Latest news with #HaroldMacmillan
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Starmer hopes ‘pathway to peace' will end Gaza war. History is not on his side
The former British prime minister Harold Macmillan once said there was no problem in the Middle East because a problem has a solution. Keir Starmer is the latest incumbent in No 10 to try to prove Macmillan wrong, with a plan that has been described by Downing Street as a 'pathway to peace' for Gaza and the wider region. The record of Britain's previous interventions do not augur well. The famous commitment drafted by the then British foreign secretary, Sir Arthur James Balfour, to 'view with favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people', was integrated into Britain's UN mandate over Palestine between 1923 and 1948 and paved the way for the birth of Israel. But the declaration contained a key qualification: nothing should be done to prejudice the 'civil and religious rights' of Palestine's 'existing non-Jewish communities'. Britain afforded Israel de facto recognition on 30 January 1949, in the last stages of the first Arab-Israeli war, and de jure recognition on 27 April 1950. For many Palestinians, the second part of the Balfour promise is yet to be made good. In the Arab nationalism of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Britain saw a destabilising force that might subvert pro-western states such as Jordan. For Israel, Nasser was a threat for allowing Palestinian militants permission to launch attacks against it from the Gaza Strip, then controlled by Egypt. Matters were brought to a head when Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal Company on 26 July 1956. Under a secret agreement, Israel agreed to attack Sinai, the Egyptian peninsula between its western border and the canal. British and French forces would then intervene to 'separate the combatants', seizing control of the canal zone. The Anglo-French element was a debacle. The Israeli part of the plan went well. Israeli forces captured Sinai in its entirety, destroying three Egyptian divisions. From then on Israel was considered to be a major fighting force by the west. Britain exported arms to it from the 1960s in the belief that a strong Israel would reduce the chance of further war in the region. In the aftermath of the six-day war in 1967 between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, primarily Egypt, Syria and Jordan, Britain played a key role in drafting United Nations security council resolution 242. It embodies the principle that has guided most of the peace plans that have followed – the exchange of land for peace. The resolution called for the 'withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict', such as Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 'respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force'. It would come to be criticised for being vague and for its depiction of the Palestinian people as lacking national rights, describing their cause as the 'refugee problem'. Britain's role as a key player was overtaken by the US when President Jimmy Carter brought the Egyptian leader, Anwar Sadat, and the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, together at Camp David. The plan sought to set up a 'self-governing authority' in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to eventual 'final status' talks. The agreement included only a token gesture to Palestinian aspirations for self-determination. No Palestinians were involved in the negotiations and the plan did not include any mention of a Palestinian state. The European and British perspective was voiced in the Venice declaration of 1980 issued by the then European Economic Community. 'The Palestinian people … must be placed in a position, by an appropriate process defined within the framework of the comprehensive peace settlement, to exercise fully its right to self-determination,' it said. It further added that the Palestine Liberation Organisation must be involved. This was controversial as the PLO was at this stage calling for Israel's destruction. It prompted criticism from the US. But even under the solidly pro-Israel leadership of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, British policy was to avoid straying too far from the European consensus. Major in 1995 became the first western leader to meet Yasser Arafat inside the Palestinian Authority's area of control, which had been established through the Oslo accords overseen by the US president, Bill Clinton. The second intifada, an uprising that raged from 2000 to 2005, took place in the wake of Clinton's failed Camp David Summit, which was meant to broker a final agreement on the peace process. The intifada overlapped with the 'war on terror' that followed the 9/11 attacks. Tony Blair used his close relationship with the then US president, George W Bush, to issue the 2003 roadmap peace plan that would resolve all issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 2005 through implementation of a two-state solution. It failed. After leaving Downing Street, Blair was appointed as the envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East. The quartet consisted of the UN, the EU, the US and Russia. Blair sought to develop the Palestinian economy and improve governance but struggled to make headway. He resigned after nearly eight years in the role, with Palestinians criticising what they saw as his closeness to Israel, including his decision to deliver a eulogy at the funeral of the former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Britain's policy under the succeeding prime ministers – Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak – has been criticised for reciting the mantra that a two-state solution is the only way forward without expending energy or political capital on the goal.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Starmer hopes his ‘pathway to peace' will end war in Gaza. History suggests he may struggle
