Welcoming U.S. Leadership
2. (S/NF) While in London for the September 3-4 P5 Conference on Confidence Building Measures Towards Nuclear Disarmament, U/S Tauscher held separate meetings September 2-4 with Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Simon McDonald, Head of the Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat at the Cabinet Office, Mariot Leslie, Director General, Defence and Intelligence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and Jon Day, MOD Director General for Security Policy. The British interlocutors underscored that the UK welcomes U.S. leadership on nonproliferation, disarmament and arms control. FS Miliband expressed appreciation for President Obama’s Prague speech, observing that the process for getting to “a world at or close to zero in terms of nuclear arms is not a straight line” but is long and complex. McDonald said that for the last forty years the nuclear states have downplayed the obligation to spread civil nuclear power and to disarm; President Obama’s leadership presents an opportunity to change that dynamic. DG Leslie observed that UK decision makers are “fired up by how the President has made the (nonproliferation) agenda his own.” Prime Minister Brown wants to “refresh and refurbish” the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), she said. DG Day said he was “delighted” that the U.S. has “resumed leadership” on nonproliferation, arms control and disarmament.
Maintaining P3 and P5 Unity
3. (S/NF) Leslie stressed that the UK position is “really very similar to your Administration on nearly everything.” The UK’s goal is for the P5 to work well together but we should “not scare the horses,” which means “not scaring off the French” and “keeping the Chinese and Russians on board.” She acknowledged that it was “hard to get everyone together” for the 9/3-4 P5 Conference, but expressed hope that it would help cement P5 unity in the lead-up to the NPT Review Confererence (RevCon). Day acknowledged that the 9/3-4 P5 Conference was not a vehicle designed to make progress by “leaps and bounds.” He stressed that “the engagement is valuable” and would help cement P5 unity.
4. (S/NF) We need a strong, but unanimous, signal from the UN Security Council (UNSC) at the UNSC Heads of Government Summit, Simon McDonald stressed, noting that the first draft resolution was a disappointment. The UK interlocutors agreed on the importance of P5 unity at the summit, as well as on the importance of close P3 and P5 coordination in the lead-up to the summit and to the NPT RevCon. McDonald also observed that Libya was on the UNSC and that the P5 should take positive note of the fact that Libya has made a “strategic shift” on nuclear proliferation.
France and P3 Unity
5. (S/NF) DG Leslie said that the UK had done a “lot of hard work and expressed a commitment to disarmament…and the French are uncomfortable with this.” Leslie said that the UK “gets on well” with the French, but the French are “excessively worried about what they view as unilateral UK disarmament.” She said that P3 talks would help maintain P3 unity; “We need to reassure France,” she said. Leslie characterized closer U.S.-France relations as “extremely healthy.”
6. (S/NF) U/S Tauscher, Leslie, and Day agreed to regular P3 meetings, starting in October, to help cement P3 unity. French interlocutors also agreed, during separate bilateral meetings with Tauscher, on the importance of regular P3 consultations.
Missile Defense and the Nuclear Posture Review
7. (S/NF) U/S Tauscher described the Missile Defense review underway in Washington, with emphasis on countering the Iranian missile threat to Europe with proven technology. She also described the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which would replace the 2002 NPR and would address questions such as extended deterrence and security assurances. Her UK interlocutors expressed considerable interest in both reviews, and she made clear the U.S. would consult bilaterally and with NATO as soon as the reviews progress to that point.
China, Pakistan
16. (S/NF) Leslie flagged the “inconvenient truth” that “China is building its nuclear arsenal.” She evoked an arms race in the Pacific in light of India’s nuclear program. Nonetheless, Leslie said she was optimistic regarding China’s commitment to multilateral cooperation and she suggested that the U.S. and the UK should push China for progress “until they say ‘stop it’.” She noted that the Chinese had “pretty much” said a year ago that if the U.S. ratifies the CTBT, China would follow suit. Further, China has “dumped” Pakistan in the Conference on Disarmament (CD), which is a “good sign.” Tauscher urged P5 action to get Pakistan to stop blocking progress in the CD on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).
17. (S/NF) The UK has deep concerns about the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, and China could play a big role in stabilizing Pakistan, Leslie said. Pakistan has accepted nuclear safety help, but under the IAEA flag (albeit British technicians). The Pakistanis worry that the U.S. “will drop in and take their nukes,” Leslie said.
18. (S/NF) Day expressed support for the development of a “cold war”-like relationship between India and Pakistan that would “introduce a degree of certainty” between the two countries in their dealings. He noted that recent intelligence indicates that Pakistan “is not going in a good direction.” Pakistan sees the debate about Afghanistan in the U.S. and the UK as demonstrating that the allies lack the will to maintain their commitment there. The Pakistanis also believe that their recent successes against extremists in the Swat valley validate their belief that they can deal with their own internal problems without changing their approach toward India. Day asked if the U.S. would be “obliged” to cut relations with Pakistan if the military took over again; he said that the last time the military assumed power the UK had maintained military-to-military ties. Day also asked for the U.S. perspective on Nawaz Sharif, whom he described as “potentially less venal” than other Pakistani leaders.
