A Khrushchev Moment

Yesterday, David Miliband made the remarkable decision to tell the world that the "war on terror" was a mistake - or at least that's how the papers reported it.

There is just so much to say on this that I don't even know where to start! First, as Ed Davey rightly points out, this revelation either makes Miliband a coward or an opportunist with few principles - and there isn't really a way around that. Three things could have happened: he could always have believed this to be the case - but was always too fearful of the backlash from Washington that he never said it - this would make hima coward; he could not have any opinion on the matter but he knows Obama thinks something similar so he's hopping on the next band wagon - an opportunist; or we could believe his answer to Davey's criticism - namely that the Foreign Office have not been using the term since 2006 and have long ago changed their terrorism policy - I think this makes him a coward and an opportunist?. Changing policy but not telling anyone about it is as bad as, or probably worse than thinking a policy is wrong but at least telling the people you work for before you decide to change it.

Anyway, I won't speculate as to which of those things is the truth - it will suffice to say that there is now a new reality in Foreign Policy. There was always a change coming with Obama, but is the Khrushchev method really the best way? denouncing what came before as evil and then starting something new without bothering to tie it down to foundations or an understanding of its origins? (don't get me wrong. Stalin was bad and when Khrushchev did it I'm sure I would have been wholly supportive!)

But, to be honest, I worry. There is certainly some truth in the assertion that using terms such as "axis of evil" and the "war on terror" were perhaps not as helpful as they could have been. But, in my opinion at least, the world remains divided into two camps; those who respect liberty and justice and those who do not. I'm uncomfortable with this new paradigm that some oppressive governments are not as bad as others. I am worried that the world will return to the state of play where a country is the friend of the US one year - and gets armed to the teeth accordingly - only to turn into its arch enemy the next.

The old Bush-Blair neoconservative doctrine was essentially a good idea. It drew clear lines in the sand. It didn't mean to say that a neoconservative should not negotiate with Iran - nor did it mean that encouraging democracy in foreign countries had to be done with tanks and F-16s. But it gave clarity. It had the courage of its convictions - it was not afraid to say "liberty good oppression bad".

So, as Miliband hammers the final nail in the coffin of neoconservatism the risk of walking backwards and of encouraging unjust and illegitimate authority to flourish seems to be becoming ever more likely. I, for one, will miss the days when the world was not afraid to say that liberty was deserved by all people, everywhere.