Category: Foreign Affairs

James Cleverly – 2022 Keynote Speech on Foreign Policy

The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, at the Foreign Office in London on 12 December 2022.

Good morning,

We are at peace, we are prosperous and we live on an island– so why do we bother doing foreign policy at all?

Why did I visit Kenya and Ethiopia last week and Poland and Romania the week before that? Why do the ministers of this department travel around the world, why do we have officials across the globe?

Well let’s go back to first principles and remind ourselves what we are collectively trying to achieve.

For most of our history, the world has been dominated by the brutal maxim that the “strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.

Might was always right, and power was all that counted and nations down the centuries seemed grimly compelled to vindicate Shakespeare’s warning:

Power into will, will into appetite; and appetite, a universal wolf, so doubly seconded with will and power, must make perforce a universal prey and last eat up himself.

As Foreign Secretary of a former imperial power, I know that in the past we succumbed to the temptation of will and appetite.

And none of us can forget how, in the 20th century, aggressive tyrants made the globe their prey, starting two world wars and leaving over 100 million people dead.

And afterwards our predecessors realised that humanity would not survive another catastrophe of that scale.

So a generation of far-sighted leaders built an assembly of international rules and institutions designed to make law – not power alone – the arbiter of relations between states.

Britain joined hands with the United States of America, with France and nearly 50 other nations to create the United Nations.

And the UN General Assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights without a single dissenting vote, proclaiming – and I quote – the “inalienable right of all members of the human family”.

In the same era, 23 nations founded what would become the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank began to fund reconstruction and recovery across the globe.

For all the tragedies and bloodshed of the last eight decades, the remarkable truth is that by historical standards, that system has worked.

Between 1946 and 2020, the number of deaths in state conflicts as a share of global population fell by 95 percent.

And only once since the foundation of the UN has a member country been wiped off the map, with its entire national territory annexed by another.

That act of aggression, by Iraq against Kuwait in 1990, was swiftly reversed.

The volume of world trade has multiplied 40 times since 1950, generating countless jobs and livelihoods in every corner of the earth.

And in recent decades, the fastest economic growth has been concentrated in the developing world.

When I was born in 1969, around half of all humanity lived in absolute poverty.

Today that figure is below 10 percent, which is all the more astonishing when you consider that the world’s population has doubled in that same time.

And ponder the enormity of the simple fact that global infant mortality has been cut in half over the last three decades.

That’s another way of saying that millions of children have been spared what would otherwise be agonising deaths.

Now, none of this would have been possible without the institutions of the post-war world, protecting billions with global vaccination campaigns, investing in development and infrastructure, upholding freedom of the seas and maintaining open shipping lanes.

The international order has allowed more of our fellow human beings to live in peace and prosperity than ever before.

And that is the single most important reason why British foreign policy strives to renew its founding principles and its institutions.

We should remember that we’re not propping up a system that only benefits us,

or keeps others down.

On the contrary, just as we have prospered, so other countries have thrived alongside us – often faster than us.

Now we don’t believe everything is perfect; and we’re not standing in the way of reform.

In fact, the UK wants to welcome Brazil, India, Japan and Germany as permanent members of the UN Security Council, alongside permanent African representation.

Our aim is to uphold a historic shared achievement that benefits everyone.

And I honestly shudder to think what might follow if through neglect, or complacency or timidity, we turned away and allowed what we have worked for to be torn down.

Consider for a moment the alternative world that Vladimir Putin yearns for.

The reason why his onslaught against Ukraine offends every fibre of my being is not simply that it’s morally abhorrent, although of course it is.

And it has nothing to do with the accident of geography that Putin is waging war in Europe.

No, what really chills the blood is that he is prepared to destroy the laws that protect every nation and, by extension, every person across the globe.

Putin’s goal is to turn back the clock to the era when might was right and big countries could treat their neighbours as prey.

He is waging a 19th century war of imperial conquest, deliberately debasing international conduct, utterly contemptuous of today’s values.

And by attacking one of the world’s biggest producers of food and fertiliser, he is driving up global prices and inflicting still greater hardship on some of the poorest people around the world.

Hence it was Prime Minister Modi who told Putin to his face, and I quote: “I know that today’s era is not the era of war.”

The only route to peace in Europe is for Putin to end his war and withdraw his troops.

As we stand against the Russian invasion, the United Kingdom benefits beyond measure from our rock solid friendships with the United States of America, with France, with Germany, with Canada, Australia and many others.

Last Friday, we announced how we will develop the next generation of combat aircraft hand-in-glove with Italy and Japan.

These vital relationships, constructed over generations, embedded in institutions like NATO and the G7, amount to our greatest source of strength and the foundation stone of British democracy and diplomacy.

Today we have no higher priority than to support our Ukrainian friends until they prevail, as they inevitably will.

But that will not be enough to sustain the international order unless its principles and institutions command the support of the world beyond Europe and North America.

We are living in a momentous period of history when the pace of change is accelerating at hurricane force.

As recently as 2001, 80 percent of countries conducted more trade with the US than with China.

Yet by 2018 there had been an almost complete reversal: nearly 70 percent of nations trade more now with China than the US.

And in the coming decades, an ever greater share of the world economy – and therefore the world’s power – will be in the hands of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Together they will decide whether the international order will endure. That reality has been evident for some time, but I am not convinced that British diplomacy has fully caught up.

My goal is to build on the work of my predecessors and ensure that we do catch up – and under me that task has begun.

Our diplomats are not pundits in the commentary box, offering their thoughts and analysis: they are players on the field.

The goal of foreign policy is not to comment but to make a difference. Britain has agency Britain has influence, Britain has leverage and it is my job to use it.

So I will make a long term and sustained effort to revive old friendships and build new ones, reaching far beyond our long-established alliances.

My starting point is that we don’t view the changing balance of power with any sense of loss or regret.

The reason why the world’s geopolitical centre of gravity is moving south and east is precisely because hundreds of millions of people have escaped poverty.

And that, that is the single most wondrous development of my lifetime.

And it’s a vindication of the world order, s vindication of free trade, of international development, of innovation and scientific advance, in fact everything that Britain has spent generations working for.

Now, we have to recognise that the UK’s future influence will depend on persuading and winning over a far broader array of countries,

countries in the Commonwealth, in the African Union, in ASEAN and elsewhere.

Many are old friends; others we know less well. They often describe themselves as “non-aligned” and they are wary of committing themselves in any direction just because other countries want them to, and that is exactly as it should be.

Our job is to make our case and earn their support, investing in relationships based on patient diplomacy, on respect, on solidarity, and a willingness to listen.

Because this isn’t about dictating or telling others what they should do: we want a balanced and mutually beneficial relationship, based on shared interests and common principles.

And that means learning from our competitors and always thinking 10, 15, 20 or more years ahead.

Because in the past I think perhaps we have been too transactional and too impatient.

Now we must have strategic endurance, a willingness to commit to relationships for decades to come.

Now, confession time. Despite my best efforts, I’m willing to concede that I am unlikely to be Foreign Secretary in 25 years’ time, which is a shame because it is a job that I love.