The former British prime minister Harold Macmillan once said that there was no problem in the Middle East because a problem has a solution. Keir Starmer is the latest incumbent in No 10 to try to prove Macmillan wrong through a plan that has been described by Downing Street as 'pathway to peace' for Gaza and the wider region. The record of Britain's previous interventions do not augur well. The famous commitment drafted by the then British foreign secretary Sir Arthur James Balfour, to 'view with favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people', was integrated into Britain's UN mandate over Palestine between 1923 and 1948 and paved the way for the birth of Israel. But the declaration contained a key qualification: nothing should be done to prejudice the 'civil and religious rights' of Palestine's 'existing non-Jewish communities'. Britain afforded Israel de facto recognition on 30 January 1949, in the last stages of the first Arab-Israeli war, and de jure recognition on 27 April 1950. For many Palestinians, the second part of the Balfour promise is yet to be made good. In the Arab nationalism of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Britain saw a destabilising force that might subvert pro-western states such as Jordan. For Israel, Nasser was a threat for allowing Palestinian militants permission to launch attacks against it from the Gaza Strip, then controlled by Egypt. Matters were brought to a head when Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal Company on 26 July 1956. Under a secret agreement, Israel agreed to attack Sinai, the Egyptian peninsula between its western border and the canal. British and French forces would then intervene to 'separate the combatants', seizing control of the canal zone. The Anglo-French element was a debacle. The Israeli part of the plan went well. Israeli forces captured Sinai in its entirety, destroying three Egyptian divisions. From then on Israel was considered to be a major fighting force by the west. Britain exported arms to it from the 1960s in the belief that a strong Israel would reduce the chance of further war in the region. In the aftermath of the six-day war in 1967 between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, primarily Egypt, Syria and Jordan, Britain played a key role in drafting United Nations security council resolution 242. It embodies the principle that has guided most of the peace plans that have followed – the exchange of land for peace. The resolution called for the 'withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict', such as Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 'respect for and acknowldgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force'. It would come to be criticised for being vague and for its depiction of the Palestinian people as lacking national rights, describing their cause as the 'refugee problem'. Britain's role as a key mediator was overtaken by the US when President Jimmy Carter brought the Egyptian leader, Anwar Sadat, and the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, together at Camp David. The plan sought to set up a 'self-governing authority' in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to eventual 'final status' talks. The European and British perspective was voiced in the Venice declaration of 1980 issued by the then European Economic Community. 'The Palestinian people … must be placed in a position, by an appropriate process defined within the framework of the comprehensive peace settlement, to exercise fully its right to self-determination,' it said. It further added that the Palestine Liberation Organisation must be involved. This was controversial as the PLO was at this stage calling for Israel's destruction. It prompted criticism from the US. But even under the solidly pro-Israel leadership of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, British policy was to avoid straying too far from the European consensus. Major in 1995 became the first western leader to meet Yasser Arafat inside the Palestinian Authority area which had been created through the Oslo accords overseen by the US president, Bill Clinton. The second intifada, an uprising which raged from 2000 to 2004, took place after Arafat did not agree to the terms of the two-state proposals tabled by the-then Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, and Clinton. The intifada overlapped with the 'war on terror' that followed the 9/11 attacks. Tony Blair used his close relationship with the US president George W Bush to issue the 2003 roadmap peace plan that would resolve all issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 2005 through implementation of a two-state solution. It failed. After leaving Downing Street, Blair was appointed as the envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East. The quartet consisted of the UN, the EU, the US and Russia. Blair sought to develop the Palestinian economy and improve governance but struggled to make headway. He resigned after nearly eight years in the role, with Palestinians criticising what they saw as his closeness to Israel. Britain's policy under the succeeding prime ministers – Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak – has been criticised for reciting the mantra that a two-state solution is the only way forward without expending energy or political capital on the goal.
