
Blair's fury with Chirac over Mugabe summit invite
'But this is the opposite of what he said to me,' he scrawled in a handwritten note after No 10 officials told him Mr Chirac feared South African president Thabo Mbeki would stay away from the gathering unless Mr Mugabe was invited.
Tony Blair wanted to be 'pretty fierce' with president Robert Mugabe (PA)
'Ultimately if France wants to take the heat on this they can and probably they are using it to damage the UK's standing in Africa in the belief (mistaken) that Mugabe retains credibility.
'But we should be seen to do all we can to protest.'
The row came as Zimbabwe was caught up in a worsening spiral of violence and economic collapse after Mr Mugabe instigated a violent campaign to drive the country's remaining white farmers from their lands.
Mr Blair's Labour government was at the forefront of international efforts to pressurise Mr Mugabe to end the chaos, implement democratic reforms and restore the rule of law.
The UK's intervention was, however, deeply resented by Mr Mugabe who argued that – as the former colonial power – Britain should be paying reparations to his country.
As the situation worsened Mr Blair noted that they needed to be 'pretty fierce on Mugabe' if they were to make any progress.
Nelson Mandela told Tony Blair that Mr Mugabe should be treated with respect (Matthew Fearn/PA)
He was, however, warned by South Africa's former president Nelson Mandela that – as a veteran of Africa's struggles for liberation from colonial rule – Mr Mugabe still needed to be treated with respect.
'Despite the recent turmoil in Zimbabwe we must not forget that President Mugabe is a statesman who has made a major contribution not only to Zimbabwe's independence but to the liberation of southern Africa,' he wrote in a letter to the prime minister.
'He deserves our good will, support and advice. As friends we should be able to discuss the issue of land redistribution, the rule of law and violence frankly and constructively with him.'
Meanwhile, efforts to foster better Anglo-French co-operation on Africa were hampered by a deep personal antipathy between Mr Chirac and Britain's international development secretary Clare Short.
Sir John Holmes, Britain's ambassador to Paris, said Mr Chirac had taken him aside to complain that she was 'viscerally anti-French and 'insupportable''.
He contrasted her attitude with the good working relationship French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine had enjoyed with his British counterpart Jack Straw and before him Robin Cook.
'Vedrine and Cook had worked well together, and Vedrine and Straw were continuing in the same vein. But Ms Short was impossible,' Sir John reported the French president as saying.
'He had not liked to raise this with the prime minister because they always had lots of other things to talk about, but we needed to know the position. In typical Chirac fashion, he laboured the point for several minutes.'
When Sir John assured him that Ms Short's views had been 'transformed' in the light of a recent trip to the region by Mr Vedrine, the French president replied 'God be praised'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


ITV News
25 minutes ago
- ITV News
UK and India to sign trade deal during Modi state visit
India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi's state visit to the UK will see the signing of a landmark free trade deal. It is expected to see £6 billion invested into the UK economy and create 2,200 jobs, making it the largest deal of its kind for economic impact on Britain. Tariffs on a range of British goods will be reduced from an average of 15% to 3%, in hopes of boosting imports into the south Asian nation. Whisky tariffs will be slashed in half, and are expected to fall further over successive years. Soft drinks, cars and cosmetics will also see cheaper duties. Prime Minister Keir Starmer will meet with Modi on Thursday to sign off on the deal. Before his meeting with Modi to confirm the deal, Starmer said: "Our landmark trade deal with India is a major win for Britain. "It will create thousands of British jobs across the UK, unlock new opportunities for businesses and drive growth in every corner of the country, delivering on our Plan for Change. "We're putting more money in the pockets of hardworking Brits and helping families with the cost of living, and we're determined to go further and faster to grow the economy and raise living standards across the UK." Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the investment will "reach all regions and nations of the UK so working people in every community can feel the benefits". The Prime Minister and his Indian counterpart also agreed ahead of their meeting to ramp up joint efforts to tackle corruption, fraud, organised crime and illegal migration, by sharing criminal records and other intelligence. The deal promises some benefits to the UK's financial services, but not as much as the Government would have liked. It is understood that talks continue regarding a bilateral investment treaty aimed at protecting investments in both countries. The two nations also continue to discuss UK plans for a tax on high-carbon industries, which India believes could hit its imports unfairly. The deal has been in the works for years. Negotiations first began in 2022 under Boris Johnson, and were concluded in May this year. Labour sought to portray closing the deal, as well as trade agreements with the US and the EU, as evidence of the Government's pragmatism and global outlook. But shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said it had only been made possible "because of Brexit delivered by the Conservatives". He added: "Any trade deal that can successfully cut regulation which stops Britain's makers from creating new jobs and wealth will be a step in the right direction. "But the irony should not be lost on anyone that any gains from this trade deal will be blown out of the water by Angela Rayner's union charter, stifling business with red tape, the jobs tax and, come autumn, Rachel Reeves' inevitable tax hikes that will punish Britain's makers just to reward those who do not contribute." The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said that the signing "sends a powerful signal that the UK is open for business and remains resolute in its commitment to free and fair trade". Chief executive Rain Newton-Smith added: "A trade agreement with India - one of the world's fastest-growing economies - is a springboard for long-term partnership and prosperity. UK firms can take advantage of this new platform to scale, diversify and compete on the global stage." Starmer is facing calls to raise the case of detained blogger Jagtar Singh Johal with Modi. The Scottish Sikh has been detained in India since 2017, and is accused of being a member of the Khalistan Liberation Force, which is banned as a terror group in India. His family say he is being arbitrarily detained, with his brother Gurpreet Singh Johal insisting the matter should be "high on the agenda when the prime ministers meet".


Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Militant doctors' leader once compared Brexit to rape and alleged murder to Jesus
The militant Corbynista leader of the British Medical Association once compared Brexit to rape – and an alleged murderer to Jesus, the Mail can reveal. Dr Tom Dolphin, 46, boss of the union at the centre of the junior doctors' walkouts, has been a political campaigner for more than a decade. At the height of the UK-EU negotiations in 2019, he criticised comments by Tory grandee Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who had said Theresa May 's request for a Brexit delay was 'as close to a national humiliation as I've seen'. Dr Dolphin, who was a Labour Party activist and member under Jeremy Corbyn, commented on the remarks on social media, saying: 'This reminds me of the surveys on 'What do you fear most?', where men say 'Humiliation' and women say 'Rape/assault'. 'It is high privilege to be able to conflate embarrassment with actual harm, and those who are not at personal risk from Brexit don't get how scared some are.' It has also emerged that he compared Luigi Mangione, who was arrested in December over the shooting of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson in New York, to Jesus. Appearing to praise the alleged murderer, Dr Dolphin shared a photograph of Mangione in an orange jumpsuit surrounded by police and likened it to Greek painter El Greco's 1579 The Disrobing Of Christ just before his crucifixion. Dr Dolphin wrote: 'This dramatic scene was the authorities trying to show what happens when one man stands up against the rich and powerful. 'I don't think this was how the NYPD [New York City Police Department] were anticipating it would look. Perhaps El Greco's piece should be retitled 'Christ's Perp Walk To The Praetorium'.' He added: 'To be clear, Mangione is alleged to have used violence to further his cause, and Jesus (as recorded in The Bible) did quite the opposite. I was just struck by the visual imagery.' The tweets come despite Dr Dolphin telling junior doctors in 2023 that 'the Right-wing press are at it again' and urged members to 'lock down your social media because these [redacted] are sniffing round again'. Dr Dolphin was elected as BMA council chairman last month, having been a member of it since 2012. He works as an anaesthetic consultant in London. Conservative health spokesman Stuart Andrew said: 'These remarks are deeply troubling and inappropriate. To liken a man charged with murder to Jesus, and to compare Brexit to rape, is offensive and deeply disturbing.' Resident, formerly junior, doctors in England will go on strike this week with the BMA saying the Government failed to make an offer to 'meet the scale' of challenges felt by medics. The union is demanding a 29.2 per cent pay rise. In September, BMA members voted to accept a government pay deal worth 22.3per cent on average over two years. A BMA spokesman said: 'Dr Dolphin was not trivialising the serious impact of sexual violence but instead drawing an analogy to emphasise how individuals who are not personally affected by a major event – such as Brexit – may struggle to understand the fear or harm it can cause others.


Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
UN court opens the floodgates for poorer nations to sue Britain over contributions to climate change
The UK could be sued over its contribution to climate change after a court ruling that countries are responsible for their emissions. The International Court of Justice said nations are obliged to comply with climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. While the ruling is non-binding, it is likely to influence legislation globally and may open the floodgates to a series of court cases against countries such as the UK. Despite being advisory, there are fears it could be enshrined in law by Labour, who, under the guidance of Attorney General Lord Hermer, have an 'ideological obsession' with international law, the Tories warned on Wednesday night. Campaigners hailed the ruling as a victory for small nations affected by climate change over big polluters such as the US and China. Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said: 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate... may constitute an internationally wrongful act.' Environmental lawyers said the judgment would lead to a rise in court cases over climate change. Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, said: 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.' Sebastien Duyck, at the Centre for International Environmental Law, laid out the possibility of nations being sued. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' he said. And Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, told Sky News that the ruling 'adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations'. It is the largest case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, and involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December. In its ruling, the United Nations' highest court said countries that breach their climate obligations set out in treaties could be sued by states which can prove they have suffered damage as a result. Mr Iwasawa said. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The case, brought by law students from Pacific islands affected by climate change, addressed two questions – what obligations were on countries under international law to protect the climate, and what legal consequences should those that have broken them face. Wealthier countries, including the UK, argued existing treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement should be used to decide their responsibilities. But developing nations and island states such as Vanuatu in the Pacific argued there should be stronger legally-binding measures in place and called for reparations. The court ruled developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure, or could claim compensation. However, the court said it was not concerned with setting out when these responsibilities would date from, leaving questions about countries being sued over historical emissions going back to the Industrial Revolution. Government sources stressed the UK would be under no obligation to pay reparations, a stance likely to be tested by lawyers. A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30.' Despite being non-binding, previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments including the UK, such as agreeing to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel described the court's climate ruling as 'mad', adding: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions... and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments. 'We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.'