Tag Archives: international

Christian de Vartavan

Time for the UK to engage with Europe on AI sovereignty

By Christian de Vartavan | Wed 20th May 2026 - 10:25 am

On Monday evening, a major evidence session of the House of Lords APPG on Artificial Intelligence — of which I am an associate — took place, where it became clear that the question of British and European AI sovereignty is no longer an abstract policy debate but is rapidly becoming a central political priority.

The session, organised by the Big Innovation Centre under Professor Birgitte Andersen and chaired by Lord Tim Clement-Jones, brought together policymakers, academics and industry leaders to confront a stark reality: the UK is too dependent on foreign — particularly American — AI infrastructure, platforms and large language models. This dependence carries significant implications for economic resilience, strategic autonomy and long-term technological capability.

A significant contribution came from Josephine Kant of the newly established UK Government AI Sovereign Fund, an initiative designed to strengthen Britain’s strategic autonomy in AI. Its creation signals a broader shift in thinking — away from the assumption that global markets alone will deliver resilient technological ecosystems, and towards a recognition that public policy must play a more active role in shaping critical infrastructure.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , and | 2 Comments
Mo Waqas

The Falklands are under threat again and we can’t rely on America to save us

By Mo Waqas | Sun 26th April 2026 - 8:30 am

I’ll be honest. When I first started researching hypersonic missiles and the Falkland Islands, it felt like a subject more suited to a defence think-tank than a Lib Dem blog. But the events of the past 48 hours have changed my mind and I think they should change yours too.

Argentine President Javier Milei has declared that he is doing “everything humanly possible” to return the Falklands to Argentine hands. That alone would be manageable. What is far more alarming is the backdrop: a leaked Pentagon memo has proposed withdrawing American diplomatic support for British sovereignty over the islands as punishment, apparently, for Britain’s refusal to participate in US strikes against Iran. In a single week, the two pillars Britain has traditionally leaned on: the Special Relationship and Argentine diplomatic restraint have both wobbled badly.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe in the rule of law, self-determination, and the rights of people to choose their own future. In 2013, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted to remain British. That democratic mandate is beyond question. Our obligation to defend those 3,200 people is not optional, it is constitutional and moral. But right now, I am not convinced we have the tools to do it quickly enough.

Here is the uncomfortable truth about our current Falklands garrison. RAF Mount Pleasant hosts between 1,000 and 2,000 personnel, just four Typhoon fighters, Sky Sabre air defence batteries, and a single patrol vessel. It is a holding force brave and professional, but not one designed to resist a determined modern assault alone. In 1982, Argentina invaded partly because a token garrison and the rumoured withdrawal of HMS Endurance convinced Buenos Aires that Britain wouldn’t or couldn’t respond. We must never allow that miscalculation again.

The problem is geography and time. A carrier strike group sailing from Portsmouth takes approximately 15 days to reach the South Atlantic, travelling around 500 miles a day. In those 15 days, our small garrison is essentially on its own. That is the window any adversary would exploit.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 19 Comments
Caron Lindsay

Updated: Should Lib Dems change our line on Trump?

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 8th April 2026 - 9:25 am

So, we can breathe again. For a few days at least.

But it’s more likely than not that we will be back up at the top of this hill again in a fortnight.

And if Trump’s behaviour over the tariffs is repeated, he’ll up the ante with even more offensive language and we’ll go from deadline to deadline.

To see the leader of the free world openly threatening genocide (“A civilisation will die tonight”) and war crimes attacking civilian infrastructure was horrifying.

The bit that made me gulp was when the White House denied that he was planning to use nuclear weapons. I lived through a fair chunk of the Cold War. I was too young for the existential terror of the Cuban Missile Crisis but I never felt that we were likely to experience the Four Minute Warning imminently however frightening the Protect and Survive videos were.

I’m wondering if the Lib Dems should develop what we are saying in response to a President who is threatening the unthinkable. Ed Davey could never be accused of being timid on Trump but our response to his expletive laden rant on Easter Sunday was two days late and issued at pretty much the same time as the Labour Government announced it would do as we were asking.

UPDATE: I have had my wrist slapped for the above for missing Ed’s comment put out on social media on Sunday evening so it is only fair to add it in here.

Should we be calling for the US Ambassador to be dragged in to Downing Street and given an absolute carpetting? Should we not be calling for the UK Government to introduce a whole list of sanctions, in concert with our European partners, if Trump goes any further? The US is a rogue state now and should be treated like one.

We should certainly renew our calls for the King’s State visit to the States at the end of this month to be at the very least postponed. It would not be a good look for our head of state to be receiving hospitality at potentially the same time as Trump is threatening or even committing war crimes?

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , , and | 10 Comments
Jack Meredith

In response to Dominic Rider: confederation is comfort, federalism is capability

By Jack Meredith | Wed 28th January 2026 - 12:40 pm

Dominic Rider is right about the moment we are in. The transatlantic guarantee is wobbling; Europe is being reminded, again, that dependence is not a strategy. When Washington treats alliances as transactional, Europeans either grow up fast or get pushed around slowly. The Liberal Democrats should say what comes next.

Where I part company with Dominic is on the destination. He argues for “confederation, not a superstate”. That contrast misses the real problem. Europe already exercises power: the single market sets rules, sanctions shape foreign policy, and standards shape economies. The question is not whether Europe will have power; it is whether that power is democratically governed and has clear lines of responsibility.

A confederation keeps the fog. It offers reassurance, but it leaves the constitutional flaw untouched: paralysis. Dominic is right that unanimity lets one government block action. Qualified majority voting helps, but procedure alone will not fix a system designed to avoid clarity. A Europe that wants to act like a strategic player needs institutions built for action, not for reassuring capitals.

Federalism is the democratic solution. A federal United States of Europe is not the abolition of nations; it is the constitutional ordering of shared power. It means voters can see who governs, what they control, and how to change course. That is not a “superstate”. It is power placed under law, limited by a written settlement, and answerable to citizens.

The principle is simple: do together what must be done together; keep the rest close to home. Defence, trade, external borders, major infrastructure, and climate commitments belong at the federal level because they are cross-border by nature. Taxation, welfare, health, education, culture, and constitutional arrangements should remain national, devolved, or local because diversity is a strength. Subsidiarity should not be a slogan; it should be enforceable.

Defence is the acid test. Pooled procurement is valuable, but deterrence cannot rest on voluntary top-ups and ad hoc deals that unravel whenever politics shift. If Europeans want strategic autonomy, they need a single security actor: capability planning that matches threats, industrial scale to reduce duplication, and a chain of command that is democratically accountable. Committees do not deter revisionist powers; credible forces and clear commitments do.

The “superstate” fear is real, but it is misaimed. What people resent is unaccountable decision-making. The EU already has a far-reaching influence, just in a hybrid form where citizens struggle to “throw the rascals out”. Federalism does not add power for fun; it puts existing power under democratic control, clarifies competencies, and makes responsibility legible.

That is also the British opportunity. Public opinion has shifted; more voters now believe Brexit was a mistake. Yet that sentiment will remain politically inert unless someone offers a serious answer to the next question: rejoin to do what? Labour treats Europe as a problem to be managed, not an opportunity to be seized. Conservatives are trapped by their own coalition. The Liberal Democrats have the freedom, and the duty, to lead.

