UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Foreign Affairs

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2006 Speech on the Finnish Presidency

    Timothy Kirkhope – 2006 Speech on the Finnish Presidency

    The speech made by Timothy Kirkhope, the Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, on 5 July 2006.

    President, President-in-Office,

    The new Presidency wants to develop a transparent and effective Union. The issues of transparency and openness are ones British Conservatives have been championing for many years. The opening of Council meetings is a step in the right direction and has been taken despite the crass attempts by the new British Foreign Secretary to preserve secrecy. We will watch carefully to see that the letter and spirit of openness is upheld in the coming months. Equally, the Presidency’s wish to scrutinise the effects of legislation and improving its clarity is something I welcome. But British Conservatives have long argued for proper assessments on whether some legislation is actually required at all. The initial presumption must always be, in my view, against legislating. There shall also be proper impact assessments undertaken before embarking on new laws. I hope that the Presidency will make progress in creating a new culture in the EU which lays emphasis on less legislation and less regulation. This is an essential part of the reform agenda that I want Europe to develop.

    The Presidency also wants to see more effective decision-making in judicial co-operation in criminal matters. I hope the emphasis here will be on better inter-governmental co-operation and not harmonisation. The announcement by Commissioner Frattini last week that he will urge Member States to make use of the passerelle clauses to move to qualified majority voting in the third pillar is unwelcome news. People do want governments to work together more effectively to prevent terrorism, combat human trafficking and fight the scourge of drugs. I do too. But this does not require the ending of the veto in these areas. Harmonisation is a flawed approach. It denies the police and security services the flexibility and adaptability they need to stay one step ahead of the terrorists and the drug traffickers. Giving Parliament and the Court of Justice ‘second guess’ powers will hamper and undermine the work of law enforcement agencies across Europe.

    I am strongly against any proposal that would see national parliaments ceding power over drugs policy, the Serious Fraud Office in the UK ceding power over anti-corruption investigations to Europol and the police ceding powers over criminal investigations to Eurojust and the Court of Justice. These are matters that go to the heart of the powers of the nation state. People elect governments to protect them from internal and external threats to security. If governments give away these powers and deny themselves the flexibility they need to contain threats to security, all in the name of European integration, people will rightly judge this as simply another attempt by Brussels to intervene in their domestic affairs. The case for harmonisation has not been made and the evidence that qualified majority voting will make us safer and more secure is not there. So, I urge the Presidency not to pursue this course.

    I hope the Presidency will work closely with President Barroso on the economic reform agenda. There is no room for complacency here. The drive to make Europe more competitive does not begin and end with Summit conclusions. The need for reform is as urgent as ever and I hope the Presidency will champion the kind of liberalising, reformist economic agenda that I have long urged. The protectionists and those who champion the outdated concept of national champions are still with us – I hope the Prime Minister and his Presidency will resist them.

    I also want the Presidency to sort out the vexed question of the seat of the European Parliament. We have been in the forefront of the campaign to end the Strasbourg sessions. Having two seats is expensive, wasteful and a major burden on taxpayers. Over half a million people have already signed the petition to end Strasbourg, including myself and my British Conservative colleagues. We must have some action on the matter.

  • Liz Truss – 2021 Statement on Aung San Suu Kyi

    Liz Truss – 2021 Statement on Aung San Suu Kyi

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 6 December 2021.

    The sentencing of Aung San Suu Kyi is another appalling attempt by Myanmar’s military regime to stifle opposition and suppress freedom and democracy.

    The United Kingdom calls on the regime to release political prisoners, engage in dialogue and allow a return to democracy. The arbitrary detention of elected politicians only risks further unrest.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2021 Comments on Anne-Marie Trevelyan’s Visit to US

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2021 Comments on Anne-Marie Trevelyan’s Visit to US

    The comments made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, on 5 December 2021.

    The Government have long promised that a Free Trade Agreement with the United States would be top of the priority list. We are two years on from the General Election and no deal is even in place.

    The Secretary of State must use her visit to Washington to prioritise British jobs and industry and kickstart the negotiations.

