Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has drawn criticism for his recent public statements concerning a formal apology for transatlantic slavery and for his perceived influence on the government's stance regarding European relations. A columnist argues that these actions have created disarray within the government and negatively impacted its international standing.
Miliband took to social media platform X, stating that the UK should engage in a "formal structured dialogue" with individuals affected by slavery. The columnist noted that this statement occurred during King Charles's tour of the Caribbean, coinciding with Prime Minister Andy Burnham's article expressing openness to an apology. This timing, the article suggests, overshadowed the royal visit and shifted the focus to historical grievances.
The columnist also highlighted Miliband's actions concerning Europe, suggesting a disconnect between government pronouncements and the Foreign Office's actions. According to the report, one day the government signals a desire to rejoin the EU and discusses freedom of movement, while the next, the Foreign Office appears to have advanced positions that alienate working-class voters. This, the author posits, makes the Prime Minister appear out of control of policy details.
Further afield, Miliband's decision to impose sanctions on the West Bank is cited as damaging diplomatic relations with Israel, which reportedly retaliated by supporting Argentina's claims to the Falkland Islands. The White House was also reportedly dismayed by Miliband's previous pressure on the government to deny US Air Force bases for attacks on Iran. The article frames these geopolitical decisions as being secondary to by-election pressures and "student-union-style posturing."
The commentary links Miliband's approach to both the slavery apology and European policy under a theme of "lack of belief in Britain." The author contends that those advocating for rejoining the EU believe Britain cannot succeed independently, while slavery reparation advocates are portrayed as focusing solely on Britain's unique responsibility for the slave trade, disregarding the roles of African rulers and the Royal Navy's efforts to end the trade. The columnist also mentions a £40 million allocation for eco-projects in the Caribbean, suggesting it serves Miliband's climate change obsessions rather than solely assisting the islands.
The article draws parallels between Miliband's current role and past instances where, according to the author, his actions have negatively affected political figures, including his brother David Miliband and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and most recently, Sir Keir Starmer. The piece concludes by labeling the Foreign Secretary a "national liability."