Political tides in Africa are shifting: Britain must be clear who its friends are
This vast territory of more than 100,000 square miles is home to 565,000 people – a population roughly the size of Leeds, spread across an area bigger than the United Kingdom, although largely concentrated in the town of Laayoune, the regional capital, and Dakhla, the largest and fastest growing container port on the east Atlantic coast. Morocco has invested heavily and imaginatively in the Western Sahara, providing tens of thousands of new jobs, and the prospect of many more to come, yet its full economic development has been held back by a frozen territorial dispute, which has contributed to a deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Tindouf refugee camps in Algeria.
Under an encouragingly wide-ranging partnership agreement signed this week between London and Rabat, the UK has, for the first time, acknowledged the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco as the most credible, viable and pragmatic basis for a lasting peace in the Western Sahara. The autonomy plan, first presented to the United Nations in 2007, represents the only credible, lasting solution for peace in the Western Sahara. Under its provisions, an autonomous region would be established within the Moroccan State, with Morocco taking responsibility for defence and foreign affairs, but with local control over law enforcement, taxation, infrastructure, economic development, cultural affairs and the environment.
By accepting the broad principles of the autonomy plan, UK diplomacy at last moves into line with other key western allies including France, Spain and the United States, shifts the dial at the UN Security Council and within the General Assembly and lays the ground for a definitive, permanent resolution of the dispute. Such a resolution is in the best interests of the people of the Western Sahara, and it is by far the best hope of bringing prosperity, and economic and human development to that region, and wider.
UK support for the Moroccan autonomy plan, in conjunction with a comprehensive range of other cultural and economic initiatives of great mutual benefit, seems to be firmly in line with the Foreign Secretary's declared diplomatic approach of 'progressive realism'. It demonstrates a recognition by the FCDO that the political tides in Africa are shifting once again, and that the UK needs to be clear-sighted about who its friends are, which countries can be trusted and reliable partners, and which countries are offering opportunities for the continent's potential and solutions to its challenges.
In this respect, Morocco has proved to be a bulwark against terrorism, extremism, serious crime, illegal migration and the destabilising activities of Russia's and Iran's proxies in sub-Saharan Africa – and the autonomy plan offers further, exciting economic opportunity and potential. It is security, stability and prosperity that will help address the humanitarian issues of the refugee camps, undermine the poisonous appeal of extremism and slow migration, and offer hope. Those that oppose this move, with an insistence on perpetuating a deadlock, have their own vested interests that offer nothing to the people of the region.
Supporting stability in the Sahara is politically and diplomatically the right thing to do, but our support for Morocco and its ambitions in the region also will unlock huge economic opportunities for British companies, and this UK-Moroccan partnership includes a £5 billion facility from UK Export Finance, which in turn will drive faster economic growth across the region.
Trade with Morocco is already a quiet success story for Britain, and trade between our two countries has already almost doubled since 2018, to over £4.2 billion in 2024. Morocco plays an important role in ensuring supermarkets are stocked year-round, without competing with our own farmers and fishermen, and tomatoes, sardines and soft fruit are among our biggest imports.
Britain's ambition of becoming a clean energy superpower can be boosted by access to landmark projects in solar, wind and green hydrogen through this new partnership. UK companies can also play a significant role in equipping Morocco's healthcare system with digital tools, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals, while there are new safeguards against the counterfeiting of British brands.
I would hope that further defence engagement opportunities were also discussed in these meetings – not simply defence sales and training, but the possibility of greater cooperation in the eastern Atlantic to address new maritime challenges.
Britain and Morocco have been engaged with each other for over 800 years. The first Moroccan ambassador came to London in 1600 during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and our first trade treaty was signed over 300 years ago. We are now moving into a new era, looking to address challenges and seize opportunities together.
