Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

UK foreign secretary David Lammy has been accused of a diplomatic blunder after he suggested that Azerbaijan had “liberated” the disputed Caucasus territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The remark was made by Lammy on Monday in a new blog on the Substack website, where he plans to write more long-form pieces about world affairs and UK foreign policy.

“Azerbaijan has been able to liberate territory it lost in the early 1990s,” he said in the post. The sentence had not been removed or altered by Friday, despite sparking a wave of criticism.

The territory he was apparently referring to was Nagorno-Karabakh, an interpretation that has not been disputed by UK officials.

In September 2023, Azerbaijan launched a short but bloody military operation to seize the tiny mountainous enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

In some 24 hours of fighting, the Baku government restored its control over the territory, which had been held by Armenia or local Armenian leaders since the collapse of the Soviet Union, when a devastating war between the two historic enemies left it under Armenian control.

Though Baku seized territory that had been internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan, the military action forced the entire Armenian population of the enclave — more than 100,000 people — to flee within a few days. Refugees spent days making a gruelling journey down the mountainside from Karabakh, leaving their homes and lives behind.

Many Armenians, who traditionally consider Karabakh a national and spiritual heartland, known to them as Artsakh, accused Baku of ethnically cleansing the region, something Lammy’s comment — and use of the word “liberate” to describe Baku’s military action — failed to reflect.

Britain has urged Azerbaijan and Armenia to engage in negotiations to end their long-standing conflict.

Conservative MP Alicia Kearns, former chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, said on X that Lammy’s comments on a “vanity blog” appeared to be “contradicting long-standing UK policy” in a way that was “totally inappropriate and throws into question the foreign secretary’s judgment”.

The Foreign Office was forced to clarify on Friday that Lammy’s comment did not mark a change in the UK government’s stance on Nagorno-Karabakh.

Nonetheless, the Armenian government is formally seeking further clarification from the UK in the wake of Lammy’s post, an Armenian official told the FT.

US congressman Brad Sherman also weighed in on X, saying the remarks were “a stain on UK foreign policy”, as he accused the UK foreign secretary of having “endorsed ethnic cleansing”.

Laurence Broers, an associate fellow at the international affairs think-tank Chatham House, said: “It’s a real gaffe by the foreign secretary.”

Accusing Lammy of the “simplification and conflation” of developments in various post-Soviet states, Broers said the foreign secretary was “misreading the situation” regarding Azerbaijan, and “reinforcing the talking points of an autocratic regime”.

The EU parliament accused Baku of undertaking ethnic cleansing in the disputed territory last year. Azerbaijan has denied the claim.

Elin Suleymanov, Azeri ambassador to the UK, said: “I don’t understand why there’s so much response to this blog by the foreign secretary, because what [Lammy] said is absolutely true . . . It reflects the longstanding position of the UK government, which has always been supportive of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and Armenia.

“For 30 years the territory of Azerbaijan was occupied by Armenian forces, and in 2020, Azerbaijan did liberate its territory.”

After the ceasefire in the region last September, Lammy urged on X that “Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians must be guaranteed safety and dignity”.

The title of the new Substack account is Lammy’s name rather than his ministerial title, but the blog was written by the foreign secretary in an official — rather than personal — capacity.

However, the Foreign Office refused to confirm if it had been reviewed internally within the department before it was published.

A Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office spokesperson said: “There has been no change in UK policy. The foreign secretary supports the territorial integrity of both Armenia and Azerbaijan and is encouraged by both sides engaging in meaningful dialogue. The UK will continue to support their commitment to lasting peace in the region.”

In 2017, Emmanuel Macron admitted that French colonization was a “crime against humanity” while campaigning for the French presidency. However, Algeria expected France to officially apologize for these crimes. France has yet to do so. In fact, President Macron dared to question if Algeria would have existed if it had not been for the “French colonizers.”

In the Algerian War of Independence from 1954 to 1962, France committed unimaginable atrocities against Algerians in both Algeria and France. Algerians who cooperated with French forces were often captured and killed by their countrymen fighting for independence. Many escaped and sought asylum in France, where they were then put in camps and denied basic human rights and access to education. Those in Algeria fighting against the French were subject to horrific crimes such as systematic torture, which often resulted in deaths that were labeled as suicides. 

In 1961, a year before Algeria gained independence, thousands of Algerians peacefully protested in Paris. In this event that became known as the Paris Massacre, French police killed over 100 of the demonstrators, shooting some and throwing others into the river. The French government covered up such atrocities by censoring the media and destroying archival evidence. 

On September 20, 2021, President Macron condemned the “massacre of Algerians in Paris.” He issued an apology to the Algerians who fought alongside the French forces and to the families of those whom the Algerians captured as traitors and killed during the fight for independence.  

Over the course of the conflict, the French colonization of Algeria is estimated to have cost up to 1.5 million Algerian lives. In 1962, an agreement was finally reached calling for a cease-fire, and Algeria gained independence after 132 years of French rule.

