Tag: 2004

Below is the text of the speech made by Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, on 7th February 2004 in Bangalore, India.

Let me thank Astra Zeneca for their hospitality. This research and development centre is focussed on the needs of the developing world, so it is appropriate that it is the first such centre which Astra Zeneca has opened in an emerging market. Its work on tuberculosis and other infectious diseases is hugely important and welcome: 5 000 people die from tuberculosis every day, almost all of them in the world’s poorest countries. Astra Zeneca is the first major pharmaceutical company to devote an entire research unit in India to a developing-world disease.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

No Briton can come to India and not be conscious of the legacy which centuries of shared history have left in our relationship. As Tony Blair said here in Bangalore in 2002, that history is present every day on the streets of modern India and modern Britain.

But today our relationship is much more about the future than the past. It has never been so good, and it is getting even better.

And the relationship is changing – with business at the forefront of that change.

Increasingly, our business links are a true two-way partnership. Britain has long been one of the biggest investors in India – we are currently the third largest. But over the last five years, India has also become an important investor in Britain – it is now the eighth largest. While Astra Zeneca, whose headquarters are in the UK, was opening this research centre in Bangalore, Dabur, an Indian firm, was investing in a pharmaceutical company in Britain to work on a new cancer drug.

That is a good example of the role played by cutting-edge science in our business relationship today. Britain and India have some of the best scientists and researchers in the world. The UK is a world leader for example in biotechnology, while India is building on traditional strengths in areas such as agricultural science and chemistry and developing new expertise in space sciences and energy technologies. Our governments, in partnership with industry, are working to encourage links between scientists by providing grants, fellowships and scholarships. The newly-launched Dorothy Hodgkin Postgraduate Awards, worth £10 million, will allow top science PhD students from India and a number of other countries to study at leading research institutions in the UK.

The fruits of our closer scientific and research cooperation are tangible. About three quarters of Indian investments in the UK are in the knowledge-based sector. Indian IT, biotech and pharmaceutical companies recognise that the UK offers the best place from which to approach a growing European market, which is why 60% of Indian investment in Europe comes to Britain. That investment has created over 1 100 jobs over the last three years. The UK is now also India’s largest market in Europe for IT services, worth nearly $1 billion a year.

Already more Indian companies are listed on the London stock exchange than on the NASDAQ and the New York stock exchange combined. Our trade in goods is rising by 20% every year; trade in services is probably rising even faster. At least two thirds of all software professionals who come from abroad to work in Britain are from India. 14 000 Indian students come to the UK every year to study – four times as many as only five years ago. I have just come from the new British Library in Bangalore, where I was presenting awards to the latest group of Chevening scholars to complete their studies in the UK.

So our partnership is changing and prospering. The Indian community in Britain is playing a crucial role in that. Many Britons of Indian origin are amongst those forging the hi-tech links which are changing the nature of our business relationship.

People of Indian origin have always prospered in Britain. Today they number well over a million – the largest single ethnic minority in Britain today, and the most prosperous. Their links with traditional sectors are still strong with people of Indian origin running a large proportion of British retail outlets. But today, they are just as likely to make their money in IT or biotechnology or law. I see much of this for myself in my own parliamentary constituency of Blackburn, which boasts many people of Indian origin with strong links to the subcontinent.

Young British entrepreneurs of Indian origin are not just prospering in Britain – they are also prospering in India, and forming a vital bridge between our two countries. Take Karan Bilimoria, UK co-chairman of the Indo-British Partnership for trade and investment. Born in Hyderabad, he created a beer called Cobra which has become a household name in the UK. Now he is bringing it back to India by investing here. Or take the example of the many young British Indians working in the IT sector, who are establishing partnerships with Indian firms to help them develop new software.

Bangalore is playing an important part in our burgeoning business partnership. More than 70 British companies have operations here, including leading firms such as HSBC, Rolls Royce, BAe Systems, Logica CMG and Misys. Their work ranges from software development and electronics to aerospace, engineering or education. Bangalore’s links with Britain are also strong in the other direction, through the investments in the UK of Indian IT firms such as Wipro, Mindtree and Infosys, or through collaboration on cutting-edge biotechnology research.

Many of you will know that one aspect of these links in particular has recently hit the headlines in Britain – the decisions by some British companies to outsource services to India, and especially to this region. Increasingly, our mortgages are processed here, our bank transactions completed, our insurance claims approved, our telephone directory and rail enquiries answered – all here in Bangalore.

That reflects first of all the advantages this region has to offer. The concentration of service companies here is also part of a wider trend, as the Indian economy grows into an ever more important domestic market in its own right which service providers want to get close to.

Quite naturally, attention in Britain has focussed on the potential job losses when companies outsource work to India. The British Government, like any government, takes seriously the impact that such decisions have on local employment conditions. We share the concerns of those immediately affected by them, and we have put in place a comprehensive package of support for those facing redundancy.

But we must be realistic about the scale of this. The British newspapers will lead on the jobs lost when British companies source work abroad; but they are generally silent on the number of jobs created by companies from overseas choosing to invest in the UK. We read about the banks and insurers who are relocating jobs to India; but many people are less aware that in 2002, for example, inward investment in the UK financial services sector alone created 5 000 British jobs.

