Foreign policy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Egypt’s foreign policy under Al-Sisi and its relationship with Saudi Arabia

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      Can Anything About US Foreign Policy Be Normal?

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      Making Sense of Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US ‘will not entertain’ UK trade deal that risks Good Friday agreement

      by

      US ‘will not entertain’ UK trade deal that risks Good Friday agreement US congressman Richard Neal says peace deal must not be held ‘hostage over domestic politics’ A bilateral trade deal between the US and the UK is “desirable” but will not progress while the Northern Ireland peace deal is being used for domestic political purposes, one of the most powerful American congressmen has warned.Richard Neal, the chairman of the ways and means committee, has told the Guardian: “We will not entertain a trade agreement if there is any jeopardy to the Good Friday agreement.TopicsNorthern IrelandBrexitEuropeIrelandForeign policyEuropean UnionUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe: ex-Tory MP urges inquiry into why Iran debt went unpaid

      by

      Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe: ex-Tory MP urges inquiry into why Iran debt went unpaid Alistair Burt, previously a Foreign Office minister, queries delay to payment of cash that freed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe02:07The UK government has known for many years that if it paid a £400m debt to Iran it was likely to lead to the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the former Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt has said in a letter to the foreign affairs select committee.Burt, a Tory MP until 2019, is calling for the committee to launch an inquiry into why the debt was not paid and into who – either in the governments of the UK or the US – resisted making the payment.Zaghari-Ratcliffe, 43, was released last week immediately after the UK paid the debt, and at a press conference on Monday she asked why it had taken five foreign secretaries and six years to secure her release.Burt also said he repeatedly urged the government to pay the £400m, which he said was “not a ransom, but a debt owed”.Burt was Middle East minister between 2017 and 2019, and says even now he is not sure what forces were preventing the debt’s payment.Iran debt should have been settled years ago, Zaghari-Ratcliffe saysRead moreIt is the first time a former minister has revealed so much about the clashes within government over the failure to secure Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release earlier. It is understood Burt has told the committee he is prepared to give evidence in public or private.The £400m debt relates to a 1970s arms deal in which the UK took money from the Shah of Iran but then did not deliver the promised Chieftain tanks after he was deposed by Islamic revolutionaries.In his letter to the committee, Burt is careful to say he could not have known for sure if the payment would have led to the release of Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori, another dual national.But, he said, he did know from his discussions with senior Iranian ministers that payment represented a chance to open up a new relationship with Iran and “remove an impediment to the relationship and possibly their release”.He said he had reported to the then foreign secretary Boris Johnson (in office from 2016 to 2018) that from his dealings with the then Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, he understood that “payment of the debt was fundamental to their release”.Burt also said he knew there were practical difficulties in paying the debt because of US sanctions, but routes were explored including payment in humanitarian aid or through undertakings by the Iranian foreign ministry that the money would not go to the Iranian army.It is understood that Burt at one point formed a view that the defence secretary Gavin Williamson at the time was opposed to the payment. Burt challenged him, leading to a row, but never received a direct response.Other possible blockages were the US government led by Donald Trump.Burt has also let it be known that he would be happy for his ministerial papers showing his advocacy of paying the debt to be placed on the public record in front of any foreign affairs select committee inquiry.The foreign affairs committee has also been asked to launch an inquiry by Tulip Siddiq, the Labour MP for Hampstead, and the MP representing Richard Ratcliffe, the husband of Zaghari-Ratcliffe.Burt, an experienced and respected figure across the Middle East, is curious to know if the resistance was internal inside the government or came from the Trump administration.In his letter, he writes: “I believe now we need to find out who or what stopped the payments.”Ratcliffe has said he believes a parliamentary inquiry is the best route to finding the truth, as opposed to seeking judicial review.Ministers may be reluctant for an inquiry to take place if it starts to unearth the degree to which UK policy on Iran, and the fate of the dual nationals, was being dictated by pressure from the Trump administration.In a clue to the attitude of the Trump administration to payment of the debt, Mike Pompeo, secretary of state under Trump, last week accused Britain of paying blood money by clearing its debt.TopicsNazanin Zaghari-RatcliffeBoris JohnsonIranForeign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeForeign policyUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden imposes new sanctions on Russia: ‘America stands up to bullies’

      by

      Biden imposes new sanctions on Russia: ‘America stands up to bullies’President takes aim at Russia’s largest banks and companies but is emphatic US troops will not engage in conflict in Ukraine Joe Biden on Thursday announced a fresh round of what he said would be crippling sanctions on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, declaring that Vladimir Putin “chose this war” and that he and his country will bear the consequences.The sanctions target Russia’s largest banks and companies, cutting them off from western financial markets, while imposing export controls and sanctioning Russian oligarchs and their families.Sanctions against Russia – at a glanceRead more“Putin is the aggressor. Putin chose this war,” the US president said. “And now he and his country will bear the consequences.”Taken together, Biden said the measures taken by the US and allied nations around the world were meant to “maximize a long-term impact” on Russia, extracting severe costs on Moscow immediately and over time for what Biden called its “brutal assault” on a sovereign nation.Biden warned that Putin’s “quest for empire” extended beyond Ukraine, saying the Russian leader sought to re-create the former Soviet Union.But the president was emphatic in his vow that US troops would not engage Russia in Ukraine, but he again affirmed the US would defend “every inch of Nato territory”. The commitment was underscored by an announcement that Biden had authorized the deployment of additional US troops to Germany.As Biden addressed the nation from the East Room of the White House, the Ukrainian government reported mounting casualties as Russian troops unleashed a punishing offensive on the nation, advancing on the nation’s capital, Kyiv.01:21Biden’s remarks came hours after he held a virtual meeting with the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Italy and Japan. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, European Council president Charles Michel, and Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg were also in attendance. Earlier on Thursday, he convened a meeting of the US national security council.The penalties come a day after the White House unveiled an initial “tranche” of sanctions in response to Putin’s recognition of two breakaway republics in east Ukraine. The sanctions announced on Thursday aim to further destabalize Russia’s financial system while starving the county of technology critical to its economy and military.The US Treasury said the latest round of sanctions against Russia would impact nearly 80% of all banking assets in the country, fundamentally threatening the Russian economy and weakening the Kremlin’s geopolitical posture.“Treasury is taking serious and unprecedented action to deliver swift and severe consequences to the Kremlin and significantly impair their ability to use the Russian economy and financial system to further their malign activity,” said Janet Yellen, the Treasury secretary.Biden said the purpose of the sanctions was to limit “Russia’s ability to do business in dollars, euros, pounds and yen to be part of the global economy”.But they are not as forceful as some elected officials in the US and Ukraine have called for, steps that would include removing Russia from the Swift international banking system and targeting Russia’s energy sector or leveling sanctions against Putin personally.“We demand the disconnection of Russia from Swift, the introduction of a no-fly zone over Ukraine and other effective steps to stop the aggressor,” the Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in a tweet.What is Swift and what would shutting Russia out of it achieve?Read moreOn Thursday, congressman Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, called on the US to “dramatically escalate” its response to Moscow and endorsed calls to remove Russia from the international banking system and its ability to access western capital.Biden argued that time was needed to the current round of sanctions to take their desired effect, and said the US was “prepared” to impose more severe penalties on Russia.The president defended his administration’s response. For several weeks, the US has declassified and made public Putin’s secret plans, while moving quickly to blame Russia for a series of cyber-attacks against Ukrainian banks and agencies. The purpose of the approach was to expose the Kremlin’s justification for war as baseless, he said.“Now, it’s unfolding largely as we predicted,” the president said.Asked by reporters whether he was consulting China to isolate Russia, Biden would not comment. He also said he was working to persuade India to join the western-led push against Russia.Biden said he had no plans to talk to Putin.The US president also urged resolve among the American people, who he said would likely face economic consequences as a result of what Biden called Putin’s “naked aggression”. The US has also warned government agencies and operators of critical infrastructure to take pre-emptive actions to safeguard against a potential Russian cyber-attack.In a stark contrast to Donald Trump, who has repeatedly assailed Biden while badly mangling the facts surrounding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Barack Obama called on “every American, regardless of party” to support the president’s efforts to punish the Kremlin.Echoing Biden, Obama acknowledged that there would likely be economic consequences for Americans, but that it was a “price we should be willing to pay to take a stand on the side of freedom.”As Biden has warned throughout his presidency, he said democracies around the world were being tested and threatened by Putin’s “sinister vision for the future of our world”. He said there was never a question that the US would respond to Russia’s assault on Ukraine.“This aggression cannot go unanswered,” Biden said. “America stands up to bullies. We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.”TopicsJoe BidenUS politicsVladimir PutinRussiaUkraineForeign policynewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on a Kabul heist: snatching money from the starving | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on a Kabul heist: snatching money from the starvingEditorialAfghans are not to blame for 9/11, though they have paid for it many times over. Cruelly, they are being punished again The average Afghan was not even alive when planes were flown into the twin towers on 11 September 2001. This is only one of the reasons why handing money from the Afghan central bank to the families of 9/11 victims would be unconscionable. Parents are already selling their organs to feed their children, 98% of the population is short of food, and unless cash starts flowing again things are about to get much, much worse.The executive order signed by the Biden administration on Friday would allow Afghanistan’s $7bn US-held assets, frozen when the Taliban swept to power, to be halved. One half would be held pending the outcome of lawsuits brought against the Taliban by the families of 9/11 victims who have persuaded a judge to attach their case to the Afghan assets. The other half, if courts agree, would be used for humanitarian aid. The administration’s argument is that this may help get assistance to Afghanistan more swiftly, without having to await the outcome of the cases. The government can step into lawsuits to say what it believes is in the national interest, but decided that it would not object to any decision to award half the money to the families.Though central bank funds are supposed to enjoy diplomatic immunities, it appears that the administration can act if a “recognised representative of the Afghan government” approves – raising obvious questions about who might now qualify. Whatever the legal technicalities, the moral case is clear. Afghans are not to blame for 9/11, though they have paid for it many times over. Some of the bereaved have already condemned the idea of taking Afghan money as a betrayal. Thousands of American families were devastated that day, and $7bn compensation was disbursed to bereaved relatives and the injured (many of whom faced huge medical bills); another $10bn is still being paid out. This is in stark contrast with Afghanistan, where, on the very rare occasions that the US made compensation or “condolence” payments for civilian deaths, relatives usually received a small four-figure sum. The administration cannot claim the moral high ground because it proposes using some of the money for aid. Though most of it originally came from international donors, including the US, it is no longer theirs to spend, and some represents the personal savings of Afghans.In any case, humanitarian relief is no substitute for a functioning, if floundering, economy. It is not merely that it raises the prospect of starving Afghans paying the salaries of western aid workers, and of a flood of food aid causing more long-term damage by crippling agriculture. The UN had already warned that the financial system could collapse within months; seizing the central bank’s assets could be the last straw. It’s true that those funds alone can’t solve Afghanistan’s underlying problems – but they are desperately needed to stave off some of the worst consequences.Afghan experts and others have worked on imaginative solutions to restore liquidity without simply ceding control of assets to the Taliban. The problem is not a lack of means, but of will: relief is an easier political sell in the US, which is also believed to have blocked other countries from unfreezing funds. No one wants to aid the Taliban, whose primary victims are Afghans. But no one should claim the administration’s plan is in the best interests of the Afghan people.TopicsAfghanistanOpinionTalibanJoe BidenDemocratsUS politicsSeptember 11 2001United NationseditorialsReuse this content More