The return of geopolitics: Foreign Secretary’s Mansion House speech at the Lord Mayor’s 2022 Easter Banquet

My Lord Mayor, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, according to some, this was destined to be the era of authoritarianism. Three years ago Vladimir Putin said Western liberalism was dead. Last year President Xi argued that the west is declining.

In April 2022 things look very different. Recent months have shown the deep resilience of the human spirit and of free societies.

Faced with appalling barbarism and war crimes, which we’d hoped had been consigned to history, the free world has united behind Ukraine in its brave fight for freedom and self-determination.

Those who think they can win through oppression, coercion or invasion are being proved wrong by this new stand on global security – one that not only seeks to deter, but also ensures that aggressors fail.

We cannot be complacent – the fate of Ukraine hangs in the balance. But let’s be clear – if Putin succeeds there will be untold further misery across Europe and terrible consequences across the globe. We would never feel safe again.

So we must be prepared for the long haul. We’ve got to double down on our support for Ukraine. And we must also follow through on the unity shown in the crisis. We must reboot, recast and remodel our approach.

My vision is a world where free nations are assertive and in the ascendant. Where freedom and democracy are strengthened through a network of economic and security partnerships. Where aggressors are contained and forced to take a better path.

This is the long term prize: a new era of peace, security of prosperity.

Let’s be honest. The architecture that was designed to guarantee peace and prosperity has failed Ukraine. The economic and security structures that were developed after the Second World War and the Cold War have been bent out of shape so far, they have enabled rather than contained aggression.

Russia is able to block any effective action at the UN Security Council. Putin sees his veto as a green light to barbarism. He’s walked away from the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. He’s violated multiple measures on arms control. The G20 can’t function as an effective economic body while Russia remains at the table.

The Soviet Union used to regularly use their UN veto, but, for all the many evils they inflicted, even they behaved with some kind of rationality on the world stage. They were able to stick to deals when they saw risks to strategic stability, as they did with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. They would de-escalate when they were confronted and called out, as with the Cuban Missile Crisis 60 years ago. And they had their eye on their global reputation.

None of these factors apply to Putin. We are dealing with a desperate rogue operator with no interest in international norms.

This is at a time when the world economy had never been more open to Russia.

During the Cold War western allies fuelled each other’s prosperity, and we restricted flows of trade, investment and technology to the USSR. In the 1990s these constraints were removed but it didn’t lead to the expected gains in economic openness and democracy. We took progress for granted instead of applying the necessary carrots and sticks.

And leaders like Putin spurned the opportunity to change because they feared losing control. Instead they took the money from oil and gas and used it to consolidate power and gain leverage abroad. ‘Wandel durch handel’ – the assumption that economic integration drives political change – didn’t work.

We now need a new approach, one that melds hard security and economic security, one that builds stronger global alliances and where free nations are more assertive and self-confident, one that recognises geopolitics is back.

Britain has always stood up to bullies. We have always been risk takers. So we are prepared be bold, using our strength in security and diplomacy, our economic heft, and our will and agility to lead the way.

We are already stepping up in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is our war – it is everyone’s war because Ukraine’s victory is a strategic imperative for all of us. Heavy weapons, tanks, aeroplanes – digging deep into our inventories, ramping up production. We need to do all of this.

Our sanctions have already seen Russia facing its first external debt default for a century. We need to go further. There must be nowhere for Putin to fund this appalling war. That means cutting off oil and gas imports once and for all.

At the same time, we need to deliver support to the Ukrainian people. It means helping refugees, it means delivery of food, medicine, and other essentials, and it means keeping the economy afloat.

It also means holding the Putin regime to account for the appalling crimes that have been committed.

And, when the guns finally fall silent in Ukraine, it means making sure Kyiv has the resources it needs to maintain security, deter further attacks, and rebuild. That’s why we are working on our joint commission with Poland to ensure Ukraine is equipped with NATO-standard weapons. And it’s why we are determined to work with the US, with the EU and other allies on a new Marshall Plan for the country.

Ukraine deserves nothing less than a landmark international effort to rebuild their towns and cities, regenerate their industries, and secure their freedom for the long term.

We are doubling down. We will keep going further and faster to push Russia out of the whole of Ukraine.

And this has to be a catalyst for wider change. We must also apply this tough stance to the threats that are emerging beyond Ukraine.

Our new approach is based on 3 areas: military strength, economic security and deeper global alliances.