But I want to make sure that our diplomacy is focused on that time horizon. Because the interests that we are protecting and the values that we are promoting will outlive any and all political cycles here in the UK.

And we need to recognise that at first, this work will feel like water on stone:

no swift dividends, no windfall gains, perhaps even no visible impressions at all for a short while, and there will be plenty of temptation to question that effort.

But we would curse our complacency if we did not try, because these relationships will be essential to our shared successful futures.

And the reality is if we are not good friends, you can bet that others will try to fill that void and seize any opportunity that we might be mistaken enough to give them.

Now every country is different and every generalisation invites an abundance of counter-examples, but there are some common threads.

The main focus of the future powers that I’m discussing is on securing their own economic development and their own resilience against threats, including from climate change, from disease and from terrorism.

Many of these countries have enjoyed rapid success and, above all, they want that success to continue.

Their populations are typically much younger than ours: the median age here in the UK is over 40, while in Brazil it’s 33, in Indonesia it’s 30, and in India it’s only 28.

More than anything else they need to generate growth, create jobs and satisfy the aspirations of their youth.

And that means attracting investment, it means seizing the full benefit of their own natural resources, and it means harnessing the power of new technology.

It means decarbonising their economies in a way that spreads the gains and minimises the losses, thereby achieving a “Just Energy Transition”.

In all of these fields and many others, our opportunity is to show that the UK can be and will be a reliable, trustworthy and long term partner.

And I am determined that we will make investments of faith in the countries that will shape the world’s future.

So we will press on with developing clear, compelling and consistent UK offers,

tailored to their needs and our strengths, spanning trade, development, defence, cyber security, technology, climate change and environmental protection.

Because we know that in the coming decades there will be economic shocks, and climate change will have its baleful effects, and countries will want technology, finance and access to markets to support their development.

That’s why, in the last year, the UK has offered guarantees to allow almost £5 billion of extra multilateral finance for the developing world, and we support the ambitions of the Bridgetown Agenda to reform the financial system and unlock more resources.

And we will offer a reliable source of infrastructure investment through the British Investment Partnerships, through UK Export Finance, and through the G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure.

We’ve got the message and we know that resources need to flow more quickly from these initiatives into real projects on the ground.

And we will make full use of the powers we have regained by leaving the EU, including the ability to sign free trade deals, and Mutual Recognition Agreements, designed to encourage innovation and reduce trading costs.

The UK has a range of capabilities to support emerging economies with young populations to achieve their goals.

And whatever our differences, there are core principles behind which I believe every nation can unite.

We all say in the UN Charter that we believe in sovereignty and territorial integrity, which means the right of all countries to decide their own future and set their own path, without being invaded or dismembered.

That’s why 143 nations – three quarters of the entire membership of the UN – voted in the General Assembly to condemn Putin’s annexation of Ukrainian territory.

And that’s why defensive alliances like NATO are so important – because they help countries to protect themselves from aggressors.

When powerful states like China reject defensive alliances as “bloc politics”, they either misunderstand the desire of every nation to live in peace, without fear of aggression; or they perhaps provide a signal of intent, especially chilling from a country militarising at a pace that the world has rarely seen before.

For our part, Britain will demonstrate our long-term commitment to the Indo Pacific, including by joining the Trans-Pacific free trade agreement as soon as possible.

We will deepen our cooperation with India, the new president of the G20, and finalise our trade agreement with them.

We will support Indonesia and South Africa with their plans for Just Energy Transition, showing how the necessary investments can be mobilised at scale,

and last week the EU and the UK reached an ambitious agreement to do the same with Vietnam.

But in the end, all our fortunes will depend on a stable and peaceful international order.

My generation was born long after the Second World War and we reached adulthood just as the Cold War was coming to an end.

We stand on the shoulders of wise and compassionate leaders who created the laws and institutions that prevented a universal relapse into the old order, where the strong prey upon the weak.

Now the UK must work with our international allies and new partners to sustain the best of this achievement, which seeks to protect every country and create the setting for everyone to prosper.

That’s why our diplomats and our development experts make the effort; that’s why I fly somewhere almost every week, that’s the ministers in this department do likewise, that’s why I’m striving to build the partnerships of the future, so our country can flourish, alongside our friends, both old and new.

Thank you.

December 12, 2022
Iain Duncan Smith – 2001 Speech to the American Enterprise Institute

The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative MP for Chingford and then Leader of the Conservative Party, in Washington DC, the United States, on 30 November 2001.

Nothing, of course, will ever remove from our memories the horrific attacks – in this city and in New York – that took place on September 11. It is still almost impossible to comprehend what happened on that day, or to understand the hate that could motivate men to carry out such evil deeds. The grief felt throughout the United Kingdom on that day was real and heartfelt.

They were attacks on Britain’s staunchest ally and Britain’s greatest friend. Yet they were attacks on us all and on the shared values that we hold dear. Over 4,000 people were brutally murdered from over 80 countries. In terms of loss of life, they were the worst terrorist outrages in British history too. So my message is simple – we are in this together.

If one thing has stood out since September 11, however, it has been the indomitable spirit of the American people never to bend the knee to terrorism. The response of your nation, under fire, has demonstrated to the whole world why the spirit of freedom and democracy will always triumph over evil and terror. And the leadership given by President Bush and others, such as Rudolph Guiliani, has been quite outstanding.

Such an atrocity could not go ignored or unpunished. The guilt of Bin Laden, and the Taliban regime that harboured him, was beyond any reasonable doubt. Having been shown some of the intelligence by the Prime Minister, I am quite clear that they are guilty as charged. That is why the British Government, with the backing of my Party, was right to give its full support to the President in taking whatever course of action he felt appropriate.

Our aims in Afghanistan have been clear all along. The removal of the Taliban regime and its replacement by a more broadly-based government, bringing Bin Laden to justice and dismantling his Al-Qa’eda terrorist network.

The first of these – the removal of the Taliban – is now virtually assured. UN sponsored talks are currently taking place about the formation of a new Government. Hopefully the shape of that Government will emerge quickly so that some stability can at last be brought to a people who have suffered so much from a succession of tyrannical regimes.

And the net is closing in on Bin Laden. The professionalism of our Armed Forces – American and British – will ensure that either he is brought to justice or that justice is brought to him.

The success that has been achieved in recent weeks is a vindication of the strategy pursued by the international coalition, with the United States at its head. We must see it through to the finish and not be distracted by those who, for whatever reason, call for an end to the bombing before our task is properly completed.

Yet, while the war in Afghanistan might just be beginning to have an end in sight, the war against terrorism is emphatically not over. It must go on.

You have called this particular part of the Conference “Confronting the Terrorists”. To me, that encapsulates neatly what I believe to be the overriding joint purpose of our two countries, not just in Afghanistan, but wherever terrorism rears its evil head or finds sanctuary.

