Is Jonathan Powell the UK's most influential diplomat?
The former chief of staff for Tony Blair left office after 10 years in 2007 but is now back as National Security Adviser, involved in issues ranging from the war in Ukraine, Bangladesh's corruption probe and Palestinian statehood recognition.
Mr Powell, who led the Good Friday negotiations on Northern Ireland, was appointed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in November last year. The experienced diplomat, who led his own conflict mediation charity until his appointment to government in 2024, appears to have quietly taken on a central role normally reserved for the foreign secretary.
In the Middle East, Powell plays a more important role than David Lammy
Turkish diplomatic source
It was Mr Powell who met Bangladesh's interim leader Muhammad Yunus during his first official visit to the UK last month. He was in Istanbul the week that the PKK announced its intention to disarm, where he was pictured with the high-level delegation from Ukraine as it arrived for peace talks with Russia. He had been in Kyiv days before to meet President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Ahead of the now-cancelled UN peace summit on Israel-Palestine, Mr Powell was tasked with briefing MPs about the UK's future recognition of the Palestinian state.
In the Middle East, his track record borders on the mythical. It is said that he persuaded the PKK to dissolve, and that he whispered the values of western governance to an obscure Islamist rebel years before he became Ahmad Al Shara, President of Syria. Former close colleagues of Mr Powell are now acting in an advisory role as the fledging administration finds it feet in Damascus.
'Jonathan Powell played an important role in terms of dealing with these very sensitive issues,' said a Turkish source. 'He is like a foreign minister. In the Middle East, Powell plays a more important role than David Lammy.'
A former UK diplomat who served across the Middle East agreed. 'Yes,' they told The National, when asked whether Mr Powell could be the UK's unofficial foreign secretary.
Well-networked, well-travelled, Mr Powell navigates the UK's overseas matters seamlessly. Unburdened by politics as an elected MP would be, he can take more risks.
Mr Powell's charity Inter/Mediate, which he co-founded in 2011, played key mediation roles in the Turkish conflict with the PKK, and the rebel-led opposition government of Idlib before the toppling of president Bashar Al Assad last year. Mr Powell reportedly met Mr Al Shara in May 2021, in person.
Mr Powell stepped down from the charity after his return to government and there is no suggestion that he has been involved in Inter/Mediate since then. Severing links with a charity in UK law means the former executive has no remaining interest in the operation.
The latest accounts filed to the Charity Commission show the company's assets had grown to £1,625,316 from £668,745 a year earlier. It had increased its employees by two to 13 and adopted an investment plan of up to £1.75 million in the business over five years.
It said it had exceeded its fundraising targets and gained from a 'greater commitment from the [Foreign Office] through a new partnership agreement with the Office of Conflict and Stabilisation'.
An examination of Inter/Mediate's involvement in conflicts in the Middle East shows the legacy of 'third rail diplomacy' that Mr Powell has brought with him into the National Security Adviser role.
It raises questions about the influence that former New Labour figures play in Mr Starmer's government.
Many of them were brought in to fill key roles in the administration, such Peter Mandelson, a former cabinet minister in Mr Blair's government who is now the UK's Ambassador in Washington.
Mr Starmer is said to have told his cabinet to reject some of the core principles of Blairism, such as unquestioning globalisation and free-flow immigration. In the rank and file of the parliamentary party there are concerns, not only about the power of Mr Powell but also about Liz Lloyd, the Director of Policy Delivery, who was once Mr Powell's deputy.
Speculation is rife that Tim Allan, the founder of PR firm Portland, is being wooed to accept a new role as permanent secretary of a department of communications to sharpen the government's message and take on disinformation.
Turkey's peace
Mr Powell became involved in the Turkey-Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) conflict in 2013, when the Turkish government initiated a peace process.
A delegation of Turkish and Kurdish MPs travelled to the UK and Ireland that year to learn about the Good Friday Agreement. One Kurdish MP, Ayla Akat, recalled Mr Powell comparing negotiations to a bicycle: 'you've got to keep pedalling or you fall over'.
