Afghanistan: The key questions for Dominic Raab as he faces MPs over Taliban takeover

Published

4 years ago

August 31, 2021

admin

The Foreign Secretary will be questioned by MPs later on how the government intends to deal with the fall-out from the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

Parliament is still on its summer break, but an emergency session of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee will take evidence from Dominic Raab this afternoon.

Here are some of the key questions he could be asked:

What is being done to get the remaining UK nationals and eligible Afghans out of the country?

The foreign secretary has said the number of British nationals still in Afghanistan was in the “low hundreds” and acknowledged it would be a “challenge” for them to leave.

Mr Raab said it was not possible to put a precise figure on the number of Afghan nationals still in the country who may also be eligible for resettlement in the UK.

The foreign secretary has been keen to emphasise that evacuation efforts so far have seen 17,000 British nationals, Afghans who worked with the UK, and other vulnerable people removed from Afghanistan.

But MPs will likely press him to put an estimate on how many have been left behind – Labour have suggested there could be a further 7,000 Afghans with a claim for resettlement.

The government has said it is working with neighbouring countries to ensure people who are able to flee Afghanistan via its land borders can still apply for resettlement to the UK from third countries.

MPs will want to know what work, if any, is now being done to make those cross-border journeys viable, as well as what has been done so far to ensure effective processing in third countries is possible.

What is the latest security assessment of the Taliban takeover?

The prime minister has said any future diplomatic recognition of the new Taliban government would depend on the regime preventing Afghanistan from “becoming an incubator for global terror“.

But the suicide bombings at the airport in Kabul, US airstrikes on alleged ISIS-K cells, and reports of al Qaeda figures regrouping all suggest extremist activity in the country already presents a tangible counter-terrorism challenge .

Questions are likely to be asked about how internal tension within the Taliban itself – between senior leaders previously involved in the Doha talks with the US, and more traditional hardliners – could exacerbate an already worrying security picture.

With the Taliban now in possession of significant amounts of military hardware left behind by the Afghan army and withdrawing US troops, as well as sensitive documents not destroyed when western embassies were abandoned, MPs will want to hear the latest security assessment in terms of Afghanistan itself and also the impact on the global terror threat.

Yesterday Mr Raab refused to rule out the possibility of the RAF joining US airstrikes against terror cells in the country.

How does the UK government intend to deal with the Taliban?

When it comes to security, humanitarian or human rights issues in Afghanistan, the UK government has said it wants to work with the international community to have a “moderating influence” on the Taliban.

But apart from the tacit acceptance that there will need to be some form of engagement with the Taliban, there remains little detail on how this will be done in practise.

The indications so far suggest the government hopes to use the prospect of humanitarian aid and diplomatic recognition of the new government to encourage the Taliban to refrain from returning to some of its most extreme practices, but there will likely be questions about how sanctions may also be needed to exert influence.

Will the UK reassess its relationship with the US?

When he announced this emergency committee hearing last week, chairman Tom Tugendhat made a point of saying the UK’s diplomatic dependence on the US should be reconsidered in light of events in Afghanistan.

He described the Taliban takeover as the “biggest foreign policy failure since Suez and highlights once again the importance of building up networks of allies, not having a single partner”.

In January the Lords Select Committee on International Relations published a report which warned the US withdrawal was likely to have dangerous consequences that ministers appeared not to have properly assessed.

The report claimed the UK government had “shown little inclination to exert an independent voice on policy in Afghanistan” and “instead has followed the lead of the US and has been too reticent in raising its distinctive voice”.

Mr Raab is likely to be asked whether the failure to persuade the US to limit or delay its withdrawal from Afghanistan was the result of a lack of influence, or a lack of effort.

Was this a failure of intelligence, planning or both?

During interviews yesterday Dominic Raab accepted there had been a failure of military intelligence when it came to forecasting the speed at which the Taliban might take over the country.

He said “the best central assessment was that you would see a slow deterioration from the end of the drawdown in September and that Kabul would not have fallen for several months”.

But the foreign secretary is likely to be asked whether this is a sufficient explanation for the chaotic nature of the evacuation in recent weeks, which left ministers forced to accept the reality that some people would not get out.

In July senior military figures wrote a joint letter in The Times which warned of a lack of urgency in efforts to resettle Afghans who had worked with UK forces out of the country.

How culpable is Mr Raab and his department?

The Foreign Office, Home Office and Ministry of Defence have all been heavily involved in the evacuation efforts, and briefing wars have erupted between them over which department and which ministers are most responsible for failings that have taken place.

But Dominic Raab has come in for more personal criticism than any other minister, with opposition parties demanding he resign or be sacked.

He has acknowledged that “in hindsight” he should have returned early from his holiday on the Greek island of Crete on the weekend Kabul fell to the Taliban, but MPs will no doubt question him on the consequences that may have resulted from that decision.

He has argued his decision to ignore advice to call the Afghan foreign minister on the Friday before the capital fell, which he instead delegated to a junior minister, made no difference because the advice to make the call was “quickly overtaken by events”.

But MPs on the committee will likely want to probe this further, not least due to wider issues about how many other ministers and senior civil servants were absent from Whitehall in those critical days.

Politics

What are the next steps for the US stablecoin bill?

Published

2 hours ago

May 13, 2025

admin

What are the next steps for the US stablecoin bill?

Proponents of a bill to regulate stablecoins in the US Congress will likely take up another vote on the legislation in a matter of days without responding to concerns about President Donald Trump’s financial ties to the cryptocurrency industry.

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, failed to get enough votes to pass in the US Senate on May 8 amid calls from some Democratic lawmakers to halt any legislation related to digital assets until Republicans could address Trump’s potential conflicts of interest.

Immediately following the vote, some lawmakers from both parties suggested they could reconsider the bill as early as this week, but without agreeing on a bipartisan path forward.

After the GENIUS Act failed to proceed in a 48 to 49 vote in the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune made a motion to reconsider, setting up a possible vote on the matter within days. A source familiar with the matter told Cointelegraph Republicans who backed the bill were unlikely to modify it to block Trump or any member of his administration from investing in digital assets, claiming it was beyond Congress’s authority under the Constitution.

“[…] this delay is not inherently detrimental,“ said Liat Shetret, vice president of global policy and regulation at blockchain analytics firm Elliptic. “We can expect the bill to return to the floor, with this pause giving both parties time to clarify provisions and address lawmakers’ concerns.”

The Cedar Innovation Foundation, an organization tied to the political action committee (PAC) Fairshake, issued a warning to Senate leadership to “avoid political games” and pass a stablecoin bill “in the coming days.” Fairshake spent more than $131 million to support candidates in the 2024 US elections, some of whom are currently serving in the House and Senate. There are still more than 500 days until the 2026 midterms, when many members of Congress are up for reelection.

On May 12, the Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of the GENIUS Act, suggesting another vote soon.

Changes to stablecoin or market structure bills?

Should Republicans in the Senate reintroduce the bill without any changes, it’s unclear whether they would have enough support to clear a 60-vote majority to avoid a Democratic filibuster — a process to delay or sometimes block a vote on a bill.

The Trump family’s ties to the crypto platform World Liberty Financial and its stablecoin, USD1, have raised potential corruption concerns, as has offering the top holders of his TRUMP memecoin the chance to pay for access to the president through an exclusive dinner and reception.

“[…] the Republicans’ bill did nothing to address Trump’s conflict, and instead voted to hand Trump the authority to write the rules over his and his competitors’ stablecoins,” said Democratic Representative Maxine Waters in a May 6 statement. She blocked a hearing to discuss a possible digital asset market structure bill, citing concerns about Trump’s “ownership of crypto.”

Democratic lawmakers have already introduced possible solutions to what they called the “biggest corruption scandal in the history of the White House” — with legislation in the House and Senate to bar members of Congress, the president, the vice president, and their families from profiting off memecoins. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen also reportedly called on the president to fully divest from USD1 before making any possible deals with foreign governments.