We in the United Kingdom have had to face terrorism for too long. Thousands of people have died as a result – enough is enough. If September 11 told us one thing, it is that terrorism today knows no limits. There is no weapon they will not use, and no life they are not prepared to take. We need to realise that these people are fanatics who will stop at nothing. That is why we have to stop them. If we fail to maintain the pressure on terrorism everywhere, then we are all at risk.

Winning the war against terrorism requires us to fight it on all fronts. It means tackling the terrorist organisations direct. It means drying up their sources of finance. It means tackling the links between terrorism and organised crime. And it means dealing with those rogue states that for too long have been able to get away with harbouring terrorists and using them for their own twisted purposes.

A clear lesson is that the days of the safe havens are over. We are no longer prepared to tolerate your activities. That goes for Afghanistan, just as it should for other countries we know, and can show, are involved in international terrorism. Where these states are unwilling to take effective action against terrorism they must be prepared to face a determined response from the wider international community – and I hope that the United Kingdom will continue to be at the forefront of that response.

As Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, made absolutely clear just over a fortnight ago: ‘we are in this for the long haul’.

And certainly I agree with President Bush when he says that there can be no further justification for the continuing Iraqi failing to abide by the Gulf War ceasefire obligations to allow UN inspectors back into the country to monitor its weapons of mass destruction. As Richard Butler has made clear, Iraq has used the three years since UNSCOM was kicked out to build up its arsenal.

The events of September 11 also shattered one of the post-Cold War illusions that we no longer faced any direct threats. In fact the threats today are many and more varied than ever before – from the car bomber to the rogue state with ever more powerful weapons of mass destruction – nuclear, chemical or biological. Nobody can be in any doubt that if Bin Laden had been able to lay his hands on a nuclear device then he would not have used it.

As I have said before, proving one threat does not disprove another. And against many of these threats we are currently literally defenceless. That is particularly the case when it comes to ballistic missiles. It makes them the weapon of choice for the terrorist or rogue state bent on blackmail or carnage.

Traditional methods of arms control will not solve the problem. Those countries, like Iraq, are the least likely to observe treaties. Stemming the flow of military technology to these countries might delay their ability to develop weapons of mass destruction but we cannot guarantee that it will halt it. Preventative defence, seeking to bring these countries within the family of civilised nations, clearly has a part to play, though in a number of cases we are a long way from that.

That is why it is essential for us to look collectively at new ways of strengthening our defences. In this context I reiterate my Party’s backing for President Bush’s plans for the development of an effective ballistic missile defence shield – for the United States and her allies – in which the United Kingdom plays a full role.

Far from holding back on missile defence, I believe that the events of September 11 have made it all the more important to press ahead.

Confronting the terrorists must mean all terrorists. As far as I, and the Conservative Party, is concerned terrorism is indivisible. What happened in the United States is the same as that which has been carried out in the United Kingdom, and in particular in Northern Ireland. The only difference is scale. Even then we should never forget that some 3,600 people have lost their lives in terrorist violence associated with Northern Ireland. As Northern Ireland’s First Minister, David Trimble, and I argued last week, there is no moral difference whatever between those who planned and carried out the attacks on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers or those who planned and carried out Enniskillen, Omagh, Greysteel and countless other atrocities over 30 years.

Nor is there any difference between the illicit trade in drugs that helps to finance the terrorist operations of Al-Qa’eda and the illicit trade in drugs that sustains the activities of Republican and Loyalist Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.

Over the years the IRA has clearly established links with international terrorist organisations. Much of its weaponry was supplied courtesy of Colonel Gaddafi. In August, three suspected IRA members were apprehended in Colombia suspected of collaborating with the narco-terrorist group FARC. The IRA is in many respects the prototype for international terror groups and the organisation from which they draw inspiration.

And even with the current ‘ceasefires’, and the IRA act of decommissioning, the terrorist threat from dissident groups remains high. So we need to continue to confront the domestic terrorist threat in the United Kingdom.

When Gerry Adams said in New York recently, ‘those who support us know the difference between what’s been happening in Ireland and what happened in this city on September 11′ – he is wrong – there should be no equivocation about our response to terror.

We agree that because a person has a violent past, it does not mean they cannot have a future if they renounce violence completely. We want the peace process to succeed. Yet we should never fall into the trap of those who would claim there are different categories of terrorist or, worse still, ‘good terrorists’ and ‘bad terrorists’. Do that and we are a short step from giving legitimacy to all terrorist violence. The dead of the United Kingdom are testament to that.

This will not be an easy road – it will not be a quick journey – but the United States and Britain have been together for too long to weaken now. Together in defence of freedom.

We must be strong in the face of tragedy – relentless in the pursuit of evil – resolute in the fight and just in victory.

December 12, 2022
Timothy Kirkhope – 2001 Speech on Europe After 9/11

The speech made by Timothy Kirkhope MEP on 30 November 2001.

It is now a truism to say that the atrocities of 11 September were a momentous event. Whether the current “fight against terrorism” ranks alongside the Gulf War or the Second World War is an academic question: what matters is that the first war of the new century is the issue of the moment.

Like the Second World War, the fight against terrorism is having as much impact on the “home front” as it does on the “international front”. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Home Secretary is playing as important a role in the conflict as the Foreign Secretary. When terrorists are the enemy, rather than states and when anthrax attacks on citizens are as much of a possibility as sniper attacks on soldiers, home affairs becomes as important as foreign affairs.

Therefore, the central question for Justice and Home Affairs ministers and spokesmen during this crisis is: ‘Should the principles that govern our actions be irrevocably and permanently changed by this crisis, or should they just be adapted for the duration of the present conflict? Let me give a few examples:

The UK Government has recently brought in retrospective legislation to deter anthrax hoaxers with penalties of up to seven years in prison. This is the first time in modern history that legislation has taken effect before being approved by the House of Commons. This law will be applied retrospectively to those who commit anthrax hoaxes between Sunday 21 October and the date Parliament approves the legislation. Naturally, I am pleased that David Blunkett has acted against anthrax hoaxers, but the precedent this legislation sets worries me. Essentially, the aim of the legislation is laudable, but the procedure used to implement must be questionable.

Secondly, the European Parliament is united in a wish to prevent terrorist groups from funding their activities from the proceeds of criminal activities such as drug smuggling. But there are worries that the principle of client confidentiality between lawyers and clients could be severely undermined by the money laundering directive proposed by the European Council. The original wording of the directive would have compelled lawyers to alert the authorities if they had “reason to believe” that their client was seeking advice for money laundering purposes. Whilst our Parliament fully agreed that client confidentiality is secondary if a lawyer “knows” about money laundering activities, the catchall “or has reason to believe” would have been is a serious blow to an important legal principle apart from its unclear meaning.

Then there is freedom of speech for elected representatives. The Chief Whip for the Labour Party in the UK responded to a Labour Member of Parliament calling for greater United Nations involvement in the fight against terrorism: “It was people like you who appeased Hitler in 1938!” As Chief Whip of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, I feel that in this case the Labour Party is mistaking constructive criticism for outright opposition. The Labour movement is known to have a long history of pacifism that should not be confused with support for Osama bin Laden.

