Category: Foreign Affairs

  • Jack Straw – 2006 Speech at the United Nations General Assembly

    Jack Straw – 2006 Speech at the United Nations General Assembly

    The text of the speech made by Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, on 1 February 2006.

    Let me first thank Lord Hannay for his introduction and say how delighted I was to hear he has been appointed as Chairman of the UNA. It is difficult to think of anyone more suited for the position. His skill as a diplomat and advocate is matched only by his profound knowledge of and commitment to the United Nations.

    And may I also extend a welcome to everyone here tonight – and in particular to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan.

    As Lord Hannay has said, tonight we are marking the 60th anniversary of the first plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly – though as you probably know, that first gathering, which the newspapers of the time affectionately referred to as “the town meeting of the world”, actually took place a little earlier in the month – January 10th to be precise.

    When that first General Assembly gathered here in Methodist Central Hall it was, I understand, rather to the annoyance of the congregation who were forced to decamp to the London Coliseum and who expressed deep disquiet at the idea of gin-swilling diplomats being allowed on the premises.

    Indeed, it wasn’t a foregone conclusion that this would be the venue. Many of the officials in the Preparatory Commission advocated holding the meeting on the other side of Parliament Square in the great medieval chamber of Westminster Hall. In the end, this building won out for the rather prosaic reasons of heating and acoustics.

    It was, though, rather an apt venue for the United Nations – an organisation committed to freedom, peace and equality. The Suffragettes met here in 1914; Mahatma Gandhi spoke here in 1931; it was in this building, in 1940, that General de Gaulle announced the foundation of the Free French movement. And throughout the war, the basement served as one of the biggest air raid shelters in London, providing safety for hundreds of people.

    The minutes of that first meeting of the United Nations are fascinating. They reverberate with a real sense of the optimism and idealism. Much of what was said still resonates today. The British Prime Minster Clement Atlee spoke eloquently of how the welfare of each nation was bound up with the welfare of the world as a whole; how, in his words, “we are truly all members one of another”. If that was true in 1946 – and it was – it is even more true in today’s interconnected world.

    There are even some early examples of the pitfalls which can befall those of us who appear at the United Nations; the British Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, didn’t realise his microphone was on and the entire Security Council heard him mutter: “..the bloody Chairman has double-crossed me again”.

    There is one thing which stands out from the minutes of those early meetings. Many of the people in this room that day were veterans of the League of Nations. Aware of the tragic consequences of that organisation’s failings they were absolutely determined that the United Nations would be new and different; it must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

    So the recognition of the need to change and adapt in the face of each new challenge has always been vital to the success of the United Nations. And no-one has shown more commitment to this task than tonight’s guest of honour, Kofi Annan.

    As Secretary General, he has not been afraid to engender debate on questions which are as sensitive as they are important. For example, he has forcefully challenged the idea that states can hide behind their sovereignty to defend human rights abuse. He used his voice to urge the international community to agree upon its collective responsibility to protect vulnerable populations from the worst atrocities: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Similarly, Kofi has worked to cut through the ambiguity and equivocation which has surrounded the definition of terrorism. And in the fractious aftermath to the war in Iraq, it was he who spoke of a fork in the road and who helped to heal divisions.

    His long career in the United Nations, at the World Health Organisation and UNHCR in Geneva, at the Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, in the Secretariat in New York and on various special assignments equipped him to drive reform of the United Nations machinery itself. His important reports in 1997 and 2002 on UN reform showed how the organisation could be made much more efficient. Making good the Charter’s “We the peoples”, under his stewardship the UN is more open than ever before, with wider access for civil society and more participation by the private sector through initiatives such as the Global Compact. Last year, his report “In larger freedom” set out a vision for a United Nations better able to bring development, security and human rights for all.

    No-one – least of all Kofi – underestimates the scale of the challenges ahead both for the United Nations and for its member states. Take a quick glance at the headlines on any given day in the past week – worries over climate change, uncertainty in the Palestinian Authority, concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the complex dispute in Cyprus. If we are to meet these challenges – and many others besides – the international community will need a strong United Nations.