Military strength

Firstly, we need to strengthen our collective defence. In the words of President Zelenskyy: “Freedom must be better armed than tyranny.”

Ahead of the NATO summit in Madrid, we need to lift our sights. We have long argued that NATO needs to be flexible, agile and integrated. The Eastern Flank must be strengthened, and we must support crucial states like Poland. That’s why we are increasing our troop presence and we’re deepening our defence cooperation.

We also have to learn the lessons of Ukraine.

The UK sent weapons and trained Ukrainian troops long before the war started. But the world should have done more to deter the invasion. We will never make that same mistake again.

Some argue we shouldn’t provide heavy weapons for fear of provoking something worse. But my view, is that Inaction would be the greatest provocation. This is a time for courage not for caution.

And we must ensure that, alongside Ukraine, the Western Balkans and countries like Moldova and Georgia have the resilience and the capabilities to maintain their sovereignty and freedom.

NATO’s open door policy is sacrosanct. If Finland and Sweden choose to join in response to Russia’s aggression, we must integrate them as soon as possible.

And we reject the false choice between stronger traditional defence and modern capabilities. We need to defend ourselves against attacks in space and cyberspace as well as by land, air and sea.

We also reject the false choice between Euro-Atlantic security and Indo-Pacific security. In the modern world we need both.

We need a global NATO. By that I don’t mean extending the membership to those from other regions. I mean that NATO must have a global outlook, ready to tackle global threats.

We need to pre-empt threats in the Indo-Pacific, working with our allies like Japan and Australia to ensure the Pacific is protected. And we must ensure that democracies like Taiwan are able to defend themselves.

All of this will require resources. We are correcting a generation of underinvestment.

That’s why the Prime Minister has announced the biggest investment in our Armed Forces since the Cold War. We recognised Russia as the most acute threat in our Integrated Review, adopting the same vigilance as NATO’s Eastern Allies.

Others are now also stepping up as well. But we all need to go further. Spending 2% on defence must be a floor, not a ceiling. There is no substitute for hard military power, backed by intelligence and diplomacy.

Economic security

Secondly, we need to recognise the growing role that the economy plays in security.

In the UK we are now using all of our economic levers – trade, sanctions, investment and development policy – in a much more assertive way.

We recognise that growth from cheap gas and money syphoned from kleptocracies is growth built on sand. It’s not the same as real, sustained growth from higher productivity and greater innovation.

Free trade and free markets are the most powerful engine of human progress. We will always champion economic freedom.

But free trade must be fair – and that means playing by the rules. For too long many have been naïve about the geopolitical power of economics. Aggressors treat it as a tool of foreign policy – using patronage, investment and debt as a means to exert control and coerce. They are ruthless in their approach. Our response won’t mirror their malign tactics, but we will match them in our resolve.

It’s time to wise up. Access to the global economy must depend on playing by the rules.

There can be no more free passes. We are showing this with the Russia-Ukraine conflict – Russia’s pass has been rescinded.

We are hitting them with every element of economic policy.

We have raised tariffs on Russian goods. We’ve cut them off from WTO terms. We’ve banned their ships from our ports, we’ve banned their planes from our airports. We have sanctioned more individuals and organisations than any other nation, hitting Russia’s banks, oligarchs, defence companies, Central Bank reserves, and oil and gas supplies.

We’re cutting off the funding for Putin’s war effort. We are also cutting investment ties with Russia – banning all new outward investment and ending the investor visa. At the same time, we are removing all import tariffs for Ukraine, and we’re supporting the Ukrainian economy with loan guarantees, fiscal support and investment.

We are showing that economic access is no longer a given. It has to be earned.

Countries must play by the rules. And that includes China.

Beijing has not condemned Russian aggression or its war crimes. Russian exports to China rose by almost a third in the first quarter of this year. They have sought to coerce Lithuania. They are commenting on who should or shouldn’t be a member of NATO. And they are rapidly building a military capable of projecting power deep into areas of European strategic interest.

But China is not impervious. By talking about the rise of China as inevitable we are doing China’s work for it. In fact, their rise isn’t inevitable. They will not continue to rise if they don’t play by the rules.

China needs trade with the G7. We represent half of the global economy. And we have choices. We have shown with Russia the kind of choices we’re prepared to make when international rules are violated. And we’ve shown that we’re prepared to prioritise security and respect for sovereignty over short-term economic gain. Not least because we know that the cost of not acting is higher.