Last year, the Foreign Secretary spoke of a reset in relations between Britain and Africa, and a strategic engagement with the continent grounded in 'progressive realism'. The UK's re-energised partnership with Morocco, putting security, stability and prosperity at the forefront of this engagement, proves that those sentiments were not just words.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
US claims UK imposes ‘serious restrictions' on free speech
A report from the US State Department, published during the Trump administration, has accused the UK of a concerning regression in human rights over the past year. The annual assessment cited increased antisemitic violence and growing restrictions on free speech as key areas of concern. The US State Department's global human rights analysis flagged what it described as "serious restrictions" on freedom of expression within the UK. The report specifically highlighted laws limiting speech around abortion clinics, pointing to "safe access zones" that curbed expression, including silent protests and prayer. "These restrictions on freedom of speech could include prohibitions on efforts to influence others when inside a restricted area, even through prayer or silent protests," the document stated. While acknowledging that "the government sometimes took credible steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses," the report criticised that "prosecution and punishment for such abuses was inconsistent." In the wake of the 2024 Southport attack, the assessment claimed that government officials "repeatedly intervened to chill speech." Criticism over the handling of free speech was also directed at the governments of Germany and France. A UK government spokesperson told the BBC: 'Free speech is vital for democracy around the world, including here in the UK and we are proud to uphold freedoms whilst keeping our citizens safe.' Sentiments echoed those previously made by vice president JD Vance. In February, Mr Vance criticised the UK over a legal case in which a former serviceman who silently prayed outside an abortion clinic was convicted of breaching the safe zone around the centre. In a wider attack on what he suggested is a shift away from democratic values across Europe, Mr Vance claimed the 'basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular' are under threat. He referred to the conviction of Adam Smith-Connor, 51, who had denied doing so but was found guilty last year of failing to comply with a public space protection order at the centre in Bournemouth in November 2022. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Mr Vance said that the US' 'very dear friends the United Kingdom' appeared to have seen a 'backslide in conscience rights'. 'A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 metres from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes, not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own,' he said. The report also said the Government 'effectively' enforced laws around freedom of association and the rights of workers.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
President Nawrocki representing Poland during Trump call, his office says
WARSAW, Aug 13 (Reuters) - Polish President Karol Nawrocki is representing Poland at a teleconference on Ukraine involving U.S. President Donald Trump and European leaders on Wednesday, his office said on X. The office of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a political opponent of Nawrocki, had earlier posted on X that Tusk was taking part in a video conference with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and European leaders. However, right-wing private broadcaster TV Republika, which supports Nawrocki and his backers in the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party, reported that the president was taking part in the call with Trump at 1300 GMT and had been briefed by the foreign ministry. "... Prime Minister Donald Tusk is not participating in the meeting with President Trump," Nawrocki's spokesperson Rafal Leskiewicz said on X. "Poland is represented by President Karol Nawrocki." Government spokesman Adam Szlapka later clarified that Tusk was representing Poland in two separate calls taking place on Wednesday and involving European leaders but not Trump. Nawrocki, a conservative nationalist and eurosceptic, is an ally of Trump's MAGA movement and visited the White House during Poland's presidential election campaign this year. However, Nawrocki and PiS are strong supporters of Ukraine in its war with invading Russian forces, as is Tusk and his centrist government.
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Michael Clarke Q&A: The 'pie in the sky' part of Trump's peace plan and why US won't arrest Putin
