UK General Election: The big decisions for the next foreign secretary

Bronwen Maddox

Hello, and welcome to this session on the big decisions facing the next Foreign Secretary [pause]. I think we have a clean start there. Hello, I’m Bronwen Maddox [pause]. I think we’re having several false starts there. Hello, I’m Bronwen Maddox, and welcome to this session on the biggest decisions facing the UK Foreign Secretary now that the UK general election campaign is underway. Well, at Chatham House, we’ve put out a report recently on exactly that point, on what the next UK Foreign Secretary has to do and what the most difficult decisions among that are.

And we said really three things. Get the big relationships right, US, China and Europe, with many roads, including the need for economic growth, pointing towards getting a closer relationship with Europe. Get the middle relationships right, where Britain has, really, quite a lot of influence but doesn’t always use it well, in its own interest, or as other countries might like it, and spend more, we’ve said, on defence, development and on diplomacy.

Well, I’ve got a terrific panel of my colleagues to discuss all this, and I’m going to welcome them all at once. We have Orysia Lutsevych, from – who heads up our Ukraine work within the Russia and Eurasia Programme, and – welcome. And we also have, on the other current conflict, Sanam Vakil, who heads our Middle East and North Africa Programme and has been immersed in the recent conflict, as well as the many complex issues of that entire region.

We have Leslie Vinjamuri, who heads up our US and the Americas Programme, and this is obviously, a crucial year for all that work, with the world really looking on in this year of elections to see what will happen in that election, at the end of it. And we have Yu Jie, Dr Yu Jie, from our Asia Programme, who leads our work on China, and is looking particularly at China’s place in the world and what is going on. So, we couldn’t have a better lineup of people – and we have Tighisti Amare, sorry, who heads up a lot of our Africa work, is Deputy Director of our Africa Programme.

So, let’s go. I’ve asked them all to just give a short burst from their area, what their one top recommendation for the next UK Foreign Secretary would be, and then we’ll get into a broader discussion about some of these bigger themes that I was talking about, about the UK’s relationships. So, let me start with you, Orysia. Live conflict, Ukraine, what would you recommend the UK Foreign Secretary do?

Orysia Lutsevych

Thanks, Bronwen. I think the main question is that the – Russia is, and will remain, an existential threat to Europe. And it has been now for almost three years that Ukraine is trying to stop that aggression and UK has been fundamental in enabling Ukraine’s resistance. But Ukraine resisting is not the same as actually defeating Russian troops on Ukrainian’s – Ukraine’s ground and enabling opening for European security more widely.

So, the new Foreign Secretary will have to deal in actually devising a new strategy, together with allies, that is underpinned by the war plan, specific war plan, to, actually – how to defend Ukraine, how to defeat Russia and how to open up space for more European security. That is a huge job that requires a co-ordination with Europe, with the United States, and something that the Eastern flank of NATO highly depends on.

Bronwen Maddox

Right, so, you’re telling the UK Foreign Secretary to work very closely with the US and Europe to keep this support for Ukraine going?

Orysia Lutsevych

Absolutely.

Bronwen Maddox

Terrific, thanks. Sanam, let me go to you, and I can see the questions on Israel already beginning to come through. Please do send your questions through on the Q&A function, perhaps not all about Israel, but we will definitely come to that. Sanam, on anything to do with your region, what would you recommend the UK do first?

Dr Sanam Vakil

Thank you, Bronwen. A really important time to be having this conversation. I would say, above all, a future Foreign Secretary needs to have a broad Middle East policy – strategy, let’s say, and then policies that go underneath it. For the past number of years, the priorities have been on defence, security and trade towards the region, and really not engage with the realities on the ground. So, you know, on October 8th, the UK, like most of the West, was caught in a – backfooted, and has since then been very reactive to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. But more broadly, beyond Israel-Palestine, there are a lot of contained conflicts that also need attention, and I would flag the second one being the growing tensions with Iran.

So, a UK Foreign Secretary needs to have a plan, and it could be that the UK doesn’t play a robust role, and that’s a possibility, but a plan for how it will engage and support international efforts on Israel-Palestine, but also how to manage growing challenges coming from Iran’s nuclear programme, ballistic missile programme, and regional support for non-state actors that also are clearly in contrast with UK interests.

Bronwen Maddox

Thanks very much, again. I hope we have a second vote for have a plan, but as you said, one that needs to range right across the region, and that includes the non-state actors, or indeed, terrorist groups, who we haven’t really been referring to for the last year or two, since the Ukraine invasion by Russia, but are still very much there.

Yu Jie, let me come to you next. So, we’ve had a quick burst on each of the two areas in current conflict. What about China?

Dr Yu Jie

Thank you, Bronwen. Really delighted to join my distinguished colleagues in here. One recommendation I would give to the next UK Foreign Secretary is that, well, it’s really very well to talking about the competition and the co-operation with China at the same time, simultaneously. But I think, so far, what we have is a very blurring line in terms of competition and com – co-operation, on which area that China and UK can work together, and then which area that absolutely the UK need to compete with China. I think that line has not been set, been very clear by the current government.

So, if the next Foreign Secretary – I think the first thing the person need to do is, firstly, travel to China within the six months since landed on this person’s desk. And secondly, going to Beijing, and bring those clear agendas and not sending any confusing signals to its Chinese counterpart. Because so far, it seems to be we have various government departments talking about different China strategy. I think that sense of consistency and clear boundary, and that should be set very clearly.

Bronwen Maddox

Thanks very much. Alright, we’ve got already got one engagement in the Foreign Secretary’s diary, must head to Beijing and with a clear message. Then I wonder, we’ll come into this point, whether that is too much to ask for, given that we have this government, previous government and indeed, the opposition, saying, “Well, we want to be close, but we’ve got to protect ourselves.” We’ll come onto that. Leslie?

Dr Leslie Vinjamuri

Thank you, Bronwen. It’s great to be with everybody to talk about this. What a surprise, certainly for me, to see a British election called on America’s Independence Day. And I guess I would start with this, ‘cause it is a very, very interesting date, one that holds great significance, obviously, in the US, for Americans, one of Britain’s closest partnerships. And I would recommend that the UK, the next UK Government, take advantage of the timing of this election, on two dimensions. Not only that, sort of, remarkable date of July 4th, but also, the fact that it comes just a few days before the Washington Summit, betw – before that meeting of NATO.

To really use its public diplomacy to articulate to Americans, who will be four months and one day out from the most important election that’s ever taken place in the United States of America, to articulate to Americans the real importance of Britain’s security and defence partnership with the United States, its role in NATO, the significance not only of the UK, but all of Europe, in contributing through NATO, and too, separately, but obviously very closely related, to the defence of Ukraine. So that Americans are inspired as they think about voting to stand up in support of internationalism and the Transatlantic Partnership, whichever way they decide to vote, so that that inspires people to actually turn out and vote with a realistic – which is actually a very good story, about Britain’s contribution to its relationship with the United States in promoting security and defence across the Euro-Atlantic region.