    She must also – urgently – work with the US Government to lift the damaging steel and aluminium tariffs imposed in 2018. The Conservatives have not taken this issue seriously enough – they must stop letting steel workers down.

  • Boris Johnson – 2021 Comments on Appointment of Sir Stuart Peach

    Boris Johnson – 2021 Comments on Appointment of Sir Stuart Peach

    The comments made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 2 December 2021 following the appointment of Sir Stuart Peach as the new special envoy to the Balkans.

    The UK is deeply committed to European security. The Western Balkans are experiencing the biggest threat to their stability and security in over two decades. We have a responsibility to do all we can to preserve the gains achieved through peace and dialogue – we cannot allow any return to the violence and division of the past. Sir Stuart’s extensive experience and expertise will reinforce international efforts to protect peace and promote Euro-Atlantic integration in this crucial region.

  • Andrew Adonis – 2021 Comments on Migration from Hong Kong

    Andrew Adonis – 2021 Comments on Migration from Hong Kong

    The comments made by Andrew Adonis on Twitter on 1 December 2021.

    The new wave of immigration from Hong Kong, now in the tens of thousands and soon possibly in the hundreds of thousands, could be a powerhouse of growth and liberal optimism for Britain.

    Let me give fulsome credit to Johnson for doing the right and bold thing for the Hong Kongers. It is a big irony of British politics that the party which took us out of the EU because of xenophobia is welcoming hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers.

  • Fergus Eckersley – 2021 Statement on UK’s Position on Jersualem

    Fergus Eckersley – 2021 Statement on UK’s Position on Jersualem

    The statement made by Fergus Eckersley, the UK Political Coordinator at the UN, in New York on 1 December 2021.

    The United Kingdom’s position on the status of Jerusalem is clear and long-standing: it should be determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The final determination of Jerusalem must ensure that the holy city is a shared capital of Israel and a Palestinian state, granting access and religious rights for all who hold it dear. The United Kingdom opposes unilateral action in Jerusalem absent a final status settlement and remains supportive of the historic status quo.

    The UK recognises that Jerusalem and the holy sites at Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount hold particular significance for many groups around the globe, especially the three Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The UK welcomes language in the resolution reaffirming the special significance of the holy sites and the City of Jerusalem for these three religions and calling for respect for the historic Status Quo.

    However, the resolution adopted today refers to the holy sites in Jerusalem in purely Islamic terms, without recognising the Jewish terminology of “Temple Mount”. The UK has made clear for many years that we disagree with this approach, and while we welcome the removal of the majority of these references, we are disappointed that we were unable to find a solution to the final instance. On principle, the United Kingdom has therefore moved our vote today from a “yes” to an “abstention”. If the unbalanced reference had been removed, the UK would have been ready and willing to vote “yes”.

    The United Kingdom is clear that this should not be understood to be a reflection of a change in UK policy towards Jerusalem, but instead as an important signal of our commitment to recognising the history of Jerusalem for the three monotheistic religions.

  • Earl of Rosebery – 1886 Statement on the Blockade of the Greek Coast

    Earl of Rosebery – 1886 Statement on the Blockade of the Greek Coast

    The statement made by the Earl of Rosebery, the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House of Lords on 10 May 1886.

    My Lords, I desire to lay upon your Lordships’ Table a Circular Despatch recapitulating the action of Her Majesty’s Government with regard to Greece, which I have addressed to Her Majesty’s Representatives abroad, and copies of the two Collective Notes to the Greek Government, and the replies to those Notes, as well as to the notice of blockade which was presented to the Greek Government on Saturday. The first of these Collective Notes was presented on April 26. It demanded that the Greek Army should be placed on a peace footing with the least possible delay, and that assurances should be given to the Representatives of the Powers in the course of a week from the date of the presentation of the Note that orders had been given accordingly.

    In reply to that Note the Greek Prime Minister sent an answer which will also be laid before your Lordships’ House, in which he refers to some communication which had taken place between himself and the French Minister at Athens. That communication, however, your Lordships will see, when you have it in your hands, did not offer any guarantee for that immediate disarmament which we could offer Turkey, and induce Turkey to disarm in her turn. During the week that followed no further communication was received from M. Delyannis. On Monday evening the delay proposed by the Powers expired. It was, however, the desire of the Powers to show all possible consideration towards the Greek nation, and Wednesday being the King’s fête day, their final answer to M. Delyannis’s reply was not declared till Thursday morning, saying that the reply was wholly unsatisfactory, unless supplemented by further declarations.

