British diplomats were being forced to “go to the prison, hammer on doors and ask people if they are British”.

Yet even with this rather open approach to consular support, we seem to have lost a handful of British activists, at least on paper. Since Tuesday the number of British nationals in detention has fallen from 42 to 37, in what Hague described as a “fluid situation”.

So far the UK consular team have only been given access to 28 British passport holders — or at least to people who said they were British passport holders when asked. There are clearly a few more doors to knock on in the prison.

Hague’s frustrations were clearly evident in the Commons. “It’s a chaotic situation and it is being handled unsatisfactorily,” he said.

Formally, the shots have yet to be fired in the battle for Whitehall spending cuts, but the Treasury has already set the terms of its looming battle with the Ministry of Defence. A little-noticed but ominous sentence in the new coalition programme has put the armed forces on notice that the axe is about to cut even more deeply than they imagined into the defence budget.

Whitehall insiders are predicting a programme of retrenchment as significant as that marked by the withdrawal “East of Suez” announced by Harold Wilson’s government in 1968. Then, as now, the trigger was a crisis of international confidence in the nation’s finances.

Westminster blog

on the UK political scene

About this blog Blog guide
Jim Pickard and Kiran Stacey, FT Westminster correspondents, share the latest news and analysis on the UK's political scene.

Follow the latest news on the UK coalition government.

To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

Contact the Westminster blog team: Jim Pickard, Kiran Stacey, Nicholas Timmins, Elizabeth Rigby and Helen Warrell.

The illustrations of Jim and Kiran are by Nick Hardcastle.

See the full list of FT blogs.

The authors

Jim Pickard joined the lobby team in January 2008. He has been at the Financial Times since 1999 as a regional correspondent, assistant UK news editor and property correspondent.

Kiran Stacey is an FT political correspondent, having joined the lobby in 2011. He started at the FT as a graduate trainee in 2008, working on desks including UK companies and US equity markets before taking over the FT's Energy Source blog.

Contributors

Elizabeth Rigby, the FT's chief political correspondent, joined the lobby team in September 2010. Elizabeth has worked at the FT for more than a decade and was most recently its consumer industries editor.

Helen Warrell is the FT's UK reporter, covering home affairs, crime and policing. She joined the FT in 2008 and has spent time as a reporter in the Brussels bureau and more recently, editing the paper's Asia coverage on the world news desk.

Archive

« JanFebruary 2012
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829