Bronwen Maddox

This is such an interesting point you make. When the government announced this election, it seems to me there was almost no resonance in the UK that July the 4th is one of the big dates in, indeed, British history, but obviously, of huge significance in the US. And it passed, I think, really without any comment, at all, but as you said, it’s a – it gives the government a chance to speak to America about the things that the countries have in common. Would you say that that could be taken as interference? I’m thinking of Barack Obama when President, making comments about Brexit before the vote, and it wasn’t received with rapture by everyone.

Dr Leslie Vinjamuri

No, not at all, actually, ‘cause I think it’s all in how you articulate it. So, clearly, it would be foolish – and I don’t think any British Government would seek to advocate a certain outcome in the American election, but it would be very wise to de – to say to Americans – give them the numbers on how much Britain has contributed to NATO and how many countries in NATO have hit that 2% spending market. And talk about burden sharing and show the positive story.

So, in other words, inspire – using the moment not to influence whether Trump or Biden are elected, and not to try to change Americans’ minds. That’s not really going to happen. But to inspire people towards the purpose and cause of internationalism, of partnership, of transatlantic relations, and of the significance and meaning of the values and the – and of, quite frankly, the money and material resources that go into this partnership, that are absolutely critical for the US and the UK. That in and of itself, could get a lot of people to think about actually voting that, as we know in an electorate that’s deeply enthusiastic about the US election, many people who would vote for President Biden, they’re not going to change their minds, but they might not actually vote. And this could be, you know, one mechanism, there need to be many, to get people to turn up and vote.

Bronwen Maddox

Thank you very much, we’ll come back to those points again. And Tighisti, you’ve been – you’ve had a busy day already in webinars and events on elections, what is your point, your thoughts?

Tighisti Amare

Thank you, Bronwen. So, the UK, first of all, has maintained a leading role on Africa in the past. It was already an important influencer and global player on issues related to security and development dynamics. But its role in Africa has for a long time, remained that of an aid donor, rather than a trading partner or investor in capacity building, in areas such as peace and security. The main priority being that of reducing poverty through aid. So, this is still important. Poverty reduction remains a crucial and important issue, but focusing just on development aid does not reflect Africa’s desire to move towards trade and investment led growth.

And an incoming Foreign Secretary, from whichever party, has an opportunity to reset and strengthen the relationship. Instead of viewing Africa only through a lens of development, they should aim to build a mutually beneficial long-term partnership. This means support for Africa’s shift towards – or interest to shift towards a trade-led development over traditional aid models.

Bronwen Maddox

Thanks very much for that short, sharp burst, and I want to stay with you, Tighi, as we broaden out the discussion. As I said at the beginning, we at Chatham House have been arguing that the UK needs to think very carefully about the big relationships, or relationships with very big countries, and particularly, drill down into closer relations with Europe. But I want to spend some time now on what we and others have advocated that the UK do, which is get rather better at some of these middle relationships, where it has influence, could have more influence, and also, has the potential to handle the relationships very badly. And Tighi, if we stay with you, I wonder if you could dig into this a bit and offer a bit more advice. So, where would you – taking a leaf out of Yu Jie’s book, if the Foreign Secretary were getting on a plane, where should he get on a plane first, and what should he say?

Tighisti Amare

Great. Like, maybe if I can just give a little bit of context in terms of where Africa is today. As a continent, it has transformed significantly from 20 years ago, when there was a lot more engagement from the UK on African issues. Most countries have increased their agency, they’re seeking diverse partnerships and financial independence, and as I say, they want to prioritise trade and investment led growth.

The continent has experienced fast growth for almost two decades, before the slowdown in the last few years. However, the level of growth has not been sufficient to address the persistent level of poverty. It is, of course, very difficult to talk about Africa as a homogeneous region, because different regions are going through different challenges, so we would have different recommendations for the incoming Foreign Secretary, depending on where we’re looking. But there are efforts – they are increasingly making effort for – first of all, there’s the shift towards more desire for inter-Africa trade to grow.

Bronwen Maddox

Hmmm hmm.

Tighisti Amare

And there is desire to globalise African economies and become more tied to international trade and politics. So, those are the key drivers.

And finally, they also recognise that they – their economic grow – potential. We saw, for example, in the aftermath of the Ukraine War, when there was an assertive effort for – from African countries to fill gaps in gas shortage. We’re seeing it again now in how they’re positioning themselves to make the most of their abundant critical minerals and diamond that can support the green transition. So, we need to think about an assertive Africa, first and foremost.

And new – like, in terms of renewing the relationship with the UK, it is important, first of all, to look at Africa within this context of diversification and desire for more trade. And the UK can be a very – a pivotal strategic partner to Africa by offering, first of all, diplomatic support, knowledge transfer, financial resources, by promoting a relationship that puts trade at the centre. But it can also play an important role on the international stage by supporting African efforts on key issues impacting the continent.

Bronwen Maddox

Hmmm.

Tighisti Amare

One such issue is the debt challenge in Africa, where private and commercial creditors are heavily involved, and as a key global financial centre, the UK can significantly influence debt sub – sustainability discussions affecting African countries. Another big area in terms of policy is climate policy, which is also an area that the UK should try and encourage closer collaboration with African countries. It can be – like, the UK can be a centre. It can provide – it can help African countries gain better access to global markets and opportunities, but also, support collaborative projects and initiatives within Africa. So, it can be a win-win solution. And most importantly, I think it’s the diplomatic efforts that matter the most, and I’m glad that you mention about high level visits.

Bronwen Maddox

Hmmm.

Tighisti Amare

They’re quite scare when it comes to Africa. Like, I remember between 2013 and 2018, there was no Prime Minister visiting Africa until Theresa May went for the first time, and that by itself, it does slow down the relation. But another issue is also, the lack of stability and continuity in leadership of the FCDO in Africa, due to the fast changeover of African Ministers. Average time spent in post for Africa Ministers is around 18 months. You can’t get much done in that short period of time.

Bronwen Maddox

That is completely true, and this is one of the weaknesses of British Government. I think it is possible to agree without any – making any kind of political statement. But if I give you one week in the Foreign Secretary’s life, where do you think he should go? I’m not completely assuming it’s a he, but at the moment, we have one called David Cameron and we have his Shadow called David Lammy, so it seems as if we’re going to get someone called David. But as the press is already speculating, all these things are uncertain until they’re certain. But where would – in one week, where should the UK Foreign Secretary…

Tighisti Amare

I think there’s the…

Bronwen Maddox

…go?