These examples illustrate how the fight against terrorism has changed the way in which we conduct Home Affairs. There are other questions including whether traditional freedom of movement should be limited in the European Union; whether freedom of association should also be restricted; and whether the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be curtailed in the aftermath of 11 September. We need to think carefully before we act decisively and permanently.

December 12, 2022
Iain Duncan Smith – 2001 Speech to the Conservative Friends of Israel

The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative MP for Chingford, on 10 December 2001.

“When I accepted this invitation to speak to Conservative Friends of Israel, I had hoped it would be a rather different occasion.

I had hoped that despite events of September 11, we would be definitively winning the war against global terror.

I was optimistic that the State of Israel, a lighthouse of democracy in a troubled region, would feel a little safer and a little more secure.

I wanted very much to celebrate with you the first day of Chanucah, the festival of lights, but I also want to reaffirm the dignity of life.

Tragically, the events of the last few days in Israel remind us that we still have a long way to go before the scourge of terrorism is eradicated.

Fifteen people killed in Israel by terrorism a week ago last Saturday. Twenty-five dead because of terrorism the day after. Over 230 Israelis killed by suicide bombers and other means since 1994. Hundreds more injured.

After September 11 many in the West have had to come to terms with terrorists whose utter disregard for human life has led to suicide bombers and the use of anthrax. This is something Israeli citizens contend with every day and every night.

What we were forced to accept on September 11, is something that Israel learnt a long time ago. You cannot appease terror.

Make no mistake, the individuals who perpetrated the latest atrocity in Israel have no wish to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Israelis. The recent murders took place just as the American Envoy Anthony Zinni was trying to negotiate a cease-fire.

They have no desire to improve the life of their fellow citizens.

Their sole objective is to destroy Israel and everything she represents – liberal values, pride in the nation state, economic achievement. This truth was so passionately expressed by Binyamin Netanyahu in my talks with him a few weeks ago.

Similarly, those who attacked America did not care to change American Foreign Policy towards the Arab world. They did not want to improve the plight of Afghan citizens. They wanted to destroy everything America stands for. The bombing of the World Trade Centre was not an attack on America’s policy towards Islam. It was an assault on scientific, technological and economic achievement – it was an attempt to destroy democracy, capitalism and the rule of law.

It is this fanatic hatred of the West and its values that give us a warning that Al Quaeda, Hamas and others will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. Who knows what biological, chemical or nuclear weapons terrorists would unleash if given the opportunity?

That is why my party has given backing to President Bush’s plans for an effective ballistic missile defence shield – for the United States and her allies. Far from holding back on missile defence, the events of September 11 have made it all the more important to press ahead.

Our fight against terror must not stop in Afghanistan. The days of safe havens for terrorists are over. No longer can we appease or turn a blind eye to regimes that support terrorism. As the Chief Rabbi said only recently, ‘terror is evil, whoever is responsible and whatever is the reason’.

Last week, I visited the United States and met with President Bush and other members of his Administration.

I agree with the President when he said after the events in Israel that it was the moment for those who want peace to ‘rise up and fight terror’. I am glad that the US Administration has taken action to target the finances of terrorist organisations like Hamas.

Against this background, surely it is time that our national broadcasters, not just, but including the BBC, stopped describing Hamas and jihad with such euphemisms as radical and militant?

Let us call things what they are: They are terrorist organisations.

Such fudging of what Hamas or Islamic Jihad are confers some sort of legitimacy on people who are terrorists. Such misappropriation is absurd when even Palestinian moderates in Jerusalem describe the suicide bombers as terrorists.

I join President Bush in calling on Chairman Arafat to do everything in his power to ensure that those responsible for the murder of innocent Israelis are brought to justice.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not interested in peace. They demand nothing less than the destruction of Israel and all that it stands for. The violence and terror they use have become ends in themselves. Israel has the right to defend herself accordingly.

It is now up to the Palestinian Authority to show that it will no longer tolerate terrorism. More than that, it must never again allow terrorists to justify their monstrous acts in the name of the Palestinian cause.

One of our historians Sir Martin Gilbert, made an astute observation. He said: ‘Israel is often the centre of world attention. This is seldom for her achievements, which are considerable, or for the quality of life which she has created, and which is the envy of many nations’.

I agree. This is a sad reflection on the world as it is, not on the world as it should be.

This is not just because of fifty-four years of achievement – against all the odds. Nor because of the contribution that Israel has made to science, agriculture, technology, and many other spheres, across the world.

For me, it is Israel’s contribution towards civil society that is the most important.

A country, which was founded upon the work of volunteers and philanthropic activity – and has today over 28,000 voluntary and charitable organisations – has much to teach us about public service, responsibility, compassion and duty towards others.

It seems to me that these values are steeped in the Jewish tradition. All across the world Jewish organisations and others work hard to support Israel, whether it is through philanthropy or by actively sending volunteers to help in Kibbutzim, hospitals or schools. Other organisations like the Conservative Friends of Israel do so much to ensure that Israel’s voice is heard in Westminster and Whitehall. This matters because Britain’s diplomatic tradition ensures that that message is carried beyond Britain shores.

We in Britain face a major challenge. Even with growing prosperity our social problems seem ever greater.

Even with vast and growing state resources devoted to our public sector, our health, transport and education infrastructure are failing. They need drastic reform, yet this Government is wedded to the system – a state monopoly which has crowded out other types of care.

Yet despite the work of so many in this room like David Garrard, Michael Heller and the Jewish community as a whole, we have a desperate need to renew and replenish values of service to others, compassion and responsibility to those in need.

Our mission must be to find ways of providing public services that actually work for the public. So that every school is good enough for your child; so that you get to choose the doctor and the hospital you want and trust; so that your train runs on time.

That is why, I and my Shadow Cabinet are visiting public services across Europe, where health and education systems put Britain to shame. Countries like Germany where healthcare is a successful mix of care provided by the voluntary and faith communities as well as by the public and the private sectors.

There is one precondition for making this happen in Britain: a new spirit of public service.

Divisiveness damages our communities. Our civil life has been badly hurt at every level, whether it is by narrow interest groups in public policy, or hooliganism on our streets.

Working for the common good, and demanding that others do so too, with respect for everyone and respect for their liberty, is the basic principle on which we can deliver improvements.

Our party is dedicated to public service. Its whole ethos is based on voluntarism. So many of our activists dedicate themselves to community endeavour through charitable and voluntary activities.

Yet none of this is being recognised. We have allowed our opponents to characterise us as greedy and selfish. We have let ourselves be unfairly caricatured as the party which knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

As leader I will make it my priority to visit examples of community endeavour across the country. I want to see at first hand how faith inspired organisations, charities and voluntary groups are changing people’s lives. How a well-run residents group can rejuvenate a run-down council estate. How volunteers can equip the young and unemployed with crucial skills to succeed in life.

Just as we unleashed business entrepreneurs in the eighties, I want to unleash the social entrepreneurs. I hope many more will be young entrepreneurs.