Inward investment is not coming to Britain by accident, but because we have an open, stable economy and a highly-skilled workforce; and because we are investing for the future in education, skills, infrastructure and innovation. Some call centres are moving abroad; but call centres in the UK are set to grow too. Some are even moving back to the UK. Many US companies source their services in Britain. We already have some 5 500 call centres employing 400 000 people. And of course Britain is part of the world’s largest single market in the shape of the European Union, set to grow on 1 May this year to 450 million people.

Globalisation creates jobs in India; but it creates jobs in Britain too. The overwhelming evidence is that open economies, where business can make its own decisions unhampered by protectionist barriers and bureaucratic over-regulation, prosper more than closed ones.

So we will not practice protectionism at home. If British companies benefit from working with Indian service providers in Bangalore and elsewhere, then Britain as a whole benefits.

And this belief in the virtues of open competition means we will also work to break down barriers and disincentives to trade and investment abroad. I believe for example that Indian companies and Indian consumers will benefit if British firms are allowed greater access to Indian markets in sectors where they are world-beating – such as banking, accounting, legal services and insurance.

It is also important that those foreign companies investing here have the right safeguards for their business. I could hardly visit Astra Zeneca, for example, without emphasising the importance for the global pharmaceutical industry of an efficient and properly-enforced intellectual property rights and patent system, in line with India’s WTO obligations. There is still some work to be done to achieve this; but the benefits it could bring in terms of greater investment in India make it well worthwhile.

I hope also that we can soon see an increase in air services between our two countries by resolving our differences and agreeing new flights in the ongoing negotiations. That is what business and consumers in both countries want.

Increasingly the barriers to mutually-beneficial competition between India and Britain are disappearing. Bureaucratic obstacles to investment in India by British companies continue to shrink. And India’s economic reforms over the last ten years have broken down barriers to trade, investment and competition. Those reforms have already paid off handsomely; and all the forecasts are that the impressive rates of growth of the last years are set to continue. India is already the world’s eleventh largest economy, and the fourth largest in purchasing power parity terms. The highest-performing regions in India are true Asian tigers, with growth rates of 10%. There is a real feel good factor here which is obvious even to visitors like me.

But India’s success is in my view not just down to market reforms: it is also the product of a solid framework of values and institutions. India’s democratic, pluralist society supports a vibrant diversity which helps innovation to prosper. A country with 5 500 daily newspapers and almost 46 000 periodicals is a country where discussion, debate and creativity thrive. It is no accident that India produces the largest number of films in the world. India’s other advantage is an education system which produces more than 3 million graduates every year. They are helping make this country a world-class player in cutting-edge fields such as biotechnology and IT, as this centre demonstrates.

And that economic success is not just making our bilateral business partnership stronger. It is also bringing us closer together in terms of our international interests. Nowhere more, perhaps, than in the importance we both attach to making progress on global free trade – whilst ensuring that we do so in a way which maximises the positive impact it can have on the world’s poorest countries.

The last fifty years have shown how much we all benefit from free trade world-wide. Since the GATT was launched in 1947, with a newly-independent India as a founder member, world trade has increased twenty times. That has helped deliver a six-fold increase in world output.

It is in all our interests to make sure that process continues. The European Commission has estimated that halving trade protection world-wide would boost world income by $400 billion per year, or 1.4% of world GDP.

The critics of globalisation argue, however, that this wealth will simply be amassed by powerful multinational companies and by the world’s richest countries, at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable.

But in fact breaking down barriers to free trade can help the poorest most of all. Since the end of the Uruguay Round in 1994, developing countries’ trade has grown at twice the rate of other countries’. The evidence is that relative to GDP, the poorest countries would gain most from further liberalisation. Taking again the example of a halving of trade barriers world-wide, the European Commission puts the possible gains to developing countries at $150 billion a year. That is three times what they get in aid, and it would lift 300 million people out of poverty by 2015.

The Doha Round is a development Round – which makes it all the more urgent that we get the negotiations back on track. India’s active engagement is a condition of success – so I strongly welcome the clear statements that Minister Jaitley has made lately reaffirming India’s commitment to the trade Round.

You would not expect Britain and India to have identical interests in the Doha Round. But it is a sign of our growing and changing partnership that we have more in common than many would think. First and foremost, we share a strong interest in seeing the Round reach a liberalising conclusion. We have a common interest in avoiding protectionism, for example over steel tariffs. With our long legal traditions, we both want an effective global dispute settlement arrangement.

I know that agriculture is a frequent bone of contention between Europe and countries such as India. But in fact, we in Britain would like to see more Indian access to the European market for your farm produce. Agricultural subsidies are an example of how protection harms both rich and poor. In the OECD countries they amount to more than the national income of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. The more we can open developed-world markets to agricultural products, the more we help countries trade themselves out of poverty. And the more choice and savings we offer to consumers in the developed world – because agricultural protection increases the cost of food by an estimated $1 500 per year for a family of four in the EU.

Last June the EU took an important step to reform the Common Agricultural Policy by deciding to cut the link between subsidies and production. Over time, this reform has the potential to change fundamentally the direction of European agriculture – to make it more market-oriented and less trade-distorting. But there is more we can and should do – so re-engaging in the Doha round is vital.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Britain and India both want the Doha round to bring lasting benefits to the world’s poorest. That is part of our commitment to fighting poverty – a commitment which we have long shared, but which is also changing as our modern partnership evolves.