The thorny issue was amplified by the US arming the armed wings of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) in north-east Syria in the fight against ISIS in 2017, which also saw Mr Powell offer his expertise. Turkey continued to view the group as an extension of the PKK, and felt deeply betrayed by the new US alliance.
Working with the UK-based think tank the Democratic Progress Institute, Mr Powell and his team developed a programme which drew on the lessons from Northern Ireland. They briefed Turkish MPs from the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP).
'The American thinking was one day there will be a withdrawal from Syria. When that day comes they didn't want the Syrian Kurds to enter a conflict with Turkey. They wanted to prepare ground work for that,' the source said.
Under the Biden administration, the US reached out to Turkey to propose a deal with the PYD, a source said. The overall situation has moved quickly to become a fully fledged peace process. Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the PKK, made his first appearance on camera this month in more than two decades. He told the group to lay down its weapons and move towards non-violent politics as its 'national liberation war strategy' had 'come to an end'.
The UK also become involved in these talks, and Mr Powell's Inter/Mediate has a long history of involvement, under contract with the UK, with the PYD and Turkey.
Syria rebuild
Mr Powell first met Ahmad Al Shara – who formerly went by the nom de guerre Abu Mohammed Al Jawlani – in 2015. Western governments at the time were seeking ways to maintain a footing within Syria, having severed ties with the Assad regime.
After Al Shara moved on to Damascus, two consultants from Inter/Mediate followed to the Presidential Palace, supplementing a role the charity had in what appears to have been a legacy contract. Inter/Mediate's executive director Claire Hajaj and long-term projects director Lucy Stuart have been advising the president's office in Damascus as it looks to restore government to Syria, multiple sources said.
Though widely praised, the under-the-radar nature of that work is also contributing to conspiracy theories about how a western-backed push for regime change eventually achieved its goals.
When Donald Trump visits the UK he will do so in a private capacity. That means Mr Starmer's visit to the US President at his golf course, expected early next week, must take place without officials.
Mr Powell's status as a special adviser to the Prime Minister has been controversial within the Whitehall system. But as his visit to China last week demonstrated, as well as one-on-one meetings with India's Foreign Minister and others, he can take on a public role.
It should mean that under the rules he can be at the Prime Minister's side as the UK leader drops in unofficially on Mr Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
13 minutes ago
- The National
After months of deadly blockade, Israeli voices demanding that aid enters Gaza grow louder
Israel's decision to implement daily 'humanitarian pauses' in Gaza has triggered a familiar and unsettling cycle in Israeli public discourse. Each time the military allows even a modest respite for the besieged strip, fierce domestic backlash follows. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir described the decision as a 'spit in the face of our soldiers' and a 'surrender to Hamas's deceitful campaign'. Eylon Levy, a social media personality and former spokesman in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote on X: 'Let's be clear what just happened here. International pressure on Israel encouraged Hamas to reject a ceasefire and get a 'humanitarian pause' instead – without giving up a single hostage.' Regardless, the plan appears to be in place and Israel's military said on Sunday that the pauses will be in effect daily in Al Mawasi, Deir Al Balah, and Gaza city, from 10am (0700 GMT) to 8pm (1700 GMT) until further notice. UN agencies, including UNRWA, are expected to monitor food distribution. In the lead-up to the announcement, many in Israel deflected blame for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, pointing fingers at the UN or Hamas. This persistent refusal to acknowledge the depth of suffering in Gaza has drawn criticism, even from former supporters of Israel abroad. Meanwhile, some critics within the country have begun labelling the siege itself as a military failure. For the first time, however, a mainstream Israeli news channel broke rank. After many months of not showing the suffering of Gazan civilians, Channel 12 this week aired a report that showed crowds of desperate people scrambling for food at aid distribution sites. A Hebrew-speaking contributor spoke about calling Gazans who told him of 'nothing going into their mouths for entire days'. Israeli commentator Shaiel Ben-Ephraim said he could not 'even begin to explain how big' the report was. 