UK considers envoy for Britons held abroad
LONDON: Britain is preparing to emulate the United States by appointing an envoy tasked with freeing citizens arbitrarily detained abroad, as it faces calls to do more to bring them home.
High-profile cases like jailed Egyptian-British activist Alaa Abdel Fattah and imprisoned Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai have spotlighted the plight of Britons held in jails overseas.
The UK foreign ministry insists it continues to press such cases with governments, but relatives of detainees and human rights organizations complain of a lack of urgency and transparency.
'The government is committed to strengthening support for British nationals, including through the appointment of a new envoy,' a Foreign Office spokesperson told AFP.
Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer has said an 'Envoy for Complex Consular Detentions' is expected to be appointed 'before the summer.'
The government has not specified the terms of the role but it could be similar to America's Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, a position created in 2015.
Unlike the United States though, Britain does not take part in prisoner exchanges.
Professor Carla Ferstman, an expert on arbitrary detentions at the Human Rights Center at Essex Law School, said appointing someone would be the 'clearest thing that the UK can do that it hasn't done yet.'
'When you have someone at the highest level they command a certain level of respect,' she told AFP.
Abdel Fattah was arrested in September 2019 and sentenced to five years in prison on charges of 'spreading false news' after sharing a Facebook post about police brutality.
He is still imprisoned despite a hunger strike by his mother and Britain's foreign ministry saying it is pushing for his release 'at the highest levels of the Egyptian government.'
His sister Sanaa Seif said an envoy would mean 'a proper continued focus on' freeing detainees.
'It's also important to have a focal point that can help coordinate between different government bodies so that they all work in synchronization,' she told AFP.
Seif believes the government should consider revising travel advice to Egypt too, a call also made by lawmakers who have suggested the government should sanction Egyptian officials as well.
'Is it not clear that words are no longer sufficient?' Conservative peer Guy Black asked in parliament's House of Lords recently.
Ferstman said tightening travel guidance can be a powerful tool.
'It's a big deal because all of a sudden tourists can't get insurance and it's harder for business travel to happen. There's all kinds of implications,' she explained.
Amnesty International recently called for the government to develop a 'clear strategy' to support arbitrarily detained Britons, including by demanding that UK officials attend trials.
The Labour government pledged in its general election-winning manifesto last year that it would introduce 'a new right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations.'
Amnesty also wants the government to call for a person's 'immediate release,' including publicly when it is requested by the family.
It said London took three years to publicly call for Lai to be freed, something his son Sebastian said 'sends the wrong message' to 'autocratic states.'
'The quicker we have the government speak out post-arrest, that's the window of opportunity to have people released,' Eilidh Macpherson, Amnesty's campaigns manager for individuals at risk told AFP.
UK officials say the government can be wary of accusations it is interfering in another country's judicial system.
'Sometimes it may need to be quiet about what it's doing, but this shouldn't come at the expense of transparency,' said Ferstman.
Jagtar Singh Johal, a Sikh blogger from Scotland, was arrested in India in November 2017 while there for his wedding on accusations of being part of a terror plot against right-wing Hindu leaders.
He has not been convicted of a crime and in March was cleared in one of the nine charges against him.
The foreign ministry spokesperson said Foreign Secretary David Lammy 'continues to raise concerns' about the detention with India's government 'at every appropriate opportunity.'
But his brother, Gurpreet Singh Johal complains of being kept in the dark.
'We don't know what's actually being said,' he told AFP.
Gurpreet said an envoy would be a 'good thing' but until the position is in place, 'We won't know exactly what it means.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Is UK government principled or realist in the Middle East?