Irish Times
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the UK Afghan controversy: an unacceptable precedent
The advice Harold Macmillan gave to Alex Douglas-Home in 1963 not to invade Afghanistan is worth recalling in the aftermath of revelations that the names of 25,000 Afghanis who cooperated with the British there from 2001 to 2021 were leaked, endangering them and their relatives. The British state's extraordinary measures to keep the leak secret and relocate many of them to Britain highlight the sensitivity of the issue and vulnerability of those involved. It is part of a much larger story about Afghanistan's troubles since the Taliban took power four years ago. The British decision to invade in 2001, along with US forces, was followed by a chaotic withdrawal in 2021 when the Biden administration pulled out. That left their many Afghani collaborators vulnerable to arrest and torture, alongside the many more – women especially – targeted by the new regime. Millions of Afghan refugees in neighbouring Iran and Pakistan are being expelled back home to a country of 41 million people that can ill afford to receive them. That Afghan refugees outnumber most others on the boats from France to Britain echoes this wider suffering. It is a reminder of the continuing truth contained in the remark about migration to Britain by the Sri Lankan-British writer Ambalavaner Sivanandan: 'We are here because you were there'. Afghans have shared in the racist abuse heaped on migrants in recent times, stoked by populist right-wing movements. Fears that such sentiments would be further inflamed by news of the relocations and their cost prompted the clampdown on media coverage and sworn secrecy of state personnel when the leak was discovered in 2023. The Labour government has relaxed this after a court hearing, reduced the cost estimate and discontinued much of the transfer programme. Their efforts to blame the previous Conservative government for the fiasco should not disguise the role of the British state. Its resort to unprecedented clampdowns on media reporting set an unacceptable precedent at a time of declining trust in democracy.
Time of India
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Commonwealth Day 2025: When is it celebrated in India? Check date, theme, history & significance
Commonwealth Day 2025: In India, Commonwealth Day 2025 will be observed on May 24. This is different from most Commonwealth countries that celebrate it on March 10, 2025. The date in India marks the birth anniversary of Queen Victoria. She was born on May 24, 1819. This shows India's historical link to the British Empire. What is Commonwealth Day 2025? Commonwealth Day 2025 will be celebrated on May 24 in India. The day brings together 56 member countries of the Commonwealth. They come together to celebrate shared values, history, and cooperation. This year, the events will focus on unity, diversity, and sustainable development. Commonwealth Day 2025 Theme: 'Together We Thrive' The official theme for Commonwealth Day 2025 is 'Together We Thrive.' It highlights unity, resilience, and shared progress. The theme celebrates the collective spirit of the 56 Commonwealth nations. It also shows the power of cooperation among people across the world. History of Commonwealth Day and Its Observance in India Commonwealth Day was originally called Empire Day. It was first celebrated in 1904. The day honoured the British Empire and Queen Victoria's birthday. In 1958, UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan renamed it Commonwealth Day. Most Commonwealth countries now observe it on the second Monday in March. But, India still celebrates it on May 24. This keeps the tradition linked to Queen Victoria's birth. Significance of Commonwealth Day 2025 for India Historical Ties: The day shows India's colonial past. It also tells the story of India's growth as an important Commonwealth member since 1947. Cultural Unity: It helps promote cultural exchange and better understanding among Commonwealth countries. Global Cooperation: India uses the Commonwealth to support diplomacy, trade, and deal with global issues like climate change. Youth and Development: The day highlights youth empowerment and sustainable development, matching the Commonwealth's values. How is Commonwealth Day Celebrated in India? In India, Commonwealth Day is celebrated by: Educational programs that teach about the Commonwealth's values. Cultural events that show India's diverse heritage and its ties to the Commonwealth. Ceremonies honouring Queen Victoria's legacy and the day's historical importance. Commonwealth Day 2025: Key Facts and Dates Below are the important facts and dates for Commonwealth day 2025 listed:
Telegraph
12-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
How Britain's motorway problem let European rivals speed ahead
In 1958, civil engineers in the North West of England pioneered a new form of British infrastructure project, constructing the country's first stretch of motorway known as the Preston bypass. At the time, then-prime minister Harold Macmillan said it was not only a 'fine thing in itself', but 'a token of what was to follow'. But almost 70 years on, Britain's motorway network has lost its way. No longer a global leader, it pales in comparison to its European neighbours, fuelling concerns that a lack of connectivity is holding back UK growth. Motorways span 2,330 miles across the UK, far from the 8,100 miles found in Germany and 7,300 in France. Even the Netherlands, which is five times smaller than the UK in terms of size, has a network spanning 2,193 miles. Currently, there are no plans to build any new motorways across the UK, while calls for a new dual carriageway linking Oxford and Cambridge have fallen by the wayside. Instead, the Government is planning to upgrade a 10-mile stretch of the A428 between Milton Keynes and Cambridge. According to the Department for Transport, the UK built just 65 miles of motorway between 2014 and 2024, epitomising a damning lack of infrastructure investment across the country. Unsurprisingly, many fear this dearth of development is damaging Britain's growth prospects, with cost often cited as a key blocker. Figures from Boston Consulting Group (BCG), a consultancy, show that roads in the UK are twice as expensive to build than in Germany. The average cost for a flat road in the UK is £8.45m per km, compared with a European average of £5.77m per km, according to BCG. 