14:50:31 That's it for our latest Q&A - scroll down to catch up Michael Clarke has just finished answering your questions, which were put to him by presenter Jayne Secker. He covered a lot today - from what you wanted to know about Russia's latest surprise attack, to why Vladimir Putin can't just be arrested in Alaska on Friday when he meets Donald Trump. Scroll down to catch up on the best of his answers, or watch it back in the video at the top of the page. Or if you're looking for live news, we're running our usual Ukraine blog, on a big day for diplomacy, as Europe tries to influence Trump's approach to the talks with Putin. Tap below to follow the latest updates on the Ukraine war today... 14:47:10 British boots on the ground in Ukraine unlikely - but here's what could be done Keogh: Do you see a world where British foot soldiers are required on the ground to enforce new territorial boundaries - and how big a risk would that be in setting up a direct conflict between Britain and Russia? Michael Clarke says he's confident there will "definitely" not be British boots on the ground in Ukraine. "If Britain were to do something, it would be, I suspect, in the air environment and certainly not in the ground environment," Clarke says. He explains: "Say that we're an air policing force, a NATO air policing force, then the Royal Air Force could do some useful stuff there, and we've got some high-end capabilities. "But again, that would be dangerous." He outlines why British troops on the ground are unlikely: You know, our troops, if we say we don't have enough to do anything meaningful, we're in such a big country as Ukraine, with our army of 70,000. I mean, we are acting as a strategic reserve to NATO, and that depends on some of the special forces or specialist forces or air force and or Navy. I mean, we're not in the frontline of NATO anymore. The big countries in NATO in terms of troops are Germany and Poland and Finland. These are the countries [putting] a lot of troops into the field. And they're the ones that need to, as it were, take on the big war tasks with Britain acting as a strategic reserve to do useful things, maybe vital things in small areas of the front. That's the way we currently conceive of our role within NATO. 'Ringleader of anti-Russian feeling in Europe' Clarke also explains how Russia holds particular animosity for Britain. "They regard Britain as somehow the ringleader of anti-Russian feelings in Europe," he says. Clarke says "in a way" Britain is a political ringleader, but if you want anti-Russian feelings talk to "the Poles... the Finns... and talk to some of the Germans." 14:44:30 Will an independent Ukraine exist in 10 years? "I more than hope so - I think so," says Clarke. He says the feeling in Ukraine is that it will choose to keep fighting in an endless war rather hand over the country to Moscow. He says: "Everything that's happened since 2022 has reinforced the Ukrainian sense that they are fighting for life and that life under Russian occupation would be absolutely intolerable." "For that reason, I think that they will keep going another ten years. "Ultimately, the Ukrainians are doing what the British were doing in 1940s. They're hanging on." 14:41:38 Would a ceasefire help Putin? Michael Clarke agrees that a pause would be strategically useful for Russia. Clarke says Russia's air force is in "pretty good shape" and their navy is still "quite powerful" too. "What they've expended in Ukraine are the ground forces," he says. "So how long would it take to reconstitute those ground forces? "And depending on what standard you set for it opinions range from 2-3 years to 5 -6 years, but it's not 10 or 15 years." Clarke says if Putin gets a break from Ukraine - for example, until the end of the Trump administration - "the ground forces could be really quite considerable". "Russia is already a war economy. It's a functioning war economy and although it's straining the rest of the Russian economy, you can't turn a war economy off easily," he adds. "You just can't do it." He says the European view is a ceasefire in Ukraine will mean the Russian military pressure on other states will continue. "The conclusion in European states have no choice but to re-arm to deter the Russians from continuing this sense of momentum they've built up," he adds. 14:36:26 'Nothing on paper' could guarantee Ukraine's security - it will likely become 'Israel of Europe' Thekansasphil: Is there any realistic security guarantee that could stop Putin launching another ground invasion down the line? "There's nothing you could put on paper to make a difference," Clarke says. "NATO membership would make a difference, but that's not going to happen - the Russians have said they would never agree." Instead, Clarke says the thing that would most guarantee Ukraine's security is the delivery of a lot of weapons systems so they can arm themselves. Ukraine will become 'Israel of Europe' Clarke says Ukraine is facing a future where it spends the best part of the century living in an armed peace with its direct neighbour. "It will be the Israel of Europe. It'll be a heavily armed country, surrounded at least on one side by a hostile neighbour who's bigger than it," he explains. "And so therefore it will arm itself. And that's the only guarantee that would be practical." Ukraine must become a 'porcupine' Clarke says Kyiv must adopt a "porcupine strategy" of war if it wants to avoid being taken over by Russia down the line. This war strategy is based on the idea that a smaller entity can effectively defend itself by making itself a difficult and painful target, like a porcupine with its quills. "It'd be like swallowing a porcupine," he says. "That's the best that the Ukrainians can do is make themselves into a heavily armed porcupine so that the Russians think twice about whether to really try to take the rest of Ukraine." 14:33:25 'Might is right in this new imperialist age' - but losing land isn't giving up Get Real: If Russia is given the territory it holds illegally, doesn't that set a dangerous precedent for any large country to take what land it wants from its neighbours? "It's the might is right," Michael Clarke says of the prospect of the US agreeing a deal with Russia, and greenlighting Moscow to take Ukrainian land. But he points out that how any deal is agreed can be crucial. "There's a big difference between recognising for the sake of a ceasefire that you can't get a piece of territory back and giving up your legal right to it," Clarke points out. He gives multiple examples from around the world, such as Northern Cyprus and the Coral Islands. Clarke adds: "There are these territories in the world which are given up de facto, but they're not given up legally, nor should they be and remain disputed." 