Where would we be without the social entrepreneurship that established the Dixons City Technology College in Bradford, one of the best schools in the country?

Where would we be without the social entrepreneurship of those who have done so much to set up successful Jewish schools like the Joy and Stanley Cohen Primary School in Hertsmere?

Where would we be without the social entrepreneurship of those behind organisations like Jewish Care that do so much to assist the vulnerable, or like the Jewish Marriage Council, which helps keep families together?

Many other social entrepreneurs – faith inspired organisations and voluntary groups – full of compassion and dedicated to public service – are already operating in their thousands up and down the country to help individuals in need. Some are here today. We need to support them and learn from them.

I am told that David Ben Gurion once said: ‘In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles’.

As the leader of the Conservative Party, I think I know what he meant.

Our party must once again be disciplined and determined to return to Government. We must inspire people to believe that we are on their side – our policy must be about helping people to achieve.

That is why I have set in train the biggest review of our policies for twenty-five years. Too often, we have been defined by what we are against, not what we are for. I am determined that over the next few years we will set out an imaginative and inspiring agenda. This will be an agenda which will give people dignity, self-respect and a better life for themselves and their families.

I said at the beginning that I had wanted to celebrate with you. I believe we still can. The modern miracle that is Israel should be celebrated and encouraged.

I am proud that the majority of my Parliamentary party are members of CFI. The level of support which CFI has, shows all too clearly the depths of warmth and feeling that Conservatives have to Israel and all she stands for. CFI has an enviable record of achieving worthy objectives and I congratulate Director Stuart Polak for over ten years of exceptional work.

I am delighted that Gillian Shepherd who does so much for CFI is now our Party Vice Chairman and is now responsible for selecting our next generation of Parliamentary Candidates.

When I was in the United States, I was reminded of the words of one of America’s greatest Presidents, George Washington: ‘May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of other inhabitants – while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid’.

We who cherish freedom know how much it has cost us. It has been paid for in the lives of countless generations.

Burke said: ‘All that is required for the triumph of evil is that the good should do nothing’.

Now for the sake of future generations of Palestinians and Israelis it is time for the good to act to defeat the men of evil and find powerful accommodation.

December 12, 2022
Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2022 Speech on Sanctions Designations

The speech made by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

On 9 December, to mark International Anti-Corruption Day and Human Rights Day on 10 December, the UK announced a package of 30 sanctions under our global human rights, global anti-corruption and geographic sanctions regimes. Travel bans and/or asset freezes have been imposed on designated individuals and entities.

Covering targets from 11 countries, the package demonstrates the UK’s continued determination to take action to tackle corruption and to hold to account perpetrators of human rights abuses and violations.

Under the Global Anti-Corruption Regulations 2021, sanctions can be imposed for involvement in serious corruption, which covers bribery and misappropriation of property. The sanctions announced today include designations of individuals and entities involved in serious corruption in the western Balkans and Moldova.

Under the Global Human Rights Regulations 2020, sanctions can be imposed for involvement in serious violations and abuses of certain human rights: the right to life, the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. The sanctions announced today include designations addressing serious violations and abuses of human rights in Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia and Uganda.

The UK’s geographic sanctions regimes are also a powerful tool for targeting perpetrators of, and those involved in, human rights abuses and violations that involve specific countries.

Designations announced today under our Mali, Myanmar, South Sudan and Iran regimes aim to send a strong signal about respect for human rights and the UK’s preparedness to take action. Designations under our Russia sanctions regime target those who have destabilised or threatened the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

The UK is also using all the levers at our disposal to prevent conflict-related sexual violence and to ensure that perpetrators are held to account. This is why today some of these designations specifically address the abhorrent crimes of sexual violence.

The full list of designations is as follows:

Western Balkans

Slobodan Tesic: Serbia/Bosnia, dealer of arms and munitions in the Balkans

Milan Radojcic: Kosovo, Vice President of Serb List (SL)

Zvonko Veselinovic: Kosovo, businessman and leader of an organised crime group

Moldova

Vladimir Plahotniuc: businessman and former chairman of the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM)

Han Shor: businessman and Member of Parliament and chairman of the Sor Party Nicaragua

Yohaira Hernandez Chirino: Deputy Mayor of Matagalpa

Sadrach Zelodon Rocha: Mayor of Matagalpa Pakistan

Mian Abdul Haq: cleric of Barchundi Sharif shrine

Russia

Colonel Ramil Rakhmatulovic Ibatullin: Commander of the 90th Guards Tank Division

Valentin Aleksandrovich Oparin: Major of Justice and an investigator of the 534 Military Investigation Department of the Armed Forces of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation

Artur Rinatovich Shambazov: former senior detective in the main department for the protection of national statehood of the Ukrainian security service (SBU) in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea

Andrey Vyacheslavovich Tishenin: former senior detective in Ukrainian security service and former officer in Russian federal security service in Crimea

Oleg Vladmirovich Tkachenko: former head of the Department for Public Prosecutors for the Rostov region

Uganda

Kale Kayihura: former Inspector General of the Ugandan Police Force

Mali

Katiba Macina: jihadist armed group in Mali led by Amadou Kouffa and founding member of the AQ-aligned JNIM terror group

Myanmar

33rd Light Infantry Division of Myanmar Army: part of the Myanmar armed forces under the command of Brigadier-General Aung Aung

99 Light Infantry of Myanmar Army: part of the Myanmar armed forces under the leadership of Brigadier-General Than Oo

Office of the Chief of Military and Security Affairs (OCMSA)

South Sudan

Gordon Koang Biel: County Commissioner for Koch, Unity State

Gatluak Nyang Hoth: County Commissioner for Mayendit, Unity State

Iran

Iman Afshari: Presiding Judge of Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court

Ali Alghasimehr: Public Prosecutor of the Revolutionary Court of Shiraz and Chief Justice of Fars province

Mohamed-Reza Amouzad: Presiding Judge of Branch 28 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court

Allah Karam Azizi: Head of Rajaei Shahr prison

Hassan Babaei: member of the Iranian Judiciary in Tehran province

Ali Cheharmahali: former Director of Greater Tehran Penitentiary and former Director of Evin prison

Mousa Gazanfarabad: former Head of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran

Seyed Ali Mazloum: Presiding Judge of Branch 29 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court

Mustafa Mohebi: former Director of the Prisons Organisation in Tehran

Gholamreza Ziyayi: former Director of Evin prison and Director of Raja’i Shahr prison

December 11, 2022
Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2022 Speech on the Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory

The speech made by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 7 December 2022.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this important debate. Hon. Members have all highlighted the UK’s recently opened negotiations with Mauritius on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos archipelago. The Foreign Secretary announced the beginning of the negotiations on 3 November. That followed discussions with Mauritius at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in June and at the UN General Assembly in September.

I can confirm that negotiations have formally begun. Officials from the United Kingdom and Mauritius met on 23 and 24 November, and they had constructive discussions. They will meet again shortly to continue those discussions and negotiations. Hon. Members will appreciate that we will not provide any detail on the content of ongoing discussions or speculate on the outcome. However, I commit to and reassure Members that we will keep them and Parliament informed at key junctures through the process.

