Category: Foreign policy

Our new allies, eastern Libya and Al-Qaeda

March 29, 2011 5:56 pm by Jim Pickard

When Colonel Gaddafi accused the eastern rebels of Al-Qaeda links there was a presumption that this was merely propaganda from the Libyan dictator.

Now, however, a Nato US commander has suggested that intelligence reports indicate a potential “flicker” of al-Qaeda within the resistance. James Stavridis, Nato’s supreme allied commander for Europe, was speaking during Senate testimony today. Here is the relevant transcript:

“We have seen flickers in the intelligence* of potential Al Qaida, Hezbollah. We’ve seen different things. But at this point I don’t have detail sufficient to say that — that there’s a significant Al Qaida presence or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks. We’ll continue to look at that very closely. It’s part of doing due diligence as we move forward on any kind of relationship.”

The Conservative chair, Baroness Warsi, was asked about this on Sky today; her reply wasn’t exactly reassuring. To quote Politicshome.com:

Baroness Warsi responded to reports that there are “flickers” of Al-Qaeda in the Libyan opposition by saying it was “very concerning” but she is confident that the Interim National Council’s “vision of Libya” is not a “post-Gaddafi Libya that includes Al-Qaeda”. “That is the first I’m hearing
Continue reading: “Our new allies, eastern Libya and Al-Qaeda”

Tags: al-qaeda, benghazi, Colonel Gaddafi, gaddafi, libya, libyan rebels, rebellion, tripoli
Posted in Foreign policy, UK politics | Permalink

Unease in the Commons as MPs debate Libya action

March 21, 2011 5:37 pm by Jim Pickard

So far there has been a solid display of cross-party unity over the military action in Libya, designed to save the lives of rebels in the east of the north African country. The Labour leadership is firmly behind the coalition on its swift action in maintaining a no-fly zone and protecting Libyan citizens.

But this afternoon’s ongoing debate - it began at 3.30pm and will last six hours - has shown that the consensus is not quite as firm as it might appear at first glance. Instead, having talked to MPs in private, and having watched the first few hours of the debate, I would say the overwhelming feeling is one of pride at the initial intervention but unease about how events will now pan out.

Concerns are shared among MPs of all parties, under these categories:

1] End game. There is concern about the lack of an exit strategy for the Libyan intervention. Does it end with an uprising that extinguishes the Gaddafi regime? Could the country be split into west and east? Could the allies pull out before either side wins? Could this be another Vietnam/Iraq? How does the alliance attack Gaddafi’s troops and tanks – from the air – if they enter suburbs and urban areas. As Dennis Skinner said – in a point accepted by the prime minister – with wars it is “easier to get in than get out“. Or as Emily Thornberry asked: “What would be a successful outcome?” For now the answer of David Cameron – and of a supportive Ed Miliband – it is to uphold the UN resolution which allows the protection of Libyan citizens. That may, in reality, only be phase one.

Rory Stewart, the Tory MP, warned that when you dip your toe into such engagements you can soon become up your neck: ”I think the no-fly zone is the correct thing to do but this is a 20-30 year marathon with a very complicated region,” he said.

Continue reading: “Unease in the Commons as MPs debate Libya action”

Tags: Colonel Gaddafi, french, libya
Posted in Conservatives, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Foreign policy | Permalink

Could a Libya no-fly zone be set up without UN backing?

March 9, 2011 11:56 am by Jim Pickard

Hillary Clinton yesterday signalled that a no-fly zone in Libya should be led by the UN rather than by the US. (“I think it’s very important that it is not a US-led effort because this comes from the people of Libya themselves…We think it is important that the United Nations make that decision.”) The secretary of state clearly does not want it to look as if the US is flexing its muscles unilaterally once again.

The British position is slightly more subtle, however. As the Downing St spokesman said this morning at lobby: “Our position is as set out by the foreign secretary statement; it said we needed international support , a clear trigger and an appropriate legal basis.”

Britain and France are leading efforts to draft a UN resolution to sanction a no-fly zone if conditions worsen in Libya. Yet the spokesman was pressed as to whether “international support” specifically meant a UN resolution – and he refused to say. “It means it should be an appropriate legal basis, we’re taking it step by step,” he said.