But leading means more than tiptoeing back into yesterday’s Europe. People can smell timidity. They will not rally to “rejoin, but change nothing”. A federal programme is clearer: Britain should return to help build a Europe that can defend itself, compete economically, and uphold liberal values, not just with speeches.

So what should Liberal Democrats argue for? Treaty reform towards a constitutional settlement: an elected European executive accountable to an elected parliament; a senate of states to protect national voice through transparent votes; majority decision-making where collective action is required; and hard subsidiarity so everything not explicitly federal stays closer to the citizen. That is how you make European power democratic.

Continue reading »
Posted in Europe / International and Op-eds | Also tagged | 12 Comments
Edward Marsh

Securing the United Kingdom in a changing world: Why Mark Carney was right at Davos.

By Edward Marsh | Wed 28th January 2026 - 11:10 am

In a world still reeling from rapid geopolitical shifts, the question of national security and strategic autonomy has never been more pressing for the United Kingdom. The post-Second World War era of a relatively stable, rules-based international order – underpinned by multilateral institutions, shared norms, and strong Western alliances – is being challenged on multiple fronts. Nowhere was this tension clearer than in Mark Carney’s landmark address at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, where he delivered a stark analysis of the changing global order and what it means for middle powers like the UK.

Carney’s central thesis was that the international system is not merely evolving – it is rupturing. For decades, the UK, alongside its allies, benefited from what was labelled a rules-based order: predictable trade, collective security, open sea-lanes, and multilateral dispute resolution. But that era is increasingly giving way to a world dominated by great power rivalry and economic coercion. According to Carney, we are now in “the midst of a rupture, not a transition” – a point that resonates as global leaders grapple with the reality of a more volatile geopolitical landscape.

This rupture is characterised by powerful states leveraging economic integration as a strategic tool and weapon — using tariffs, supply-chain dependencies, financial infrastructure, and energy ties to bend smaller partners to their aims. Carney warned that continuing to rely on outdated assumptions of mutual benefit is no longer tenable when integration itself can become a source of subordination.

Much of the backdrop to Carney’s analysis is the reality of the international leadership exerted by the United States under President Donald Trump, whose policies have unsettled long-standing diplomatic norms. Trump’s aggressive trade stance – including tariff threats tied to strategic interests such as Greenland – and his readiness to prioritise unilateral action over multilateral cooperation have highlighted the fragility of previous assumptions about Western unity.

While Carney refrained from naming Trump directly in his speech, the subtext was unmistakable: the security environment that the UK has long relied upon – anchored by predictable American leadership – is no longer guaranteed. The UK can no longer take for granted that allies will act within established norms or that economic integration will safeguard its interests.

What this means for the UK and for us as Liberal Democrats

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , , and | 1 Comment
Simon Robinson

International law is broken

By Simon Robinson | Wed 14th January 2026 - 11:18 am

This week’s reports of Iranian security forces machine-gunning down scores of unarmed protestors, apparently including children and teenagers must surely strike a chill in the heart of any liberal.  How can this be allowed to happen in the 21st Century? Meanwhile, the US military action in Venezuela has attracted widespread condemnation as a breach of International Law, despite Maduro’s Government being widely recognised as authoritarian and morally illegitimate.

In moral terms, the Iranian regime is little different from a bunch of criminal thugs with guns, killing whomever they please. But in International Law, they are the legitimate Government (largely by virtue of, they are the ones who managed to seize control in the country), and therefore international law sides with the thugs, not with the people being killed.  Just as on the other side of the World in Venezuela, International law condemns the removal of a dictator who has driven a quarter of his own people into exile as refugees!

Why is this? Well, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter enshrines a near-absolute prohibition on the use of force, subject only to self-defence or Security Council authorisation, which is next to impossible to achieve under the veto system. It’s written that way because it’s designed to stop tanks crossing borders: to prevent wars between nations, reflecting the concerns of the 1940s, rather than to protect people from trigger-happy governments. The unfortunate upshot is that when a state massacres its own citizens, international law permits other states to do little more than investigate or condemn. And mere condemnation is impotence if the law does not permit any action that might actually be effective in protecting the people being massacred.

Worse still, the Security Council veto system is no accident. It was deliberately designed to give a handful of powerful states permanent control over when international law is enforced, thereby protecting the interests of those states.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 6 Comments
Vince Cable

Vince Cable writes….Tech and Trump

By Vince Cable | Wed 7th January 2026 - 11:55 am

The British government has been scrambling to keep up with the outrageous behaviour of the rogue superstate which happens to be our main ally and with which we claim to have a ‘special relationship’. Keir Starmer says that he had no warning of the attack on Venezuela which suggests that he has clean hands but no influence. 

A subject much closer to Britain’s long term vital interests are forthcoming negotiations with the Trump Administration on technology. These talks will determine whether Britain is to be a digital and AI colony or retains some vestiges of sovereignty.

They affect our freedom to levy taxes.  They affect our freedom to manage the flow of sewage contained in social media content being defended as ‘free speech’. They complicate any move to realign regulations with the EU. Furthermore, the allegiance of the leading tech companies to the Trump Administration makes any commercial deal highly political. And geo-political too since we are being pressed to choose between the two superpowers.

The pending negotiations build on the Economic Prosperity Deal under which the USA agreed to reduce Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs to the baseline 10% (rather than the EU’s 15%) in return for various UK concessions. One concession was accepting a ‘poison pill’ limiting agreements with ‘non-market’ economies (ie China). 

The next stage is a Technology Prosperity Deal which promises more digital infrastructure investment in the UK in return for more UK concessions on policy. The USA objects to the UK 2% digital sales tax and to the UK On-line Safety Act which is said unfairly to constrain US AI companies. Other irritants have included British demands under the Investigatory Powers Act, for Apple to break its end-to-end encryption.

Britain has a high dependence on US tech companies. Britain’s digital economy accounts for around 13% of GDP (manufacturing is around 9%). The digital economy in turn depends largely on the platforms and services of US tech companies.  The new growth area is AI where US companies also dominate.

Dependence stems from the power of the algorithms used by the tech companies which can be manipulated to slant output to serve the interests of owners or the ideological prejudices of the Trump administration. The opaque decision-making processes of AI make subtle manipulation easier. The sheer complexity of AI also makes it easier to lock users into platforms which then become embedded and difficult to replace. 

In principle, users have the option of using competitive alternatives which, in practice, are Chinese: platforms like Alibaba or Deep Seek for AI. But Chinese companies have difficulty meeting privacy regulations; and there are security and geo-political concerns. In any event the UK has already conceded to the USA an effective veto over Chinese involvement. 

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 4 Comments
Tanya Park

The UK must not be Trump’s unwitting accomplice in dangerous escalation

By Tanya Park | Wed 7th January 2026 - 10:25 am

Over the past week, something alarming has been unfolding at British airbases. At least ten US C-17 cargo aircraft, two AC-130 gunships, and specialised intelligence aircraft have arrived at RAF Fairford and RAF Mildenhall, with reports suggesting elite special operations helicopters may also be present. This isn’t routine. The timing, immediately following Trump’s Venezuela operation, raises urgent questions about what Britain is facilitating from our soil.

Ed Davey has rightly described Nicolás Maduro as “a brutal and illegitimate dictator” – but the Liberal Democrat leader also warned that “unlawful attacks jeopardise safety for all.” That second part is crucial. Trump’s pattern of unauthorised military strikes, over 626 in his first year back in office, now includes capturing a foreign head of state and bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. Now, US forces are staging from British soil for what appears to be their next operation: boarding a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic.

The Marinera is part of a shadow fleet transporting sanctioned oil. Intelligence suggests Venezuelan officials discussed placing armed personnel and air defence systems on tankers. This isn’t routine; it’s a potential armed confrontation with a Russian-flagged vessel that could spark US-Russia military conflict, staged from UK bases.

Trump’s dangerous pattern

This buildup follows an established pattern. Similar deployments from Fort Campbell preceded Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted over 626 airstrikes in one year, with no Congressional notification, no alliance consultation, and no plan for consequences. The Venezuela operation exemplifies this: a regime change operation disguised as an arrest warrant, while his administration told Congress it wasn’t about regime change.

Starmer’s response has been inadequate. The UK offers only “cautious” reactions while providing infrastructure and diplomatic cover, with no real veto or meaningful consultation.

The risks are immediate. If this tanker boarding becomes violent, if Russian crew members are killed, we face a US-Russia confrontation. Russia will claim piracy and may retaliate with cyber attacks or naval harassment. Because operations launch from British bases, we become implicated in an escalation we neither chose nor control.

Trump’s contempt for the democratic process is clear. When he bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, only Republicans received advance notice. For Venezuela, no lawmakers were notified. Why would Britain expect better treatment than America’s own Congress?

Where Liberal Democrats stand

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 16 Comments
Jack Meredith

The liberal order is not defended by manners; it is defended by resolve 

By Jack Meredith | Wed 7th January 2026 - 8:55 am

On 4 April 1949, 12 nations signed a treaty to establish collective security, combat totalitarianism, and strengthen transatlantic ties: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. That treaty came to be known as the North Atlantic Treaty, now more commonly known as NATO. 

Now, 77 years later, that same alliance is under threat. The United States of America, under the rule of Donald Trump, is threatening to take control of Greenland, while US officials have refused to rule out military action. 

This is truly the darkest timeline. NATO was established to maintain security across the Atlantic and strengthen the ties that bind us. However, Trump has made clear that those ties are not just weak but completely obliterated, existing only when the price is right for Trump and his cronies. 

Trump’s refusal to respect sovereignty and international law must be a wake-up call for those who have comforted themselves with the idea that he “would never do anything to us”. He already targets our institutions, strong-arming the NHS into a deal that would raise the price the NHS pays for new medicines by 25%, and carrying out funding cuts, leading some UK universities to cancel research projects due to his “assault on science“. 

This is Trump toting his soft power. He is showing us “this is what I can do without raising a finger”. His approach to Ukraine, his attack on Venezuela, his military threats against Denmark are overt displays of his hard power; pulling military support, carrying out invasions and claiming dominion over an entire nation, and then willing threaten further military action against an ally, it all adds up to the same conclusion: Donald Trump does not care about international law, and Donald Trump will not stop until his vision is achieved. 

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 3 Comments
Mo Waqas

When the world’s policeman goes rogue

By Mo Waqas | Sun 4th January 2026 - 6:55 am

I was delivering care early one morning when the radio cut through the routine. The BBC was reporting that Donald Trump had authorised direct military action in Venezuela, framing it as a decisive move to remove the tyrant Nicolás Maduro from power.

I won’t pretend to shed tears for Maduro. He has spent years hollowing out democracy, crushing opposition, and driving millions of Venezuelans into poverty and exile. But geopolitics isn’t a boxing ring where the loudest punch wins. It’s more like a line of dominoes: once the first falls, you don’t get to choose how the rest collapse.

When the world’s hegemon decides it can cross borders using “security threats” as justification, it lowers the bar for everyone else. If Washington can point to Venezuelan cartels near its borders, what stops Beijing pointing to “anti-CCP agitation” in Taiwan? What stops Moscow, again, from insisting Ukraine is merely a defensive necessity?

This is how small justifications become big wars. History is littered with leaders who said, “Just this once.”

Trump presents himself as a peacemaker. He boasts of being the “peace president”, even claiming credit for preventing nuclear war between India and Pakistan. But that reveals a shallow understanding of reality. India and Pakistan have been nuclear powers since the late 1990s. They endured an eight-month military standoff in 2002, the Mumbai attacks in 2008, and repeated border crises since none escalated to nuclear war because both sides understand what mutual annihilation actually means. Nuclear deterrence is not Trump’s personal achievement; it’s grim arithmetic.

And the optics matter, because Trump is not governing from a position of strength. His approval rating sits in the low-to-mid 40% range, with disapproval consistently higher. When domestic legitimacy weakens, foreign “strength” often becomes political theatre the strongman equivalent of waving a flag to distract from cracks at home.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 4 Comments
Jack Meredith

Berlin reminded me how loud we must be for Ukraine

By Jack Meredith | Wed 3rd December 2025 - 11:55 am

Large billboard expressing solidarity UkraineFrom last Wednesday to Sunday, I visited Berlin with my girlfriend. From the museums and Christmas markets to the people and the general atmosphere, I loved it, reminding me why we must seek to rejoin the EU as soon as possible.

But one thing that struck me, almost immediately, was the continued and vocal support for Ukraine in its fight to defend itself against Russian imperialism. From the moment I stepped out of my hotel, which was only a stone’s throw away from the Checkpoint Charlie Museum, the support was evident. A huge Ukrainian flag adorned the top half of the museum, with a message of support in both English and Ukrainian emblazoned across it, while the Soviet Flag Was wrapped up, and the NATO, US, British and French flags flew.

Christmas tree with Ukraine flags instead of baublesAround the corner, there stood a mural for all to see, condemning the political prisoners Russia has taken hostage, along with the Christmas tree sat outside the museum, adorned with Ukrainian flags.

On every lamppost, there were “Slava Ukraini” stickers. On our first night in the city, we saw a man carrying a flagpole with a Ukrainian flag at the end. Government buildings flew the Ukrainian flag. Museums had fundraisers for Ukraine. The general mood wasn’t one of fatigue or apathy, but anger towards Russia for its attack, and hope for Ukraine’s victory. It was inspiring, to say the least.

No doubt, someone will point out that, while admirable, this was only one city out of an entire country and may not reflect the general mood across Germany. But regardless, it stirred in me a sense of frustration with our country’s lack of continued enthusiasm for supporting Ukraine. There will be many reasons for this, and I imagine some will revolve around difficult personal circumstances relating to the cost-of-living crisis, which will no doubt leave no time to worry about anything else – and that is understandable.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 17 Comments
Lord William Wallace

Are we witnessing the end of Britain’s ‘special relationship’ with the US

By Lord William Wallace | Sun 30th November 2025 - 9:14 am

Ever since 1941 the fundamental assumption of British foreign policy has been that the ‘special relationship’ with the USA is the foundation of our international security and status.  Winston Churchill reimagined Britain as America’s ‘Ango-Saxon’ partner, and as ‘the bridge’ between North America and continental Europe.  Huge numbers of US forces were based in Britain during the war; 10,000 US personnel, in several USAF airbases and intelligence stations, still remain.  Access to US intelligence, nuclear missiles and defence technology is crucial to our defence and security.  The UK has of course become more and more the junior partner in the relationship, but still – policy-makers have argued – sufficiently valuable to Washington to continue to give us privileged status.

