CentreRight

The U.S. House of Representatives has just passed a resolution "recognizing the 30th anniversary of the election of Margaret Thatcher as the first female Prime Minister of Great Britain." The resolution, proposed by Congresman Ted Poe of Texas, was passed yesterday by 339 votes to 64, with all 165 Republicans present voting in favour. The 64 Democrats who voted against included some prominent far left activists, including William Delahunt and Barney Frank, both of Massachusetts.

As the vote showed, Lady Thatcher remains a hugely popular figure among conservatives in America, but it was also great to see 174 Democrats putting political divisions aside and recognizing her huge achievements in advancing liberty and freedom across the world as well as the Anglo-American Special Relationship.

Pollsters Douglas E. Schoen and Scott Rasmussen have a ground-breaking reassessment of Obama's perceived popularity in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.

Their polling data shows that Obama's current approval rating of 56 percent is below that of President Bush during the analagous period in 2001. His current net presidential approval rating is just six points.

"Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives."

In a further sign that the Obama Administration will support a more robust European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and a greater EU defence identity within NATO, Vice President Joe Biden made it clear in his major foreign policy address in Munich on Saturday that the United States will “support the further strengthening of European defense, an increased role for the European Union in preserving peace and security, (and) a fundamentally stronger NATO-EU partnership.”

Biden's statements should be of concern to the Conservative leadership on defence issues, and clarification should be sought from the Obama and Brown administrations on what exactly this means for the future of the NATO alliance as well as U.S.-UK defence cooperation. 

I agree with Tim Montgomerie on AmericaInTheWorld, Charles Krauthammer's brilliant recent article in The Washington Post deserves to be widely read. It is a response to President Obama's controversial interview with Al Arabiya, where he directly addressed a global Muslim audience, calling for the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago", and his inaugural address where he declared to Muslims that "we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

Krauthammer rightly points out that Obama's statements were overly defensive and apologetic. As he writes in his piece:

"In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two Balkan interventions -- as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) -- were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?"

The United States should be proud of its record of freeing tens of millions of Muslims from tyranny, and bravely, Great Britain has played a major role alongside her in doing so.

The Telegraph has reported that Ken Clarke is already launching broadsides against Cameron's European policy. The paper quotes Clarke as saying Obama "doesn't want his strongest European ally led by a rightwing nationalist, he wants them to be a key player inside Europe, and he'll start looking at whoever is in Germany or France if we start being isolationist." It then goes on to to quote Europe Minister Caroline Flint, who states: "It's a straightforward test for David Cameron: give up your policy on Europe, as Ken Clarke says, or give up the special relationship."

There can be no doubt that the Obama administration will be more aggressively pro-European than the Bush Administration, and will more forcefully back further European integration. It is ludicrous to say however that Conservatives should support this approach or that British influence in Washington will be eroded if a Conservative government rejects the Euro, the Reform Treaty and other trappings of an EU superstate. 

Both Clarke and his new found ally Flint are sending the wrong message when it comes to the United States and Europe, and neither are speaking with expertise on U.S. foreign policy. In fact it is highly unlikely that anyone in Obama's inner circle has heard of either of them.

It's only January, but I doubt we will see a more feeble speech on terrorism by a senior British official this year. It was probably the most counter-productive presentation ever delivered by a foreign secretary in wartime.

Speaking yesterday, Miliband delivered a major foreign policy address in Mumbai at the Taj Hotel, scene of the barbaric November terrorist attacks on India which claimed 170 lives. One would have thought the Foreign Secretary would have made a blistering attack on Islamist terrorists. Instead he launched a condescending, sneering assault on the American-led idea of a global war on terror, which he described as "misleading and mistaken".

His comments were above all a thinly veiled, cheap parting shot at outgoing President George W. Bush and the counter-terror approach of Britain's closest ally, which he would not dared have delivered a few months earlier. The only thing missing from his presentation was a rousing rendition of "kumbaya" followed by a chorus of "give peace a chance".

In case Miliband hadn't noticed, Britain and the United States are engaged in a long-term war against a vicious enemy that seeks our destruction, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or on the streets of London. Speeches like this project weakness and confusion, and undermine British forces fighting against terrorism across the globe. The Foreign Secretary should think twice before embarrassing Britain again on the world stage.   