'I think a long-running problem in the UK is that we have generally underinvested and I think roads have been caught up in that,' says Raoul Ruparel, the director of BCG's Centre for Growth. 'We have underestimated in this country the broader benefits of connecting up different parts of the country, different regions, different cities, and the ability that brings to spread innovation, move human capital and people around, and access different labour markets.' Compared to other European countries, the UK was also found to be more likely to complete road projects late and over budget, with long planning times leading to significant delays and additional costs. That is unlike in France, where a pipeline of road projects is delivered frequently and on time, according to Ruparel. 'I think what you see in the UK, in motorways and roads, is a bit of a peak and trough,' he says. 'We go on a big investment for a few years and then it drops off, which means that people leave the industry and move into different infrastructure sectors. 'Once they've left and you've lost those skills, it's not always easy to bring them back.' As part of France's road network, over 70pc of its motorways have tolls operated by private companies. The companies are required to contribute a proportion of their income to France's national road network, which in part allows the country to maintain and further develop its motorways. By contrast, the UK has just two tolls on its motorways along the M6 and the M25 Dartford Crossing. Unlike France's gradual motorway construction, the UK underwent a development boom in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But since then, the construction of new projects has dramatically tailed off. Benjamin Caswell, a senior economist at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, has highlighted the economic benefits that new motorway construction could bring to the UK. 'The impact in the short term is, when you've got spades in the ground, you get a bit of a demand side injection because those workers are put to work,' he says. 'Then once those projects are complete, if you've improved the supply infrastructure in the UK economy, then people, trucks and businesses can get their goods to where they need to go. People can move around more easily to go to work.' As well as a lack of new developments, the UK's motorway network has also been impacted by the failed rollout of smart motorways. They had planned to turn the hard shoulder, which is provided so vehicles at imminent risk of breaking down have a safe place to pull over away from 70mph traffic, into a live running lane. However, after years of planning and vast expenditure, former prime minister Rishi Sunak in 2023 scrapped all smart motorway plans owing to cost and safety fears. This debacle served as yet another setback for road-building across Britain. As well as helping everyday drivers get from A to B, British motorways are also a crucial form of connectivity for cross-country supply chains and time-sensitive deliveries. Yet worsening congestion caused by a lack of road capacity is increasingly frustrating businesses that rely on motorways to transport freight, including Igus, a manufacturer based in Northampton. Matthew Aldridge, the managing director of Igus, said: 'Our customers order from us in good faith that the parts will be received within 24 hours, but congestion and traffic jams, blockages on the motorway network means that those promises are broken, and it's that horrible situation where there's nothing we can do about it, nothing our suppliers can do about it. 'This is a common complaint from the sector. The motorway network has suffered from massive, massive underinvestment over the years.' Such objections are sparking fears that Britain's ailing motorway network is holding back the country's economic growth prospects. 'Now 54pc of manufacturers told us that in the last 10 years, they believe that the quality of road networks has actually gotten worse in the UK,' says Fhaheen Khan, a senior economist at Make UK. 'That has had an impact on their investment decisions, their ability to expand and their ability to access people.' Since coming to power, the Labour Government has pledged to 'get Britain building' through new infrastructure and housing projects. However, when it comes to motorways, the Government's ambitions are already falling flat. In one of her first moves as chancellor, Rachel Reeves scrapped the £1.7bn A303 Stonehenge tunnel scheme. She also delayed publishing a new road investment strategy until next year and cut funding for the Department for Transport, sparking fears that Britain's road network will remain trapped in the slow lane for the foreseeable future. 'These [road] schemes, they're so important for the UK economy, but they're an easy political target,' says Tom Lees, the managing director of Bradshaw Advisory consultancy. 'It's quite easy to pause or slow down a big road scheme or a train scheme, versus saying we're going to have to find cuts in the NHS. 'Whether you agree with it or disagree with it, these sorts of schemes take years of planning and research and development, and then when politicians come and cancel them, it takes years and years to get them back up again.'
