By David Semple
British Prime Minister David Cameron is the West’s best hope since the political demise of Canada’s Stephen Harper. But he must improve his foreign policy and show he is a world statesman like Blair and Thatcher.
Justin Trudeau, the newly-elected prime minister of Canada, may well go down in history as the “Canadian Obama.” A left-wing puppet of the Obama White House, Trudeau has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Muslims. Trudeau has already decided to pull Canada out of the air war against the Islamic State, a position which Obama would love to emulate were it not for American public opinion, which is repulsed by the bloodthirsty war ISIS is fighting in both Iraq and Syria.
Trudeau’s predecessor Stephen Harper stood head and shoulders above political pygmies like Obama, Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel. Harper was an ardent supporter of Israel and he heroically opposed the disastrous Iran deal. But his political demise leaves a moral vacuum in the West, which only UK Prime Minister David Cameron can reasonably fill. Unfortunately, this may be more difficult than first imagined. Cameron, despite being a very decent man, agreed to support the Iran deal and has not always been entirely supportive of Israel. He once called Gaza an “open-air prison” and stepped down as patron of the Jewish National Fund in 2011 because of pressure from the BDS campaign. But with Harper gone, Cameron must rise to the occasion and offer the West some moral compass. This means a stronger focus on foreign policy, like his predecessor Harold Macmillan. It’s not enough for Cameron’s Tories to run a smooth and efficient machine. After all, Harper was the most successful economic leader in Canada’s history, yet he lost the election to a man who will try to take Canada back to the bad old days of the 1970s.
In Britain and North America, millions of people protested against the Iraq War in 2003. Today, the same people who opposed Western intervention in Iraq and Syria have given Russia their nod of approval by their stony silence in 2015. The collapse of Judeo-Christian values in the West, which has led to people supporting our enemies and opposing the defence of Western interests, is responsible for the rise of both Obama and Trudeau, the anti-Western/pro-Islamic candidates in the US election of 2008 and the Canadian election of 2015. The voters in both Canada and the United States voted for free money promised by the expansion of public sector debt and for candidates who favour multiculturalism over national security. The election of Trudeau offers a warning to Cameron’s Conservatives. Do not trust the public not to put a terrorist-sympathiser like Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn into No 10 Downing Street. Corbyn may well “do a Trudeau” and win the 2020 election against a successful Conservative government.
We need our leaders to guide the Western world through the dangerous times in which we live, to ensure that our civilisation remains in touch with the values upon which it was built, and to take on Britain’s traditional role of protecting the liberties of our allies throughout the world. We must support the free world – which includes Israel – against totalitarians like ISIS, Iran and Hamas, all of which are regimes are at war with English liberties. England became famous in spreading liberty and liberal capitalism throughout the world. That’s why we built the British Empire – the same empire that dominated international trade for over 200 years. We became powerful because we spread economic freedom and personal liberty. The New World is our creation.
Since the fall of the British Empire, which was brought on by our sacrificial war against the most evil regime in human history, Nazi Germany, Britain has become a member of the European Union and ceased to be a sovereign nation. We needed the whole of the British Empire in order to defeat Hitler, but the price of victory was to grant freedom and independence to our colonies. During the Cold War, Britain stood by the United States in bringing down the Iron Curtain in 1989. Since becoming a fully paid up member of the European Union, Britain has taken a back seat in international affairs. Tony Blair did support the United States in the War on Terror. But today, we seem to have dropped out of this war. Thus, along with Washington, Berlin and Paris, London has joined the graveyard of the West. In the absence of American world leadership under Obama, it is time for Prime Minister Cameron to become more than just another Stanley Baldwin.
