sir christopher meyer
On arriving in London he will find himself thrown into the monstrous hopper of the British referendum campaign, where facts are sacrificed daily on the altar of propaganda and abuse. He has been insulted by the leading Brexiteer, Boris Johnson, for suggesting that the United States would prefer Britain to remain in the EU - declared, bipartisan, American policy since time immemorial. A group of Eurosceptic MPs have warned him off intervening in the campaign. Yet, for all the fog of the Brexit wars, Obama's visit will vividly illuminate what is at stake for Britain on 23 June. The referendum will fix Britain's place in the world for a century or more.
The charges against David Cameron over his Iraq policy are well founded. But there are extenuating circumstances... It is time for a root-and-branch review of the principles of British foreign policy, so that they reflect two essential things: the world as it is and not as we would wish it to be; and the British national interest. Or, to put it another way, don't do nation-building and don't intervene in other people's civil wars - we usually make things worse, as in Iraq, and the waste of blood and treasure is unforgivable. If this means hobnobbing with dictators, so be it. Only genocide and threats to world order merit military intervention, as with IS.
David Cameron has the political luxury of not having to answer the toxic question: if not Juncker, who? Unlike John Major, he can luxuriate indefinitely in the plaudits of eurosceptic MPs and newspapers, with Ukip confounded and Labour wrong-footed.
Make no mistake - the Cold War is back. As with the first Cold War the main task is to ensure that it does not turn hot. Paradoxically, the way to achieve that is for NATO, with all the clarity it can muster, to tell Putin that a move against the Baltic states would be met by military retaliation. It is the message that should come out of the crisis summit which president Obama has called for next week. It's scary, but Putin, like so many of his predecessors, understands all too well the language of force.
It could hardly be worse. The system of press regulation cobbled together by the Coalition and opposition in the wee small hours on Monday is, to borrow the Leveson jargon, neither voluntary, nor independent, nor self-regulation... to the eternal shame of parliament, we have ended up with a political concoction based on a single judge's recommendations, which may lead to the courts telling editors what to put in their publications. That noise you hear is the applause of dictators around the world.
Tony Blair effectively subcontracted the decision to invade Iraq to former United States president George Bush, according
On the eve of the US presidential elections, plenty of Democrats in this deeply religious country will have seen Hurricane Sandy as a sign from heaven that God backs Obama.
But, what about the internet, I hear you cry? Kate's topless photos have shot around the world. Doesn't this make an utter nonsense of press regulation, statutory or non-statutory? And isn't it unfair to put newspapers, already in a dodgy financial state, at a commercial disadvantage by not being able to publish content widely available online? There are no easy answers. But, unless you want to dispense with regulation altogether, to give newspapers an automatic right to reproduce anything they fancy from the internet surely cannot be justified.
Given Ecuador's hyperbole, you might think that British gunboats were sailing even now towards Guayaquil. But, the diplomatic note that our man in Quito left with the Ecuadorean Foreign Ministry earlier this week was a model of moderation.
Ecuador has backed itself into a corner over the decision to grant Julian Assange political asylum, the UK's former ambassador