Those who believe an Obama White House will benefit British conservatives and British strategic interests should think again. The appointment of Michele Flournoy as the next Under Secretary of Defence for Policy is the clearest sign yet that an Obama administration is likely to support the European Project.

Flournoy is a leading supporter in Washington of U.S. backing for defence integration in the EU, and co-authored a major study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in 2005 strongly advocating American backing for a unified European defence structure. The report can be found here.

Her new position is one of the most powerful in the Pentagon, and she will play a critically important role in helping shape U.S.-EU and U.S.-UK defence policy, as well as policy towards NATO.

The Pentagon (unlike the State Department) has traditionally been lukewarm and frequently hostile towards the ESDP. That position is likely to change significantly, and if it does the end result will be a weakened Anglo-American Special Relationship and a weakened NATO alliance. Neither are in Britain's interests.

Louise Bagshawe made some fine points in her post yesterday, but here are several reasons why Obama's win won't benefit British Conservatives:

(1) Gordon Brown will benefit politically from hobnobbing with the post-Bush White House and from all the photo ops he will have with Obama. He will take every opportunity to curry favour with the new president and to portray himself as Barack's new best friend. This will enhance his standing on the world stage, and increase his own influence vis-a-vis the global financial crisis. 

(2) The grassroots ties between Democrats and Labour remain very strong despite Blair's support for Bush over Iraq. The Labour Goverment will work hard to keep senior British Conservatives, especially Cameron, away from the White House and U.S. Executive Branch. If McCain had won this would have been a lot harder for the Brownites to pull off.

(3) Obama could well end up being the most left-wing president in American history. He has little to gain politically with his own liberal supporters by cozying up to British Tories.

(4) On Europe, the Democrats are traditionally far more supportive of the European Project than the Republicans. The Bush White House hasn't been great on European policy, but at least it was open to advice and suggestions from the big conservative think tanks - Heritage, AEI and CATO - who are all Eurosceptic in outlook. An Obama White House will be advised heavily by pro-EU groups on the liberal left such as Brookings, as well as by CSIS and the Council on Foreign Relations. Obama will see the cultivation of ties with Brussels, Paris and Berlin as top priorities.

(5) Obama is likely to naively support the creation of a European Union defence identity within NATO, including the establishment of a European Army, especially with pressure from Nicolas Sarkozy, and the endorsement of new Defence Secretary John Hutton. This would be disastrous for British interests, and could ultimately destroy the NATO alliance.

(6) Obama is a protectionist whose anti-market views are abhorrent to British Conservatives. He is no free trader, and you can forget about him challenging protectionist rackets such as the Common Agricultural Policy. 

Defence Secretary John Hutton's decision to back French plans for the creation of a European Union Army is a huge strategic error of judgment, and represents yet another surrender of British sovereignty to Brussels by the Brown government. By doing so, Hutton is playing directly into the hands of  Nicolas Sarkozy, who is using his presidency of the EU to advance French plans for a separate European defence identity within NATO.

Hutton's move will weaken Britain's capacity to fight in Afghanistan (where the U.S. and UK are bearing a huge proportion of the burden), undermine the NATO Alliance, and strengthen the power of Brussels in military matters. This is an extraordinarily bad deal for Britain and a strategic victory for the French government and all who believe in the creation of a European superstate.

It's bad enough being backed by French voters by a margin of 16 to 1 in the latest Gallup poll, but it's even worse when you get the official endorsement of a terrorist-sponsoring state like Iran. The Guardian is reporting that Ali Larijani, speaker of the Iranian parliament and a former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, has declared Barack Obama the favoured candidate of the Iranian regime, as he is "more flexible and rational".

It is easy to understand why Obama gets the blessing of the brutal Iranian dicatorship when he is offering to sit down for a fireside chat over a nice cup of tea to discuss Tehran's nuclear ambitions. John McCain on the other hand is threatening to actually take on the Mullahs, who are responsible for the killing of numerous American and British soldiers in Iraq, and who are threatening a nuclear holocaust against Israel.

A policy of appeasement will always win you friends among the most odious of tyrannies, but the world will be a far more dangerous place as a result. British Obamacons should think twice before swooning over a presidential candidate who has the embarrassing support of a maniacal tyrant like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

McCain's video response to Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark - viewed by many Americans as a thinly veiled attack on Sarah Palin - is a simple but highly effective piece of political messaging. You can view it here. 

