(2 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
That this House takes note of the challenges to a rules-based international order, and their impact on global cohesion, stability and security.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
We are a few days before the second inauguration of President Trump. Before he has even taken office, he has spoken of taking over Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland. We know that what he says does not necessarily translate into what he does, though whether, this time, his chosen advisers will have much of a check on him remains to be seen. We now have autocratic leaders in three of the five permanent UN Security Council members: Russia, China and the US. We will have to see what kind of restraint on Trump can come from American democracy, the media—see even the Washington Post under Bezos—and the apparent separation of powers within the US system. He is the first convicted criminal to take office as President in the United States.
Globally, we see nationalists and populists exploiting economic challenges, post Covid and post the invasion of Ukraine, with climate change potentially destabilising the world. We see the use of misinformation becoming a fine art, not just from Russia and China but many other actors, and now via X and unchecked Meta. AI threatens to turbocharge this. Biden has just spoken of the US becoming an oligarchy, with huge wealth, power and influence concentrated in the hands of very few. Given the US’s position as the world’s largest economy, that has global implications. Huge wealth as possessed by Musk, along with social media influence, seemingly allows him to threaten to overturn our own democracy. Putin is also an oligarch, of course, and Chinese oligarchs have to dance to the tune of their leadership—see Jack Ma.
The institutions put in place particularly after the Second World War and Nazi genocide seem to be under threat. The rules-based order, whatever its limitations, is being shaken up. The world faces the existential threat of climate change but instead of pulling together to address this, we seem to be pulling apart—a far cry, seemingly, from where we were when the Paris Agreement was signed 10 years ago. Trump may indeed pull out of that, despite the huge financial and human costs, not least of what has happened in California. It is a tinderbox world. Are there even foreshadowings of the catastrophes of the mid-20th century as we look at widespread economic challenges, the social instability that usually follows, populists deploying new propaganda tools and the rise of authoritarianism?
It has always struck me that it was remarkable that any global agreements on international law and global institutions should be agreed. However flawed people may feel them to be, it is worth emphasising that point. The very idea of states potentially agreeing to limit what they might do, either within their own countries or in their relations with other countries, is striking. The establishment of the Red Cross in the 19th century reflects this: the First Geneva Convention of 1864, including the non-targeting of medical services on the battlefield. It is ironic that our next debate should be on attacks on healthcare in Gaza.
The brutality of the First World War led to the far-sighted, but ultimately ineffective, League of Nations seeking to resolve competition between nations through dialogue and diplomacy. The economic consequences of reparations, the stock market crash of 1929 and the depression, with propaganda lethally harnessed, destabilised the West and helped to pave the way in Germany for Hitler and the Nazis, through genocide, to begin the invasion of neighbouring countries and thence to the Second World War.
It was in the wake of those catastrophic years that we saw the setting-up of the global institutions we have today: the Bretton Woods agreements on the establishment of what became the IMF and the World Bank in 1944; and most importantly, the UN in 1945, whose charter will be 80 years old this July. Among the other plethora of organisations set up following the Second World War, there was the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 1945, agreements on regulating trade which eventually developed into the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization in 1948 and NATO in 1949. Brits played key roles in those—global influence. Of course, established as a project for peace, there was also the Common Market in 1957, which later became the EU. It brought together in remarkable fashion France and Germany in particular in the hope of avoiding future wars in Europe, and now includes states of the former Soviet Union, with candidates such as Ukraine keen to join.
Over the years since the Second World War, the Nuremberg trials were held, then others were held to account for genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans and elsewhere. International law steadily developed, and, after much struggling, the International Criminal Court came into existence in 2002. Whatever the flaws, those were remarkable developments since the catastrophe of the 1930s in Germany and the Second World War: a framework of political, legal and economic rules to manage relations between states, to prevent conflict and to uphold the rights of all people, wherever they lived. Of course, things have not been perfect. We have had wars and even genocides. The veto in the Security Council has stymied action. The complaint is made that these international arrangements particularly favoured the US and the western world. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that such global organisations were set up.
UK Governments have long argued for the international rules-based system. Thus, the last Government in their refreshed integrated review committed the UK to working to
“shape an open and stable international order of well-managed cooperation and competition between sovereign states on the basis of reciprocity, norms of responsible behaviour and respect for the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and international law”.
I expect that the current Government will say the same, but the challenges are immense.
There are autocratic leaders of states. Putin apparently wants to recreate a historic Russia or Soviet Union by dominating neighbours and brutally invading Ukraine. I heard Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov at the Doha Forum defending this in a way that reminded me of domestic abuse: “We had to; we were provoked”—in effect, “They asked for it”. If Trump seeks to end US engagement in Ukraine, how ready are we to work with European partners to ensure that Putin does not benefit from gains in Ukraine or undermine the security of the Baltic states and others? We know that much of the rest of the world does not share our concern about Ukraine. The External Affairs Minister of India put it thus:
“Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems”.
Then there is China. The Chancellor argues that China’s economy is vital for our own. Clearly, China’s slowdown affects the rest of the world. Tariffs from the US on China will affect us all. China leads on manufacturing renewables. It controls much of the world’s critical minerals supply. Industrial espionage is seemingly widely used to maintain its position at the forefront. Its engagement with the global South and its indebtedness to China, plus its human rights record, all make its role in the international order challenging. China’s cultivation of the global South is why we could never win votes at the UN on Hong Kong. Yet, interestingly, it maintains support for the principle of the UN charter, so long as it does not mean so-called internal interference. China has been expansionist in seeking control and influence. We do not know what Trump will do if China invades Taiwan. What will Europe do?
Both Russia and China are able to seize on the global South’s resentment at what seem like western double standards. One of the major areas where double standards seem to hold is the Middle East. It came across very strongly from leaders and others across the region and Africa at the Doha Forum in December that the response by the Israeli Government to the attack of 7 October 2023 is viewed as devastatingly disproportionate. The UN and ICC have said as much, but in return have come under attack. The West has not pushed back, critics say, allowing the Government of Israel to get away with actions others are condemned for.
The growth of populism and nationalism globally, reflected in Trump’s election, seems to show that lies are believed just as easily, maybe more so, than the truth, and that politics is being driven to the extremes. Those seeking power seem adept at using this. Sufficient numbers of people believe them, as we have seen in Latin America, Europe—including the UK—and elsewhere. We see that the likely victor in Canada in its upcoming elections is one who, in an interview before Christmas, expressed a desire to pull out of the UN. The WHO too is under misinformation attack.
Economic pressures, populism, nationalism and the spread of disinformation all played their part in our pulling out of the EU—that project for peace—even though we damaged ourselves economically and in terms of our global influence by doing so. Has withdrawing from the EU neutered the right wing in Britain? Hardly; if anything, it is stronger. The Government need to recognise that and move further and faster in rebuilding ties with the EU, both for growth and to maximise our global influence. Pandering to the right clearly did not work.
It is said that we are now in a multipolar world, but it is striking that even the BRICS countries nevertheless sign up to the principle of the UN charter. It is just that they say the West has double standards in applying this.
There has been a rise in authoritarianism around the world, including in Europe. Terrorism networks are better funded, exploiting concern over certain conflicts to raise funds. Crime is often international, including exploiting the increasing number of migrants on the move in Africa, to Europe and up through central America—a trend that climate change and conflict are exacerbating.
States, as ever, involve themselves for their own interests in the conflicts of others, as we see in the terrible case in Sudan, or risk seeing in Syria. Agreement on the equal rights of all—particularly women, and especially control over their own bodies—is seriously in danger of going backwards. We see that in full force in Afghanistan. Major new challenges, such as climate change and the transformative expansion of artificial intelligence, face us, with global institutions talking about these but not necessarily finding it possible to take action.
Nevertheless, as I have said, it was a huge achievement to have any global rules and institutions, which, since World War II, have helped protect citizens, including those in conflict, bring millions out of poverty and hold leaders to account. We should seek to strengthen them and not walk away.
We are indeed in very challenging times. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions, and especially the Government’s view, on this very wide-ranging topic. It is just the future of the world—that is all. I beg to move.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on her excellent speech, which was extremely well argued and well constructed. I did not entirely agree with everything; I think that the role of Iranian-backed terrorism must also be taken into account in the Middle East.
I want to start my speech by quoting from another speech that is now almost 25 years old:
“Globalisation has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalisation is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon. We live in a world where isolationism has ceased to have a reason to exist. By necessity we have to co-operate with each other across nations … We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not … We cannot ignore new political ideas in other counties if we want to innovate. We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights within other countries if we want still to be secure … We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community. By this I mean the explicit recognition that today more than ever before we are mutually dependent, that national interest is to a significant extent governed by international collaboration and that we need a clear and coherent debate as to the direction this doctrine takes us”.
That was Tony Blair, in Chicago in 1999, almost 25 years ago. What a mess we are now in. I still believe that what Blair set out in that speech, which I played a very small part in drafting—very small, I assure noble Lords—is the objective to which our policy should be aimed. However, it has obvious weaknesses given what has happened since. Interestingly, Blair did not mention China at all 25 years ago. On Russia, just to show the change of mood, he said:
“We simply cannot stand back and watch that great nation teeter on the brink of ruin. If it slides into the abyss, it will affect all of us … We must not let our current differences set us on a route towards … mutual hostility and suspicion”.
Tony was an optimist about Russia and Putin, which has proved to be bitterly disappointing.
We thought then of the United States as a hegemonic power and that we Europeans should be its constant loyal friends and partners. Now we have Trump to reckon with and we no longer live, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, in a unipolar world.
Britain is in a much weaker position to exercise any global influence. We are no longer at the centre of the councils of the European Union. Our economic strength, which is the basis of foreign policy strength, has been gravely weakened and, as a result, we halved our overseas aid budget—which, at 0.7%, was one of Labour’s proudest achievements previously—and we are struggling to meet our defence target.
If we want to be influential, we have first to prioritise economic growth here and have a successful economy, and to establish a new, more positive relationship with the EU—that is fundamental. Our top priority has to be to deal with the United States, not to moralise towards Trump but to make sure that we keep the Americans in Europe. That is fundamental to our security. To do that, we will have to become a leader in European rearmament, which will be necessary in the next decade.