SUSMAN
DAVID MILIBAND PROVIDED ‘RARE
MOMENTS OF STAR POWER’ FOR
PARTY MISSING BLAIR
Monday, 03 March 2008, 17:06
CONFIDENTIAL LONDON 000639
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
NOFORN
Classified By: Ambassador Robert Tuttle, reasons 1.4 b, d
1. (C/NF) Summary: The Labour Party Spring Conference, held February 27 - March 2 in Birmingham, was characterized by low energy, poor attendance, and a lack of charismatic leadership, despite serving as a kick-off to the party’s campaign for the May 1 local elections in England and Wales. In his March 2 key note speech, Prime Minister Brown emphasized the need to prepare for the economy of the future and counted the opportunity costs for Britain of poverty, substandard education, and poor health care vowing that his “purposeful and progressive” government would continue to battle those scourges. Brown’s vision excited no opposition, but it excited no enthusiasm either at a pre-campaign conference that suffered from low attendance and, seemingly, straitened finances. Aimed primarily at Labour’s local level activists, the conference focused on recruiting female candidates, improving communications with minority communities, and enhancing Labour’s performance in local government. Media reporting focused on the irony that Secretary for Communities and Local Government Hazel Blears lauded Mayor Ken Livingstone for “revitalizing London” ahead of the hotly-contested May 1 mayoral race, without recalling that only eight years ago Labour expelled Livingstone from the party for insisting on running as an independent. Foreign Secretary David Miliband provided rare moments of star power for a party that seems increasingly to miss Tony Blair’s charisma. End Summary.
Brown: “Use the Opportunity of Power”
2. (C/NF) Labour’s Spring Conference February 27-March 2 in Birmingham, billed as the launching event for the May 1 local elections, featured a keynote speech by Prime Minister Gordon Brown intended to fire up the Labour faithful. In the event, Brown’s speech, eloquent as it was in articulating his vision of the party’s purpose, failed to move the audience beyond more than polite applause. Opening with an admission that the last few months had been difficult, Brown talked about the series of challenge
s his government had faced as soon as it came into office: floods, foot and mouth disease, avian flu, and the global credit crunch. He made no mention of the decision not to go to early elections that precipitated Labour’s plummeting poll numbers (see ref). Instead, Brown talked about the global economy of the future, in which skilled workers and entrepreneurs would reap high-value returns, and declared that higher standards of education would equip Britons to succeed in globalized future economy. He emphasized his view that poverty, particularly among children, was a “scar on Britain,” and he graphically listed the ways in which the denial of potential through inadequate health and education costs Britain talent and achievement. A Labour government that was “purposeful and progressive” (Brown slipped and said “powerful and progressive” but corrected himself) had to use the “opportunity of power” to bring the “power of opportunity” to those elements of British society in need.
3. (SBU) While Brown’s speech focused largely on domestic issues, he did extend his analysis to the costs of poverty to the rest of the world, noting that 72 million children have no access to schools, and vowing to eliminate diseases such as diphtheria, tuberculosis, and malaria. Brown called for an extension of sanctions on Sudan and for the release of Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi.
4. (SBU) In a Q&A session that followed Brown’s remarks, many of the questions from the audience had to do with the Labour government’s management of school standards and health care - the bread and butter issues for Labour members at the local level. (Embassy comment: Discussion of educational issues became rather detailed: one Birmingham MP told Poloff that the “Labour Party is made up of teachers,” explaining that their parochial concerns tend to dominate party events. End comment.) Curiously, given media reports of an imminent possible rebellion against the government on pending security legislation to extend the legal detention period from 28 to 42 days, the subjects of terrorism, police powers, and civil liberties were not raised. And while Brown pounded the Conservative Party on its plans for tax cuts and opposition to the Lisbon Treaty’s plan for EU reform, he made little reference to the upcoming battles for local councils in which the Liberal Democrat Party poses as large a threat to Labour as do the Tories. A member of “Labour Students” from Cardiff rose to say she had been eight years old when Labour came to power, and asked what should she tell people now about what makes Labour a radical force? Brown reiterated his calls for ending poverty and eliminating disease globally. A Palestinian asking what Brown would do to end the conflict in Palestine provoked a rare outburst of applause; Brown responded by noting a planned upcoming investment conference.
Labour’s Financial Woes
5. (C/NF) The lack of energy that hung like a pall over the keynote speech was evident elsewhere, either because of low attendance or the party’s financial woes. Labour members groused that conference organizers had chosen a bad weekend – Welsh members stayed away to attend the March 1 St. David’s Day festivities back home (St. David is the patron saint of Wales and his feast day is a Welsh nationalist obligation). And the March 2 observance of Mother’s Day in Britain put many prospective attendees in the position of choosing between the Labour Party and their “mums.” Judging by the turnout, Mum won in many cases. Labour Party workers, who have been living on a shoestring for the past several years, were scarce on the ground. Those who were present were not particularly motivated: asked for a copy of the Prime Minister’s speech, one party worker referred Poloff to the website version which, several hours later, had not yet been updated to reflect extensive changes in delivery. Some Labour members, noting the party’s financial straits, asked why so much money had been spent on the Labour deputy leader race in 2007, noting that the money raised by the candidates would have been better spent to support the party’s local campaigns this year.