Five years into his premiership, Cameron is being lauded amongst the Tory greats, way of ahead of the pack which includes the likes of Stanley Baldwin and Edward Heath. He is on the verge of climbing into the pantheon of Winston Churchill, Benjamin Disraeli, Margaret Thatcher, Lord Salisbury and Harold Macmillan. Cameron actually has much in common with Edward Heath, with a bureaucratic determination to turn around Britain’s economic decline. To that degree, Cameron has largely succeeded where Heath failed. Not as ruthlessly strong-willed as Heath, the Cameron of similar “middle way” politics has avoided some of the dreadful mistakes made by Heath’s technocratic Tory reformers by following a more flexible path.
Thus, Cameron’s decision to ride carefully down the road of limited economic and social reforms seems to put him in the league of Harold Macmillan. Not quite, however, as Macmillan was a visionary in the statecraft of foreign policy innovation, whereas Cameron displays a limited involvement in foreign policy, led by an interest in economic relations, but sadly not too interested in confronting the great foreign policy issues of the age with a decisive edge. Harold Macmillan attended important summit meetings and played the most decisive role, amongst post-war prime ministers, in bringing about the rapid decolonisation of the British Empire. Cameron, on the other hand, sent Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, without a second thought, to make the most disastrous foreign treaty deal since Neville Chamberlain’s Munich Pact with Adolf Hitler.
Yet, if Cameron were suddenly to resign today, after just over five years’ service to the nation, most observers would conclude that his time in No 10 Downing Street was largely successful, despite the limited impact of his foreign policy on world affairs. Tony Blair, who did much damage to the nation during his ten years in office, towered above David Cameron on the world stage. Thus, the Cameron years would today end in much the same manner as the Stanley Baldwin years, riding the economic storms of depression with a positive reformist economic impact on the nation. Yet, like Baldwin, Cameron has chosen the path of “safety first” when faced with the gathering waves of terror that are threatening to engulf our shores and drown the nation in deep tragedy. Also, like Baldwin, Cameron has chosen to ignore the crisis setting in on the European continent which in future threatens to destroy the values on which the West was built over a thousand years ago.
Stanley Baldwin stood at the crossroads of history when he started his third term as prime minister in 1935. Like Cameron eight decades later, Baldwin was in partnership in a coalition called the National Government for one term of office, although Labour’s Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister from 1931 to 1935. Like Cameron’s Coalition, the National Government put the finances of the country in order following the onset of a depression. The events of the following five years, from May 1935, destroyed Baldwin’s reputation. Baldwin chose to leave the most important decisions of the times to his successor, Neville Chamberlain, after failing to stop the rot setting in on the European continent eighty years ago when it mattered.
Cameron, like Baldwin in the 1930’s, stands at the crossroads of history. The political decisions he makes over the next two years will change the fate of the nation. The most important decision Britain will make is whether or not to leave the increasingly Sovietised European Union. It is entirely unlikely that the Eurocrats will offer Cameron acceptable terms during the current renegotiation rounds with the European Union. It is also unlikely that Cameron, offered a poor deal by Europe, will take the lead role in the “leave” campaign during the upcoming referendum on British membership. And it is unlikely that the Conservative Party will replace Cameron as party leader before the referendum. Thus, Cameron, the Europhile Tory Prime Minister, may find himself as the unlikely man to take Britain out of the EU (albeit reluctantly).
This remains the problem with Cameron. He’s happy to go along with Europe and Washington when it comes to suicidal treaties, like Obama’s Iran deal, rather than do what Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher did, which was to support British interests, to support the Atlantic Alliance and to support the cause of freedom and liberty without compromising British values. At least Thatcher and Churchill fought tooth and nail with Reagan and Roosevelt without upsetting the special relationship. Since the rise of Obama, Britain has been subservient to American policy on almost every issue, with neither Gordon Brown nor Cameron taking a principled stand against Obama’s pro-Islamist foreign policy.
