Cameron and Obama will meet at the Nato summit beginning today. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Cameron and Obama pledge to “confront” Islamic State, ahead of Nato summit

The Prime Minister and US President have vowed against isolationism in the face of Islamic militants and the situation in Ukraine; will Cameron finally clarify Britain's stance on air strikes against Islamic State?

A two-day Nato summit will begin today in Newport, Wales, and unsurprisingly the priority subjects are the rise of militant group Islamic State (also known as Isis) in Iraq and Syria, and Russia’s interference in Ukraine.

David Cameron and Barack Obama have both been criticised repeatedly for lack of action on overseas affairs in general, seemingly “paralysed” – a word former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw used on the BBC’s Today programme yesterday morning – by former foreign policy mistakes, compounded by the chaotic aftermath of the Iraq invasion.

Cameron has been hit by the UK press for appearing not to know how to combat IS, with the Mail accusing him of mouthing “foolish nothings” and “dithering, posturing and waffle”. Obama, similarly, has been criticised for failing to halt Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine; a Times leader article over last weekend used the adjective “hapless” to describe the US President, and called for Nato leaders attending the summit to move away from “the reactive politics of the Obama era” towards “credible deterrence”. Scepticism about their approach to the Middle East is summed up in the first line of the Sun's leader this morning: "David Cameron and Barack Obama have a few things in common. One is that they both need to grow a spine."

Now the two leaders – whose strong point in the eyes of the world does not seem to be foreign policy – are meeting at the Nato summit, with other Nato leaders, to address the crises spanning the Middle East and eastern Europe.

Ahead of the summit, they have written a joint editorial in the Times, headlined, “We will not be cowed by barbaric killers”, which not only uses strong, determined language to make clear they will be turning up the pressure on the dangers that face the world today, but also reveals an acknowledgement that many are cynical about their hitherto relatively hands-off approach to overseas crises.

Here are some extracts:


Avoiding isolationism

There are some who say that we shouldn’t get involved in addressing these threats. There are others who doubt if Nato can adapt to meet the challenges we face. It is crucial we address these beliefs head on.

First, those who want to adopt an isolationist approach misunderstand the nature of security in the 21st century. Developments in other parts of the world, particularly in Iraq and Syria, threaten our security at home.

And Nato is not just an alliance of friends who come to the aid of each other in times of need. It is also an alliance based on national self-interest. Whether it is regional aggression going unchecked or the prospect that foreign fighters could return from Iraq and Syria to pose a threat in our countries, the problems we face today threaten the security of British and American people, and the wider world.


Islamic State

… we will not waver in our determination to confront Isil. If terrorists think we will weaken in the face of their threats they could not be more wrong. Countries like Britain and America will not be cowed by barbaric killers. We will be more forthright in the defence of our values, not least because a world of greater freedom is a fundamental part of how we keep our people safe.



With Russia trying to force a sovereign state to abandon its right to democracy at the barrel of a gun, we should support Ukraine’s right to determine its own democratic future and continue our efforts to enhance Ukrainian capabilities. We must use our military to ensure a persistent presence in eastern Europe, making clear to Russia that we will always uphold our Article 5 commitments to collective self-defence.

And we must back this up with a multinational rapid response force, composed of land, air, maritime and special forces, that could deploy anywhere in the world at very short notice. All this will also require investment from Nato countries in the necessary capabilities.


The proof of Cameron and Obama’s more forthright stance will be in their actions, rather than words, however – and the results of this week’s Nato summit will signal how they intend to act, or not to act. Both Cameron and Obama are known to talk a good game – and they’ve written a good game in the Times this morning – but new strategies, rather than words, are what the world will be watching out for.

On the Today programme this morning, the PM in an interview said, “I don’t rule anything out”, when asked about joining the US in air strikes against IS.

“I think we should judge all these things in terms of our own national interest… I absolutely think Islamic State is a direct threat to the United Kingdom. There’s no doubt we face a threat from this organisation… [that’s why we should] work with partners to put a fatal squeeze on this organisation.”

When asked for a second time whether Britain would be taking a more direct offensive role in the situation in the Middle East, he repeated: “we’re not ruling anything out”.

However, he warned that there is “no simple, straightforward, military-led answer to this” and called for a, “tough, long-term, intelligent approach”, cautioning against “Western intervention over the heads of neighbouring states [and people on the ground]”.

Asked whether he would consider working with President Assad in Syria to unite against IS, Cameron replied: “My view is that President Assad is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Part of the answer [to why IS has risen to prominence] is Assad’s brutality in Syria gave credence to this group.” Most notable from this interview was the PM's view that President Assad's "war crimes on his own people" means that he believes there is no legal barrier to attacking Syria, because Assad's government can be judged as "illegitimate".

His view of why a significant number of British nationals are joining the jihadists is that, “I’m very clear about what the nature of the problem is. There is a poisonous narrative of an extremist Islamic worldview… it is a perversion and it needs to be confronted and defeated in all its forms… The core problem is this extremist, medievalist, murderous world view.”

Perhaps the Nato summit will decide whether Cameron takes the UK, alongside the US, into a more militaristic role against IS.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.