Female Recruitment
6. (C) Organized around three key themes, the Conference focused on recruiting female candidates, improving communications with minority communities, and enhancing Labour’s performance on local government. The three areas were selected with a view to preparing for local elections but there seemed to be a disconnect between the state of those efforts and the imminence of the May elections. Regarding women’s empowerment, MP Barbara Follett provided advice on presenting oneself effectively as a woman candidate to an audience of about 25 women that included only one prospective, not active, candidate. (Embassy comment: While Labour rightly congratulates itself on having more female MPs that the Tories, the recruitment/empowerment process at the conference appeared to be still in its early stages. End comment.) Local Labour organizations and the trades unions, according to other speakers on women’s issues, are where women have to rise through the ranks without much help from the central party apparatus.
Reaching out to Muslim Voters
7. (C) Ten people (including Poloff) showed up at an event aimed at improving Labour outreach to Muslim communities. (Embassy comment: Given Labour’s loss of Muslim support following the Iraq War, the low turnout by party activists at this event was inexplicable. End comment.) Manchester Councilor and former Lord Mayor Afzal Khan provided recommendations to Labour candidates looking for votes in Muslim communities, including: use “As Salam Aleikum” as a greeting; don’t get hung up on shaking hands with females; call into Muslim radio programs; send cards for Muslim religious holidays; and wait outside mosques on Friday to hand out leaflets. Labour MEP Gary Titley from Bolton also provided the earnest advice to avoid assuming that all Muslims hold identical views and to maintain links with community-based organizations. One British Muslim from Nottingham rose to describe what he felt was suppression of a large Muslim contingent in his local Labour party; Khan told him there was a democratic process and the Muslims in Nottingham should use it.
8. (SBU) Secretary for Communities and Local Government Hazel Blears led the way on Labour’s achievements in local government. Birmingham’s revitalized town center, including the conference center that was the venue for the event, were held up as Labour achievements, as was London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s record in “revitalizing London.” In break out groups, however, there was one ominous session on “effective opposition.” Labour members complained that for Labour councilors – who are on the front lines, so to speak, against Tory and LibDem-dominated councils – there is little or no support from the party in either substantive policy terms or personal assistance.
Miliband’s Star Power
9. (C/NF) In an otherwise low key conference, the frisson of excitement whenever Foreign Secretary David Miliband appeared was palpable. The European Parliament Labour Party lunch-time event on the Lisbon Treaty that featured Miliband as speaker drew a packed hall. He followed that appearance by a session with over a hundred Labour Students who clearly idolized him. Stumbling into what was belatedly revealed as a “private session,” Poloff heard Miliband outline his criteria for a “successful country” of the future: openness, empowerment of the whole population, and global linkages. There is increasingly less of a distinction between foreign and domestic policies, he told the students, and the challenge is to mobilize people to change. The lessons of the 80s and 90s are that “rainbow coalitions don’t work;” in order to mobilize “dynamic forces,” political leaders must develop a unifying narrative or ideology. In this respect, Labour must decide if it is the party of the working class or the party of the middle class. Answering questions on foreign policy, Miliband supported UN reform and noted the “real issue” at the UN is the UN’s failure to deliver on its “responsibility to protect,” because most threats to civilians come from their own governments and not foreign invasions. He defended UK participation in China’s Olympic games as an opportunity to shine a light on “the real China, warts and all.” He emphasized that Iran represented dangers not just in nuclear weapons development and support for terrorism but also through its own domestic human rights practices; for example, he noted that Iran has the highest per capita rate of capital punishment in the world.
<
br /> Comment
10. (C/NF) Labour members have been increasingly asking themselves the same question raised by the student from Cardiff: what makes Labour “radical” after nearly 11 years in government? For a party that still contains a large element who feel more comfortable in opposition, such self-questioning contributes to a feeling of post-Blair rudderlessness. Even though Blair ended up unpopular, he was the sun around which the party orbited, and his speeches, no matter the content, sparked an emotional response. Brown’s earnest and praiseworthy vision excites no opposition and yet it seems to excite no great enthusiasm either. With two months to go before local elections, a financially-constrained Labour hardly seemed on the verge of mobilizing for a campaign that will not only determine Labour’s fortunes on the local level, but may also affect Gordon Brown’s own tenure as leader. The poorly attended conference lacked the buzz that a strong parliamentary party representation would have provided and, Miliband’s star power notwithstanding, there was no catwalk of prospective challengers to Brown. But the irony of Labour’s holding up Ken Livingstone as a model of Labour achievement, only eight years after his expulsion from the party for running for London mayor as an independent, was not lost on the UK media.
WikiLeaks Page 31