The fact is that most of the world does respect sovereignty. It is only a few pariahs and outliers that don’t. So we are working more closely with allies and friends – old and new.

And the same assertive approach that can constrain our rivals, can be a powerful driver of prosperity and security. That’s why we’re building new trade links, including working on free trade agreements with countries like India and Indonesia and joining the CPTPP.

We’re sharing our expertise in science and tech, signing new partnerships around the world. And we’re providing a better offer on development, with investment to low-income countries that comes without malign strings attached.

By being tough and united, by working together and expanding trade, we can deprive aggressors of their leverage and we can reduce strategic dependence.

We can help each other to weather the storm of soaring food and energy prices. At the World Bank last week we secured $170 billion to help low income countries deal with these challenges.

And we are getting ahead in other possible areas of strategic dependence. Whether it is minerals or rare earth metals, we are joining forces to prevent future problems before they emerge.

This is how we will strengthen our shared economic security.

Deeper global alliances

That brings onto the final point, which is that our prosperity and security must be built on a network of strong partnerships.

This is what I have described as the Network of Liberty.

The fundamental principle is that no matter the challenges, we should not turn inward and pursue autarky. We should reach out and embrace new partnerships, what the Dutch and others have called ‘open autonomy’.

In a world where malign actors are trying to undermine multilateral institutions, we know that bilateral and plurilateral groups will play a greater role. Partnerships like NATO, the G7 and the Commonwealth are vital.

We should keep strengthening our NATO alliance with bonds around the world, like the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force, the 5 Eyes, and the AUKUS partnership we have with the US and Australia. And we want to keep growing our ties with countries like Japan, India and Indonesia.

We also should build on the strong core that we have in the G7. During the UK’s Presidency last year I was pleased to bring friends like Australia, Korea, India, South Africa and ASEAN to the table.

The G7 should act as an economic NATO, collectively defending our prosperity. If the economy of a partner is being targeted by an aggressive regime we should act to support them. All for one and one for all.

And to the 141 countries, from all continents, who voted to condemn Russia’s actions in the UN: I hear your voice. I share your outrage at Russia’s illegal war. I share your fundamental belief in sovereignty, in fair play and the rule of law.

So let’s work together. Let’s forge deeper bonds. Let’s be better traders, investors, and partners than the aggressors.

The UK is prepared to do things differently, to think differently, and to work differently with you to get things done.

There is huge strength in collective action. And let me be clear, this also applies to alliances that the UK is not part of. We support the Indo-Pacific quad. We support an outward-looking EU and we’re working closely together on Ukraine. We support ASEAN, the African Union, and the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. We reject the old ideas of hierarchical systems, exclusive groups and spheres of influence.

We want to see a network of partnerships stretching around the world, standing up for sovereignty and self-determination, and building shared prosperity. The UK will be an active and agile part of this network.

Conclusion

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, geopolitics is back.

After the Cold War we all thought that peace, stability and prosperity would spread inexorably around the globe. We thought that we’d learned the lessons of history and that the march of progress would continue unchallenged.

We were wrong. But this is no counsel of despair.

In the face of rising aggression we do have the power to act, and we need to act now. We must be assertive. Aggressors are looking at what has happened in Ukraine. We need to make sure that they get the right message.

Together we have tremendous strength. Let’s use it to forge a better, more secure world and a stronger global economy. This will take the energies of all the people in this room and beyond. It will be hard. But we have to step up and take responsibility.

The aggressors are prepared to be bold – we must be bolder. That is how we will ensure that Ukraine’s sovereignty is restored. That is how we will ensure that aggression and coercion fail. That is how, across the globe, we will win this new era for peace, security and prosperity.

Thank you.




The multidimensional challenges facing the Great Lakes region require a multidimensional response: UK Statement at the UN Security Council

Let me begin by thanking Special Envoy Xia, Ambassador Caholo, and Mr Mahtani for their briefings today, as well as the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission for the written advice provided to the Council on the Great Lakes region. I will focus this intervention on the security dynamics in the region.

The United Kingdom remains extremely concerned by the fragile security situation in the Great Lakes region – in particular, increased violence as a result of greater activity by armed groups including, the ADF, CODECO, RED Tabara, and the re-emergence of the M-23, and the reported links between the ADF and IS Central Africa Province. These are all stark reminders of the need to address the security vacuum in the eastern DRC.