In the 1930’s, Stanley Baldwin chose Safety First over the interests of Britain’s liberal imperialism. This is the same policy chosen by Cameron. When Hitler re-militarised the Rhineland in 1936, Baldwin did nothing. And Hitler knew that Britain was morally weak. By thus not choosing to confront the terrorist regime of Hitler when Britain could have sent the German Fuhrer packing, Baldwin put Britain on the road to appeasement, which ultimately played to the advantage of Hitler, and lead directly to the disasters of 1940 and the fall of the West. Baldwin ignored Winston Churchill’s lone voice against the appeasement of Nazi Germany, so he kept Churchill out of his government. Yet, at the back of his mind, Baldwin knew that if appeasement failed, Churchill would have his day.
Cameron played the “safety first” game in supporting Obama’s Iran deal, which many today see as big a disaster as Chamberlain’s Munich pact of 1938. Iran is the rising power of the Middle East. As the Arab world falls into civil wars and perpetual violence, Iran is fighting for control of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. Yet Obama, Cameron and the Euros are going to drop all sanctions against Iran and hand over to the Islamic Republic $150 billion in blocked funds which Iran will use to pursue its imperialist expansion into the Arab world. And Russia is working with Iran. Yet Foreign Secretary Hammond celebrates the Iran deal as a breakthrough in international relations. It’s obvious that Cameron and Hammond are servants of the bureaucrats in the Foreign Office, who have a very poor record at standing up for liberal Western values. Thus, as the Foreign Office supported appeasement during the 1930s, so it supports appeasement of tyranny in the twenty-first century.
Blair made the difference when he gallantly stood by George Bush during the early years of the War on Terror against the reluctant British establishment of his time. Today, in failing to stand up against the tyranny of Iran, Cameron has made no positive impact on British foreign policy. He is so obsessed with putting Britain’s finances right that he has lost the plot in the Middle East.
Let’s put it straight. The terrorists are still fighting against Western interests. Those terrorists include not only Islamic State and the Muslim Brotherhood groups like al-Qaeda and Hamas, but also Iran and its proxy Hezbollah, in addition to Russia. Putin is not fighting in Syria to defeat ISIS and Islamist groups. He is allied with the most dangerous Islamist regime in the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Russia, itself a danger to the West in both Europe and the Middle East, is trying to recover the former dominance in the Middle East that it enjoyed in the days of the Soviet Union from the early 1950s until the early 1970s, when Russia courted the Nasser regime in Egypt.
So what is Cameron doing about this? Nothing. In fact, he’s appeasing Russia’s ally, the terrorist regime in Tehran, run by insane religious maniacs who call America the “great Satan” and plan to destroy the West, step by step, until Europe lives in fear of the shadow of the Mullahs, stuck in a groove of revolving appeasement. Iran is playing for the long term. The Mullahs will use Russia to weaken NATO, and once the Atlantic Alliance is crippled out of fear of Islam, Iran will turn on Russia. Britain and Europe are too close to the Middle East to protect themselves from the storm of Islamic jihad that is blowing like a hurricane in the Arab world. It is in the Arab world that the West must intervene before Russia and Iran and the Islamic State grow stronger.
The only way to defeat the Islamic State and other jihadi terrorists is with ground troops, not just bombing. Once the West defeats the Islamists, a long-term occupation of huge parts of the Middle East will be necessary to keep the Islamist genie in the bottle. If Islamism is the new Nazism, then de-Nazification over decades, not years, is essential. If we do not defeat the Islamic State and all the other jihadist groups, they will infiltrate and destroy Europe and Britain. We have been fighting Islamic imperialism for 1,300 years since the victory of Charles Martel over the Islamic invaders in France in the eighth century. The last serious Islamic invasion of Europe ended at the Gates of Vienna on September 11 1683. Since that time, Islam has been weaker than the West. The period of Western imperialism in the Islamic world was very short (1915-1945) compared with the continued Islamic imperialism in North Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia that has lasted almost 1,400 years. To destroy Islamic imperialism, the West needs to reclaim the territories held by the much older Byzantine Empire.