The UK and Mauritius intend to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues. I anticipate any agreement will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in the usual way. Let me be clear that both the UK and Mauritius have reiterated that any agreement between us will ensure the continued effective operation of the joint UK-United States defence facility on Diego Garcia. For more than 40 years, this joint base has contributed significantly to regional and global security. It is the result of a uniquely close and active defence and security partnership between two longstanding allies.

The base helps the UK, US and other allies and partners to combat some of the most challenging threats, including from terrorism, organised crime and instability. The base is well positioned as a key enabler for maritime security, including the protection of regional shipping lanes from threats such as piracy. Diego Garcia also plays a key role in humanitarian efforts, ready for a rapid response in times of crisis or disaster in the region. That includes during the 2004 earthquake and tsunami in the Indian ocean, the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the 2013 typhoon in the Philippines. The base plays an important part in assisting the operation of the global positioning system, GPS, and helping the international space station to avoid space debris and prevent satellite collisions.

We are alive to concerns about influence from malign actors in the Indian ocean. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary acknowledged these concerns when he gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 14 November. He assured the Committee that this is an issue we take very seriously and that we will ensure it is at the heart of our position during the sovereignty negotiations with Mauritius.

Reaching a negotiated agreement on the archipelago will allow the UK and Mauritius, as close Commonwealth partners, to work even more closely together. This will help us to tackle the regional and global security challenges that we both face, along with our wider partners, and avoid the expansion of malign influences into the Indian ocean. It will include promoting human rights and maritime security while tackling illegal migration, drugs and arms trafficking.

We are also keen to strengthen significantly our co-operation with Mauritius on marine and environmental protection in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) set out some historical issues where those challenges were perhaps not managed as well as they needed to be. The archipelago boasts incredible marine biodiversity, as well as some of the cleanest seas and healthiest reef systems in the world. They support six times more fish than any other Indian ocean reef.

The marine protected area is one of the largest in the world. It prohibits all commercial fishing and extractive activities, such as mining for minerals, oil and gas, and it forms a substantial part of the UK Government’s Blue Belt programme. The area hosts many scientific expeditions, as part of our call for an international target to protect at least 30% of the global oceans by 2030. We will push for this ambitious target at COP15 in the weeks ahead.

We recognise the views of the diverse Chagossian communities in the United Kingdom, Mauritius and the Seychelles. We recognise the diversity of views in those communities and we take those views very seriously. Although the negotiations are between the UK and Mauritius, we will ensure that we engage with the communities as negotiations progress, and I note the kind invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) to meet some of those communities.

The UK has expressed our profound and deep regret about the manner in which Chagossians were removed from the islands in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and colleagues have done so again today. I hope that sense of horror and dismay at what happened all those decades ago continues to be reiterated. We are committed to supporting Chagossians, wherever they live, through the £40 million Chagossian support package, which is funding projects in the UK and overseas. I commit to writing to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) to set out in more detail how that work is progressing.

We have taken other steps to support the community. On 23 November, the UK Government launched a new route to British citizenship for all Chagossian people and their children, free of charge. This new route will give anyone of Chagossian descent the opportunity to build their future in the United Kingdom should they wish to do so, holding British citizenship.

I have talked about ways in which the UK and Mauritius could strengthen our work together. The backdrop to this is our close Commonwealth partnership and our deep historical ties. We are the second biggest export market for Mauritius, while Mauritius is our sixth biggest market in Africa for trade and investment. We are proud of the active Mauritian diaspora in the UK, and hundreds of Mauritian students study in our universities every year. Meanwhile, our tourists flock to Mauritius, accounting for 15% of its visitors annually.

Mauritius is a leader among small island states in tackling climate change. The UK welcomes it as a new pioneer country for the Taskforce on Access to Climate Finance and will act as an anchor donor for Mauritius.

Daniel Kawczynski

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The main tenet of my discourse this afternoon was to try to get a commitment from her for a referendum of the Chagossian people before any decision is taken. Can she give me that commitment?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan

As I have set out, we will be making sure that we have close discussions, not only with Mauritians but with those communities as well. As the negotiations progress, we will keep colleagues and Parliament abreast of how they are developing.

As we look forward, we aim to work even more closely with Mauritius to tackle the incredibly important regional and global security challenges that we all face. We remain fully committed to ensuring the effectiveness of the base on Diego Garcia, for the benefit of regional and global security.

Daniel Kawczynski

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the assurances that she has given, and for agreeing to write to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), on some of the points that he raised.

I heard the Minister say that there will be extensive consultation with the Chagossians, but I still have not heard from her lips that there will be an internationally recognised referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) rightly asked questions about how it would come about—the matrix, framework, dynamics and legality of it. I could not agree with him more. There have been referenda in other parts of the world under difficult circumstances and people were able to cast a vote.

I should let my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) know that I hope to meet Mr Bontemps next week. Mr Bontemps told me in no uncertain terms that, wherever the Chagossians are—Mauritius, Seychelles, Britain or anywhere else—they are up for remaining British. As part of the British family, our duty and responsibility first and foremost—trumping even international court decisions—is to those Chagossians.

December 11, 2022
Stephen Doughty – 2022 Speech on the Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory

The speech made by Stephen Doughty, the Labour MP for Cardiff South and Penarth, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 7 December 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing the debate at this critical time of change for the Chagos islands, and I thank colleagues for the range of comments and contributions they have made to the debate.

I am not sure whether to thank the hon. Gentleman for the comments he made about me at the start of the debate, but we had a very enjoyable trip to the Falkland Islands. I will be making declarations about that trip in due course. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of our united position on the Falkland Islands and our resolute support for them. That is the Opposition’s long-standing position, which I have reiterated on many occasions, including well before the visit and in relation to our position on other British overseas territories.

From the outset, I gently say that I do not accept a number of the hon. Gentleman’s historical analyses and comparisons. Neither are they supported by the House of Commons Library briefing that has been provided for this debate, or by statements made by the Governor of the Falkland Islands and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. When we talk about our overseas territories, it is important that we understand their distinct and different situations. The situation around the Chagos islands is particularly complex and nuanced, and we should take it in that vein and not make comparisons to other overseas territories.

I pay tribute to colleagues across the House, particularly those with Chagossian communities in their constituencies, for the advocacy and support they have provided over many years on this issue, which is sensitive and painful for those communities, and for raising concerns about our diplomatic standing and commitments internationally. I express my gratitude to the all-party parliamentary group on the Chagos islands, of which I am a member, for its tireless efforts in keeping the Chagos islands on the political agenda and for meticulously scrutinising the policies of successive Governments.

The Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to begin discussions with Mauritius about the future of the islands, but I will set out some detailed questions and concerns on the matter. We have to be guided by a few key principles, so my questions are not in order of priority. We must understand concerns about our national security and that of our allies and strategic partners; our compliance with international law and upholding our international obligations, and the consequences if we do not do that; and the rights and wishes of the people of the Chagos after decades of pain and hardship.