    At the World Summit last year we agreed a programme of reform at the United Nations that will make it a more effective organisation. We must maintain that momentum. This means ensuring that the recently created Peacebuilding Commission becomes an effective body and it means establishing a Human Rights Council which avoids the weaknesses of the existing Commission. Modernising the administration will dominate the agenda for the first half of 2006. In particular, we look forward to the Secretary General’s imminent recommendations on how we should reprioritise programme activity across the organisation.

    At the same time, we need to strengthen the international consensus in support of the non-proliferation regime and against the threat of global terrorism. There is still a lot more we must do if we are to meet the Millennium Development Goals; and in Africa progress is further threatened by ongoing conflicts such as those in Darfur and the Great Lakes and worsening situations like those on the borders of Eritrea and Ethiopia and the Ivory Coast.

    Earlier today, Kofi co-chaired – with the Afghan and British governments – the London Conference on Afghanistan. The United Nations has done great work there and has a key role in co-ordinating international support. The same is true in Iraq, where it played a vital role in the three sets of elections last year. I know the United Nations has some very legitimate security and other concerns but I hope that over the coming year we will be able to see the Iraqi people – particularly those outside Baghdad – benefiting even more from the organisation’s immense expertise and experience.

    So there is some tough work ahead – work which I am sure that Kofi will go into in much more detail.

    In this his final year of office, he can be sure of the support of the United Kingdom and of our continuing commitment to the United Nations. It is support which can be measured in the levels of our assessed and voluntary contributions to the UN budget – significantly more than any other European country and double what we were contributing a decade ago. But it can also be measured in our constructive engagement with the United Nations agenda across the board. We act as strong advocates for reform precisely because we know that the world needs a robust and effective United Nations. In the foundations which he has laid over the past nine years, Kofi Annan has given us good reason for confidence in the future.

    It is then my great pleasure and privilege to introduce the Secretary General of the United Nations.

  • Jack Straw – 2006 Comments on Election Results in Iraq

    Jack Straw – 2006 Comments on Election Results in Iraq

    The comments made by Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, on 10 February 2006.

    I congratulate all those elected to the new Council of Representatives of Iraq.

    The December elections were a historic day when the Iraqi people turned out in their millions, braving the threat of violence so that they could elect a new parliament and government. Today the shape of the new parliament is clear. I look forward to the first meeting of the new Council of Representatives which we hope to see taking place as soon as possible. This is a decisive step on the road to establishing a strong democracy.

    It is now imperative that all parties accept the results and continue to play a full role in the political process. International monitors oversaw the election and have pronounced themselves content with the election process. There has been a thorough process for investigating complaints. Everyone in a democracy has to accept its result.

    It is now up to the politicians of all communities to work together to form an effective and representative government. The new government will face big decisions. All Iraqis are impatient to see a new government get down to work quickly and make progress in tackling the tough challenges ahead. The British Government and the international community will continue to support the new Iraqi Administration and the Iraqi people as a whole in their efforts to establish a strong and stable Iraq.

  • Foreign and Commonwealth Office – 2020 Statement on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office – 2020 Statement on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

    The statement made by the UK, France and Germany on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) on 20 August 2020.

    On 20 August, the US sent a letter to the UN Security Council requesting to initiate the ‘snapback’ mechanism, which allows a participant to the JCPoA to seek the reimposition against Iran of the multilateral sanctions lifted in 2015 in accordance with resolution 2231, adopted by the UN Security Council.

    France, Germany and the United Kingdom (“the E3”) note that the US ceased to be a participant to the JCPoA following their withdrawal from the deal on 8 May, 2018. Our position regarding the effectiveness of the US notification pursuant to resolution 2231 has consequently been very clearly expressed to the Presidency and all UNSC members. We cannot therefore support this action which is incompatible with our current efforts to support the JCPoA.

    The E3 are committed to preserving the processes and institutions which constitute the foundation of multilateralism. We remain guided by the objective of upholding the authority and integrity of the United Nations Security Council. We call on all UNSC members to refrain from any action that would only deepen divisions in the Security Council or that would have serious adverse consequences on its work.

    We remain committed to the JCPoA despite the significant challenges caused by US withdrawal. We believe that we should address the current issue of systematic Iranian non- compliance with its JCPoA obligations through dialogue between JCPoA participants, including through the Joint Commission and use of the Dispute Resolution Mechanism. In order to preserve the agreement, we urge Iran to reverse all measures inconsistent with its nuclear commitments and return to full compliance without delay.