We also remain concerned about the humanitarian situation in the Great Lakes region, with large-scale displacement of over 16 million persons, violations of international humanitarian law and human rights, mainly as a result of violence in eastern DRC. And, we are particularly concerned about the protection of civilians as a result of intercommunal violence in DRC’s Ituri province, including the recent targeting of IDP camps.

The multidimensional challenges facing the Great Lakes region require a multidimensional response. The United Kingdom welcomes the positive trend of enhanced diplomatic outreach and dialogue among countries in the region. This includes steps towards normalisation between Rwanda and Uganda and the recent regional heads of State Conclave on Eastern DRC hosted by President Kenyatta in Nairobi.

We call upon countries in the region to intensify these efforts in order to improve regional cooperation, and turn commitments into tangible action to address shared security challenges, improve humanitarian access, and to reduce violence.

I also call upon Special Envoy Xia and the ICGLR to continue to work in close coordination, including with MONUSCO, in support of the countries of the region to tackle the threat posed by M23 and other armed groups, to foster confidence building amongst the states of the region, and to enable the implementation of the UN action plan for the Great Lakes.

The final point I would like to make is on natural resources, whose illegal exploitation, as we’ve heard across the Council today, are a source of funding for armed groups and a driver of conflict across the Great Lakes region. We strongly support the designation of sanctions on those individuals and entities who are found responsible for the exploitation of natural resources.

We will continue to work with the international community, including through the DRC sanctions committee, to ensure those individuals and entities are held accountable for their actions.

Thank you.




Professor Chris Gosden has been reappointed as a Trustee of the British Museum

News story

The Secretary of State has reappointed Professor Chris Gosden as the Society of Antiquaries Trustee of the British Museum for a term of four years commencing 2 August 2022 until 1 August 2026.

Professor Chris Gosden has been at Oxford University for the last 27 years, first as a curator-lecturer at the Pitt Rivers Museum and then as Professor of European Archaeology. Professor Gosden has carried out archaeological fieldwork in Papua New Guinea, Borneo, Turkmenistan and Britain, among other places. He is currently setting up research collaborations with China and Mongolia.

While at the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford he worked on the history of collections and their relevance to post-colonial relations and identity, including two large projects – Relational Museum Project. More recently he has run research projects on the history of the English landscape published by OUP in 2021 as English Landscapes and Identities, and on Celtic art both in Britain and in Europe including Eurasian links. He has recently published a book called The History of Magic (Penguin, 2020).

He is currently writing a book called Humans: The First Seven Million Years. He is a trustee of the Art Fund, Oxford Archaeology and the British Museum, and a fellow of a number of learned societies, including the British Academy and the Society of Antiquaries. Trustees of the British Museum are not remunerated. These reappointments have been made in accordance with the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code on Public Appointments. The process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Government’s Governance Code requires that any significant political activity undertaken by an appointee in the last five years is declared. This is defined as including holding office, public speaking, making a recordable donation or candidature for election. Professor Gosden has declared no activity.

Published 27 April 2022




Planned changes to toys and cosmetics regulations

Government is updating the technical annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on Cosmetic Products, as amended by the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and Schedule 2 to the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011. These changes entail either a reduction in the permitted level or prohibition of specific chemicals.

Read the Toys and Cosmetic Products (Restriction of Chemical Substances) Regulations 2022 – Legislation.gov.uk website

These chemicals can be grouped into three categories:

  1. Chemicals assessed by the Scientific Advisory Group on the Chemical Safety of non-food and non-medicinal consumer products (SAG-CS)
  2. Chemicals classified as Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Reprotoxic (CMR) under GB Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulations
  3. Fragrance allergens

Below is a summary of the amendments to the Toys and Cosmetic Regulations as relating to the groups mentioned above.

SAG-CS advice and government decisions

The SAG-CS has recently concluded assessment on the risk to human health regarding:

  • Deoxyarbutin used in cosmetics
  • Salicylic Acid used in cosmetics
  • Formaldehyde used in toys
  • Aniline used in toys
  • Aluminium used in toys

The conclusions of these assessments have been published:

Access the opinions of SAG-CS

The Government has considered the advice of SAG-CS regarding the above chemicals in these opinions and used this to inform decisions regarding restrictions of these chemicals in products, which are set out below:

