Cameron is a wiser man now. His return is welcome

The last time I spoke to David Cameron about his political career was in the autumn of last year. We used the past tense: it was the Truss era (if one can use that grand word about a period of seven weeks), so there was no chance for him. But I did tell him what a pity it was that the only way for ex-prime ministers these days seemed to be out. They had acquired useful experience, even wisdom, by doing the job: they should be able to put it to the country’s service.

Specifically, I said I thought Cameron would be a good foreign secretary. He admitted he had thought about the idea already; but neither of us manifested any sense that it would happen.

Now it has, it is doubly welcome: welcome in principle for the reason stated above, but also in this case. By coming back in that post and as a peer, Cameron will no longer be a politician in the normal sense. He will be no threat to the leadership because he could never attain it. 

Ted Heath had perfect confidence in Alec Douglas-Home as his foreign secretary from 1970-74 because he knew – though Home was still an MP – that he had no ambitions to return to No 10. Mrs Thatcher was fond of Lord Carrington, her first foreign secretary, although their political views differed sharply. She knew he would never try to grab her job from the red benches of the Lords.

In both men’s cases, their advice was therefore much likelier to be disinterested than that of those who sought the crown. They were both people who knew the world and commanded international respect. Having moved beyond political ambition, they had graduated to being statesmen. Both did their jobs extremely well, though Carrington’s time was cut short by Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands.

Some of my fellow Eurosceptics say the Cameron return means the end of Brexit. I think that extremely unlikely, though it certainly does nothing for the Red Wall. His office-ending tangle with the subject of Brexit means he is almost the last person to want it reopened. And while he has not become a Leaver, he is not nearly a zealous enough European to become a Rejoiner.

David Cameron could be wet in social policy, but his foreign policy was robust. He was unequivocal and quite far-seeing about Putin’s ambitions. He was one of the strongest voices in his own administration about the dangers of Islamism. The only blot on his record is his “golden era” policy in relation to China – too credulous, too venal. Let us hope Covid and Xi Jinping’s other aggressions have taught him some lessons.

A final thought: the appointment is a good division of labour by the Prime Minister. The data-driven, economically expert Rishi Sunak is not a natural actor on the stage of global strategy. David Cameron is.

Reporting from Gaza

In foreign reporting, how close, personally, should the journalist be to the story? Should he or she be a native of the place covered? There are obvious advantages – being a speaker of the language, having a web of contacts built up over many years, staying put rather than flitting between continents. It also saves money, compared with flying in “big-foot” reporters and putting them up in expensive hotels. 

The BBC seems to think that having a local reporter makes its work more authentic. On the Today programme, the corporation’s Gaza correspondent, Rushdi Abualouf, explained that, as a local, he knew the city’s Dar al-Shifa Hospital extremely well. Indeed, he had been born there and his mother had died in it. The presenter Mishal Husain suggested this meant that, when Abualouf said he knew of no evidence for Israel’s claim that Hamas conceals tunnels and a command post under the hospital, he spoke with particular authority. 

This sounds right, but isn’t. In places with nasty regimes, the local correspondent is at a massive disadvantage compared with a British reporter with a passport out, because he or she can be made to live in fear. 

I am not suggesting that Abualouf was not telling the truth; but imagine what would happen to him in Gaza if he revealed that Hamas was abusing the hospital in this way. At the very least, he would be cut off from all access. He might be exiled, or imprisoned, or even killed. None of his family would be safe from regime reprisals. 

One of the striking things about current Gazan reporting is that it finds out very little about what Hamas is up to. It is much easier to attack Israel. The BBC does not admit that the media conditions Hamas imposes must block balanced reporting. 

In a rather lachrymose BBC online piece a couple of weeks ago, its veteran reporter, Fergal Keane, sang the praises of its local staff for their emotional engagement. He quoted a BBC freelancer in Gaza, Mahmoud Bassam, whose wife and baby have to dodge Israeli bombing: “Sometimes from behind the camera I just stand and cry. And the only thing I can do is be silent.” 

We admire the courage of such journalists, but must also hold on to the point that “emotional engagement” in such situations is almost bound to warp judgment. Keane describes Bassam as “a dedicated chronicler of his people’s agony”. 

That should not be his job for the British Broadcasting Corporation. He is not working for “his people”. He should be a dedicated chronicler of everything that is happening, on both sides, in his troubled patch of ground.