I have personally met and heard from many different representatives from the Chagos community over many years. I have heard different views expressed by different parts of the community, but it is crucial that their distinct and different voices are heard in the process. We should also be concerned about other crucial issues, particularly the protection of the environment and the marine ecosystems around the archipelago, which a number of hon. Members have raised.

This is a deeply complex issue, and I want to start with the question of the rules-based international order, which must be central to UK foreign policy. This historic injustice continues to prevent us from adhering to that, and I share the absolute and deep regret for the past actions of previous Governments, including Labour Governments. The actions taken in the late 1960s and early 1970s were completely unjustifiable. A number of us will have read the shocking documents from that period and the language expressed in them, which was completely and utterly unacceptable. We have a fundamental moral responsibility to the islanders that will not go away. I remain convinced that there must be a lasting resolution to this challenge that lives up to our moral and legal obligations, that draws on the views of Chagossians around the world and that is reached in co-operation with our partners and allies. There must be an apology from all of us—there certainly is from our side—for those past actions, but we need to look to the future and to what is being done for Chagossians today, not just in relation to the situation in the archipelago, but for Chagossians here in many communities.

The ICJ in 2019 was unequivocal in its ruling that

“the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible”.

That was adopted after a vote of 116 to six by the United Nations General Assembly, which called on the UK to

“unconditionally end its occupation of the Archipelago as soon as possible.”

That was supported by the 2021 ruling of the special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Although the tribunal did not have competence on territorial disputes, it stated that

“Mauritius’ sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago can be inferred from the ICJ’s determinations.”

Unfortunately, the Government have spent several years simply ignoring and denying these developments, and that has damaged our diplomatic reputation with not just Mauritius but many other countries across Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and with a range of international legal and human rights bodies. Even the Maldives, which historically has been aligned with the UK Government position on this matter, recently changed its position to align with the rest of the international community.

I take on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on China and its expansion in the South China sea, the Indian ocean and beyond, and he raises some legitimate concerns, although I do not accept his wider characterisations of Mauritius. It is a fact that China has made increasing encroachments into the territorial waters of its neighbours and vast claims in the South China sea while ignoring judgments against itself. That has been matched by a growing assertiveness, and even belligerence, towards some of our allies and partners in the region, so I hope the Minister can set out what assurances we have had on these matters and on China’s activities in the region.

It is my view that the inverse will play out if we do not resolve this matter, because if this is unresolved in terms of international law, it will only play into the hands of China and others who seek to undermine international judgments and law. When we want to call on China to comply with the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s judgment on the South China sea, it will say, “Well, you are not in compliance with the ICJ or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea”. That could be the case for a number of other maritime and territorial disputes that it is in our interests to pursue and defend resolutely. We cannot have one hand doing one thing and the other doing the opposite.

Of course, we must also do the right thing for the Chagossians. The various support packages that were announced have not been followed through, and very little money from that £40 million package has been spent. The last answer I had said that only £810,000 of it had been spent. That is completely unacceptable, and I hope the Minister can say something about that. What discussions has she had with all the different Chagossian groups located not just here in the UK, but in Mauritius, Seychelles and elsewhere?

Daniel Kawczynski

Will the hon. Member give way?

Stephen Doughty

I am conscious of the time, so I will not. I want to speak about the costs the UK Government have incurred defending the indefensible on the legal position. An answer I received said the UK had spent nearly £6 million on external legal services relating to defending cases that the Government then lost in the ICJ. That is clearly unacceptable at this time of pressure on the public purse. Could the Minister update us on how much money has been spent on defending the previous position?

Citizenship has rightly been raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 created an entitlement for direct descendants of Chagossians who were not already citizens to acquire British nationality. I understand that the process opened in November, but I hope the Minister can set out what will be done to address the issue of Chagossians being denied that right to British nationality and to ensure they get what is rightfully theirs. We know that previous negotiations have not gone well and that they broke down in 2009, 2016 and 2017. Will the Minister speak about the tenor and tone of the negotiations and how we will ensure that they go forward in a constructive spirit to achieve an agreement?

On defence, it is crucial that we understand, as many Members have rightly said, that the United Kingdom-United States defence facility in the territory plays a vital role in keeping us and our allies safe. It plays a role in monitoring drugs and piracy, and in the national security activities of regional partners. It supports allies from many countries, and it carries out nuclear test ban monitoring and regional humanitarian efforts. Can the Minister say what discussions have been had with our allies, particularly the United States, about those negotiations and ensuring we maintain our defence capabilities in Diego Garcia?

On the environment and the maritime importance of the islands, we recognise the judgment in relation to the Mauritius Ports Authority, but, given the importance of the archipelago, it is clear that we need to protect that environment. What discussions have been had on that with Mauritius and other partners in the region, as well as with the Chagossians, who believe in protecting their environment and historical homeland?

I will conclude by saying there have been some important questions asked today and some very reasonable contributions. I do not agree with all of them, or with the tenor of some of them, but this is a complex and nuanced issue and it requires a complex and nuanced solution. We want to engage with Chagossians here in the UK, and we will work constructively with the Government to find a permanent and equitable settlement that will end decades of pain for so many, while addressing legitimate concerns about defence, security, the environment and the right of return for Chagossians.

The ultimate problem here is that this issue is hampering our diplomatic position in the world and having much wider implications. We must remember that this was an historic injustice committed against a people by a past Government, and those people have to be at the heart of any solution.

December 11, 2022
Alyn Smith – 2022 Speech on the Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory

The speech made by Alyn Smith, the SNP MP for Stirling, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 7 December 2022.

It is good to see you in your place, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this interesting debate. We have had a good exchange of views this afternoon. I am delighted to hear that so many colleagues are in favour of the right to self-determination, and we will be back in touch about that on more domestic matters.

On the Chagos islands, I will try to strike a note of consensus with the old story of the American tourist who was lost in rural Ireland and asked his way to Tipperary, and the local farmer answered: “Ah, for sure, if I was going to Tipperary, I would not start from here.” I think we can all agree that an historic injustice has been done to the Chagossian people, and I hope we all agree that that injustice continues. Frankly, I am not interested in which Government or Department did it or how it was done. The British state has a debt to these people, and there is an injustice to focus on above all else.

Starting from first principles, the SNP believes that people, not crowns or Parliaments, are sovereign, as my good hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said. We believe that the state should serve its people, not the other way round. Indeed, we believe that people should choose their state, not the other way round. We also believe in the right to self-determination, which is one of the main reasons why the SNP exists and is in business.

We also recognise, of course, that international law is sometimes messy. Black and white is not necessarily one size fits all, especially when it comes to the Chagos islands. The way that this was done and the situation of the Chagossian people has been analysed in international courts and a number of credible, serious organisations. In February 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled that the UK’s occupation of the archipelago is illegal: that is a matter of fact. In May 2019, the matter was taken to the General Assembly of the United Nations and there was an overwhelming vote to condemn the UK’s continuing occupation of the Chagos islands. In January 2021, the UN’s International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea upheld the view of the General Assembly that the UK is in the wrong.