We share the Millennium development goal of cutting world poverty in half by 2015. Britain’s commitment to India’s poorest regions has never been stronger – we are spending £200 million on development in this year alone in India, more than we spend anywhere else. At the same time, Britain and India are increasingly working together as donors, for example in Africa and through the multilateral development institutions.

I think we have both come to realise through this shared experience that sustainable development is about much more than just raising incomes. If we do not also tackle environmental degradation, conflict, insecurity or disease, we cannot create the conditions where people can build better lives for their families. By promoting our shared values of democracy and the rule of law abroad, we are also promoting the conditions where stability and prosperity can take root. India’s example – of a stable, democratic framework which supports a vibrant and unparalleled diversity of people, languages, religions and opinions – shows that link very clearly.

In the same way, we strive for economic success not just because it creates jobs and improves the living standards of our citizens, but because it also cements their security. It is surely no coincidence that the historic steps forward in India-Pakistan relations in recent weeks come at a time of economic confidence in both countries. After half a century of tensions, both countries have a strong incentive to build a secure, peaceful zone where their citizens can continue to prosper. The rejuvenated prospects for SAARC’s economic cooperation will help reinforce that.

That process will, I hope, show how a virtuous circle of prosperity and security can be built. Greater security encourages business to invest for the long term, and the closer ties of interdependence created by trade and growth reinforce security. We have seen in Europe how former enemies can cooperate to build lasting peace and prosperity. It doesn’t happen overnight, but it is something worth working for.

In today’s interdependent world, the agreement to discuss a resolution of the Kashmir dispute is great news not just for people in the subcontinent, but for people everywhere.

As I see for myself in my constituency, it is certainly great news for all those who have come from that region to make their home in Britain. More widely, we all have an interest in seeing peace and security entrenched, because insecurity and tension, however far away, can affect us all. A peaceful and secure India is good for Britons who want to do business here, or simply to visit as tourists to enjoy the marvels India has to offer.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I started by saying that our relationship, steeped in shared history, is today prospering and changing. Our business links are strong and growing stronger, and they are at the heart of our deepening partnership.

Britain and India have long shared common values. More and more, we share common interests too, and a common approach – whether on globalisation and free trade, promoting sustainable development, or fighting terrorism and building peace and security. Ours is a modern partnership which is firmly oriented towards the future. Let me thank you all for the role you play in that.

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in Paris on 12th January 2004.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The relationship between France and Britain reminds me of a family. Families are not optional, and they are not always easy. When there are rows they are often all the more intense. But family members know they have a special bond.

The Kings and Queens of England from 1066 until the fifteenth century spoke French and spent most of their time in what is now France – and many are still buried here. When in the 19th century Queen Victoria asked for the remains of Henry II and Richard the Lionheart to be ‘returned’ from the crypt at Fontevrault, the then Préfet of Maine-et-Loire declined, on the basis that the Plantagenets were ‘French citizens who had long since returned home’. While English and French kings – often linked by family ties – fought for the throne of France in the Hundred Years War, Scotland forged the Auld Alliance. Later the Huguenots who arrived in the seventeenth century greatly enriched British life.

The next time that you in France worry about the spread of the English language, you can comfort yourselves by thinking of the legacy French has left on my side of the channel. Our royal motto is ‘Dieu et mon droit’ – and if you object to that, ‘Honi soit qui mal y pense’. Indeed the English language is a hybrid of Anglo-Saxon and the Norman French which William brought with him in 1066, which means there are often two words for the same thing. We rear swine, bulls or sheep, good Saxon words; but we eat pork (porc), beef (boeuf) and mutton (mouton).

Our history has always been close; but it has often featured rivalry and conflict. No Frenchman who takes the Eurostar to Waterloo station and walks across the Thames to Trafalgar square can forget that – nor can a Briton visiting one of France’s many monuments or museums dedicated to Joan of Arc.

But in fact we have not fought each other seriously since 1815 and today, thankfully, our most passionate rivalry is confined to the sports field. England and France will open their Euro 2004 campaigns in Portugal this summer against each other – and let’s hope the same two teams meet in the final.

Although we had fought no wars against each other since 1815, by the end of the 19th century Britain and France, as the world’s two pre-eminent colonial powers, were vying for influence in Africa, Asia and beyond. The great achievement of the Entente Cordiale of 1904 was to temper that rivalry and mark the beginning of a new, closer relationship which has now endured 100 years of troubled European history. The Entente laid the basis for our military alliance through the last century, including in the two World Wars.

GENERAL DE GAULLE

No Foreign Secretary can forget the importance of our alliance against Nazism. During the second world war, my official Residence in London was the home of General de Gaulle. His portrait hangs to this day on the wall, his statue opposite – constant reminders of the bond forged between our countries during Europe’s darkest hour. Together, our two countries helped free Europe from the grip of Nazi terror. This year we have another chance to remember that when we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings.

Despite our shared goal and our shared victory, Britain’s and France’s experiences of the second world war were profoundly different. Britain’s memories are of lonely and dogged resistance of 1940, and of the support of the Empire and of the United States in winning final victory. France remembers not just the contribution of the Resistance and French forces to the eventual defeat of Nazism, but also the horrors of invasion and occupation.