A lot of numbers games are played on defence spending. Trump is said to want us to spend 5% of GDP. We are presently spending 2.3% with an objective of 2.5%. Interestingly, from a historical perspective, at the time of Suez we were spending 7% and at the time of our withdrawal east of Suez in the late 1960s we were spending more than 4% of GDP, so we are at a very low level. The point that I see as fundamental is that we will have to have European rearmament—I know that it is a word that people do not like—if we are to convince the Americans to back NATO and be a source of security in Europe against a revanchist Russia. We have to press for a European rearmament that is collectively planned and delivered, probably with the creation of a single market in defence, because that is the only way it will be affordable. If every member state does its own thing, we will waste a lot of money, as we presently do, on defence.
The defence budget has to go up, and I fear to more than 2.5%. That will involve difficult decisions. Some of it can be done through innovative financial means, as we have seen with the latest Ukraine package, but it also raises profound questions for tax and spend and public spending in the five to 10 years ahead. We have to establish a national consensus that we need to spend more on defence, to keep NATO as fundamental to our security, and to be willing somehow, collectively, with all-party agreement, to pay for it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, this important debate on the international rules-based system is both timely and necessary. I put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for tabling it and for outlining some of the key challenges that the world faces. As she noted, this system emerged in the aftermath of the human destruction witnessed during the Second World War. It is underpinned by institutions such as the United Nations and the IMF.
Since then, over several decades, we have seen the emergence of other organisations, legal structures and related institutions, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, which seek to hold perpetrators of crimes to account and bring justice for victims and survivors. Other organisations have been established to further economic empowerment, such as the World Trade Organization, which evolved into more focused groupings such as the G7 and G20. Treaties emerged as the nuclear age evolved, and we saw agreements such as the non-proliferation treaty to avert further global wars, which would be devastating if they ever happened. In a post-colonial era, we saw new dynamics emerging, with the ending of the imperial age of dominance and its replacement with what we have termed “partnerships”, underpinned by organisations set in renewal, such as the Commonwealth.
Yet, as 2025 begins, geopolitical tensions dominate. Wars rage in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Structural inadequacies and evolving dynamics mean that we are truly living through uncertain and challenging times.
As noble Lords are fully aware, for seven years it was my huge honour to represent our country around the world, including as the Minister of State charged with leading on our relationships with multilateral organisations, including the United Nations and the Commonwealth. I truly saw our capabilities and networks at work. I experienced high points: the strength of UK equities through diplomacy; the massive repatriation of more than 20,000 Brits during the Covid pandemic; development support in conflict zones; defence and security partnerships; the focus on new trading agreements; and success in international elections through investment in our relations with other nations.
I also witnessed the most tragic and testing of circumstances, such as the ill-judged and rushed NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, which saw the Taliban ascend to power. I worked around the clock with Members of your Lordships’ House and of the other place simply to get people out. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will remember that time well. Then, there was Russia’s illegal war on Ukraine and, more recently, the shocking terror events in Israel on 7 October and the devastating war in Gaza. Humanity is suffering.
We have seen the erosion of multilateralism. I experienced the UN at first hand. We passed resolution upon resolution to try to avert conflict and, where conflict began, to stop it. Yet, tragically, we have seen these collective arrangements fail to bring about that valuable commodity that we hold so dear—peace. Major powers have opted for unilateral or bilateral approaches, undermining the very system that they claim to support. We have seen withdrawals from agreements, such as the Paris climate change agreement; the rise of regionalism; and organisations emerge based on common economies, such as ASEAN, the African Union and, indeed, the EU. In the modern age, new powers have emerged, such as India and, within the Middle East, the UAE, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These have emerged not just as economic powers but as brokers for peace.
US-China competition continues, with disputes about trade, technology and military influence. Of course, Russia’s annexation of Crimea was an early warning sign, unheeded not by the UK but by many others. We now see this manifesting itself in Ukraine.
We have seen issues concerning climate change, cyberwars and digital governance, and global health crises—although under the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, we led on multilateral action through the COVAX Facility, established by the World Health Organization.
We have also seen the challenges of extremism and terrorism by non-state actors such as Daesh and al-Qaeda. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, just referred to them. In Syria, sadly and tragically, despite its efforts, it was not the UN that delivered change and got rid of Bashar Assad, but HTS—a proscribed terror group.
Multinational corporations—companies such as X, Google, Amazon and Facebook—wield growing significance, often bypassing national regulations. They are a growing influence over the next generation.
The lack of reform of institutions remains a challenge for us all. The UN Security Council and the IMF face criticism for the geopolitical realities that now exist in the world. We see economic inequalities, global trade imbalances, and the rise of nationalism and populism, with the rejection of global norms and populist leaders in various countries rejecting the very international standards and treaties they are signed up to.
There are challenges to human rights, which I have always said was the most challenging but, equally, the most rewarding of the wide-ranging briefs I held in the Foreign Office. Even institutions such as the Human Rights Council are not being used for what they were set up to do; instead, they deliver blocks and see power-broking that ensures national issues and priorities emerge. Of course, military conflicts and security issues continue.
How do we move forward? Addressing these challenges requires a renewed commitment to multilateralism while recognising the desperate need for reform. It must happen through the recruitment to these institutions of talent that reflects experience and the strength of personal relationships. With this must come the willingness of all nations to balance the importance of national sovereignty with collective action.
Human rights and justice initiatives can be established. I pay great tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Hague, on the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, which I was pleased to take forward, marshal and lead for seven years. We held the conference in 2022. Today, Ukraine takes over the chair and First Lady Zelenska will chair a debate. Can the Minister update us on who is attending from the UK?
We led with the previous Trump Administration on establishing the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. I hope that will go from strength to strength during the second Trump presidency. On women’s rights, we led on important issues such as WPS and women mediators’ networks. I would welcome an update on Women Mediators across the Commonwealth, which the last Government established. There is also the question of addressing terrorism and extremism. We need international collaboration to combat terrorism and ensure the security of nations.
The UK’s commitment to upholding the international rules-based system, even amid rising challenges, by prioritising what we are best at—diplomacy, standing up for justice and inclusive development—must remain at the heart of our foreign policy approach. It is for us and the Government to keep this flame alive.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her comprehensive introduction to this important debate. I think many of us will be emphasising the many points that she made.
That there is a threat to the system of political, legal and economic rules which have governed international relations since the end of World War II is in no doubt. A new feudal order is emerging. The question becomes: should this, if not be accepted, at least remain unchallenged or should there be new international norms and treaties taking into account current realities such as environmental conditions, international commitments, and principles of national sovereignty and self-determination? If the latter, what might these new norms look like and who would draft them? Perhaps it is preferable to go for a middle way and focus on reforms to the existing order. The task is to salvage an international order that is now gravely weakened.
cthe last almost 80 years underpinned the principles of sovereignty, democracy and human rights. More recently, international rules have resulted in trade liberalisation through economic governance, the advent of a number of new peacekeeping missions, the International Criminal Court, as we have heard, and the insistence on women’s and LGBT rights. But there remains suspicion and departure from these accepted norms because they are perceived as imposing a system invented by liberal democracies for the benefit of western diplomatic, military and economic agendas.
These growing views of western manipulation have given rise to a gradual but quickening departure from these rules. Egregious examples abound. They include the distaste for multilateralism, with Trump—I nearly said “chump”—insisting on the unimpeded exercise of American power in pursuit of defined national interests; China’s preference for bilateral diplomatic transactions, together with a newfound assertiveness in the UN, as well as its unbending approach where its interests are threatened, an example of which is its refusal to abide by the court of arbitration decision concerning disputes with the Philippines over the South China Sea; and, of course, Russia’s subversion of international rules.
We have the continuing fragmentation of the system brought about by new centres of world power, increasing populist and nationalist pressures, new and empowered centres of political dissent, international crime and terror networks, and the rise of non-state actors, among other 21st-century developments. This democratic backsliding and the accompanying rise in authoritarianism threatens international peace and stability by undermining the democratic political process—for example, by using technology supply chains as a means of repression.
Last September, the United Nations adopted a resolution, a “pact for the future”, which called for a recommitment to international co-operation based on respect for international law and the strengthening of multilateral institutions. The actions pledged included sustainable development, peace and security, digital co-operation, and a focus on youth and future generations. Subsequent suggestions concerned amplifying these actions—for example, strengthening the International Criminal Court, establishing global conduct for outer space, further embracing soft power, trade policies that better protect human rights, and a recalibration of the “responsibility to protect” principle. At the same time, it was acknowledged that this was no easy task, assuming, as these actions do, a common standardised definition that would enjoy legitimacy, reward investment in co-operation, reconcile clashing interests and deter conflict.
Another major theme was the necessity of engaging with a far wider range of constituencies, from citizens and civil society to the private sector and even local political actors. Above all, there has been a consensus among reformers that preventive mechanisms are key. The UN enjoins states to facilitate more sustainable and robust frameworks for prevention, again working with local knowledge and skills, especially with NGOs.
This is a task that has scale and complexity. The responsibility to protect is a failing norm, codified by all UN member states in 2005 but too often seen by some states as intervention by the backdoor. The three main pillars of R2P are: the primary responsibility of the state to guarantee the safety and security of citizens; the responsibility of the international community to support states to implement this norm; and the responsibility of the international community to ensure protection of civilians where the state has failed to do so and when the state targets its own citizens.
It is not unfair to question the relevance of this principle in the face of ever-growing challenges. What strategies might work? Should R2P be recalibrated, defining more closely the second pillar to reflect the increasingly multifaceted nature of governance? Should the UN promote capacity building as its main plank, developing joint response mechanisms with regional organisations in collaboration with civil society organisations? Surely broadening the base of actors to provide evidence would help to embed R2P. It is encouraging to note that ASEAN is beginning to develop and integrate the R2P curriculum into its training courses for police and justice agencies. We cannot allow this crucial principle to die. Everyone with an interest in peace and security should be working to make it more agile, widespread and effective.