The UK's Labour government was probably thankful that Donald Trump found a way to strike Iran's nuclear facilities without using British bases. After the June 22 attacks occurred, London was quick to emphasize that, though it had been informed in advance, the UK played no role. In the run-up, British officials were concerned that any American request to use the UK base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia would put Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a difficult position. While Britain would feel obliged to aid its most important ally, there were questions over the legality of Washington's strikes. Immediately afterward, David Lammy, the UK's foreign secretary, declined to comment on the legal concerns, stating they were 'for the Americans to discuss.' But the question of international law and the UK's approach to the Middle East is not insignificant. As a lawyer and former head of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, many expected Starmer to place considerable emphasis on upholding international law and the so-called rules-based order when he came to office. Indeed, Starmer's attorney general, the UK government's chief legal adviser, told the BBC recently that international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of London's foreign policy. Lammy, another lawyer, stated when he came to power that Labour would pursue 'progressive realism' in office — using realist means to pursue progressive ends. But the Middle East, especially Israel's actions, have at times appeared a blind spot for this supposedly progressive foreign policy. For all its rhetoric, is Starmer's government ultimately more realist than principled in the region? During its year in office so far, Starmer's Labour government has been keen to emphasize its principles when it comes to the Middle East. Unlike some states like Hungary, which withdrew from the International Criminal Court to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to visit, Starmer's government has stated that, were the Israeli premier to enter the UK, he would be arrested in accordance with the court's warrant. Similarly, in recent months, London has stepped up its criticism of Israel's war in Gaza and initiated legal measures. These have included canceling free trade talks with Israel and 30 arms licenses, as well as sanctioning two Israeli ministers. In May, Lammy stated that Israel's recent actions in Gaza were 'an affront to the values of the British people,' and that ministers' calls to expel Palestinians were 'monstrous' and 'extremist.' During Israel's recent war with Iran, London similarly stuck to its principles of promoting a diplomatic not an armed solution — in contrast to its allies in Israel and the US. As Israel launched its attacks on Iran, Starmer's office released a statement emphasizing 'the need for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution, in the interests of stability in the region.' However, critics complain that the Labour government's principles in the Middle East appear quite elastic and inconsistent. While calling for Israel to de-escalate, Starmer also emphasized Israel's right to 'self-defense,' offering a degree of legitimacy to the attacks — 'self-defense' being the criteria needed under the UN Charter to legally justify military action. Critics complain that the Labour government's principles in the Middle East appear quite elastic and inconsistent. Christopher Phillips Similarly, while London has become increasingly critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, for a long time it was more supportive. As leader of the opposition, Starmer caused waves by saying Israel had 'the right' to cut off water and power to Gaza, despite this being considered illegal collective punishment by many international lawyers. And lawyers supporting the Palestinians have repeatedly challenged the legality of the UK continuing to supply Israel with arms — with the 320 continuing licenses far greater than the 30 that were suspended. Though there is always legal ambiguity with these issues, London's apparent unwillingness to seriously reduce arms supplies, despite its foreign secretary calling Israel's actions in Gaza 'monstrous,' suggests its commitment to principles in the region can be selective. Yet the government's supporters would offer a more nuanced take. In his interview with the BBC, Attorney General Richard Hermer, a long-term friend of Starmer, said that international law was 'important in and of itself, but it's also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we're trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country.' The suggestion is that the latter point, making life better for Britons, is the ultimate priority. Principles like upholding and promoting international law are important, but not at any expense. Labour must balance these principles with other concerns. At home, the Middle East is a hugely divisive issue. In 2024's general election, Labour lost five parliamentary seats to candidates overtly criticizing Starmer's Gaza policy, while the issue has repeatedly caused ruptures within the party itself. A significant number of MPs on the left wing of the party were vocally against the UK playing any role in the US strikes on Iran. Internationally, the UK is in a relatively weak position. Its primary concern is facing down Russia and pursuing rearmament alongside European allies in response to an apparent American reluctance to come to their aid. He is also determined to keep US President Donald Trump onside and to position the UK as a reliable friend to the White House. Grandstanding on international law to either Israel or the US risks damaging that relationship. The Middle East is low down the UK's list of core interests, perhaps explaining why London is often selective about when it wants to push international law — only doing so when it does not clash with core interests. Perhaps this selectiveness is what Lammy regards as progressive realism, but it is not clear whether this is having any effect in the Middle East or whether the US and Israel are more likely to adhere to progressive principles because of Britain's actions. A more cynical read is that Labour are being realist progressives: led by principle when they can but ultimately falling back on realpolitik when it comes to the crunch. The risk, of course, is that key actors not standing up for international laws and rules at these crucial moments means they wither away, making the world more dangerous. In such cases, there are fewer progressive opportunities and realism becomes the only option.
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Alliance reveals UK defense ambitions extend beyond Europe
One of the key drivers of the UK Strategic Defense Review released earlier this month is the military threat from Russia, especially following its invasion of Ukraine. However, London's focus extends well beyond Europe, including to the Asia-Pacific region with the new AUKUS alliance. One of the key announcements in the defense review is that the UK will build up to a dozen new submarines within the new AUKUS alliance with Australia and the US. This highlights the importance of the new alliance to London — it is perceived by some senior UK policymakers as potentially the most significant development since the 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement, with the US given the future potential to develop and deliver cutting-edge capabilities, and help revitalize the UK defense industrial base. Yet, AUKUS may be about to hit a US political iceberg. The Trump team announced, only days after the UK defense review, that it has launched an AUKUS probe led by the Pentagon. Both the UK and Australian governments have declared optimism that Trump officials will, ultimately, 'green light' next steps with the nascent alliance, which was created in 2021 under the Biden administration. Moreover, at the G7 last week, US President Donald Trump gave credence to this. Speaking with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump said that London, Canberra, and Washington are 'very long-time partners and allies and friends.' AUKUS may be about to hit a US political iceberg Andrew Hammond Yet, uncertainty still remains — potential cancelation, or revising the terms of AUKUS, which may cause delay, are plausible. This is not least because US Defense Undersecretary for Policy Elbridge Colby, who is heading the US review, last year criticized the submarine element of the agreement, asserting that for the US 'it would be crazy to have fewer SSNs (nuclear-powered attack submarines) in the right place and time.' What Colby, who admits to being 'skeptical' about AUKUS, refers to here is the first pillar of the deal, which is centered around providing Australia with SSNs. Currently, Australia only has diesel-electric submarines, and one ultimate goal of AUKUS is for a fleet of new SSNs to be developed by London and Canberra utilizing UK design blueprints with US technology to spur military interoperability between the three. In the interim, existing US and UK SSNs will rotate to Australia while a new nuclear submarine base is being built in Perth that is scheduled to be operational by around 2027. Canberra also plans to buy at least three, and possibly up to five, second-hand so-called Virginia-class SSNs from the US from 2032. Under the terms of the AUKUS deal, Australia has already begun paying the US. This includes around $500 million given to Washington in February, which is a down payment of a bigger $2 billion in 2025. Colby's comments from last year indicate that the lens he will use for the AUKUS review is whether the deal undermines the ability of the US defense industry to meet the nation's military needs. Part of the wider context here is production delays for the Virginia-class submarines, and cost overruns of billions of dollars. These supply challenges are one reason Colby has queried AUKUS, especially given potential future war scenarios in which Washington might need more submarines, fast. It is not just Trump, but also other key figures, such as US Ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens, who have indicated support for AUKUS. Last month, Stephens said Washington is 'proud to stand alongside Britain and Australia, two of our closest allies, as we deepen our collaboration to respond to a changing world.' However, the submarine supply challenge is not the only one that may complicate the deal. In addition, US and UK export controls on sensitive technologies between the three nations has slowed work to develop next generation technologies in wider, so-called pillar-two areas, including development of hypersonic missiles and quantum computing. In this context, outright cancelation of AUKUS by the Trump team is an option that cannot be ruled out. Such an outcome would frustrate not only the UK, but also Australia, which terminated a deal to buy diesel-powered submarines from France when it signed up to the alliance in 2021. Scott Morrison, prime minister at the time, took a big diplomatic hit from this. A wider range of nations may also be keen to join Andrew Hammond However, cancelation appears the least likely option. What may be more likely is a revision of the deal's wider terms so these are more weighted in favor of Washington. For instance, the Trump team could seek to pressure Australia to boost its military spending, which is around 2 percent of gross domestic product, with an intent to raise this to about 2.4 percent by 2033-2034. While this 2 percent figure is higher than some countries in the NATO alliance, it is much less than the US, while the UK has committed to reaching 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027. If the AUKUS alliance does survive, there are a wider range of nations that may also be keen to join as full or associate members in coming years. This includes New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and South Korea. Take the example of Canada, which two former UK prime ministers, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, have previously backed for AUKUS membership 'to strengthen the West's collective defenses.' Johnson has even said that Canada is the 'most obvious next candidate,' and previous prime minister Justin Trudeau said that he held 'excellent conversations' with London, Washington, and Canberra over joining the alliance. Taken together, if Trump does not scrap AUKUS, the project could assume significant new momentum. While expansion of the alliance is unlikely in the immediate term, collaboration with a range of Western allies in the Asia-Pacific and Americas is possible into the 2030s.