Inevitably, our approaches to Europe in the decades after the war were shaped by these experiences. France’s overwhelming priority was to build a framework where war with Germany, which it had suffered three times in seventy years, would be made impossible. And General de Gaulle was determined to recover French national pride through leadership in Europe. Britain’s first reaction to European integration was to treat it as something which did not concern us; only later did we decide to be part of it. Our experience during the war convinced us deeply that keeping the strongest possible relationship between Europe and the US was the cornerstone of our security and prosperity.

These differences of history are important, and they are still visible today. Any relationship, especially one of neighbours with more than a thousand years of interlinked history, is bound to be complex and involve differences and disagreements. But our differences can too easily be exaggerated. This year’s Entente Cordiale celebrations are a chance to remind ourselves that what unites us is much more than what divides us.

Most obviously, we share today a commitment to Europe and a conception of how the European Union should work.

Britain and France are both strong and proud nations with firmly-entrenched national traditions of democracy and political debate. At the same time, however, we both recognise that no nation can deal alone with the threats which confront it. Nor can we alone make the most of the opportunities of today’s world. We are stronger when we pool some of our sovereignty in order to achieve objectives we could not achieve on our own.

Neither of us wants a federal European superstate. It would not work; and our citizens would not be comfortable with it. Both of us want a Europe of nations – and a Europe which works.

The negotiations on a new constitutional treaty for the EU have been living proof that the EU is an organisation of sovereign member states who have to reach agreements among themselves for the work of the Union to go forward.

EU INSTITUTIONS

We need time to build consensus on EU institutions; but we cannot let this be a time of inaction in Europe. All the recent focus on institutions, necessary as it has been, has I am afraid done little for public approval of the EU. According to a recent poll by Eurobarometer, fewer than half of people across the EU thought their country’s membership of the Union was a good thing.

We have to remember that institutions are only a means to an end. What people want is a Europe which delivers security and prosperity to its citizens.

Britain and France are well placed to help deliver this.

The European single market – the largest in the world – was a huge, historic achievement which enhanced the prosperity of all of us. Today we need to keep the EU focussed on delivering reforms which will create more jobs and higher growth. Together we can meet the challenges of a globalised and fiercely competitive world – but we cannot do so by standing still.

France and Britain are also committed to helping the EU develop a stronger, more coherent voice in foreign affairs commensurate with its economic standing as the world’s largest trading bloc. Again, we are well placed to do so. Our history as colonial powers left us with networks of friendship, culture and language – and also ties of obligation and responsibility – which cover almost every region of the world. We are members of more international organisations than any other countries in the world. We are both natural multilateralists. When we work together, it increases our influence and that of Europe as a whole.

I visited Iran last October with my French and German colleagues, Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer. All three of us went as foreign ministers of sovereign nation states. But together, acting on the basis of an EU consensus, we got commitments from Iran on its nuclear activities which are now being turned into concrete action as Iran co-operates with the IAEA. And we are following this through by continued engagement with this dossier.

SECURITY COUNCIL

As permanent members of the Security Council and with our effective armed forces, Britain and France have also led efforts to develop an effective European Security and Defence Policy. This enables Europe to act on its own to protect and advance its interests, to act with NATO support, or indeed better to support NATO through stronger military capabilities. France played the key role in both of the first two operations – in Macedonia and in the Bunia province of the DRC. We are now working to plan for an EU-led force to replace NATO in Bosnia.

Behind our foreign policy is our shared and profound interest in maintaining the authority and centrality of the rules-based, multilateral international system. We both, rightly, attach great importance to our permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Despite our differences on Iraq, on almost every other UN issue our views are very close. When we agree between us, our influence with other members of the Council is persuasive.

But our influence in New York is only as strong as the UN itself. That means we have a strong common interest in keeping the US and others fully engaged in the multilateral system, and in making that system as effective as possible.

Our differences over Iraq were, in essence, differences over how best to maintain the authority of international rules. I respect the position which France took, and it is a matter of regret to me that we were divided over it. But Britain went to war in Iraq, as a last resort, because Saddam Hussein was still defying the international community after 12 years of discussion and 17 UN resolutions. We felt that international law without enforcement would become a dead letter. If we had failed to live up to the tough words of the unanimous Resolution 1441 and its many predecessors, we would have not only been left with the continuing threat from Iraq: our ability to persuade others to respect international standards would also have been much diminished.

Whatever our differences over military action in Iraq, today we share a commitment to bringing security, prosperity and representative government to the Iraqi people. Under the plan proposed by the Governing Council and endorsed by the UN, power will be fully handed over to a provisional Iraqi government by July. For the first time in more than a generation, the Iraqis have the chance to build the kind of country they deserve.

France has much to contribute to this by way of expertise – in policing, in constitutional development, in reconstruction. Tragically, two French civilian experts lost their lives last Monday while working on that reconstruction, and our thoughts are with their families and friends.

Their deaths are another reminder of how important it is to defeat the terrorists, who want to stop Iraq becoming the free, stable and prosperous country its people want. The Multi-National Force in Iraq is committed to stay as long as the Iraqis want and as mandated by the UN Security Council, to help the people of Iraq create the secure environment they need.

France’s and Britain’s commitment to an effective, rules-based international system does not just apply to relations between states. We are also well placed to lead efforts to promote better governance, the rule of law and human rights within states around the world.

