In 2007 I was asked to lead a trade delegation to China in my capacity as railways minister.
I was only too pleased to do so: the Railway Industry Association, who sponsored the visit to Beijing, had been a helpful and positive ally to me in the year in which I had held the post.
There was only one problem: the other members of the delegation intended to pay a visit to their industry contacts in Taiwan before heading to Beijing. Would I accompany them on that leg of the tour?
I initially said yes, but one missive from the Foreign Office later changed my plans. For delicate and important diplomatic reasons, the Chinese government would not tolerate a visit by a UK government minister to Taiwan immediately before the Beijing visit.
Fair enough, I concluded, and informed the rest of the delegation that I would meet them in Beijing.
On one hand, this was a craven surrender to an autocratic regime. On the other hand, I was in no position to dictate terms to the host country. It was apparent to me that for the Chinese visit to be successful (and it was) I had to play by the accepted diplomatic rules.
It seems, to most people, a perfectly sensible principle that other countries decide who gets to cross their borders and enjoy their hospitality. But that principle is lost on certain Labour MPs.
Abtisan Mohamed and Yuan Yang, both elected to the Commons for the first time last year, were outraged to a performative degree when they were informed by Israeli immigration officials last week that they would not be permitted to enter the country. Instead they were returned to Britain the following day, their plans to visit the West Bank thwarted.
What could possibly have led the Israeli authorities to show such disrespect to two British parliamentarians? Aren’t we supposed to be allies?
Of course, allyship is not a one-way street. Both MPs have been consistent critics of Israel over its military tactics in Gaza. Both endorsed the Government’s absurd support for the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, for alleged war crimes.
Both have also demanded a boycott of Israeli goods. And now they are appalled because Israel has demonstrated that it has as high an opinion of them as they have of Israel.
The entitlement is palpable. Parliamentarians, who nowadays frequently see themselves as celebrities rather than statespersons, simply cannot get their heads round the notion that any country would treat them as persona non grata rather than as VIPs, even when the VIPs in question have spent the last few months attacking their intended hosts.
What is missing from this spat is any sort of understanding by the MPs about the state of siege which ordinary Israelis have felt subject to since more than 1200 of their fellow citizens were murdered, tortured, raped or kidnapped by the Palestinian leadership 18 months ago.
Israel has always existed, since its very foundation, in the knowledge that it is surrounded by enemies who yearn for its destruction. No doubt, amidst their enthusiasm for condemning the nation, Mohamed and Yang have mouthed the official Labour Party policy in support of a “two state solution” in the Middle East: a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state.
But how often, I wonder, have they also publicly condemned the popular public demands for Palestine to be free “from the river to the sea”, a genocidal aspiration by those who hate the Jewish state simply for being Jewish?
There is no right by MPs or even ministers of the crown to enter any country, ally or no, at their own insistence. Entry is a privilege only to be conferred by the host country, and if it does not want your presence, you have no legal or moral right to be there.
I would have preferred to visit Taiwan to express my support for its self-determination before heading to Beijing but, alas, diplomatic reality prevented this from happening. Life is tough, but those are the compromises that need to be made in the real world.
And, frankly, any MP who supports the Government and who suggests that pragmatic decision-making should not be a part of political life is running a high risk of being called a hypocrite.
In 2007 I was asked to lead a trade delegation to China in my capacity as railways minister.
I was only too pleased to do so: the Railway Industry Association, who sponsored the visit to Beijing, had been a helpful and positive ally to me in the year in which I had held the post.
There was only one problem: the other members of the delegation intended to pay a visit to their industry contacts in Taiwan before heading to Beijing. Would I accompany them on that leg of the tour?
I initially said yes, but one missive from the Foreign Office later changed my plans. For delicate and important diplomatic reasons, the Chinese government would not tolerate a visit by a UK government minister to Taiwan immediately before the Beijing visit.
Fair enough, I concluded, and informed the rest of the delegation that I would meet them in Beijing.
On one hand, this was a craven surrender to an autocratic regime. On the other hand, I was in no position to dictate terms to the host country. It was apparent to me that for the Chinese visit to be successful (and it was) I had to play by the accepted diplomatic rules.
It seems, to most people, a perfectly sensible principle that other countries decide who gets to cross their borders and enjoy their hospitality. But that principle is lost on certain Labour MPs.
Abtisan Mohamed and Yuan Yang, both elected to the Commons for the first time last year, were outraged to a performative degree when they were informed by Israeli immigration officials last week that they would not be permitted to enter the country. Instead they were returned to Britain the following day, their plans to visit the West Bank thwarted.
What could possibly have led the Israeli authorities to show such disrespect to two British parliamentarians? Aren’t we supposed to be allies?
Of course, allyship is not a one-way street. Both MPs have been consistent critics of Israel over its military tactics in Gaza. Both endorsed the Government’s absurd support for the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, for alleged war crimes.
Both have also demanded a boycott of Israeli goods. And now they are appalled because Israel has demonstrated that it has as high an opinion of them as they have of Israel.
The entitlement is palpable. Parliamentarians, who nowadays frequently see themselves as celebrities rather than statespersons, simply cannot get their heads round the notion that any country would treat them as persona non grata rather than as VIPs, even when the VIPs in question have spent the last few months attacking their intended hosts.
What is missing from this spat is any sort of understanding by the MPs about the state of siege which ordinary Israelis have felt subject to since more than 1200 of their fellow citizens were murdered, tortured, raped or kidnapped by the Palestinian leadership 18 months ago.
Israel has always existed, since its very foundation, in the knowledge that it is surrounded by enemies who yearn for its destruction. No doubt, amidst their enthusiasm for condemning the nation, Mohamed and Yang have mouthed the official Labour Party policy in support of a “two state solution” in the Middle East: a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state.
But how often, I wonder, have they also publicly condemned the popular public demands for Palestine to be free “from the river to the sea”, a genocidal aspiration by those who hate the Jewish state simply for being Jewish?
There is no right by MPs or even ministers of the crown to enter any country, ally or no, at their own insistence. Entry is a privilege only to be conferred by the host country, and if it does not want your presence, you have no legal or moral right to be there.
I would have preferred to visit Taiwan to express my support for its self-determination before heading to Beijing but, alas, diplomatic reality prevented this from happening. Life is tough, but those are the compromises that need to be made in the real world.
And, frankly, any MP who supports the Government and who suggests that pragmatic decision-making should not be a part of political life is running a high risk of being called a hypocrite.