That suggests that the no-fly zone could still be co-ordinated via Nato alone, although Turkey – one of its 28 members – has already voiced opposition.#

UPDATE at 6.3opm

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said later on Wednesday that the alliance was not looking to intervene in Libya although its military was ready to respond to any developments at short notice.

Rasmussen said any action would require a clear United Nations mandate and widespread international support. “NATO is not looking to intervene in Libya, but we have asked our military to conduct prudent planning for all eventualities,” Rasmussen told Sky News. So that is somewhat clearer.

Tags: david cameron, libya, nato, No fly zone, UN, United Nations
Posted in David Cameron, Foreign policy, UK politics | Permalink

Would Cameron have done the deal in the desert?

March 1, 2011 3:05 pm by Alex Barker

David Cameron’s opposition to the release of the Lockerbie bomber is plain. But he has a more nuanced position on Tony Blair’s deal to bring Gaddafi in from the cold.

Cameron is privately rather relieved he was spared having to take the decision. From his public statements, it seems he backs the principle behind the pact. But in hindsight he thinks Blair gave a bit too much away.

Cameron says it was “correct to encourage the giving up of weapons of mass destruction, but more parameters should have been put on the relationship”. In other words, this was a problem of execution, not principle. Cameron would have done business with Gaddafi on the right terms.

Now, beyond the Lockerbie issue, what does Cameron see as the shortcomings? He offered his fullest explanation in the Commons on Monday:

If we look at the whole terms of the deal done in the desert, we need to ask ourselves some serious questions about how widely it went and what sort of equipment was involved.

In short, the arms embargo was lifted to early. Given the mayhem we’re witnessing in Libya, this is not a hard conclusion to arrive at. But it does run against the grain of Cameron’s instincts, which are to promote trade and defence sales. If we don’t sell arms to Libya, a less scrupulous countries will — or so the logic goes.

Given the lessons he has drawn from the deal in the desert, Cameron has two options. He will either now adjust his foreign policy to adopt a more cautious approach to selling arms to dictators. Or he will stick to his instincts and just hope that he’s never put in the same position as Blair.

Tags: Arms sales, Colonel Gaddafi, defence, libya
Posted in Conservatives, Foreign policy | Permalink

Five reasons for Cameron to worry about Oman

February 28, 2011 12:33 pm by Alex Barker

A few weeks ago, we asked one senior British government figure whether the uprisings would spread to the Gulf. There are “no problems” yet, he replied.

The language was revealing (when exactly did Britain see democratic change as a problem?) But it is probably to be expected given Britain’s investment in the preserving the regional status-quo.

Take Oman. My colleague Simeon Kerr has a filed a fascinating dispatch from the Omani port where protests have erupted. At least one demonstrator has been killed.

When we passed through the capital Muscat with David Cameron this week, it certainly appeared defiantly placid. But even Oman, a sleepy sultanate on the tip of the Arabian peninsular, seems to have succumbed to the fever reshaping the Middle East.

Now why does this matter for Cameron?

1. A closer ally still: Cameron was embarrassed by the recent crackdown in Bahrain, an old UK friend. Oman is in a higher league — it has the closest diplomatic, security and trade relationship with Britain of any country in the region.

2. A British backed regime: Sultan Qaboos of Oman — a Sandhurst graduate and devotee of Gilbert and Sullivan — overthrew his father and consolidated power with the help of British troops, spies and kit. It remains an absolute monarchy.

3. A friend of the coalition: Cameron has deflected some fallout on Libya because it was Tony Blair who sealed the deal in the desert. Oman, on the other hand, is a coalition priority. William Hague has visited (twice I think). The Queen spent three days in Muscat celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Qaboos reign. Cameron was dining in the sultan’s palace only last week.

4. A friend of the defence industry: British exports include Corvettes (the so-called Omani frigate), hawk jets, Lynx helicopters, Challenger tanks…the list goes on. Oman has also promised to buy some Eurofighter Typhoons. The MoD was so sure the deal was going ahead, it cunningly booked £400m of proceeds, before Oman paid a penny.

5. A friend of the British military: There’s a strong presence in Oman. The most visible are the RAF personal based there as part of the “air-bridge” to Afghanistan. But there is also a lot more activity below the radar.

