Cameron faces sceptics with 'new interventionism' call

David Cameron addresses the UN on 22 September 2011 Mr Cameron praised the will of the coalition in the Libyan campaign

David Cameron's appearance at the United Nations General Assembly offered the chance for him to lay out a new doctrine on intervention.

It comes at an uneasy time for the UK, since the Libyan intervention and Palestinian membership beg questions about whether it is really prepared to abandon its role as America's principal ally.

Mr Cameron told the General Assembly that the organisation "needs a new way of working" in order to take advantage of the "massive opportunity" presented by the Arab Spring.

Although he characterised the overthrow of Libya's dictator as a victory of the people in that country he noted that "a coalition of nations had the will to act" in support of them.

Traditional pattern

The Libyan intervention seems to fit well with Mr Cameron's campaign pledge of restoring greater independence to Britain's foreign policy decision making.

After all, it was not an operation on the pattern of Iraq or Afghanistan where the US took the lead politically, and provided the overwhelming bulk of the combat power.

Yet even so, the Libyan operation would have been impossible without US involvement - both in actively bombing Colonel Gaddafi's air defences during the early days of the offensive, and in providing extensive intelligence and other support later.

It is also the case that many countries that are hostile to the traditional pattern of US-UK intervention or global policing regard the late Libyan intervention as "business as usual".

Among those who had to be persuaded in the Arab League or Security Council to support the attacking of Gaddafi's forces, the manner of his ouster and the sight of artillery loyal to the National Transitional Council shelling towns like Sirte give the lie to the idea enshrined in the enabling resolutions, that this was all meant to be a humanitarian intervention, protecting civilians from civil war.

It has determined countries like Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and, most importantly in the UN context, Russia, to avoid giving carte blanche again to any similar operation.

So today Mr Cameron called for "a credible resolution threatening tough sanctions" on Syria.

But the obstruction of such a resolution in the Security Council by Russia and China owes much to their perception that the Libyan intervention has simply presented an opportunity to advance long standing western aims in north Africa.

Palestinian bid

The question of Palestinian UN membership also provides a crucial test of whether Britain is actually able to act with greater independence internationally.

Interestingly, it is on questions of Israel-Palestine that the usual US-UK double act in the Security Council has sometimes faltered in the past.

So will Britain back the US in vetoing the attempt by President Mahmud Abbas to upgrade Palestinian membership at the UN?

France may have been on the same page as Britain on Libya, but it is ready to give limited support to elevating Palestinian representation in New York.

Tonight, however, Mr Cameron hinted that he would not support the Palestinian bid for recognition, saying that a UN resolution cannot be a substitute for the political will to re-start the stalled peace process.

He said in a TV interview this evening, "We will only support measures and processes if they actually help to get these talks back on track".

This line leaves unclear whether the UK will vote against the Palestinian membership bid or abstain.

The prime minister is thought to favour a "no" vote but some others around the cabinet table either support President Abbas or would prefer abstention.

While voting "no" would open Mr Cameron to criticism that the UK is behaving as "America's poodle", abstaining might not exactly soothe Arab opinion either.

In this sense countries like Syria, Iran, or even Russia will be able to label the Cameron approach on Libya or Palestine as a continuation of Britain's role in recent history as America's steadfast supporter, however articulately Mr Cameron made his arguments today.

Mark Urban Article written by Mark Urban Mark Urban Diplomatic and defence editor, BBC Newsnight

Does Nato have the political will to face up to Russia?

Events in Ukraine involving Russia appear to throw a lifeline to Nato, but do its members have the political will to stand up to the Kremlin?

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 15.

    Here we go again!, Cameron's caught the Blair disease, after his "Kosovo" moment in Libya. He's about to make the same mistakes.
    Despite the RUSI report that we were lucky over Libya.
    We have enough problems back home without trying to regain the mantle as the "World's Policeman".
    Cameron claimed before the election that our foreign policy would be based on self interest and so we should.

  • rate this

    Comment number 14.

    Cameron said peace will only come when Palestinians & Israelis sit down & talk to each other, make compromises, build trust & agree. Sounds like a wordy Obama statement. Israel maintains that it has not had a partner for peace in 60 years! It has had no one to talk to! As for stopping the settlements, I don't think so.

  • rate this

    Comment number 13.

    Cameron's speech made no clear commitment re Palestine. Dig this: “Let’s be clear about one fact,” he said. “No UNSC resolution can, on its own, substitute for the political will necessary to bring peace."
    Any why not, David? Is it because of US veto? A lack of will from Palestinians? Or maybe the all-powerful will of the Israeli lobbyists?

  • rate this

    Comment number 12.

    Cameron made clear what is right for Libya will not necessarily be right everywhere. Despite his commitment to protecting persecuted populations, speech is likely to prompt debate at home about whether the UK really has ongoing capability. Show us the money, David.

  • rate this

    Comment number 11.

    Many nations are committed to non-intervention. Cameron said: his argument is where action is necessary, legal & right, to fail to act is to fail those who need our help. Really, & who makes the decision, David? He added Libya & Arab spring show UN needs a new way of working. Was it the Libyans themselves who called for change? Who made the decision, David?


Comments 5 of 15



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.