Latest news with #ForeignSecretary
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Political tides in Africa are shifting: Britain must be clear who its friends are
While the world's attention has understandably been focussed on events in Ukraine and Gaza, the Foreign Secretary 's recent visit to Morocco saw Britain seize the initiative on a diplomatic issue that has been neglected by the international community for nearly half a century; that of the status of Western Sahara, under administration by Morocco since 1975, but whose sovereignty over the region has been disputed by the Algerian-backed Polisario Front, sometimes violently, for decades. This example of British diplomatic engagement is particularly significant in the context of the new Strategic Defence Review, and the British Government's stated aim of enhancing national security through economic growth. 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.
Bloomberg
3 days ago
- General
- Bloomberg
UK Joins US, France in Backing Morocco Plan for West Sahara
The UK backed Morocco's plan to administer the disputed territory of Western Sahara, in a historic shift mirroring moves by France and the US. London considers Morocco's proposal, under which it would keep sovereignty over the territory while granting it limited autonomy, the 'most credible, viable and pragmatic basis' to resolve the half-century dispute, Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Sunday.
Bloomberg
3 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
UK Joins US, France in Backing Moroccan Plans for Western Sahara
The UK backed Morocco's plan to administer the disputed territory of Western Sahara, in a historic shift mirroring moves by France and the US. London considers Morocco's proposal, under which it would hold sovereignty over the territory while granting it limited autonomy, the 'most credible and viable and pragmatic basis' to resolve the half-century dispute, Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Sunday.
Telegraph
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Outdated Foreign Office dogma makes Britain weak. Chagos proves it
Future historians should not waste time arguing about when exactly it became inevitable that Britain would surrender its sovereignty over one of the world's most formidable military bases. I can tell them now: 12.55pm Eastern Daylight Time on May 22 2019. At that moment, the United Nations General Assembly in New York passed a Resolution demanding Britain's withdrawal from the Chagos Islands, including the base on Diego Garcia. This decision, endorsing an earlier opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), made Britain's departure a racing certainty. Why? Not because either measure carried the full force of international law. The whole point about General Assembly Resolutions and ICJ opinions is that they are not binding. No, the real reason why we were sure to yield eventually is that the sacred dogma of British diplomats allowed for no other outcome. I spent nearly eight years in the Foreign Office and Downing Street, including five in the Foreign Secretary's Private Office, witnessing British diplomacy in action. I can tell you that your representatives really do believe in what they call the 'rules-based international system', meaning the assembly of laws and institutions created after 1945 to restrain the behaviour of states. If the UN and an international court say that Britain should relinquish this or that territory, then our diplomats will advise that we must obey. Can the Foreign Secretary overrule them? Of course, but Foreign Secretaries come and go. Eventually there will be one who gives way and David Lammy is clearly that man. His officials will have told him that we cannot preserve the international order unless we are prepared to live by its strictures. They will have cautioned that defiance would invite the charge of double standards from the countries of the 'Global South'. They will have warned that if we are going to rally these nations against Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a breach of international law, then we have to obey the law ourselves. So don't fall for Sir Keir Starmer's claim that the deal handing the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is really about guaranteeing the future of the military facility or protecting national security. That argument has been retro-fitted to a decision based above all on a sincere devotion to the international system. What should we make of this venerated dogma of British diplomacy? In my former life, I would ask our officials: is upholding the system and obeying the rules an end in itself? What about the national interest? They would reply that there was no contradiction. We have an interest in preserving this world order because, alongside America, we built it. The system gives the UK outsized influence, through permanent membership of the Security Council. And now that we are no longer a superpower, the rules protect our safety too. But look where this rigid thinking has led us. We have just agreed to relinquish sovereignty over a military asset described by the Prime Minister as 'unique and vital' and 'right at the foundation of our security'. And we have done it without being under any legal obligation. Has any other country in history been doctrinaire and purist enough to give up sovereign territory on this basis? Which other nation would change the status of a crucial military facility for this reason? Do not underestimate how extraordinary Britain's behaviour is. Many states refuse to negotiate over what they consider sovereign territory. Some, like Ukraine, have constitutions that forbid governments from sacrificing even a square inch, no matter what the UN might say. Will Britain's purism make us uniquely virtuous or uniquely vulnerable? Anyone who has endured the self-serving cant of the nations of the 'Global South' will know the answer. They cannot fail to see how the Chagos agreement has lowered the bar for challenging the UK. A country with a grievance does not need to get a binding judgement against us; an advisory opinion plus a General Assembly Resolution will do. That is not as hard as you might think: Africa and the Caribbean together are close to a majority of the UN. If Mauritius could extract 58 islands and one military base without even winning a definitive ruling, then the message is that British diplomats will not resist a former colony on a mission, however extravagant the demand. And what about Russia and China? What does it say about Britain's resolve if two non-binding international decisions are enough to make us terminate our sovereignty over a 'unique and vital' base? The great irony is that our diplomats think they are being modern and forward-looking, yet all around them the world has changed. It made sense to uphold the 'rules-based international system' when America was with us. But today our biggest ally no longer even pretends to believe in this cause. There might once have been a case for winning international support through scrupulous obedience to global courts and conventions. Yet Russia is now tearing Europe's largest country to pieces. Faced with Putin's aggression, purity and virtue get you nowhere. All that counts is power and will. Never mind preserving the entire international order, if we get through the next 20 years without Russia waging general war on Europe, or China coming to blows with America, that will represent success. Preserving peace will require the West to subordinate everything else to deterring Russia and China. How does it help when Britain sacrifices sovereignty over a base that commands the Indian Ocean while making itself more vulnerable to endless new challenges from the 'Global South'? The truth is that the Chagos agreement is the last gasp of the old world, when the West was dominant after the Cold War, and we could afford to sign up to every international court and convention. Remarkably, our diplomats still cling to the mindset of that era. Unless they change, the danger is that our adversaries will be bolder and fiercer and we might end up in a war that we could have avoided if we had been stronger earlier. If so, there will be absolutely nothing left of the international order. By striving to preserve perfection, our outdated diplomats increase the risk that we will lose it all.
Washington Post
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
On Gaza and Ukraine, Britain drifts from lockstep with the United States
LONDON — Just hours after President Donald Trump signaled he would not be punishing Russia with more sanctions earlier this week, Britain joined the European Union in punishing Russia with more sanctions. The same day, Britain made another move that was out of London's traditional lockstep with American policy. Foreign Secretary David Lammy on Tuesday suspended trade talks with Israel, summoned the country's ambassador and condemned Israel's conduct in Gaza in terms far more withering — 'repellent,' 'monstrous,' 'morally unjustifiable' — than anything coming from Washington.