What if the special relationship is now over?  President Trump has said he looks forward to Germany becoming the leading power within NATO.  London has been left as much in the dark on Trump’s latest plan for Ukraine as Paris, Berlin and Rome.  Several generations after the shared experience of World War Two that created the special relationship, fewer and fewer Americans (in an increasingly diverse society) see themselves as part of an Anglo-Saxon world or feel any particular affection for Britain.  

Trump, Vance and others on the hard right see Britain as a territory to be gained, a country to be converted to their vision of free market capitalism and ‘Christian nationalism.’  Money flows into Britain from US foundations promoting ‘traditional values’ and patriarchal society.  The US ambassador in London intervenes in public procurement decisions to protest that our government ought to favour US companies.  But there’s little sense of partnership, only repeated denigration of today’s British society and liberal values.

Tony Blair saw Britain as America’s privileged partner because we also played a leading role in Europe.  Boris Johnson fantasised that we could regain a global role without Europe, only to find that we could not even send a carrier task force to the Pacific without support from other navies.  The UK outside the EU remains of some importance to the USA, if we dared to remind Washington.  We’ve just agreed to pay Mauritius £100m a year for the US base on Diego Garcia.  The US benefits from intelligence stations and access to bases in the UK, Cyprus, Ascension Island and beyond.  But US Administrations focussed on China and Latin America place less value on the sharing of other global assets.  ‘America First’ advocates on the right of the MAGA movement are now denigrating Winston Churchill as a warmonger, who took the USA into war in Europe when he should have made peace with Germany.  Even if the Democrats regain control of the Presidency this isolationist resurgence will block a return to Atlantic cooperation.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 21 Comments
Sean Bennett

The world sees us as leaders on trans rights. How can we be getting this so wrong at home?

By Sean Bennett | Thu 30th October 2025 - 8:55 am

Of all the topics that my first Lib Dem voice article might have been about, I never dreamed it would have to be this one. 

The recent change, during an election, of our party’s diversity quotas is nothing short of shameful. The decision itself is abominable, the manner in which it was taken was disingenuous, the announcement was cowardly, and the justifications have been fundamentally flawed.

There are many authors on this site and members in our party who are trans or non-binary, and their opinions and thoughts on this situation should carry far more weight than mine. However, in the light of this newest betrayal when it comes to the rights of our trans and non-binary siblings, there sprung up a fundamental contradiction in our party that I felt required sharing.

Many of our sister parties around the world look to the Liberal Democrats as torchbearers on matters of LGBTQ+ rights. On the world stage, we are seen as being among the most progressive, the most committed, and the most forward looking on these issues. Indeed, colleagues from around the world have, and continue to, actively look to us for advice and guidance on these matters, believing our positions to be the standard to which many wish their own parties would hold themselves.

Yet, lately, the gulf between the way we are seen by our international friends and the reality of our party here at home seems to be widening.

One of my first experiences representing the Liberal Democrats was on bilateral trip to Finland. The youth wing of one of our sister parties there had invited the Young Liberals to come and advise them on how to improve their policy on trans rights in the face of the prevailing laws at the time, which were draconian.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 5 Comments
Mo Waqas

When barbarism knocks on your door: why the Taliban must be confronted, not tolerated

By Mo Waqas | Thu 16th October 2025 - 8:55 am

I can’t watch what’s happening on the Pakistan–Afghanistan border without feeling both anger and heartbreak. Anger at the Taliban a barbaric force that has dragged an entire nation back to the Middle Ages and heartbreak for the innocent people who will pay the price of yet another war they didn’t start.

It’s 2025, yet in Afghanistan, women are being treated worse than cattle. The Taliban’s idea of governance is to lock women indoors and call it “virtue.” They’ve banned girls from secondary school and university, stopped women from working, and ordered that no woman can travel without a male guardian. In July this year, dozens of young women were arrested in Kabul for wearing colourful clothes. Their so-called “vice police” humiliate and beat them for what they wear. The United Nations calls this gender apartheid and it’s hard to argue with that.

Nearly eight out of ten young Afghan women are excluded from education, jobs, or training. Hospitals are turning away female patients who come alone. Pregnant women die because they’re not allowed to travel without a man.

And now this tyranny is spilling over into Pakistan. In October 2025, heavy fighting broke out along the frontier in Kurram and Chaman. Pakistan says 23 of its soldiers were killed when Taliban-linked fighters attacked border posts. The Taliban claim they’ve killed 58 Pakistanis in return. Whatever the truth, one thing is certain civilians are dying on both sides.

Markets have shut. Villages are emptying. Families are fleeing through the night. Those who can’t escape huddle in their homes, praying the next shell doesn’t land on them.

But I understand why Pakistan has lost its patience. For years, militants based in Afghanistan particularly the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) have terrorised Pakistani towns and cities. I’ll never forget the images from Peshawar in 2014, when 132 schoolchildren were murdered by the TTP. Or the mosque bombing in 2023 that killed 84 police officers during prayer. Just a few months ago, in June 2025, a suicide bomber in Mir Ali killed 16 soldiers and injured dozens more. Pakistan’s critics often forget: this is a country that’s buried tens of thousands of its own citizens because of terrorism.

But I’ll be honest Pakistan helped create this monster too. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, its generals thought they could use the Taliban as “strategic depth” against India. They armed them, trained them, and looked the other way as extremists spread. Western governments, including our own, played along during the Cold War. We all did this. And now, the same monster we fed has turned on its maker.

Continue reading »
Posted in Europe / International and Op-eds | Also tagged and | 1 Comment
Lord William Wallace

William Wallace writes: The leader of the illiberal world is visiting Britain

By Lord William Wallace | Mon 15th September 2025 - 11:55 am

Trump’s state visit will throw a harsh light on the links between the American and British right.  Proponents of Brexit sought to protect our sovereignty against continental Europeans, but have always been ready to follow the United States.  Daniel Hannan’s book, ‘How We Invented Freedom and Why it Matters’ (2013) proclaimed the supremacy of the English-speaking peoples and the inferiority of others. Nigel Farage is almost as often in Washington as in Westminster. Those around Trump see Britain as a country that ought to be like their America, and that they plan to recapture for their version of freedom.

Much of the right-wing press and its comment contributors are far more familiar with Washington think tanks and American conferences than with political currents in any part of Europe. Climate change denialism, opposition to diversity programmes, dismissal of liberalism in all its aspects, blind faith in lower taxes and fewer public services, all flow across the Atlantic from West to East.  Finance also flows, into the right-wing think-tanks of Tufton Street and other anti-liberal bodies.  Charlie Kirk (sadly now shot in Utah) founded Turning Point UK in 2018 to extend his well-funded campaign to recapture American universities from the ‘liberal elite’ to British campuses.  British politicians and conservative intellectuals are invited to National Conservative conferences; American anti-abortionists train British activists.    Paul Marshall’s ‘Alliance for Responsible Citizenship’ brings together likeminded anti-liberals from across the English-speaking world, with prominent Republicans and hard-right Americans among its speakers.  J. D. Vance’s visit to the Cotswolds this summer, where he met with several of Britain’s leading right-wing figures, showed that the American new right see Britain as part of their natural territory.

