His “EU olive branch”, as the FT puts it, comes as The Guardian reports Nicolas Sarkozy’s warning to the Conservatives over defence co-operation in Europe. The French president’s ire follows news the Tories plan to pull out of the European Defence Agency if elected.

M Sarkozy, who is due to meet David Cameron on Friday, will tell him that the Tories’ stance “risks forfeiting vital French co-operation on energy, defence and the economy” if a future Conservative government refuses to engage over the future of Europe.

The Americans have also voiced fears over the prospect of a hostile, Eurosceptic Tory government, with the National Journal reporting concern in Washington that a “self-absorbed” Tory government would be “a more tentative and less reliable” ally.

Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, told the Journal an anti-European British government would be viewed as a “liability” by the administration:

“For Britain to take an obstructionist approach within the E.U. will be seen more as a liability than as a badge of honor in Washington…

“You should not underestimate the visceral anti-European sentiment of his party … If Cameron doesn’t have a decent majority, it will create space for euro-skeptics [sic] to make trouble.”

Katinka Barysch, deputy director of the Centre for European Reform, added that Britain had been “spoiling for a fight” with Europe, a fight the Tories, in spite of the shadow foreign secretary’s apparent calm, may well engage in:

“The risk here is that the Conservatives will underestimate the reaction from the Continent … They will burn political bridges. Then there will be consequences on things that really matter, because they will have no goodwill.“

The biggest warning from the Journal, however, comes from Helen Wallace, a leading expert on the European Union, who believes Tory Europhobia could imperil the special relationship; if so:

“The U.S. will need another interlocutor in Brussels.”

Europe minister Chris Bryant, meanwhile, joined in the attacks on the Tories’ European policies, telling a Progress audience last night that:

“The Tories are still the same old euro-phobic dogma-driven obsessives that they always have been: Cameron is not in charge of his own destiny in relation to Europe but in hock to his back-benchers; Cameron has hand-picked for himself a set of extremely unsavoury allies in Europe; Cameron’s proposals on Europe are naïf, unworkable, undesirable and unachievable; and the Tory position is already damaging the national British interest.“

Yesterday, Left Foot Forward reported a joint attack on the Conservative party’s European policies from foreign secretary David Miliband and Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey, Miliband speaking of how “profoundly wrong” Hague “sees British influence being exercised, not just in Europe, but around the world”.

The discussion was held as part of a major Chatham House project, ‘Rethinking the UK’s International Ambitions and Choices’.

Speaking on David Cameron and his shadow foreign secretary’s decision to take Conservative MEPs out of the mainstream centre-right grouping in the European Parliament, the three clashed on Hague’s contention that it is fanciful to suggest that you cannot work with other nations in Europe “as long as you set out in the right way and have the right agenda”, and that “the niceties of European political parties and alliances are a minor consideration by comparison”.

The difficulties of this view were highlighted by Miliband’s argument that the ability to have influence in Europe depends on the quality of your ideas as well as the quality of your alliances:

“… and honestly to believe that if you’re outside the mainstream you’ve got more influence than if you’re inside the mainstream simply doesn’t add up.”

Furthermore, Miliband recalled that European foreign ministers at the monthly Foreign Affairs Council meetings have told him that they see the Conservative move as a “symbol” of how “profoundly wrong” Hague “sees British influence being exercised, not just in Europe, but around the world”.

Indeed, as Davey insisted, Conservative policy would weaken British influence worldwide.

Pointing out that the Chinese are incredibly impressed by the development of the single market because they look at economic aspects very importantly, he declared that:

“The fact that one of the main British parties isn’t able to influence really directly, hands-on … European legislation on the single market and its relations in trade policy with the rest of the world … does a disservice.”

Nor, Davey reminded us, is Conservative policy welcome in the US. In fact the Obama administration has consistently encouraged the Conservatives in the direction of Europe, finding it strangely out of tune with the President’s rectification of the unilateralism of the Bush years.