Tighisti Amare

…obvious key countries, important countries, to UK interest, Nigeria is first, obviously, most populus nation and large – one of the largest economies. It has slowed down significantly most recently, but remains extremely important, including on regional stability and security. South Africa, of course, with its advanced economy, it serves as an important economic and political partner to the UK. Kenya, another vital partner for the UK, in East Africa. So, I know this sounds a little bit like the usual suspects, but that would be the starting point, because there’s strong, established relations that need to be maintained before venturing to other places.

Bronwen Maddox

Hmmm, and I notice you don’t say Rwanda, but obviously, it features in – is one of the, probably, biggest differences in foreign and domestic policy between the two parties. That Rishi Sunak is pushing his asylum seekers going to Rwanda policy, and Labour says that they will scrap it immediately.

Tighisti Amare

Indeed, that’s more about domestic politics than it about relation with African countries.

Bronwen Maddox

It is, absolutely right. Let’s go – one of others, if you’d like to come in on this question of these middle relationships. And Sanam, I’m thinking, you know, particularly of your area, the conflict aside, but there are a lot of countries there which are becoming players in many ways, on the world stage.

Dr Sanam Vakil

Yes, certainly, thanks, Bronwen. I would say, if I had to pick one country in the Middle East or North Africa, I would pick Saudi Arabia, obviously, because the relationship is important from a trade perspective, investment perspective. But Saudi Arabia has ambitions and is playing a much engaged role, as a middle power, member of the G20. Has, of course, joined the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, engaging more in, sort of, multipolar or global dynamics, and deepening ties with Saudi Arabia at a critical time for geopolitical tensions between the US and China, as well as regional tensions. Not to put all the onus of regional problem solving on Saudi Arabia, ‘cause that’s not what I’m trying to say, is important.

Saudi Arabia is looking for deeper international partnerships, and I think there’s a lot to be built and leveraged in that relationship. So, I think that’s an obvious place to start, but the region, the Middle East, is a complex landscape, and the UK has long historical ties with many countries, from Oman, to Jordan, to Egypt and beyond. And so, certainly, I think that the Middle East has been very much neglected. There hasn’t been, you know, a dedicated Middle East Minister, and while the Shadow Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has suggested that he would appoint a Middle East Envoy, per se, again, I think that the UK has a historic role that it can leverage, not just for free trade agreements, but to help engage on some, you know, very key economic development, human rights issues, that have really fallen to the wayside.

Bronwen Maddox

Yeah. Thanks very much for bringing that out, and bringing us, also, into the question of British values, if I could use that old-fashioned phrase, which is something that Britain – British foreign policy repeatedly says it wants to promote, and yet, it can be rather unsteady in doing that.

Yu Jie, what’s your thought about this? And I’m thinking about South Korea and Japan, where I’ve been fairly recently, and very conscious of how close they feel to the UK and how close they feel to the US, but how worried they are about whether the US is going to stand by that relationship.

Dr Yu Jie

Bronwen, it’s very interesting when you mention that, the sense of values that representing pop – critical elements of British foreign policy. I think if we zoom into largely about the East Africa, I think many countries, China, and those including China’s neighbours, that actually consider that perhaps value is not the best way to refer to conduct one country’s foreign policy. But actually the geography and interest of – and national interest of a particular country. So, while Korea and Japan has been much intimidated by China’s military buildup, and, also, the sense of economic security competition, but on the other hand, I think earlier this week, we have seen a trilateral summit between the Chinese Premier and Japanese Prime Minister and South Korean President.

So, somehow, in Asia, I think the mindset has been it’s not necessarily about that values, the countries have to agree with each other, but rather, it’s the interest that whether a country will be able to co-exist with each other. So, I think that’s something perhaps many of the NATO members struggle to understand, that in terms of countries have to share the values and share the alliances, and – whereas, I think for much of the Asia, it’s more about how the interest of each country will be able to have some sense of convergence and based on those interests, and a country conducting diplomacy with each other.

So, I think that’s a – something quite different, and something I think, continuously, that the British, as well as the Europeans, quite struggle to understand.

Bronwen Maddox

That’s really interesting. Leslie, I wonder if I can bring you in here. When we were chatting just before we went live, you were talking about democracy and values and what Britain might do to amplify these, so this is exactly the territory we’re getting into, and these are very, very contested contepts – concepts these days.

Dr Leslie Vinjamuri

Yeah, no, absolutely, and I guess a couple of things. One is, we’ve seen globally a cry, a plea, a demand for consistency in the foreign policy of the US, of the UK, of the European powers, when it comes to this question of democracy and values. And I think the first thing is there is a need for role modelling and for addressing these issues at home. So, you know, I would reject this distinction of, you know, foreign policy versus domestic policy, and say, the first place that the UK, and this applies clearly to the US as well, has to start, is by showing its consistency on questions of the resilience of its democracy, its fairness with respect to different communities, its strength on those – on the rule of law, on values, it – at home, in its region, in its existing commitments, multilaterally and regionally. If it wants to play any sort of role beyond its border, there’s never been a moment when the calls of hypocrisy have been so significant.

The second point I would make is that there may come a time, sooner rather than later, when the UK might be in a position where it is going to have to weigh in on questions of America’s democracy, dysfunction and commitment to its own democratic values. We can hope not. We can hope that this is something that passes, that the election in the United States is not contested, that there are – that there is not violence, but there might be. And the next UK Government, given the date of the election, July 4th, needs to think very, very clearly about whether and how and when it will speak up in the event of a, to put it mildly, disruptive election. And I think that this was something that, in my view, was handled very poorly by the British Government during the 2020 US election, and wasn’t well thought through. So, I think there needs to be some very serious thinking on this.

But, again, it is a big issue, it is a complex issue, but the first place to start is going to need to be reflecting on democracy at home and consistency. Not only in articulating the need for standing up on questions of – you know, basic questions of the rule of law, amongst Britain’s friends, partners and allies, and then, of course, thinking about these questions with – in much more problematic relationships.

Bronwen Maddox

So, let’s take one aspect of that, and Orysia, if I can come to you on this, because we were talking about the decision that is facing any incoming British Government, and that is whether to keep backing Ukraine. Now, both parties, both the – both main parties, the Government and the Labour opposition, have said that they’re firmly behind Ukraine. But you were talking about the need to keep persuading others, particularly the US, keep persuading NATO, keep persuading those members of the European Union who are not quite so sure about it. And I was wondering how much influence you thought Britain really had? We had the spectacle of David Cameron flying to Washington and not, at that point, getting an interview with the Speaker of the House, who was not sure whether or not he was going to bring the vote to it. I mean, American politics does tend to go its own way, as Leslie has been describing. Do you see Britain really as having influence on this?

Orysia Lutsevych

Well, Britain has a lot of influence on the War in Ukraine and Ukraine’s capacity to actually resist and defend itself. You – the current government has always been an outlier, I would say, and an ice-breaker in many way. You know, being the first one to provide anti-tank missiles, long range missiles. Actually training Jet Pilots for F16s and, also, saying that the British weapons can be used, actually, to target inside Russian territory, the military infrastructure that is used to attack Ukraine.

So, all of that is great, and I think this is exactly an illustration why such policy is necessary. Because Ukraine is a democracy that is being attacked. So, it’s, in a way, a case in point of how do you actually operationalise this principle of standing by democracy? It’s all nice rhetorically to say it, but, you know, we are, kind of, coming into the age where democracies also need hard power to defend each other, exactly because what Russia is turning, I don’t know what China is turning. And maybe my colleague can talk about it, but we do know what Russia is turning into. It’s turning into a revanchist power that is up for land grabs. And current changes inside Russia, with Putin’s re-anointment in power, and his new appointments, changing of the Defence Minister into a, kind of, more Economic Manager, Belousov, means that they are up for a bigger war.

So, that means doing the same what Conservatives were doing wouldn’t take us much into where we want to be. So, what is the new dimension that can be brought in? And I think here it’s interesting what France is doing, and the propositions to actually help Ukraine train its troops on the ground, have a Special Forces or expeditionary groups, inside Ukrainian territory, that will help with servicing of the equipment. And this is where, you know, you’re asking, of course, UK has to work in unison, but it can also show leadership, having the, kind of, more – the distance from Russia, feeling more protected within NATO, to – and having more capacity.

And that capacity, interestingly, could also be in the maritime security. Let’s look at what’s happening now in the Baltic Sea, with Russia actually unilaterally considering redefining its maritime borders around the Gotland island that is, you know, is Swedish territory. We may see some diste – instability around, and if Russians take control of the island and upset, you know, navigation in the Baltic Sea, we may see similar situation to the Black Sea at the start of the invasion, where they actually started the invasion from the Snake Island.

Bronwen Maddox

Hmmm.

Orysia Lutsevych

So, the Russian playbook is pretty much predictable. The question is, what are we doing? And we need here, investment in re-equipping the force, and this is where Conservatives were, kind of, lagging behind.

Bronwen Maddox

Yeah.

Orysia Lutsevych

They increased the budget, but the lan – this is a land war in Europe, and a quite large one, so it requires capabilities for the land war, for air defence, for specific anti-drone and all kinds of technological breakthrough.

Bronwen Maddox

Yeah.

Orysia Lutsevych

And I – and one more thing, I think. Financing the war in Ukraine doesn’t necessarily have to come only from the UK taxpayers money. There are possibilities with Russian sovereign assets and, also, private assets of, you know, the sales of Chelsea. Right now, we have 2.5 billion actually sitting on the account of UK Treasury that the new government get – can decide according to the agreement, with the – during the sales to allocate to the largest charity…

Bronwen Maddox

We’re not…

Orysia Lutsevych

…supporting…

Bronwen Maddox

We’re not going to take the whole of that debate in about frozen…

Orysia Lutsevych

But that’s a concrete…

Bronwen Maddox

…assets because we’re not…

Orysia Lutsevych

…that actually has a price tag of…

Bronwen Maddox

Quite a lot…

Orysia Lutsevych

…2.5 million.

Bronwen Maddox

…of it in Chatham House, and really argued that, both sides, very vigorously, in Chatham House. Let me just pick up one question though, from Robert Cooper, saying – it is a question, even though it has the word ‘surely’ in it. “The big issue for the medium term is surely to re-establish productive relations with the EU?” That is something that I and Olivia O’Sullivan, who heads our British Programme, have argued for in our recent report, and pointed out many of the ways, beginning with defence and security, that the UK might do that. But obviously, very handicapped if it is not going to rejoin the single market or Customs Union, as both parties say they’re not. And with the trade agreements that have been struck already, probably, that is out of reach.

Though it – given the need for economic growth and the hit that Brexit has caused to economic growth, it is tempting to look at the source of economic – one source of economic growth sitting out there, but I think we are pointing in a different direction now. But Robert Cooper, we very much agree with you on that. Let me bring two – another couple of questions in. We’re still on this bit about the West, if I could use that old-fashioned term, or democracies, and China and Russia, and I want to pick up some questions.

I’m then going to turn to the Middle East. There are a lot of questions on that. But let me pick up one from Natasha Locke, “How will the Chinese Communist Party be looking at this election? What are they expecting to see?” And one at the same time, from Jan Dowman, on Africa, “How should the UK counter the growing influence of China and Russia?” And I think we could extend that question to the Middle East, as well. Who would like – Yu Jie, shall I start with you on that, how China is looking at it? But then, all – other thoughts from any of you on how the UK should respond to the influence that China and Russia have in the relationships with many countries. Yu Jie?

Dr Yu Jie

Sure. Let me start with the first one, how Beijing sees this. Obviously, it’s quite a surprise for Beijing UK decided to holding early election, not later election, out of many people’s surprise. But I think, secondly, precisely because UK and China had that so-called ‘golden era’ back to nearly ten years ago, nearly a decade ago, that China sees the UK as being a bridge towards Europe, and that that led into China’s intention to engage with the UK.

But obviously, given UK’s left the European Union a while ago, Beijing actually sees the UK almost like a junior partner of United States. And hence, for – among many political elites within Beijing, they firmly believe that, to some extent, part of the British foreign policy are actually determined in Washington, and hence, the real value of engaging with the British policymakers somehow being undermined. So, that is just – I’m not saying I agree with this view, but this is just how Beijing sees it.

But I think, on the other hand, China, also, by being a economic animal, by being a economic player, nevertheless UK still remain as a very important market for China. That’s – and, also, for many financial expertise, for many service-oriented economy expertise, that Beijing hasn’t yet acquired. So, I think that’s also part of the reason that – why Beijing wants to talk, continue to talk with the UK. But I think, overall, if I’m going to making a diagram in terms of the comparison the importance of the UK in Chinese leaders’ mind, I think UK probably will come after, say, for example, Brazil or India, in that sense.

But nevertheless, UK still remain as being the – one of the P5, so they are multilateral issues that Beijing still need to talk to London. So, somehow UK remain being quite ambivalent among the Chinese political elites in here. So, the mood was in Beijing, I mean, from my recent trip, is really about, wasn’t quite sure how to engage with the UK. Wasn’t quite sure what to do next, because overall, the bilateral relationship so far is in stalemate.

Now, in terms of responding to China challenging here, I mean, it’s all very well just speaking on competition, as I said earlier. But the issue in here is nowadays the foreign policy is not just limited within the territory of foreign policy. Many elements we’re talking about in terms of competing with China are actually firmly embedded into the elements of technology, embedded into elements of economy. And hence, that would require UK to adding its own financial and economics resources, and then manpower to building its own national strength, in terms of innovation capability, in terms of industrial policy.

It’s very well to building a service-oriented economy for the last four decades, which UK’s extremely brilliant with. But on the other hand, by having the service economy, it will be very hard to discuss about de-risking with China, because service-oriented economy require a greater interdependence, not necessarily pivot away from China. So, I think really for UK, in terms of competing with China, or in terms of com – in terms of building its own inner strength, it is about increasing the capability on industrial policies, on innovation.

Bronwen Maddox

That’s a really interesting point, and foreign policy is so often discussed as if it is completely separate from economic policy. But that is precisely why we had David Lammy and Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Foreign Secretary and Shadow Chancellor, on the platform together at Chatham House just hours before the election was called. It was to bring together that point about, you know, how to consider this together.

Tighi, what do you reckon on this point, and maybe you’ll reject the question completely? The question was about how the UK might counter the influence of China and Russia, but I’m not suggesting we have to accept that as a goal.

Tighisti Amare

Yeah, it’s a very important question, and it’s one that you have to engage with, again, when you work in the reg – on the region. It does remain quite common to discuss about Africa’s partnerships in terms of external powers interests, and that’s where the idea of the need to counter external – some of these countries, whether it’s Russia or China, comes from. But the reality is that African leaders are seeing the importance of building a portfolio of partners, they do understand that the traditional partners, such as the UK, the EU and the US alone are not able to meet the continent’s growing developmental and security needs, and their aspiration for economic transformation.

So, in – so, for them, multipolarity – they see multipolarity as an advantage, with different countries having different offers on the table. So, it is within this context that we do need to think about, why is Africa engaging with those countries? There are areas, for example, in mining, where Western businesses see the need to pragmatically work with China in some countries. So, it’s – the reality is that there will be areas of contention and areas of possibility for collaboration, as well.

But what is important is that many leaders take exception to being told who to partner with. It was quite striking this around the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where the Foreign Minister of South Africa made a really powerful point, saying, like, “Do – you cannot tell us who to partner with,” and that reflects the sentiment of many leaders in the country. So, I think there is possibility of still having engagement, Western engagement, UK engagement, in particular, in many countries that are also working with China and/or Russia, to a certain extent.

Bronwen Maddox

Hmmm, let me just add, though, and specifically for you, one question. This one’s from Michael Burton, and it’s something that Chatham House, as you’ll know has been working a lot on, which is Sudan. And he says, “Is it not urgent to get the West to take seriously the terrible civil war in Sudan,” a point we have been making in our writing and podcasts, “in order to counter the cynical,” as he says, “Russian policy of backing both sides…

Tighisti Amare

Hmmm.

Bronwen Maddox

…with an eye to – on securing a base on the Red Sea?” And we’ve also been talking about whether or not Iran is managing the same there. I wondered if you could just – you’ve, absolutely rightly, been talking about the potential of African countries, and the potential for investment and growth and trade. But I’m wondering whether you think Britain has a role in some of the more fragile parts, as well, for example, Sudan? And I’m thinking of some of the less stable bits of West Africa.

Tighisti Amare

Yes, sure. I mean, in short, like, yes, it’s one of the worst conflicts that we’ve seen in recent years, and I think everybody’s tearing their hair out, just trying to figure out what to do next. There are some easy things that could be done, and that involves third countries, like the UAE, for example, where it can play an important role. A lot – the difficulty has been – I’m not particularly an expert on Sudan, but the difficulty has been to even mediate among the mediators. Like, there’s a lot of initiatives and none of them are necessarily perfectly co-ordinated.

But in terms of the UK, the UK, on peace and security, has a lot to offer. More generally, in areas of conflict resolution, and as well as prevented – diplomacy and mediation in some places. Not just, like, on the Sudan case, which is, as we keep on calling it on Chatham House outputs, a ‘forgotten war’, sadly it is. What the UK can do more generally is provide the crucial support for Africa-led – African-led initiatives and to African nations taking the lead in peace-making and peacekeeping efforts, because that is the preference at the moment. So, what would be great to see is more African nations taking the lead to try and support a resolution to the Sudan conflict, but we haven’t seen that coming strongly as of yet.

Bronwen Maddox

Not terribly strongly, but I was talking to Andrew Mitchell, the Development Secretary, when he was in Chad recently, trying to talk to them about the refugee crisis from Sudan. And the UK is involved, it seems to me, but not necessarily with huge effect, but it’s simply one medium sized country. By “’forgotten’, obviously we mean by – forgotten by, would say, the Western press. It is not forgotten by people close to that conflict.

Orysia Lutsevych

I just want to jump…

Bronwen Maddox

About Sudan…

Orysia Lutsevych

…in…

Bronwen Maddox

…ju – anyone, jump in.

Orysia Lutsevych

Yeah.

Bronwen Maddox

Yeah.

Orysia Lutsevych

Yeah, I just wanted to jump in, because it’s interesting, you know, with the, kind of – well, there’s this term ‘Global South’ or ‘non-West’…

Bronwen Maddox

Yeah.

Orysia Lutsevych

…majority, that, you know, it is clear that Russia is working hard to upset, actually, both Ukraine’s and Western efforts to, you know, to explain this war, and to, for example, invite members of those countries to join the peace summit in Switzerland. So, it is clear that the Russians are not giving a free, fair field for others. They are actually threatening some of the members of the elite of those countries not to take the stance, or not to take pro-Ukrainian or pro-Western stance. It’s important to understand that it’s a contentious playing field. It’s not, you know, without competition.

But something that the UK should actually explain better, and perhaps the new, you know, government could so it, is actually, food security and how important it is that the Black Sea navigation that was actually opened, thanks to not only military assistance to Ukraine, but the insurance that was, you know, designed and put in place by the city, by the Lloyd and Marsh McLennan, that allowed commodities, grain and others, to go to – actually to Africa from Ukraine, to unlock that trade corridor. And this is where food security and human security comes in play, because what Russians are doing in Africa a lot, through Wagner and other mercenaries, they are seriously undermining, actually, human security in the continent, similar to what they are doing in Ukraine.

Bronwen Maddox

Thank you. I want to read out three more questions that are on this, kind of, theme and then, come to Leslie and Sanam for the perspective how the US and other countries might counter this influence. So, we have one from Chijioke Osuji, saying, “Apart from sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine, there’s urgent need to limit Russia’s ambition in the global stage and mostly Africa. What are policy dimensions and indications that suggest the UK will play a major role in this?”

And then, we have a couple more that were very much on this. One from Akinsola Ayodeji, on, “How do you think the UK Government can help promote democracy and help curb corruption in security in Nigeria and Africa at large?” And one from Tishani Joaba, “Will the UK give East Africa the focus it currently deserves, as there are lots of issues there that have impact on world peace and stability issues in Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, and so on?” Thank you very much for all those. We’re going to stay on this just for a second, as I come to Leslie and Sanam for their thoughts on this battle of values we’re again on. Leslie?

Dr Leslie Vinjamuri

Yeah, really important questions, and I guess I would come right back to Robert Cooper, who said, “Isn’t it the most important thing for the UK to do to sort out its relationship with Europe?” And I think that he’s – that’s exactly right, and it goes, I guess, to one of my broader points, which is that, in order to address these questions of countering Russia’s influence, countering China’s influence on questions of disinformation, the, sort of, contestation over development models and all the rest of it, Britain has to work with others. It’s too small, and to have the kind of influence that it’s going to want to have, most countries are too small to have the kind of influence that they’d like to have alone. So, sorting out that relationship with Europe, having, at a minimum, a seat, even it’s, you know, outer circle seat at every single table, also gives it leverage over the United States. So, sort out its relationship with multiple actors in order to appear to be more attractive to every single player, including the United States.

Secondly, to leverage those partnerships to bring Britain back to the forefront of questions of development assistance. The one thing that the UK was, sort of, the leading light on, well-known, well regarded, across the world, especially in the United States, was DFID. Was Britain’s phenomenal role as a leader of development assistance. And that is the space that I think it needs to reclaim. It can’t do it alone. It must do it in partnership with the EU, with the US, with other actors, and really taking this question of a) disinformation, countering the, sort of, soft underbelly of China and Russia’s influence in Africa and elsewhere.

But also, returning – if you go back to the Cornwall G7 Summit when there was an announcement made, it was then called “Build Back Better World.” It’s since been called the “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment.” It’s got lots of different names, we know what it is. It’s the idea that the G7+ need to work together on a material offer to countries in the so-called ‘Global South’ that can compete and counter the very substantial and significant offer that China has made materially, that is compelling, even with all of its shortcomings.

And I think that, you know, if there’s one thing that the UK can do it’s fixing its, sort of, domestic economic issues, making itself more resilient, so that, and alongside, it can become a leader in creating the resilience that other countries need. If it can really contribute regionally, multilaterally and in partnership with others in that space, I think that will be, quite frankly, transformative. But it needs to do it as part of a strategy that integrates, building up the domestic economy alongside building up that foreign economic offering.

Bronwen Maddox

Thanks for that. And Yu Jie mentioned a moment ago the permanent five, the P5, the permanent five members of the UN Security Council. That council rather stalled at the moment by vetoes from Russia, sometimes China and sometimes the US. Do you think that it would be useful if the UK began to look at reform of some of these old institutions that have helped govern the world for many decades? Is there an appetite? We’re certainly hearing it from parts of the world, and this is something that Chatham House does a lot of work on, saying, “Look, we weren’t around,” or “We weren’t in a position to influence these rules and institutions when they were set up,” many after the Second World War, “but now we’d like a say in them.” Is that something Britain can help with, or does it mean giving away its own seats, its own influence, to do that?

Dr Yu Jie

Not necessarily. I think, actually, there’s so much more that UK can do, because I mean, first foremost, for my limited understanding of how UN works, most of the penholders that writing the rules and resolutions of the United Nations are actually mostly British nationals. So, they already have the language advantage of continue to do that. But I think, secondly, really considering from UK’s national interest, again, as I said earlier, by being a service-oriented economy. And in the past, UK holding a different seat within WTO is under the EU, but now, given UK has now been out, and it seems to be, for example, organisations like WTO now being completely dysfunctional. And I think UK would rightly leading to propose the future reform of WTO, I mean, to – just to start with, as really to building the foundation for the UK leading some sense of multilateral institution reform.

And, also, because of UK being the second largest service-oriented economy, and it rightly have the interest and also, rightly have the right weight and the might to do so. So, it’s not necessarily I would consider something that is bad for the UK, but actually something UK have a very unique advantage for that.

Bronwen Maddox

Really, really interesting point. It’s something that Chatham House is doing quite a lot of work on at the moment, and very much taking the suggestion that was in your answer there, of looking at some of the financial institutions as a way in to some of these reforms and giving countries more influence. Let me just pick up one question as it – relevant to something that Leslie said, from Demitri Coryton, who says, “The FCDO budget is small, but it has been cut again and again. Should not the first priority be to restore the budget and increase the staff and embassies necessary to maximise Britain’s diplomatic effort?”

I, and quite a few of my colleagues at Chatham House, absolutely agree with you, Demitri. That is, of course, not in the command of the Foreign Secretary, and that was something that the Shadow Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, made very clear, looking over at his Shadow Chancellor colleague, on our stage. And it’s a question of whether – where the money will come from. If it is not all to come from this – the new magic money tree which is sudden improvements in productivity, private and public sector, then is it going to be cut off other budgets?

But I think there can be no doubt that if Britain wants the influence it could have, it does need to put more into all three Ds: defence, diplomacy, what is the other one? Development, which Leslie was talking about. Okay, let’s swing to some of the Middle Eastern questions, and there are a lot of others. I’m looking, as well, on energy and economic security, which I want to stir in, and on NATO.

But Sanam, if I can bring you in. There’s quite a lot. There’s some from – long questions from Michael Harvey, two of them, and from others, about whether the “UK is leaning towards the US on its position on Israel.” People are exploring both whether there’s a “difference between the UK and the US on the pressure that – and criticism that – making of Israel,” but, also, the “support,” and whether “the UK is coming apart from some European countries which have moved to recognise a Palestinian state.”

Dr Sanam Vakil

Thanks, Bronwen. Let me, sort of, weave together that question alongside the issue of Russia and China, democracy and human rights, to try to bring it all together. ‘Cause the Middle East, of course, has its own special dynamics, and the democracy narrative, obviously, has not gone down very well in the region and has created tensions and ruffled feathers with this binary. And, of course, raised many questions about the, sort of, double standards with regards to human rights, particularly with the War in Gaza. So, it – you know, it’s raising a lot of questions, I think, for a future Foreign Minister.

I think one of the big issues, and everyone here has said this in one way or another, is that the UK is no longer – or has made itself, no longer willing or able to lead alone on any of these critical issues in the Middle East. Be it Israel and Palestine, managing the ongoing crisis and tensions with Iran, Syria, Iraq, Yemen. The UK works very closely and is, as Yu Jie said, seen to be the junior partner of the United States in much of the security relationships. And too often, I find, it is waiting for Washington to make the big decisions and make the big investment on the ways forward with regards to, let’s say, Iran’s nuclear programme and how to manage a crisis there.

And the same applies in the context of Israel and Palestine, the issue of statehood. Everything is about Washington and passing the buck, or developing, even, oftentimes, the proposals that then await for Washington’s approval in order for them to move forward. So, the UK on its own doesn’t have the capacity to take a lot of these things forward. And going forward, above all, I echo much as – what has been said, that the partnerships, particularly with Europe, will be very important for the UK in the Middle East. And waiting for Washington on its own isn’t – doesn’t deliver, necessarily, the best outcome for the UK. And this is important to consider as we go into the US election cycle, uncertain of what that election will bear fruit. And if it is a contentious election, we can’t be waiting for Washington all the way through, you know, when the election is resolved. Hopefully, we’re not going to see that outcome, but the UK needs to be ready, regardless of what happens in Washington, is what I’m saying.

And this is where the issue of Israel and Palestine, you know, remains nebulous. We are too far along into this war, with indications that it’s going to continue into the fall, if not longer, and there is no real clear articulated UK plan for how they would support the end of the war, let alone, you know, what comes next in a, sort of, settlement process. And, you know, there is a game of hot potato going on, where everyone is passing the buck and waiting for another party to develop the proposals. And so, there hasn’t been leadership or partnership here, and I think, you know, that’s what’s really important.

And it speaks to the, sort of, question of countering Russia and China, because I don’t think the UK on its own can counter Russia and China, at all. The UK needs partnerships, including with the non-democratic Arab states of the Middle East, in order to ‘manage’ relationships that have already diversified. I mean, the regional states are – the ship has sailed on countering Russia and China. They have diversified their economic ties, they’ve diversified their security relationships, and, you know, most of the Middle East is quite keen to work in this multipolar order and make it work for them.

So, for the UK, this is about working bilaterally, but also, multilaterally, in the region, again, with some kind of vision that can see the UK support regional security, above all, and be able to articulate what that means. You know, maybe as a P5 member, or maybe as a state that is looking to reform some of these multilateral processes that are not working. Help to, in co-ordination with partners, try and manage and stabilise a lot of these dynamics in the region, without backing themselves into a corner. And doing nothing is not serving the UK, I think, very well, which is where we current are on the Middle East.

Bronwen Maddox

Thanks. I’m just unpacking a question by Seth Uma, who asks – says, “The Labour Party is inconsistent on the Israel-Palestine policy. Initially stated they would support a two-state solution,” they did, so does this government. “But lately adding a caveat to that that Labour will support such an arrangement as part of a peace process.” Not sure that’s inconsistent, but a development of the situation being – developing. Then he asks, “Is the UK unnecessarily,” I think there’s a mistype, “siding with the US in deferring a recognition of a Palestinian state?” and mentions other Europeans, like, “Spain, Ireland and Norway,” which have recognised it.

David Cameron has gone ahead of previous British Foreign Secretaries in saying that Britain could recognise a Palestinian state, hasn’t he? But not quite made clear how.

Dr Sanam Vakil

Yes, that’s true, of course, but that on its own, or I think the recognition of a Palestinian state, while very important, is symbolic. That on its own isn’t going to solve the problem. I think that what we have seen is that both parties have been abundantly cautious on this issue of Israel-Palestine, really, as a reflection of the lack of engagement on this issue for many years. They were caught off guard and have been reactive and are still uncertain of how to take this issue forward, and this is the reality.

I do think there is a greater, sort of, investment, perhaps interest, within the Labour Party, to support the so-called ‘two-state solution’, but I’m sceptical that there is enough understanding of – or awareness of the facts on the ground within Palestinian and Israeli society. And, right now, we are having discussions about…

Bronwen Maddox

By “the facts…

Dr Sanam Vakil

…[inaudible – 62:44]…

Bronwen Maddox

…on the ground” – but Sanam, sorry, the – by “the facts on the ground,” what exactly do you mean? ‘Cause it’s obviously a very loaded phrase…

Dr Sanam Vakil

Yeah.

Bronwen Maddox

…in that part of the world, often used to refer to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Dr Sanam Vakil

I think, of course, settlements are part of it, but I would – I’m mainly speaking to the fact that both Israeli society and Palestinian society are not engaged at all, actively, in the day after discussions that we are dreaming of and talking about in Western capitals. They are very much focused on the narr – you know, the consequences of the war, the consequences of a humanitarian crisis and hostages that need to be released, but really far away from the solutions space that we would like them to be. And so, with this massive divide between the region and the West, again, you know, it’s hard to see the UK being able to fill the void without really investing in this process.

I think you’ve had, of course, Tony Blair’s Government, you know, way back when, really trying to invest or show leadership. David Cameron began to show a glimmer of interest, but since then, there has been no follow-up since January. And I’m very sceptical that the UK on its own, knows what to do. But it can work with the EU, and it does have that historical role in the region, strong relations with Israel, also with the Gulf states, where it can start bringing together, convening and investing in Palestinian civil society and local governance. But there’s no discussion of any of this, and that, in itself, is, you know, deeply concerning and problematic.

Bronwen Maddox

Thanks very much, Sanam, and it’s something that Chatham House, under Sanam’s leadership, is doing a lot on, trying to get those conversations going. But as you said there, many countries want to take part in the conversations, but there is perhaps less appetite among many Israelis and Palestinians at the moment, given the trauma they are in.

Let me take another pair of questions. Leslie, Orysia, Yu Jie, I’m, sort of, looking towards you in these ones. The one from Silas Ojo, “On” – who says, “On hypocrisy and fairness in the application of the rules-based order, it appears a rift is opening up between Europe and the United States, and their sen – and the United States’ sensitivity to these issues. How might the UK navigate this?”

And one from Abdulla – oops, sorry, the screen just jumped, Abdulla Al-Ghahattam, Al-Ghatam, sorry, Abdulla Al-Ghatam, “How important is energy security in achieving Net Zero goals,” we haven’t really mentioned net zero in all this, “and reducing dependency on energy from authoritarian countries?” Any of my colleagues who want to jump in, please do, but Leslie, I wondered just your thoughts about this – people are probing in different ways in these questions about a rift across the Atlantic.

Dr Leslie Vinjamuri

I mean, I think it’s – there’s certainly a story to be told about America and Europe being divided on questions of human rights and democracy promotion beyond their borders. But I – you know, we’ve – in some ways, the argument was made a very long time ago, I think it was by Bob Kagan, that, you know, some of this had to do with their respective roles in the world.

I guess I would add to that that there’s a very significant division within the United States. When you start to talk about concrete geographies and places in the world, and you ask the question of fairness and hypocrisy and human rights, Israel is the most obvious one where there is a – as we know, a very significant amount of contestation. What we’re seeing seems to be a generational divide, divides within a generation. We’ve watched the protests.

So, it’s not only between Europe and between the US, it’s also between generations and it’s within our societies. But I – one thing I wanted to add is that I – to what Sanam and others have said, is that, in many ways, a nice way to frame this is, the beauty of having an British election on America’s Independence Day is that Britain will be clear of, you know, these weeks of intern – necessarily internal focus, just as America goes into a summer of – where frankly, already is, but it will go deep into a summer of campaigning and necessary self-reflection.