Finally, recent UK Foreign Secretaries have given support to a modernised rules-based international order that benefits everyone and holds to account those who infringe it. It has been pointed out that defending the rules-based order will require multi-pronged strategies. I hope that the UK Government will be closely involved in helping to achieve this.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on getting this subject before your Lordships yet again. As she said at the end of her speech, absolutely correctly, this is just a small matter of the future of the world, and it is certainly the future of liberal democracy and capitalism, or the socialised versions of capitalism that we need to be working to develop and preserve. This is not the first time we have looked at this subject; we have returned to it many times in your Lordships’ House over the years, and rightly so. There are two reports in particular that I think are worth scrolling back to as we try to breathe some momentum into the whole subject.
The first was the December 2017 report from the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order. Going back further, the second was the March 2014 ad hoc Select Committee report, Persuasion and Power in the Modern World. I had the honour and privilege of chairing both committees and I think both reports had some influence in encouraging the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it was then called, to start taking the whole issue of the soft and smart power dimensions of our world interests and influence much more seriously, and, I hope, led up to and connected with yesterday’s soft power initiative taken by the present Government at Lancaster House. I am glad that the idea is alive, but it needs to be connected with the other great issues we are discussing today.
The more recent report went much deeper still into what was happening in the world, which is widely disputed, and why. That “why” is the most important aspect of all because, unless we really understand the real and root causes of this now very troubled world, where we have the highest and most dangerous number of conflicts since the Second World War and where trust is undermining democracy on all sides, will never be effective in our focused efforts to halt the downward spiral of democracy going on at the present time. It is a sad contrast to our high hopes at the end of the Soviet Union.
Not all that many experts and commentators seem to quite grasp what is happening. Of the ones who certainly have—there are some very authoritative and excellent voices—several gave evidence to our 2018 enquiry. The best one of all was a very senior and good public servant of the nation, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, former National Security Adviser and our man at the United Nations, who held all sorts of other high offices as well. Certainly, speaking personally, he always gave me superb support when I visited the United Nations in New York as a Minister.
He is rightly quoted in the Library briefing that has been supplied on this debate—although unfortunately the briefing gets his name wrong. It is not just “Lyall”, it is Sir Mark Lyall Grant. He said:
“The most visible features”
of the world we are now living in
“are new centres of world power and influence”.
A vast shift has taken place in world power. He added that there was increasing populism, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and others, and
“nationalist pressures, far-reaching networks of crime and terror, new and empowered networks of political dissent and assertions of identity”
of tribes, cells, groups, communities, localities and mini-nations,
“the rise of non-state actors and movements, the disruption, and in some cases”
total
“destruction of established industries, the distortion and corruption of news and views on a worldwide scale”,
which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly emphasised and which is of course growing by the hour, particularly with AI, which can bring great good to our lives but can also do great damage, and is doing so already,
“and mass movements of migrants and refugees”,
which we do not really know what to do about. Sir Mark went on in our report that it was very clear
“that the influence of the ongoing digital revolution and the accompanying global connectivity on an unprecedented scale”
affects
“every sphere of modern existence”
and
“plays a central role in this turbulent scene”
that we now face.
I think Sir Mark has really got it. He really shows how deep we must go in seeking to contain the onward march of technology, which is disrupting human relations on a global scale and threatening not only international stability but the safety and security of every family, man, woman, and child, and every nation’s integrity and unity, including ours.
I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, again, because he has been such a good Commonwealth Minister over the years. He asked where we should start to rebuild. Obviously, right now we would like to solve the horrors of Gaza and Ukraine. We may even get some good news tonight on Gaza—although I fear it will only be temporary, whatever comes. They are the worst running sores.
They are not necessarily the deepest sores, because the real problems may lie in the Pacific and around China, but all this has yet to unfold. We certainly have to build on new collective international organisations. There are those who say, “Start again”, but I do not think you can do that; you have to build on the United Nations. We must take the Security Council issue really seriously day by day. The trouble is, of course, that it has been wrecked by Russia and China sitting in the middle of it like cuckoos in the nest. We have to move, we have to go for new alliances, we have to think of our neighbours in Europe. If the European Union is not going to move in the directions we want, we have to think about new European structures, perhaps through the European Political Community. Now that the spine of the old EU has broken, with France and Germany no longer co-operating, clearly, new structures are required and we should take a lead there.
Finally, we have to re-energise the Commonwealth, again as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, remarked. It is a safe harbour for the neo non-aligned nations of the world which do not want to be under either American or Chinese hegemony. Oddly enough, mention of the Commonwealth still seems to be very difficult for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office today to come to terms with. It is in fact the network of the future that is going to help more than possibly any other.
I divide the world between those who have grasped the enormity of what is now happening—the biggest shift since the Gutenberg printing press, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution—and those who have not grasped it and remain glued like errant insects to the surface of events. Events now will not wait for interminable reviews, commissions and councils. Whether in politics, business and investment or social development, events, technology and innovation will pass them all by, and are already doing so.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Cryer) (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting. I just point out that, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, every speaker so far has gone well over the seven-minute limit. If we carry on like this, it will eat into the wind-up speeches, so could we observe the seven-minute limit, please?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Northover not just on securing this debate but on the width and vision expressed in her remarks.
The news from the Middle East gives some relief to Israel and respite to Gaza, but, after conflict, there must be accountability if a rules-based international order is to survive. As a boy, I saw the scenes from Belsen and I felt relief when the war ended. Vital to the durability of peace was Nuremberg, the tribunal which brought the leaders responsible for the world war and the Holocaust to account.
The Draft Code of Offences against Peace and the Security of Mankind was drawn up under the auspices of the United Nations. Decades later, that code was applied in separate international tribunals for Rwanda, for the former Yugoslavia and for Sierra Leone. American judges, among others, shaped the jurisprudence of international criminal law. American lawyers served as senior prosecutors and defence counsel.
In 1998, it was a delegation from the United States which played a key role in negotiating the Rome statute and its rules, establishing the International Criminal Court. Some 122 countries, including the United Kingdom, voted for the Rome treaty and seven, including the United States, China and Israel, voted against. In 2000, President Clinton, despite that contrary vote, signed the Rome treaty for the United States and said that
“we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice in the years to come”.
He did not, however, submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Jesse Helms, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proclaimed it “dead in the water”, and George W Bush, on coming into office, agreed.
Last November, warrants were issued by the ICC for the arrest of the Israeli Prime Minister and his former Defence Minister, together with three now-deceased leaders of Hamas. There must be other Hamas leaders in the frame for their unprovoked slaughter in October 2023. Hamas puts the figure of deaths in Gaza at over 46,000 in 14 months; the Lancet last week reported 64,260 deaths in nine months. To put those figures in perspective, the number of US military killed in the Korean War over a period of three years was 36,516. The impressive Vietnam War memorial in Washington carries 58,320 names from eight years of US involvement in that conflict. We can see how that compares with the deaths in Gaza.
Can Hamas truly justify its savage attacks? Were the retaliatory deaths inflicted by Israel in Gaza proportionate self-defence? Who will decide? I know from experience, and respect, the Israeli system of military justice. I have no reason to conclude that Israel’s Military Advocate General is either unwilling or unable to conduct the necessary investigations and criminal proceedings, if warranted, into battlefield crimes by IDF forces. But Mr Netanyahu, as Prime Minister, is not subject to the military system of justice in Israel.
In his opening in the Nuremberg trials in 1947, the American Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, the lead prosecutor, said in a blazing speech:
“The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched.”
The International Criminal Court has the benefit of the procedures and safeguards set out in its charter, with the support of a vast majority of the world’s nations. It is a fair and impartial court, not under-resourced for its output. It is an important part of the architecture of the world order.
However, a Bill passed in the United States House of Representatives just last week instructs the US President to freeze property assets and deny visas to any foreigners who materially or financially contribute to the ICC’s efforts to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute a protected person. Protected persons are defined as all current and former military and government officials of the United States—and allies that have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction, such as Israel. Brian Mast, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said:
“America is passing this law because a kangaroo court is seeking to arrest the prime minister of our great ally.”
He accused the ICC of anti-Semitism in prosecuting Israeli leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity, in an equivalence with leaders of Hamas. He further said:
“Do not get in the way of America or our allies trying to bring our people home. You will be given no quarter, and again, you will certainly not be welcome on American soil.”
Similarly, Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota and the Majority Leader, referred on the Floor of the Senate to, “the ICC’s rogue actions.”
To categorise the ICC as a kangaroo court and its proceedings as “rogue actions” undermines the rule of law. It casts doubt upon the validity of Nuremberg, the very mechanism that brought justice, if not peace, to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and a durable and lasting settlement in Europe. Will the Minister explicitly tell us what the reaction of His Majesty’s Government is to this pernicious Bill in the House of Representatives and what representations they will make to the US Government about it?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Today’s debate, introduced so eloquently and powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is certainly timely and is perhaps overdue. One would need to be blind not to recognise that, in recent years, the rules-based international order has taken some heavy hits and has failed to make much serious progress towards the goals subscribed to by all members of the United Nations—whether they are reversing and mitigating climate change, increasing freer and fairer trade, reducing world poverty, combating global pandemics or many of the other pressing challenges.
In Ukraine and the Middle East we see wars raging—perhaps to be paused this Sunday in Gaza, I hope—that defy the rules of the UN charter itself and of international humanitarian law. The prospects for regress rather than progress in the period immediately ahead are all too evident. The hard fact is that this order, so laboriously constructed in the decades following the Second World War, is being deconstructed before our eyes.
We need to recognise that the proclaimed champions of this order, among whom successive British Governments have ranked themselves, bear some of the responsibility for that lamentable state of affairs. The sharp decline in our overseas aid spending from the still existent legal commitment to 0.7% of gross national income, which is now fast disappearing in the rearview mirror; our weak performance on trade issues since we unwisely decided to leave the EU; our failure to head off serious outbreaks of war in Europe, the Middle East and Africa—all have contributed to the failure to meet these challenges, which are to our own future security and stability every bit as much as they are to others’. Too often, warm words subscribed to at global gatherings have not been followed up by effective action.
