A

ustralian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Friday that the AUKUS defense partnership with the United States and Britain remained “full steam ahead” following a lengthy call with U.S. President Donald Trump, while urging Washington to exempt Australia from U.S. tariffs.

Albanese said the two leaders reviewed progress under AUKUS and agreed that the trilateral security pact would continue to benefit all three countries.

“We reviewed the significant progress that has been made under AUKUS, which remains full steam ahead,” Albanese told reporters in Canberra.

AUKUS, established in 2021, is Australia’s largest defense project and is designed in part to strengthen the three countries’ military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific amid growing Chinese influence in the region.

Submarine program moves forward

Under the pact, U.S. Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines are expected to be based in Australia from next year. Australia is also due to acquire several Virginia-class submarines from around 2030, while Britain and Australia are developing a new class of nuclear-powered submarine under the agreement.

Australia has committed about A$368 billion ($260 billion) over three decades to the project, including major investments in U.S. and British submarine production facilities.

The United States has said it is satisfied with progress since a review of AUKUS conducted last year. Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby said Washington saw increasing alignment between the three countries and expected Australia to continue meeting its commitments.

AUKUS has faced concerns over the availability of U.S. submarines and production capacity. Colby previously warned that American industry faced challenges meeting both U.S. and allied demand for nuclear-powered submarines.

China has strongly criticized the agreement, warning that it could contribute to an arms race in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia seeks tariff exemption

Albanese described his conversation with Trump as productive and said he had asked the president to exempt Australia completely from U.S. flat tariffs of 12.5%.

Trump agreed to consider the request, Albanese said.

Australia has argued that it should qualify for an exemption because it runs a trade deficit with the United States and imports large amounts of American machinery, technology and aircraft.

The leaders also discussed the conflict involving Iran and Australia’s recent defense agreements with Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

Albanese said he told Trump that Australia wanted to see an end to the conflict in the Middle East while maintaining that Iran should not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.

The call came as Australia seeks to deepen its security cooperation with the United States while managing economic concerns linked to Washington’s trade policies. For Canberra, the future of AUKUS remains central to its long-term defense strategy and efforts to strengthen its position in the increasingly contested Indo-Pacific.

(Source: Reuters)

B

ritain’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the government’s decision to ban the pro-Palestinian protest group Palestine Action as “a terrorist organization” was lawful, marking a major victory for the government and a significant setback for campaigners who argue the move threatens free speech and the right to protest.

In a judgment delivered on Monday, Chief Justice Dame Sue Carr rejected the group’s claim that it was primarily engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, concluding instead that its activities involved organized and deliberate acts of property destruction targeting military facilities and defense companies.

The ruling overturns a February decision by the High Court, which had found that although some of Palestine Action’s activities involved criminal conduct, the scale and nature of its actions did not justify designation under Britain’s terrorism legislation.

The government appealed that decision, and the ban remained in force while the legal challenge proceeded.

Court rejects non-violence argument

Delivering the judgment, Carr said the court found significant flaws in Palestine Action’s argument that it should be viewed as a peaceful protest movement.

“In our judgment, that premise was seriously flawed,” she said. “It was not a sustainable proposition to portray Palestine Action as a non-violent organization.”

The court concluded that the organization operated through covert networks that carried out coordinated attacks on defense contractors and military sites, causing substantial property damage and disruption.

Government lawyers argued that the group’s activities went beyond legitimate protest and amounted to actions that threatened national security and public safety.

The ruling effectively places Palestine Action in the same legal category as proscribed organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas under British law.

Membership of, or support for, a proscribed organization is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom and can carry a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

Group vows further legal challenge

Following the judgment, Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said the organization would continue its legal battle.

“We will fight proscription all the way,” Ammori said, pledging to challenge the ruling before the UK’s Supreme Court and, if necessary, the European Court of Human Rights.

She described the ban as “one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history.”

Supporters of the group argue that Palestine Action’s activities are a form of direct action aimed at disrupting companies linked to Israel’s military operations in Gaza rather than acts of terrorism.

Civil liberties organizations have also criticized the government’s approach, warning that the designation could set a precedent for treating political protest movements as terrorist organizations.

Origins of the ban

The British government moved to outlaw Palestine Action following a high-profile incident in June 2025 when activists entered a Royal Air Force base to protest Britain’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The action followed a series of demonstrations and acts of vandalism directed at defense facilities, particularly sites connected to Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems and its British subsidiaries.

Officials have said the group’s operations have caused millions of pounds in damage and disrupted facilities considered important to national security.

Palestine Action was established in 2020 and has become known for direct-action campaigns involving occupations, blockades, and damage to property associated with defense and security industries.

Government ministers argued that the cumulative impact of those actions justified proscription under terrorism legislation.

B

ritish Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced a major political setback on Thursday after Defense Secretary John Healey resigned from the government, accusing the prime minister of failing to provide the armed forces with the resources needed to address growing security threats.

The resignation, which came amid a heated dispute over military spending, was quickly followed by the departure of Armed Forces Minister Al Carns, deepening a crisis within the government just days before a crucial NATO summit and amid mounting pressure on Starmer’s leadership.

In a resignation letter addressed to the prime minister, Healey said the government’s planned defense spending levels were inadequate for the challenges facing Britain and its allies.

“The funding allocated falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time,” Healey wrote.

The departing defense secretary argued that the government had failed to match its rhetoric about growing international threats with the financial commitments needed to strengthen Britain’s military capabilities.

His resignation represents one of the most serious cabinet departures since Labour came to power in 2024 and raises fresh questions about divisions within the government over defense priorities.

Second resignation intensifies pressure

Shortly after Healey announced his resignation, Armed Forces Minister Al Carns also stepped down, delivering another blow to the government.

Carns, a former Royal Marine officer and one of the military’s most vocal advocates within government, criticized what he described as a widening gap between the demands placed on Britain’s armed forces and the resources available to meet them.

“The character of conflict is changing faster than our procurement can keep up with,” Carns wrote in a resignation letter posted on social media.

“We are asking our Armed Forces to operate in a more dangerous world on a budget written for a calmer one.”

Carns also accused the government of failing to show sufficient commitment to military personnel and veterans, saying ministers were not providing the support necessary for Britain’s armed forces to carry out their responsibilities effectively.

The dual resignations come at a sensitive moment for the government as it prepares to unveil a long-awaited defense investment plan intended to modernize Britain’s military and respond to growing international security challenges.

Debate over defense spending

At the heart of the dispute is the question of how much Britain should spend on defense in an increasingly volatile global security environment.

Like many NATO members, the United Kingdom faces pressure to increase military spending as concerns grow about Russia’s military ambitions and broader geopolitical instability.

Healey pointed to recent warnings from British intelligence services that Russia could potentially pose a threat to NATO territory within the next decade.

In his resignation letter, he argued that while the government publicly acknowledged the dangers facing Europe, it had failed to provide the funding necessary to prepare for them.

“You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats,” he wrote.

The criticism centered on disagreements over the pace and scale of planned increases in military spending. Although the government has committed to raising defense expenditure significantly over the coming years, Healey and his allies reportedly pushed for faster and larger increases.

The dispute has delayed publication of the government’s defense overhaul strategy several times, reflecting deep disagreements within Whitehall over budget priorities.

Starmer defends record

Prime Minister Keir Starmer moved quickly to defend his government’s approach, insisting that Labour had already delivered the largest sustained increase in defense spending since the Cold War.

In a public response to Healey’s resignation, Starmer highlighted Britain’s military support for Ukraine, cooperation with Gulf allies, and efforts to strengthen security in strategically important regions, including the Strait of Hormuz.

“When we entered government in 2024, I took the decision to increase defence spending after the Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces,” Starmer wrote.

The prime minister argued that increased defense spending had required difficult choices elsewhere in government, including reductions to the international aid budget.

“I will always do what is needed to keep our country safe,” he said.

Starmer also defended the government’s forthcoming Defence Investment Plan, saying it would increase military spending in a financially sustainable way while supporting British industry and economic growth.

He acknowledged that additional investment would require significant reallocations of public spending but argued that such decisions were necessary to rebuild Britain’s military capabilities after years of underinvestment.

A

t least 12 British universities paid a private security consultancy run by former military intelligence officials to monitor student activists and academics, including individuals expressing support for Palestine, according to a joint investigation by Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates.

The investigation found that Horus Security Consultancy Limited, a firm established by former military personnel, collected and analyzed publicly available data from social media platforms, conducted background checks, and produced intelligence briefings for universities across the United Kingdom. The activity, which universities say is aimed at maintaining campus safety, has sparked criticism from rights groups, academics, and student activists who argue it amounts to systematic surveillance.

Documents obtained through freedom of information (FOI) requests reveal that universities collectively paid the firm at least £440,000 ($594,000) between 2022 and early 2025. Institutions named in the investigation include some of the UK’s most prominent universities, among them Oxford, Cambridge colleges through affiliates, Imperial College London, University College London (UCL), King’s College London (KCL), and others.

Open-source data

According to the findings, Horus provided a service that compiled daily or periodic intelligence updates using open-source data, including students’ social media posts. These reports were sometimes sold to universities for subscription fees of around £900 per month.

One such case involved a PhD student at the London School of Economics (LSE), whose social media activity during a pro-Gaza protest encampment in 2024 was included in a briefing sent to university security staff. The student, Lizzie Hobbs, said she was unaware her posts had been monitored until contacted by journalists.

“We knew surveillance was happening, but it is shocking to see how systematized it is,” she said, describing the practice as “deeply concerning.”

The investigation also highlighted the case of Palestinian-American academic Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi, who was subjected to a counter-terrorism “threat assessment” prior to delivering a guest lecture at Manchester Metropolitan University in 2023. The assessment, commissioned by the university, reviewed her academic work, public statements, and social media presence.

“Shocked” to learn of the report

Abdulhadi said she was “shocked” to learn of the report, adding that it raised serious questions about academic freedom. “They made an assumption of guilt and started investigating me because of my scholarship,” she said.

Universities have defended their use of external intelligence services, citing legal obligations and security concerns. Under the UK’s Prevent strategy, institutions are required to assess risks related to extremism, including those associated with external speakers and campus events.

A spokesperson for Manchester Metropolitan University said such assessments are routine and necessary to “ensure the safety of our community and external speakers.” Similarly, Imperial College London stated that the information gathered by Horus is drawn from publicly available sources and is used to identify potential risks, not to surveil individuals.

The University of Sheffield also rejected claims of targeting activists, saying its use of external services is intended to “horizon scan” for large-scale events that could affect campus operations. “It is incorrect to suggest this discourages lawful protest,” a spokesperson said.

Serious ethical and legal concerns

However, critics argue that the scale and nature of the monitoring raise serious ethical and legal concerns. Gina Romero, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, warned that the use of artificial intelligence to analyse student data could lead to disproportionate surveillance.

“The use of AI to harvest and analyze student data under the guise of open-source intelligence raises profound legal concerns,” she said, adding that such practices may lack transparency and accountability.

The investigation also found that several universities refused to disclose the full extent of their contracts with Horus, citing commercial sensitivity. Under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, institutions can withhold information if its release could harm a third party’s business interests.

Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), criticized universities for what she described as a misuse of public funds. “It is shameful that institutions have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds monitoring their own students,” she said.

A

ndrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, according to the BBC.

The younger brother of King Charles III was taken into custody following police searches at two properties in England earlier on Thursday. Authorities have not formally named the suspect, in line with standard British procedure, but confirmed the arrest in response to inquiries about Mountbatten-Windsor.

Thames Valley Police said a man in his 60s from Norfolk had been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office and remains in custody. The force stated it would not name the individual at this stage.

Officers carried out searches at addresses in Berkshire and Norfolk. Royal Lodge, Mountbatten-Windsor’s former residence in Windsor, is located in Berkshire. Wood Farm, the house he recently moved to on the Sandringham estate, is in Norfolk.

Earlier media reports said six unmarked police vehicles and around eight plainclothes officers were seen arriving at Wood Farm.

Allegations linked to Epstein files

The arrest follows renewed scrutiny over Mountbatten-Windsor’s ties to the late U.S. financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Earlier this month, Thames Valley Police said it was considering allegations that he had passed confidential government documents to Epstein, according to files recently released by U.S. authorities.

Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and previously said he regretted their friendship. He has not publicly commented since the latest batch of documents was released.

Mountbatten-Windsor stepped back from royal duties in 2019 amid mounting controversy over his association with Epstein. He later relinquished his military affiliations and the use of the “His Royal Highness” title in an official capacity.

The arrest marks a dramatic escalation in a long-running scandal that has cast a shadow over the British royal family.

Passing confidential government documents to Epstein?

The arrest follows renewed scrutiny over Mountbatten-Windsor’s ties to the late U.S. financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Earlier this month, Thames Valley Police said it was considering allegations that he had passed confidential government documents to Epstein, according to files recently released by U.S. authorities.

Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and previously said he regretted their friendship. He has not publicly commented since the latest batch of documents was released.

Mountbatten-Windsor stepped back from royal duties in 2019 amid mounting controversy over his association with Epstein. He later relinquished his military affiliations and the use of the “His Royal Highness” title in an official capacity.

The arrest marks a dramatic escalation in a long-running scandal that has cast a shadow over the British royal family.

(Source: BBC)

B

ritish Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he wants to build a “sophisticated relationship” with China as he met President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Thursday, signaling a reset in ties after years of diplomatic strain.

Starmer’s four-day visit—the first by a British prime minister since 2018—comes as London seeks closer engagement with the world’s second-largest economy to stimulate growth and strengthen security cooperation.

Starmer and Xi held an 80-minute meeting at the Great Hall of the People, followed by a working lunch. The British leader is also scheduled to meet Chinese Premier Li Qiang later in the day.

At the start of the talks, Starmer described China as a “vital player on the global stage,” stressing the need for cooperation where interests align, while maintaining open dialogue on areas of disagreement, including human rights.

Xi said relations between the two countries had experienced “twists and turns” that served neither side and expressed China’s readiness to develop a long-term strategic partnership with Britain.

Economic diplomacy and global context

Starmer’s engagement with Beijing comes amid heightened global uncertainty and strained relations between several Western allies and the United States under President Donald Trump. Recent U.S. trade threats and geopolitical disputes have prompted countries to hedge their diplomatic and economic strategies.

The British leader is accompanied by more than 50 business executives, underscoring his government’s focus on securing economic gains. Analysts expect several commercial and cooperation agreements to be announced during the visit.

In a concrete outcome of the talks, Britain and China are expected to announce a joint initiative to combat migrant-smuggling networks. According to Downing Street, the agreement will target supply chains used by organized crime groups, including the use of Chinese-made engines on small boats transporting migrants across Europe.

The plan includes intelligence sharing between British and Chinese authorities and cooperation with manufacturers to prevent legitimate businesses from being exploited by traffickers.

Domestic debate and human rights concerns

Starmer’s approach marks a shift from previous Conservative governments, which restricted some Chinese investments over national security concerns and criticized Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong.

Opposition Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticized the visit, citing security risks posed by China. British security agencies have accused Beijing of espionage, allegations China denies.

Starmer said he would raise human rights issues with Xi, including the case of British citizen Jimmy Lai, the Hong Kong media tycoon convicted last year on national security charges.

After arriving in Beijing on Wednesday evening, Starmer dined at a well-known local restaurant and was seen practicing basic Mandarin phrases with staff, footage of which circulated on Chinese social media—small gestures reflecting his effort to strike a warmer diplomatic tone.

(Source: Reuters)

H

istorically, Great Britain was one of the most powerful countries and dominant actors during the 17th and 18th centuries, as the Ottoman Empire was weakening. After the Industrial Revolution, Britain emerged as a dominant world power in economics, commercial routes, politics, maritime, and the military. Depending on its power and resources, England began acquiring colonies in different parts of the world, such as Africa, North America, the Middle East, and India.

As the global colonial race accelerated, formidable rivals such as Italy, France, and Germany emerged. Changes in the social, political, and other dynamics within the international system caused Britain’s dominant position to falter, as it did for other empires and superpowers throughout history. Notably, the rise, development, and spread of nationalism throughout the world led to rebellions against colonial rule and struggles for independence in countries under colonial British rule.

This applied to the Middle East. After World War I, a number of uprisings broke out under the influence of pan-Arabism in countries that Britain shared with France under the Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916). When the Arab nationalist movement emerged in Palestine between 1936 and 1939, Britain’s situation became even more difficult. This was because Britain had promised to establish a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine in the 1917 Balfour Declaration and thus had to contend with two distinct national and political groups in the region.

The White Paper

According to Professor Pappe, a leading Israeli scholar on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, Palestine under British mandate was governed by the British, desired by the Zionists, and claimed by the Hashemites until the 1920s. After the 1920s, London placed a greater emphasis on efforts to establish a federal state and undertook initiatives such as the Passfield White Paper.

The British Empire presented the “Balfour Declaration” in 1917, which promised to give Jews a national homeland in Palestine, as a pragmatic political option for its interests in the region. When it could not cope with Jewish immigration, the Empire was forced to pursue a “policy of appeasement” toward both the Arab and Jewish populations. However, another important factor influencing Britain’s decision to leave the region amid Jewish attacks on British authority was the regional situation and geopolitics.

By 1947, threats from Germany and Italy had been eliminated. London had maintained control in Egypt and the Suez Canal and no longer needed a buffer state like Palestine. This also led to a gradual decline in Britain’s inclination to establish a two-state federal system or a Palestinian state.

A more cautious policy in the region

After Israel’s establishment in 1948, Britain pursued a more cautious policy in the region because the U.S. was increasingly settling in the Middle East, and Britain did not want to provoke Arab countries’ reactions. After losing its decisive role in the region to the U.S., especially following the “Suez Crisis” (1956), Britain deviated from its pro-Arab policies and began supporting Israel to control its rising power.

Having lost its regional leadership to the U.S., some of Britain’s actions and policies during this period were shaped by competition with Washington. In this context, Britain’s policy on Palestine was largely shaped by the policies of larger and rival powers, as in the past, following the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine. After this historical turning point, London tried to design a Palestine policy that would break the U.S.’s regional hegemony.

Breaking away from the U.S.

Despite this, a historical analysis reveals that Britain is more aligned with U..S regional policy and has supported Jewish settlements in opposition to Arab interests. Initially, British policymakers followed an integrated regional policy with the U.S. However, especially after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, Britain has not hesitated to criticize American policy toward the Middle East and often Israel’s actions and its policy toward Palestine.

For example, the U.K. has occasionally criticized Israeli violence due to actions that harm the “Middle East Peace Process,” as well as the First and Second Intifadas. Furthermore, the 2007 Foreign Affairs Committee Report of the British House of Commons warned the British government against establishing relations with organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

A Turning point: October 2023

As time went by, Britain’s shift towards a pro-Arab stance and opposition to the pro-Israeli American Middle East policy raised concerns in Tel Aviv. In a 2017 House of Lords meeting, it was decided that London would not align with the U.S. in the region and would develop its own unique Middle East policy.

In 2017, British Prime Minister Theresa May rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to declare Jerusalem the “unified capital of Israel” and move the U.S. embassy there. This rejection was interpreted as a departure from British foreign policy efforts to establish a unique presence in the Middle East.

The Israeli army’s invasion and destruction of Gaza following the Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, and its genocide against the Palestinian population were condemned by the international community. Like many other Western capitals, the British government announced that it would recognize Palestine as a state.

However, the UK’s ambiguous position on Palestine continues to raise questions. Although London strongly opposed the Israeli authorities’ establishment of more settlements in the West Bank in 2019 and beyond, and criticized the Gaza massacre, the UK’s military and technological relations with Tel Aviv have continued thanks to the Jewish lobby’s influence on the British parliament, which we also see at the U.S. Congress.

T

he head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service MI6 will warn on Monday that Russia poses an “aggressive, expansionist and revisionist” threat to international security, in her first public speech since taking office.

Blaise Metreweli, who became MI6 chief in October and is the first woman to lead the agency in its 116-year history, will say President Vladimir Putin should be in no doubt that Western support for Ukraine remains firm and long-term.

“Putin should be in no doubt — our support is enduring,” Metreweli will say, according to advance extracts of her remarks. “The pressure we apply on Ukraine’s behalf will be sustained.”

She will warn that Moscow deliberately fuels instability abroad, describing Russia’s actions as a deliberate strategy rather than a by-product of foreign policy.

“The export of chaos is a feature, not a bug, in the Russian approach to international engagement,” she will say, adding that such behavior is likely to continue unless Putin is forced to “change his calculus.”

UK maintains sanctions pressure

Britain has imposed sweeping sanctions on Russian business figures, political leaders, companies and vessels since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. London has also sanctioned Russia’s military intelligence agency, the GRU, in its entirety.

Metreweli’s remarks come as diplomatic efforts to halt the conflict continue. Over the weekend, Germany hosted talks involving U.S. and Ukrainian officials on a possible ceasefire, ahead of a summit in Berlin on Monday that will include European leaders.

Metreweli will also emphasize the need for MI6 to deepen its use of technology to counter modern threats, including terrorism, cyber operations and information warfare.

“Mastery of technology must infuse everything we do,” she will say. “We must be as comfortable with lines of code as we are with human sources — as fluent in Python as we are in multiple languages.”

She will argue that technological expertise must extend beyond research labs into frontline intelligence operations and organizational culture.

Broader security warnings

In a separate speech on Monday, Richard Knighton, head of Britain’s armed forces, is expected to call for a “whole society” approach to defence amid growing global instability. He will warn of an increased probability of Russia attempting to invade a NATO member state, underscoring the seriousness of the threat facing Europe.

Metreweli’s address marks a rare public intervention by the MI6 chief and signals a sharpened warning from Britain’s intelligence leadership as tensions with Moscow persist.

(Source: Reuters)

I

n a dramatic diplomatic shift, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom announced on Sunday that they are formally recognizing the State of Palestine, breaking with decades of alignment with Israel and joining a growing international push to end the war in Gaza.

The coordinated move by three of Israel’s closest Western allies piles pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and places them at odds with the United States, which continues to oppose unilateral recognition outside of direct negotiations. France is expected to follow suit at next week’s UN General Assembly, further isolating Israel as it pushes forward with a large-scale offensive on Gaza City.

In their joint statements, leaders from Ottawa, London, and Canberra cited frustration with the collapse of peace talks and the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, where UN agencies warn of famine and where dozens were reported killed Sunday in renewed Israeli strikes. The three countries said recognition was necessary to “keep alive the possibility of a two-state solution.”

Netanyahu vows: “There will be no Palestinian state”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected the move outright, vowing, “there will be no Palestinian state.” He accused the three governments of “rewarding terror” after Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attacks, and pledged to continue expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank. “The response to the latest attempt to force a terror state upon us in the heart of our land will be given after my return from the United States. Wait for it,” Netanyahu said in a fiery statement.

Palestinian officials, by contrast, welcomed the announcement. A senior Hamas figure, Basem Naim, described it as “a welcomed step” toward affirming Palestinians’ rights, but insisted it must be followed by concrete action. “The highest priority now is to stop the genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip and to end the humanitarian blockade,” he told CNN.

Diplomats noted that the recognition marks a watershed moment in international politics: three G7 countries openly challenging Washington’s approach to the conflict. Analysts say the decision may accelerate momentum toward broader recognition within Europe and beyond, though the absence of U.S. support continues to limit immediate diplomatic impact.

Gaza city offensive

The announcements come as the war in Gaza enters a new and deadlier phase. Israel has pressed ahead with its ground invasion of Gaza City, insisting Hamas’ leadership remains entrenched there. Aid groups warn the humanitarian situation is collapsing, with food, water, and medical supplies running dangerously low for Gaza’s 2.2 million residents.

With more nations signaling readiness to back Palestinian statehood, the diplomatic battle is likely to intensify at the UN General Assembly. For Israel, already under scrutiny at the International Court of Justice over allegations of genocide in Gaza, the recognition drive represents both a legal and political challenge. For Palestinians, long denied sovereignty, it represents a symbolic but significant step toward international legitimacy.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

B

ritish Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Israeli President Isaac Herzog openly clashed during a tense meeting at Downing Street on Wednesday, laying bare deep divisions between the two allies over Gaza, Palestinian statehood, and Israel’s recent strike in Qatar.

The talks came just a day after Israel escalated its regional war by targeting Hamas’s political leadership in Doha, a move Starmer condemned as “completely unacceptable” and “a flagrant violation of a key partner’s sovereignty.”

Herzog later described the Downing Street meeting as “tough and strong,” adding that allies must be willing to argue. “Things were said that were tough and strong, and clearly we can argue, because when allies meet, they can argue. We are both democracies,” he told an audience at Chatham House following the meeting.