The opportunity for Britain to get out in front and fill some of that space on questions of leadership, on speaking to these questions of consistency, the rule of law, the promotion of democracy and human rights, and trying to influence the US, I think is – there’s a lot of space there. It’s not easy, it’s complex. It’s certainly – you know, if you think America needed to influence Israel in private, Britain certainly needs to influence the United States in private, I think in order to be effective. But I guess, that, you know, the short answer is just, I think it’s much more complex than Europe versus the United States. I think our societies are deeply divided, for multiple reasons, not least demographic change and generational change, over questions of human rights and the value and the consistency of their promotion beyond our borders.

Bronwen Maddox

Great, thank you.

Orysia Lutsevych

I’ll just chime in because…

Bronwen Maddox

Yes.

Orysia Lutsevych

…it connects well with what Leslie said. As we recall the delay of US aid delivery to Ukraine, this is where Britain stepped in, and it was clear, Britain was the first to sign the bilateral security agreement with Kyiv, that was – opened the way for other nations to do it. It was trying to increase its bilateral military aid to prop as much as possible, especially through long range missiles, that made a big difference, again, as I said, in the Black Sea.

So, you know, the – it’s possible, and Britain will find allies in Europe who will actually back that strategy, to a large degree, especially Eastern Europeans, the Eastern flank of NATO. But what is quite striking is this recent joint op-ed by Macron and Scholz in the FT, and the first sentence, where they say, “Our Europe is mortal. We must rise up to the challenge.” And this is where, also, obviously, Britain comes in. If European Union is preparing for the new phase after the EU elections, setting up new agenda for technology, for AI regulation, for more competitive investment regulation, obviously this coincides with the UK agenda. And again, we are always coming back to that partnership that is so important.

And, you know, if more isolationist America will happen, or more China-focused America will happen, after the next election, you know, this will be the new reality, that Britain and Europe will have to deal with jointly, with likeminded nations, because we live in the new world. And that Zeitenwende that happened after the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the reality, and, of course, the Israeli-Palestine conflict is much more divisive in the United States, whereas Russian invasion of Ukraine is clear cut. It’s one of the most clear-cut cases of crime against aggression, and gives a moral ground, and, also, you know, an international law ground, to act in a quite bold way.

Bronwen Maddox

Thank you.

Dr Yu Jie

On Orysia’s point, the – yeah, I’ll just…

Bronwen Maddox

Anyone on the energy security question?

Dr Yu Jie

Yeah, I can – yeah, let me go through the energy security. Actually, the two answers linked it. So, UK – sorry, United States, Europe, including UK, how they sees China very different. UK clearly set up by saying is epoch-defining challenge, whereas, for United States is a bipartisan consensus that is a existential threat. So, that lays very clear on the continental difference, the transatlantic difference, on these attitudes towards China.

Now, regarding the energy security, again, we will come back to the domestic politics, vis-à-vis economics, vis-à-vis foreign affairs, in here. So, on the one hand, we want to be less reliant towards China, want to – more energy independent, but whereas, on the other hand, I think China already acquired the capability in terms of electric vehicles, in terms of certain green transition renewable energy equipments. It’s already ten years ahead, compared with many other parts of the world.

So, again, if we come back to this, and if UK would be able to be planning much longer time, and building its own industrial capacity on those areas that it does not want to totally depend on China, and maybe the government have to start it from now. So, that is to say, yes, it’s all – in ideal world, it is all very nice talking about derisking and pivot its critical resources away from certain regimes, but when it come to practice, it really take time to arrive the ambition over there. So, it might be just want to start it from now.

Bronwen Maddox

That’s great. Let me just run through some of the questions. We’re coming right up. We’ve got a short five minutes left, and I want to ask everyone one last thing, and I have a particular question in this list in mind. But from Monica Bloch, “Will the UK remember that there are still innocent civilian hostages being kept in horrifying conditions by Hamas?” I sincerely hope so. Hugo Blewett-Mundy, “What form should UK/EU co-operation on Ukraine take?” I hope we’ve covered that, but if not, let me refer to my colleague’s excellent extensive work on just that.

Michael Salthouse has asked interesting question about the “Iran nuclear deal, the JPCOA.” Again, we have done quite a lot on that, our security team, and Middle East team. Christina DeCoursey said, “The UK needs a plan to deal with its global image at this time, Brexit, economy, political allies, social troubles. How would a Labour Government handle this?” I think we are going to hear this, something of this, in the next six weeks, from both main parties. But I’m concerned that they will rely with Europe on simply smiling more and not being the party of Brexit, and really need to get into the detail if they’re to secure a better relationship.

But interesting one from Trevor Clarke, on the “Asian-American diaspora,” but I – and Razvan Chivsui, we can’t get into the relations between the UK and Romania right now, I’m afraid, but thank you for asking. So, lots and lots of interesting questions, but I want to pick up one from Tim Cole. Tim, if you’re watching, it’s not the one about what you say David Lammy has said about “slavery, the history of slavery influencing” his “approach to the job.” I think it’s very interesting, I – and this is my ignorance, I haven’t seen what he said on that, and don’t want to throw it at my colleagues without the precise wording.

But I’m going to pick up your other one, which is when you ask, “What is the big splash, big moment, announcement or initiative the next UK Foreign Secretary can make or launch, to demonstrate the UK is back as a foreign policy power?” I assume you mean short of going to war, in some unexpected ways. I have one answer, but does anyone want to leap in, in the two minutes we have left? One thing, going back right to our first question, one thing.

Orysia Lutsevych

I think the first global meeting that will take place on the UK soil with the European policy community. That will take place on the 18th of July, and that’s a good moment to launch several initiatives, because it’s even broader than the current EU members. It includes Turkey, it includes Georgia, Ukraine. And I think UK has always been good in actually defending democracy, something that Leslie was talking about, and perhaps the global initiative to pro – to build resilience of democracies, countering disinformation in practical ways, shoring up, you know, economic interconnectedness of likeminded countries, could be an initiative that UK could launch at the European policy community.

Bronwen Maddox

Anyone else? No. We’ve only got one minute, so I will say I agree with that, I agree with getting on the plane to Beijing, and I agree with all those who’ve made the point about spending more. Because, up to a point, you know, the money does count, and the cuts in money really have counted in reducing the UK’s influence.

I think we’re going to have to pause right there. There are terrific questions coming in, though the questions are rather crediting the UK with the ability to sort out all kinds of things, like relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And no Foreign Secretary I have yet come across has really thought they had a magic wand for that. But we’re going to have to draw to a close right now. It is quarter past. Thank you so much for joining us online, thank you for the terrific questions, and if were in a hall, I would ask you to applaud my terrific panel of colleagues. With that, I’ll simply say, from me, thank you very much.