'For years, Channel 12 and mainstream Israeli news would cover Palestinian suffering occasionally. Then after October 7, they just stopped. No one wanted to see it. That played a massive role in the dehumanisation of Palestinians and facilitation of genocide,' he wrote in a post on X. In the days since, a growing number of Israelis, many of them staunch defenders and not from its activist left wing, made similar arguments. Commentator Haviv Rettig Gur, who had rejected international warnings of catastrophic hunger in Gaza, acknowledged on a recent podcast: 'We are very close to real, actual, desperate hunger in Gaza … It's hard to convince Israelis of that because literally everything said to them for 22 months on this topic has been a fiction … We need to wake them up.' Fears about Gaza's humanitarian situation entering mainstream Israeli discourse is a major development for a country in which 64.5 per cent of the public has so far been 'not concerned' about it, according to a poll by a major think tank in May. In the same month, another poll found that 82 per cent of respondents supported the expulsion of Palestinians from the strip. It remains to be seen whether this willingness to acknowledge Palestinian civilian suffering will last. Polling shows that Israelis have been against the war for some time, but the vast majority of the opposition is based on concern for hostages in the strip, the safety of soldiers and anger that Mr Netanyahu is continuing the campaign for his political survival. How Israeli society and politics react to the daily 'pauses' ahead will give important signs.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Powerful Iran-backed militia clashes with Iraqi troops in Baghdad over government appointment
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudani has ordered an investigation, after clashes erupted in Baghdad on Sunday between Iraqi security troops and a powerful Iran-backed Shiite militia after the group stormed a government office to reinstate a dismissed official by force, security authorities said. The militants entered the building of an office linked to the Ministry of Agriculture where the new director was holding a meeting with employees 'causing panic among the employees, who immediately called for security assistance', the Interior Ministry said. When units of the Federal Police and Emergency Response Teams arrived they 'came under direct fire from the gunmen', it said. A number of security troops were injured and at least 14 militants arrested, it said. The Joint Operation Command identified the arrested militants as affiliated to Brigades 45 and 46 in the Popular Mobilisation Forces, an umbrella group of paramilitaries of influential Tehran-backed Shiite militias. When ISIS swept through large parts in northern and western Iraq, US-trained security troops collapsed in a humiliating defeat. To face the advancing extremist militants, thousands of Shiite volunteers answered the call to arms by Iraq's influential Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani. At the time, the government of former prime minister Nouri Al Maliki had already formed the PMF to organise and supervise the volunteers as parallel forces. Shortly after its formation, several powerful Iran-backed Shiite militias joined the PMF. By then, some of them were fighting alongside Bashar Al Assad's forces in Syria 's civil war. During the fight against ISIS, some of these militias were accused of human rights breaches against civilians in Sunni areas. The Iraqi government and PMF acknowledged these breaches as 'individual acts'. The US has blacklisted several PMF leaders in a bid to increase pressure on Iran's proxies in Iraq, sanctioning senior figures between 2019 and 2021 under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Since declaring ISIS defeated in late 2017, the PMF and mainly Tehran-aligned militias have emerged as a powerful force in Iraq and grown more defiant towards the government and opposition groups.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Why the world is treating the new Syria differently from the new Lebanon, and what Beirut can learn from that
The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are pressing ahead to encourage Syria to become a model for much of the Middle East. That involves co-existence with Israel, the containment of extremist movements and engagement with minorities, all within the framework of the state. The issue of the state's monopoly on the possession of arms remains a major hurdle. Some of Syria's minority groups insist on retaining their weapons until it becomes clear how the new government will handle their rights and to what extent it will rein in extremist militants. There is also the issue of federalism and decentralisation, which the state opposes. But despite the massacres and atrocities committed in Sweida and on the coast, those investing in President Ahmed Al Shara's project and the new Syrian model are forging ahead. When it comes to the future of Lebanon, however, western countries – namely the 'European three' (E3, which comprises the UK, France and Germany) and the US – are wavering on several fronts. In dealing with Lebanon itself, the E3 has chosen to take a backseat to US diplomacy, led by Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Lebanon and Syria Thomas Barrack. But Iran is a hugely important part of what happens in Lebanon, and the E3 limited recent discussions with representatives from Tehran solely to nuclear issues. Iran's nuclear programme must be addressed, but that should not prevent Europe from raising other concerns, like Tehran's proxy network. Succumbing to Iran's traditional insistence that neither the US nor Europe discuss its regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, is a strategic error. It fails to prevent Iran's ongoing erosion of Lebanese sovereignty its use of Lebanon as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the West. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms instead of handing them over to the Lebanese state. This is dangerous, especially given how confused and contradictory US positions have become towards both Iran and Lebanon. Europe is not challenging Tehran's directive to Hezbollah to keep its arms Mr Barrack's three visits to Lebanon have drawn criticism because at times he wielded the stick and at others, he expressed understanding of the 'complexity' of disarming Hezbollah. One moment, he described Hezbollah as a political party and the next a terrorist organisation. He appears to have emerged from meetings with Lebanese officials more influenced by their appeasement tactics than persuasive in moving them towards sovereign decision-making. The contradictions in the American position in Lebanon may be intentional, as part of a strategy to alarm Lebanese officials and the public, or unintentional, the result of Mr Barrack's frequent gaffes, only to be followed by retractions. Mr Barrack says he understands the 'difficulties', and that 'everyone is doing their part and trying to settle things in Lebanon, but the situation is complex, both for Lebanese leaders and for all of us'. Such statements devalue American prestige and seriousness. They are not so much the words of a serious emissary carrying US President Donald Trump's demand that Lebanon's leaders enforce a monopoly on arms as they are those of a local-style politician who 'understands' the difficulties but cannot guarantee how Israel might react to Hezbollah's outright refusal to disarm. Nor has Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's envoy to the Iran negotiations, insisted that Iran cease using its grip over Lebanon through Hezbollah as a negotiation card with Washington. All of this will cost Lebanon dearly when Israel inevitably destroys its infrastructure in response to Hezbollah's rebuilding of its military capabilities, including Iranian missiles on Lebanese soil. The Trump administration does not want Israel to open multiple fronts. But it also cannot restrain Israel in Lebanon if Israel deems Hezbollah's refusal to disarm a security threat. Yet in Syria, Mr Trump wants Israel to act with restraint. Iran has lost its staging ground there, a devastating blow to its regional axis. And while Washington recognises the persistence of extremism and the survival of ISIS, it believes that containment of these factions is possible through co-optation, offering them a slice of the cake instead of a bloody conflict. In return, Israel gains a buffer zone and security guarantees along its border with Syria. The message to Israel is that even if ISIS remains dominant in some areas, security arrangements can contain its threat as long as it remains within isolated pockets that pose no danger to the Syrian state structure. In other words, Syria will not be a threat to Israel. Gulf states have quickly moved to encourage Syria's re-integration into the Arab fold. Despite all the challenges, the Gulf is a key partner in backing Mr Al Shara and rebuilding Syria. This was reflected last week in the Saudi-Syrian Investment Forum, a watershed moment that signalled a long-term strategic partnership between Riyadh and Damascus. Forty-seven agreements and memoranda of understanding were signed, worth about $6.4 billion. They included the construction of a medical city as well as deals in agriculture, industry, transport, gas, water, electricity, infrastructure and real estate development. Syria is being placed on a new track, and should indeed be congratulated for this strategic leap towards realism that embraces investment as the basis of policy. One hopes Lebanon's leaders take a lesson from their new counterparts in Damascus and abandon their arrogance towards eager assistance from fellow Arab states, hiding behind the excuse of being unable to rein in Hezbollah. They ought to demand the US, Europe and the Arab world also pressure Iran and not just offer security guarantees via Israel, because the two issues are inseparable. One hopes they also cease dodging political accountability under the guise of protecting Lebanon's safety. Perhaps Arab states will consider taking a calculated risk in supporting Lebanon, as they did in Syria. Both countries suffer from instability. Just as Hezbollah and Israel are playing havoc with Lebanon, extremist fundamentalism continues to trouble Syria. May the international partnership playing a constructive role in Syria inspire those involved to think outside the box in order to rescue Lebanon from regional war and ruin. Lebanon, too, deserves to be rebuilt and invested in to defy those who want it destroyed.