    As we have already underlined, including in our 19 June statement, we have serious concerns regarding the implications for regional security of the scheduled expiry of the UN conventional arms embargo, particularly given Iran’s destabilising activities, which continue unabated. The E3 are determined to bring adequate answers to these challenges and will continue to work with all UNSC members and stakeholders to seek a path forward that preserves space for further diplomacy. Our efforts will be guided by the need to uphold the authority and integrity of the UN Security Council and to advance regional security and stability.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2020 Comments on Situation in Mali

    Stephen Doughty – 2020 Comments on Situation in Mali

    Comments made by Stephen Doughty, the Shadow Minister for Africa, on 19 August 2020.

    Recent events in Mali are deeply concerning and it is vital that we see an immediate return to the rule of law and democratic and constitutional processes. Detained political figures, including President Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta, should be released and a peaceful dialogue established to avoid further instability. Free and fair elections must then be held to ensure the right of the people of Mali to determine their country’s future direction.

    The UK government is right to join international partners in condemning the coup, but must now commit to continuing to support humanitarian efforts in the region to help bring about much-needed peace and stability.

    Our country’s strategic interests are best served when the UK collaborates with democratic allies to support democratic order in Mali, particularly in light of growing jihadist terrorism in Mali and the pressing need for a coordinated international effort to combat the threat it poses to wider regional stability.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Comments on Death of 16-Year Old in the English Channel

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Comments on Death of 16-Year Old in the English Channel

    Comments made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 19 August 2020.

    The news of the death of a 16-year-old boy in the Channel is heartbreaking and our thoughts are with his loved ones.

    The Government’s response to the situation in the Channel has been lacking in compassion and competence.

    Ministers urgently need to step up work with international partners to find a humanitarian solution to this crisis, which is costing lives.

  • Dominic Raab – 2020 Comments on Belarusian Elections

    Dominic Raab – 2020 Comments on Belarusian Elections

    The comments made by Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, on 17 August 2020.

    The world has watched with horror at the violence used by the Belarusian authorities to suppress the peaceful protests that followed this fraudulent Presidential election. The UK does not accept the results. We urgently need an independent investigation through the OSCE into the flaws that rendered the election unfair, as well as the grisly repression that followed. The UK will work with our international partners to sanction those responsible, and hold the Belarusian authorities to account.

  • Emily Thornberry – 2020 Comments on US Trade Tariffs

    Emily Thornberry – 2020 Comments on US Trade Tariffs

    The comments made by Emily Thornberry, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, on 13 August 2020.

    We welcome the withdrawal of tariffs on shortbread as well as the temporary reprieve for exports of gin, salmon and blended whisky, but that good news makes it all the more disappointing that punitive tariffs are being maintained on single malt whisky, knitwear, cheese and other key exports.

    Coming on the back of this week’s disastrous growth figures, the maintenance of those tariffs represents a double blow for hundreds of vital British businesses, especially in Scotland, and the tens of thousands of workers they employ.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the EU-US dispute, it has nothing to do with the distilleries, farmers, food producers and clothes makers affected by these tariffs, and – at this time of all times – it is an act of economic vandalism for Donald Trump to continue targeting their livelihoods in this way.

    The government must provide urgent support to all the firms and workers affected, and redouble its efforts to get these tariffs removed. British exporters can’t afford to wait months for a fully-fledged UK-US free trade deal to come to fruition; they need action against the tariffs that are damaging their business today.

  • Lisa Nandy – 2020 Comments on Agreement Between Israel and the UAE

    Lisa Nandy – 2020 Comments on Agreement Between Israel and the UAE

    The comments made by Lisa Nandy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, on 13 August 2020.

    This agreement is an important step forward and we welcome the normalisation of relations between Israel and the UAE. We also welcome the suspension of proposals by Israel to annex large parts of the West Bank – an act that would have been in clear violation of international law and one opposed by governments around the world.