What we have heard today is the reality of power politics and big-state politics, but we cannot have both. The Chagossian people are owed a debt by the Government, the Administration and all of us. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) apologise, as I think we all owe an apology to the people of the Chagos islands.

I have some concrete questions for the Minister. Talks have started with the Mauritian Government, but what is their timescale? I have seen one timescale that suggests they will be wrapped up in a matter of months, early next year, but that strikes me as a little ambitious. What is the Minister’s assessment of that timetable?

Lord Ahmad announced funds to compensate the Chagossian people, but what progress has been made with them? The funds struck me as inadequate and the 10-year timescale seems rather longer than it need be. What are the ramifications and the details of that proposal?

Where does the Minister think the UK’s credibility lies on this matter? I have spoken to a number of colleagues in the European Parliament and to representatives to the UN, and the issue is doing real damage to the UK’s credibility. The UK says it believes in the rule of law and in international co-operation, but this is an example where that is not the case. The UK Government need to take the issue far more seriously than they have done so far. The priority has to be the Chagossian people themselves and the historic injustice that has been done to them.

December 11, 2022
James Duddridge – 2022 Speech on the Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory

The speech made by James Duddridge, the Conservative MP for Rochford and Southend East, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 7 December 2022.

Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for calling me to speak. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this debate. He said he was going to focus on self-determination in particular, which is important. As other hon. Members have said, what happened originally when the base was set up and what happened to the Chagossian people was outrageous and wrong, and we apologise for that. However, I am not going to focus on that. There are bigger issues than self-determination and sovereignty—global security and defence.

The base was set up in the 1960s for very good reason: to mitigate against the Soviet and Chinese threat. Those threats are greater and more complex now than they were in the ’60s and throughout the period of the cold war. It is unfeasible for the islands to be repopulated. I visited some of the outer islands, where there were lots of graves of small children, as people died very young. The business related to palms that sustained the islands was reducing even before the atrocity of the removal of the individuals.

On the main island, the base is absolutely essential. It is home to an airport from which multiple aircraft, including spacecraft, can be flown. There is hardstanding from which tens of thousands of troops can be deployed around the world. In a protected area, there are a large number of ships storing military equipment. It is perhaps wrong to call them ships. They are seven or eight-storey car parks. On each level, there is bulletproof machinery, diggers, tanks, and armoured personnel vehicles that drive off the seventh floor into the water and can then invade land. There are 350 places around the world from which to deploy and sustain that level of troop commitment. It is a massive facility for global security and the defence of the world. We need to consider that alongside legitimate sovereignty and self-determination issues.

There was originally a 50-year lease that was rolled over to a 20-year lease, and there is now talk of an offer from Mauritius of a 99-year lease. I urge the Government to think about Hong Kong. A 99-year lease seems a long time, yet we have seen what happened in Hong Kong with China. Whatever we do, the global community, which to be honest relies heavily on the Americans, needs that facility to protect global citizens. That should be at the forefront of the Government’s mind, while trying to protect and improve the lives of Chagossians here, in the Seychelles and Mauritius. I have met with all of them and there is a pragmatic understanding. There is a desire to move back, but there is a practical understanding that that would be very difficult, even without the American base and British sovereignty issues.

December 11, 2022
Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory

The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 7 December 2022.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on leading today’s debate. It is good indeed to discuss the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. I understand the hon. Member undertook a visit to the islands back in 2020—maybe even further back—after claims that the UK’s exit from the European Union could hinder the sovereignty of the British Indian Overseas Territory. The hon. Gentleman indicated his knowledge in how he delivered his speech today.

We have maintained and created a stable relationship with our territories abroad and must ensure that we continue that, so it is good that we can be here to do just that. How do we do it? Some hon. Members have laid out their thoughts, while others are of a slightly different point of view, but we all wish to see the same delivery when it comes to solutions, because solutions are what it is all about. I always seek justice for those who have been wronged. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) spoke about that earlier on. The first thing to do when something is wrong is apologise, recognise it and try to right it, and the hon. Gentleman has set out how to do that. Hopefully the Minister will be able to give us some help.

The UK shares an extraordinary defence facility with the US at Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia. The base is crucial to Anglo-American power in the region and extends upon the order we created throughout and after world war two. There have been discussions on handing over the sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius, undermining the legitimacy that Britain has over the islands. Many Members here today have also raised concerns, which I will reiterate, about the potential for Chinese aggression across the world, especially in the Chagos archipelago. It is important to remember that international support must be built in order to retain the legitimate sovereignty that we already have.

In 1982, Margaret Thatcher set a precedent that the United Kingdom would do everything necessary to defend our overseas territories, especially when it came to the Falkland Islands. We have a duty to honour that same commitment, which we had to the Falklands, and also to Gibraltar, to which the hon. Member for Peterborough referred. It is important that the current Prime Minister carries on those legacies and promises to protect the sovereignty of all British territory abroad. The risks of handing sovereignty to Mauritius, with its deepening economic ties to Beijing, offer no guarantee to anyone that China will not soon have its own defence base on that very island.

The geography of Diego Garcia is also posing a problem, given its close proximity to China. It is only a few hundred miles south of the Chinese border, and it is the UK’s only defence base situated between Iran, Russia and China. We have to be honest for our own safety in the role that we have. We simply cannot allow the base to come under Chinese control. Any insinuations that that will be discussed are very concerning. The naval base serves as a logistics and support base for naval vessels, warplanes, and special forces. I understand it is the only one of its type in that location.

The wildlife and environment of the British Indian Ocean Territory are exceptional. The territory has the greatest marine biodiversity—

Henry Smith

On that point about the environment, which is critical, a couple of years ago a Japanese oil tanker ran aground just off the Mauritian coast, and the Mauritian response was appalling. There are deep concerns that the pristine marine environment that we have around the British Indian Ocean Territory could be at risk. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the Government to ensure that that is not the case?

Jim Shannon

The hon. Gentleman anticipated my next sentence. The territory has the greatest marine biodiversity in the UK and its overseas territories. It is unique and has some of the cleanest seas. We always hear about how the oceans are full of plastics and so on, but it has the cleanest seas and the healthiest reef systems in the world, so we must protect the environment it surrounds.

The territory also represents a nearly untouched ocean observatory, which provides researchers across the world, from all countries, with a place like no other for scientific research. It is a unique location for scientific study, and expeditions have contributed towards the development of the territory as an observatory for undisturbed ecosystems. The UK respects that, but we have to guarantee that there will be no further threat from China in relation to marine biodiversity.

In conclusion, China poses a threat not only to the sovereignty of the islands, but to aspects of our world, too—particularly the environment that I referred to. Although the UK holds complete legitimate sovereignty over the islands, we must encourage our other colleagues to stop the calls for sovereignty going to Mauritius. The success of the relationship has been maintained so far, and we should do what we can to prolong that for our own safety and as a base for our defence. It is time, as Margaret Thatcher said in 1982, to honour the people and citizens of these islands in the same way.

December 10, 2022