An extraordinary Op-ed in the Times on September 8th, by a British journalist – Dominic Green – who writes for the Spectator as well as the Wall Street Journal, set out the US Right’s approach to their ‘special relationship’ with Britain.  ‘The frontier of the American empire is hardening as an economic, military and digital frontier.  America expects Britain to do its duty and remain inside it.’   He reports ‘the view, now unanimous on the American right, that Britain is an accelerated case study in the willed decline of the West. … ‘The Americans cannot afford to lose Britain.  That means they must pressure Britain into line, not just with Trump’s open disapproval at a press conference but by withholding intelligence or slow-walking economic preference.’

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 6 Comments
Mo Waqas

Remembering my Nana: War, partition, and the case for peace

By Mo Waqas | Sun 7th September 2025 - 10:43 am

Picture of Subidar Major Choudry Sikander KhanMy grandfather my Nana Subidar Major Choudry Sikander Khan, was born in 1925 in a small village called Kotha Gujjaran, in what was then British India. Our family belong to the Gujjar community, a community known for two things: dairy farming and joining the army. For generations, these paths defined who we were: tending buffalo in the fields, or carrying a rifle on the front lines.

My Nana embodied that tradition. He served in the army with courage and discipline, fighting not just in the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, but also in the 1947 conflict that came with Partition, and again in 1971. Before him, his own uncle had worn the uniform of the British Indian Army and fought in the Second World War, in Burma. Ours is a family, like many from Punjab, that has spilt blood in the name of causes decided far from the villages where they were born.

When Partition came in 1947, it tore Punjab in two. It was not just a cartographer’s line it was, as historians have rightly called it, a bloody line. Millions were uprooted. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs neighbours for centuries suddenly found themselves enemies overnight. Entire trains of refugees crossed the new borders, and too often, those trains arrived full of corpses. The soil of Punjab is rich, but it is also heavy with the weight of that blood.

Kashmir too became, and remains, a wound. A valley of beauty turned into a permanent battlefield. My Nana and so many others were sent to defend or reclaim a line on a map. Young men were told to fight and die, while politicians and generals decided their fate in offices hundreds of miles away.

This is the reality of the subcontinent’s wars: they solved nothing. Borders remained disputed. Families remained divided. The scars are still visible three generations later. The only thing these wars achieved was suffering lost fathers, lost sons, widows and orphans, poverty, displacement, and trauma.

Continue reading »
Posted in Europe / International and Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 2 Comments
Michal Siewniak

“International Day of Democracy” for the Polish community in the UK

By Michal Siewniak | Sat 24th May 2025 - 11:53 am

 Tired, in actual fact exhausted. Almost no sleep for 24 hours, however it was worth it! There is no better way to enable people to vote in any elections so that they can actively shape the future of their communities, towns, cities and countries, especially when you live abroad.

It might have been a small event, however it was a significant and historic moment for the Polish community in Hertfordshire. For the very first time, a polling station for the Polish presidential elections was opened in Welwyn Garden City on Sunday, 18 May. It really felt like a wonderful “democratic celebration”.

Organising the station was a significant logistical challenge. It required cooperation with consular officials and the assembly of a trained and reliable election team. It is quite incredible, given that many more people expressed their willingness to vote, 108 polling stations have been set up across the UK. Moreover, more than 509,000 Poles living abroad had an opportunity to cast their vote and choose the next President.

In comparison with London or Manchester, Welwyn Garden City is a small town, however it was great to see that voters travelled not only from nearby towns such as Hatfield, Stevenage, St Albans, Barnet, Hitchin, Hoddesdon, Waltham Abbey, Ware, Cheshunt and Harlow, but also from further afield – including Portsmouth and Leyland. Many commented on how grateful they were not to have to travel far, and praised both the organisation and the charm of Welwyn Garden City itself. Their warm feedback confirmed to us that this initiative was truly worthwhile. The members of the commission (13 in total) created a welcoming and supportive environment, filled with a true sense of community.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 2 Comments
Caron Lindsay

William Wallace writes..British Politics in a national and global emergency

By Caron Lindsay | Wed 2nd April 2025 - 1:55 pm

Martin Wolf, as so often, had it right in the Financial Times the other week.  He argued that in the multi-headed crisis we now face, the proper response of government is to tell the voters that this is both a national and a global emergency and that national economic and fiscal policies will have to take these exceptional circumstances into account.  The impact of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy could plunge us all into a deep recession.

Labour knew when they came into office that Russia’s attack on Ukraine had raised difficult questions about replacing stocks of equipment and munitions and increasing Britain’s defence capabilities.  They also had a good idea of how far the Conservatives in office had run down public investment and juggled financial figures to avoid recognising that state revenues did not match public spending needs.  It seems however that full realisation of the depth of the investment and income deficit only came when they were in office, well after they had boxed themselves in by promising not to raise any of the three main sources of taxable revenue.  And they had not predicted the third shock, which has hit them six months after taking office: the impact of Trump’s second presidency on the global economy, on transatlantic relations and on the conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East. 

These three crises together have undermined Labour’s growth strategy, and are likely to force it to choose unwillingly both further spending cuts and higher taxes.  Yet here, as elsewhere, Labour remains timid and uncertain in making hard choices, let alone in persuading the public to accept them.  Opinion polls show that most voters don’t yet support increased spending on defence, because they don’t yet see the Russian attack on Ukraine as directly threatening Britain.  Most aren’t happy about cuts in welfare, but are content for overseas aid and other budgets to be squeezed to provide some of the funds needed rather than higher taxation.  

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 9 Comments
Paul Hindley

Starmer is living in a dreamworld. Britain must choose between Europe and Trump’s America

By Paul Hindley | Sun 2nd March 2025 - 12:43 pm

What a difference a day makes. On Thursday, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer went to Washington DC to meet with President Donald Trump. There, in the White House, Starmer had a jovial and good-spirited meeting and press conference with the new US President. The press hailed the Prime Minister’s visit as a triumph referring to it as a “love-in” and a “bromance”. It appeared to vindicate Starmer’s strategy of walking a delicate diplomatic tightrope between Europe and the new American administration.

But then came Friday. President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s wartime leader, who is viewed by many to be a modern Churchill, sat in the same seat in the Oval Office as Starmer had done. However, Zelensky’s meeting with Trump could not have represented a greater contrast to that of Starmer’s a day earlier. There, Zelensky was subjected to berating and bullying from Trump and his Vice President JD Vance. Trump and Vance brought absolute shame on to the Office of the Presidency by goading and bullying Zelensky. All of which played into the hands of Vladimir Putin and his fascist attempt to conquer Ukraine.

Starmer’s dream day in the Oval Office has quickly turned into a living nightmare. Trump’s treatment of Zelensky reveals an uncomfortable truth. That in this increasingly divided and polarised world, Britain cannot continue to walk a diplomatic tightrope between Europe and Trump’s America. Britain will have to decide who it stands with. Do we stand with most other European democracies in defending what remains of the liberal rules-based order, or do we stand with Trump in forging a harsh world of realism, authoritarianism and post-truth politics?