'A new imperialist age' Clarke highlights the worrying example that could be set if America acquiesces to Russian demands in Alaska. "I've said before that we're living in a new imperialist age and all the big powers now have an imperialist mindset," he explains. He goes on: "So, Russia is very imperialist, China is imperialist in East Asia, and the United States is imperialist under Trump, in relation to Canada and Greenland and Panama. "So, yeah, we live in a new imperialist age, and it'd be very, very difficult if land that was just conquered was somehow legally transferred." 14:29:28 'No, they won't arrest him': Why Putin won't be detained by US in Alaska James B: Why won't Putin be arrested when he sets foot on American soil? I know there is no legal obligation for America to do so but surely there is a moral one. What would the consequences be? There are 125 members signed up to the International Criminal Court, Michael Clarke says. But America, Russia, China and India are not members. "Those are the big four countries in the world," Clarke says. "They are the countries that make the political weather for everybody else." Looking at whether there is a moral duty to arrest Putin, Clarke says "it would be nice if there were". "But remember, the ICC only goes back to 2002, so it's quite recent," he adds. "It takes generations for these sorts of institutions to become really important in world politics. "The ICC is very controversial these days, but it's building a reputation for itself, and more countries would rather have it than not have it for all sorts of reasons. "So the answer is no, they won't arrest him. And yes, they should. But no, they won't." 14:25:13 'It's America but somehow not': Why Trump and Putin are meeting in Alaska M: Why are Trump and Putin meeting in Alaska and not a neutral location? Michael Clarke says an Arab nation like the UAE would have been the preference for the summit when it was originally mooted. He says a number of countries are "quite close to Russian diplomacy in that sense". The main reason for Alaska, Clarke says, is that there aren't too many countries they could go to which aren't signed up to the International Criminal Court. "That's important because Putin is an indicted war criminal. If he went to a country that is signed up to the ICC, that country would be duty-bound to arrest him." He adds: "I don't know whether it was the Russians who said 'we'll come to you,' or the Americans who said, 'how about having it here'? "Washington might have seemed a bit of a stretch in terms of giving Putin such a triumph, so maybe Alaska works - it's America, but somehow not." "He's keeping him in the cold," Jayne Secker adds. 14:22:01 Trump's idea for enforcing any land deal to end war is 'pie in the sky' Anthony B: If a new border is formed between Ukraine and Russia, has Trump ever said how it should be policed? "No," Clarke says simply. He tells presenter Jayne Secker: "That's one of the things that Zelenskyy said, he said if there is a deal that we agree to, what are the security guarantees. "What guarantees are there that this will be the end of it, at least for the next 20 or 30 years?" This is a point that Europe and Ukraine have repeatedly raised, and the US is yet to answer, Clarke explains. He points out how Vladimir Putin has repeatedly broken international agreements, raising the serious question of what guarantees there are. Zelenskyy, Clarke points out, often says NATO membership could be a guarantee - something Russia refuses. "Trump has always been vague about this, security guarantees, blah, blah, blah," Clarke says. He explains how the US leader tries to frame the minerals deal as meaning American workers will be in Ukraine - in essence acting as a security guarantee. "That is pie in the sky," Clarke says. "This mineral deal is a shadow of a security guarantee," he adds. 14:21:18 US has handed Putin a 'diplomatic triumph' by agreeing to Alaska meeting Franklin: Putin travelling to Alaska seems to be quite a turnaround from Russia - what's behind this new willingness to engage and does the US suddenly have some leverage after Trump's tariffs on Russia's trading partners? Michael Clarke points out that Donald Trump initially gave Russia 60 days to agree to a ceasefire or face strong sanctions. But that deadline came and went last Friday and Trump then gave Russia two weeks. "The Russians needed to do something, not just sit there, and had to throw the ball entirely back into the White House's court," he says. "And so what they did is they talked about it and said maybe we can have a meeting, and astonishingly, the White House agreed to it. "Instead of pressure on Putin, it's now become a diplomatic triumph for Putin to be invited to a summit on American territory. "Putin is a pariah in most of world politics, he's an indicted war criminal at the ICC, and he's being hosted with full diplomatic honours on US territory. "That's a huge win for him, and he's given nothing for it." Looking at why the Russians are prepared to do this, Clarke says Putin has "always wanted a one-to-one summit with Trump". He adds: "Putin's message to Trump is 'leave Ukraine to me and we'll get on with the bigger things'".
