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.

 

Russia

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.

Daily Mail
Show Hide image

Who "speaks for England" - and for that matter, what is "England"?

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones.

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones. It trotted out Leo Amery’s House of Commons call from September 1939, “Speak for England”, for the headline on a deranged leader that filled a picture-free front page on David Cameron’s “deal” to keep Britain in the EU.

Demands that somebody or other speak for England have followed thick and fast ever since Amery addressed his call to Labour’s Arthur Greenwood when Neville Chamberlain was still dithering over war with Hitler. Tory MPs shouted, “Speak for England!” when Michael Foot, the then Labour leader, rose in the Commons in 1982 after Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands. The Mail columnist Andrew Alexander called on Clare Short to “speak for England” over the Iraq War in 2003. “Can [Ed] Miliband speak for England?” Anthony Barnett asked in this very magazine in 2013. (Judging by the 2015 election result, one would say not.) “I speak for England,” claimed John Redwood last year. “Labour must speak for England,” countered Frank Field soon afterwards.

The Mail’s invocation of Amery was misconceived for two reasons. First, Amery wanted us to wage war in Europe in support of Hitler’s victims in Poland and elsewhere and in alliance with France, not to isolate ourselves from the continent. Second, “speak for England” in recent years has been used in support of “English votes for English laws”, following proposals for further devolution to Scotland. As the Mail was among the most adamant in demanding that Scots keep their noses out of English affairs, it’s a bit rich of it now to state “of course, by ‘England’. . . we mean the whole of the United Kingdom”.

 

EU immemorial

The Mail is also wrong in arguing that “we are at a crossroads in our island history”. The suggestion that the choice is between “submitting to a statist, unelected bureaucracy in Brussels” and reclaiming our ancient island liberties is pure nonsense. In the long run, withdrawing from the EU will make little difference. Levels of immigration will be determined, as they always have been, mainly by employers’ demands for labour and the difficulties of policing the borders of a country that has become a leading international transport hub. The terms on which we continue to trade with EU members will be determined largely by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels after discussions with unelected bureaucrats in London.

The British are bored by the EU and the interminable Westminster arguments. If voters support Brexit, it will probably be because they then expect to hear no more on the subject. They will be sadly mistaken. The withdrawal negotiations will take years, with the Farages and Duncan Smiths still foaming at the mouth, Cameron still claiming phoney victories and Angela Merkel, François Hollande and the dreaded Jean-Claude Juncker playing a bigger part in our lives than ever.

 

An empty cabinet

Meanwhile, one wonders what has become of Jeremy Corbyn or, indeed, the rest of the shadow cabinet. The Mail’s “speak for England” leader excoriated him for not mentioning “the Number One subject of the hour” at PM’s Questions but instead asking about a shortage of therapeutic radiographers in the NHS. In fact, the NHS’s problems – almost wholly caused by Tory “reforms” and spending cuts – would concern more people than does our future in the EU. But radiographers are hardly headline news, and Corbyn and his team seem unable to get anything into the nation’s “any other business”, never mind to the top of its agenda.

Public services deteriorate by the day, George Osborne’s fiscal plans look increasingly awry, and attempts to wring tax receipts out of big corporations appear hopelessly inadequate. Yet since Christmas I have hardly seen a shadow minister featured in the papers or spotted one on TV, except to say something about Trident, another subject that most voters don’t care about.

 

Incurable prose

According to the Guardian’s admirable but (let’s be honest) rather tedious series celeb­rating the NHS, a US health-care firm has advised investors that “privatisation of the UK marketplace . . . should create organic and de novo opportunities”. I have no idea what this means, though it sounds ominous. But I am quite certain I don’t want my local hospital or GP practice run by people who write prose like that.

 

Fashionable Foxes

My home-town football team, Leicester City, are normally so unfashionable that they’re not even fashionable in Leicester, where the smart set mostly watch the rugby union team Leicester Tigers. Even when they installed themselves near the top of the Premier League before Christmas, newspapers scarcely noticed them.

Now, with the Foxes five points clear at the top and 7-4 favourites for their first title, that mistake is corrected and the sports pages are running out of superlatives, a comparison with Barcelona being the most improbable. Even I, not a football enthusiast, have watched a few matches. If more football were played as Leicester play it – moving at speed towards their opponents’ goal rather than aimlessly weaving pretty patterns in midfield – I would watch the game more.

Nevertheless, I recall 1963, when Leicester headed the old First Division with five games to play. They picked up only one more point and finished fourth, nine points adrift of the league winners, Everton.

 

Gum unstuck

No, I don’t chew toothpaste to stop me smoking, as the last week’s column strangely suggested. I chew Nicorette gum, a reference written at some stage but somehow lost (probably by me) before it reached print.

Editor: The chief sub apologises for this mistake, which was hers

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle