In the summer of 1998, I had the pleasure of working on an isolated Pacific island with two Burmese doctors. This ‘husband and wife’ team from Rangoon took care of over 2000 Aitutaki residents, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They had originally found themselves on the island of Aitutaki as part of a VSO (Voluntary Services Overseas) programme. They stayed on after, mainly to help the islanders, however, a contributory factor to their decision was the military government in Burma. In 1988 one of them had been in Rangoon at the time of the military crackdown that led to the deaths of over 3000 Burmese. She told me of the horrific scenes in casualty departments that night. The sight of numerous gun-shot wounds had clearly had a profound effect upon her. Furthermore, her family had, had close links with Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition movement and hence on her returns home she had been regularly subjected to close observation by the military.

As I watched the footage on television last night, remarkably being shared with the world via new media, I remembered my Burmese colleague’s recollections of the 1988 massacre. Today, Burma stands at a cross-road. The military government has succeeded in benefitting the very few and hindering the economic progress of the many. It has been humbling to see people on the streets calling for democracy ignoring the real threat of being shot. Despite this bravery, the international response has so far been modest at best, primarily because of Chinese heel-dragging. Once more the UN has appeared powerless to defend those rights we take for granted here in Britain: freedom of speech, democratic self-government, etc. What can Britain do to support the Burmese people? If possible, should a former colonial power been seen to intervene? My answer would be ‘Yes’. Not intervene in a military way, but rather, apply firm economic pressure via the EU – e.g. cancel credit, stop gas and oil purchase, freeze state assets, suspend trade and investment by Western companies. And if that did not work, apply pressure to China? How? Mention withdrawing support for the Olympics next year. Either the democratic countries of the world are serious about supporting freedoms abroad or they are not. It is about time basic principles of freedom are supported by the international community. It would be interesting to ask my former Burmese medical colleague what she now thinks about her freedom of speech, her freedom to move and her right to vote.

The Conservative Friends of Bangladesh (CFOB) was established at last year’s Conservative Party Conference. At a well-attended launch event organised by Anne Main MP (pictured above with the former Bangladeshi High Commissioner), the Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague MP welcomed the creation of the group and supported its aims to both build better relationships with the Bangladeshi people here in the United Kingdom, and foster a greater understanding about the country of Bangladesh.

There are over half a million British Bangladeshis. Traditionally, Labour has been the political party of choice within the community. CFOB immediately recognised this and set about challenging that attitude. Bangladeshis are entrepreneurial, hard-working and family-oriented people and hence we believed that they should instinctively feel at home in the Conservative Party. Our growing membership since the launch is evidence that we were right. Up and down the country there are ‘key marginal’ constituencies where significant Bangladeshi communities live. CFOB has worked hard to make contacts and listen to the concerns of those communities. One example was the widespread concern about climate change. Bangladesh has more to fear from global warming and consequent rising sea levels than most. Some estimates suggest that over 15% of the country will be engulfed by the Bay of Bengal by the turn of the next century. That would see a forced migration of some 17 million people. We have found that the Conservative Party’s recent emphasis on developing policies that would limit Man’s contribution to that potential natural disaster has been very much welcomed by the Bangladeshi community. By actively listening to such concerns, CFOB has not only successfully spread our fresh political message to Bangladeshi communities that have not previously considered voting Conservative, it has also helped to improve broader community relations at a time when the tolerant British society that we all cherish is under pressure from Islamic extremists. Interestingly, throughout the last year feedback from the Bangladeshis we have contacted has all been very positive.

CFOB has also been keen to encourage a stable and prosperous Bangladesh. It actively supports the principle of secular democracy enshrined within the Bangladeshi Constitution drawn up in 1971. Furthermore, it retains an independent voice in Bangladeshi affairs, as it has no affiliation with any Bangladeshi parties. Evidence of this active support by the CFOB for Bangladeshi democracy was demonstrated at the beginning of this year by a group trip to Bangladesh headed by our Chairman, Anne Main MP. It had been arranged to assess the political situation which had then become very unsettled. CFOB believes that an orderly and violence-free general election held at the earliest opportunity would be in the best interests of all Bangladeshis. For Bangladesh to continue enjoying the economic growth it has seen over the last 15 years, it desperately needs the relative political stability it had experienced until the recent unrest began. Since its inception, CFOB has provided much support to all interested parties in Bangladesh, and has plans to further strengthen ties with the country. Meetings have been held with leaders of all the major political parties and a further group trip to the country is planned for later this year.

In just our first year, CFOB has increased its membership base within British Bangladeshi communities, actively supported Parliamentary candidates throughout the country and forged strong links with Bangladesh. We have every intention of making our second year just as successful for we believe that the Conservative Party has plenty to offer the British Bangladeshi Community.

(this article was also posted here on Conservative Home)

The Royal British Legion has recently launched a campaign to support ex-service personnel. My grandfather is a long-serving member of the British Legion, having seen action in a Bomber crew in World War II. Like many, he lost family and friends in that terrible conflict and hence, I have always had personal reasons for supporting the Legion. Their present campaign, however, appears to have been launched in response to the recent increased demands placed upon British Armed Forces.

At present, Britain has significant forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland, as well as smaller commitments elsewhere. David Cameron is presently in the province of Helmand in Afghanistan. He is there to rightly show the Conservative Opposition’s full backing for that on-going campaign to support the democratically-elected government in Kabul, and to wage war on al-Qeeda forces based on the Pakistani border. He is also there to highlight the importance of proper government funding for our Armed Forces.

According to a recent Commons Public Accounts Committee report, there is presently an overall shortfall of Armed Forces personnel of 5,850 (3.2 per cent of full strength). Shockingly, military recruitment drives have been cut back by pressure to downsize or reduce funding. The report cited an example of the Army cancelling some infantry training courses during 2004-05, and consequently deferring recruits, in order to stay within budget constraints. During the past decade, the Government has cut the strength of the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary from 142 to 110 ships. The frigate and destroyer fleet has been dramatically reduced from 35 to 25. Furthermore, the Government has withdrawn the Royal Navy’s Sea Harriers from service in early 2006, despite its replacement, the Joint Strike Fighter, not being expected in service until 2014. These are hardly the actions of a government that places proper funding of the Armed Forces as a top priority. Indeed, it hardly augurs well for the defence of the Realm.

The British Legion is right to highlight that the government has broken a covenant that I believe all Britons believe in: if British service personnel are asked to put their lives at risk they should not only expect proper equipment in the field but also proper care when they come home. It is a sad indictment of government policy that a charitable organisation has felt the need to highlight short-comings in the care of ex-servicemen and women.

The original decision by the Labour government to commit forces to support the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan was the right one. Where they have been found wanting, however, is in the proper support of our Armed Forces since then. I have written previously on the need for the British government to properly fund the army, navy and airforce, if it is to continue actively engaging them in global conflicts. When is our new Prime Minister going to authorise increased defence expenditure? It is easy to talk tough in the US about intervening in Darfur etc… It appears much harder for him to commit government funds to pay for commitment. The sooner Mr Brown’s ‘honeymooning’ is over the better off our armed personnel will be. The Nation’s covenant with the Armed Forces deserves much more respect.

To be honest, I have never been tempted to pick up a Salman Rushdie book. Friends of mine who have dared, have reported that it was a soporific experience. Despite this, I would willingly fight, both in word and by action, to defend the right of Sir Salman, and other authors, to express themselves freely. Furthermore, I would defend the right of the elected government of this country to bestow any honour it chose to award to whomever it deemed worthy, however misguided I felt the decision appeared to be.

The recent events surrounding Mr Rushdie’s proposed knighthood are concerning. Burning effigies of the Queen and British flags in Pakistan, along with calls from Pakistani politicians to remove the honour, should be firmly resisted. The right of freedom of expression should be defended and shown to be a non-negotiable part of a successful democratic country. To not do so would be cowardly.

If society believes in the principle of the freedom of expression, it must apply it to all authors, irrespective of the content of their books. If an author offends a particular group, be it one based on faith or political persuasion, he should be openly challenged. Indeed, society should tolerate the freedom to criticise other beliefs and thoughts. To my mind, any religion or political philosophy is the stronger for having undergone rigorous challenge and assessment. Those followers who call for censorship appear weaker. Religions that need such protection (and I am aware of none) will probably have a short history. Islam, Judaism and Christianity, to name but a few, are all capable of withstanding continual re-evaluation. That is one of the reasons they have retained support across many centuries. Religious observance and the principle of the freedom of expression can, and should, co-exist happily in our society.

You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women

– Alexander Litvinenko

The recent suggestion by Vladimir Putin that he may once again aim Russia’s nuclear arsenal at Western Europe has attracted much comment. The fear of a resurgent Russia bearing its military teeth has no doubt sent a few chills down the spines of Western foreign policy-makers. A cyberwar with Estonia, gas supply interference in the Ukraine and the on-going war in Chechyna are all reminders of Russia’s recent tendency to seek confrontation. The ex-KGB man, Mr Putin, has not been shy of talking and acting tough. The Litvinenko case, though unlikely to have been directly state-sponsored, is an unpleasant reminder of a Soviet past in Russia. Friends of mine who have working experience of the country talk of it verging on lawlessness, “a Wild West” in the East. This can hardly instill much confidence in Washington and London when formulating a diplomatic approach to the country’s foreign policy.

Not so long ago, Russia, in the guise of the Soviet Union, straddled the world as a proper super-power. This is no longer the case. The problem for President Putin is that Russia now has all the appearances of an old heavyweight boxer returning to the ring: it is bloated on oil and gas revenue, less agile and apt to use under-hand (KGB-style) tactics to win each fight. Its economy is inherently weak, relying heavily upon revenues from mineral resources. With the G8 summit taking place over the next few days, what should the Western powers do in response to this Russian Rocky?

For Europe, a proper response is difficult. Our dependence on Russia for gas supplies is only going to increase over the coming decades. It is for this reason alone that building nuclear power stations is unavoidable. Indeed, energy independence for Europe would greatly aid our future relations with Russia. Furthermore, the mention of Russian missile targetting should sadly put to bed any question about replacing Trident.

For the USA, however, a proper response is more straightforward. American foreign policy of late has rightly “taken a kicking”. With Russia, they have a chance to re-establish their democratic, liberty-defending credentials. The democratic deficit, the apparent disregard for a proper legal process and human rights, in general, within Russia, should all be top of the agenda in US-Russia bilateral talks. A stable, democratic Russia will be good for both Russians and the rest of us. American and European foreign policy should be about achieving that goal. It should not be about tolerating a failing state simply because we need its gas. Our children and grandchildren would not thank us for that policy decision.

Over ten years I have watched energy policy go from being a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country’s future as defence.

– Tony Blair

In today’s Times, the Prime Minister argues the case for a new energy plan. It is a persuasive case. What is clear is that Britain’s future energy security has become a major issue. Indeed, I believe that energy security has become the single most important strategic challenge for the British government. Get it wrong, and we can all kiss goodbye to long-term prosperity and influence in the world.

Putting the debate on climate change to one side, for me the key question is how Britain can move towards energy independence. If one looks at a table of ownership of known oil reserves, only one country in the top ten is a stable democracy – Canada. Gas reserve ownership is little better, with only the USA featuring. Clearly, Britain needs to start now to make plans for more energy independence as The Middle East and the former Soviet Union are hardly showing signs of imminent stable democracy. In particular, Russia has recently shown an intent to use energy supply as an instrument to bully its neighbours (and the rest of the world). Britain needs to build immunity to such intimidatory tactics.

Building nuclear power station should be part of our plan for energy independence. In contrast to hydrococarbons, uranium supplies come predominantly from stable democracies that are close friends of Britain. Canada is the world’s leading uranium producer, accounting for a third of global production and 15% of global reserves. Australia is the next largest producer, with one quarter of global production and 27% of global reserves. Our relationships with both countries are strong. We once lead the way in nuclear energy technology and hence I see no reason why we cannot do so again.

It is a tough decision to commission more nuclear power stations. Hard choices are what being in government is all about. There are undeniably issues regards cost and the disposal of nuclear waste. I believe, however, that these understandable concerns are more than outweighed by the strategic benefits of ‘owning’ our own power supplies. Clearly, we must concentrate on renewable energy resources and furthermore, address the amount of energy that each Briton uses. However, to rely on those two approaches alone would still leave Britain exposed to the vagaries of global politics. I would rather have nuclear power stations than ‘go cap in hand’ to despots and autocrats.

In the next week or so, there will be political changes on both sides of the Channel. One change will be achieved by popular vote, the other by succession. Opinion polls in France over recent weeks have consistently pointed towards a victory for Nicolas Sarkozy, in front of Segolene Royal, the glamorous Socialist candidate. The former Finance Minister has made no secret of his desire to liberalise the French economy, and it would appear that the French populace have belatedly realised that their economy is in dire need of such up-dating. For Conservatives in this country, the decision on who to support in the French Presidential election is easy. For the Labour Party, it is less straight forward. Blairites will no doubt voice their support for Sarkozy. Brownites, however, may be less enthusiastic, maybe feeling that they should show more solidarity with their French comrades.

Even though Gordon and Nicolas have shared dinner in the company of their partners, it is less easy for the Chancellor to be allies with a man who welcomes favourable comparisons with Margaret Thatcher, hardly a darling of the British Left. The problem for the Chancellor is that Sarkozy promises economic liberalisation and a simplified EU constitution, two policies that Brown claims to support. He is, however, against Turkey’s membership of the EU and publicly more Atlanticist than his Socialist rival. Being seen to be pro-American is not electorally popular at present in Britain, particularly amongst the Labour grassroot membership.

Brown will probably fudge his position. Centre-Left politicians in this country now appear rudderless when it comes to foreign policy. The Iraq debacle has bruised Labour confidence in the field of foreign affairs. Indeed, the elevation of Margaret Beckett suggested that it was an area that Labour policy-makers felt was less important in the short to medium term. Having trumpeted an ethical foreign policy on their arrival in Downing Street, the Labour administration have since been left to lick their wounds. The dilemma over the French Presidency is just the first that the future British Prime Minister will have to deal with. What happens if he gets another Republican President in the White House next year? It would appear that foreign policy may become Mr Brown’s Achilles’ Heel during his hopefully short premiership.

Dealing with dictators has become more difficult in recent times. In the past, democratic governments could go to war more easily, secure in the knowledge that they had public support, safe in the knowledge that distressing imagery from ‘the front’ would not make it on to screens back home. With the advent of 24-hour news media, those images of warfare are now spread quickly around the globe, often eliciting a negative response from the viewing public.

Recently, the BBC ran a series of programmes on BBC Parliament illustrating how the media’s coverage of war has changed in just the last 25 years. During the Falklands Conflict, British journalists were embedded with our forces and technically unable to broadcast live from the Islands. Furthermore, the MOD censored the footage and reports that did make it back to Britain, often causing a significant delay in the reporting of incidents. For example, footage of the May 4th attack on HMS Sheffield was not shown until over fortnight after the Exocet was launched against it. I could not imagine that type of delay being acceptable today.

This change in the way the media handles warfare has been widely welcomed. Commentators have argued that seeing the realities of war on our screens makes us all less inclined to support the use of force. That may very well be true. My concern is, however, that whether we like it or not, the world remains an unstable place, and as the pictures above highlight, there are still countries around the globe controlled by aggressive and violent dictators. What with the spread of nuclear technology and the apparent acceptability of state-financed terrorism (e.g. Hezbollah and Iran), the democracies of the world need to be on guard to defend freedoms that we all now take for granted.

But it is not just the defence of our freedoms, and indeed, the freedom of all peoples, which will require Britain and its fellow democratic countries to resort to force throughout the next century. It is also the defence of human rights, and the prevention of crimes against humanity, that should concern us all. What if the very media that provides daily reports of the loss of civilian life in Iraq, also brought us regular footage of barbarity in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, and detailed coverage of the recent famine in North Korea? Would there be a call for military intervention to save African and Korean lives? And if not, why not?

For being inconsistent on these matters elicits derision from the developing world. Displaying such double standards does nothing for our moral standing in the world. The situations in Zimbabwe and Darfur are an international disgrace, a shame on all of our houses. We should not be weak in the face of these issues, for it only serves to provoke further transgressions against humanity. Britain and its Allies should be prepared to intervene to protect any innocent life. And if it came to it, we should also be prepared to accept the awful face of the realities of war on our TV screens, if the ends justify the means. It would be a sad irony of the 21st century if the modern media’s detailed coverage of warfare inadvertently ended up costing more lives.

The sorry spectacle of a British serviceman and woman selling “their stories” to the highest bidder leaves a bitter taste. One can, and should, have sympathy for their recent ordeal. They are, however, members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, and consequently, should behave in a way that respects the traditions of the army, air force and navy. The front-page of The Sun today is cheap, and certainly does not help Britain maintain the moral high ground in the eyes of the world.

One must remember that the former captives are professional soldiers, not volunteers, whose training and salaries have been, and are, paid for by the taxpayer. No one made them choose their profession, a job that I am sure they knew had inherent risks. To be profiteering from active service in the defence of this country is wrong. Where have the military values of personal discipline, honour and tradition gone?

Some commentators are suggesting that the captives’ disclosures are all part of the media war with the Iranian regime. I hope not. Those in the MOD who decided to allow the former captives to talk to the media should be subjected to heavy criticism. Not only for bringing our proud armed forces into disrepute, but for also portraying Britain in such a poor light. Until today, I am sure that most people around the world believed our story, and respected our servicemen for the manner in which they had behaved under significant duress.

The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, not a man of impressive stature, should be asked which member(s) of the government authorised this media approach. New Labour has a long track-record of media manipulation. Getting the ‘right’ story out ‘front and centre’ has always appeared more important to this government than protecting the hard-fought, outstanding, international reputation of our armed forces. Shame on those involved in this decision who thought that British soldiers selling ther stories to the tabloids was an appropriate way for them to behave.

It would appear that this Labour government is happy to continue damaging our international reputation. The unfortunate headlines from today’s papers will have undermined our standing in the whole Iran affair. We must, I feel, endeavour to maintain a prinicipled stand against the Iranian regime. For it is the regime that is the problem, not the Iranian people. It will be ideas and principles that will win over the quiet majority in Iran, not weapons and media manipulation.

The twenty-fifth anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands should remind us all of the importance of principle in foreign affairs. Margaret Thatcher’s brave decision to send a task force to reclaim the islands was based upon the principles that unprovoked military aggression should not be rewarded and that the British islanders had a right to self-determination. The invasion was an illegal act and hence warranted a forceful response. Despite being given a ’50/50′ chance of the task force’s success by her military commanders, and the expression of some doubts both within and without government, the then Prime Minister stood firmly, arguing the case to stand up to the intimidation of the Argentine military junta. She was proven to be right.

The loss of 255 British lives was a high cost to pay to defend Britons on the other side of the world, however, I truly believe that they died for a cause worth defending. Britain should never shirk from defending its people, its territory and its interests. To do so, would be to invite another conflict similar to that which we witnessed in 1982.