Between us we have produced many of the greatest thinkers on the rights of man and the good governance of public business: Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Paine, Mill, to name just a few. We both have long and entrenched traditions of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in our own countries. So we are uniquely placed to advance these values in less fortunate parts of the world, including Africa, to which our history gives us a special shared commitment. We have increasingly come to recognise that without promoting these values, and the sustainable development which they can help facilitate, we cannot hope to create the more stable and prosperous world we both want.

STATE VISIT BY HM THE QUEEN

We shall mark the centenary of the Entente Cordiale with a State visit by HM the Queen to France in April, and a return visit by the President of the Republic to Britain in the Autumn. But the celebrations are not just about big official occasions. We also want them to be the chance for people to get to know each other better, to celebrate the links they have and to build on them further; and to break down the stereotypes which are there on each side of La Manche. Many events will be designed for young people, and occasions such as friendly sports matches will raise money for our joint fight against the ravages of cancer.

Ties between people across the Channel are already very strong. A quarter of a million French people live in the UK today. In the other direction, at least 100,000 Britons have homes in France, the largest settlement since the Hundred Years War, bringing cricket and cream teas to the Dordogne and Normandy. These are not only people retiring to enjoy France’s climate and quality of life. We have farmers, carpenters, teachers – younger people from all walks of life settling and working in France without difficulty. This is Europe at work. Meanwhile, France gets 12 million visits a year from Britons – and 3 million French visit the UK.

Each of our countries sells 10% of its exports to the other – that’s €60 billion of trade every year. 1 300 French companies have invested in the UK; 1 800 British companies have done so in France. Four and a half centuries ago Mary Tudor lost Calais; in 2001, the Conseil Général of Seine-Maritime bought the English port of Newhaven in order to maintain the ferry service to Dieppe. More French students study in Britain than anywhere else abroad. 1270 UK towns are twinned with partners in France – more than in any other country. My own constituency of Blackburn was the first town ever to twin with a partner abroad. It did so formally in 1926, and informally before that, with the little town of Péronne in the Département de la Somme, because so much blood had been shed by the young of both towns on the soil there, in a terrible but common endeavour – and because the people of my town wanted to help Péronne in its rebuilding.

I don’t believe the talk of cultural rivalry between France and ‘les Anglo-Saxons’. We enjoy the best of both cultures – look at the lasting success of the musical we call ‘Les Miz’ in London. The same is true in sport. French sportspeople such as Thierry Henry at Arsenal, or British ones such as the sailor Ellen MacArthur, have hundreds of thousands of fans on both sides of the Channel. English football and rugby would be less exciting than they are without the many French players in the top clubs – or their French managers.

Whatever field you take, our links are strong. But we still know less about each other than we like to think. In a recent poll conducted in France, 75% of respondents said they didn’t know the UK very well. Though a majority thought the relationship important, most felt it was more between governments than between people.

The challenge for this year’s Entente Cordiale celebrations is to understand each other better and to make our links even stronger than they are. France and Britain share goals and ambitions in everything from creating jobs and safeguarding security at home, to promoting justice and sustainable development abroad. Our economic and social agendas are coming closer to each other. We both want more energetic international action to tackle AIDS and global warming. The list is long.

No-one would expect two great nations like ours to agree on everything. But we can achieve even more together than we already do – and this year gives us a great opportunity to make that a reality.

Below is the text of the speech made by Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, at Chatham House on 12th February 2004.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As ever, it’s a great pleasure to be here at Chatham House and to have the chance to speak to such a distinguished audience. I want to talk today about the Strategy for the Foreign Office which I published in December, and the wider international debate on the nature of foreign policy today.

When I was Home Secretary from 1997-2001, my job – as defined by the mission statement of the Home Office – was ‘to build a safe, just and tolerant society’. As Foreign Secretary, it is ‘to work for UK interests in a safe, just and prosperous world.’

That similarity is no accident. Much of what we want to achieve in Britain is dependent, to at least some extent, on being active abroad. If we want to keep drugs off British streets, we must tackle poppy cultivation in Afghanistan; we must fund judicial reform projects in South America and the Balkans so that drug barons cannot escape the courts; and we must get European Union police forces to work more closely together against drug gangs. In the face of terrorist or criminal networks who operate globally, as we saw so tragically at Morecambe Bay last Friday, we must maintain a foreign policy which is closely integrated with our domestic agenda.

More widely, a multicultural country such as Britain is by definition somewhere where foreign policy matters at home. The relationship between India and Pakistan is of special interest for the many hundreds of thousands of British people with family links to South Asia – and those people, as I noted last week when I visited India, form a vital bridge between our countries. Likewise, our relationship with the Islamic world is inseparable from our own society – it is just as much about how I interact with my 25,000 Muslim constituents in Blackburn as it is about Europe’s or America’s relationship with the Middle East.

As the world becomes more interdependent, the boundary between ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’ policy is increasingly blurred. Foreign affairs are no longer very foreign. And that means that they matter more, perhaps, than ever before.

The end of the Cold War brought liberty and democracy to millions, and lifted the threat of global nuclear confrontation. But as the superpower stand-off came to an end, the world also became more complex, and new threats to our security emerged. Conflicts in the dissolving Yugoslav federation brought instability to the borders of the EU, along with the related influx of refugees and the spread of organised crime. In Africa, the collapse of state authority in former superpower clients allowed chaos and conflict to spread far beyond its original borders.