    The communication from M. Delyannis was to the effect that he had no further explanations to offer. On Friday morning the Representatives of Germany, Austria, Italy, and Great Britain left Athens, leaving their Legations in charge of the Secretaries. The Russian Minister could not be withdrawn, as he was not at Athens at the time. On Saturday the notice of the blockade was presented, and a blockade as against Greek ships of all kinds is at this moment in existence along the East Coast of Greece and the Gulf of Corinth. That is a bare record of facts; but before I sit down I will ask the indulgence of the House while I make one or two further remarks as to the sufficiency of M. Delyannis’s reply to the communication of the Great Powers. Your Lordships will be able to form your own judgment; but that judgment will be materially assisted by the speeches and Circulars of the Greek Prime Minister since he made those specific declarations.

    Only yesterday he made a speech announcing that he and his Government would never sign a decree of disarmament—a speech which absolutely justifies the contention of Her Majesty’s Government and of the other Powers, that while he had announced his intention not to attack Turkey, he had offered no guarantee that the menacing attitude of the Greek Army and the consequent strain both on that country and on Turkey might not be indefinitely prolonged. Moreover, the Greek and the Turkish Armies would have been left face to face with the constant probability of provocation and conflict. That state of things would have been the very danger to the peace of Europe which it has been the endeavour of the Powers by their action to avoid. In the next place, I have to point out that the interests of Great Britain in this matter are various and important.

    In the first place, there is the great interest which is always a paramount interest in the policy of this country—the maintenance of peace. In the next place, we have to remember the vast importance of upholding the decision of Europe—that is, of the Great Powers of Europe—in cases in which that decision can be usefully enforced; and, thirdly, we have had the interests of Greece and of Turkey to consider. The interests of Greece are sufficiently obvious. No sane friend of Greece could wish that she should embark in war with one of the great Military Powers of the world, even if she had a good cause to fight for. But, my Lords, that is not her present position. I cannot now take up your time with pointing out how unfortunate is the ground on which the Greek Government meditated this aggressive war. On some future occasion I may hope to have the opportunity of doing so. My Lords, the interest of Turkey in this matter is no less obvious. It is just five years since Turkey, on the strenuous intercession of the Powers, ceded the rich Province of Thessaly to Greece.

    It is hardly conceivable that the Turkish Government now should do otherwise than resist the proposal for another such cession. But while it is almost bound to resist this aggression the strain upon it is no less severe. The Turkish Government has an Army of over 300,000 men in its European Dominions, largely drawn from the Reserves; and the taking of the Reserves sufficiently indicates to your Lordships how great is the strain to which the agriculture of that country is subjected. I put aside the money required to maintain so vast an Army; but I do not put aside the injury to the peaceful inhabitants of the Turkish Empire—the men of which are torn from sowing and ploughing, and from those agricultural operations on which their subsistence depends.

    Wide districts have, therefore, the prospect of famine staring them in the face. Her Majesty’s Advisers, therefore, have strong grounds to proceed upon in using pressure at this juncture. My Lords, this is probably not the moment to make a long statement, and I will only say one more word. I have alluded to the importance of upholding what is popularly called the European Concert in matters of this kind. On this occasion, the European Concert has been very happily maintained. It is quite true that separate action has been taken by France; but I cannot doubt that that action has been taken with the same desire for a peaceful settlement of this question which is entertained by all the other Powers. As regards the other Powers, Austria, Italy, Germany, and Russia maintain a close and harmonious concert with us. That fact is of great importance; and in view of it I cannot doubt but that, coupled with the independent but parallel action of France, the exertions of the Powers will be crowned with success.

  • Vicky Ford – 2021 Comments on UK Aid in Chad

    Vicky Ford – 2021 Comments on UK Aid in Chad

    The comments made by Vicky Ford, the UK Minister for Africa, on 29 November 2021.

