U.K. considers envoy for Britons held abroad
High-profile cases like jailed Egyptian-British activist Alaa Abdel Fattah and imprisoned Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai have spotlighted the plight of Britons held in jails overseas.
The U.K. foreign ministry insists it continues to press such cases with governments, but relatives of detainees and human rights organizations complain of a lack of urgency and transparency.
"The government is committed to strengthening support for British nationals, including through the appointment of a new envoy," a Foreign Office spokesperson said.
Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer has said an "Envoy for Complex Consular Detentions" is expected to be appointed "before the summer."
The government has not specified the terms of the role but it could be similar to America's Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, a position created in 2015.
Unlike the United States though, Britain does not take part in prisoner exchanges.
Professor Carla Ferstman, an expert on arbitrary detentions at the Human Rights Centre at Essex Law School, said appointing someone would be the "clearest thing that the U.K. can do that it hasn't done yet."
"When you have someone at the highest level they command a certain level of respect," she said
Abdel Fattah was arrested in September 2019 and sentenced to five years in prison on charges of "spreading false news" after sharing a Facebook post about police brutality.
He is still imprisoned despite a hunger strike by his mother and Britain's foreign ministry saying it is pushing for his release "at the highest levels of the Egyptian government."
Sanaa Seif, sister of jailed Egyptian-British activist Alaa Abdel Fattah, speaks to the media on June 3. |
AFP-JIJI
His sister Sanaa Seif said an envoy would mean "a proper continued focus on" freeing detainees.
"It's also important to have a focal point that can help coordinate between different government bodies so that they all work in synchronization," she said.
Seif believes the government should consider revising travel advice to Egypt too, a call also made by lawmakers who have suggested the government should sanction Egyptian officials as well.
"Is it not clear that words are no longer sufficient?" Conservative peer Guy Black asked in parliament's House of Lords recently.
Ferstman said tightening travel guidance can be a powerful tool.
"It's a big deal because all of a sudden tourists can't get insurance and it's harder for business travel to happen. There's all kinds of implications," she explained.
Amnesty International recently called for the government to develop a "clear strategy" to support arbitrarily detained Britons, including by demanding that U.K. officials attend trials.
The Labour government pledged in its general election-winning manifesto last year that it would introduce "a new right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations."
Amnesty also wants the government to call for a person's "immediate release," including publicly when it is requested by the family.
It said London took three years to publicly call for Lai to be freed, something his son Sebastian said "sends the wrong message" to "autocratic states."
"The quicker we have the government speak out post-arrest, that's the window of opportunity to have people released," said Eilidh Macpherson, Amnesty's campaigns manager for individuals at risk.
U.K. officials say the government can be wary of accusations it is interfering in another country's judicial system.
"Sometimes it may need to be quiet about what it's doing, but this shouldn't come at the expense of transparency," said Ferstman.
Jagtar Singh Johal, a Sikh blogger from Scotland, was arrested in India in November 2017 while there for his wedding on accusations of being part of a terror plot against right-wing Hindu leaders.
He has not been convicted of a crime and in March was cleared in one of the nine charges against him.
The foreign ministry spokesperson said Foreign Secretary David Lammy "continues to raise concerns" about the detention with India's government "at every appropriate opportunity."
But his brother, Gurpreet Singh Johal, complains of being kept in the dark.
"We don't know what's actually being said," he said.
Gurpreet said an envoy would be a "good thing," but until the position is in place, "We won't know exactly what it means."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Japan Times
28 minutes ago
- Japan Times
NATO's Donald Trump dilemma
NATO's just-completed summit in The Hague came at a time of extraordinary tension. Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump has repeatedly accused Europe of free riding on U.S. defense spending, raising serious concerns about the health of the Atlantic alliance. His decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities just three days before the summit — in coordination with Israel and without informing America's NATO allies — has only intensified those fears. Trump's strikes against Iran evoked memories of the post-9/11 interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, when NATO expanded its role beyond addressing conventional military threats to include counter-terrorism operations. While the alliance supported the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq was far more divisive, owing to the lack of convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and the absence of an explicit United Nations Security Council mandate. The resulting rift prompted then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to draw a controversial distinction between 'Old Europe' and 'New Europe.' But the current situation is even more alarming. Unlike in 2003, when the United States at least made an effort to consult its allies, Trump now keeps them in the dark. He provided no credible evidence to justify the attack on Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi contradicted his claims of an imminent nuclear threat, stating just days earlier that there was no proof of a 'systematic' Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons. Strikingly, many NATO leaders were informed of the attack only after it had been carried out. By sidelining NATO, Trump has effectively reduced the alliance to a passive observer, undermining its core principles and signaling a dangerous shift in global diplomacy. Imagine if Iran had retaliated by targeting U.S. bases in Turkey, potentially dragging my country into war. And if a nuclear leak had occurred, endangering Turkish civilians, who would have borne responsibility? Although Israel and Iran accepted Trump's announcement of a ceasefire, NATO members had been thrust into a dangerous situation without warning. This was particularly worrisome for Turkey, which shares a border with Iran and is highly vulnerable to the consequences of regional escalation. Trump's behavior has jeopardized NATO's collective security. After all, there is no guarantee that Israel will not violate the ceasefire, as it did in Gaza in March. NATO members must now confront a fundamental question: Can the alliance survive if member states may launch unilateral military action that puts others at risk? The U.S. may have legitimate evidence that Iran violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty or was just about to do so. But if that were the case, the proper course would have been to present the evidence to the IAEA and pursue a coordinated response through the U.N. Security Council. Alternatively, the U.S. may have assumed that Iran would not retaliate and saw the attack as a way to force the Iranians back to the negotiating table. But talks between the two countries were already set to resume before Israel's intervention derailed them. A third explanation is more cynical but may be true: the attack was meant to divert attention from Israel's brutal war in Gaza. Whichever explanation proves true, Trump's actions could have far-reaching consequences for NATO and the alliance's future could depend on how its leaders respond. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for example, must clearly outline the risks that regional instability poses to NATO's collective defense posture — especially given Turkey's proximity to Iran. As leaders of countries with permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council, French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer could play a vital role in strengthening coordination between NATO and the U.N. Likewise, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will be instrumental in shaping NATO-EU relations, while Norwegian President Jonas Gahr Store and his Finnish counterpart, Alexander Stubb, could help reinvigorate diplomacy and restore the alliance's moral compass. Ultimately, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's effectiveness will largely depend on leaders' commitment to pursuing rational, law-abiding security policies. Even beyond the immediate Iran crisis, NATO finds itself at a crossroads. The Hague summit may ultimately be seen as a defining moment — one that will determine whether the alliance can remain the world's most powerful defense organization, grounded in its members' shared concerns and contributions, or is destined to become a mere instrument of U.S.-Israeli strategic interests. If I were in office today, I would use the summit to highlight Israel's growing aggression and the security risks facing Turkey as the only NATO member in the region. I would ask Trump whether, in his 'America First' hierarchy, NATO allies now rank below nonmember Israel. Any leader willing to pose that question would take a principled stand against reckless military adventurism — and might just help save the alliance itself. Before the Iraq War, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder were dismissed as representatives of 'Old Europe' for opposing U.S. intervention. Had their warnings been heeded, the catastrophic costs of the war might have been avoided and Iran's regional influence would likely not be as significant as it is now. History has shown that wars launched before exhausting every diplomatic avenue lead to ruin for all involved. Russia's miscalculations in Ukraine serve as a grim reminder that while starting a war is easy, ending one is far more difficult. Today, as Trump's actions threaten further erosion of hard-won international laws, European leaders must push back. If NATO fails to uphold the rule of law, it risks forfeiting its role as the cornerstone of global security. The alliance's fate — and the future of global stability — will hinge on whether its leaders insist on pursuing peace rather than confrontation. Ahmet Davutoglu is a former prime minister (2014-2016) and foreign minister (2009-2014) of Turkey. © Project Syndicate, 2025


NHK
3 hours ago
- NHK
Russia welcomes US suspension of weapons shipments to Ukraine
Russia has welcomed the US suspension of some weapons shipments to Ukraine. But Ukraine maintains it has begun negotiations with the US over the arms supply. The administration of President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that the US has halted some weapons shipments to Ukraine. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov welcomed the move. He said on Wednesday, "the fewer weapons are supplied to Ukraine, the sooner the special military operation ends." Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy revealed that his country has started negotiations with the United States. He said in a social media post on Wednesday that the two countries are "clarifying all the details of defense support, including air defense" at the working level. The continued provision of the air defense system is critical for the country. A US think tank, the Institute for the Study of War, said in its analysis on Wednesday that the "suspension of US aid to Ukraine will reinforce Russian President Vladimir Putin's theory" on winning the war of attrition. Russian forces are intensifying attacks across Ukraine. In June alone, they fired 5,438 long-range drones at Ukrainian cities and elsewhere, more than in any month since Russia's invasion. Ukraine is keenly watching whether the US will continue its military assistance to the country.


NHK
a day ago
- NHK
Putin, Macron divided over how to deal with war in Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron spoke by telephone on Tuesday for the first time in almost three years. Putin repeated Moscow's claim that the conflict with Ukraine was due to Western policies. The Elysee presidential palace said Macron expressed his country's unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and integrity. He called for a ceasefire as soon as possible and the launch of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia for a solid and lasting settlement of the conflict. The Kremlin quoted Putin as saying that the Ukraine conflict was a direct consequence of the policies pursued by Western countries, which had been ignoring Russia's security interests for years and creating an anti-Russia staging ground in Ukraine. The Russian presidential office said that as conditions for a peaceful settlement, Putin demanded the elimination of the root causes of the Ukraine crisis and it should be based on the new territorial realities. It is believed that Putin also demanded Ukraine give up its aspiration to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He is also thought to have reiterated Russia's call for the recognition of the unilaterally annexed four Ukrainian regions as its territory.