Matthew Offord MP: Reductions in Defence spending do not have to mean a reduction in overseas influence

Matthew Offord is the Member of Parliament for Hendon.

In recent years political and military attention has been focused on Iraq and Afghanistan and, in past weeks, on Libya. But UK and US forces have been engaged in a similarly important battle in a less covered theatre - that of the war against narco-terrorism in the Caribbean. This link was strengthened by George Bush following the September 11, 2001 attacks. As a result Colombia has become an ever more important recipient of U.S. drug war aid as the Colombian FARC has joined the ranks of designated terrorist groups, including the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hizballah.

As such the MOD announcement in February of this year that the UK would not continue to have a continuous warship presence in the Caribbean, the first time since the Second World War, was greeted with dismay in the region. Originally established to provide protection for British Overseas Territories (there are 6 in the Caribbean), the presence of a warship has assisted in the combined UK/US operations against drug smugglers, whilst also providing humanitarian relief during the July-November hurricane season. It was announced that the alternative was to be a Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) vessel who would undertake a similar role to that which had occurred previously.

Matthew Offord MP: The settlements are not the defining issue of the Middle East peace process

Matthew Offord was elected MP for Hendon at the general election.

As a new MP with a keen interest in the Middle East, I closely followed coverage of the renewed peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. In light of the British Government’s pledge to amend the flaws in existing Universal Jurisdiction legislation, I looked forward to the increased role the UK would be able to play in the peace process. However, two months on, talks have now effectively come to a halt and President Abbas, in discussion with the Arab League, has stated that the US has one month to resuscitate the negotiations before the Palestinians will pull out completely.

At the time I warmly welcomed the announcement of the renewed talks, although I had spoken, both in the House of Commons and outside of it, of the problems that beset the process. The expiration of the settlement moratorium posed a significant challenge to the negotiations. President Abbas’s argument that it is neither politically feasible nor morally acceptable to engage in talks while Israel is seen to be altering facts on the ground is entirely valid. It is understandably hard to see how peace can be achieved if settlements continue.

Evidently settlements became the first major obstacle in the way of talks. And yes, settlements will need to be addressed and tough decisions made. It is fundamentally important, however, to point out that the failure of the talks is not all about this one issue; settlements are not the reason for failure but merely the pretext for failure.

In the past, Israel has evacuated and destroyed its settlements in an effort to give momentum to peace. Removal of the settlement of Yamit in Sinai as part of the peace treaty with Egypt in 1982 and the unilateral removal of all Jewish settlements in Gaza in 2005 are important examples that Israel is prepared to make painful sacrifices in the interests of peace. If there is a credible and tangible peace process, with necessary assurances of coexistence and security, the Israeli public would undoubtedly be willing to sacrifice settlements again.