However it was Miliband who made the strongest case for Britain’s active involvement in the EU and the differences between the parties, arguing that:

“If we want to avoid a G2 world, then you need to build up European foreign policy strength because we’re not going to have a G2 plus Britain…

“We should at least be honest that there is a profound difference on this European issue. It is a consistent position that William and his party has held but I think it’s a profoundly damaging one.”

Jacob Zuma’s state visit to the UK finished on Friday evening and, rather than the World Cup, it was the future of diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe which stood out as the key issue from the three-day trip.

While Mr Zuma and the prime minister debated the best path to aiding the recovery of Zimbabwe’s fragile economy, Tory MP Nigel Evans accused the UK government of “pussyfooting” while handing out aid to Robert Mugabe. A Zimbabwe expert, however, defended the UK’s measured approach “for the sake of ordinary people in Zimbabwe”.

The president of South Africa has been the key mediator between Robert Mugabe’s regime and the international community. He pleaded for the easing of EU sanctions against Zimbabwe, saying they prevented the fragile coalition between President Robert Mugabe and his opponent, prime minister Morgan Tsvangirai, from succeeding.

Gordon Brown, though, stood firm and restated the conditions under which sanctions might be lifted:

“We must see movement from what is a unity, transitional government, to free and fair elections.”

While defending the sanctions, however, the government has adopted a ‘softly softly’ approach to its diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. It gives about £60 million in aid to the country, a bit more than half going to AIDS-related health programmes.

Furthermore, development minister Gareth Thomas announced during a hearing of the international development committee last week that the department for international development (DFID) was open to increase the share of the aid budget going directly to government ministries if it could help support the stability of the transition government.

He said:

“Our support is designed to enable the Office of the Prime Minister to carry out the sort of normal functions that a head of state’s office would, including oversight of the budget, making sure that the different ministries are following through on the government’s agreed work plan, and helping to resolve disputes between government departments were they to happen.”

Unconvinced by the approach, committee member Nigel Evans confronted the minister on a new law in Zimbabwe which requires big businesses to be at least 51 per cent black owned. The pair clashed over whether it is the role of the UK government to call the policy racist.

When the minister said the government should avoid “explosive language”, Nigel Evans insisted:

“But clearly it is a racist policy. If any other country did this sort of thing, we would be banging the table and saying ‘This is racist’.”

Thomas replied:

“I appreciate, Mr Evans, that you might want me to use particular phrases to describe a particular set of policies but, with respect, I am not going to do that.

“The broad message is that there has been progress in terms of the economy. We do not want that progress put at risk.”

Speaking to Left Foot Forward afterwards, Evans reiterated his message that the government was wasting its time:

“Diplomacy is lost on Mugabe, and this sort of pussyfooting sends all the wrong signals to other countries contemplating the same thing.”

In contrast, Professor Stephen Chan, an expert on Zimbabwe and international relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), defended the government’s attitude, saying it was the only viable diplomatic route:

“President Zuma was in town pleading for exactly this kind of measured, non-condemnatory approach. Whether we like it or not, the days of rhetoric are over in this case, and a grubby compromise is important for the sake of ordinary people in Zimbabwe.

“Our moral and political fights have been over and above their suffering – and this in itself might be termed immoral and racist.”

Meanwhile, Mugabe used a press conference ahead of Zuma’s visit to announce he will be endorsing David Cameron at the general election.

In fact, it feels like there is a pretty strong cross-party consensus on this issue.

All three main parties are signed up to meeting the UN target of giving 0.7% of GDP as aid; and the Department for International Development (DFID), which still thinks of itself as the new kid on the block, is looking more and more like a secure and long-term part of the machinery of government.

But behind the public consensus, there are real issues of policy at stake in the election. Whoever wins, there will be a massive squeeze on public expenditure. This makes the politics of increasing aid budgets to meet the UN target even more difficult.

Expect to see more aid routed outside DFID to reduce tensions between departments. Expect also to see changes in what counts as aid, with pressures to include more security-related expenditures in countries like Afghanistan, and more climate spending as the search for a global deal continues.

Official monitoring of aid spending takes place via the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, which defines what spending can and cannot count, but it is fair to say that this definition leaves considerable flexibility for governments to count spending that the public might not easily recognise as ‘aid’.

The UK government set itself a higher standard in the 2002 International Development Act, which limits DFID’s spending to activities which reduce poverty and promote sustainable development. A new ippr report argues that the government should broaden the scope of the 2002 Act to ensure that all spending in other departments that is counted as aid meets the same standards.

At the same time, DFID should have more non-aid money in its budget to spend more flexibly, particularly in post-conflict and conflict situations like Afghanistan.

There is also a clear difference of opinion between the parties on the role of DFID vis-à-vis the rest of government, with voices from the foreign policy and security communities in particular suggesting that DFID should be re-merged with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

Labour made a significant break from the past in establishing DFID as an independent department; the Conservatives would keep DFID separate, but have sent strong signals that they would like its role to be more clearly supportive of the FCO.

DFID has had good reasons to hold itself apart from the rest of government to establish a development policy independent of the UK’s commercial and strategic interests.  However, the same independence makes it harder for DFID to engage effectively with Whitehall.

While the UK has made significant progress in achieving coherence between development and other objectives in some areas (e.g. trade, climate change), tensions remain unresolved in a range of others (e.g. migration, corruption), and joined-up government hasn’t always been a reality on the ground in places like Afghanistan.

The benefits of having DFID on an equal footing with the FCO clearly outweigh the costs, but this does not mean that DFID should stand apart from the rest of government.  Making government policy and practice coherent for international development is the real challenge facing UK development policy in the coming years.

Tensions between the UK’s international poverty reduction priorities and other government objectives need to be tackled head on, but this is going to require a willingness from politicians to talk about the difficult bits of development – conflict, trade, migration and corporate corruption - as well as education, health and water.

• The ippr report “Policy coherence and the future of the UK’s international development agenda” is available now.

The report accuses MoD witnesses of giving “disingenuous” information on the £21bn budget shortfall, saying that officials’ answers were:

“At best confused and unhelpful and at worst deliberately obstructive.”

The committee specifically criticised delays and cost increases in MoD plans to spend £16bn on the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), a programme to design a new generation of military vehicles and deploy thousands of these machines on operations in years to come.

As committee chair James Arbuthnot said:

“We have tried on many occasions in the past to elicit details about Fres from the MoD without ever receiving clear answers. We conclude, with regret, that the MoD has none to give.”

The Obama Administration last year cancelled its own Future Combat Systems project after repeated cost increases and technical setbacks.

The report was highly critical of decreases in the defence research and technology budget with Defence Management Journal reporting planned cut backs from £540m in 2007/08 to £471m in 2009/10. The budget is expected to decrease further in 2010/11 to just £439 million in comparison to a spending level 15 years ago of £947m 2008/09 terms.

With regard to the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, the report confirmed that “the trident decision was being delayed for a few months” and that it is “more likely than not” that this decision will be taken after the general election.

On Tuesday, January 12th, a devastating earthquake rattled the small island nation of Haiti, changing the landscape of the country forever. This tragedy has allowed national governments, charitable organizations, and average people to come together as a cohesive unit to bring relief to a nation that is in urgent need of it. Consequently, it is vital to understand what has been done in the area and most importantly, what more there is to do.

When the earthquake first struck, the humanitarian effort was almost instantaneous. The United Nations immediately sent an extra 3,000 troops and workers, the World Bank donated $100m to the area, and, in the private sector, some celebrities even donated as much as $3m of their own money.

Relief organizations big and small have given food, water, and manpower to do whatever they can to help. Yet, the country is still in desperate need of trucks to haul out rubble and basic medical supplies to help the wounded. The situation in Haiti is so dire that these efforts have had as many failures as successes. In terms of what can be done, the surface hasn’t even been scratched; this is a sentiment that no one understands better than former President Bill Clinton.

The former President joined up with former President George W. Bush to create the Clinton Bush Haiti Relief Fund, but has also had direct involvement with relief efforts through his foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative. With the help of the man behind the CGI, Doug Band, the operation has been at the forefront of international aid and philanthropy since its inception in 2005. The CGI has helped more than 10 million children gain access to better education, granted more than $150 million in medical research, and has provided treatment to over 30 million people for tropical diseases.

Although it’s still early, there’s one major element of restoration that has been overlooked: construction. Haiti’s infrastructure has been shattered and there is an open question over whether the country can afford all the costs of repair and reconstruction. But the rebuilding process provides an opportunity to meet modern day Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and to approach this in a “greener” sense. Organizations like Architecture for Humanity will make this possible. The nonprofit design services firm aim to build “a more sustainable future through the power of professional design.”

The tragedy in Haiti has shown the worst of what Mother Nature can do, but has also shown the best of the human spirit, whether it be through philanthropists and nonprofits or help from the simple individual. People from around the world came together to bring help and aid however they could. Getting this struggling nation back on its feet will be a battle, but with the help of organizations like the CGI and AFH, it will be a battle with an undoubtedly positive outcome. Nevertheless, there is still much to be done to not just dig Haiti out of the rubble, but to bring hope back to its people.

Both defence secretary Bob Ainsworth and his shadow Liam Fox reasserted their commitment to the renewal of Trident, but as Newsnight’s defence correspondent Mark Urban said:

“The things the armed forces are least likely to need are the most expensive – Trident is the biggest and best example.”

This in turn begs the question of how can the UK continue to maintain a full spectrum warfare defence capability that covers all eventualities (land, sea, air and nuclear) at a time when both our forces and our budget are severely overstretched?

Throughout the debate the defence establishment struggled to make the case for the status quo as exemplified by former Air Chief Marshall Sir Clive Loader’s plaintive defence of the decsion to invest billions in the Joint Strike Fighter on the grounds that air superiority fighters are needed “to deter the unknown risks of the future” despite his own admission that the last RAF dogfight was during the Falklands war.

Critisicm of the status quo came from both right and left with conservative columnist Simon Jenkins arguing that:

“The game is up: our distorted defence commitment means we have the wrong kit.”

But it was Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey who reframed the Trident renewal debate, saying that rather then a false choice between Britain as a nuclear power today or unilateral nuclear disarmament tomorrow:

“This nuclear deterrent (Trident) keeps us a nuclear power for another 20 years, the decision is whether we want one for 30 years after that.”

Adding to the pressure on Trident renewal was yesterday’s comments by Conservative party defence adviser Sir Richard Dannatt that:

“It [Trident] might not be right in 5 or 10 years time.”

In response, defence expert Ian Kearns, a senior fellow of the Royal United Services Institute, said:

“General Dannatt’s comments are potentially significant because they recognise that we are at a moment of strategic flux. We could move into a world where there are many more states with nuclear capability; or we could be moving into one where there is significant nuclear disarmament.

“What the UK should do is give itself the maximum amount of time and flexibility to judge the situation before it sinks billions into the submarine contracts for Trident.”

The most poignant note of the debate was raised by veteran’s campaigner Dianne Dernie who expressed her concern that the government was making available “huge sums of money for Trident” at a time when:

“‘Help for Heroes’ and other charities are funding the double amputees to go to Oklahoma to get decent prosthetic limbs.”

Mr Ainsworth vigourously disagreed, stating:

“There is first class state-of-the-art prosethics available to our injured personnel at Hedley Court. They deserve the best and they get the best.”

Tomorrow’s NATO Strategic Concept Review will invite the populations of member states to input their opinion to the debate in an online discussion forum, in an effort to make the alliance more transparent.