Moreover, we have failed to recognise that the watchword we call a rules-based international order, and the detailed application of its component parts, have not been meaningfully communicated to our electorates. In many western countries, people are turning inwards and backing policies that are likely to make matters worse if the consequences of trade protectionism and the appeasement of the enemies of global order during the 1930s are anything to go by.
Some of this continued deterioration is likely to come upon us pretty fast, perhaps as early as the end of this month when a new Trump presidency begins in the US. It does not require much clairvoyance to predict that the US will again withdraw from its commitment to the Paris climate change accords. What will our response be? Will we simply wring our hands or collaborate with others to ensure that the next COP meeting, in Belém in Brazil, will keep alive and act more effectively towards the build-up of renewable energy resources and the reduction of carbon emissions from fossil fuels?
On world trade, how will we react if new tariffs are imposed unilaterally and trade wars break out? Will we be drawn into tit-for-tat retaliation, the damaging consequences of which, not only economically but in security policy terms, were clear for all to see in the 1930s and 1940s? Or will we work collectively with like-minded countries to sustain open, tariff-free trade and the equitable resolution of trade disputes—in particular to ensure that those benefits reach developing countries?
We must also face the grim reality that there will be other global health pandemics. Negotiations for a new WHO-based pandemic convention stalled last May and are continuing into 2025. Will we work wholeheartedly for intensified systems that will ensure earlier warnings of outbreaks? Will we back arrangements for the equitable distribution of vaccines as they are developed without leaving poorer countries behind? Will we do that whether or not the universal acceptance of those new rules can be achieved?
These are just three fields where urgent action is already needed and is likely to be required in the immediate future. The Prime Minister is clearly right to say that they are not susceptible to clear-cut binary choices, but hard and, in some cases, costly choices will have to be made if our backing for a rules-based international order is to be more than mere empty words; if that order is to be protected from falling into decay and disintegration and is to be developed and strengthened for the future; and if we are not to find ourselves in a world where our own security is to be diminished and put at risk.
I have painted a rather bleak picture. That is not to deny or belittle the good news of the Gaza ceasefire, but it is to relativise it. I hope the Minister, in replying, will find it in herself to offer us some reassurance on how the Government will point the way ahead.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on sticking to the seven-minute speaking limit; he is the first person to have done so. This is a very broad, wide-ranging and complex subject and I will concentrate on its economic, international trade and financial aspects—or some of them, at any rate—and try to answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Howell as to why.
As with the other aspects of the international rules-based order, the principles and institutional structures were set up by the United States, with some assistance from us, in the immediate post-war years. Therein lies one of the problems: the world has changed out of all recognition since then, and this has led to efforts by China and others to adjust the system to reflect more closely their rise in the world. That, in turn, has led to practices that challenge the systems and bring them under stress. But the real nub of the problem is the fact that the international order no longer reflects very closely the international realities, and until that is put right, we will continue to have major problems, with people breaking the rules and seeking to undermine them.
The main challenge, as has already been made clear by a number of speakers, now comes from the United States. That is not just because of the rise of Trump; it is the culmination of a number of factors. For most of its existence, the rules-based international economic order worked not just in the overall interests of the United States but, broadly speaking, to the benefit of most sections of its society. The great majority of people shared in the fruits of an expanding economy, enhanced wealth and widening opportunities. Of course, that was also true of other industrialised countries and countries that were not industrialised at the beginning but found ways of taking advantage of the opportunities that were open to them.
But in recent years, the system has increasingly worked in another direction. Those with the right education and skills, in the right part of the country, have continued to do very well—indeed, in some cases, exceptionally so—but as new industries have arisen and prospered, others have gone into decline, often terminally. Those who were dependent on these industries, such as steel, motor manufacturing and textiles, have seen their livelihoods disappear and with it their status in society. Wealth inequalities have widened enormously and social tensions have increased. These factors have fuelled the rise of the MAGA movement in the United States and the rise of Donald Trump as its spokesman. He reflects the frustrations, disappointments and anxieties of a very large segment of American society.
In addition, we have had two further problems: one, of course, is the resentment caused by immigration, and the other is the resentment caused by the strong sense in many parts of the United States that a number of their closest allies, who benefited considerably from trading with America, have freeloaded in defence. I am afraid that we, like other Europeans, stand guilty under that head.
Trump has been elected in large part to put all this right, from the point of view of his supporters. We do not know what exactly he will do, nor how he will prioritise among the incompatibilities of a number of his objectives, but we do know that we have arrived at a point where the leader of the country that was the principal founder of the international rules-based order is going to approach this problem on the basis of transactional, unilateral negotiations without regard to the rule books or to the views of multilateral institutions that might shackle or inhibit American power. This is a novel and very worrying situation, and one where the Government will need great wisdom and support if they are to carry the British ship of state through these turbulent waters.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome very much the debate introduced by my noble friend—which is absolutely necessary at this time—the way she has introduced it and the shape it has taken.
It is perhaps inevitable that any rules-based international system of order is going to be determined by the relative political, economic and military strengths of the parties. Nevertheless, these rules were constructed with a motivation to reduce conflict and increase the space for better living conditions. What has threatened that order in the last 20 years has been a series of crises that have undermined increasing prosperity and threatened living standards. We had the financial crash, the growth of mega-multinational corporations largely outside the control of Governments, a global pandemic, accelerating climate change and an outbreak of conflicts. Big-player states have turned in on themselves and become protectionist, suspicious and expansionist: the actions of Putin’s Russia and the rhetoric of Trump smack of craving for Lebensraum.
Sadly, I have to say that the UK has not only been prey to these developments but, to some extent, in the vanguard. When a once-major political party threatens to take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights and hypocritically promotes large-scale immigration while then demonising immigrants as a prime cause of social breakdown, it is clear that human rights and common humanity are at risk. The driver of Brexit, which has been mentioned, was a diversion to blame failure at home on outside factors but also to attack international agreements as hostile to our national interests. It is questionable whether the narrow victory for Brexit would have been achieved if the Ukraine war and Russia’s aggression had been foreseen. As a result, the outcome of Brexit is a weaker UK and a weaker EU—a divided Europe in the face of dire threats. I very much welcomed my right honourable friend Ed Davey’s speech this week on how we rebuild our relations with Europe.
The incoming US Administration threaten intervention in Greenland, Panama and Canada, even as they are handed a ceasefire in the Middle East. Vladimir Putin has a twisted vision of history that makes Ukraine the cradle of Russia and the demise of the Soviet Union a disaster that needs to be reversed. Aggression and conflict, usually promoted by male bullies, do nothing to enhance the welfare or security of citizens who crave peace and security.
On Tuesday this week, I raised my concern about diminished UK engagement in Africa. On the one hand, the continent has huge potential, but corruption and rapid population growth hold it back. Yet Russia and China are moving in to secure economic resource and political advantage, while we stand back and let them do it with their total disregard for transparency and support for anti-democratic forces. The UK’s behaviour in recent years has undermined our integrity and trustworthiness, which surely we need to rebuild. Many countries in Africa will inevitably accept involvement from Russia and China, but many would also welcome much more engagement from us. In my years as chair of the International Development Committee, and since, I have found a surprising reservoir of good will towards the United Kingdom, which we seriously undervalue.
When Boris Johnson called overseas development
“a giant cash machine in the sky”,
he showed not only total ignorance of the transformational impact of our development programmes but a lack of respect for the partners with whom we were working. When he followed this up with a chaotic merger of two departments and a sudden drastic slashing of the budget, he left development partners shocked and disillusioned. When he threatened to tear up agreements with the EU post Brexit, he exposed the UK, once a proud upholder of the rule of law and what we were pleased to describe as an international rules-based system, as, in effect, tantamount to pirates. People’s hopes were dashed, lives were lost and a process of building resilience and capacity to sustained poverty reduction and a path to prosperity was summarily terminated.
If we expect countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia to have a favourable attitude to the UK and our role in the world, we will require to invest in rebuilding trust and integrity. If the international rules fall away and the world breaks into like-minded authoritarian blocs, we should not be surprised if many choose to throw their lot in with the BRICS, given how little leadership we have offered them in alternative. We need to act urgently in rebuilding relationships with partners who would welcome the right approach, whether it be the EU, the Commonwealth or the global South, but there is not much time.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for her masterful introduction to this debate. I intend to drill down into one of the threats she noted—the one we all face from unregulated technologies and the unchecked influence of technology billionaires. Those threats are eroding the very foundations of accountability, equity and co-operation that sustain our global system.
Elon Musk’s current global dominance exemplifies the dangers of concentrated power in unregulated domains. His Starlink satellite network has become indispensable for global communications, particularly in remote regions and conflict zones. Yet its control rests solely with Musk, allowing his whims to dictate access to vital infrastructure. This monopoly undermines state sovereignty and creates a “tragedy of the commons” where a shared resource is privatised for profit.
X has become a global epicentre for misinformation. Under Elon’s leadership, the platform has abandoned traditional content moderation, dismantled trust and safety teams and replaced verification with paid subscriptions. This has allowed bad actors to amplify lies about politicians, elections, public health and climate change. Musk himself, with 200 million followers, has promoted misleading narratives that have been viewed billions of times. His controversial comments on Taiwan and international affairs highlight the risk of unelected individuals wielding disproportionate influence over our international discourse.
X’s reliance on a crowd-sourced “Community Notes” system to fact check content has proven ineffective. Studies show that this approach fails to curb engagement with misinformation, instead creating a chaotic information landscape where truth is obscured. Musk has a deep aversion to transparency, such as restricting data access for researchers. This further compounds the problem, making it nearly impossible to assess the scale of harm caused by his platform.
Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta is following a similar path. In a recent announcement, Meta revealed it would replace its third-party fact-checking program with a community-driven system akin to X’s. Zuckerberg’s disingenuous justification was that this is a return to “free expression”, but clearly it is a political move aligned with the incoming Trump. By removing fact-checkers and reducing content visibility, Meta is becoming another breeding ground for disinformation. The decision to rely on community moderation not only weakens safeguards against falsehoods but also places the burden of truth-telling on users who may lack expertise or accountability.
