Latest news with #PolicyExchange
Telegraph
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Hermer is wrong: international law permits Britain to strike against Iran
Israel's recent strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran – more rapid, efficient and successful than anyone could have imagined – have been an unparalleled game changer in the Middle East. In the words of Germany's Chancellor Merz, Israel is doing the 'dirty work' of striking Iran 'for all of us', acting in resolute defence of the free world against this existential threat. Israel's actions are also potentially creating the circumstances in which the Iranian people may finally free themselves from more than four decades of the most vicious extremist oppression. It is remarkable, one may think, that in these circumstances the predominant discussion of the legal analysis of these developments could have been so resolutely incorrect. As reported in these pages, the UK Attorney General Lord Hermer KC has advised the Government that it may be complicit in an illegal war if it supports a strike on Iran, but apparently drew a distinction regarding 'defensive' support of Israel. Prof Richard Ekins KC and Policy Exchange have pointed out the curious self-contradictory nature of the position: 'It seems very odd that it is lawful to use 'defensive' force by, for example shooting down a missile heading for Tel Aviv, but unlawful to use 'defensive' force to destroy Iranian missile batteries in Iran.' Hermer's advice on the matter seems to fall into this now recognisable pattern of real international law being unceremoniously thrown out of the window by activist lawyers pushing their political agenda and worldview. This is pretty basic. The right to self-defence in international law is inherent, recognised as such in Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force. It is one of the most fundamental norms. Likewise, the doctrine of defence of third parties permits other states to use force to defend another state that is under armed attack. There is debate about the extent to which an appeal by the attacked state is required, but it is hard to imagine the UK assisting Israel without being so requested. The most critical feature of this Iran-Israel war, however, which appears to have been generally glossed over, is its ongoing nature. This is not a new phenomenon. The international armed conflict between these two states has been decades long. The turning point in Iran-Israel relations was the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. The two states had previously enjoyed a close working relationship as major allies and trading partners. The proclamation 'Death to Israel ' was issued by Ayatollah Khomeini just before the 1979 revolution. After he seized power, this became the policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has waged its decades-long proxy war against Israel, primarily through the cultivation, support and direction of internationally proscribed terrorist organisations Hezbollah and Hamas. Through these terror armies on Israel's northern and southern borders, and with the more recent inclusion of the Houthis in Yemen, Iran has diligently pursued its annihilistic war aims. The public threats by Tehran to eliminate Israel are a central tenet of Iran's foreign policy and are backed up by a clock in central Tehran, counting down to the date of Israel's destruction as prophesied by the Ayatollah. In the past year, this escalated to direct missile barrages against Israeli civilians. On April 13 2024, Iran launched its first direct attack on Israel, sending around 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles towards Israel, in what was called the most significant attempted drone attack in history. On October 1 2024, Iran launched 200 ballistic missiles at Israel, killing one Israeli civilian and one Palestinian civilian, as well as causing major damage to Israeli homes. These developments, together with the alleged airstrike by Israel on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers near the Iranian Embassy complex in Damascus, Syria, and the elimination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran last July, are all part and parcel of the ongoing international armed conflict. The existence of this ongoing armed conflict shifts the analysis from the law governing the resort to force – jus ad bellum – to the law governing the conduct of warfare – jus in bello. That is the appropriate lens through which to assess Israel's actions, and its compliance with the key principles governing the conduct of warfare: necessity, distinction, proportionality and precaution. As in other aspects of Israel's armed conflict against Iranian proxies, the targeting of military objectives, based on proportionality assessments and accompanied by precautions that strive to reduce civilian casualties and collateral damage, indicate strict adherence to these rules. The precision and discrimination with which they are conducted remain unprecedented in the history of armed conflict and in many respects exceed the requirements of international humanitarian law – as noted by a letter to the UN Security Council by Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar last week. The focus of Operation 'Rising Lion' is prompted by the latest critical developments in Iran's covert nuclear weapons programme. This includes the June 12 declaration by the IAEA that Iran was in breach of non-proliferation obligations, which immediately preceded the strikes. The apparent failure by Hermer and others to properly analyse this development in the context of the decades-long international armed conflict is truly inexplicable. It smacks of politics trumping law, where pseudo legal arguments are being advanced to support an agenda that is anti-Israel, anti-Western and fundamentally counter to the UK's national interest.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Labour's work to devise official definition of 'Islamophobia' should be suspended IMMEDIATELY as it risks worsening grooming gangs scandal, report warns
Labour moves to draw up an official definition of Islamophobia would shut down efforts to combat grooming gangs, a new report warns. The Policy Exchange think-tank said the work of the Government's 'Anti-Muslim Hate/Islamophobia Definition Working Group', set up earlier this year, should be immediately suspended. Devising a government-backed definition of Islamophobia – even though it would not initially have any force in law – would 'almost certainly turbocharge cancel culture ', it said. Policy Exchange's warning came days after a long-awaited review by Whitehall troubleshooter Baroness Casey found public bodies covered up sickening evidence about Asian grooming gangs 'for fear of appearing racist '. Councils, police forces and the Home Office repeatedly 'shied away' from dealing with 'uncomfortable' questions about the ethnicity of rapists preying on thousands of vulnerable girls. In the wake of the Casey review, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper promised to 'root out' the grooming gang 'scourge'. But Policy Exchange's report warns: 'At the same time, ministers are pursuing a policy which will have the opposite effect. 'It would have made exposing the grooming scandal even harder and slower than it already was. It will make rooting out the scourge more difficult. It will give perpetrators a new place to hide.' Ministers said in March that the move to devise a definition would 'seek to provide the government and other relevant bodies with an understanding of unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities'. It would not carry statutory power, at least initially, but there have been widespread concerns that it would lead to Islam being given protections beyond those afforded to other religions. The work is being led by former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve KC. Policy Exchange senior fellow and former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir John Jenkins, said in a letter to Mr Grieve: 'Whatever form of words is chosen, and whatever legal status it has to start with, any definition will have serious consequences. 'It will almost certainly turbocharge 'cancel culture'. 'Even without the force of an official definition, claims of Islamophobia are already used to close down legitimate debate and deter investigation of alleged wrongdoing, as in Rotherham or Batley, with disastrous results all round, including for the wider Muslim community itself.' He added: 'Unless it literally restates the existing legal protections covering all faiths, any official Islamophobia definition will be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone. 'It is unlikely to alleviate Islamist discontent – it will stoke it, creating new opportunities for grievance politics, challenge and attack in every institution and workplace.' Sir John said the working group 'may have begun its work with its conclusions pre-determined', adding that he had 'little confidence' it would approach key issues with an open mind. The report said the government's work should be put on hold until the end of a national inquiry on grooming gangs, which Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer belatedly ordered in the wake of the Casey review. Dr Paul Stott, head of security and extremism at Policy Exchange, said: ''A danger going forward is that the proposed 'Islamophobia' definition could shut down discussion on grooming gangs and if accepted by Government restrict debate on this and on other issues vital to our social cohesion.' He added: 'This week has demonstrated the need to move on from the view that concern about grooming gangs is in some way racist, Islamophobic, or a far-right issue. 'It is clearly not and it never was.'
Spectator
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11-06-2025
- Business
- First Post
Trump administration launches review of Biden-era AUKUS submarine deal with Australia, UK
President Donald Trump's administration has launched a formal review of a defense pact that former President Joe Biden made with Australia and the United Kingdom allowing Australia to acquire conventionally armed nuclear submarines read more The administration of President Donald Trump has initiated a formal review of the AUKUS defence agreement, an alliance forged by former President Joe Biden with Australia and the United Kingdom to equip Australia with conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines. Led by the Pentagon, the review could unsettle Australia which views the submarine deal as vital amid rising concerns over China's growing military presence in the region. The move may also complicate Britain's defence strategy, as AUKUS plays a key role in its planned submarine fleet expansion. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We are reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda,' the official said of the review, which was first reported by Financial Times. 'Any changes to the administration's approach for AUKUS will be communicated through official channels, when appropriate.' AUKUS, formed in 2021 to address shared worries about China's growing power, is designed to allow Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines and other advanced weapons such as hypersonic missiles. Vocal skeptics of the AUKUS deal among Trump's senior policy officials include Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's top policy advisor. In a 2024 talk with Britain's Policy Exchange think-tank, Colby cautioned that U.S. military submarines were a scarce, critical commodity, and that U.S. industry could not produce enough of them to meet American demand. They would also be central to U.S. military strategy in any confrontation with China centered in the First Island Chain, an area that runs from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines and on to Borneo, enclosing China's coastal seas. 'My concern is why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it,' Colby said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Australian and UK embassies in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The US National Security Council also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Only six nations currently operate nuclear-powered submarines: the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, and India. Under the AUKUS pact, Australia is set to join that exclusive group by 2032, when it is expected to receive Virginia-class submarines from the U.S. Ahead of that, the U.S. and UK will begin rotational deployments of their submarines at an Australian naval base in Western Australia, starting in 2027. Subsequently, Australia and Britain—supported by the United States—will jointly design and construct a new class of nuclear-powered submarines. The first of these is slated for delivery to the UK in the late 2030s and to Australia in the early 2040s. While Australia has not confirmed whether its submarines would participate in a potential US-China conflict, experts point to its longstanding military ties with Washington, including troop deployments to the Vietnam War, as a sign of likely alignment. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I think we can make a decent bet that Australia would be there with us in the event of a conflict,' Colby said last year. Speaking in Congress on Tuesday, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said 'we're having honest conversations with our allies.' On Australia, Hegseth said: 'We want to make sure those capabilities are part of how they use them with their submarines but also how they integrate with us as allies.' With inputs from agencies
The Sun
07-06-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Leftie teachers, cops and doctors trying to swerve court trans ruling named & shamed in damning report
A DAMNING dossier names and shames leftie organisations trying to swerve the trans Supreme Court ruling. It shows radical gender ideology is still embedded in bodies from healthcare and education. 4 4 Despite the landmark judgement in April that trans women are not women. MP Rosie Duffield warned the report by Policy Exchange think tank shows ministers must crack down on any organisations failing to comply with the law. The report found the biggest teaching union NEU said trans women in schools must be allowed to use ladies' toilets. The National Police Chiefs' Council said they would not 'rush' to change biological sex strip searching rules. And doctors at the BMA union who called the ruling 'scientifically illiterate'. Ms Duffield, who quit Labour last year after clashing with Keir Starmer over women's rights, said: 'How many more will simply stay silent and allow local activists to continue to run the show? 'Government ministers must lead from the top to ensure public bodies comply with the law: ultimately, this is their responsibility. 'Radical positions on gender identity have become deeply embedded and it will be the work of years to rectify it. 'There should be no illusions that this is over: there will be many more battles to fight before women's sex-based rights are secure.' 4 4 Report author Lara Brown praised campaigners like JK Rowling for shining a light on the gender debate. But added: 'There is still much more to be done.' " Schools need to support and treat all their staff fairly, including women and trans staff, and unions can help achieve this.''