This has not staved off criticism the decision making process is too restricted to NATO officials.

On Tuesday the group of experts, twelve appointed group members including former defence secretary Geoff Hoon, will conduct the last seminar of the ‘Reflection Phase’ (the first phase of the three phase Concept Review) in Washington.

The seminar, which will engage officials such as NATO strategic commands and military representatives, will focus on forces, structures and capabilities and will include a discussion of the nuclear strategy in Europe.

As with the previous three seminars, an online discussion for the public to voice concerns and raise questions to NATO experts on the themes of the seminar was held a couple of weeks prior.

Such events are part of the NATO public outreach programme which has sought to consult the public on the Strategic Review through an online discussion forum.

The main points from the public are responded to on the website and are then, in the words of Secretary General Anders Foch Rasmussen:

“Fed into the decision making process here in the Alliance.”

The idea to open up the debate to the public has coincided with the appointment of Rasmussen, former prime minister of Denmark, in August 2009.

It seeks to remedy the democratic deficit inherent in NATO processes and organisations, which have limited accountability to democratic domestic institutions.

Last December, in a further sign of the opening up of NATO, Left Foot Forward took part in the alliance’s first ever bloggers’ briefing.

There have, however, been criticisms that this new NATO initiative has not fundamentally changed the nature of the review. A roundtable on nuclear weapons policies and the NATO Strategic Concept Review co-hosted by Des Browne, convener of the Top Level Group and Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, Secretary General of the Pugwash conferences in the House of Commons in January concluded that:

“The consultation process and seminars give an appearance, but not reality of open debate. In fact, the process is closed to all but a handful of officials and experts.”

Similarly Ian Davis, a human security and arms control consultant, wrote for a British American Security Information Council Commentary in August that:

“The public consultation could have been clearer, more integrated into the overall process, more independent, and conducted over a longer time-frame.

“Nonetheless, the new Secretary General has cast the door ajar. It is now up to concerned citizens to walk through it.”

Sri Lanka’s newly re-elected president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, is facing mounting pressure from the international community over accusations of human rights abuses, war crimes and dictatorship; shadow defence secretary Liam Fox visited him three times last year – at Sri Lanka’s expense.

Last year, Fox attended Rajapaksa’s party convention. It was his third visit of the year, having already gone in March and August, each time at the invitation – and expense – of the Sri Lankan government. The circumstances of these visits are unclear.

Only for his March trip is it indicated in parliament’s register of Members’ Interests that he was travelling in an official capacity. Furthermore, a week after his November visit, he said in parliament that:

“As members of the European Union, we have to be careful not to lecture too much or give too few incentives in a country that is beginning to move very much in the right direction.”

He did not mention he was at the president’s party convention the week before.

At last week’s prime minister’s questions, Labour MP Barry Gardiner asked whether:

“The arrest of General Fonseka in Sri Lanka is yet another indication that the regime of President Rajapaksa is sliding into dictatorship.”

This is a vital question on a critical topic, but parliament should clearly be asking many more:

• Why did Liam Fox go to Sri Lanka three times to meet its president last year, while William Hague did not go once? In what official capacity did he make his August and November visits?

• Why did he attend Rajapaksa’s national party convention? Can he ensure this did not undermine ongoing multilateral efforts at defending human rights, at a critical time for Sri Lanka?

• Why has he been pointedly discreet about these visits – putting out a press release for his visit to Afghanistan last year, but not one in three trips to Sri Lanka?

• It emerged last week that Liam Fox has been accepting large donations from defence firms; can he ensure that this does not interfere with his official responsibilities as shadow secretary of state for defence, and as a representative of the UK government, when he makes repeated visits to government officials in war-torn countries?

The new European Union trade commissioner, Karel de Gucht, announced on Monday that Sri Lanka would be suspended from GSP+ (Generalised System of Preferences) treatment - a privileged trade agreement it operates with developing countries - because its government was in breach of human rights conventions.