In the EU, the likely next German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has called for greater European independence from America. There are even serious considerations about the creation of a common European army, especially as Trump’s America is no longer seen as a reliable NATO partner. Britain, along with the rest of Europe, must free itself from its dependency on America, especially on matters of defence. We Europeans must stand on our own two feet. We must embrace being the leaders of the free world, a position that Trump vacated on Friday when he sided with Putin against Zelensky. 

There are significant risks for Britain in choosing to side with Trump over Europe. A cutthroat trade deal with Trump’s America that forced us to reduce our trading standards and economic regulations would be bad for our economy. It would also kill any hopes of getting a stronger trading relationship with the EU. Britain should not allow Trump to bully us into accepting an unfavourable trade deal through the threat of increased tariffs. The Trump Administration has also taken aim at Britain’s attempts to combat hate speech and discrimination. To reduce such protections would only embolden the far-right even further. In short, if we side with Trump, then Britain risks being reduced to a vassal state of Trump’s America.

However, it is far from certain that Starmer will take Britain closer to Europe. Take for example, the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, rebutting the idea of a youth mobility scheme with the EU. Ed Davey has rightly called for Britain to join a customs union with the EU. Yet, even this proposal, one that would bring clear economic benefits, has not been supported by Labour. The fact that Labour cannot support even the most reasonable and modest proposals for strengthening our relationship with Europe is a cause for concern.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , and | 18 Comments
Vince Cable

Vince Cable writes…Standing up to Trump

By Vince Cable | Mon 17th February 2025 - 7:29 am

I know from experience that leading the Liberal Democrats is a frustrating job; marginalised in the media and patronised by the two traditional parties. But periodically we hit on a message which resonates in the country, as with Charles Kennedy’s opposition to the Iraq war.  Ed Davey may have found another: ‘Stand up to Trump’. 

These are early days in the second Trump administration, but a political, economic and cultural revolution is under way. The MAGA movement is also much bigger than its capricious, unpredictable leader. Trump’s apostles like JD Vance and Hegseth are ideologically extreme but also articulate, smart and superficially plausible. And they regard Britain with contempt: our secular and liberal values; our diverse society; our democratically elected government. We need to understand that the sentimental nonsense about the ‘special relationship’ is over. We are under attack.

I have some sympathy for our government. Starmer is being understandably cautious recognising that there is much uncertainty and danger.  The resulting passivity has however created a leadership vacuum. The Tories and Reform vie to be mini-Trumps. They are also skirting around the edge of treacherous collusion with people who openly declare their wish to overthrow our legitimate government. Nor will leadership come from the lazy anti-Americanism of the far left which sees Trump as merely a cruder spokesman for American imperialism than Clinton or Obama.

Step forward the leader of the Liberal Democrats to provide a focal point for resistance. The fact that Ed Davey has attracted the abuse of Trump’s outrider, Elon Musk, is to his credit. Being described as a ‘snivelling cretin’ tells us less about him than about the deranged people who insult him: the MAGA folk who think that Tommy Robinson is the authentic voice of the British working class; that London is a Muslim city; and that ‘free speech’ has been outlawed in the UK. The irony of using ‘freedom’ as a dividing line with Britain appears to be completely lost on people whose idea of personal freedom is ownership of offensive automatic weapons, facilitating mass killings. As for the decadence and decay of Europe it pays to point out that, in Trump’s macho USA, male life expectancy is five years or so less than ours and less than in China or Ecuador.

But apart from firing verbal projectiles, what does ‘standing up to Trump’ look like?  Tariffs?  We will be dragged down like everyone else by a global trade war.  But in relation to Trump’s irrational obsession with bilateral trade balances, the UK is in the clear albeit with some minor quibbling about the statistics. Britain’s exports are, any event, skewed to services and other items which don’t carry tariffs. An exception is steel, and the remnants of this once great industry are set to take another beating. Outside the EU, Britain does not have the clout to retaliate, and, in any event, the Americans will point out that for British exporters to complain about tariffs is a bit rich since Britain unilaterally raised tariffs against itself when it left the EU customs union.

More reassuringly, the USA is no longer quite the power in world trade it once was, or Trump thinks it is.  The EU is the dominant power in trade in goods and services combined, China in goods. Though relatively declining, the US is still the world’s largest importer with around 15% of world imports narrowly ahead of the EU and China. It can damage its trade partners, as it clearly intends to do, but there is nothing to stop them trading more with each other. America, of course, runs big trade deficits.  It has the privilege of being able to consume disproportionately by issuing dollar IOUs (which may soon lose their appeal as a store of value). Trump’s particular genius has been an ability to translate this self-indulgence into victimhood. We have no reason to fuel this national self-pity.  We should ignore it; diversify away from the USA; re-build trading relationships with our European neighbours; and prioritise emerging markets including those that annoy the Americans as with China, Mexico and Vietnam. Hedging is the best response to uncertainty.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , and | 34 Comments
The Voice

Lib Dem MPs comment on Middle East escalation

By The Voice | Wed 2nd October 2024 - 9:22 am

If any of us aren’t pretty scared and worried by what is going on in the Middle East, we probably should be.

Lib Dem MPs have been reacting to events as Israel steps up its actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran attacks Israel.

And all of this, at the heart, are people facing a humanitarian disaster, living in the most appalling conditions without food or shelter.

On Twitter this morning, Layla Moran said:

All my life my grandparents warned that if we didn’t achieve peace in Palestine it would risk wider war. With Iran’s actions overnight it seems we are inching closer to chaos rather than closure. I am so scared for my family and the future of the region. I pray I’m wrong to be.

On Iran’s attacks, Ed Davey said:

Liberal Democrats totally condemn Iran’s attacks on Israel. My thoughts are with all innocent civilians – in Israel and across the region – who are sheltering tonight.

The UK Government must do all it can to bring the region back from the brink of all out war, working closely with our allies. Too many innocent civilians have already been killed.

We must keep our focus on securing a lasting peace and a two state solution. Only diplomacy can deliver the security across the region that people so desperately need with the hostages home to their families and an end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

On Monday, Calum Miller, our new Foreign Affairs spokesperson wrote to Foreign Secretary David Lammy about the deepening crisis:

He said:

We must pursue the conditions for peace despite the bleak outlook. I’ll continue to urge the Government to adopt the proposals made by Liberal Democrats at our conference earlier this month.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , , and | Leave a comment
Dr Al Pinkerton MP

Al Pinkerton MP writes: The Falkland Islands – a liberal’s guide

By Dr Al Pinkerton MP | Sun 8th September 2024 - 8:38 am

Editor’s Note: Our new MP for Surrey Heath, Dr Al Pinkerton, was, until his election an Associate Professor of Geopolitics specialising in international borders and boundary disputes. Next Sunday, at Conference, he’ll be chairing a fringe meeting about the Falkland Islands at 11:30 am in the Regent Room at the Grand Hotel.  Speakers include  Lib Dem Peers Jeremy Purvis and Julie Smith and two members of the Falklands Islands Legislative Assembly. 

Here, Al writes about the history of the Falklands and the values we Lib Dems share with the islanders. 