Unregulated artificial intelligence compounds these issues. AI systems are already linked to biased decision-making, privacy violations and job displacement. Worse still, authoritarian regimes exploit AI for mass surveillance and censorship, while democratic nations struggle to regulate its misuse. The lack of global AI governance leaves a vacuum where corporations prioritise profit over public safety, fostering inequality and undermining human rights.
We are ill-equipped to address these challenges. By enabling private actors to dominate critical sectors such as digital communications and AI development, we have ceded control over public goods to corporate interests. This shift not only weakens state authority but also exacerbates global inequality and political instability. Mr Musk’s accumulation of power is one of the most stark outcomes of this failure:
In my opinion, it is not sufficient to say that our UK-focused Online Safety Act will mean we are protected. The information ecosystem is global, and the inter-relationship between traditional media and social media is complex. Noise and nonsensical opinions travel fast.
So, what now? Ofcom must accelerate its enforcement of the Online Safety Act road map to ensure platforms comply with their duties as soon as possible. This includes holding companies accountable for illegal content and misinformation through fines or criminal penalties. The Act, however, as this House well knows, has limited powers over disinformation. We need to consider how to address legal but harmful content, such as election disinformation and health-related falsehoods that destabilise society. We should consider including a mandate for transparency in algorithms and a requirement that platforms such as X and Meta publish regular audits on content moderation. In addition, platforms should be legally required to share data with independent researchers to enable real-time monitoring of misinformation trends. This can empower us to identify high-risk narratives.
Secondly, we must bring together the many skills initiatives to ensure our local and our global institutions are equipped with the digital understanding to think through current and future challenges. To counter both foreign interference and domestic vulnerabilities, we need a workforce equipped with cutting-edge technical expertise. Expanding initiatives such as the UK Institute for Technical Skills and Strategy will help us build capacity in cybersecurity, AI governance and digital resilience. But it is not enough. We must also ensure collaboration between universities, employers and training providers. The UK Government, where they are able, must keep up pressure on our multinational partners to also invest in talent.
I want to end with a personal anecdote. In 2022, I was on the board of directors of Twitter and deeply involved in the sale to Elon Musk. As chair of the nomination and governance committee and the compensation committee, we had multiple interactions. In one conversation I had with him, he told me—and I quote directly—that he had “solved the climate crisis by inventing electric vehicles, solved interplanetary travel by inventing SpaceX” and was now going to “save democracy by joining the board of Twitter”. At the time, I was bowled over by the arrogance of his words and thought he was wildly overestimating both his own power and that of the platform. How naive I was. Fast forward to today and we have a man who, through an investment of $250 million in a presidential campaign, has increased his own wealth by $200 billion and has become a figure who dominates global headlines on a near daily basis. He exerts massive cultural and geopolitical influence. It is easy to see him as a cartoon-like supervillain. We do so at our own peril.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for introducing this debate and for doing so brilliantly. It is so important that we recognise why the world embarked on a moral course after the Second World War. It was designed to prevent war. It was designed to prevent the escalation of conflicts into war, to prevent the commission of atrocity crimes and acts of gross inhumanity, and to create a better world. It was out of that sense of altruism that we saw the creation of institutions which have lasted until now.
Even though we have a changed world, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, has described, those institutions matter. The creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was based on a set of shared values of that time, and the International Bar Association—I declare an interest as director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute—was set up at the same time to bring together lawyers from around the world and all the bar associations of the world to ensure that the law was respected, and that law was part and parcel of that new order.
We followed up with the renewal of the Geneva conventions, seeing that they were not delivering just and fair war. The bombing of Dresden is an example: the new Geneva conventions made after the war said that total bombardments such as that of Dresden amounted to collective punishment of civilian populations and should not happen, and that there had to be rules for the conduct of war. Then there were the subsequent conventions to prevent genocide, to protect refugees and to eliminate discrimination against women—we know so many of them. The idea was that “never again” did not apply to just one community; it applied to all of humanity. We should never again stand by while human beings were subjected to terrible crimes.
For over 70 years, the memory of that war seared the minds of my parents’ generation until they died, and indeed of my generation because we were the children of that. We knew the stories of our parents fighting in the war and enduring the bombings of their homes. My mother lost her home and was left with small children while my father was in the Army abroad. Those experiences created empathy for those who suffered around the world, and that was why having a rules-based order mattered so much.
The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, tells us that the world has changed, and that is true. We have seen a difference in the position of Russia evolving into a criminal mafia-run state. China is authoritarian still but wants to be a market player. Both of those are on the Security Council and blocking many of the things that that one would want to see being done. So it is true that there needs to be change in some of those institutions, but what does not need to change is the commitment to justice and peace.
There has to be accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas said, if there is to be justice. That means there has to be law. There have to be courts and prosecutions. In the same way that domestically we need to have courts in order to resolve disputes and deal with crime that affects our communities, there have to be international courts to deal with the ways in which states behave towards each other, regulating relationships internally and domestically as well as externally and internationally.
All this has been documented in other speeches, but we somehow did not expect democracies to be dismissive of the rules. However, we are now seeing democracies being created where there are populist nationalist Governments or isolationist Governments who are interested only in their own sovereignty. After the war, there was a recognition that a certain amount of pooling of sovereignty was essential if we wanted to make a better world and we needed to have international law; law has to apply. However, the institutions that maintain democracy are under attack because we have new kinds of Governments, and I am afraid that many of them do not believe in the importance of law. We have seen in Hungary the capture of the judiciary, for example; while in the United States we are seeing something similar, where the judiciary is supposed to deliver what the President or Government of the day want. The independence of the judiciary has been abandoned.
There are attacks on the media, or appropriation of the media so that it is owned by friends of the Government, which means that corruption and crimes by the state are not exposed. Then there is the whole business of the dismissal of civil servants who are fulfilling their independent status. We are denuding democracies of the checks and balances that are essential to just societies.
I reiterate what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, about the importance of multilateralism and partnerships in our world. That is the only way in which we can have a world that will create peace and justice. However, I would say that it is the economic model of neoliberalism that has allowed money, not our common humanity, to become the supreme value.
Markets, as we know, know no morality; they are amoral. It is we who have to inject morality into markets, but then we hear from someone such as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, about market fundamentalism being the name of the game today. What that has done is create huge gaps between the rich and the poor. It has created a whole cadre of billionaires in our world, so rich that they can buy government—or whatever they want—and now running the technologies which are corrupting our democracies.
The whole business of that combination of neoliberal economics—low-tax economies, getting rid of welfare, every man for himself—is about deregulation. That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, was talking about: deregulation is the name of the new order being created and we have to resist it. That is why it is so important that our Government are standing by the rule of law and the role of international courts.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for introducing this vital debate and congratulate her on her speech. As other noble Lords have noted, the international rules-based system is under unprecedented stress. It faces not only the test of time and a world vastly different from the one it was designed for but the shortcomings of our collective response to global challenges, from climate change and mass migration to artificial intelligence and advanced weapons systems. Revisionist autocratic powers seek to disrupt and displace the system, while regional powers pursue nuclear and missile programmes and terrorism. Populist movements and illiberal democracies challenge global economic integration.
The founders of the international order could also not have envisaged the way in which the large tech companies operate as quasi-states, often prioritising profits over democracy. Unregulated algorithms amplify harmful content, fuelling disinformation and even ethnic violence, as tragically witnessed in the genocide against the Rohingya. With more active conflicts occurring now than at any time since the Second World War, global cohesion, stability and security have entered a dangerous phase.
As we approach the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz this month, we should remember those who perished, reflect on our values and never stop learning from that tragedy: never allow its lessons to be algorithmed away, diminished or deliberately reinterpreted by those who seek to distort history. The international institutions, treaties, and laws we rely on today were born from the two world wars and the particular tragedy of the Holocaust. Britain played a proud and pivotal role in establishing these foundations. As prosecutor Ben Ferencz said after the Nuremberg trials:
“I learned that if we did not devote ourselves to developing effective world law, the same cruel mentality that made the Holocaust possible might one day destroy the entire human race”.
Today, these institutions need more than our respect or fond memories. They require us to recommit to their principles and work to strengthen and reform them. It is widely accepted that Russia and China pose primary challenges to the international order. Both seek to reshape it: Russia through force and subversion, China through subtler means. One crucial way to counter this is by defending—and adhering to—the international rules and norms that we helped to establish, remembering that international law is not discretionary: something to be ignored when it is inconvenient and adhered to only when convenient.
After Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, our collective response showed international co-operation to uphold international law at its most effective, with Ukrainian courage bolstered by decisive multilateral action. On the other hand, our darkest moments—the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica, the invasion of Iraq, the impunity for atrocities in Syria and, most recently, the mounting catastrophes in Sudan and Gaza—occurred when we disregarded our collective responsibility to uphold international norms.
While we all welcome the ceasefire in Gaza and hope that it holds, and deplore Hamas’s terrorist attacks, we must acknowledge that the Israeli Government, with the support of the United States, the United Kingdom and other friends and allies, has ignored numerous orders from both the ICJ and the International Criminal Court to comply with humanitarian law. In the words of Omer Bartov, the Israeli-American genocide scholar, these acts have destroyed
“the entire edifice of international law that was put into place after WWII”.
Whatever one might make of the merits of this assertion, the fact that it had to be made at all is tragic.
Britain too has fallen short on occasions. Between 2015 and 2023, we dropped from second to eighth place in the global humanitarian aid rankings, even as crises multiplied worldwide. While these cuts may have saved some money in the short term, they have cost us in international credibility and soft power. At the same time, our responses to human rights violations have shown some inconsistencies. In Ethiopia, we seem to have prioritised trade over justice. In the DRC, where M23 rebels rape and pillage with Rwandan support, we defer to President Kagame. In Sudan, we would rather not talk about external enablers. In Gaza, while rightly supporting Israel in its response and defence after 7 October, we have failed in our duty to be a candid friend and to defend and uphold international humanitarian law.