Palestinian statehood

Tensions have been sharpened by Britain’s announcement that it will join France, Canada, and other Western nations in recognizing a Palestinian state later this month unless Israel agrees to key conditions, including a ceasefire in Gaza and greater humanitarian access.

Herzog said the prospect of British recognition of Palestinian statehood, along with Starmer’s criticisms of Israel’s handling of aid, formed the core of the disagreement. He invited London to send a fact-finding mission to Israel.

Starmer’s office confirmed he pressed Herzog to change course on Gaza, warning that Israel’s military operations were worsening the humanitarian catastrophe. He urged Israel to allow in more aid, halt offensive operations, and work toward a durable peace.

Frosty encounter

The meeting began with a brief handshake outside 10 Downing Street, notable for the absence of smiles or warmth between the two men. Inside, Starmer reiterated Britain’s commitment to Israel’s security but emphasized that only diplomacy could pave the way to peace.

“He said the strikes were a flagrant violation of a key partner’s sovereignty and do nothing to secure the peace we all desperately want to see,” a Downing Street spokesperson said, referring to the Qatar airstrike.

The Gaza war has strained Israel’s ties with Britain and other European nations. This week, the UK blocked Israeli officials from attending its largest defense trade show, signaling growing frustration in London over Israel’s conduct of the war.

Starmer is also under pressure at home. Activists and lawmakers within his Labour Party have demanded a tougher line on Israel. Health Minister Wes Streeting warned that Israel’s actions in Gaza were pushing it toward “pariah status.”

Starmer, however, defended his approach in parliament, insisting that diplomacy remained essential to securing a ceasefire and winning the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. “I will not give up on diplomacy,” he said, dismissing calls for symbolic gestures as “the politics of students.”

Abbas meeting and future of Hamas

The meeting with Herzog followed Starmer’s talks earlier this week with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in which both leaders agreed there would be “absolutely no role” for Hamas in governing a future Palestinian state.

Britain has pledged to recognize Palestinian statehood ahead of the upcoming U.N. General Assembly, unless Israel fulfills four conditions: ending the war in Gaza, halting settlement expansion, allowing humanitarian aid, and committing to serious peace negotiations.

Herzog, whose role is largely ceremonial but whose comments carry political weight, has angered critics in the past, including when he declared that “all residents of Gaza” bore responsibility for the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel.

For Starmer, the clash with Herzog underscored a delicate balancing act: maintaining Britain’s historic ties with Israel while responding to growing domestic and international pressure to recognize Palestinian rights and call out Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

(Source: Reuters)

A

planned update to the free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Turkey is set to serve as a “great example” of modern, forward-looking trade partnerships, according to the UK’s Consul General in Istanbul and Trade Commissioner for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Kenan Poleo.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with Anadolu, Poleo said the first round of negotiations concluded on a positive note, covering key areas such as trade in goods and sustainability. Future discussions, he noted, are expected to broaden the scope to include services, innovation, and digital sectors, reflecting a mutual ambition to modernize bilateral ties.

“The most exciting thing about this new free trade agreement is the opportunity for the UK and Turkey to set a great example for the whole world around what a modern free trade agreement between two important partners looks like,” said Poleo.

Negotiators are preparing for the next round of talks later this year, with both sides aiming to build a roadmap for deeper cooperation in technology, climate-related industries, and other future-oriented sectors.

With bilateral trade already exceeding £27 billion (approximately $36 billion) annually, Turkey has become one of the UK’s top 20 trading partners. That number is expected to grow, driven by shared economic goals and geopolitical developments that are encouraging both countries to diversify supply chains and expand global trade ties.

“Given the depth of our relationship, really, the sky’s the limit,” said Poleo, highlighting the growing synergy between the two economies.

A Relationship of Strategic Depth

Poleo described trade ties as “huge,” pointing to recent gains across multiple sectors including clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and mobility. The UK, in its post-Brexit trade strategy, sees Turkey as a gateway to wider regional markets. For Turkey, the UK represents not just a major consumer market but also a valuable partner in innovation and regulatory reform.

“There isn’t a sector where we don’t see positive opportunities,” he said.

The two countries are also finding alignment in high-tech and defense cooperation. A standout development came during the International Defense Industry Fair (IDEF) in Istanbul last month, where the UK and Turkey signed a memorandum of understanding paving the way for Turkey to acquire Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft.

Describing the deal as emblematic of a “strategic and defense partnership,” Poleo emphasized the economic as well as security benefits.

“A third of those aircraft are going to be built within the UK,” he said. “It provides huge opportunities for both countries in terms of defense and security, but also economic growth.”

The Eurofighter Typhoon, a multirole aircraft equipped with advanced radar and cutting-edge combat capabilities, is co-produced by the UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Turkey’s inclusion as an operator reflects deepening trust and interoperability with NATO partners.

Clean Energy and Nuclear Power Collaboration

Beyond defense, clean energy and next-generation nuclear power represent some of the most promising areas of UK-Turkey collaboration, according to Poleo. He spotlighted the UK’s Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, a research institution in northern England, as a hub attracting Turkish firms interested in wind energy technologies.

“We’ve developed innovation capability and capacity that have allowed Turkish companies, who are looking to explore those opportunities globally and also in Turkey, to come and become part of that ecosystem,” Poleo said.

With Turkey aiming to install 5 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2035, the UK’s expertise could accelerate progress. The British envoy sees the potential for Turkey to “leapfrog” into a leading position through targeted partnerships.

On nuclear energy, cooperation could involve regulatory development and capacity building, especially as Turkey moves forward with its first nuclear power plant in Akkuyu and pursues small modular reactor (SMR) technologies by 2050.

“There’s an opportunity for us to collaborate and learn from each other on our experiences,” Poleo added, referring to the UK’s decades-long leadership in nuclear infrastructure.

A Diplomatic Farewell to a Dream Posting

As Poleo prepares to conclude his assignment in early 2026, he reflects on a tenure marked by personal and professional milestones. Born in South London to a Turkish Cypriot family, he described his post in Turkey as a dream come true.

“This was always my dream job,” he said. “It is both a joy to have served here, but it’s also a tragedy for me that it has to come to an end.”

During his time in Istanbul, Poleo oversaw a steady expansion of bilateral trade, high-profile joint projects, and cultural diplomacy. Fluent in Turkish, he charmed local audiences with an emotional farewell speech, switching languages mid-sentence to remark with a smile:

He also spoke warmly of his daily view of Istanbul’s Golden Horn, calling it one of the “great joys” of diplomatic life.

Poleo first visited Istanbul as a student at the age of 21 and recalled standing outside the British Consulate building, dreaming of working there one day. Now, nearly three decades later, he is set to leave the city having fulfilled that vision.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

On July 2, 2025, the UK House of Commons overwhelmingly approved a motion to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, with 385 MPs voting in favor and just 26 against. The decision was subsequently endorsed by the House of Lords on 3rd July. As a result, the proscription officially came into effect on 5th July, making it a criminal offence to support or be associated with the group under UK law.

Following the designation, the Metropolitan Police updated their official news site with a public statement, titled “Update on policing in London following proscription of Palestine Action.” The statement reads:

“Palestine Action has now been proscribed by the UK Government and expressing support for them is a criminal offence in the UK. There are a number of events taking place in London this weekend, and anyone attending should be aware that officers policing these will act where criminal offences, including those related to support of proscribed groups or organisations, are committed.”

The proscription, under the Terrorism Act 2000, grants police additional powers to intervene where individuals or groups are seen to be endorsing or facilitating a proscribed organization.

The Road to Proscription: From Warnings to Crackdown

Talks of proscribing Palestine Action have been circulating in government circles since late 2023, as the group’s high-profile actions escalated. Their direct-action campaigns, including the occupation of Elbit Systems sites in Leicester and Bristol, and the targeting of weapons factories and offices connected to the Israeli arms trade, drew both media attention and condemnation from officials.

As public support for Palestine surged amid Israel’s escalating military operations in Gaza, government ministers began signaling a harder line. In October 2023, then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman sharply criticized pro-Palestine demonstrations, branding them “hate marches.” She drew no distinction between peaceful protesters and violent ones, stating: “To my mind, there is only one way to describe those marches, they are hate marches.”

Who Are Palestine Action and Why Are They Targeted?

To understand the gravity of the UK government’s recent decision to proscribe Palestine Action, it’s important to consider who the group is and why it has been targeted.

Founded in 2020, Palestine Action is a direct-action network known for its disruptive protests against British complicity in Israel’s military operations, particularly through targeting Elbit Systems UK, a major arms manufacturer supplying drones and weapons to the Israeli military.

The group’s tactics include occupying factory rooftops, damaging equipment, and defacing buildings with red paint to symbolize Palestinian blood. While these methods are confrontational, they are non-violent. Supporters argue the actions are a necessary form of civil disobedience to expose and disrupt what they describe as the UK’s role in human rights abuses in Gaza.

The U.K. government’s move to proscribe Palestine Action came shortly after activists breached a Royal Air Force base in Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, on the 20th June. Members of the group damaged two military aircraft, in which the Police estimated that the damage caused by the incident amounted to approximately £7 million.

The incident marked a sharp escalation in the group’s direct-action tactics and appears to have been a key trigger for the government’s decision to invoke terrorism legislation.

Palestine Action does not use weapons or target civilians; instead, it targets corporate infrastructure linked to international conflict, a distinction now at the heart of a contentious national debate.

The Public Pushback: What’s at Stake?

Since the ban on Palestine Action took effect, the Metropolitan Police, also known as the Met Police or the Met, which is the territorial police force responsible for law enforcement and crime prevention within Greater London, has cracked down on public displays of support for the group. In Parliament Square, Met Police officers arrested over 20 demonstrators, many holding placards reading: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

Key developments include:

• 29 protesters have been arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences.
• The group was officially proscribed as a terrorist organization after a last-minute legal challenge to delay the ban at the Court of Appeal failed.
• Palestine Action now joins a list of banned organisations including al-Qaeda, ISIS (Daesh), and Hezbollah.
• Membership or support for the group is a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
• Even wearing a T-shirt or badge with the group’s name can result in a maximum six-month prison sentence.

Among those arrested was Reverend Sue Parfitt, aged 83, an emblematic figure of the broad crackdown.

Leslie Tate, a 76-year-old Green Party councilor, condemned the ban as “the creeping edge of totalitarianism” and called the protests “necessary to defend our democracy.”

What does this mean for future activism in the UK?

The proscription of Palestine Action is not an isolated event but part of a broader democratic challenge facing the UK. Growing emphasis on security concerns is increasingly influencing political discourse, sometimes at the expense of fundamental civil liberties.

Democracies depend on dissent, protest, and the freedom to question authority. When protest is criminalized, the balance of power can shift away from citizens toward the state.

Critics caution that equating disruptive but non-violent activism with terrorism risks blurring vital democratic boundaries.

I

n a joint statement released on December 28, 2023, the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom expressed deep concern over Iran’s recent actions, condemning the country’s increased production of highly enriched uranium. The statement followed the release of a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on December 26, revealing that Iran had elevated its rate of uranium enrichment up to 60% at Natanz and Fordow.

The four nations characterized Iran’s move as a significant step backward, warning that it would lead to a tripling of Iran’s monthly production rate of highly enriched uranium. The joint statement emphasized the lack of credible civilian justification for Iran’s actions and underscored the proliferation-related risks associated with the production at Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant.

One of the key points of concern raised in the statement was Iran’s decision to revert to a cascade configuration previously discovered by the IAEA in Fordow earlier in the year. The countries expressed doubt about Iran’s willingness to cooperate transparently with the IAEA, highlighting delays in declaring changes as a cause for skepticism.

“Iran’s lack of goodwill”

The U.S., France, Germany, and the UK, condemned Iran’s actions, characterizing them as a demonstration of Iran’s lack of goodwill toward de-escalation. The statement noted the “reckless” behavior occurring in a tense regional context, raising concerns about the broader implications for regional stability.

The joint statement called on Iran to reverse its steps immediately and de-escalate its nuclear program. Additionally, the countries urged Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA to provide assurances of the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program. The reinstatement of inspectors suspended in September 2023 was emphasized as crucial for maintaining transparency and adherence to international agreements.

Despite the condemnation, the joint statement reaffirmed the commitment of the U.S., France, Germany, and the UK to a diplomatic solution. The countries emphasized their determination to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, underscoring the importance of diplomatic efforts in addressing the escalating situation.

This development has raised concerns about the stability of the region and the potential consequences of Iran’s nuclear activities. As tensions escalate, diplomatic efforts will play a crucial role in navigating the complex geopolitical landscape and ensuring a peaceful resolution to the situation.

Iran responds to the statement

In response to recent claims regarding Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, Mohammad Eslami, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), reaffirmed the country’s commitment to existing protocols and dismissed the allegations as media hype.

During a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Eslami addressed the reports, emphasizing that the attention garnered by Iran’s enrichment program is not new and had already been addressed in the Director General’s report to the Board of Governors. He regarded the claims as sensationalized and serving a particular agenda.

Eslami clarified that the AEOI remains steadfast in its commitment to established protocols, denying any deviation from ongoing activities. He urged the public to discern attempts by certain parties, particularly Western powers, to divert attention from other geopolitical matters, such as the situation in Gaza, by focusing on Iran’s nuclear program.

Highlighting that Iran’s nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes, Eslami reiterated the country’s adherence to international obligations and standards. The statement aimed to assure the international community that Iran’s nuclear program operates within the framework of established regulations and is not a cause for alarm.

Sources: Anadolu Agency and Tehran Times.

T

he meeting of Humza Yousaf, who took office as Scotland’s first Muslim first minister in March 2023, with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai caused a crisis between London and Edinburgh last week. David Cameron, who was appointed as Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last month, wrote a protest letter to Angus Robertson, Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture of Scotland, regarding the Yousaf-Erdoğan meeting.

In his letter, which received wide publicity, Cameron reminded that Yousaf could not meet with any head of state and/or government without an official from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), contrary to the protocol between London and Edinburgh. Cameron also warned that if this situation continues, the privilege that London offers to Scottish officials to arrange meetings with foreign state representatives will be terminated.

In other words, he implied that Scotland’s representation and visibility in the international community would be restricted. Considering that Yousaf was also warned by Cameron’s successor, James Cleverly, after meeting with Icelandic Prime Minister Katrin Jakobsdottir this August, the letter serves as the second warning for Yousaf.

There are three main reasons why Cameron reacted to Yousaf’s meeting with Erdoğan. The first and most important is the alleged violation of the protocol between the UK and Scotland. Accordingly, Cameron claimed in his letter that the relevant protocol was violated and that although an officer from the FCDO was present with the Scottish delegation in Dubai, he was not adequately informed about the meeting.

Scotland is independent in its internal affairs only

Before making a detailed assessment of the issues stated by Cameron in his letter, it is necessary to remember that Scotland is one of the four countries that make the United Kingdom along with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. According to the Scotland Act approved by the UK Parliament in 1998, which determines the limits of the transfer of authority to Scotland, Scotland is independent in its internal affairs but completely dependent on London in its foreign affairs. Therefore, Scotland is expected to follow the central government in London in matters of foreign policy.

In addition, the Scottish government can establish international ties just like the governments of Wales and Northern Ireland do. However, an official appointed by the FCDO must be present during these meetings. This is what Cameron means when he refers to a protocol violation in the letter. When looking at the issue from this perspective, if Yousaf’s delegation did not inform the FCDO official about the meeting, as Cameron claimed, they would have been found violating the relevant protocol. With this assumption, Cameron reminds in the letter that Scotland is still part of the UK and cannot act autonomously in foreign affairs.

On the other hand, Yousaf’s spokesman made a counter-statement refuting Cameron’s claims and said that they informed the FCDO official and invited him to the meeting. The spokesperson also stated that the FCDO official in the delegation was elsewhere at the time it was convenient for the Turkish president to meet, and the FCDO official was late for several meetings at the COP28 summit. Accordingly, contrary to Cameron’s claims, there was no protocol mistake by the Scottish delegation in the Erdoğan-Yousaf meeting.

Israel and Palestine

Secondly, with this letter, the London administration essentially wanted to remind that Scotland should act in accordance with the policies determined by London in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as in other foreign policy issues. At this point, it is important to recall that the UK does not speak out against the massacres in Gaza because it defends the thesis that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas.

Moreover, PM Sunak paid a visit to Tel Aviv immediately after Israel’s attacks on Gaza began and emphasized that the UK is on Israel’s side. Therefore, just as the UK pioneered the formation of an artificial state (Israel) in the heart of the Middle East with the Balfour Declaration in 1917, today it turns a blind eye to the massacres of the same state.

On behalf of the Scottish government, First Minister Yousaf follows a completely different policy from London regarding Israel’s attacks on Gaza. So much so that Yousaf, whose wife is a Palestinian from Gaza, loudly opposes Israel’s massacres in Gaza and does not refrain from stating that Israel targets civilians there. Yusaf also says that Scotland is ready to accept the aggrieved Palestinians from Gaza as refugees and calls for a ceasefire.

These “contrary” comments disturb both Israel and Israel-supporting British government, as they contradict Israel’s disinformation-based arguments. As a matter of fact, Cameron clarified in his letter that the UK and Scotland have to be coherent on the world stage. This implies that Scotland, like the British government, should ignore Israel’s massacres in Gaza!

Criticism of Israel for the massacres in Gaza

The reason why London became quite uncomfortable with the meeting is that Yousaf’s criticism of Israel for the massacres in Gaza and expressing the facts on the issue harms Israel’s superiority of discourse in the international community and allows the opposition front against Israel, which grows every day, to strengthen.

Naturally, this disturbs Israel and its supportive British ally. In addition, the fact that Yousaf met with in the shadows of Israel’s massacres in Gaza with an influential figure like Erdoğan, who has been trying to mobilize the international community against Israel, causes this discomfort. In other words, if the person Yousaf met in Dubai with was not Erdoğan who loudly opposes Israeli oppression, but a very dull figure on this issue, it would not have created such a stir in London.

Thirdly, Cameron is an important and experienced politician who served as the prime minister of the UK between 2010 and 2016. He faced two major crises during this time. The first of these was the referendum on Scottish independence, which took place in 2014. In this referendum, Scotland could not become an independent state because 44.7 percent of Scots voted to leave the UK and the remaining 55.3 percent voted to remain in the UK. Thus, Cameron eliminated this crisis.

The European Union

Cameron’s second crisis was the European Union (EU) referendum in 2016. During the election campaign in 2015, Cameron promised a referendum on whether to continue the EU membership as an election promise. The Conservatives led by Cameron won the election and the referendum took place in June 2016. However, Cameron campaigned to remain in the EU during the referendum process, 51.8 percent of UK citizens voted to leave the EU. Thus, the UK’s separation from the EU (Brexit) took place.

Perceiving the EU referendum result as a political failure, Cameron resigned as Conservative Party leader and prime minister. In this way, he put the heavy burden of the Brexit process on his successor. Seven years later, Cameron was surprisingly appointed as the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs by Prime Minister Sunak last month and returned to active politics. Now, if we evaluate the issue from this perspective, we can say that Cameron wanted to give a message to the public with his letter to Yusaf by saying: “I am back in politics.”

Finally, Cameron has threatened to withdraw Foreign Office support for overseas visits by Scottish government ministers, and close the SNP’s offices abroad if such protocol violations continue on international arenas. However, if London attempt to put pressure on Scotland with the oppressive and threatening rhetoric, this would disturb the Scottish society and open up space for pro-independence Scots’ demands and a new referendum. For this reason, if Cameron, whose political life constantly has oscillated between “yes and no”, does not act rationally regarding Scotland, he may face a new crisis in his political career that would be much more difficult to overcome.

T

he United States’ intense engagement in Taiwan in order to curb China, with which it competes not to lose its global leadership, encircling the latter in the Indo-Pacific, attracts the close attention of the entire world. The escalation of the crisis and the direct attempts of the parties to the dispute to engage in war resemble a disaster scenario for the whole world.

At this point, putting aside the possibility of a direct war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan, with the two great powers having nuclear weapons, it is likely that the U.S. will respond to a possible Chinese operation against Taiwan by increasing its support for Taipei, thus wearing China out. What attitude will European countries have in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?

Considering the UK’s long-standing special relationship with the U.S., London’s policy towards Taiwan is more important than other European countries. In this context, when we look at the current UK policy towards Taiwan, London does not recognize it as an independent state in accordance with the One-China policy and considers it a part of mainland China. At the same time, the UK maintains its informal relations with Taiwan through its trade and culture office in Taipei, the island’s de facto capital.

Less tensions in the Taiwan Strait

The UK is dissatisfied with the heating tensions in the Taiwan Strait as more than 300 British companies are present on the island and more than 180 Taiwanese companies are present in the UK with investments in various sectors. In this respect, the possibility that these investments will suffer if the tension on the U.S.-Taiwan-China front turns into a war disturbs London. For this reason, adopting a rational approach, the UK is in favor of solving the Taiwan issue through dialogue.

London intends to continue its established policy on the issue, as clearly expressed in a report published by the House of Commons in February of last year. Yet, according to the same report, the UK also supports Taiwan’s participation in international organizations as an observer member. Thus, for the time being, the UK complies with China’s red line regarding Taiwan and is far from adopting an approach that could provoke Beijing; however, its support for Taiwan’s membership in international organizations causes unease in China.

On the other hand, there is a strong expectation that if China launches a military operation against Taiwan, the U.S. will support Taiwan, and the UK will follow in the United States’ footsteps. This expectation must be viewed in light of the special relationship between London and Washington. First, the social, cultural, political, and economic seeds of today’s America were planted by the UK. For this reason, the political relations between the two countries have been shaped based on mutual trust and common interests. As a result, Europeanists, who favor a self-sufficient Europe that is independent from the U.S., perceive the UK as the United States’ European arm. In this spirit, France, the pioneer of this European camp, prevented the UK’s membership in the European Union until 1973.

The UK as a functional actor between Taiwan and China

In addition, the UK transferred its role as a dominant actor in global politics to the U.S. after World War II. Since then, the UK has equated the power of its successor, the United States, with its own and has taken the side of the U.S. in almost every issue that has occupied the agenda of global politics. So much so that the UK has provided the U.S. with the greatest support both in theory and practice in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has had tremendous impacts on regional and global politics for years, and has acted together with the U.S. in the Syrian and Libyan crises. The U.S. included the UK, its most reliable European partner, in the AUKUS military alliance, which it formed with Australia two years ago in order to counterbalance China in the Indo-Pacific. This development seriously damaged the U.S. and UK’s common relations with France and made China very uncomfortable.

In other words, the UK will act as a functional actor contributing to the securitization process of the Taiwan issue by siding with the U.S. In this respect, London will probably send financial and military aid to Taiwan, similar to the support it provided to Ukraine following the Russian invasion. In the same context, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak noted at the G-20 summit held in November last year that “China poses a systemic challenge to UK values and represents the biggest state-based threat to our economic security. We will consider sending arms to help Taiwan to defend itself in the event of an attack from Beijing.”

In conclusion, on the one hand, the UK does not follow a policy that will directly confront Beijing on the Taiwan issue and does not want the tension in the region to grow further, taking into account the mutual investments in Taiwan and Britain. At the same time, the UK does not hesitate to signal that if China attempts a military intervention against Taiwan, it will follow the U.S. and support Taiwan in accordance with its traditional Atlanticist foreign policy.

O

n March 13, 2023, U.S. president Joe Biden, British prime minister Rishi Sunak, and Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese made a joint statement in San Diego indicating that Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) as part of AUKUS.

The SSNs will be powered by highly enriched uranium (HEU), which can also be used in nuclear weapons, will use the UK’s latest design, and incorporate technology from all three partner nations. SSN-AUKUS will be equipped with intelligence, surveillance, undersea warfare, and strike missions.

According to Australian PM Albanese, the deal is expected to cost between $268 billion and $368 billion, making it the largest investment ever made for Australia’s defense capabilities. While concerns about potential atomic proliferation have been raised, Australian officials have emphasized that the country has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons or developing a civil nuclear capability.

SSNs to counter China’s growing assertiveness

On March 14, 2023, the Chinese Mission to the United Nations criticized the AUKUS nuclear submarine cooperation deal in a series of tweets, noting that it poses serious nuclear proliferation risks and undermines international non-proliferation efforts.

The tweets criticized the double standards of nuclear-armed states transferring enriched uranium to a non-nuclear-weapon state.

The deal has sparked criticism from China, which has denounced it as a “dangerous move” that threatens regional peace and stability. China has urged the UK, U.S., and Australia to address the international community’s concerns and fulfill their obligations in regards to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The U.S. has defended the AUKUS submarine deal as a necessary response to China’s “coercive behavior” and “unilateral attempts to alter the status quo” in the region.

China and Australia 

The agreement has also impacted trade relations between Australia and China. The relationship between the two nations had deteriorated even before the deal’s announcement due to human rights, security, and trade issues. Notably, China is Australia’s largest trading partner, and it views the submarine deal as a hostile move threatening its interests and sovereignty in the region.

The deal was seen to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines to counter China’s growing military modernization and assertiveness in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. It is also seen to challenge China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which seeks to create a global network of trade routes and infrastructure projects to give Beijing leverage over many countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America.

Australia, the NPT, and the IAEA

Based on the provisions of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it is allowed to transfer fissile material and nuclear technology from a nuclear-weapon state to a non-nuclear- weapon state for peaceful purposes.

However, some critics argue that the provisions were not designed to cover naval nuclear propulsion, and the agreement could undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the NPT.

According to reports by the Australian government, Australia is committed to upholding non-proliferation standards as it continues to develop its defense capabilities. The document outlines Australia’s history in the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, including its commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons, its advocacy for nuclear-weapon-free zones, and its support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The document also highlights Australia’s two safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which underpin the country’s outstanding non-proliferation credentials. By adhering to international law and agreements, Australia is working to ensure its defense capabilities.

Details of the AUKUS deal

The AUKUS agreement consists of four phases, beginning in 2023 when Australian navy personnel will embed with the navy personnel of the U.S. and UK and their submarine industrial bases. Australia will receive three SSNs from the U.S. in the early 2030s, while the UK is set to begin construction of its first SSN-AUKUS in the late 2020s to be delivered in the late 2030s. Australia plans to start building its first SSN-AUKUS by the end of the 2020s, with delivery expected in the early 2040s.

AUKUS is considered a significant development in the Indo-Pacific region as it aims to counter China’s growing military assertiveness. According to James Hackett, the AUKUS submarine deal has sent shockwaves through the international community since its announcement in 2021. With China’s naval presence in the world seas, the AUKUS partnership is perceived as a step towards balancing the naval power dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region.

H

umza Yousaf became the first minister of Scotland after narrowly winning the election for leader of the Scottish National Party. The health secretary received 52.1 percent of SNP members’ ballots, defeating finance secretary Kate Forbes, who received 47.9 percent.

Yousaf became Scotland’s first leader from an ethnic group and the first Muslim to head a democratic Western European country after he was sworn in as first minister on Wednesday, March 29, 2023, following a parliamentary decision on March 28.

In his victory speech, he said his “immediate priority will be to continue to protect every Scot as far as we can from the harm inflicted by the cost of living crisis, to recover and reform our NHS and other vital public services, to support our wellbeing economy and to improve the life chances of people across our country”. In addition, he attributes his success to his family, saying, “from the Punjab to our Parliament, this is a journey over generations that reminds us that we should celebrate migrants who contribute so much to our country”.

It is a narrow win over Forbes, an SNP rising star who campaigned as a change candidate, occasionally criticizing Yousaf and the SNP’s performance in government. Yousaf is close to former minister Nicola Sturgeon and campaigned on the promise of continuity — but the outcome underlines the difficult challenge he’ll face in rebuilding a party shaken by a contentious election.

Despite Yousaf winning the SNP leadership race, new polling performed by Ipsos Scotland between 17 and 21 of March suggests that the Scottish public are more favorable towards Kate Forbes than towards Humza Yousaf, while Nicola Sturgeon remains the most popular Scottish and Westminster political leader – ahead of all her potential successors – as well as beating Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who has a favorability rating of 20%, in contrast to Sturgeon’s rating of 46%.

The First Minister’s newly appointed cabinet revealed:

• Shona Robison, the new Deputy First Minister, will take on the Finance portfolio, including responsibility for the Scottish Budget
• Michael Matheson becomes the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care
• Jenny Gilruth joins Cabinet for the first time as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills
• Màiri McAllan joins Cabinet for the first time as Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Just Transition
• Neil Gray joins Cabinet for the first time as Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy
• Mairi Gougeon remains Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands
• Angus Robertson remains Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture
• Shirley-Anne Somerville becomes Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice
• Angela Constance returns to Cabinet as the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs

On Thursday, March 20, Parliament was requested to ratify the new ministerial nominations.

Humza Yousaf commented:

“The Cabinet team I have unveiled reflects the priorities that we will pursue as a government – including tackling child poverty, improving public services and building a fairer, greener economy”.

Controversies

Yousaf was one of 86 MSPs who supported the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform bill in December, which would have made it simpler for trans and non-binary people to acquire a gender-recognition certificate (GRC).

The legislation would have made it easier for trans people in Scotland to formally change their gender identity – without the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis – and would have reduced the age at which a person can file for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) from 18 to 16 years old. It would also reduce the time it takes to obtain formal acknowledgment of one’s gender from two years to a few months.

The measure was approved by the Scottish Parliament in December 2022 by a vote of 86 to 39.

The decision has sparked a lot of discussion about devolution and Scottish independence. The decision comes just two months after Scotland lost a supreme court attempt to conduct a secession vote without Westminster’s permission.

The measure was eventually blocked by the UK government under section 35, which Yousaf and others called an “unprecedented attack” on the Scottish parliament.

Concerns about the bill’s potential effect on women’s rights led the UK government to halt its implementation, citing a conflict with the UK Equality Act. Women’s rights activists have said that this strategy would undermine the safety of women-only spaces.

In an interview with Times Radio, Scotland’s former first minister Alex Salmond criticized Yousaf’s battle over Westminster, saying, “concentrate on self-determination, not self-identification.”

Concerns over a potential independent Scotland

Yousaf, reaffirmed his commitment to take an independent Scotland to the EU while maintaining the rights of Scottish voters over their ‘constitutional future’, saying “as we make the case for Scottish independence, we will continue to govern well and demonstrate to the people of Scotland the benefits of decisions about their lives being taken here in Scotland”.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has warned new First Minister Humza Yousaf about plans for a second Scottish independence referendum. Sunak told Westminster’s Liaison Committee: “I think in elections people vote on all sorts of different things and I don’t think it’s appropriate to try and hijack a general election for one issue”.

“People in Scotland will vote on the various issues they think are important to them.” He added that Scottish voters made their votes known in the 2014 referendum.

The British Prime Minister then continued: “As I’ve always said, I think actually what people in Scotland want is to see their two governments working together to deliver for them.”

G

lobalization has paved the way for intricate networks of illicit financial activities that have drawn attention because of the harm they cause to democracy.

Recently, Chatham House removed the name of Russian-Turkmen ex-banker Dmitry Leus, a Conservative Party donor, from the “The UK’s Kleptocracy Problem” report after a “threatened legal action for libel.”

The UK is facing ongoing issues to address the silent war of economic crimes within its political sphere. The Russia-Ukraine war potentially paved an opportunity for the UK and the U.S. to target economic crimes within their borders, but also individuals closely linked to Russian and post-Soviet countries.

Prior to the war, the UK maintained a relationship with Russia despite the present—but not as publicized— illicit economic activities of kleptocratic actors. Since the Russia-Ukraine war, the UK has further funded the National Crime Agency (NCA) to tackle economic crimes. It even strengthened the U.S.-UK sanction partnership for national security. Both countries deepen their foreign policy cooperation with a joint aim for wider awareness as these transnational crimes pose economic and political threats to national security.

Here the unanswered question is whether this move forward represents a firm stance by the UK and U.S. to overcome transnational crimes, in general, or just towards Russia because of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Political discourse around kleptocracy

The use of the term “kleptocracy” is more prevalent in UK and U.S. discourse especially since efforts of addressing this form of corruption have become more publicized. This effort can be noticed to specifically highlight only the cases related to Russia and post-Soviet countries. Kleptocracy refers to political actors engaging in illicit economic activities, while exploiting the complex economic structures for their own gain at the cost of the country’s citizens.

Economic crimes, kleptocracy, and its effects

Economic crimes, especially money laundering and tax fraud, have developed into complex systems with the development of globalization. Kleptocracy refers to a “rule by thieves” and a specific form of corruption. Economic crimes are committed by political agents for personal gain. Money laundering and the exploitation of global economic systems, structured by political agents, are perpetrated for personal benefit.

It is claimed that Russia and post-Soviet nations such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Kyrgyzstan have laundered money to the UK through offshore companies and bought properties for personal gain; however, if true, these tendencies pose a global problem.

In their report on kleptocracy, Chatham House, states that “kleptocracy also poses a potential security threat when it involves the merger of the contest between states over national interests and the conflict between elites over their vested interests.”

Global problems require global solutions

The next era of world order is expected to be that of multipolarity. Recently, Vladimir Putin, at a meeting with the heads of the CIS Security and Intelligence Agencies, stated, “The world is changing and indeed becoming multipolar.” He went on to emphasize that “some players in the international community are trying at all costs to maintain their faltering hegemony … against those who disagree with their policies.”

Economic crimes of kleptocratic nature have the potential to go unacknowledged without substantial communication among states. What this multipolar world will look like is deeply rooted in the nature of the mutual interests and ideals of democracy.

“Corruptly acquired capital does not merely flow to ‘havens’ in Europe and the U.S., but also increasingly to Middle Eastern and Asian financial centres such as Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore,” observed the report by Chatham House. “This is truly a global problem,” the report continues.

Putin has even called on the Arab League Summit in his quest for a multipolar world. He openly encouraged the U.S. to accept this new era of multipolarity while simultaneously establishing strong ties with China for a “just, democratic and multipolar world order.”

Given that economic crimes related to corruption are a transnational and global problem, it will require a global solution. The economic gain of a few translates into disastrous effects on citizens, social stability, and ties between states.

Already in the midst of a Russia-Ukraine war, international relations are heavily skewed while efforts to confirm an agreement are ongoing. Saving democracy from economic transnational crimes is another tough conversation.

G7 to G20

Leaders at the 2021 G7 summit made a statement about corruption and kleptocracy. If corruption and kleptocracy as a dialogue of interest was highlighted in the 2022 G7 summit is unanswered.

The G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group 2020 presented a report highlighting the extensive work in certain countries on anti-corruption measures and assets recovered by acts of kleptocratic corruption. The first Summit for Democracy in 2022 established its efforts against kleptocracy. The G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group has published an action plan for 2022-2024.

Countries like the UK and U.S. have openly started working to address these concerns publicly with Russia and post-Soviet countries at the center. These joint UK-U.S. efforts have been persistent. Whether economic crimes related to kleptocracy and corruption will be a topic in the G20 Summit is a matter of debate.

Since economic crimes of corruption and especially kleptocratic crimes have been a concern among states, and efforts are being made to tackle corruption, the fact that only certain countries have been targeted—given the political climate or the existence of persistent structural issues among certain nations—does not go unnoticed.

L

iz Truss, the United Kingdom’s new conservative prime minister, stirred controversy after saying that she is reviewing relocating her country’s embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Truss made the statement before a pro-Israel group of the Conservative Party, and if implemented, it will break a long-standing UK position which called for respecting the legal status of Jerusalem under international law—especially keeping in mind the historical role of the UK in the creation of Israel.

Truss responded to an earlier letter sent by a pro-Israel lobby group calling on her to move the UK embassy to Jerusalem by saying that she knows the “importance and sensitivity of the location of the embassy.”

The Israeli lobby has a strong influence in the United Kingdom. Coupled with personal calculations, this might push Truss to make a decision that goes against traditional British political establishments and which will highly displease Palestinians.

Support for Israel in the UK

Over the past 12 years, Tory prime ministers such as David Cameron, Theresa May, and Boris Johnson have expressed their strong personal and emotional ties and support for Israel.

The former leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, was ousted in 2020 after being targeted by a campaign by the Israeli lobby which accused him of anti-Semitism.

Meanwhile, Truss is facing serious leadership challenges after her plan to cut taxes imposed on the rich, which caused the British pound to fall to record levels against the U.S. dollar. By moving the UK embassy to Jerusalem, Truss seeks to garner more support among the conservative voting base and within her own party.

UK church leaders express concern

Church figures in the UK expressed concern over the “potential impact” of moving the British embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

According to a spokesperson, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby is “concerned” about the move.

The spokesperson told Middle East Eye: “The Archbishop is concerned about the potential impact of moving the British Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem before a negotiated settlement between Palestinians and Israelis has been reached.”

He noted that Welby “is in touch with Christian leaders in the Holy Land and continues to pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”

Jerusalem churches respond

The Council of Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem expressed its deep concern over Truss’s plan

In a statement on Monday, October 10, 2022, the council stated, “We, the Council of the Patriarchs and Heads of the Churches in Jerusalem, have noted with grave concern the recent call of the new British Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Liz Truss, for her government to review the placement of the British Embassy to Israel.”

The statement continued, “This directive was in response to the request of the Conservative Friends of Israel, who seek to have the Embassy moved from its present location in Tel Aviv to a new site in Jerusalem.”

It added, “The religious Status Quo in Jerusalem is essential for preserving the harmony of our Holy City and good relations between religious communities around the globe.”

“As a city holy to the three Abrahamic Faiths representing more than half the world’s population, Jerusalem has long been recognized by the International Community, including the United Kingdom, as having a special status (Corpus Separatum) one aimed at safeguarding the freedom of religion, the sacred character of Jerusalem as a Holy City, and the respect for, and freedom of access to, its holy places (UN Report, ‘The Status of Jerusalem,’ 1997).”

Truss seems to have miscalculated her plan to move the UK embassy to Jerusalem as she faces both internal and external opposition. The UK’s position on Jerusalem is of particular importance due to the role Britain played in the creation of the state of Israel and the Balfour Declaration which promised Jews a homeland in Palestine.

Q

Queen Elizabeth II lived a remarkably long life and was the longest reigning monarch in the history of the country. She was considered as a symbol of stability, service and embodiment of Britishness. Her passing is a rare historic moment and while many are mourning her departure, this event has also resurfaced grievances among people in the U.K.’s former colonies as well as generating critical reactions domestically.

The death and legacy of the Queen prompted a number of national and local British Muslim organizations to offer their condolences and tributes. Well known scholar Abdal Hakim Murad devoted a Friday sermon at Cambridge Mosque to the subject of kingship, Islam and the implications of the current King being sympathetic to Islam. The Queen’s passing was widely discussed on social media with popular Muslim YouTubers such as Paul Williams discussing the positive things Charles has said about Islam.

The National Anthem was even sung in Regents Park mosque to mark the accession of the new King. Some Muslims are convinced that Charles is a secret Muslim and others have made the dubious claim that the Queen was a descendent of the Prophet. London-based researcher Muhammad Ahmedullah told Politics Today, “The idea that the symbol of British power, the Queen and the Monarchy, could somehow be related to and descendant from the founder of Islam can be deeply comforting for people experiencing powerlessness and lacking the intellectual, creative and critical tools to confront their predicament head on without relying on mythical reassurances.”

Muslims growing up in Britain in the1970s and 1980s, appear to be more sympathetic to the deceased monarch and have affection for her as an individual. They could be described as “Queenist,” while not necessarily being Monarchist. Amir Suleman, a media professional from Peterborough, noted to Politics Today he experienced a sense of personal loss, adding “The more I digest her passing, I only now begin to realise how important she was to me personally. She was always ‘there’… It was just normal to always have the Queen. I’m 48 years old and she was, like most, the only monarch we’ve ever had and there are many memories associated with her.”

For political commentator Sami Hamdi, the experience of living in a Britain with its freedoms and opportunities made him appreciate what the late monarch represented “I cannot lie… A deep sadness grips me for a Queen who (for me) was the powerful symbol of the stability of the refuge and sanctuary in which I was born and raised (and which was not, and is not, afforded to my family elsewhere),”he said to Politics Today.

Attitudes are changing, nearly a third of the public, most of whom are young people, want to abolish the monarchy, some polls suggest that less than 40 percent of people from minorities  favour keeping the institution. Underlying this sentiment is the view that the Royal Family is symbolic of privilege and inequality and the fact that the ancestors of the U.K.’s Muslims lived and died under British colonialism. The contemporary legacies of the British Empire can be seen in Africa and the Middle East and this history continues to contaminate relations between India and Pakistan in relationship to Kashmir, in addition to ongoing reverberations of Her Majesty’s Government’s mass exploitation of Indian natural resources.

Though the Queen was not personally responsible for these events – she was always silent on these matters.  Her defenders will argue that she had no political power, however, this narrative is difficult to maintain when considering evidence that indicates that she lobbied for changes in the law to hide her private wealth and that the Royals vetted more than a thousand laws through the mechanism of the Queen’s consent.

The extraordinary queuing to pay last respects to the Queen have been interpreted and exploited in a way that equates feelings of sadness about her death with joy at the unquestioned accession of Charles. Loyalty to the Crown is an implied aspect of British identity.

As Afroze F Zaidi has argued, citizenship has become conditional, for Muslim Britons in light of the U.K.’s counter-terror policy, Prevent. A recent report by the Institute of Race Relations shows that British Muslims have their citizenship reduced to “second-class” status and analysis of government data by the Muslim Council of Britain indicates that around 50% of Muslims live in poverty. This is at time when the new King has inherited his mother’s vast wealth while the public will be forced to continue subsidising their lifestyles to the tune of $33 million in the next two years.

Charles to his credit, has has a long track record of supporting charitable  causes such as the Prince’s Trust  and is  patron of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, where he gave his famous 1993 speech on “Islam and the West“.  According to the author of “Charles At Seventy: Thoughts, Hopes and Dreams“, Charles opposed the Iraq war, disagreed with the burqas and niqab bans in Europe,  told ministers he has  sympathy for the Palestinians and studies the Quran. In a recent speech to faith leaders in Buckingham Palace, King Charles spoke of his personal duty:

“…to protect the diversity of our country, including by protecting the space for faith itself and its practice through the religions, cultures, traditions and beliefs to which our hearts and minds direct us as individuals.”

However, community historian Yahya Birt cautions British Muslims, “…not to be easily charmed by Charles and rush unthinkingly for the photo, career and funding opportunities and the imperial gongs at the crowning of a new Islamophilic monarch.”

Over the last decade, Charles has had 95 meetings in the Middle East and eight were with repressive monarchies. Many of these occurred just before or after  acts of repression against opposition activists, the media or religious minorities and he has played a key role in promoting £14.5-billion worth of UK arms exports to these. The arrests of protesters questioning his right to being King are not encouraging sign for a country that prides itself on the right to free speech.

Also, cancelling hospital appointments and closing food banks on the date of the funeral of the Queen are not the best way to generate good among those in difficult circumstances. As Zara Mohammed, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain notes, “The reign of King Charles III, will force Britain to enter a period where difficult conversations on history, the past and the future direction of the country need to be had.”

He has become Head of State of 14 countries in addition to the UK. Some of them have already signalled that they want to become Republics, while staying as Commonwealth members. How will he navigate this and the legacies of colonialism? Will he make the Royal Family more relevant and accountable to the concerns of all British people?

Can his enthusiasm for Islam and Multiculturalism pacify the current government which is in denial about its institutional Islamophobia? Britain certainly could do with a figure head that brings communities together, who could help heal the ever widening social divides on the basis of race, religion, class and work for a more equitable society. It remains to be seen if the new monarch can play this role.

Liz Truss is the Member of Parliament for Southwest Norfolk, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Affairs, and Minister of Women and Equalities. She is presently one of the leading candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party, who will likely become the next British Prime Minister.

The alternatives for Boris Johnson’s replacement as party leader and Prime Minister have been reduced to two contenders by Conservative MPs. On September 5, following a runoff vote among Conservative party members, either Foreign Secretary Liz Truss or former Chancellor Rishi Sunak will be crowned the victor.

With three weeks remaining in the contest for the leadership of the British Conservative Party, the foreign secretary is farther ahead of her opponent Rishi Sunak. She has the support of eleven government whips as she strives to extend her advantage against Rishi Sunak among Conservative party members.

In light of the increasing cost of living and the impending recession, the new British prime minister will have to strike the ground running. Therefore, the focus has already shifted to Truss’ first steps at No. 10 should she become Prime Minister as predicted.

According to YouGov, Liz Truss now has a 38-point advantage against Rishi Sunak among Conservative members. Currently, the foreign secretary has 69% of the popular vote versus Sunak’s 31%. Both contenders have set out some of their policies already and will continue to do so in the coming weeks – Here is what we know about Liz Truss so far.

Domestic Affairs

Speaking at the Tory party leadership debate in Eastbourne, Truss said that if she were to become prime minister, her proposals for quick tax cuts may prevent a recession.

She stated: “I know there are difficult forecasts out there, but forecasts are not destiny. And what we shouldn’t be doing is talking ourselves into a recession. We should be keeping taxes low.”

This is in response to the Bank of England’s warning that a recession will hit the UK as interest rates are increased by the greatest in 27 years.

According to the Bank of England’s Governor, Andrew Bailey, “what has happened is there has been a series of big supply side shocks, most of which were outside… I would dare anyone to have been in this position two years ago and predicted a conflict in Ukraine,” he continued. He maintained that, while the bulk of inflationary pressure was caused by rising gas prices in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, boosting interest rates was required to avoid excessive inflation from being ingrained.

Immigration

Truss has nearly always voted for stricter asylum laws and has consistently supported stricter enforcement of immigration laws. She has stated that she “completely agrees” with the Rwandan government’s immigration policy and has gone further than other candidates, reportedly planning to “extend the controversial policy to other countries” if elected prime minister.

She stated, “As prime minister, I am determined to see the Rwanda policy through to full implementation as well as exploring other countries where we can work on similar partnerships.”

She was absent in 2020 from a vote on the Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — New Clause — Leave to Enter: Family Unity and Asylum Claims. She has also voted to remove the ability of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, spouses, vulnerable adults, and dependent adults to join a legally present family member in the United Kingdom.

Education

Truss has virtually always voted in favor of turning primary and secondary schools into academies, and she has repeatedly voted to withdraw financial aid for certain 16- to 19-year-olds in training and higher education. In addition, she voted to increase university tuition fees to £9,000 per year.

Foreign Policy

Truss voted a mixture of for and against strengthening the Military Covenant. Truss has regularly supported the employment of British military personnel in combat operations abroad during her time as a member of parliament, including voting for military action against Daesh in Syria. But she also voted against Iraq War inquiry bills.

In November 2016, Truss voted against an investigation into the disparity between public rhetoric and private conduct before the Iraq war. In November, 2020, she voted in favor of putting limitations on the prosecution of members of the armed forces for their conduct while deployed abroad, including in cases of alleged torture, therefore reiterating her earlier vote.

However, in an interview with the BBC, she said that if she were to become prime minister, she would not deploy British soldiers into Ukraine.

She stated, “We are doing all we can to support Ukraine. We’ve led the international coalition on sending weapons, we’re putting the sanctions in place, but I do not support the direct involvement of UK troops.”

What happens next?

The two candidates must now face off in 5 Tory hustings debates throughout the nation, a procedure that started on July 28 in Leeds and will culminate on August 31 in London. The victor will be declared on Monday, September 5, and will become the next Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister.

Sinn Féin, the Irish nationalist party, has won a historic vote in Northern Ireland, making it the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly for the first time. On Saturday, May 7, with nearly all of the votes from Thursday’s election counted, Sinn Féin took 27 of the Assembly’s 90 seats.

As voting completed in the early hours of Sunday morning, the final results confirmed what had long been expected: the Republican Party would push the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) into second position. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which has dominated Northern Ireland’s assembly for the last two decades, came second with 24 seats.

The President of Sinn Féin, Mary Lou Mcdonald, has increased her efforts for an Irish reunification referendum. She stated, in an interview, “I believe the referendum would be possible within a five year timeframe, much more importantly, I believe the preparation needs to start now.”

Similar sentiments were expressed by Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy president and first minister-elect, who stated, “today ushers in a new era which I believe presents us all with an opportunity to reimagine relationships in this society on the basis of fairness, on the basis of equality and on the basis of social justice.”

Economic sanctions

Ireland made international news in May 2021 when it became the first EU country to call Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territory unlawful. The motion’s unanimity generated widespread attention. Ireland joined the list of other countries and human rights organizations in calling out the annexation of Palestinian lands. John Brady, Sinn Féin’s spokesman for international affairs, reaffirmed: “we are baldly stating that Israel is acting illegally under international law.”

The Irish lower house of parliament passed the Occupied Territories Bill 2018, which prohibits trade between unlawful settlements and was introduced by independent TD Frances Black. Despite the fact that the measure has yet to be passed into law, its passage is viewed as a significant win for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to put economic pressure on Israel in order to end its unlawful occupation of Palestine.

People who are seeking refuge in the UK are now to be transported to Rwanda under a contentious new system slammed by international human rights organizations as “shockingly ill-conceived idea” and in violation of international responsibilities.

In a speech on Thursday on April 21, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson described the initiative as an “innovative approach, driven by our shared humanitarian impulse and made possible by Brexit freedoms” adding that with the UK’s assistance, Rwanda will be able to relocate “tens of thousands of people in the years ahead.”

Priti Patel, UK Home Secretary, said during a joint press conference in Rwanda’s capital Kigali on April 15, that persons transferred to Rwanda “will be given the support including up to five years of training, integration, accommodation, health care, so that they can resettle and thrive.”

Under the new Asylum Partnership Arrangement, people arriving in the UK from January 1, 2022 may be transferred to Rwanda on a one-way ticket to have their asylum application investigated and, if found to be refugees, to be granted refugee status there.

According to the Home Office report published on April 15, it states that “the UK is investing  £120 million into the economic development and growth of Rwanda,” which will cover funding that will assist the delivery of asylum operations, housing, and integration, which will be equivalent to the expenditures paid in the UK for these services.

Despite previously holding negotiations with a number of African nations including Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Tunisia, the Nordic country has yet to reach an agreement with any of them.

The Scandinavian country, which has shifted to the right, has taken increasingly punitive measures against asylum seekers. It enacted a bill in 2021 allowing migrants in Denmark to be transferred to asylum centers in a partner nation. The concept of delegating responsibility for processing asylum applications to asylum seekers is both arguably negligent and inhumane by intentional law.

Similar models, such as the Australian model or the so-called “hotspots” in the Greek islands, have resulted in major episodes of imprisonment, physical abuse, and a lack of health care.

Reaction from human rights organizations

The Asylum Partnership Agreement proposed by the Home Office in the UK is in violation of asylum law and the Geneva Convention, to which the UK is a signatory. Those who cross the border illegally to seek refuge, according to the Geneva convention should not receive punishment, stated by Article 31.

Human Rights Watch has criticized the disparity between refugees fleeing Ukraine and those fleeing other conflicts outside of Europe. According to the organization, “at a time when the people of the UK have opened their hearts and homes to Ukrainians, the government is choosing to act with cruelty and rip up their obligations to others fleeing war and persecution.”

In a statement, the Danish Refugee Council said that sending asylum seekers overseas for processing is “both irresponsible and lacking in solidarity.” The NGO also questioned the practicality of the plan, saying, “it is also still very unclear how a possible reception center in a third country would be administered.”

Amnesty International UK said in a statement, “Sending people to another country – let alone one with such a dismal human rights record – for asylum ‘processing’ is the very height of irresponsibility and shows how far removed from humanity and reality the Government now is on asylum issues.”

In a critical time for Boris Johnson, Nusrat Ghani’s allegations have roiled the Conservative Party. The prime minister is awaiting the outcome of a pivotal inquiry into lockdown-flouting parties in Downing Street that took place during a period when government-backed public health restrictions prohibited most social gatherings.

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Nusrat Ghani said that when she was fired as transport minister during a reshuffle in 2020, she was informed that “Muslimness” had been mentioned as a concern at a Downing Street meeting.

“At the post-reshuffle meeting with the whips, I asked what the thinking was behind the decision to fire me…that my ‘Muslim woman minister’ status was making colleagues uncomfortable and that there were concerns ‘that I wasn’t loyal to the party as I didn’t do enough to defend the party against Islamophobia allegations.”

The accusations made by Ghani have been previously echoed by former Tory peer Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the country’s first female Muslim cabinet minister and a persistent campaigner against Islamophobia. When she learned that Javid had been named chancellor, she stated in a tweet “It’s a shame… that it’s taken four years and a leadership contest to finally drag my colleagues kicking and screaming to address this issue.”

To be an Anti-Muslim bigot is to be rewarded and elevated to a party post but to speak out against it is to be shunned and politically exiled.

There has been criticism from the wider British Muslim community on Ghani’s role as a Conservative MP in normalizing anti-Muslim bigotry through government initiatives such as Prevent. Ghani’s definition of Islamophobia is markedly different from the standard definition, which is as follows: “Intense dislike or fear of Islam, especially as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims.”

“Thus, if the archetypal radicalizer in the first decade after 9/11 was the almost pantomime figure of Abu Hamza with his eye-patch, hook hands and wild rhetoric; his counterpart in the last ten years was likely to be smartly dressed, soft-spoken and to mouth platitudes about social justice and human rights,” she continued as saying.

Prevent has faced criticism not only from civil organizations but international bodies including the UN.

In a report on anti-Muslim hate and discrimination by UN Special Rapporteur, Ahmed Shaheed, on Freedom of Religion or Belief submitted, it stated the key issues form the Prevent Strategy:

• That the Prevent duty was leaving students fearful of exercising their rights to freedom of expression and belief.
• The Prevent duty risked being counter-productive by driving children to discuss issues related to terrorism, religion, and identity outside the classroom and online, where simplistic narratives are promoted and go unchallenged.

The language used by media outlets and politicians, notably during the “war on terror,” has contributed to the normalization of this bigotry. As with other types of discrimination, it is critical to hear the victims’ voices loudly.

Despite mounting worries from the British Muslim community over escalating Anti-Muslim prejudice, the conservative party has failed to settle on a definition. Islamophobia, as defined by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, is “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

The Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, and the Mayor of London have all endorsed this term, but the Conservative Party has rejected it. The Tory government’s refusal to adopt the definition of Islamophobia despite the support of the definition by cross party parliamentarians is a reflection of the party’s stance towards Muslims and Islam.

A YouGov poll conducted on behalf of Hope Not Hate (an non-partisan organization tackling racism and fascism) show Conservative members showing worrying beliefs in Islamophobic myths, don’t want a Muslim to be Prime Minister, and overwhelmingly reject even the very idea that the Conservative Party has a problem with this issue.” 67% believe  “there are areas in Britain that operate under Sharia law,” as opposed to just 18% who oppose this. 39% of members believe that “Islamist terrorists reflect a widespread hostility to Britain amongst the Muslim community”.

Although the Conservatives are in power and have the responsibility of bringing this problem to the forefront, Islamophobia is not only a Conservative issue; the Labour Party is not exempt.

According to a report conducted by the Labour Muslim Network in Nov 2020 on Islamophobia and the Muslim experience, 29% of Muslim members and supporters have directly experienced Islamophobia in the Labour Party, 37% have directly witnessed Islamophobia within the Labour Party and 44 % don’t think the party takes it seriously.

Regardless of how strongly one may disagree with Nusrat Ghani, justice requires that we contextualize this moment within the larger framework of Islamophobia that Muslims suffer. In the end, when we tolerate one person’s persecution, we all lose. While we are not compelled to demonstrate sympathy or solidarity with one person, we must evaluate all angles in the injustice of Anti-Muslim bigotry, Anti- Muslim hatred, Islamophobia (which all mean the same thing).

Changing a word’s spelling, but the intent remains the same, defining the issue is never the problem, genuine change usually is.

Lord Alf Dubs was a former child refugee who escaped Nazi-occupied Prague on the Kindertransport in 1939 and was one of 669 Czech children saved by English stock dealer Nicholas Whinton. He went on to become an MP and a member of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, as well as a passionate activist for refugee rights and a patron of a number of refugee-related organizations. Ayan Mohamed Ali spoke with him about his personal connection to the refugee plight and how his experiences with the Kindertransport initiative can assist influence UK government policy on refugees crossing the English Channel.

Q. Could you give a quick overview of your background in connection to the present refugee crisis for our readers who may be hearing about you for the first time?

I came to Britain as a child, an unaccompanied child refugee in 1939 on a Kindertransport. I’ve been active in politics for a long time. I was the director of the Refugee Council for some years, and I was in the House of Commons. I was active with refugees then, and in the House of Lords, I became more active with refugees. More recently, I got an amendment, so in 2016, which the government eventually had to accept, for getting unaccompanied child refugees to Britain.

That was passed, and several 100 got through under that amendment. I got to another amendment that family unions continue, where possible, under the European Union treaty, even after we left the EU, and that passed both houses 920 – 17, but the government deleted it in 2019. So, there are very few safe routes for child refugees, and certainly none from Europe at the present time.

Q. Do you believe that seeing the names and faces of the refugees who drowned trying to reach Britain will help to improve the existing unfavorable perception of refugees and the reluctance of some British people and the government to welcome more?

I certainly think that the shocking van in the tragedy of those people a couple of weeks ago was absolutely horrific. Whether that will make much difference to the government’s attitude, I don’t know. The government seemed to blame it on the traffickers but show little sympathy for the refugees who have no other way of coming here except to traffickers because the government have closed all the doors. What I believe is important is that people in this country should be made fully aware of the circumstances under which refugees have fled their country, fleeing from war, persecution, oppression, discrimination.

I think if there’s a better understanding of the awful lives, and the awful fear that they left behind, then there’d be more sympathy for those that come here, because these are not people who are just trying to improve their condition. Not that there’s anything wrong with time to improve your condition. But these are people who fled and have the full protection of the United Nations Geneva Convention.

Q. What’s your response to those who say accepting unaccompanied child refugees will create a pull factor, whereby migrants are incentivized to undertake dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean to places like Greece in the hope of being resettled elsewhere in Europe.

This is always the argument that people use the pull factors. I’m not convinced by that argument at all. I think that our push factors in terms of the terrible situation that refugees are left behind, I don’t think the pull factors really carry much weight in the argument.

Obviously, we want to make our country as welcoming as possible for refugees, although I don’t think we’re doing that

Obviously, we want to make our country as welcoming as possible for refugees, although I don’t think we’re doing that. Some of the terrible situations that child refugees have left, there was one same boy who told me that he’d seen his father blown up in front of him by a bomb in Aleppo, Damascus. It is the fear of that situation that drives people to leave much more than any pull factor.

Q. Many British residents have been turned off from engaging in the political process because of the lack of compassion in political arguments over immigration in parliament. What steps do you believe the government should take to address this?

Our problem is that the government has contributed to the hostility because they’ve announced they want to keep the numbers down. The signaling all the time that refugees are not welcome here. The new legislation that just passed the House of Commons and is going through the House of Lords will make the environment even more difficult for refugees.

I think what we need is a government that shows leadership, and that says where people are fleeing for safety. But under the International Geneva Convention, we as a country should be welcoming, rather than hostile. And the difficulty is that if senior politicians make hostile remarks against local communities, it’s not surprising. If there’s some hostility I think that is depressing and awful. I think what all would like is for political leaders to help public opinion to understand why people are fleeing. To say that as a country, we should be humanitarian, and welcome and we can’t take all refugees but those who we take, we should be welcoming.

David Miller was a professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol in the UK, but he was fired following a campaign by the Israel lobby over his criticism of Israel. No complaint was ever made to the University by a student of Professor Miller’s. A Queens Counsel (QC) cleared him of accusations of anti-Semitism, however, the university still decided to fire him because it was claimed that his comments ‘annoyed’ or ‘upset’ a small number of pro-Israel students, none of which he had ever taught. Politics Today spoke to Miller about what happened with him and academic freedom in the UK in the context of the Palestine/Israel issue.

Q. Could you please introduce yourself and, academic background and your area of expertise and research to our readership?

My name is David Miller. Until four weeks ago, I was a professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol, in the UK, and I’ve been involved as a sociologist in academic jobs, since the late 1980s. My first research project for my PhD back in the early 1990s was on the conflict in the north of Ireland, in particular, the question of propaganda in the conflict in the north of Ireland, and as a result of doing that work, I became very interested especially in state organizations and their involvement in propaganda.

I was particularly interested in propaganda and propaganda of state organizations, especially the army, the police, but also for the Foreign Office of the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office, and as a result I’ve had an abiding interest in propaganda and public relations activities.

My career since then, I’ve come again and again to the question of conflict and propaganda. That’s what partly is taking me towards the question of Palestine, of Zionism, but also, I’ve been interested in propaganda more widely in society. So, I got interested in corporate public relations and spin. But partly as a result of that, I got interested in lobbying and the exertion of direct power on decision making, as opposed to the indirect exertion of power through propaganda and media. So that also has been something I’ve drawn on in my research in the last 10 years or so on Zionism.

I’ve become very interested in Zionism as a political philosophy and as an actually existing social movement, and I’ve become interested in studying that directly in the way that not that many peole have been doing. Also, I have been interested in Zionism in the context of the question of Islamophobia, racism against Muslims and the wider context of anti-Arab racism and anti-Palestinian racism. I’ve connected the two of those issues together, and that’s one of the things which has proven, I think, controversial, about my activities.

Q. I would like to learn more about your version of events of what happened that pushed the University of Bristol to fire you from the University.

I arrived at University of Bristol in September 2018. And around six months later, I was giving a lecture on Islamophobia on one of my modules. What appears to have happened is that two of my students in the class  contacted the Community Security Trust (CST), which is a pro-Israel organization, that claims that it is only an organization set up to combat anti-Semitism. Of course, the problem with it is that it fails to, or finds it difficult, or deliberately doesn’t want to, distinguish between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. Of course, those are two separate things.

The CST complained to the University of Bristol, the University rejected their complaint because they weren’t students. The students themselves were able to complain anonymously if they wanted to, but they didn’t want to. So, the CST went to an organization that it is very closely connected to the Union of Jewish Students, which is a British national organization, the umbrella group for all Jewish student societies across the whole of the UK. And they put in a complaint together with the local society, the Bristol Jewish Society, that complained about some of my statements over the previous six years, including only one which I’ve made since I have been in post at the University of Bristol.

The Union of Jewish Students is not just an organization which represents Jews, nor does it represent all Jews on campus. It’s constitutionally a pro-Israel organization. It is not, it doesn’t represent, for example, anti-Zionist or non-Zionist Jews. And in fact, many of them may find it very difficult to be part of such an organization. So, the UJS put in a complaint to the University.

The Union of Jewish Students is not just an organization which represents Jews, nor does it represent all Jews on campus. It’s constitutionally a pro-Israel organization.

The University thought that the complaint should be accepted because one of the people who signed the letter was a current student at the University of Bristol. She was not my student, and had never been to any of my lectures, but was the president of the local JSoc. The University accepted the complaint.  Later  they rejected it because it was determined that there was no evidence in any of the things I’ve said or in my teaching of anti-Semitism.

Q. What was the content of these statements and the article you wrote for the Electronic Intifada?

I said things about being attacked and complained about. I also referred to Zionism as a racist ideology that should be ended; It has always been a racist ideology. The difficulty in this case was that students were potentially in danger,  there was a question of students being put in danger by being used as pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime, the State of Israel. I went on to talk in my Electronic Intifada article about campaigns originating from the State of Israel, which had been targeting, in the UK for example, the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, academics and others who dare to criticize either the actions of the State of Israel or indeed the whole concept of the ideology of Zionism.

The investigation started six months ago, and the QC determined that none of my statements, were anti-Semitism.

So, the investigation started six months ago, and the QC determined that none of my statements, were anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, they decided to fire me on the grounds that some students were upset with what I had said; that somehow, my words have been spoken in a manner which was not correct. I am still not entirely clear what that meant.

Q. So, the university said that your statements were not anti-Semitic, but it still fired you because some students were upset. Did the university say this to you?

Yes.

Q. Considering this, how do you see academic freedom at UK campuses, when it comes to Palestine and Israel?

Well, it’s a very difficult area. I mean, my case is not the first, there were attacks in the UK in previous times against other academicians. There have been previous cases of people being attacked and actions taken against them. And at present, there are a large number of complaints throughout the UK, which probably people don’t really know about, at universities such as Glasgow,Warwick, Leeds, Birmingham. There are a lot of different complaints from especially the local affiliates of the Union of Jewish Students who make complaints about comments about Israel-Palestine.

These are always, almost always, against pro-Palestine people, or people on the left. There’s no actual fascists or actual anti-Semites being criticized in these cases. This is an attack on academic freedom. Like it was an attack on the leadership of the Labour Party. It’s a strategy which the Government of Israel has been developing for some years, in particular, through the Global Forum for Countering Antisemitism where they want to target the left, and they want to target Muslims. So, they want to try and intervene in the possibility that Muslims might work together with people on the left to show solidarity for Palestine, and that’s why they want to attack people like that, because they threaten the interests of the Israeli state.

Q. There are accusations of anti-Semitism against you, but you have also received support from the local community, including from Jewish students, tell us about this.

Well, this is a strategic use of anti-Semitism allegations. This strategy has been developed by the Israeli state, through the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism since the year 2000. The adoption of the IHRA definition, is part of that strategy which blurs together anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. But they don’t just need that because it doesn’t go far enough. They have to be able to criticize anybody who criticizes Israel’s policies, or indeed, the ideology of Zionism itself. That’s what they’re doing. They have this definition, which helps them as well, and they use it as a weapon, to bludgeon anyone who opposes them, but they also have invested significant amounts of organizational capacity and money in a myriad of local pro-Israel groups up and down the country.

Some of them are long standing and go back to the foundations of the Zionist movement. However, many of these groups have been created in the last eight or nine years, especially since 2014 when the Israeli 51-day attack on Gaza took place, where many more pro-Israel organizations were founded in this country than previously. The reason for this is not because there’s an upswing of support for Israel, it’s just the opposite.

There is increasing hostility towards Israel, amongst the public, but there’s been also investment of money and in organizational capacity to set up new organizations, the function of which is to troll, to bludgeon, to complain, to make up stuff, to dredge up facts or seeming facts from the past, and to use these to target people in local councils and schools and trade unions and the universities, to remove a whole cadre of people who will stand up for Palestinians. They are very concerned about the fact that public opinion opposes them. So nevertheless, public opinion and support for Israel starts to fade away, as a result of intensify their efforts, there’s more and more heat and light about this alleged crisis of anti-Semitism, something which was entirely invented.

Q. Some might think that, since the public opinion in the West, including in the UK, is turning in favor of the Palestinians, the opposite should happen, that you also have received support from the local community, different groups, different people from different backgrounds and political affiliations that should have supported you. Despite this, the Israeli lobby is still able to deliver its version of the story and have the upper hand or the final say, when it comes to criticism against Israel.

Yes, that’s because this is a strategy of intimidation, and bullying, and public institutions in this country, and many other countries, try and operate on the basis that people are operating in good faith. When they’re faced with an orchestrated campaign of bullying, they don’t know what to do, especially when an orchestrated campaign can present itself as a victim of the situation, especially as a victim of racism. So, the idea here is to present yourself as being a victim of anti-Semitism.

And that makes it very difficult for institutions that have to deal with the question of anti-Semitism and inequalities, because they don’t know how to deal with or they cannot even comprehend in some ways, the possibility that some of these are allegations in bad faith. Of course, they are. This is a strategy dreamt up in Israel, and deployed in France and in Germany, and in the UK and elsewhere.

Recently various footage started to circulate showing U.S. Border Patrol agents on horseback using lariats, ropes used by horse riders, to chase down and push back Haitian migrants – women, men, and even children – stumbling through the Rio Grande in the hope of crossing over the Mexican border into Texas.

Images display the agents whipping the migrants, rounding them up, yanking their t-shirts, and insulting them. The brutality of the scenes caused widespread outrage both from civil society and institutions, including a condemnation from White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who described them as “horrific.”

The Texas Border Patrol’s mistreatment was so blatant and widely shared that everyone’s reaction couldn’t be anything other than criticism and shock. Yet each pushback entails the same violence, the same corporeity, the same fear for each and every person cornered and chased out, with or without such flagrant abuse at the hands of state forces – and yet so often included.

All around Europe pushbacks take place daily and generally do not meet the slightest outrage from national and European institutions.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has already signed off the tactics; however, such a controversial measure is unworkable without French cooperation, and Paris does not seem willing to cooperate any longer.

Despite a previous bilateral agreement to double the number of French police patrolling the coastline and increase border security at ports with digital barriers like radars and optronic binoculars, French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin rejected the latest policy on the grounds that “safeguarding human lives at sea takes priority over considerations of nationality, status and migratory policy.”

Paris warned that the Channel could become a “theatre of human tragedies.” At the same time, the U.K. Home Office’s own impact assessment in the Nationality and Borders Bill doesn’t say otherwise, as it states there is a serious risk that these measures could encourage people to attempt new and even riskier routes.

More and more people attempt the perilous sea route every year, a solid indication of how difficult or near impossible it is to gain entry to the UK by other means. While half of all migrants came by sea in 2020, in 2019, it was only 11%. In the last years, the Eurotunnel started to be subjected to much tighter control and the opportunity to board lorries through the fortifications around terminals or conceal oneself in vehicles was eventually cut off.

If people are desperate, they will do desperate things – and the U.K. is intentionally pushing asylum seekers trying to reach its territory to become ever more desperate.

Opposition is also coming from the trade union that represents the Border Force. Lucy Moreton of the Immigration Service Union (ISU), which represents frontline border staff, stated that this measure, announced without any warning, could put both migrants and Border Force officers at risk, prompting people to jump from boats.

According to the former director general of the U.K. Border Force, Tony Smith, the Australian tactic is an entirely different model, as “these are dangerous waterways [the English Channel] and very vulnerable vessels,” not designed to bring people ashore or to process people. “I think it is highly dangerous. … I fear for the worst. We have already had drownings. They are not as well reported as they should be, but we have had them. We do not know how many, of course, because bodies have not always been retrieved,” Smith said at the parliament’s debate on the new Nationality and Borders Bill.

Apart from the much higher life-threatening risks, such a pushback policy would provoke wider negative outcomes. On the one hand, it will likely encourage smugglers to develop and try new strategies to get around controls, like moving departure points further up the French coast to find longer and riskier routes. On the other hand, it would ultimately be up to individual on-scene Border Force agents to decide whether a boat is at risk of capsizing if forced back or it can be “safely” pushed back.

The arbitrariness of such decisions, the little oversight and accountability, and the violence every pushback entails by its very nature, as U.S. Border Patrol agents have recently shown, will make room for further abuses.

Under American hegemony, Asia Pacific has experienced the longest period of peace since the start of the Industrial Revolution, but the emergence of China as a rival power has created a sense of insecurity not felt in the region since Imperial Japan invaded Nanjing in 1937, and then soon after the rest of southeast Asia.

In response, Australia, United Kingdom and the United States have formulated the AUKUS security alliance to challenge what it and its Asian allies, including India, South Korea and Japan, perceive to be an increasingly militaristic and hyper-aggressive China.

But when security analysts talk about the “China threat,” they mean the direct military threat it poses to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India, the Philippines and Vietnam, among others, but not the three AUKUS signatories – Australia, U.K. and U.S.

In fact, China is not only Australia’s number one trading partner, but also has never threatened Australia militarily, or implied such a threat. Moreover, the UK is located on the other side of the planet, while the US maintains a huge and ever-expanding lead over the Asian power’s military capabilities.

So, who’s insecurity is this trilateral security partnership meant to resolve?

Well, if you listen carefully to American security elites, AUKUS is President Biden’s way of outsourcing some of the heavy lifting that will be required to deter or prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan at some point in the next two to three decades, with the construction of eight-nuclear powered submarines in Australia the centrepiece of his strategy.

Should a shooting war between China and the U.S. materialize, the Pentagon anticipates Australia’s submarine fleet will allow it to lighten the burden of its Pacific Fleet, especially given Canberra has established a track record of blindly following the U.S. into every war since and including World War Two.

Expectedly, Beijing has responded by calling Australia “brainless,” and warning it has made itself a target.

Expectedly, Beijing has responded by calling Australia “brainless,” and warning it has made itself a target.

“Armed with nuclear submarines, Australia itself will be a target for possible nuclear attacks in the future,” Victor Gao, the vice president for the Centre for China and Globalization, told ABC’s China Tonight.

“The watershed moment will be if Australia will be armed with nuclear submarines to be locally produced in Australia. That will mean Australia will lose that privilege of not being targeted by nuclear weapons to other countries and that should be a wake-up call for all Australians.,” he said.

This is exactly the blowback some of Australia’s top security elites have warned, including the venerable Professor Hugh White, who stated, “[Prime Minister] Scott Morrison has tied Australia to a deal that undermines our sovereign capabilities, overspends on hardware we can barely be confident of operating, and drags us closer to the frontline of a war we may have no interest in fighting.”

That said, China’s unlawful actions in the South China Sea has put it into direct conflict with no fewer than a half-dozen countries, and there’s no doubt China is guilty of violating international maritime law, and therefore threatening the freedom of the seas and the world’s busiest shipping lanes, including those which so many Asian countries depend upon for their energy needs.

So, Beijing has only itself to blame for escalating tensions in the region. The question is whether AUKUS encourages security or heightens tensions in Indo Pacific, but there are already clear warning signs it has formalized a regional Cold War and incited a new arms race.