The controversy is dominating coverage of the election in the States and could prove hugely damaging to the Obama campaign.

The Financial Times has an interesting piece on a forthcoming oil summit in London to be hosted by Gordon Brown,

Downing Street has issued invitations to two of the world's most odious despots, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Libya and Venezuela remain among the most repressive regimes in the world, and Brown's invitation demonstrates a callous disregard for human rights and a fundamental lack of foreign policy judgment.

It's important that Conservatives speak out against Brown's foolish decision. For a start, Boris Johnson should issue a statement condemning the move, declaring that London should have no truck with tryants.

The success of this week's Republican Convention sent a warning shot across the bows of what had been until now an over-confident Obama camp. From Rudy Giuliani's barnstorming address to Sarah Palin's electrifying debut, it was a powerful re-affirmation that conservatism is alive and well and far from being on its death bed in America.

Watching from Washington, by far the most impressive aspect of the Convention was the unabashed and unapologetic patriotism that ran through it, including a constant recognition of the sacrifice of American forces in the war against Islamist terrorism. The most poignant moment of the week's proceedings was the video tribute to a U.S. navy seal, Michael Monsoor, who sacrficed his own life to save that of his comrades by throwing himself on a grenade in Ramadi, Iraq in 2006. Mansoor was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. The moving video can be viewed here on YouTube.

"Country first" was the winning slogan that ran through the Convention, a call for all Americans to place nation before self. It was also a reminder that conservatives in America would never submit their foreign policy to the dictats of supranational institutions such as the United Nations. I think I heard the UN mentioned only once in a major Convention speech, in the context of the Russian invasion of Georgia, and it was roundly met with hoots of derision. 

When British Conservatives gather in Birmingham later this month, they should not be afraid to make the recognition of the sacrifice and heroism of Britain's armed forces a centrepiece. Nor should they shy away from open displays of patriotism and love for country, a reminder that Britain, like the United States, is a great nation and a beacon of liberty and hope for the world.

The BBC has an important report on France's role in the Rwanda genocide.

The Sarkozy administration should acknowledge and apologize for the role played by François Mitterrand's government in providing safe haven for the Hutu militias responsible for the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the darkest episode of modern African history.

The mass extermination in the killing fields of Rwanda must never be repeated, and it is important that the French government take responsibility for any part French officials played in protecting and even arming those who carried out the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis. If President Sarkozy opens the archives revealing the full secrets of France's activities in Rwanda, it would be a huge gesture signifying a fresh start for French foreign policy.

Obama's nine point lead from a few days ago has evaporated. The latest Gallup daily poll shows Obama and McCain almost neck and neck at 45% to 44%.

This race is going to be extremely tight, and the assumption of some British pundits that Obama will be a shoo-in for the White House is wishful thinking.

Robin Harris, a consultant director of Politeia and for many years an adviser to Lady Thatcher, has written an important piece for National Review Online on the plight of Christians in Iraq.

Robin makes a compelling case for the U.S., Brtain and the West to come to the aid of Iraq's Christian minority. The article is a must read for all who are concerned about the future of Christians in the country:

"America and her allies have now to decide whether they are prepared to see the imminent extinction of Iraq’s nearly-2,000-year-old Christian community. Such an outcome is not inevitable, but it would certainly be irreversible. If ever there were a test for the West’s - and America’s - Christian conscience, this is it."

While hundreds of thousands are dying due to the callous indifference of the military junta in Burma and millions are fleeing oppression and hunger in Robert Mugabe’s brutal Zimbabwe, the UN’s farcical Human Rights Council (HRC) is focusing its attention on the United States. This week sees the arrival on US soil of Doudou Diene, the UN Special Rapporteur charged with investigating “racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” in America.

I've written a piece on the issue for National Review Online.

It is hard to take the UN seriously when its peacekeepers are actively engaged in raping refugees in the Congo and even arming rebel groups, or when it turns a blind eye to the man-made starvation of millions in southern Africa. In the arena of human rights, the United Nations has become an emperor with no clothes, a morally bankrupt institution that wallows in its double standards and appeasement of evil. Doudou Diene’s investigation of the United States should be seen for what it is: a desperate piece of political theater that underscores the UN’s growing irrelevance.

