Foreign policy

The British press has worked itself into a gibbering mass of excitement about Cameron’s visit to India. The Indian press has barely noticed it. There is no mention of Cameron on the front page of The Times of India’s website, which is dominated by the spat between cricketing legends Bishen Bedi and Muttiah Muralitharan – in fact, those two are all over the press. Also, the Hindustan Times leads with a scintillating description of a parliamentary point of order; the Calcutta Telegraph splashes with an account of army operations against Maoist rebels in northern Bengal. India Daily has coverage of the Wikileaks saga. And IndiaTV is fixated by an extraordinary

In 1690, Thomas ‘Diamond’ Pitt led an opulent delegation of the East India Company’s Madras factors, bearing their wares, to the Nawab of the Carnatic, the richest man in southern India, with the intention of buying him out. They succeeded, but Pitt had nothing on David Cameron’s delegation.  Six cabinet ministers, more than 10 CEOs and God knows how many diplomats are accompanying the Prime Minister. The only person missing is Nick – but that sort of thing is frowned upon by Delhi’s Edwardianly genteel political classes. As I wrote yesterday, pageantry titillates commercial diplomacy, and Cameron is staking everything on this mission. As the Independent reported yesterday, current Anglo-Indian bilateral trade is worth

Tim Montgomerie observes that the FCO now stands for Foreign and Commerce Office. David Cameron is determined to conduct British foreign policy in our economic interest. And, in that spirit, he is off to charm India in the hope of gaining access to that enormous emerging market – last week’s magazine has exhaustive coverage of the trip. Tim also claims that the Foreign Office won’t like this ‘redirection of their mission’. I’m not so sure. From what I hear, the Foreign Office is loving it; it’s just like old times. The FO was marginalised under the previous government; Labour cut staff in embassies and consulates around the globe. The coalition

There are some British politicians who are obsessed with American politics, who could at this moment tell you who is most likely to pick up the open Senate seat in Colorado or pride themselves on their ability to name every Republican and Democratic vice presidential nominee since the war. But David Cameron isn’t one of them. Rather, Cameron takes a rather more hard-headed approach. At times this lack of emotional attachment has translated into a lack of empathy; giving a speech on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 which was designed to distance himself from the policy of the then US government was not particularly sensitive. But Cameron’s relationship with Obama

Remember when David Cameron said that Britain “cannot be [in Afghanistan] for another five years“?  Since then, the coalition has expended a good deal of energy trying to clarify this statement.  The latest formulation was something like that given by William Hague to the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago: “By the time of the next election, [Cameron] hopes we won’t still be fighting on the ground … but there is ‘no strict or artificial timetable’.” But now Cameron has brought up the 2015 date again, and this time it sounds a lot more like a pledge than a hope.  Here’s what he said at a PM Direct event today:

Emblazoned across the Times is the headline: ‘Europe warns Obama: this relationship isn’t working.’ The piece is teeming with quotations from diplomats and representatives of major European governments, voicing their concern that post-Cold War America no longer offers Europe a privileged relationship. The goodwill that Europe offered Obama has entirely evaporated. Few diplomatic spats are ever one-sided, and the Americans are deeply frustrated with the European Union. A White House official condemned the EU’s ‘non-existent foreign policy apparatus’, and Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations said: ‘Europe created these posts (EU President and EU Foreign Minister) to speak for the collective as a whole. But from the perspective

Ming Campbell’s comments today show that some Liberal Democrats do believe in Fox hunting. Responding to Fox’s speech in Washington yesterday and his remark that Britain would be among the last to leave Afghanistan, Campbell told the Daily Politics that the “intervention was unhelpful, indeed the government thought it was unhelpful.” “It would have been better if these remarks had not been made.” Dr Fox’s allies are less than pleased by Ming’s grandstanding. They take the not unreasonable view that the Secretary of State for Defence has every right to express his views on a war that this country is fighting without being second guessed by a backbencher from the

“The Foreign and Commonwealth Office requests the honour of your company at a major address by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, The Rt Hon William Hague MP,’Britain’s Foreign Policy in a networked world’.” Thus reads the invitation from the Foreign Office. If emails could be gold-embossed, this one probably would be. The speech on Thursday is the Foreign Secretary’s first major speech in London. Colleagues like Liam Fox and Andrew Mitchell have already kept their speech-writers busy, but until now the Foreign Secretary has only done the odd interview, and one address (in Sarajevo).  He did  however open the European Affairs debate in the House of