Think of the Falkland Islands and you’d be forgiven if your mind turned to ideas of war, sheep, colonialism and Margaret Thatcher. Not exactly a Liberal Democrat’s idea of a good time, I know. But if you’ve had the opportunity to visit the Falklands – even if only for a few hours’ stopover on an Antarctic cruise – you will almost certainly carry with you memories of pristine wildernesses, extraordinary wildlife, and a diverse community who are proudly Falkland Islanders and resolutely wish to remain associated with the United Kingdom.

Until the recent General Election, I was an Associate Professor of Geopolitics specialising in international border and boundary disputes. One of the places I have returned to most often, and certainly one of the places that I’ve come to know best, is the Falkland Islands. Now, as a new Liberal Democrat MP, I wish to make a bold proposition: the cause of the Falkland Islands and Falkland Islanders is one rooted in the traditions of liberalism, is a cause that could and should be close to the hearts of Liberal Democrats, and is certainly one that is much too important to leave to the ownership of the Conservative Party and those with an unhealthy fascination with Margaret Thatcher.

Some quick facts. The first reported sighting of the Falkland Islands was in August 1592 by British navigator, John Davis, aboard the ship ‘Desire’. There was no human habitation of the islands until 1764, when France established a garrison, followed in 1765 by the British and, in 1770, the Spanish. The islands have been permanently inhabited and administered by the UK since 1833 and some Falkland Islands families can trace their ancestry to that moment and the years shortly thereafter. Argentina’s claim to the Falklands (or the Islas Malvinas) can be traced to 1820, when it proclaimed sovereignty over the islands as the successor state to Spain.

Whatever the relative historical merits of sovereignty claim and counter claim by Argentina and the UK, the wishes of Falkland Islanders were made clear when, in 2013, the country held a referendum on whether to remain an Overseas Territory of the UK. On a turnout of 92%, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted “yes”, with only three votes against.

As an accredited observer of that referendum, I saw for myself the intensity of feeling expressed by islanders in the lead up to the vote, but also the extraordinary process of administering a democratic ballot (one intensely scrutinised by the international media and election monitors) by the Falkland Islands Government across an archipelago of many hundred islands covering an area half the size of Wales. While the result was never really in much doubt, the referendum was a powerful expression of Falkland Islanders deeply cherished right to self-determine their own future and came at a time (in 2013) when the Kirchner government in Buenos Aires were pursuing their claim to the Islands with more vigour than at any point since the 1982 conflict.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , and | 5 Comments
The Voice

Lib Dems react to Alexei Navalny’s death

By The Voice | Sat 17th February 2024 - 9:16 am

Lib Dems have been reacting to the shocking news of Alexei Navalny’s death.

Ed Davey said:

Horrified by reports of the death of Alexei Navalny – at the hands of Putin, no doubt.

Putin’s despicable methods might be to kill his enemies, but he will never kill the light of freedom and democracy which Navalny has stood for so courageously.

Scottish Lib Dem Leader Alex Cole-Hamilton attended a vigil last night at the Russian Consulate in Edinburgh:

It was a privilege to join Russian citizens outside the Consulate this evening in a vigil for the life of Alexei #Navalny, murdered by the Putin kleptocracy today. Their defiance and their desire to follow Navalny’s dream of a free and democratic Russia was inspiring.

This is nothing short of state sanctioned murder. Putin will never brook any form of opposition and Navalny presented so many young Russians with the hope of a future free from corruption and Tsarist fascism.

Putin is a despot and a war criminal.

Lib Dem Foreign Affairs spokesperson Layla Moran said:

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , , , , and | 7 Comments
Ciaran Morrissey

Is the Netherlands election the end for PR?

By Ciaran Morrissey | Fri 24th November 2023 - 10:58 am

This week saw general elections in the Netherlands which led to the nationalist Partij voor die Vriejheid (PVV) or Party For Freedom as the largest party in the country’s House of Representatives for the first time in its history.

The PVV is led by Geert Wilders, who has called for, among other things, a ban on mosques and Qurans, and “Constitutional protection of the dominance of the Judeo-Christian and humanistic culture of the Netherlands”. While coalition talks could take months and there are a number of mathematically viable options, Wilders looks set to be the country’s next prime minister, in a rapid departure from the Dutch stereotypes of being liberal, tolerant Europhiles.

Wilders has managed to do this despite the Netherlands using a proportionally representative electoral system where all votes are weighted equally and parties are returned to parliament fully in proportion to the number of votes they received. So I think it is pertinent to point out that proportional representation is not a silver bullet; it does not stop far-right parties from reaching the levers of power. Indeed, in 2015, had we used proportional representation in this country and had voters voted the same way as they did in reality, a Conservative-UKIP coalition would’ve been the only viable option, with 49.4% of the vote between them.

I don’t think comparisons to Nigel Farage or Donald Trump are necessarily helpful and I don’t think lamentations about why the Dutch public voted PVV are particularly instructive to a British audience. I’ll leave that for the psephologists and the experts in Dutch politics, of which I am emphatically neither.

Rather, I want to tackle the sentiment that, because proportional representation does not fully prevent governments like this from forming, it is useless. I want to tackle the idea that we should abandon winning over a majority of the public and instead focus on winning over a majority of parliament.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , and | 35 Comments
Rebecca Tinsley

Time for a Distinctive Liberal Democrat Policy on Ending Conflict

By Rebecca Tinsley | Wed 17th May 2023 - 8:55 am

The Foreign Office has an unspoken strategy: whenever possible, it frames conflict as a humanitarian disaster, not a political problem requiring a political solution. Supporting UN aid efforts is laudable, but it is also easier than devoting diplomatic time and capital confronting deep-seated issues like systemic corruption, the persecution of minorities or the marginalisation of ethnic groups. No wonder so many civil wars defy our efforts to secure a genuine sustainable peace.  

The current violence in Sudan is an example of how officials respond to conflict as if it were an earthquake rather than a man-made disaster. Twenty years ago, officials treated the ethnic cleansing in Darfur like a disease rather than a racist expression of the Sudanese regime’s policy to eliminate its Black African civilians. The ideology behind the slaughter in Darfur was never acknowledged, just as Milosevic’s plans for Greater Serbia and the Interahamwe’s genocidal ambitions to erase Rwanda’s Tutsi minority were ignored by diplomats at the time. 

Another Foreign Office strategy is to cling to the old, discredited elites when searching for a negotiated settlement. In Sudan, the architects of the violence were seen as the international community’s partners in the search for peace. Over the last two decades, the voices of civilians were largely ignored, while the elite – and the men with guns – made promises they were never asked to keep. No benchmarks were set, and there was no mechanism to deliver consequences for failure to fulfil commitments made to negotiators. It was Bosnia all over again.

Continue reading »
Posted in News | Also tagged , , and | 5 Comments
Daniel Stylianou

The continuing threat to democracies

By Daniel Stylianou | Sun 14th May 2023 - 12:00 pm

I wrote an article earlier this week about the hope for renewed democracy in Turkey should the opposition leader – Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu – be successful in the upcoming Presidential elections. But democracy continues to come under threat across the globe, as more countries seem to be sliding down the steep path to dictatorship and the abolition of civil liberties and human rights.