    We have ensured money recovered from corrupt deals has gone into providing life-saving support to more than 150,000 vulnerable people in Chad. Working with our partners around the world, the UK will always stand against corruption.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2021 Comments on Priti Patel’s Withdrawn French Invite

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2021 Comments on Priti Patel’s Withdrawn French Invite

    The comments made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 26 November 2021.

    This is a humiliation for a Prime Minister and Home Secretary who have completely lost control of the situation in the Channel.

    At the very moment when the Prime Minister needed to be a statesman, what we have seen is a grave error of judgement in putting this sensitive letter on Twitter – causing our government to be excluded from these vital talks. The French and British Governments must show leadership, sit down together and urgently find solutions. This continued blame game is not getting us anywhere.

    Labour would be going beyond just coastal patrols to engage in proper joint law enforcement, working with the French authorities and other countries to tackle these vile people smuggling gangs upstream, as well as seeking safe and legal routes.

  • Liz Truss – 2021 Statement on BA Flight 149 in Kuwait

    Liz Truss – 2021 Statement on BA Flight 149 in Kuwait

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2021.

    Today the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) will release files covering the events surrounding British Airways flight 149 (BA149) to the National Archives. BA149 landed at Kuwait City on 2 August 1990 as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was beginning. The passengers and crew from the flight were subsequently held hostage by Iraq and mistreated. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) provided consular and diplomatic support to those involved from the outset, but there have long been questions about how much the Government knew of the situation at the time.

    We now know that Iraq was beginning a full invasion of Kuwait on the night of 1 to 2 August. The files being released today describe how things looked to those involved at the time.

    On 1 August the British Embassy in Kuwait told the local British Airways office that while flights on 1 August should be safe, subsequent flights were inadvisable. BA149 took off from London at 18:04 GMT on 1 August, almost two hours later than scheduled because of technical problems. Its ultimate destination was Kuala Lumpur with a short stopover in Kuwait. At about 22:15 GMT, during its flight towards Kuwait, the captain spoke to the captain of another flight which had left Kuwait for London that evening. The pilot of that flight reported nothing unusual in Kuwait and no reason for BA149 to depart from its planned route.

    The files show that the British ambassador in Kuwait informed the Resident Clerk—the officer on overnight duty to deal with emergencies—at the FCO in London about reports of an Iraqi incursion into Kuwait around 00:00 GMT on 2 August 1990, while the British Airways flight was en route. The information was passed by the Resident Clerk to the Head of the FCO’s Middle East Department and also to No. 10, the Ministry of Defence, the Cabinet Office and the Secret Intelligence Service, but not to British Airways.

    BA149 landed at Kuwait City at 01:13 GMT. Around 45 minutes later Kuwait City airport was closed and BA149 was unable to leave. Its passengers and crew were subsequently held hostage by the Iraqis, with the last hostages released in December 1990.

    The Government have always condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the suffering that followed and the mistreatment of those aboard BA149. The responsibility for these events and the mistreatment of those passengers and crew lies entirely with the Government of Iraq at the time.

    The files show that in the call to the Resident Clerk, the British ambassador in Kuwait was unclear whether the Iraqi move across the border was a limited or larger incursion. At that point, the evidence in the files suggests that it was not possible to say with certainty what was happening. Similarly, the Resident Clerk in the FCO would have had no knowledge of the timing of flights into Kuwait. At the time there appeared to have been no formal arrangements by which information about such events could be passed from the FCO to airlines or the Department of Transport. A procedure to deal with situations like this now exists involving Government and the airline industry.

    There was also speculation at the time and since that the flight was used to carry members of UK Special Forces. The files are consistent with the then Minister for Europe’s statement in April 2007 that

    “the Government at the time did not attempt in any way to exploit the flight by any means whatever.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2007; Vol. 459, c. 1217.]

    The call made by Her Majesty’s ambassador to Kuwait has never been publicly disclosed or acknowledged until today. These files show that the existence of the call was not revealed to Parliament and the public. This failure was unacceptable. As the current Secretary of State, I apologise to the House for this, and I express my deepest sympathy to those who were detained and mistreated.