Theodore Roosevelt once observed that the most unpleasant truth is a safer companion than a pleasant falsehood. If we believe that we are safer in a world without rules or that we can pay no price for selectively applying them, we gravely misunderstand our own interests. Our international engagement is not about idealism; it is about self-interest. During moments such as the Falklands War or after the Novichok attacks on British soil, most of our allies stood with us because they believed in shared principles. We must therefore reaffirm our commitment to international institutions, investing in diplomacy and deterrence while leveraging soft power through mechanisms such as the BBC World Service. Most importantly, we must restore moral principles at the heart of our foreign policy, not just through stirring rhetoric but through consistent actions that reflect those values.
Human nature remains constant. It is prone, as ever, to error, greed and conflict. This reality demands a response from international institutions and sustained efforts to address poverty, injustice and conflict. The rules-based order is not merely a diplomatic construct; it is humanity’s best hope for lasting peace.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Northover on securing this debate and on her excellent and wide-ranging introduction.
After the terrible attacks on 11 September 2001, which killed 2,977 people, President George W Bush said:
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.
The world was supposedly divided into good and evil. It is argued that, with 9/11, we saw the prelude to widespread conflict. Hundreds of thousands of civilians died, many were displaced, and we saw a refugee crisis as a result. It is argued that the global war on terror has served to blur the lines of war and human rights. We have seen this in the abandonment of Afghanistan.
The international humanitarian law principles of distinction and proportionality were a touchstone. We believed in and provided important protections for civilians, as well as medical and humanitarian staff. These are the bedrock principles on which the United Nations was founded, as has been mentioned. Proportionality prohibits attacks that would cause excessive civilian damage, for example.
On the current conflict in Gaza, we have heard recently with some relief that there is to be a ceasefire. We can only hope and pray that it will lead to a lasting peace and an end to the killing and destruction. We have witnessed graphically a 21st-century manifestation of the erosion of international law, in which few to none of the restraints set out by the post-World War II system have been respected. The United Nations and the ICC have been under attack.
The law of occupation, based on the Fourth Geneva Convention, is relevant here. Israel is recognised as an occupying force in the West Bank. It is also effectively occupying Gaza, its borders, airspace and coastal waters. Occupational law prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, collective punishment and other measures that harm the civilian population. The Israel-Palestine conflict is exposing the inherent contradictions in the West’s stance as guarantor of the international order. It is something that we all believed was a given. Since Hamas’s attack back in October 2023, in which 1,200 Israelis were killed and 240 taken hostage, Israel’s air and ground campaign has killed over 46,000 Palestinians. As my noble friend Lord Thomas outlined, that is being seen now as a gross understatement; far more people have been killed or are buried and missing under the rubble.
It is hugely depressing that millions of people in this country and around the world now believe that there is an inherent racism at the heart of British foreign policy in respect of Gaza. I do not say that lightly. People who are non-Europeans, from the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean—people who look like my family and with heritage such as mine—are deemed not worthy of similar protections. That is being said much more consistently, and I can say that it is felt very keenly. When Putin bombs hospitals and attacks civilians, there is rightly instant condemnation. Thousands of Palestinians have been blown up and killed, and almost all hospitals have been destroyed, with barely a murmur from the United Kingdom Government. Why is that? Why are Palestinians not deserving of the same protections given to the millions of Ukrainians who were able to flee, with hundreds of thousands being rightly welcomed with open arms here in the UK?
The majority of Governments and people in the region, and globally, do not support Israel’s actions. Opinion is increasingly citing the clear contradictions between policy in Ukraine and Palestine as double standards. Younger generations in particular are increasingly frustrated, expressing their strong opposition to and outrage at what they believe to be the collapse of the rules-based international law, especially when they see viral videos of death and destruction across the internet—including, sadly and depressingly, those of Israeli soldiers openly singing and dancing in Gaza, many wearing dead or displaced Palestinian women’s underwear. This is a reality.
This situation will almost certainly breed even more despair and animosity—and more radicalisation. If you have lost your entire family, your home, your school and your neighbourhood, you may feel that you have very little left to lose. Depriving Gazans of electricity, water, food and medical aid, as well as targeting residential areas, hospitals, mosques, churches, schools and refugee camps, is clearly incompatible with the Geneva conventions. These attacks are seen as nothing short of a war crime, and history must eventually hold those responsible to account. Our rules-based system is increasingly weakened.
Andrew Miller was the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs under the Biden Administration. He resigned last year and has since gone public in expressing his concerns about the role of the US in the war. He said:
“I’m unaware of any red lines being imposed beyond the normal language about complying with international law, international humanitarian law, the law of armed conflict”.
International institutions such as the UN appear increasingly weakened and in need of reform, as has been mentioned by others. This apparent double standard undermines the rules-based global order and plays into the hands of the extremists and authoritarian leaders, who we have heard so much about. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has just articulated that. They will exploit these inconsistencies.
Many believe that untold damage has been done to the standing of the United Kingdom. Many are now saying, with increasingly loud voices, globally, that they do not want to be lectured by western countries about international law and human rights. An honest and constructive approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vital. Why has this country, with its long history in the region, in effect absolved itself of any responsibility other than to support and facilitate these ongoing breaches of human rights?
Over many decades, the UK has led the way in effective diplomacy and soft power, underpinned by a strong sense of regional responsibility. The catastrophic war in Gaza is a test of our commitment to a rules-based international order. Now more than ever, we must rely on the moral compass of international law to guide our actions. To quote Martin Luther King:
“It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people”.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the rules-based international order exists to support two primary goals. The first, as indicated in the title of this debate, is to offer global cohesion, stability and security. The second, I believe, is to provide a foundation for the global economy to grow and prosper. I am speaking in this debate because I believe that economic growth ought to be explicitly part of this conversation.
The ability of the rules-based international order to drive global economic growth rests on globalisation. However, as we know, since the 2008 global financial crisis, economic growth has slowed and globalisation has stalled. According to Bloomberg, globalisation peaked in 2009. Since then, the world has continued to fracture, through the 2020 pandemic and the rise in geopolitical conflicts, both kinetic and ideological.
We see widening fissures in the five key pillars of globalisation. The first is trade in goods and services. According to the World Trade Organization, the volume of global trade slumped in 2023. Looking ahead, estimates suggest that the growth in worldwide trade volumes will flatline. This reflects both the slowdown in global economic growth and a more siloed world, as the world order is replaced with a proliferation of bilateral agreements and the reconstitution of regional trading blocs—think, for example, of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The threat of higher tariffs by the incoming US President, Donald Trump, will only accelerate this trend.
The second pillar is capital flows. Global investment is being hampered by growing protectionism and regulatory bans on the flow of capital. According to UNCTAD, global foreign direct investment fell by 2% to $1.3 trillion in 2023, partly because of rising geopolitical tensions. Investment restrictions, such as the US ban on investment in Chinese technology, have contributed to weak global FDI since 2021.
The third pillar, the free movement of people across borders, has been interrupted by national Governments looking to stem the flow of disorderly migration into their countries. The United Nations estimates that there are now over 120 million refugees and displaced people globally—the highest figure on record.
The fissure in the fourth pillar is the “splinternet”, which refers to the fierce competition between technology leaders, such as the United States and the West versus China. A more geopolitically and economically balkanised world with competing factions must surely make the world a less safe place. This is particularly worrisome at a time when innovation in AI and quantum computing are leaping ahead. Technological fissures heighten the risk of cyberwarfare in a way that can only destabilise the world order.
The fifth and final pillar, multilateralism and global co-operation, is being undermined on two fronts: via growing economic nationalism across developed countries, and through the rise of competition from new configurations of countries such as the BRICS, which is a group of 10 of the largest emerging countries, representing 45% of the world’s population and 35% of world GDP. These new groupings reroute and reprice global trade and commodities, and can often be dominated by nations which have stark ideological differences with the West. The worry here is that such differences make it more difficult to tackle or confront global pandemics, climate challenges or financial crises in a unified way.
Clearly, based on the reversal of globalisation’s important pillars, the rules-based international system is at breaking point. It should come as no surprise that with a hobbled rules-based system and deglobalisation comes slower and lower economic growth.
As an example, here in the United Kingdom, annual GDP growth averaged 3% in the era of globalisation between 1993 and 2007. Since globalisation peaked, between 2009 and 2023, average GDP in this country has halved to 1.5%. This deglobalising world slows human progress and impedes improvements in living standards. At this time of deglobalisation, the International Monetary Fund already predicts that the world’s leading economies will struggle to reach 3% per year—the minimum required to double per capita incomes in a generation, which is 25 years.
I know that it has become unfashionable to promote globalisation. However, the United Kingdom must remain steadfast as an advocate for global institutions and treaties that can defend and sustain the rules-based system. There are efforts to step up and reinvigorate multilateralism. In 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted the pact for the future, pledging a new beginning in multilateralism that focuses on peace and stability, sustainable development and digital co-operation. However, there was no mention of action on global economic growth. Yet, actively supporting a global economic growth agenda is a pre-requisite for global cohesion, stability and security.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for initiating the debate. Yesterday, I met her in the lift. She said, “I’d like to thank you for your contribution tomorrow”. I said, “Hang on; wait till you’ve heard it and then you can decide”.
I have spent most of my life in some part of foreign policy. I was in the European Parliament for 25 years. I spent five years in the Council of Europe and 15 doing odd jobs for the European Commission. As such, I have seen quite a lot of the world—some 90 countries in all, some of them more times than I would have liked.
I start by giving an example from the Council of Europe. One of the problems with the international order is that it sometimes gets beyond itself. For three years, I was the chair of the Council of Europe committee for the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, everybody says, “Oh, Russia never carried out any decisions”. That is wrong. The worst offender was Italy and the second worst was Turkey. The Russians were not too bad at carrying out decisions of the court that had no real political consequences. Beyond that, they were not very good at all.
I was on that committee when we debated the court’s decision to enforce prisoners’ votes in Britain, which David Cameron—now the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—said made him sick. I did quite a bit of work on this. One of the things I discovered was that most of the judges who had voted that Britain should give votes to prisoners came from countries that gave no rights to prisoners at all. Secondly, many of those judges did not understand the English prison system. In particular, they did not understand the difference between a remanded and a convicted prisoner. Thirdly, when it came down to it, they were open to negotiation. Thanks to the great skill of David Lidington, we managed to solve the case, get the judgment amended and accepted so that, once again, Britain was a country with no outstanding judgments. I mention this because there has been a lot of mission creep in international jurisdiction, which I do not think has done international law a tremendous amount of good.