The shaping of Algeria

For the last five hundred years, Algeria has had a turbulent past. Around the turn of the seventh century, Arabs first conquered the region today known as Algeria. At the time, it was home to an indigenous group called the Berbers, known for their bravery and independence. However, that conquest was short-lived, and upon a second attempt, the Arabs were defeated by a Berber warrior queen named Kahinah. 

In 705, the conquest finally succeeded. Arabs settled in the region and Berbers gradually became Muslims, adopting Arabic as their language. In 711, Berbers joined the Arabs in the conquest of Al-Andalus, present-day Spain and Portugal. 

In 742, the Muslim Berbers rebelled against Arab rule and succeeded. By 907, much of North Africa came under the control of the Fatimids, a Shia sect. Over time, local rulers began to follow Sunni Islam and from that event to the 15th century, the area lived in turmoil. 

Then, the Europeans arrived. In 1471, the colonization of Africa began with the Portuguese taking some of the Moroccan coastlines. In the early 16th century, Algeria came under the Ottoman Empire. 

Although Algeria was under the Ottomans, that did not stop colonists from attacking it. The French invaded Algeria in 1682, the Dutch in 1715, the Spanish in 1775 and the US in 1815, to name a few. In 1830, the French conquered Algeria and it eventually became a French colony. 

The colonization of Algeria

When the French invaded again in 1830, it took them nearly 20 years to conquer Algeria. The occupation was bloody and brutal, resulting in a substantial reduction in the local population. Some even consider the conquest genocide. 

As the French struggled to gain control, they deliberately killed, raped, tortured, and buried unarmed civilians alive. Out of a population of three million, French forces caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Algerians, some occurring as the result of disease and famine. Around two million civilians were kept in prison camps. French officer Lucien de Montagnac, who was sent to assist in the colonization effort, wrote that the French must “annihilate all that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs.”

The legacy of colonization in Algeria goes far beyond mass killings. The French stole religious endowments, restricted movement and confiscated fertile lands which they then gave to settlers. The French also plundered gold, iron, coal and other minerals, some of which are still in France.

Over the next century, France struggled to maintain control of Algeria. In 1911, a group of upper-class Muslims labeled themselves “Young Algerians” and demanded representation in the French National Assembly, which was duly declined. Not long after, when France began drafting Muslims to fight the Germans in WWI, many Algerian Muslims took up arms and resisted the law. In the following decades, tensions continued to boil over between Algerians and the French.

The Algerian War

By 1945, encouraged by the 1941 Atlantic Charter, Algerians demanded full independence. When Nazi Germany accepted defeat, Algerians gathered in large numbers to not only celebrate the fall of the Nazi regime but also to garner attention during the United Nations Conference in San Francisco. They wanted the delegates to know that Algeria existed and was ready to be an independent nation. In May, after the conference commenced, mass protests broke out in cities across Algeria.

Like all other mass protests, some violence occurred. The French reacted with aggression, and by the end of June had massacred several thousand Algerians. Many of those Algerians had fought side-by-side with France against Germany.

From their experience in 1945, Algerian patriots realized the only way to gain their freedom was through armed struggle. In 1954, unable to make progress, young Algerian patriots formed the Revolutionary Committee of Unity and Action (CRUA). They tried to unite the Algerians to fight the French and liberate their country. The CRUA created the National Liberation Front (FLN) to direct the Algerian War of Independence, which in turn created the National Liberation Army (ALN). So began the Algerian War. 

Protests continued throughout the country, and as France suppressed uprisings, violence broke out. French brutality angered more peaceful civilians to join the revolutionaries, and the movement grew. 

In 1958, France offered Algerian Muslims an opportunity to become equal with the French settlers. After so much bloodshed, it was too late, and revolutionaries rejected the offer and asked for independence. By March 1962, the French agreed to grant independence after the 132-year struggle.

Make wrongs right

Despite admitting their atrocities, the French maintain that they will not offer any “repentance or apologies.” To regain some respect, France could acknowledge, apologize and make reparations for the crimes against humanity they committed during colonial times. Importantly, reparation payments should go directly to victims and their descendants, not to the coffers of the Algerian government. To compensate for the ravages of colonization, the French could additionally allocate a sum for education and infrastructure. 

Support should also be offered by organizations like the UN. Despite its mission to support peace and security, the UN has consistently failed to stop genocide, prevent ethnic cleansing or sufficiently support victims such as those in Algeria. Consider the ongoing example of the innocent Palestinian men, women and children being butchered daily by US-backed Israel. From Cambodia to Sudan, the UN has let down countries and communities across the world. 

In the case of Algeria, the UN heard the cries but failed to provide justice. Even with denials and cover-ups, evidence of the French atrocities were overwhelming. To right these wrongs, a UN organized International Tribunal for Algeria (ITA) would be a good first start. Just as victims of the Holocaust have been compensated, Algerians must also receive compensation.

While no sum of money can ever erase the suffering of Algerians, reparations are an important step. First, victims get justice. Second, poor countries and victims get valuable financial support. Third, they set an important precedent for holding colonizers accountable. France must take responsibility and action to rectify the country’s dark history in Algeria. 