    The Labour Party is hopeful that this announcement will be the first step towards the full withdrawal of annexation proposals, and that this can be a catalyst for a meaningful and lasting peace to be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinians – an outcome we believe can only be achieved by a peaceful two-state solution in the Middle East.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Comments on Quarantine Measures from France and the Netherlands

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Comments on Quarantine Measures from France and the Netherlands

    The comments made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 13 August 2020.

    While we support evidence based measures at the border, it’s vital that the Government has a joined-up strategy, and recognises the impact of this on travel-related businesses. It is vital that a sector-specific deal is put in place urgently.

    That the Government has still not put in place an effective track, trace and isolate system has made matters far worse and made it more likely that we are reliant on the blunt tool of 14-day quarantine.

    The Government should publish all of the scientific evidence its decisions are based on and details of any work being done to reduce the time needed to isolate through increased testing and other measures.

  • Tony Blair – 1997 Q&A in Amsterdam

    Tony Blair – 1997 Q&A in Amsterdam

    The Q&A with Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 17 June 1997.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can we ask you what has been decided now on this issue of defence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have reached agreement on it, which is very satisfactory to us, because it makes it absolutely clear that our defence interests will continue to be looked at through NATO, whilst of course co-operating with other countries in defence, as it is in our interests to do so.

    QUESTION:

    And what was the key argument as far as you were concerned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The absolute essence of it is to make it clear that defence is such a big British interest that nothing must jeopardise NATO, that that is the foundation of our defence policy and there must be no question of us being forced into an integration of the various European defence institutions and that has been secured. So of course it is an agreement that I hope will be satisfactory to everyone, but it also protects Britain’s position.

    QUESTION:

    Who were the British allies?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that there were a lot of the other countries who were very concerned of course to make sure that NATO and our alliance with the Americans should remain the cornerstone of our defence. So of course we want to co-operate with other countries, that is important to do, but it must be done on the basis that Britain’s defence remains with British interests and done in alliance with the United States.

    QUESTION:

    Are you confident you are going to get a treaty tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are still negotiating and there are certain points that have to be gone through, but I think the negotiations are proceeding pretty well and we are satisfied with what we have done.

    QUESTION:

    What do you want people to believe that this treaty really represents in terms of a step forward for Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The absolute essence of what we have achieved here is that we have put jobs and employment right at the top of the agenda – that in respect of all the other things, quite apart from protecting Britain’s interest on frontier controls and all the rest of it, we have said that there are certain practical steps that Europe should take in the field of environment, of consumer protection. But what we haven’t done is try and construct some illusion about Europe that is totally at odds with the wishes of the people of Europe, and I think that practical British common sense has been very important.

    QUESTION:

    So what do you say to those who argue that you have given away too much, in erosion of the British veto for example?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it’s true to say that in relation to anything at all. We have actually protected all our bases in respect of that all the way through and there is not a single thing that we have yielded up that we have said we would not. So what is very important to recognise is that in all the areas – tax, immigration, defence – the British national interest, the British veto, is secured. But it is more than that. We didn’t just come here to say let’s stop everyone else doing something. We also came with the view of putting employment, economic reform, measures on the environment, right at the top of the agenda, and that we have achieved.

    So it is not merely that we have prevented other countries pushing us into things we didn’t want to be pushed into; we have exercised, I think, a constructive leadership role in shaping Europe differently for the future.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, President Clinton has condemned outright, as one would expect, the murders in Northern Ireland. Would you like him to go further and break off publicly all contact with Sinn Fein?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The reason why President Clinton is so angry, the reason why we are so angry, the reason why the European Union here took the unusual step of issuing a unanimous statement condemning utterly these atrocities yesterday, is because everybody knows, and people in Northern Ireland should know this, particularly from the Nationalist community, that we were trying to bring about a situation in which there could be a lasting political settlement. We were making every effort to be constructive, and this was a deliberate act to frustrate that process going forward. So it is not merely our repugnance at the killing and our deep sympathy for the families, it is that there is such a serious element of bad faith here and I think the Americans, as everybody else has been, have been really shocked by this.

