Cameron: Statesman or Pawn?

Nobody can say that the British Prime Minister David Cameron is evil or sinister. Some say he is "a nice chap". However, David Cameron is not hosting a meeting of the Bullingdon club, planning to smash up a restaurant, he is hosting the G8 and this has responsibilities. Is he up to the job?

Let us not massacre the man before he has a chance to act; let us give David Cameron a white page upon which to write. As host of the G8 meeting in Northern Ireland, David Cameron started off in a statesmanlike manner in his meeting in Downing Street with Russian President Vladimir Putin, by concentrating on common ground.

However, in the same meeting, by trying to be insolent in claiming that President Assad has no place in the future of Syria (who the hell is Cameron to opine on what happens in a sovereign state?), Cameron has to stand in his own office and take some slaps to his face, as President Putin informed him that the Russian Government breaks no international laws in supplying weapons to the legitimate Government of Syria, to defend itself against terrorist elements.

And here David Cameron learns a lesson, if he is emotionally intelligent. If. He has two choices in the G8 Summit.

One is to follow in the footsteps of Tony Blair at Gleneagles, where he tried to reinvent himself, successfully, after the enormous foreign policy mistake called Iraq, which had followed Kosovo/Yugoslavia (despite claims it was the right thing to do, how can a breach of international law ever be right in a civilized world?). At Gleneagles, Tony Blair managed to place the UK at the centre of a humanitarian project to finance the developing world, which while it was unsuccessful subsequently (the pledges did not deliver) it served as an example of goodwill which in other economic climes might work.

By pushing an agenda which places international trade at the centre of policymaking and placing a new vector which is a reaffirmation of the Principles of Helsinki while introducing a novel factor in crisis management, namely the concentration on development over deployment of troops, David Cameron could return from Northern Ireland as a Statesman.

The other alternative is to follow the same path he has been following, namely pandering to the whims and caprices of those who really make policy in the west - the lobbies which gravitate around the White House and confirming what we all suspect - that he is a pawn of the USA and basically a vehicle for London to crawl up the backside of Washington after floundering around kissing its feet making cooing noises about a special relationship, while Washington smirks and tries not to burst out giggling. ("Don't tell them we favor Germany, Japan and China, it might freak the guys out". Eh whatty what what?)

This path will be to reiterate everything that Nobel Peace Prizewinner (chortle) Obama has to say as the USA follows its goal towards world hegemony and total control over resources. The big picture is the west throwing itself into the Sunni versus Shia conflict trying to protect the Middle Eastern oil resources against a wave of Islamist egalitarianism coming from Iran, and thereafter launch an attack against the Queen at the centre of the web, Siberia, isolating China.

This path places the progressive world on the side of the hearts and minds of humanity on a collision course with the evil FUKUS Axis (France-UK-US). World War Three will not be launched in Ulster but its seeds could be forever stamped into non-existence. Is David Cameron man enough for the job?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru