UK, Germany Strengthen Ties with New Treaty
A top priority for the Starmer government involves addressing the criminal gangs behind dangerous small-boat crossings from France. In 2024, authorities detected approximately 37,000 individuals making the perilous journey across the English Channel. Alarmingly, over 20,000 more crossed in the first half of 2025.
The new treaty builds on Germany's pledge to criminalize the facilitation of smuggling. Chancellor Merz has committed to enacting this legislation by year's end. This move will strengthen British and German efforts to disrupt criminal supply lines and save lives. A Commitment to Mutual Defence
The treaty evolves from last year's defence pact and signifies a significant UK-German commitment to mutual defence, which includes a mutual assistance clause: if either nation faces a direct threat, the other will provide support.
Moreover, the agreement paves the way for joint export campaigns for defence equipment, including Boxer armoured vehicles and Typhoon jets. Additionally, both nations will collaborate on developing a next-generation precision strike missile. Bilateral investment deals are expected to further bind Europe's two largest economies and major supporters of Ukraine.
As the UK and Germany renew their partnership, France continues to assert its influential role in European defence. President Emmanuel Macron consistently champions both French and European strategic autonomy by investing in independent intelligence, procurement, and operational capabilities.
France leads several ambitious multinational defence initiatives, emphasizing the need for Europe to act independently when necessary. Macron strives to reduce dependency on external powers while calling on partners to develop a 'credible strategic concept' for Europe's security. This concept aligns with NATO but enables Europeans to take the lead in their defence when required. Notably, France's nuclear deterrent remains a crucial cornerstone of the continent's security architecture. Increased Defence Spending
In response to rapidly evolving threats, Macron has unveiled an unprecedented acceleration in French defence spending. The French military budget is set to double compared to 2017 levels, reaching €64 billion by 2027—three years ahead of schedule.
This 'historic and proportionate' effort positions France as a leading European military power. It underscores its commitment to robust, modernized armed forces and the growth of its domestic defence industry. Macron has assured that this rearmament will not be financed by increasing national debt, highlighting both the necessity and sustainability of the investment.
Short link :
Post Views: 8
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
30 minutes ago
- Arab News
US getting creative in search for Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal
US President Donald Trump's Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Monday drew considerable attention for what appeared to be a shift in tone on Ukraine. But amid the headlines, another noteworthy — yet underreported — statement emerged. During a media Q&A, Trump declared that his administration was now close to finalizing a long-term peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This is no small claim. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been in some form of conflict since the collapse of the Soviet Union. What began as fighting in the early 1990s led to a frozen conflict and an Armenian occupation of a sizable chunk of Azerbaijani territory. This conflict exploded into a full-scale war in 2020, which ended in an Azerbaijani victory and the deployment of Russian peacekeepers to the region. By 2023, Azerbaijan had completed the liberation of all its territory taken by Armenia in the 1990s, Russian peacekeepers departed, and Baku and Yerevan started peace talks. However, a major sticking point remains. As part of the ceasefire agreement brokered in November 2020, Armenia committed to 'guarantee the security of transport connections' between Azerbaijan proper and its Nakhchivan exclave via Armenia's Syunik Province. However, no progress has been made on implementing this pledge. For Baku, the so-called Zangezur Corridor is a strategic priority. There is no direct land route connecting Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan and access through Armenia would resolve this logistical challenge. Baku has consistently stated that it does not seek Armenian territory, but merely a secure transport link. Domestic Armenian concerns, coupled with broader regional anxieties, have complicated any effort at compromise Luke Coffey Similar arrangements exist elsewhere in the world without raising sovereignty concerns. For instance, the US relies on transit through Canadian territory to access Alaska from the American mainland via the Alaska Highway. Likewise, Oman maintains a transit route through the UAE to connect with its Musandam exclave on the Strait of Hormuz — without infringing on Emirati sovereignty. In both cases, sovereignty remains respected, while practical transit needs are met. For Yerevan, however, the proposal has become politically toxic. Many Armenians fear that implementing the corridor would weaken their sovereignty or lead to the perception of territorial compromise. These domestic concerns, coupled with broader regional anxieties, have complicated any effort at compromise. Iran, in particular, has pressured Armenia against accepting such an agreement, driven by its long-standing geopolitical rivalry with Azerbaijan. So, what gives the Trump administration confidence that a final peace is within reach? To be fair, the Biden administration deserves credit for bringing both sides to the negotiating table in recent years. Trump has largely continued this process. Around the time of Trump's comments, the US ambassador to Turkiye floated an unusual idea: America could lease and manage the 43km stretch of road in Syunik for 100 years to guarantee its neutrality and security. Although Yerevan quickly rejected the suggestion, the fact that such creative proposals are being considered reflects an active American diplomatic effort behind the scenes. It also illustrates how this seemingly small strip of land has become symbolic of broader regional dynamics. Russia, long the dominant powerbroker in the South Caucasus, has been largely sidelined in the current talks. This reflects Moscow's diminishing influence, which stems from several factors: its overreach in Armenia, intervening in that country's domestic affairs; recent tensions with Baku over the arrest of Azerbaijani nationals in Russia; and the downing of an Azerbaijan Airlines plane over the North Caucasus earlier this year by Russian air defense missiles. Russia's faltering war effort in Ukraine has further diminished its credibility across the region. Iran strongly opposes the Zangezur Corridor. There are two key reasons for this. First, such a route would facilitate greater connectivity between Turkiye and Central Asia — reducing Iran's own relevance as a transit country. Second, it would diminish Tehran's influence over Azerbaijan. Currently, Baku relies on Iranian airspace and infrastructure to reach Nakhchivan. If the Zangezur Corridor were to become operational, Iran would lose this leverage. Russia, long the dominant powerbroker in the South Caucasus, has been largely sidelined in the current talks Luke Coffey Turkiye, meanwhile, sees the corridor not just as a logistical link but as a manifestation of a larger geopolitical and ideological vision. The road and rail connections through Armenia would link Anatolia to the Turkic states of Central Asia — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and beyond. This would physically tie together a broader Turkic world, which Ankara seeks to strengthen through forums like the Organization of Turkic States. For the US, the Zangezur Corridor reflects a broader dilemma: how to engage effectively in a strategically important but geographically distant and complex region like the South Caucasus. While Trump touts his record of avoiding new wars, it is worth remembering that the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War erupted during his first term in 2020. That conflict, and the ceasefire it produced, laid the foundation for today's geopolitical situation in the region. Still, Trump's administration has invested considerable diplomatic energy into peacemaking — from Ukraine to the Middle East to Africa. The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict offers another opportunity to 'make a deal.' But like most issues in the South Caucasus, the reality is far more complicated than it may first appear. That is why the US leasing a corridor through Armenia, while innovative, is unlikely to gain traction. It faces domestic resistance in Yerevan, legal and sovereignty concerns, and geopolitical opposition from Russia and Iran. Yet the broader goal — peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan — is both worthwhile and achievable. Normalization between these two neighbors would have cascading benefits. It would pave the way for diplomatic ties between Turkiye and Armenia, which would open new trade, energy and transportation opportunities across the South Caucasus. Armenia, long excluded from regional infrastructure projects due to its conflict with Azerbaijan, would stand to gain significantly. This comes at a time when Armenia's economy is under pressure and its foreign policy orientation is slowly drifting away from Russia and toward Europe. For Washington, a stable South Caucasus aligns with US interests. It would enhance regional connectivity and reduce vulnerabilities in NATO's energy security — especially important given Europe's increasing reliance on Caspian energy resources as an alternative to Russian supplies. Whether the Trump administration can ultimately broker a lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan remains uncertain. But it deserves recognition for trying. With sustained effort, strategic creativity and regional buy-in, the US has a real chance to help end one of the post-Soviet world's longest unresolved conflicts.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Will UK-France ‘one in, one out' deal solve migration dilemma?
Forget the rebranding of the UK-France 'entente cordial' as the 'entente amicale,' as expressed by King Charles when he toasted the relations between the old neighbors when he received Emmanuel Macron during last week's first state visit for a French president since 2008. Forget also the joint nuclear deterrent agreement reached between London and Paris. Forget Macron's mantra of standing together to 'save' European democracy. Forget the need to unhook Europe's excessive dependencies 'on both the US and China.' Forget the need to save a democratic model that is under threat from 'foreign interference, information manipulation, domination of minds by negative emotions and addictions to social media,' as Macron told Parliament. Forget the commitment to save and defend Ukraine, used repeatedly by British and French leaders at every official meeting. Lastly, forget the commitment to finding a solution to the Gaza conflict or a means to lessen the humanitarian blockade starving the Palestinians, as well as the threat to unilaterally recognize Palestine. Forget all these important issues that were evoked during Macron's three-day state visit. Instead, most of the attention focused on the vexing issue of cross-Channel migration, which has become a major headache for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's one-year-old Labour government — just like it has been for all prime ministers, without exception, since the mid-1990s. But it is becoming increasingly problematic because the failure to manage UK migration policy has become the ladder climbed by right-wing populist parties like Reform UK. The 'one in, one out' policy that London and Paris last week unveiled as a pilot program — meaning some of the migrants arriving in the UK on small boats will be returned to France — may not be the silver bullet needed to save Starmer's premiership. Though Starmer described the deal as 'groundbreaking' and capable of stemming the record numbers of people who have embarked on the perilous journey so far this year, it will need time to prove its effectiveness. The failure to manage UK migration policy has become the ladder climbed by right-wing populist parties Mohamed Chebaro Starmer hopes that the deportation of those who cross the English Channel from France will break the model that has been used for the past few years. And he hopes that it will signal to migrants that, if they cross in a small boat, they will ultimately end up back where they started. In exchange for every return, a different individual will be allowed to come to the UK in a legal and safe manner, as part of a scheme for reuniting families or for those who already have a link with the country. The pilot program is understood to start with 50 returns a week and is likely to be ready to commence in the coming weeks. More than 21,000 migrants have crossed the Channel in rudimentary vessels so far this year, 55 percent more than in the same period last year. While the new measures are yet to be tested, some other new powers recently demonstrated by French police could yield different results. Police officers were seen slashing the small rubber boats with knives as they tried to pick up migrants in shallow waters. This dangerous new practice is yet to be contested in court by human right defenders, while it might also not be easy to apply along the entire coastline. Data gathered from both the British and French sides is alarming. Just since May 2024, when the Home Office began publishing this data, the French authorities have prevented more than 33,000 migrants from crossing the Channel to the UK. This includes 21,317 individuals who were prevented from crossing in May to December last year and 12,321 so far in 2025. France has also engaged in 1,158 'events' in that same period, referring to small boats not being allowed to leave or the arrest of smugglers. That means only about four out of every 10 migrants are being stopped from crossing — a figure that Starmer will want to see rise, as he is under pressure from those using migration failures to turn public opinion against the government. At the same time, they are sowing discontent in some communities that could lead to violent acts, threatening the peace and civil cohesion. The truth came in a statement made by Macron, as he blamed Brexit for the sharp increase in migrant arrivals Mohamed Chebaro The truth that neither the government nor the people of the UK wanted to hear came in a statement made by Macron during his visit, when he blamed Brexit for the sharp increase in migrant arrivals. He claimed that Britain's 2020 departure from the EU had worsened the situation in the Channel, cutting off legal migration routes and London's access to the bloc's returns agreements. It appears that those who so hastily engineered and enforced Brexit did not consider the legal parameters that needed to be in place to send people back. That void has become the pull factor and, as a result, the bitter truth is that leaving the EU has had the opposite effect on migration to what the Brexiteers promised. However, Brexit may not be solely to blame, as other factors have left the immigration processing system exposed, such as the policy of austerity during the 14 years of Conservative government up to last July and the slow and ineffective visa schemes that brought much-needed workers to the country. Many of those workers ended up playing the system and becoming a burden on the welfare state, which was already suffering after years of underinvestment. Last week's UK-France summit yielded a lot in terms of upgrading the cooperation between these two neighbors and strategic allies. But its success or failure hinges entirely on the ability of both countries to curb cross-Channel migration, the rise of which was a clear result of Brexit. The one in, one out plan looks good on paper, but its implementation relies on many variables that neither Macron nor Starmer control. It is worth mentioning that, when accounting for population, the UK receives fewer asylum applications than France and the EU average. The French Interior Ministry recorded 157,947 asylum applications in 2024, compared to 108,138 applicants in the UK. Across the EU, there were just under a million applications for the same period. The UK will have to prepare to receive some of these if its new deal with France is going to work.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
UK MPs demand government respond to ICJ Israel ruling
LONDON: A group of 112 MPs has written to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer asking for the government to publish its response to the International Court of Justice's advisory ruling on Israel's occupation from July 19, 2024. The letter, also addressed to Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Attorney General Lord Hermer, demanded that the government issue its reply to the ruling immediately, and 'address the unlawful situation occurring in the OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territories), as well its own obligations under international law.' Calling the ICJ judgement 'groundbreaking,' the letter said it 'made crystal clear determinations' that Israel's 'presence in the OPT, including Gaza, is unlawful and its policies and practices are incompatible with international law.' It added that the opinion declared that 'all Israeli settlements are illegal and must be withdrawn immediately,' that 'Israel owes full reparation for all damage of its illegal acts since 1967,' and that 'other states are obliged to not provide any sort of aid or assistance that maintains Israel's unlawful presence in the OPT, referring to Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.' Signatories include former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, Sir Winston Churchill's grandson Lord Soames, and three bishops of the Church of England. They reminded the government that the Foreign Office stated in the aftermath of the ruling's release that it would consider the matter 'carefully before responding,' and that: 'The UK respects the independence of the ICJ ... The UK is strongly opposed to the expansion of illegal settlements and rising settler violence.' The letter continued that the ICJ's ruling established the 'unlawfulness' of Israel's actions as fact, and that the UK has a 'legal duty to ensure that the government and British entities take all necessary steps to ensure that we are not complicit with this unlawful situation. 'This is particularly pertinent given the seriousness of the situation, the continued and increasing Israeli violations of international law, as well as the increase in illegal settlements.' It added: 'Between November 2023 — October 2024, Israel established 57 new settlements and outposts. However, the UK needs to not just denounce the rise in settlements but the mere existence of them, as regards the ICJ advisory opinion. 'The failure of the government to publish its response on the advisory opinion and address the unlawful situation occurring in the OPT, as well its own obligations under international law to avoid complicity, needs to be rectified.' So far, beyond the Foreign Office's pledge to respond, the government's only comment on the matter has been an Oct. 22 statement that: 'The UK does not disagree with the central findings of the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.' Sixteen organizations, including the Council for Arab-British Understanding, have also written to the government demanding action to halt any UK complicity in Israeli violations of Palestinian rights. Caabu Director Chris Doyle said: 'It is an utter nonsense that a year on from this historic advisory opinion that the government has not issued its formal response. 'Sources have told Caabu that the legal response was drafted months ago. It is also not that complex a legal document based on many previous legal opinions. 'What it highlights is the government's continued aversion to hold Israel to account, its failure to uphold international law and respect these international judicial institutions as it claims it does.' On Wednesday, Lammy appeared in front of the International Development Select Committee, where he was asked why the government had yet to respond to the ICJ ruling. 'It's an 83-page opinion,' Lammy replied, 'so it's right that the lawyers that you'd expect within government assist and do the work that you'd expect them to do.'