We began to realise then that far away had a direct impact on our own security. The attacks of 11 September 2001 brought this new reality into even sharper focus, as the violence and repression of the Taleban tragically struck New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. It was clear that there was no such thing any more – if indeed there ever was – as a far-away country of which we knew nothing and to which we could afford to be indifferent.

NEW ERA IN FOREIGN POLICY

We understood then that we had entered a new era in foreign policy. We needed better to understand the new threats we face today, which are as likely to come from non-state groups such as terrorists and international criminals as they are from other states. We needed to work out how best to tackle them, and address the conditions in which they could thrive, as well as looking ahead strategically at the context in which threats and opportunities for the UK were likely to evolve.

It was also clear that we could not hope to act on every issue: we would need to prioritise those which were most important, or where the UK could make a difference.

And because of the close link between foreign and domestic policy, we would need to agree international priorities not just for the Foreign Office, but for the whole of government. In the Foreign Office, we would need to look hard at how best to organise ourselves to pursue our goals.

Those were the challenges to which the Strategy which I published in December last year aims to give at least some initial answers.

The Strategy identifies eight international priorities for the UK, based on an analysis of the threats and opportunities we face and of how we expect the world to develop over the next ten years. They are set out in full in the highlights of the Strategy which you have on your chairs today.

Our conclusion in the Strategy is that Britain’s safety and prosperity depend more than ever on working for a safe, just and prosperous world. To protect the UK from threats such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and international crime, and to promote our economic interests, we must be active and engaged in the world. Our aim must be to build lasting safety and prosperity underpinned by justice – by sustainable development especially for the poorest and most vulnerable, and by democracy, good governance and human rights.

This is an integrated agenda, with justice as its pivot. There is no longer, if there ever was, a distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ foreign policy, between pursuing your interests on the one hand and pursuing your convictions on the other. We cannot pursue lasting safety and prosperity if we do not also promote justice.

And to act on this integrated agenda we need to use the tools at our disposal in a joined-up way. So this Government’s record levels of development aid help lift people out of poverty and disease, and tackle environmental degradation. Our diplomacy helps prevent and resolve conflicts, and build trust and peace. We work with countries around the world to reinforce good governance, human rights and the rule of law.

INTEGRATED AGENDA

We do so not just because it is right, but because it is firmly in Britain’s interest. By working on this integrated agenda we are tackling the conditions where frustrated hopes and crippling injustice can allow terrorism and extremism to prosper. And we are helping build states which are reliable partners for the UK, and stable and prosperous places for Britons to do business with or to visit.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Having set out what we need to do, across government, the Strategy also sets out our initial thoughts on how the Foreign Office can best play our role in implementing this agenda. Its overriding conclusion is that our global network of 223 posts in over 150 countries around the world is our vital asset. Not everything they do can or should hit the headlines. But the contribution British diplomacy makes to building peace, promoting reform and good governance, defusing tensions and tackling threats to our own security and prosperity is very real. And that diplomacy pays. Sorting out Bosnia, where conflict had been allowed to spread, cost the British taxpayer £1.5 billion. Kosovo, where we took military action to avert humanitarian disaster, cost £200 million. Macedonia, where we have been able to prevent conflict through early common action, cost us just £14 million.

Our posts also provide high-quality public services around the world. 50% of all our staff work in service delivery. Our consular staff provide assistance and advice to 1 000 British travellers each week. The Travel Advice on the FCO website gets 700 000 hits every month. UKVisas handles some 2 million visa applications every year. Last year UK Trade and Investment helped bring on nearly 1,800 new exporters, helped nearly 4,400 companies break into new markets and recorded over 700 decisions by foreign-owned companies to locate in the UK creating 34,000 new jobs.

We do all this with an operational budget of £950 million per year – about a quarter of one per cent of government expenditure. So the Foreign Office’s global network delivers real value and results which matter to people’s lives. Now, the Strategy gives us a framework for getting better value still, by focussing our resources on the Government’s strategic priorities.

We are now looking at how best we can adapt our organisation to do this. It is already clear that we will need to maintain an effective network with global reach in order to achieve our priorities and to deliver high-quality services to the public. We will also need to build in more flexibility to respond quickly to crises and to new opportunities. We are getting better at this: at one point last year 5% of all our staff in London were redeployed to working on Iraq.

But we must also recruit and retain a more diverse workforce, against the backdrop of the threat to our staff from terrorism and from difficult conditions, and the challenges of global mobility. We still have a long way to go in achieving levels of diversity which truly reflect the diversity of the UK which we represent.

And lastly, we will need to work more closely across Government and with outside players such as Parliament, NGOs, Trades Unions or business. All these actors have a growing role in international affairs, and a shared stake in developing British foreign policy.

‘THE CHALLENGES WE FACE ARE GLOBAL’

But whatever efforts we make in the Foreign Office and across the Government, Britain can achieve none of our priorities on our own. The challenges we face are global, and they require a global response. That means our uniquely strong network of alliances and cooperation around the world, combined with the global connections which our history and language provide, are more important today than ever.

Our membership of the European Union and our relationship with the United States are central to almost everything we do internationally. It is also of paramount importance to our future prosperity and security that the relationship between Europe and the US continues to be strong. That transatlantic partnership is deeply rooted in shared values, economic interdependence and common interests, and is essential to pursuing progressive change and global order. But we will need to keep working in order to maintain its strength. That will mean building a shared agenda, with Europe more effectively pursuing our shared security interests, and the US working with Europe and others on the wider economic development and environmental priorities that are so closely linked to our security.