The nonpartisan organization State Democracy Defenders Action reported in April that Trump’s crypto holdings were worth roughly $2.9 billion, which accounted for 40% of his wealth. This report came before the launch of World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin, which an Abu Dhabi-based investment firm said it would use to settle a $2 billion investment in Binance. Trump’s sons, Eric, Donald Trump Jr., and Barron, were all listed as “Web3 ambassadors” for the platform.

Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions

Politics

PM rejects Enoch Powell comparison after ‘island of strangers’ comment

Published

4 hours ago

May 13, 2025

admin

PM rejects Enoch Powell comparison after 'island of strangers' comment

Sir Keir Starmer has rejected the comparison to Enoch Powell after he said the UK was at risk of becoming an “island of strangers” if migration does not come down.

The prime minister’s official spokesperson said migrants have made a “massive contribution” to society but the Tories “lost control of the system” and that is the point he was making.

The remark has drawn criticism from Labour backbenchers, who have compared it to the late Conservative MP’s inflammatory 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech.

In the speech, Mr Powell imagined a future multicultural Britain where the white population would find themselves “strangers in their own country” as a result of migration.

Among those to make the comparison was the former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, who said on X that “Talk of an “island of strangers” shockingly echoes the divisive language of Enoch Powell”.

However, the prime minister’s spokesperson said: “The PM rejects this comparison. He said that migrants have made a massive contribution to society.

“It is also right to say that between 2019 and 2024, the previous government lost control of the system. Migration needs to be controlled, fair and people that come here should integrate.”

Asked why the prime minister used such robust language, the spokesperson said he was not going to “shy away” from the issue of immigration and the British public want it to be reduced.

He added: “We have welcomed immigrants for decades, but it’s too high and must come down. Also, it’s important for our domestic skills system, which is good for our economy.”

What has the government announced?

Sir Keir made the comment at a news conference in which measures were announced to curb net migration, including banning care homes from recruiting overseas, new English language requirements for visa holders and stricter rules on gaining British citizenship.

The package is aimed at reducing the number of people coming to the UK by up to 100,000 per year, though the government has not officially set a target.

Who was Enoch Powell?

Enoch Powell was a Tory MP and the shadow defence secretary in the 1960s when a debate was raging about post-war immigration to Britain.

By the late 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth citizens had exercised their legal right and settled in Britain, and it led to a quiet clampdown by the Labour government on immigration.

On 20 April 1968, Powell rose to his feet at a meeting of the Conservative Political Centre in Birmingham and declared Britons had “found themselves made strangers in their own country”.

Powell went on to say it had led to a shortage of hospital beds, school places, and “homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition”.

He was swiftly kicked out of the shadow cabinet.

Net migration – the difference between the number of people immigrating and emigrating to a country – soared when the UK left the EU in January 2020.

It reached 903,000 in the year to June 2023 before falling to 728,000 in mid-2024. But that is still well above its pre-Brexit high of 329,000 in the year up to June 2015.

Sir Keir said parts of the UK’s economy “seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour” rather than investing in skills at home.

However, it is not clear how the government plans to boost the domestic workforce, amid a UK skills shortage and record numbers of people being out of work.

According to the ONS, there are 9.2 million people of working age in the UK who are economically inactive, including 1.8m 18-24 year olds.

The prime minister’s spokesperson said the government is “focused on upskilling British workers” and “especially helping young people in the job sector” but did not elaborate how.

On care homes, he said, around 40,000 care workers came over on visas for jobs that did not exist, and companies can recruit from that pool.

Earlier, a number of Labour MPs came to the prime minister’s defence. Rother Valley MP Jake Richards said on X that Sir Keir is “absolutely right to warn of the risk of becoming an ‘island of strangers’.

“Millions of people across the country have similar concerns. This theme must be central to missions across immigration, employment, work and tackling neighbourhood deprivation,” he said.

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick went further, telling Sky News he believes the UK “already is an island of strangers”, naming several areas “where we are a very divided and segregated society”.

However former Labour home secretary Lord David Blunkett criticised the rhetoric, saying in a speech at a University of Law graduation ceremony: “I never felt I lived in, or had a part to play in, a country of strangers.

“I thought welcoming people from across the world was a tribute to our society, where people want to make their homes, to build a life and their economy and to contribute to our society.

“I think we need to be kind to each other, but we need a much kinder national world as well.”

Politics

Who PM was really trying to echo with ‘island of strangers’ speech

Published

5 hours ago

May 13, 2025

admin

Who PM was really trying to echo with 'island of strangers' speech

Sir Keir Starmer is getting used to falling out with some of his MPs over policy decisions – be it on the winter fuel allowance, his approach to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza or welfare cuts.

But on Tuesday the prime minister found himself embroiled in a row with MPs over something entirely different – his language over immigration.

The prime minister’s argument that Britain “risked becoming an island of strangers” if immigration levels are not cut has sparked a backlash from some of his MPs, and the London mayor Sadiq Khan is alarmed that his own leader is using language similar to that of Enoch Powell.

Politics latest: Senior Labour figures distance themselves from PM’s speech

In his infamous 1968 Rivers Of Blood speech, Powell warned of a future where white people “found themselves made strangers in their own country”.

It was a speech that cost him his shadow cabinet job and made Powell one of the most divisive and controversial politicians in Britain. It is also a speech that the prime minister’s team is now frantically trying to distance itself against, with one insider telling me on Tuesday the PM’s team hadn’t realised the similarity and hadn’t intended the comparison.

The politician the prime minister was trying to channel was about as far away from Powell as you could get in the 1960s, when the debate of immigration and race relations raged. Sir Keir had wanted to echo former Labour home secretary Roy Jenkins who had always argued that immigration was good for Britain, but needed to be done at a speed the country could absorb.

Take this from Jenkins in the House of Commons in 1966: “Let there be no suggestion that immigration, in reasonable numbers, is a cross that we have to bear, and no pretence that if only those who have come could find jobs back at home our problems would be at an end.

“But it does not follow that we can absorb them without limit. We have to strike a balance. That is what we are trying to do and I feel that we have been reasonably successful in recent months. We cannot lay down absolute numerical quantities, but I think that we have struck a reasonable balance and also that in the past year we have made substantial progress towards producing a healthier atmosphere, in terms of integration, on both sides – amongst both the indigenous and the immigrant community.”

One person familiar with No 10’s approach told me: “We want a more cohesive society, we are not trying to pick fights.

“But the last Conservative government let in 2.3 million immigrants [in the three years to June 2024] and during that time built about 600,000 homes. That creates competition between people and that is typically at the lower end of the market. Just issuing visas and creating a sense of an unfair system is not a way to build cohesiveness.”

If you look at polling from YouGov, it seems the prime minister is more in step with public mood than those in his party criticising him, with 41% of all voters polled on Tuesday about his “island of strangers” remarks agreeing with the sentiment and having no issue with the language.

But it is true too that Labour’s approach lands particularly well with Reform voters, with 61% of them supportive of the PM’s words.

Beyond the battle of language, there will be battles ahead too over whether the prime minister’s policies will help or hinder the economy.

There has long been an assumption that higher net migration is positive of the economy and public finances, but there is growing concern in Number 10 that the benefits are being overstated, as it fails to take into account the additional resources needed for public services and the effect of lowering wages, which affects productivity growth – none of which is factored into the economic forecasts of the Office of Budget Responsibility.

There will be those in business that don’t like the cuts to visas. There will be those in government that will worry about the economic impact of cuts to visas – although the chancellor was on the front row for the prime minister’s speech on Monday. There will be those on the Labour left that will be uncomfortable about it.

I suspect the prime minister will be uncomfortable about the row over his language that has seen him attacked on both sides, as the left accuse him of trying to ape the far right and his opponents accuse him of being a “chameleon” for making the opposite argument on immigration when he was running for the Labour leadership in 2020.

But where his team think they are right is on the policy, and early polling suggests that voters from across the political divide broadly agree.