    INTERVIEWER:

    If we could go back to the summit. Progress has been made, progress is ritually made at summits. One gets the impression though always that there is a certain amount of grandstanding going on, both so far as border controls are concerned and so far as the row over monetary union and job creation is concerned. Did you get that impression?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well sure, I mean all countries are looking after their own interests. But I think what has been important for us and very positive, though things have not been agreed yet finally – that has to happen later in the day – but what is positive for us is we have protected our own interests upon frontier controls. I think we will get a very good deal in relation to other parts of the treaty as well, but we are also starting to shape the agenda in Europe at the same time. Because all the emphasis economically has been on jobs, on economic reform, on education and skills, not old style state interventional regulation. Now this was a very positive and constructive step forward for Britain in Europe as well as protecting British interests.

    INTERVIEWER:

    One gets the impression that you are looking post-treaty now, you are much more interested in the post-treaty agenda than you are really in the detail of now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have still got things to sort out and some of these issues are very tricky because we have got a number of very clear decisions on foreign policy, defence and other issues. But I think what is important is that we do try and look forward from Amsterdam now and that we make sure that in the Presidency conclusions there are all the things that we need on the single market, on bringing about more flexible labour markets, on trying to create the type of future for Europe in which job security, in an entirely different economic world today, is put right at the top of the agenda and we don’t get lost in a whole lot of institutional talk that frankly means very little to people either in Britain or in the rest of Europe.

    INTERVIEWER:

    What you specifically need surely is an agreement to help the fishing industry in Britain. What are you looking for specifically on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well we are obviously still in the process of negotiation, but I am confident that we will get a good agreement on that too. And I think what is important is that we get a deal that enables our fishing industry to go forward from the position that they are in at the present time, but this of course is one of the issues upon which we are going to be negotiating, along with a whole lot of other things. But as I say, at the moment it is going well.

    INTERVIEWER:

    During the election this was portrayed as the great test of whoever became the new Prime Minister. You have now been here, you have seen what it has been like, do you think that was exaggerated during the election and if it was a test, how well have you done?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is rather to judge how well we have done, but I think what is important is that we have shown that we can be engaged and constructive in Europe because it is in Britain’s interest economically and politically that we are a leading player in Europe. It is important for our standing in the world, it is important for our industry. We have shown we can be constructive at the same time as protecting British interests. Now as I say we haven’t negotiated the final deal yet so you know you can never be sure until it is there. But I think what has changed in the atmosphere here is that people are listening to an agenda we have, particularly the agenda on economic reform and jobs, and that is an important change in Britain’s relations with Europe.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Has it been testing though, has it been difficult for your?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is difficult because you have got a whole series of different countries and they have all got their own interests and across a whole range of issues. Of course people will have disagreements. But what is important is that we are fighting on the things that are important and we are not fighting on things that either don’t matter to Britain or occasionally are contrary to British interests to be fighting about. So for example the employment chapter in the new treaty that I think we will agree is going to give Britain the opportunity to play a constructive role in shaping the economic agenda in Europe. It means no additional burdens on British business at all, and yet had the Conservative Party been here they would have been fighting to the death to keep the whole thing out of the treaty which wouldn’t have been in Britain’s interest at all. So I think that the change in atmosphere is in part because people know that when we are putting forward arguments they are reasonable and rational arguments. And of course countries fight for their own interests – and I can tell you that other countries fight for their own interests every bit as hard as anybody else. That is part of the natural process. But nonetheless there are a lot of things that we have achieved in terms of not just protecting our own interest buts shaping Europe’s future.

    INTERVIEWER:

    So have you had to concede absolutely nothing in the give and take that these summits always bring?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    At the present time there are no strategic interests that we have conceded at all, and I don’t intend conceding any, because I think the positions, as I say, that we are putting forward are reasonable and we have got sufficient support for that.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Although it has not been formally on the agenda of this summit, people are very concerned about the timetable for economic and monetary union and speculation about whether it will go ahead. What is your impression from your talks behind the scenes here? Do you get the impression that the Euro will go ahead on 1 January 1999?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone can be completely sure about that and in any event each country will take its own position and Britain has reserved its option. We have got the option to join. If we do join, or want to join, there would be a referendum and so on. But I think what is important about yesterday is that, first, jobs and employment security were put right at the top of the economic agenda, whether monetary union goes ahead or it doesn’t. And secondly, there was no attempt to fudge or alter the criteria for monetary union. And I think both of those things were actually very very important gains not just for Britain but for Europe.