  • amend Annex 2 to the Cosmetic Regulation to prohibit the use of deoxyarbutin
  • amend Annex 3 to the Cosmetic Regulation to permit the use of salicylic acid for uses other than as a preservative at 0.5% in body lotion, eye shadow, mascara, eyeliner, lipstick, and roll-on deodorant applications
  • amend Appendix C to Schedule 2 of the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 to introduce specific (lower) limits for aniline and formaldehyde for toys intended for use by children under 36 months old or other toys intended to be placed in the mouth
  • amend point 13 of Annex 2 to the Toys Regulations to reduce the permitted migration limits for aluminium

Chemicals classified as CMRs

Under the Cosmetic Regulations, substances classified as CMR of category 1A, 1B or 2 under the GB CLP Regulation must not be present in cosmetic products unless the substance is included in any of Annexes 3 to 6. To be included in Annexes 3 to 6 various conditions must be met. Between 1 October 2021 and 1 March 2022, there is a set of chemicals that has been classified as CMRs (PDF, 150 KB, 2 pages). These substances will be added to Annex 2 (prohibited substances) where the conditions for including them in Annex 3 to 6 have not been met.

Fragrance allergens

Three chemicals (methyl heptine carbonate, atranol and chloratranol) have recently been included in the EU list of allergens which are prohibited for the use in toys. Currently in the UK atranol and chloratranol have already been prohibited and methyl heptane carbonate has been restricted to 0,01% for cosmetic products.

The fragrances in question are also used in some toys including fingerpaints and modelling clay, where the exposure routes to the fragrances will be similar to those from cosmetics. We will therefore be amending the UK Toys Regulations to prohibit the uses of these chemicals in toys.

Timeline

Toy products

Chemicals Non-compliant products cannot be placed on the market after
Fragrance Allergens – Atranol, Chloroatranol and Methyl heptine carbonate 15 October 2022
Chemicals assessed by SAG-CS – Aluminium, Formaldehyde, and aniline 15 December 2022

Cosmetic products

Chemicals Non-compliant products cannot be placed on the market after Products already placed on the market can be made available until
CMRs 15 October 2022 15 December 2022
Chemicals assessed by SAG-CS – Salicylic Acid and deoxyarbutin 15 December 2022 15 March 2023
Published 27 April 2022
Last updated 27 July 2022 + show all updates

  1. Link added to Toys and Cosmetic Products (Restriction of Chemical Substances) Regulations 2022.

  2. Page revised to clarify changes in respect of salicylic acid (Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy).

  3. Timeline amended to clarify that the transitional provisions apply to cosmetic products only and not toys.

  4. First published.




Unknown British WW2 soldier buried

An unknown soldier of an unknown regiment has been laid to rest more than 75 years after he fell serving his country during World War Two. The ceremony took place on Wednesday 27 April at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s (CWGC) Bologna War Cemetery in Italy. The service was conducted by Reverend Mark Chadwick, Chaplain to the British Forces.

The service was organised by the MOD’s Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre (JCCC) who are known as the MOD War Detectives – a small team based in Gloucester who make every effort to identify British Military casualties.

Following the ceremony, Tracey Bowers, JCCC said:

“It is a matter of great sadness that we have not been able to identify this brave man and bury him in the presence of his family. The battle for Italy was one of the War’s most exhausting campaigns and one often forgotten. His military family is here to remember, mourn and lay him to rest with the honour he deserves.”

Despite extensive research and DNA testing, it was not possible to identify this soldier.

The soldier was found in May 2015 in the location of the “Gothic Line” alongside military items, suggesting he was a British serviceman, killed during the Second World War. Research indicated the soldier could have been killed between 19 to 24 October 1944 and engaged in the fighting along the German defensive line during the Italian Campaign.

The Italian Front was seen to be of secondary importance to the offensive through France and this was underlined by the decision in the summer of 1944 to withdraw many troops from the area for the Allied landings in France. The success in Italy was achieved against a background of over stretched troops, resources and ammunition fighting in a punishing terrain crossed by rivers and mountains during inclement weather.

The Reverend Mark Chadwick said:

“It has been a great privilege and honour to take this service here today and remember the sacrifice that so many made on our behalf”.

Padre Chadwick leads the ceremony in Bologna. Crown copyright

The new headstone at the grave was prepared by the CWGC who will now care for them in perpetuity.

CWGC Commemorations Officer, Dave Avery, said:

“Whilst it has not been possible to identify this soldier by name, we are grateful that we can now lay him to rest with his comrades. The burial ceremony today enables us to renew our commitment to those we care for in perpetuity.”