The Court of Justice of the European Union and the WTO are unique in being courts committed to a very central, tightly drawn range of circumstances, but some of the other courts—including the International Criminal Court—have a tendency to go well beyond where it is sensible for them to go. I see that some noble Lords object to that. To issue an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu is downright foolish, because it will not be implemented. It undermines the authority of the court. People look at it and say, “What a bunch of jokers. Surely, they don’t expect Netanyahu to get off the plane in London and be banged up by the British coppers”.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Does the noble Lord know that, when a warrant was issued for Kenyatta, he got on a plane, went to The Hague, submitted himself to the court and said, “I’m here to answer it. I have a defence to this”? It gave him permission to return to his country and to continue to lead it before there were eventually hearings. Why does Mr Netanyahu not do that? You have to remember that the warrant is in relation not to his conduct of the war but his refusal to allow humanitarian aid into the country to feed the population.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I claim damage for extra time, Mr Whip. I take that point, but I am making the point that the Netanyahu incident did the ICC no good at all.
My second point will also be a bit controversial. I believe that, if we are to redefine the international order, we have to bring the Russians and Chinese on board. It is as simple as that. You cannot do it without having the whole international order represented around the table. The Russians recently had their BRICS conference in Kazan. A number of Commonwealth countries were at that conference instead of in Samoa for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, because they judged it might be in their better interests. One of the problems we have is that the impact of sanctions has pulled Russian foreign trade in a southern direction. Suddenly, India, Pakistan, China and the countries in between are of far more importance to it than western Europe. We need to take that on board.
We also need to look at the way we construct the international order and give it a serious jolt because, finally, we need to look at the perception of Britain by its own citizens. As my noble friend Lord Howell, a good friend, has said in the past, capitalism has failed the young. There is an increasing distaste for democracy. My children know many people who say, “What the hell does it matter? We need someone who can get things done”. That, frankly, is one of the appeals of Nigel Farage. People look at him and think, “He’d soon sort you lot out, wouldn’t he?”
We are in a very dangerous situation. One of the questions that both major parties need to address is how to bring the younger people of Britain back into communion with them. They have fallen out of love with us. Not one of my children voted Conservative at the election —or Labour. They used to vote for both. A lot of the people in their circle have an attitude towards the two major parties—incidentally, not towards the third party—that they are finished, are past it and have nothing to offer them. They cannot offer them a house or a decent job and have frozen their tax thresholds. I think I have had enough of the extra time I claimed. Thank you all for listening.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on identifying such a massively important issue for our time and on her excellent introduction. If I may, I am not going to predict what President Trump may or may not do, although I do share the concerns voiced by some present. To the extent that the UK seeks to be a force for good, what I principally wish to address is remarks concerning preparedness in changed and changing circumstances.
Perhaps challenges to the rules-based international order started most blatantly back in 2008 when the world witnessed the Russo-Georgian War. Six years later, in 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea and started a war in eastern Ukraine, which eventually transformed into a full-blown attack on the country, and which continues to this day. In the meantime, putting to one side its annexation of Tibet in 1951, China has been attempting to redraw rights of sea passage in the South China Sea by constructing an array of extensive military facilities and has systematically eroded Hong Kong’s freedoms. Alarmingly, it has also on multiple occasions categorically asserted its aim to unify democratic Taiwan with mainland China, threatening to do so by force if necessary.
But it is not just Russia and China, though they are the most important disrupters. There are numerous countries and regimes that are not full participants in the rules-based order or which, like Iran and North Korea, pretty much play by their own rules. The result is a world where an increasing number of nations and societies put a low value on human life—President Putin does not value the lives of conscripts and convicts at all—where there is the highest ever number of conflicts in process, and where the UN is highly challenged due to players who do not accept the current rules. In particular, Russia and China have a veto on the Security Council. A significant number of countries feel that the system is not working for them and in the meantime, need, greed and corruption see democracy being eroded on an alarming scale.
In the 2000s and 2010s, the democracies became complacent. On the one hand, Russia retreated from international aggression and entered a short and confused era. On our side, we became risk averse as we clung to that old system, and we became averse to conflict and reluctant in the use of force. We made steep reductions in defence spending and were comfortable in what seemed to be a period of peace. But the integrated review of 2021 and its refresh already pronounced the decay of the rules-based international system, so for the democracies this new era of intensifying geopolitical competition requires new thinking. The extent of the challenge posed by large authoritarian states is clear.
My good friends at the Council on Geostrategy—I declare an interest as a member of its advisory board—have summarised the mounting challenges we face succinctly under three headings, each highly destructive. First, we face an anti-systemic drive, primarily from Russia. Russia lacks the means to replace the prevailing order with a new one, even in the Euro-Atlantic area. Instead, it focuses on an anti-systemic approach designed to spoil and degrade the free and open international order, with a specific focus on eastern Europe, where, due to proximity and history, it is strongest. Secondly, we face a counter-systemic challenge, primarily from China. Beijing seeks to break down the free and open international order before replacing it with a new one centred on an authoritarian China. Thirdly, on a different point, many leading democracies seem unprepared to generate the power needed to underpin the system. For example, defence spending remains very low by historical standards, even when taking into account recent rises in NATO countries—particularly Poland and Germany—and elsewhere, such as Japan.
We need to move faster to invest in our infrastructure, domestic industrial base and state autonomy to move away from economic links with authoritarian rivals. This is particularly acute when it comes to China, on which we have become dependent for many critical minerals and manufactures. It is time for a rethink and a more vigorous stance in defence of our freedoms, prosperity and that which we hold dear. We need to think more about shaping the international order of the future—a free and open international order. This means that we need to learn to value power and be willing to utilise it once again. Our competitors appear to understand power very well and they are prepared to take risks: from building fake islands in the South China Sea to invading foreign countries such as Ukraine. Perhaps, sadly, they have come to understand power and escalation better than we do. Undoubtedly, they recognise the extent to which the democracies would really far rather not engage in hostilities. But unfortunately, in this new world, power is going to be increasingly important to international relations. It always was critical.
In the 1990s, however, our power became invisible and less important, at least to us. Power is not only about military strength, though we undoubtedly need more resources to uphold a strong defence which can deter. Power is also about economic strength and command over discourse and narratives. Much of this new era of competition already is—and will be—about economic, political and discursive instruments of power.
In my remaining time, I will look at some things that I believe could be done. We need a whole-of-society approach with full societal engagement, not just for Britain but in other democracies. We also as a matter of urgency need to adopt longer-term thinking. Business typically has a short-term horizon while government of course has to live within electoral cycles. We need to see the international world as one world. If we do not, our adversaries will continue to undermine the free world.
The best way to uphold peace is to deter, not just militarily but politically, economically and discursively. We need not overconcentrate on Russia; China is a much bigger threat. We need a strong domestic foundation, political and commercial, and a focus on emerging technical sectors. As for the new minilateral arrangements, we must be alive to any and all possibilities better to meet the challenges of our competitors, and I note the success of the AUKUS and JEF arrangements.
We need to develop a more competitive mindset and we must be ready to identify the attempts of others to undermine us and prepare to push back with a vision of our own, underpinned by strong domestic foundations. This is a battle for ideas, and this is a battle we must win if we want to ensure sovereignty, security and prosperity, both for ourselves and our key allies and partners.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Northover for securing this excellent debate, and for her comprehensive and sensitive tour d’horizon in her opening speech.
Only rarely in British politics do we consider international concerns in broad terms—largely, I suspect, because our media are overwhelmingly reactive and concerned with domestic issues. In July’s election, for example, international issues, with the possible exception of Gaza, hardly featured. In particular—and sadly—climate change, the number one issue for millions of young people, was largely ignored.
Turning to some of the threats we face, discussed by many noble Lords, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, preceded by the annexation of Crimea, violated an independent nation’s sovereignty and territory. Yet many seem to believe that the West should somehow pressure Ukraine into a peace, however unjust. But that is not for us; it is for Ukraine to decide on any peace agreement and its terms. Furthermore, if Putin is rewarded with success for Russia’s invasion, the threat to peace will be increased and the Baltic states in particular will face existential threats, beset by nervous uncertainty that Article 5 of the NATO treaty will prove effective.
The uncertain US approach to NATO is a serious threat. Financially, Trump clearly has a point. We have relied for years on America to fund the bulk of our defence, but, if Europeans are to bear the primary costs of our defence, 2.5% of GDP simply will not cut it. A detailed paper by Intereconomics in November floated far higher figures, possibly 5% or more in the face of Russian expansionist militarism, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out. The shock of such an increase to the European economies and our spending priorities would be savage.
On the Middle East, despite the strength of feeling on both sides, there is in the mainstream a unity of view. We uniformly condemn Hamas’s barbaric attack on Israel on 7 October 2023—the murder, the rape and the kidnap of innocent hostages—and we have also been shocked by the unrestrained conduct of the war in Gaza since then, with massive civilian casualties, untold destruction and the unacceptable failure to ensure the flow of humanitarian aid and the availability of healthcare.
We have now to hope that the fragile ceasefire holds and that the second phase succeeds, but that is far from assured. The region and the world will then have to navigate the massive costs of reconstruction in Gaza and the political difficulties of reaching agreement on a two-state solution that both secures Palestinian agreement and guarantees Israel’s security. That will be difficult.
Turning to trade, Trump’s proposed widespread tariffs threaten the entire structure of world trade, and geography means that protectionism is a far more attractive concept for America than it is for us.
Then there is the ever-present threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and other threats from China, and the American response.
I turn to climate change, a matter close to me this week as my daughter has had to return from the wildfires in Los Angeles to work from home in the UK. She is lucky: her flat is just outside the evacuation area. But, while it is standing, it is without any power and her office is closed. Nevertheless, we now have to accept that “Drill, baby, drill” will dominate Trump’s energy policy, and that the US is almost bound to leave the Paris Agreement once again, undermining, for the next four years at least, much of our already stuttering progress on climate change.