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
UK govt condemns ‘death to the IDF' chants at Glastonbury
GLASTONBURY: A British punk-rap group faced growing criticism on Sunday for making anti-Israel remarks at the Glastonbury music festival that have sparked a police inquiry. Bob Vylan led crowds in chants of 'Death, death to the IDF,' a reference to the acronym for the Israeli military, during their set on Saturday. British police officers are also examining comments by the Irish rap trio Kneecap, whose members have likewise been highly critical of Israel and its military campaign against the Palestinian militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip. One of Kneecap's members wore a T-shirt dedicated to the Palestine Action Group, which is about to be banned under UK terror laws. The UK government has 'strongly condemned' Bob Vylan's chants, which festival organizers said had 'very much crossed a line.' 'We are urgently reminding everyone involved in the production of the festival that there is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence,' the festival said in a statement. Avon and Somerset police said Saturday that video evidence would be assessed by officers 'to determine whether any offenses may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation.' Israeli embassy The chants about Israel's military, condemned by the Israeli embassy in London, were led by Bob Vylan's frontman Bobby Vylan. They were broadcast live on the BBC, which airs coverage of Britain's most popular music festival. 'I thought it's appalling, to be honest,' Wes Streeting, the Labour's government's health secretary, said of the chants, adding that 'all life is sacred.' 'I think the BBC and Glastonbury have got questions to answer about how we saw such a spectacle on our screens,' he told Sky News. The Israel embassy said in a statement late Saturday that 'it was 'deeply disturbed by the inflammatory and hateful rhetoric expressed on stage at the Glastonbury Festival.' But Streeting also took aim at the embassy, telling it to 'get your own house in order.' 'I think there's a serious point there by the Israeli embassy. I wish they'd take the violence of their own citizens toward Palestinians more seriously,' he said, citing Israeli settler violence in the West Bank. A spokesperson for the BBC said Vylan's comments were 'deeply offensive' and the broadcaster had 'no plans' to make the performance available on its on-demand service. Festival-goer Joe McCabe, 31, told AFP that while he did not necessarily agree with Vylan's statement, 'I certainly think the message of questioning what's going on there (in Gaza) is right.' Chants of 'Free Palestine' Kneecap, which has made headlines in recent months with its pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel stance, also led crowds in chanting abuse against UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer and other politicians had said the band should not perform after its member Liam O'Hanna, known by his stage name Mo Chara, was charged with a terror offense. He appeared in court this month accused of having displayed a Hezbollah flag while saying 'Up Hamas, Up Hezbollah' after a video resurfaced of a London concert last year. The Iran-backed Lebanese force Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas are banned in the UK, and it is an offense to express support for them. O'Hanna has denied the charge and told the Guardian newspaper in an interview published Friday that 'it was a joke — we're playing characters.' Kneecap regularly lead crowds in chants of 'Free Palestine' during its concerts, and fans revere them for their anti-establishment stance and criticism of British imperialism, while detractors call them extremists. The group apologized this year after a 2023 video emerged appearing to show one singer calling for the death of British Conservative lawmakers.