The Strategy also highlights the historic opportunity we have to develop strategic relationships with emerging powers such as China and India as they play a greater and changing role in the international system. Russia and Japan will also continue to be key global powers and central to achieving our international priorities.

The backbone of all our relationships internationally is the multilateral system, with the United Nations at its heart. As permanent members of the UN Security Council, we have a fundamental interest in keeping that multilateral system strong and effective.

But the challenge for us now is to help strengthen the international system so that it is fully adapted to today’s international challenges. International rules, embodied in the UN Charter, have provided the framework for world order since the end of the second world war. But the world today is very different from that of 1945 when the UN Charter was signed. We need today to be able to act together, through the United Nations, to prevent the breakdown of order in states around the world, because it directly affects our own security. Decisions by states which fifty years ago would have been considered a matter of domestic policy – for example on developing certain kinds of weapons – are today of urgent interest for the whole world.

We manage our interdependence through common rules; but to be truly effective we also need to be prepared to enforce them with all the tools at our disposal, including military force as a last resort.

WMD

Take for example the global threat from the proliferation of WMD. I welcome the fact that this threat is now being taken as seriously as it must be by the international community – as demonstrated for example by the European Security Strategy. We now have a chance to reinforce our common action against it, for example through agreeing a UN resolution setting up a mechanism similar to the Counter-Terrorism Committee established by Resolution 1373.

Common action gets results. Iran has chosen to work with the IAEA and with Britain, France and Germany supported by the EU to resolve the outstanding issues surrounding its nuclear programme. Libya has chosen to engage with the UK and the US, and now with the IAEA and other appropriate bodies to disarm itself of WMD – a courageous step forward which will bring greater security to the whole region. North Korea remains a difficult case, but is engaged with China and others in the six-party talks, which we hope to see resume in the near future.

I know that many disagreed with the action the British government took in joining military action against Iraq. But I ask them to reflect on how dangerous the world would be today if we had shown that 17 mandatory UN Resolutions over 12 years were merely empty words. The big question left unanswered by those who still disagree with our military intervention, is this: what would you do to protect global security from a regime which threatens regional or international stability, and places itself defiantly beyond the reach of the international system on which our security depends? These are questions we and our partners must now grapple with, co-operatively and creatively. We cannot ignore them. The modern world is too dangerous for that.

We also need to discuss another key strategic challenge for the next decade: how we engage with the Arab and wider Islamic world. This will be crucial to most of the international priorities I have set out today. We need better to understand the forces that give rise to the hostility that some feel so deeply towards the West. And we need to show that we will help those who recognise the need for political, economic and social reform to deal with rising unemployment, low growth, low levels of human development and increased discontent.

Reform must come from and be shaped by the region itself, not be imposed from outside. But we in Europe, working with the US and in other groupings, must demonstrate how we can assist. Whatever our differences over Iraq, as Joschka Fischer said last weekend, we need to put those behind us. We must all recognise that the structural problems confronting many countries in the Middle East are not just their problems, but ours.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

‘A SAFE, JUST AND PROSPEROUS WORLD’

I began by noting the similarity between my two most recent jobs, between a safe, just and tolerant society and a safe, just and prosperous world.

Everyone in society has a stake in its safety, justice and tolerance. States such as the UK have centuries-old traditions of the rule of law with which people identify and which form the bedrock of all civilised life. The challenge for international diplomacy in the 21st century will be to build an international order in which states and people feel something of the same stake in working for a safe, just and prosperous world as they do in their own societies.

Safety, justice and prosperity are inextricably linked to each other; and achieving our goals means working on all three in an active and engaged way. How the UK uses our global network of relationships and influence to meet that challenge is the central theme of the FCO Strategy.

I want the Strategy to be the beginning of a process of debate, not the end. The post-Cold War world is complex and uncertain and presents new risks and opportunities. We have not yet reached a global understanding on what those risks and opportunities are, or how we should deal with them. But we are at a pivotal time for international policy. The European Security Strategy, or the formation of a High-Level Panel by the UN Secretary General, are examples of increasing efforts to develop an effective common response to today’s complex challenges. I hope that the FCO Strategy can start to frame Britain’s contribution to that global debate.

Below is the text of the speech made by Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, in Davos, Switzerland, on 21st January 2004.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

2003 was momentous for Iraq, bringing the end of a regime which had for more than a generation brought the people of Iraq only violence, impoverishment and isolation. From this historic turning point the challenge for 2004 is to build the new Iraq which its people want – an Iraq governed by its people, secure and prosperous, at peace with its neighbours and reintegrated into the family of nations.

No-one argued that this was a process which would be over in a matter of months, and we still have a long way to go. The security situation is of course my number one concern; and there have been difficulties in other areas too, such as reconstruction – perhaps more than some expected.

SECURITY AND SERVICES

But I believe that overall life for Iraqis is slowly but steadily improving, some terrible terrorist outrages notwithstanding. Iraqi police and security forces, with the help of the Multinational Force, are building security based on the principle of consent, not on the repressive violence of Saddam’s security forces. Some 45,000 police are now on duty, with more being trained; their confidence and expertise are growing. Criminality has reduced significantly over the past months. I’m pleased to say that the British Police Service is in the lead in our sector in the south on police training.

