Sundbites at the United Nations

[RF]

The United Nations General Assembly a few days ago had the experiemce of being addressed by the British Prime Minister David Cameron. Or at least those who were present, for there were rows of empty seats facing the podium. But there again, was the speech worth listening to?

This speech appeared to have the purpose of justifying British military involvement in Libya and the need for ''democracy in Africa'' in the light of the ''Arab Spring.'' For the sanctimonious piffle and soundbites therein our PM is becoming more Tony Blair than Tony Blair. It was also a speech that Ed Miliband, leader of the opposition Labour Party, could have made word for word.

The fine spin on democracy overlooks the matter of Britain having a coalition government, arising out of the 2010 General Election, in which nobody voted for. I certainly didn't vote for either of the coalition parties. This unelected government, or rather Prime Minister Cameron, has told parliament that it doesn't intend to hold itself to account to the voters until 2015. And then it wants to reduce the number of backbench MP's in future parliaments, as if parliament isn't enough of a rubber stamp already.

There is also the scenario of the coalition government substantially cutting defence expenditure as part of its efforts to contain the budget deficit. These cuts will be very damaging to Britains' long term interests as an independent country, yet hundreds of millions of pounds of British taxpayers money has been spent on using British forces to back the anti-Gaddaffi faction in Libya and essentially win that war for them.It should not be the role of Britain, or France, or NATO or the EU to take sides in a civil war in an African country where British interests are not directly affected. It was done in the name of humanity and democracy - but the new rulers in Libya are as bad as Gaddaffi and his tribal henchmen. One despotism is replaced by another.

Now Cameron implies in his speech that Syria is next.....

[Dave Saxton]

I certainly hope that John Bolton will be the next US Secretary of State. We need his kind of leadership on the international stage.

[RF]

What does John Bolton stand for?

[Dave Saxton]

In a word competency. In two words, competency and experience. In an idea, the ability to see and understand things as they really are; not as one would like them to be, and to act accordingly. He’s a conservative and realist. Left wingers and Islamic fundamentalists fear and hate him. That’s always a good thing. In my opinion he would make a good President, but he lacks the money and name recognition. He would however, be an invaluable asset to another conservative.

[RF]

So what are his policies? Would he take part in other people's civil wars regardless of cost to the taxpayer? Would he bale out the Euro and countries in heavy debt, regardless of the cost in inflation and to the taxpayer? That is what Cameron the ''conservative'' is in the process of doing for Britain.

And would he cut defence spending and the size of your military forces? Yes, thats what Cameron the ''conservative'' is doing for Britain. Would he have a fleet of carriers but without any planes to fly from them?

[Dave Saxton]

Having read some of his books and knowing of his actions as US Ambassador to the UN and his service in the US Department of State, I can say he would not concede to those things listed above as a matter of policy -if it was up to him. The current President formulates policy for the most part of course. Being a realist allows him to tackle each senario anew rather than being bound by unrealistic ideals as policy. An idealist (in forgien policy) is someone like Jimmy Carter (or Obama, to some extent Bush, and Blair) or on the other end of the spectrum Ron Paul. (Hitler's policies and strategies were dictated by his pathlogical ideological views as well).

One thing about Bolton is his recognition of the problem of perpetual left wing leaning policy by the permament bureaucracies in the US Federal Gov and those in Europe and the bureacratic inertia it intails. In his own words:

Political opinion at State is overwhelmingly Democtratic (Party) and libreral (not classicly liberal). This ideological coloration is in part due to the self-selection at the entry level, and in part due to the acculturation over years of employment whithin (the Gov bureaucracy or military) from forces both inside the bureaucracy and outside, especially from the High Minded in academia.

Secondly the Foreign Service regularly observes the way foreign policy is formulated in most other countries, where the permament bureacracies really do predominate, passing policy on to transient and typically compliant political ministers, who often do little more than read the talking points careerists hand them, after all in London, for example, they don't call such careerists the "manderins of Whitehall" for nothing.

.....(US bureaucrats) know how to use Washington's multifacteed levels of power leaking to philosophically congenial members of Congress and the media, and thereby carrying on (their) ideological struggle well outside the bureaucratic corridors.

Third, presidential ineptitude (read Obama) cannot be ignored. Counterproductive or lackluster appointments (read H Clinton) squander the excutive's most effective tool for overcoming bureaucratic inertia. "Personal is policy" is not just a slogan it is a fact. Presidents (PMs and MPs) and secretaries of state who see senior officials as interchangable have only themselves to blame when they are either captured by the permament bureaucracy or unable to move it where they want it go....

[RF]

(Hitler's policies and strategies were dictated by his pathlogical ideological views as well).

But even Hitler was a pragmatist. The non-aggression pacts he agreed with Poland in 1934 and with the USSR in 1939 were hardly driven by ''pathological ideological views.'' Though of course both agreements were dispensed with when they no longer suited him.

[RF]

The quotes from John Bolton are interesting but offers little insight into what he he would actually do if he were policy maker. What alternative does he offer, in the words of Walter Mondale, ''where's the beef?''

What is needed is a clear intellectual alternative to the cosy political consensus we have in the EU and in the US at present - much on the same lines that Barry Goldwater presented as an alternative to the Kennedy consensus in 1964.

[Dave Saxton]

Interesting, that you mention Goldwater, because Bolton is from the Goldwater school. I'd suggest you locate some of his writings and learn about his potential policy first hand. I might not be able to do it justice here. I think you will find he is the kind of conservative leader on the international stage we need.