[Emma Johnson edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Kamala Harris told Oprah Winfrey that anyone who breaks into her home would be “getting shot” as she laughed in an exchange during a fundraising event for the Democratic presidential nominee. She followed up saying, “Probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”

“I’m in favor of the Second Amendment and I’m in favor of assault weapons bans, universal background checks, red flag laws,” Harris said on Thursday at the “Unite for America” event.  “These are just common sense.” 

The discussion about gun ownership on Thursday is part of a broader Harris/Walz campaign strategy highlighting their stance on guns. The issue is contentious. About a third of U.S. adults own one, according to the Pew Research Center. But just this June, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy declared firearm violence a public health crisis—citing mass shootings, suicide, and other firearm-related deaths as evidence. 

Gun ownership came up at the presidential debate earlier this month. “Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We’re not taking anybody’s guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff,” Harris said in response to Donald Trump’s claim that she would take away people’s guns.

Harris previously mentioned that she owned a gun during her 2020 bid for the Democratic presidential nominee. She revealed she owned a gun for personal safety. A Harris aide told CNN this month that her gun was a pistol tiny enough to fit in a small purse.

On her campaign website, as part of her goal to “ensure safety and justice for all,” Harris wrote that she would fight to combat gun violence. Harris has levied her role as a prosecutor and district attorney in California—during which she says she removed more than 12,000 illegal guns from the streets—as evidence of her hard stance on gun violence. 

Harris also cited her role as the head of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, where she worked on policies to expand background checks and close loopholes. Harris said she would continue to “invest in funding law enforcement, including the hiring and training of officers and people to support them, and will build upon proven gun violence prevention programs that have helped reduce violent crime,” if she wins the presidency.

Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the US interest rates myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

A top Federal Reserve official has said he would support more aggressive interest rate cuts from the US central bank if the economic data deteriorates further, as he cautioned inflation is falling much faster than expected.

“If the data starts coming in soft and continues to come in soft, I would be much more willing to be aggressive on rate cuts,” Christopher Waller, one of the Fed’s governors, said in an interview with CNBC on Friday.

He added that if the data come in “fine” then he could see scope for the Fed to downshift to a quarter-point cut at the next meeting in November, a day after the November 5 US presidential election.

The comments from Waller, a leading voice on the Federal Open Market Committee, came two days after the central bank kicked off its first easing cycle in more than four years with a larger than usual half-point interest rate cut, which took the Fed’s benchmark rate to 4.75 per cent to 5 per cent.

His interventions underscore the Fed’s commitment to staving off a recession in the aftermath of the worst inflation shock in decades — a huge feat that many thought impossible at the onset of the crisis.

Fed chair Jay Powell on Wednesday said the larger than usual move was aimed at maintaining the strength of the US economy — not a response to the kind of crisis that necessitated bumper cuts in the past.

Waller on Friday echoed that sentiment, saying that in a “solid” labour market, the Fed was not “behind” in terms of offering relief to borrowers.

Waller was among officials who voted for the half-point rate cut, though his colleague Michelle Bowman dissented — the first time since 2005 that a governor has opposed a Fed rate decision.

Bowman on Friday explained her preference for a quarter-point cut, saying a “measured” pace would “avoid unnecessarily stoking demand”.

“I see the risk that the committee’s larger policy action could be interpreted as a premature declaration of victory on our price stability mandate,” she said, adding inflation remains above the Fed’s 2 per cent target and the economy is “strong”.

Waller said that recent data suggested inflation was “softening much faster than I thought it was going to” put him “over the edge to say, ‘look, I think 50 [basis points] is the right thing to do’.”

Waller had said before the quiet period ahead of this week’s Fed meeting that he was “open-minded” about the possibility of a larger cut, even as he suggested it hinged on there being further economic weakness.

Powell on Wednesday framed the cut as a “recalibration” of the Fed’s monetary policy settings given the downdraft in inflation and softening of the labour market.

Most officials project the central bank will make another half a percentage point worth of cuts over the two remaining meetings of the year.

Powell on Wednesday stressed the half-point cut should not be considered the Fed’s “new pace”, suggesting the central bank is likely to opt for a quarter-point reduction.

There is significant dispersion across officials’ estimates for rates this year and in 2025, when most officials forecast the policy rate will drop to 3.25 per cent to 3.5 per cent. Officials’ wide range of estimates suggest forthcoming meetings will like this past one will be a close call.

“We do have room to move, and that is what the committee is signalling through 2025,” Waller said.

Gary Jones has left the Express after six years as editor-in-chief.

He has been succeeded by former online editorial director Tom Hunt.

Jones is the second editor-in-chief of a Reach national newspaper to leave their post this year after six years: Alison Phillips stepped down from the Mirror at the end of January and was succeeded by Caroline Waterston.

Also this year London free business newspaper City AM, which is expanding its remit nationally, has appointed its former editor Christian May to return to the role.

Press Gazette has put together a round-up of the UK’s national newspaper editors as they stand (in no particular order). We will keep this list updated.