Translated material
To Obama's tuning fork
British minister questioned Bush's course in the fight against terrorism
As US President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration day approaches January 20, many Western leaders are rushing to speak in unison with him, harshly criticizing the legacy of the outgoing head of the White House, George W. Bush. Even such a staunch advocate of partnership with the United States as British Foreign Secretary David Miliband (pictured) yesterday questioned the priorities of the “Bush era.”The 43-year-old head of the British Foreign Office criticized the war on international terrorism declared by the Americans, first from the pages of the influential London newspaper The Guardian, and then in the city of Mumbai, which he visited during a three-day visit to India. After all, this city was subjected to a terrorist attack on November 26, 2008, in which more than 170 people died.
The Indians clearly expected a harsh condemnation of the terrorists from the British minister, who would also visit Pakistan. Moreover, the head of the Foreign Ministry spoke at the Taj Mahal hotel, which became one of the targets of the attackers. However, David Miliband, admitting that, according to British and Indian intelligence, the attack on Mumbai “was organized in Pakistan,” turned to the Indian side. He called on Delhi for "further restraint," saying the global democratic community's response to terrorists should be to "strengthen the rule of law rather than seek to subjugate it." To this, the Indian Foreign Ministry has already responded that it does not share these views: “India does not need unsolicited advice.”
Miliband also touched upon the war in the Gaza Strip, recalling the recent call by the head of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, for a “holy war” with Israel. The Briton complained that the Israeli army operation allowed the number one terrorist to “make political capital out of the crisis.”
But it was George Bush and his concept of the “war on terror” who suffered the most. Miliband called it a "misleading and misleading idea". Calling for a new era in international affairs in which “democratic opportunity will prevail over fear and repression,” the head of the Foreign Office said the “war on terror” that began after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001 had yet to be assessed: “Historians they will judge what she brought more - harm or good.”
In an editorial in The Guardian, David Miliband was even more explicit, saying that “the war on terrorism was based on the wrong ideas.” He supported Barack Obama's intention to quickly close the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, where terrorism suspects are tortured. True, the call for the closure of this prison was the only concrete proposal from the minister on how terrorism should be defeated by means other than the military. He mainly spoke about Western values, which must be opposed to extremists.
“Miliband, as soon as he took his post in June 2007 in the government of the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown, tried to distance himself from the legacy of the too close alliance of the head of the previous cabinet, Tony Blair, with George Bush. He already expressed then that the fight against terrorism cannot be waged only by military methods,” Deputy Director of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexei Gromyko reminded Vremya Novostey. However, then, according to him, “criticism of Bush’s foreign policy faded into the background for Miliband”: “This is probably due to changes in the United States in connection with the inauguration of the new president. The Briton adapts to the winds that blow in Washington. After all, Obama spoke more sharply and definitely about the failures of his predecessor, and the British government is trying to adapt to this tuning fork. This is not an epiphany or a change of course, this is an adjustment to the new US administration.”
In Britain, Miliband's revelations were met with mixed reactions. Lib Dem spokesman Edward Davie said: “If the British Foreign Secretary had said all this to George Bush many months, or better yet, years ago, it would have deserved respect. But it’s not a leader’s job to mimic the words of the US President a couple of days before the inauguration.”
Tightening the rhetoric of the British Foreign Ministry towards the United States is unlikely to lead to a noticeable improvement in Russian-British relations, which are going through difficult times, Alexei Gromyko is sure: “The Obama administration is unlikely to dramatically change its tone in relations with Russia. And if so, then one should not expect such changes from London. "Miliband has already developed a reputation as a 'hawk' when it comes to dealing with Russia and will not change his position significantly."