Although the European Commission’s report was completed by October 2009, Rajapaksa’s reputation abroad was not helped by the arrest of his main opponent in the January presidential elections, Sarath Fonseka, only two weeks ago.

Fonseka is a retired army general who led the Sri Lankan army to victory over the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009. He claims the election results were rigged and said he would be ready to testify against the government at an international war crimes tribunal.

The case for such a prosecution is slowly stacking up. The European Commission’s report, referring to previous reports by the UN and independent experts, states that although the Sri Lankan government stalled the investigation process by repeatedly refusing to submit itself to fact-finding visits:

“The evidence shows that unlawful killings, perpetrated by police, soldiers and paramilitary groups, are a major problem.”

In December 2009, Channel 4 further reported that a mobile phone video obtained by Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (JDS) - showing the summary execution of suspected LTTE soldiers by army forces - had been declared authentic by a forensic specialist, contrary to claims by Rajapaksa’s government.

This denial was condemned last month by the UN Special Rapporteur for Sri Lanka, Philip Alston.

UPDATE 16.33

Liam Fox has been in Sri Lanka again this week and has been intervening in the local controversy over the trial of General Fonseka. The country’s Daily Mirror reports that:

“Liam Fox, yesterday expressed his view that former opposition candidate General Sarath Fonseka be given a civil trial. “It is my strong view that the General should be tried in a civil court where the charges against him can be tested through all the vigor that the law can muster,” Mr. Fox said after a meeting with Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama at the Foreign Ministry.”

Other DAC countries made varying ODA commitments for 2010, and most, but not all, will fulfil them:

• The United States pledged to double its aid to sub-Saharan Africa between 2004 and 2010.

• Canada aimed to double its 2001 International Assistance Envelope level by 2010 in nominal terms.

• Australia aimed to reach $A4 billion.

• New Zealand plans to achieve an ODA level of $NZ 600 million by 2012-13.

The OECD projects that all four countries appear on track to meet these objectives. Meanwhile, Norway will maintain 1 per cent GNI spending, and Switzerland will likely reach 0.47 per cent of its GNI. The net result is that overseas aid will reach record levels in 2010, a 35 per cent increase since 2004. But despite this success there will be a significant shortfall as several major rich countries – including three centre-right led countries: France, Germany and Italy – have missed their 0.51 per cent targets, while Japan is $4 billion short of the $10 billion it pledged.

Overall, this means that while aid has increased by $27 billion on 2004 levels, OECD countries are $21 billion short of what they promised in 2005. This is partly because lower-than-expected GNI because of the economic crisis, but it is mainly because certain rich countries have failed to meet their commitments. Eckhard Deutscher, Chair of the DAC, noted that:

“Aid has increased strongly as 16 donors have honoured their commitments. But it will still fall considerably short of what was promised. These commitments were made and confirmed repeatedly by heads of governments and it is essential that they be met to the full extent.”

International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander said:

“Keeping our aid promises has never been more important as the world emerges from an economic crisis that has dragged millions of people back into poverty. I am very pleased that the OECD recognises that the UK is honouring pledges made at Gleneagles in 2005 – particularly on doubling aid to Africa.

“It is disappointing that with only five years left to meet the Millennium Development Goals there is such a shortfall in the levels of aid needed to meet them. It is now vital for other nations to step up to the plate. All governments are currently facing difficult choices but commitments made to the world’s poorest people must not become empty promises.”

Max Lawson, Oxfam senior policy adviser:

“Overseas aid is more important than ever in the midst of an economic crisis that is pushing millions more people into poverty. The missing $21 billion could pay for every child to go to school, and could save the lives of 2 million of the poorest mothers and children.”

The shortfalls of aid commitments will reinforce the calls by campaigners for a Robin Hood Tax. The Financial Transaction Tax would offer a more regular and reliable source of vital funds needed to provide the sort of long-term predictable aid needed to support developing countries build poverty alleviating institutions such as national health and education systems.