Tags: British foreign policy, Middle East, Oman, Sultan Qaboos, The Gulf
Posted in Coalition, Conservatives, David Cameron, Foreign policy | Permalink

Mandelson: Gamal Mubarak a “leading” reformer

February 2, 2011 7:40 pm by Alex Barker

Lord Mandelson has never been one to shy away from defending doomed politicians.

But it was still a surprise to see him riding to the support of reformers within the Mubarak regime — not least the president’s son Gamal.

In a fascinating letter to the FT, Mandelson argues that it is too “simplistic” to cast Gamal Mubarak as the “putative beneficiary of a nepotistic transfer of family power, the continuation of ‘tyranny’ with a change of faces at the top”.

He warns that this diverts attention from the hidebound military and intelligence service figures who are really exercising control behind the scenes.

These security forces, he says, have been engaged in a tug of war with Gamal — a man who “has been the leading voice in favour of change within the government and the ruling party”.

An “orderly transition” (did he ever use that phrase about Gordon Brown?) should involve forging an alliance between secular opposition figures and reformers like Gamal in the government, he adds.

The letter is in full below. Well worth a read. I’m not sure how much support it would garner on the streets of Cairo. But it certainly shows that Mandelson still has an appetite for unpopular causes.

Continue reading: “Mandelson: Gamal Mubarak a “leading” reformer”

Tags: Egypt, Gamal Mubarak, Hosni Mubarak, Lord Mandelson, Revolution
Posted in Foreign policy, Labour, UK politics | Permalink

The world viewed from Westminster

February 2, 2011 11:25 am by Jo Johnson

How does the world look from Westminster? Foreign policy is woefully under-scrutinised in the UK, where governments can wage war and sign treaties without reference to parliament, and the limited attention it does receive could arguably be better directed. One way to assess the prism through which MPs view the world is to analyse the slot for foreign office questions, which comes around only once every five sitting weeks and lasts about an hour. To judge from the map generated by the questions that MPs have managed to put to Foreign and Commonwealth Office ministers since the general election, their concerns bear curiously little relation to the way the world is moving.

Continue reading: “The world viewed from Westminster”

Tags: China, india
Posted in Europe, Foreign policy, UK politics | Permalink

Live blog, part 2: Blair at the Iraq inquiry

January 21, 2011 12:46 pm by Alex Barker

Welcome back. The FT’s Westminster team is reporting live on former prime minister Tony Blair’s appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war. This post will automatically refresh every three minutes, although it may take longer on mobile devices.

Read our earlier post here.

1411 Details are emerging from the room. The atmosphere was obviously more fraught than it appeared on telly. The mood changed as soon as Blair started talking tough on Iran. People began to fidget more and sigh. Then when Blair expressed regrets about the loss of life in Iraq, a woman shouted: “Well stop trying to kill them.” Two women stood up and walked out; another audience member turned her back on Blair and faced the wall. As Blair began to leave the room, one audience member shouted “It is too late”, another said “he’ll never look us in the eye”. Then Rose Gentle, who lost her son in Iraq,delivered the final blow. “Your lies killed my son,” she said. “I hope you can live with it.”

1402 That’s it folks. We’re winding up. Chilcot has thanked the audience. A calmer and slightly more contrite performance from Tony Blair, but no less assured than his first appearance before the inquiry. The main difference has been the Chilcot panel’s approach — much more detailed questions, much more forensic and at times incredibly boring. They are clearly close to the end of writing the report and are relatively settled on the conclusions, which will not make pleasant reading for Blair.

Continue reading: “Live blog, part 2: Blair at the Iraq inquiry”

Tags: Iraq Inquiry, Tony Blair
Posted in Foreign policy, UK politics | Permalink

Live blog: Blair at the Iraq inquiry

January 21, 2011 8:48 am by Jim Pickard

Good morning. The Westminster team is reporting live on former prime minister Tony Blair’s appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.

12.30: We are now taking another coffee break. Alex will be your host when delivery returns in about 10 minutes’ time. You’ll need to go back to ft.com/westminster and open a new window – ie Iraq inquiry part two.