Meanwhile 17,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, have already been launched. Almost 2,000 schools have been refurbished. 70 million revised textbooks are being printed and distributed. Over 30 million doses of vaccines have been provided since July.

I recognise that the provision of services does not yet meet the expectations of the Iraqi people. We are working hard to ensure that basic services are provided in an equitable way to all the people of Iraq. However, despite the obstacles posed by decades of severe underinvestment and by sabotage, electricity and water supplies have been improved as I saw when I visited Iraq in July and November last year.

TRADE

A newly independent central bank and a new currency are in place. You will have seen little of this in the papers. But the currency transfer has taken place remarkably smoothly. Iraq is developing more trusting and constructive relationships with its neighbours, and growing trade is boosting the Iraqi economy. We have made good progress on Iraq’s debt – the G7 has agreed to a substantial reduction of the debt burden in the context of a Paris Club settlement. Iraq’s natural resources, including its oil, can now be used for the benefit of all its people, instead of being held hostage to the ambitions and extravagances of a ruling clique. I have been privileged to have been to Iraq and it is only when you are there that you can see the scale of extravagance of the Palaces, plundered from the people. It is obscene.

GOVERNMENT

Approved by UNSCR 1483 the Iraqi Governing Council is a the most representative administration Iraq has ever seen. It embodies the diversity and complexity of Iraqi society. It is worth remembering that over half of the IGC are Shia. There is a political pluralism within the Governing Council which is wider than exists in many countries in the region.

Democratic campaigning followed by elections will be the key to forming a representative government for the people of Iraq. Specific dates have been set for an end to occupation, for a representative, sovereign Iraqi Transitional Government from July 2004; for a permanent constitution and for free and fair direct elections to a national constituent Assembly and Government in 2005.

The contribution of the United Nations to the electoral and constitutional processes in 2004-2005 will be vital. I welcome the fact that on Monday the UNSG – Kofi Annan – as requested by the Iraqi Governing Council, has undertaken to consider sending a UN technical team to Iraq to look into the feasibility of elections before June. The UN Secretary General has also confirmed his intention to appoint a Special Representative for Iraq at an appropriate time. This reaffirmation of the UN role is welcome. Of course we understand the security constraints they face, and no-one can forget the terrible nature of the attack on the UN last August. The Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition will of course help with appropriate security arrangements.

Meanwhile Iraqis are coming to terms with a real political debate, choosing between a host of rival sources of information – satellite dishes which were illegal under Saddam, more than 200 newspapers, unrestricted access to the internet. A dynamic Iraqi press corps is emerging, with journalists gaining experience and confidence in their reporting. Iraq already has a more vibrant press than many of its neighbours.

TARGETS

Looking ahead to later this year, the key event is the transfer of full authority to Iraqis by 1 July. The coalition will then move into a support role in partnership with the Iraqi people.

Our job is not to dictate Iraq’s future, but to support the consensus of Iraqi opinion. That means our policy will remain responsive as that opinion develops. Nonetheless, the fundamental principles of what the Iraqi people are working for, and what we should therefore promote, are already clear.

In partnership with Iraqis, we will work to promote stable, internationally-recognised federal government whose leaders they can choose, which respects their diversity and protects the rule of law and human rights. At the local level, we will help build democratically-elected administrations empowered to represent local populations. Already the Provincial Councils are being broadened to represent their constituencies more fully. We are also promoting an independent judicial system with strong courts and impartial non-political judges, upholding the rights of the Iraqi people.

Our commitment to reconstructing Iraq is firm. We will continue to help the new Iraqi public administration to run effectively, providing advice and guidance when that is what the Iraqis request. We are likely to channel a substantial part of our financial assistance to Iraq through the UN/World Bank International Reconstruction Fund Facility. We will also focus our assistance on reinforcing the capacity of the Iraqi civil service to administer the country effectively, and on rebuilding essential public services, most urgently in the poorest parts of the country which were the most neglected under Saddam.

LOOKING AHEAD

To achieve all of this, Iraq needs a stable, secure environment protected by non-partisan police and armed forces. If the Iraqi government requests, the Multi-National Force, with a strong British contingent and as mandated by the UN security council, will continue to work alongside Iraqi forces in maintaining security, while helping those forces to build the capacity to do this on their own.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The whole international community agreed on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, on his defiance of 17 UN Resolutions over 12 years, on the need to resolve the 173 pages worth of outstanding WMD concerns which UNMOVIC identified. However, the decision to take military action was and remains controversial. I respect the views of those who disagreed with us. But I would also ask them in turn to look back a year and consider the consequences of allowing Saddam Hussein to defy the final warning issued unanimously by the Security Council in Resolution 1441. I am in no doubt that if we had sat on our hands and not acted the world would today be a much more dangerous place.

And very few of the Iraqi people argue that Iraq is not a far better country today with Saddam out of power and answering to justice for his terrible crimes.

I make no secret of the fact that there are serious challenges ahead for Iraq – on security, on employment, on making a success of the political and constitutional process. But these difficulties can be overcome with determined and focussed effort. Whatever the differences a year ago, the whole international community today stands behind the Iraqi people. We are committed to helping them achieve their goal of building the free, secure and prosperous country they deserve.