Human Rights Watch has today published an article focusing on the state of affairs in Tunisia. The authorities have placed a further 17 current or former members of Ennahda, the largest opposition party in the country, in prison. That means that, as of today, over 30 political figures who are critical of President Kais Saied are behind bars accused of “conspiring against state security”. According to Human Rights Watch, the detainees include former ministers, the party President, two vice presidents and the former Speaker of Parliament. The Tunisian authorities have simultaneously shut Ennahda’s offices across the country.

In Myanmar, the military has used a “thermobaric” munition – designed to cause the maximum amount of casualties – on the village of Pa Zi Gyi in response to an opposition-controlled administrative office being opened. The blast was followed by helicopter assaults using cannons, grenades and rockets as innocent civilians tried to flee. A resident confirmed that the anti-junta People’s Defence Forces was present at the opening, but that the office was for tax filing, town meetings and judicial events, not for military purposes.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , , , , and | 8 Comments
George Cunningham

British citizen evacuation from Sudan – Call for Official Enquiry

By George Cunningham | Sat 29th April 2023 - 10:03 am

An estimated four thousand British citizens have needed evacuation from Sudan. The UK government commenced its evacuation effort on Tuesday, 25th April, after it had reportedly evacuated its diplomats.

By contrast, one day earlier, on Monday 24th April, EU High Representative Josep Borrell announced that 31 flights would have evacuated an estimated 1,200 EU citizens by the end of the day, with a remaining 400 EU citizens left to be evacuated. “There has been an incredible mobilisation of the Member States” said Mr Borrell, “that have air facilities and air capabilities to move planes, to move soldiers and to move military protection, and taking everybody that they could”.

The UK has denied that its efforts to evacuate embassy staff from Sudan last weekend interfered with Germany’s plans to get its citizens out. It is said that the Sudanese army initially closed access to the key airport after being infuriated by the unauthorised presence of British armed forces on the site.

The delay in British evacuation was one of the reasons why the British Ambassador had to negotiate an extension of the 72-hour ceasefire between the warring factions to allow for more time. The FCDO said eight flights had airlifted 897 people to Cyprus as of Thursday, 27th April. Hopefully the UK has asked EU Member States – alongside the United States – to lend a helping hand to get everyone evacuated, as used to be the case automatically when the UK was a EU Member State. Australia has just thanked France for assisting in the evacuation of its citizens.

The difficulty of non-British nationals with UK residency permits – such as the well-publicised case of Sudanese-born Dr Abdulrahman Babiker and 23 other NHS doctors – to board UK rescue flights has also been heavily criticised by Layla Moran amongst others. If there are any spare seats on a flight, they must certainly be allocated to them.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , and | 1 Comment

What Xi Jinping is planning on Taiwan

By Christopher | Fri 28th April 2023 - 5:50 pm

The former Moscow correspondent for NBC Ian Williams wrote an article in The Spectator dated 22nd March, describing what happened when Xi Jinping said goodbye to Vladimir Putin when their summit ended in the Kremlin last month. Xi suddenly turned to Putin and said, which seemed unscripted, “Change is coming that hasn’t happened in 100 years, and we are driving this change together”. Then “The two men clasped hands, smiling. ‘I agree,’ Putin said, briefly bringing up his free hand to hold Xi’s arm. The Chinese leader then added, ‘Please take care, dear friend'”.

What is the “change” that Xi was speaking about? In the last decade, the state media of China has presented the idea of “the East rises, the West declines” to the people, saying that China will become the greatest global power in the foreseeable future. Then the rules of the world will be changed – It was the West who set the rules in the last century, but eventually, the East will become the one to decide. Therefore, Xi was telling Putin: we will overturn those rules together.

That’s why I disagree with US State Secretary Antony Blinken when he said China and Russia are in “a marriage of convenience”, I believe Xi and Putin are soulmates who share the same ideology. The new evidence is the words from the Chinese Ambassador to France Lu Shaye in LCI interview. He reveals Xi’s true thoughts: if the previous Soviet states have no effective status in international law, Putin is righteous to reclaim all those countries. Xi will fully support Putin in doing so; in return, Putin must back Xi to achieve his historical mission, the “reunification” with Taiwan.

US President Biden told the media that he believes there is no imminent threat of a Taiwan invasion after he met with Xi Jinping last November. Reports said Xi promised Biden that China would not take any military action during Biden’s first presidency. Can Xi be trusted? Well, technically, yes, Xi needs time to prepare to strike. We need to know that the failure of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine does not make Xi hesitate but to refine his war plan on Taiwan to justify himself to become the Fuhrer of China.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged , , , and | 3 Comments
Paul Reynolds

Iraq – 20 years on. A personal story.

By Paul Reynolds | Thu 23rd March 2023 - 11:55 am

In early 2003 I was in Sierra Leone working on post-war reforms and rebel disarmament. I was running past the run-down Russian UN helicopters on Lumley beach when I received the call. 

It was already known that British Forces had attempted to find a way to appoint the first regional government; in Basra, one of the four UK-controlled Iraqi governorates. By agreement with the US, the UK had been tasked with finding a model. They were looking for someone ‘reckless’ with relevant experience. Folks knew I was against the war, but the final make-or-break question from the official was ‘you’re not a bloomin’ tree hugger are you?’.

Following bio-weapons training, my first interaction was my car being attacked by stone-throwing teenagers after I crossed the border from Kuwait. There was a lot of audible gunfire, and on the main roads there were still uncollected bodies littering the way.

Saddam’s gaudy riverside palace had been looted and all the marble floors were deep in broken glass. There was no power at first. It was 51 degrees, down to 42 by 3am. Water was scarce. Catching a breeze on the roof at nighttimes was noisy, with explosive flashes and gunfire sweeping across the city below.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 4 Comments
George Cunningham

Making Putin Pay

By George Cunningham | Sun 24th April 2022 - 11:55 am

This week, G7 finance ministers said that they – together with the international community – will be helping Ukraine to the tune of more than US$ 24 billion this year and beyond. And the door is open for more.

However, this is just a drop in the ocean of blood and destruction in Ukraine. Already three weeks into Russia’s invasion, President Zelenskyy had estimated that Ukraine had suffered half a trillion US dollars’ worth of damage to housing and infrastructure, let alone the ongoing cruel cost of human suffering and death.

Western countries are reported to have frozen at least half of the Russian Central Bank’s estimated US$ 600 billion of foreign currency reserves which are in their possession. Rather than help its own people have better lives, Russia is said to have been gradually putting aside such a colossal sum since Crimea’s 2014 annexation to have a handy “fortress Russia” war chest. They are now experiencing serious difficulties, as much of that prop is no longer available to them.

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | 7 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Ruth Bright
    During the unrest in 2011 Simon Hughes made a powerful statement telling rioters to go home. It came from a place of profound respect for, and understanding of,...
  • John Reed
    This is such a disappointing announcement. We must push to have the present system for pricing all electricity based on the cost of the most expensive, usual...
  • Peter Hirst
    I would add caring to bold and relevant. Getting a sympathetic ear at the end of a telephone help line is as important as an extra pound in your pay slip. Under...
  • Peter Hirst
    One of the more important issues that the electorate care about is how much political parties understand what matters to them. This varies from person to person...
  • Peter Hirst
    Inequality must be seen in the round. I appreciate living in the north-west because it gives me easy access to mountains such as in Snowdonia, The Lakes and Der...