In the meantime here are some quotes from this morning’s inquiry which will no doubt make the news later.

* Blair told his chief of staff a year before the war with Iraq that the UK “should be gung-ho on Saddam”.

* “Up to September 11, we had been managing this issue. After September 11, we decided we had to confront and change.”

* “There are people who say that extremism can be managed. I personally don’t think that’s true.”

* On his Iraq policy in 2002: “I wasn’t keeping my options open. I was setting out a policy that was very very clear.”

* He said the cabinet was aware of his policy: “Go down UN route, get an ultimatum. If he fails to take the ultimatum, we’re going to be with America on military action.”

* “We were probably the most successful centre left government in the world.”

* “I was raising issues to do with Somalia…the Middle East peace process…Lebanon. My view was that this was all part of one issue, in the end. You couldn’t deal with it sequentially.”

* The nature of Saddam’s regime in Iraq was not a justification for going to war – “but it is why we should be proud to have got rid of him”.

* “I didn’t see September 11 as an attack on America, I saw it as an attack on us – the West. I told George Bush – ‘Whatever the political heat, if I think this is the right thing to do, I’m going to be with you.’”

* “When the military pressure was off, he was going to be back, and with far more money. If we had left Saddam there, I think it’s arguable he might have been developing in competition with Iran.”

12.25: Blair has argued that he wanted to get a majority of the UN security council, even if he could not get unanimous support. Sir Lawrence Freedman asked if Blair stopped the UN weapons inspection process just at the crucial point when it was starting to reap dividends. Blair sidesteps the question, saying Saddam was “back to his old games”. Freedman ponders whether a few more weeks may have made a difference?

Blair says Saddam may have made a few more concessions but his overall stance would not have changed – it was still a mistake to leave the dictator in place, he insists.

Continue reading: “Live blog: Blair at the Iraq inquiry”

Tags: Iraq Inquiry, Tony Blair
Posted in Foreign policy, UK politics | Permalink

Europe needs a gamechanger

December 1, 2010 4:39 pm by Jo Johnson

As it’s prediction season, here goes… My crystal ball, for what it is worth, foretells political and economic union between France and Germany, perhaps within the next 12-24 months. Europe needs a gamechanger, one that creates an insurmountable firebreak against the speculators. Crises have historically been the motor of European integration and a full union, much like the panicky one Britain offered France in June 1940, might look tempting. It would provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies, finally fulfilling the founding fathers’ dream of “ever closer union”.

Continue reading: “Europe needs a gamechanger”

Tags: Euro
Posted in Europe, Foreign policy | Permalink

From beyondbrics: News and views on emerging markets November 25, 2010

The big question: should the UK cut aid to India?

Here the FT’s South Asia bureau chief discusses the UK’s aid policy in India. What do you think David Cameron’s government should do? Join the debate in the comments section.

Sixty years after granting independence to India, the UK is weighing whether India is a worthy recipient of its aid programme. Once the largest single recipient of British foreign aid, the country has developed so rapidly in recent years that some in prime minister David Cameron’s government think it could be time to cut off India and channel the money to poorer countries, mainly in Africa.

Continue reading: “The big question: should the UK cut aid to India?”

Tags: india
Posted in David Cameron, Foreign policy | Permalink

Did Paul Wolfowitz coin “hard-headed internationalism”?

November 16, 2010 2:15 pm by Alex Barker

It has been widely noted that David Cameron pinched a soundbite from Gordon Brown in his Guildhall speech on Monday night. Hard-headed internationalism, it seems, is good enough for two British prime ministers.

But who was the first to coin the phrase? Who created the “hard-headed internationalist”?

This may come as a bit of a surprise to Brown and Cameron, but I think it was Paul Wolfowitz, the neo-con former US deputy defence secretary.

An interview Wolfowitz gave to the Washington Post, soon after the invasion of Iraq, is the first mention of “hard-headed internationalism” in the Factiva database:

After serving at the Pentagon during the Carter administration, Wolfowitz remained a registered Democrat until he joined the Reagan administration as head of policy planning at the State Department.

He said it was not he who changed his political philosophy so much as the Democratic Party, which abandoned the hard-headed internationalism of Harry Truman, Kennedy and Jackson.