Today's Daily Telegraph quotes former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, calling for strikes against Iranian camps involved in training Iraqi Shiite militias. According to Coalition forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have brought in Hizbollah guerillas to train Iraqi proxy militias at a camp just outside of Tehran.

Bolton is right to call for retaliation against the Iranian regime, which is actively engaged in arming, funding and training terrorist groups in Iraq. The Iranians have British and American blood on their hands and should face the consequences.

Today is the first anniversary of Nicolas Sarkozy's election as French President. On taking office, many American and British commentators saw him as a modern-day French Reagan, or a Gallic heir to Margaret Thatcher. One year on, however, France looks pretty much the same — backward, miserable, and stuck in the 1970s, with business confidence plummeting.

Ronald Reagan revitalized America as a great power. Margaret Thatcher restored British pride and turned her broken nation from the sick man of Europe into the continent’s most dynamic major economy. Nicolas Sarkozy has a long way to go before he can make similar claims for his record as France's premier. So far, he has been heavy on spin, but light on delivery, more a showman than a political leader who can bring about change on the home front.

The first year has been disappointing to say the least. I've wriiten a piece on Sarko for National Review Online.  Read it here.

This week's Panorama investigation reveals that UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo have been arming militia groups and smuggling gold and ivory.

It's merely the latest scandal to hit the world's biggest peacekeeping operation. Needless to say, the UN has been busy denying the claims.

I've written a piece on the ramifications of the BBC story for the Weekly Standard Online.

Defence Secretary Des Browne has given an outrageous interview in The Sunday Telegraph saying that Britain should negotiate with terrorist groups such as the Taliban and Hizbollah.

According to Browne:

"What you need to do in conflict resolution is to bring the people who believe that the answer to their political ambitions will be achieved through violence into a frame of mind that they accept that their political ambitions will be delivered by politics."

8,000 British troops are bravely putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan while their Secretary of State for Defence is talking about negotiating with a barbaric organisation that works hand in glove with al-Qaeda.

This has to be one of the the most shameless acts of appeasement towards our worst enemies by a British minister in living memory. Gordon Brown should condemn the comments and Des Browne should be forced to step down over his disgraceful remarks.

Sarah Baxter, the influential Washington Bureau Chief of The Sunday Times, has a very interesting interview with senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, Samantha Power. Power reveals that Obama is a big admirer of Britain's Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations:

"the principal conduit between Britain and the candidate has been Lord Malloch-Brown, the junior foreign minister, whom Obama came to admire when he was deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.

“He was really taken with him,” says Power, in what will undoubtedly be viewed by American conservatives as a desperately bad sign. “It’s a relationship that has persisted and they have talked a number of times since.”

Malloch Brown is well known for his stridently anti-American views, and is without doubt Gordon Brown's most controversial hire. He was recently profiled in a major piece by The Spectator.

William Hague's interview today with The Daily Telegraph, where he calls on the United States to restore its "moral authority" in the world, will reignite tensions between the Conservative Party and the Bush Administration after a period of rapprochement following David Cameron's successful visit to Washington last November.

Controversially, Hague asserts of America:

"This is a country we ought to be able to look up to and acknowledge as our single most important relationship in the world and I think that, or I really hope the new president it going to take that opportunity to present that to the world again."

This is strong stuff from the Shadow Foreign Secretary, an assertion that he doesn't currently acknowledge the U.S.-UK alliance as "our single most important relationship". They are astonishing comments at a time when American and British troops are fighting alongside each other in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hague should clarify his remarks, which are clearly at odds with the traditional position of his party.

My colleague Sally McNamara has an important new paper aimed at U.S. policymakers, warning of the dangers posed by the EU Reform Treaty to the transatlantic alliance and to American and British interests.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/bg2109.cfm

As Sally writes,

"The treaty is a blueprint for restricting the sovereign right of EU member states to determine their own foreign policies and poses a unique threat to the British-American Special Relationship. Above all, the treaty underscores the EU's ambi­tions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage... If there was ever a time for the White House to become unnerved about further European integration, this is it."

Excellent, thought-provoking piece by Norman Podhoretz in the latest issue of Commentary. As Podhoretz points out, despite the NIE assessment, Iran is still a massive threat that will have to be ultimately confronted. The use of force against the Mullahs has to remain firmly on the table, both for the United States and Great Britain.