While President Obama is in the White House, it is unlikely that the United States will take the lead in the War on Terror. Thus, Russia, Iran and various Islamic terrorist groups will have a field day while we are forced to wait until there is a new President in DC. Remember this date: January 20 2017. It’s only just over a year away from us, but that’s how long the West in going to have to wait for leadership to emerge from Washington once again. Europe is not providing any leadership. Merkel is flooding the continent with Muslim refugees, many of whom will start terrorist campaigns in the capitals of once famous European capitals, from Paris to Berlin, from Rome to Copenhagen.
The European answer to fighting Islamic terrorism is to further Islamise Europe. Appeasement does not pay dividends when you are appeasing tyrants and terrorists. Now is the time for Britain to play its role by opposing the Islamic State. Sadly, Cameron is not an international leader. In domestic terms, he succeeds where Tony Blair failed; but on the world stage, he has thus far failed where Blair and Margaret Thatcher made a difference, which was to guide Washington into doing the right thing. It is highly unlikely that Cameron will become another Harold Macmillan at this stage in his career. But he could at least make an effort to provide some leadership in standing by Israel as Palestinian Arab terrorists continue their reign of terror on the Jewish state.
Great Britain was instrumental in creating the modern Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. This system of nation states in the Arab world may have ignored certain Arabic tribal loyalties across the region, but it is better for the West and the Arab world to avoid the rise of a new Caliphate, which is the only realistic alternative to nation states. If the Arab world unites under either Sunni leadership or Iranian imperialism, Europe and the West will be in danger. In fact, with the Islamic State and the various Muslim Brotherhood groups running wild over the region, Europe is now in grave danger. Iraq and Syria are falling apart. Russia’s military high jinx are not in the interests of the West. And Iran poses a great danger, should it gain hegemony in the region. Thus, Britain must support Israel and Jordan, the only successful nation states left in the Middle East. Egypt is highly unstable and Saudi Arabia is headed for certain bankruptcy and collapse.
Cameron has championed Israel’s right to defend itself. Yet Foreign Secretary Hammond still refers to east Jerusalem and the West Bank as “occupied territories”. This undermines Israel every bit as much as the Palestinian terror campaign. The Cameron government supports the two-state solution. Thus, the Conservative Friends of Israel supports the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria and refuses to contemplate realistic alternatives. Oslo is dead. But Oslo never envisioned a Palestinian state. Rabin wanted Palestinian self-rule within parts of the West Bank, not the whole of the territories formerly occupied by Jordan. Now that the Palestinians have turned down several offers for a state in the West Bank, they have removed their mask and come out in open warfare against Israel. The Palestinians are fighting a holy war, or jihad, for Islamic supremacy in Israel. Mahmoud Abbas is trying to blackmail the world into recognising an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, while not offering to recognise Israel. Abbas will never recognise Israel. For he wants to destroy Israel as much as did his predecessors Yasser Arafat and Hajj Amin al-Husseini.
Britain should wake up to the Palestinian reality on the ground. Hamas and the PLO are part of the wider Islamic movement which wants to destroy first Israel, and then the West. Thus, Britain should support Israel, and trust Israel, while withdrawing support for the Palestinian Authority. And Britain should take the lead is withdrawing its support for the two-state solution. Those states already exist, Israel and Jordan, one Jewish Palestine and one Arab Palestine. Cameron would be wise to listen to the words of American presidential candidate Ted Cruz who strongly believes the American government should not be dictating terms of peace or settlement policy:
“Israel is our ally. We should stand with Israel. We should not presume to dictate matters of internal governance for the nation of Israel. If I am elected president, we will not do so. I do not believe the American government should be dictating terms of peace or settlement policy to the nation of Israel. […] We should stand with Israel. We should not presume to dictate matters of internal governance for the nation of Israel. If I am elected president, we will not do so.”
David Semple is a filmmaker and writer from Canada. He is currently writing a book called Jerusalem in the Age of Imperialism and is writing a film script about Field Marshal Allenby’s Palestine campaign.
[The opinions, facts and any media content are presented solely by the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Jewish Media Agency.]