By Steve Hynd
British Conservative leader David Cameron is considered a dead certainty to become the next prime minister of the UK by just about everyone. Cameron's talked a lot about caring conservativism, just as Bush did - and according to journalist Neil Clark, like Bush his time in office will be playtime for the neocons.
Cameron's campaign was masterminded by a triumvirate of MPs: Michael Gove, Ed Vaizey and George Osborne.
Gove, who believes the invasion of Iraq was a "proper British foreign policy success", is the author of the polemic Celsius 7/7, which has been described as a "neo-con rallying cry" for its attacks on Islamism, which he describes as a "totalitarian ideology" on a par with Nazism and Communism, and says must be fiercely opposed.
He, along with Vaizey, is a signatory to the principles of the ultra-hawkish Henry Jackson Society, an organisation founded at Peterhouse College Cambridge in 2005 and named after a warmongering US Senator who opposed d�nte with the Soviet Union.
The Society supports the 'maintenance of a strong military' with a 'global reach'; among its international patrons are the serial warmonger Richard 'Prince of Darkness' Perle, a former staffer of Henry Jackson who was considered one of the leading architects of the Iraq war, and Bill Kristol, the influential American journalist, formerly with the New York Times, who called for military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2006.
As for Osborne, Cameron's Shadow Chancellor and right-hand man; he praised the "excellent neoconservative case" for war against Iraq.
There are other strong neocon influences on Cameron. Policy Exchange, which has been described as the Tory leader's 'favourite think-tank', and which will have an open door to Number 10, was set up in 2002 by Michael Gove and fellow hawk Nicholas Boles, a member of the Notting Hill set who the Tories plan to parachute into the safe seat of Grantham and Stamford at the next election. Dean Godson, the group's research director and adviser on security issues, has been described as "one of the best connected neoconservatives in Britain".
All three would have prominent positions in Cameron's cabinet, alongside fellow hawks William Haig, Chris Grayling and Liam Fox. And as for David Cameron himself:
Although he said that Britain should learn from the 'failures' of neoconservatism in a speech in September 2006, and denied that he was a neocon himself, Cameron's public pronouncements on foreign affairs since then certainly give the Tory uber-hawks no grounds for believing that they have backed the wrong man.
Last summer, during the South Ossetia conflict, he called for Russia to be expelled from the G8, for Georgia's Nato membership to be "accelerated" and lambasted the British government for allowing Moscow's "aggression" to go unchecked.
He has consistently called for a tougher stance on Iran, warning that "every week, every month that goes by brings Iran closer to possessing a nuclear weapon." And, while staying largely silent on Israel's military assault on Gaza, he has declared his belief in Israel to be "indestructible" and pledged that he would be an "unswerving friend" to the country if he became Prime Minister.
Neoconservativism isn't dead, nor is it even a spent force. The trans-Atlantic ties between neocon groups are still strong and they look ready to become Wormtongues to yet another major Western leader of a nuclear power in the very near future. That won't lead anywhere good.
whilst I can't speak for the others, describing Chris Grayling as a Neo-Con is certainly off the pulse; as someone who in a volunteer capacity has worked with him alot on many different projectes over a considerable period of time; he is not, whaterver you might construde from your interpretation of his statements in the past, he is not (and I as a political scientist have met enough who are to be able to tell the difference between conservatives (british sense), neo-conservatives, and conservatives (American)).
ReplyDeleteI would also disagree with your point that wanting a strong military is only something that a neo-con would support; I would have thought all those who wish to keep their nation strong, stable, independent, and free would support a military capable of operating on its own, with some force, anywhere you need it to.
yours sincerly
Alex
Hi Alex, I described Grayling as a hawk, not an actual neocon. I also didn't write that only a neocon would want a strong military - although I'd argue that wanting a strong military with a "global reach" - ie. an interventionist force - is purely the domain of interventionist hawks and is a neccesary but not sufficient part of the neocon stance.
ReplyDeleteRegards, Steve