Nearly two decades have passed since Robin Cook — then newly installed as Foreign Secretary — called a now-infamous press conference in the Locarno Suite of the Foreign Office.

Mr Cook proudly announced that Tony Blair’s government, which had just scored a famous election triumph, would pursue an ‘ethical Foreign Policy’. There is no doubting Robin Cook’s decency — or his naivety.

History relates that his well-meaning policy ended up with the foul morass of the Iraq invasion of 2003.

David Cameron is constructing his own approach to foreign affairs. Cameron’s Britain now pursues a ‘venal foreign policy’

Today, David Cameron is constructing his own approach to foreign affairs. Unlike Robin Cook, he has not announced it publicly, perhaps because Mr Cameron’s version is the exact opposite of the ethical model trumpeted by Cook.

Though the Prime Minister does not say so, Cameron’s Britain now pursues what the late Mr Cook would term a ‘venal foreign policy’.

There is almost no torturer too brutal, no mass-murderer too bloodthirsty nor dictator too autocratic for David Cameron not to extend an invitation to visit Britain.

Let’s examine the PM’s busy autumn schedule. Earlier this month, the president of China — a country notorious for human rights abuses and the suppression of minorities — arrived in Britain on a state visit.

Most Britons felt that the spectacle of Xi Jinping staying at Buckingham Palace, and being grovelled to by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, was a little shaming. But worse is to come. Much worse.

This coming week, President Field Marshal Sisi of Egypt arrives in Britain on an official visit.

It is just more than two years since Sisi seized power in a military coup d’etat from a democratically elected government.

Since then, an estimated 1,500 protesters have been shot dead in the streets by security forces, while an estimated 41,000 protesters have been arrested.

The past few months have seen a disturbing new trend as Egyptian citizens are seized in the streets, in some cases never to be seen again.

This coming week, President Field Marshal Sisi of Egypt arrives in Britain on an official visit. It is just more than two years since Sisi seized power in a military coup d’etat from a democratically elected government

Despite all the horror, Britain has remained firm friends with Egypt. Nearly three months ago, Michael Fallon, David Cameron’s underpowered Defence Secretary, paid a sycophantic visit to the country to praise Sisi’s ‘vision of a more prosperous, more democratic society’.

Indeed, the Cameron government has been so afraid of upsetting the Sisi regime that not once has a minister called his bloody military takeover by its true name: a coup.

According to the respected Reporters Without Borders organisation, 46 journalists were arrested in Egypt last year — more than any other country with the exception of the Ukraine, where 47 journalists suffered the same fate.

Some of these journalists still rot in Egyptian jails. Why in God’s name has this bloodthirsty man of violence been invited to Britain to be feted and flattered by our Prime Minister?

By any standards, Field Marshal Sisi is a torturer, a mass-murderer and a tyrant. David Cameron loves to talk about what he calls ‘the British values’ of decency, compassion and tolerance.

SALUTE TO FIRM HIGH FLIER GENERAL SIR RICHARD BARRONS By the time they make it to the top, Britain’s generals and admirals have typically learned to be world-class crawlers, ready to betray the men they serve in order to ingratiate themselves with Whitehall pen-pushers and gain promotions. However, there is an exception to every rule. Today, I salute General Sir Richard Barrons, Commander of Joint Forces Command. He is a brave high-flier who until very recently has been the firm favourite to win the prized job as Chief of the Defence Staff. But General Barrons is fighting a fierce battle against Treasury proposals to slash Army spending. These are set out in the upcoming Strategic Defence Review, which will dictate the Armed Forces’ capabilities over the next five years. I understand that General Barrons has threatened to resign over the issue, going as far as drafting his letter. This principled stand reflects enormous credit on his loyalty, decency and, above all, his patriotism. Typically, it has done him no good at all in the eyes of David Cameron and George Osborne. The Prime Minister has now delayed the announcement of the next Chief of the Defence Staff. It may well be that General Barrons’s naval rival — the First Sea Lord, Admiral Zambellas — will get the nod from Downing Street instead. That would be an appalling injustice to General Barrons. Advertisement

His invitation to Sisi makes a mockery of that sort of language. And we now hear reports that the President of Kazakhstan, a bestial creature called Nursultan Nazarbayev, is soon to come to London — which would complete an unedifying hat-trick of despotic guests for the PM.

As a British patriot, I hope this is not true. All one needs to know about the Kazakh president is that he is one of those from the select group of torturers and murderers advised by Tony Blair’s flourishing political consultancy (Blair advises Sisi, too).

The appalling Prince Andrew is another friend of President Nazarbayev. Indeed, in 2007, the President’s son-in-law purchased the Prince’s former marital home, Sunninghill, near Windsor, for the suspiciously large sum of £15 million.

This extremely dubious transaction occurred not long after a senior member of the Kazakh opposition, his bodyguards and his driver were all shot dead, allegedly by members of the Kazakhstan Security Service.

Reports of torture are commonplace in Kazakhstan. The mere thought of President Nazarbayev coming to this country fills one with disgust.

To be fair to the British Prime Minister, there is a strong pragmatic argument for inviting the Chinese President on a state visit. Like it or not, China has emerged as the largest and most dynamic world economy, and there is no avoiding doing business with the Chinese.

Inviting Sisi or Nazarbayev to London is another matter entirely.

Before entering No 10, the PM’s understanding of ‘abroad’ was confined to comfortable family holidays in southern European villas.

Since then, he seems to have concluded that it is best to base his decisions on commercial interests and nothing else.

Don’t believe me? Last week it emerged that the Ministerial Code — which guides government members on ethics and integrity — has been quietly changed.

Mr Cameron has removed the requirement that his ministers should obey either international law or Britain’s international treaties in order to uphold justice. Morality is thus thrown out of the window.

In retrospect, Robin Cook’s attempt to place virtue at the heart of our foreign policy was doomed.

The world is an ugly place, and no substantial trading nation can afford to cut itself off from the world. So there is something to be said for Mr Cameron’s pragmatism.

My own view is that he has gone too far. By inviting President Sisi to London, he does more than launder the reputation of one of the world’s most unsavoury tyrants.

He makes a mockery of British values, and exposes this country to international contempt.

Chilcot and Whitehall's dark arts

David Cameron last week expressed his deep ‘frustration’ about the long delay to the publication of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.

These protestations from the Prime Minister are pure hypocrisy. The truth is that Chilcot could have been published years ago, had Mr Cameron wanted.

Though Sir John Chilcot certainly deserves his share of the blame for the late arrival, much of the responsibility lies with Whitehall procrastination orchestrated by the Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Heywood (otherwise known as Sir Cover-Up).

David Cameron last week expressed his deep ‘frustration’ about the long delay to the publication of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war. Pictured: Sir John Chilcot at a news conference to launch the inquiry

Heywood has denied this, saying: ‘It frustrates me that I’m being accused of trying to get in the way, or covering things up, because that is just absolutely not the way in which I’ve approached it.’

More worryingly, as Richard Norton-Taylor, respected defence and security writer for the Guardian, revealed last week, some blockages seem very sinister indeed and could be seen to amount to sabotage. Norton-Taylor revealed that Whitehall (code for very senior civil servants and intelligence bosses) failed to hand Chilcot all the information he needed.

They kept a tight hold on vital material explaining the decision to wage war, which they then showed to those criticised in the first draft of the report.

This meant those individuals could challenge Chilcot’s conclusions using documents of which he was unaware. Cameron could and should have put a stop to this cynical act of Establishment sabotage.

He failed to do so. The Prime Minister can bleat as much as he likes about the late report. It would have arrived much sooner had he really wanted.