What I have said so far has been marked by a profound sense of pessimism. This flows from the widespread flouting of international law and the rules-based order, which depends on rules, conventions and treaties between nations, as emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and my noble friends Lady Northover and Lord Thomas.
My pessimism is tempered only by the belief that we now have a Government with a serious commitment to our treaty obligations—as has the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. Many of us were profoundly shocked by the casual approach of the last Administration to international law. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill introduced in 2022—ultimately, thankfully, withdrawn—was plainly a wilful breach of the recently agreed UK-EU withdrawal agreement. With the Safety of Rwanda Act, the British Government, in a Kafkaesque approach to legislation, forced through a Bill that inexcusably deemed what was plainly untrue to be unchallengeable truth.
The Illegal Migration Act clearly flouted the Refugee Convention of 1951. The failure to comply with our legal commitment to 0.7% overseas aid needs urgent reversal. The support of many Conservatives for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the ECHR, which I should say is a major triumph of a previous Labour Administration, did little to improve this country’s reputation for a commitment to the rules-based world order and did much to undermine it.
So I ask the Minister once again to reaffirm this Government’s commitment never again to legislate to legalise a breach of the UK’s treaty obligations, and to underline our national commitment to upholding, while we can, the rules-based world order.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
Noble Lords have rightly highlighted the threats around the world, and perhaps, out of this global instability, there is more yet to come. But I want to try and change the tune of the debate. Rather than focus on the negatives of the world right now, I will focus on the positives: that out of this darkness, there is still good, that all hope is not lost and that there is enormous opportunity.
I had the privilege to work as a special adviser to the Foreign Secretary for two years, and I saw first-hand a number of hard-working civil servants, here and around the world, furthering this country and our aims. I also saw how little old Blighty is enormously regarded and how we open doors—and that is, as some say, “despite Brexit”.
I say to some noble Lords that I do not agree that the last Conservative Government were absent from the world. I will give one example of many, Ukraine, long before the war, building the coalition and our continued support. But there is always more to do around the world, and Brexit was never an inversion or a retreat but, in my view, a chance to engage more intensely around the world and with individual countries, some of which may even fall within the EU.
In today’s world, we need to be nimble and bold. There are three areas I would like to talk about which seek to build on our strengths as a country. The first is the Commonwealth. With almost a third of the global population, 60% of whom are under 30, some of the oldest and biggest democracies, and a combined GDP or over $14 billion, with education and legal systems that we share and complement, we need to recognise the enormous wealth and scale of opportunity in the Commonwealth. It is ready-made for so much, not least on trade—crucially, trade deals that push exports, especially for British farmers, rather than the easier, cheaper imports which undercut them. There was talk about us being close to a trade deal with India. Can the Minister update us on that? Are there any other deals being considered with the wider Commonwealth family?
It was a genuine pleasure to hear the contribution of my noble friend Lord Ahmad earlier. I am reminded of the times we worked very closely on many great schemes, not least the Commonwealth summit in 2018. I think we would both agree that that was a very successful summit, with some great people behind it. We achieved much at that summit, not least on the rights of women and girls, with our campaign to deliver 12 years of quality education for girls around the world. That was something I worked on and care about, and I am pleased to say that it was agreed across the Commonwealth.
All this takes enormous effort and activity, day in, day out, at all levels and from all of government. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, noted, not everyone was present at the most recent CHOGM summit, and, sadly, some happened to be with Putin. What effort are His Majesty’s Government going to put in, beyond and more regularly than the CHOGM summit, to strengthen ties with our Commonwealth partners?
Secondly, as we have said, in just a few days America will welcome in its next democratically elected President. We should all welcome and congratulate President Trump on his win. I pay tribute to the outgoing ambassador, Karen Pierce, who I have previously worked with very closely. In her typically subtle yet determined way, she has executed her duties diligently, courting the American world for years, and has built strong relations with the new Administration. I wish our outgoing colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, well. I have long believed that, where required, political appointees are good. We need personalities in foreign affairs; people who are able to understand politics more generally and who can be blunt and strike deals.
It was one of the greatest privileges of my entire life to go to America with the then Prime Minister and join his meeting with President Trump. It goes without saying how much he is an Anglophile and a man who means business. With this new President we should be embracing this new America. We should be his number one port of call whenever he thinks of an ally. We should be careful and conscious of some of the language used in this discussion. This country has worked with President Trump before. He achieved great things in his first term around making states pay more for NATO, the Abraham accords, dealing with “rocket man” and tackling Iran, and, as has been said, he is already having an impact in the Middle East.
We should be in no doubt that America is still the number one country in the world, economically and militarily. Deals and agreements are there to be done, not least with the exponential growth of AI and technology, and in security, where we share direct interests, as with AUKUS. This is something which my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere talked about recently when he advocated for strengthening the ties of the Anglosphere democracies based on and building on Five Eyes.
My third point is on relevance. I used to challenge the then Foreign Secretary to explain what the purpose of the Foreign Office and foreign policy is when it comes to a single mum in Yorkshire. It is not a geographical point; the same applies to anywhere in the north or in the country. The point is to ask what the role of the Foreign Office is for the average person in the street and for those who feel left behind. How does it make their lives better, not just the lives of those who want to sound and feel good at dinner parties in north London?
I was once told by a senior Foreign Office official that it was one of the great offices of state and that, in effect, it had a right to exist. In today’s world, that will not cut it. We need to be honest, realistic and brutal as to what it is we want from our Foreign Office. There should be far more effort and focus on the national interest. If we cannot show why it matters, or articulate and demonstrate what foreign policy achieves for Brits—how it makes the world safer for them and creates jobs—then that is the challenge. The question then is why we are doing it. Whatever we have to do has to be relevant to the interests of this country—why we push human rights, why we support Ukraine, and why energy and food security matter.
I end with a quote from my good friend and foreign affairs specialist Professor John Bew. He wrote recently that
“the national interest of the UK—which I would define as improving the security and economic life of the British people—requires us to get down to work to seek hard economic and security outcomes, rather than the sentimental education of those whose world-view does not exist in perfect sympathy with our own”.
This is an opportunity to have more Britain in the world. All that is needed is the will, energy and vision to deliver for Britain.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the quality of this debate has done justice to the outstanding manner in which my noble friend introduced it. She argued, in clear terms, why we have rules and why there is a structure for the way that nations relate to each other. It is to resolve competition and govern the means by which disputes can be mediated or adjudicated, and therefore for accountability. Representative institutions were formed to be the secretariats for this system of governance, in finance, trade, maritime law and, more recently, development policy, climate—as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated—and human rights, with global judicial procedures.
My noble friend outlined in compelling form the history. As my noble friend Lord Thomas indicated, that history was written by the UK and the US in many regards, and it is the UK and the US that loom large over this debate. Is this generation honouring the previous generation who designed the very system on which we rely? It is based on fundamental principles that should apply to all equitably, but, as my noble friend said, the concern is whether we in the UK apply them equitably. The double standards we have recently seen, as my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece said, have perhaps been seen elsewhere, as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated.
The rule of law is not just for our adversaries but for our allies. War crimes are crimes, whatever the war. A human right when denied to one is denied to all. It is interesting that, last year and just this week, when I have asked questions about war crimes, the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Collins, agreed with sincerity that war crimes have been committed by Putin. They said so at the Dispatch Box. However, just on Monday, the Minister said that she could not proclaim what a war crime was within the Gaza-Israel conflict.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
We were talking specifically about genocide. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could make that clear.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for interacting, but what she said was in response to my question on war crimes. The Minister replied from the Dispatch Box that she could not proclaim what a war crime is. The point I am making is that, for other conflicts, Ministers speaking from the same Dispatch Box over the last year have proclaimed what war crimes are. It is not about whether Ministers have adjudicated; it is about whether Ministers can state what they are. That is where the world sees UK Ministers perhaps taking a different approach.
From these Benches, my noble friend Lord Thomas has said that we have had to be the vanguard in Parliament against recent Governments who have, in our country and abroad, moved away from honouring commitments—whether through the casual treatment of the ECHR or the Rwanda legislation, as referred to. We have tried to be dogged in what we believe: we believe in honouring commitments and know that, if we do not, we give license to other countries to dishonour them too. The United Kingdom remains a leader on rules and rights and others look to us. It is coming up to Burns Night, so we should
“see ourselves as others see us”.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce that it was catastrophic for the UK to cut by a third our development partnerships and in the way that we did. It was heartbreaking that a new Government, with a historic mandate, chose in their first Budget to reduce even further ODA. It is now at its lowest level in 17 years.
As a prime example, over this period, the challenges of the world, be they Covid, the climate or conflict, have made the development need even greater. Some 80% of developing nations still have not recovered their economies to pre-Covid levels, as the World Bank’s most recent reported indicated. With the growth of conflict exacerbated by the climate emergency, the most recent data shows that 282 million people in 59 countries and territories face acute food insecurity. This is seen especially in Sudan, Afghanistan and Myanmar. Despite the global aim of abolishing absolute poverty by 2030, which was set in 2015 in the SDGs, the lowest estimate is that 600 million people will remain in absolute poverty by then.
In 2015, all parties in this Chamber agreed with the SDGs. They also agreed with the International Development Act, a statutory duty that we should honour our commitment and continue to honour it. We should be dependable, reliable and predictable. I agreed with 99% of what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said—I did not agree with 1% of it because it was not the Labour Government who met the 0.7%. As political parties, we were all aligned to that ambition, and there is a need to restore dependability, reliability and predictability.
Those three words are not often used to describe the incoming President of the United States, but perhaps the Trump Administration will again have as their approach dysfunction by design. It is true that the previous Administration of Donald Trump had leverage, but I disagree that it was used to net benefit. I believe that legitimising the North Korean leadership, removing the guard-rails on Iran and putting at risk the NATO alliance was not strength. We have to ensure, as my noble friend indicated, that our relationship with our European partners and like-minded countries is as strong as it can be, given that we may well have uncertainty in the next Administration of the United States.
Many Trump supporters say that what he says should be listened to seriously but not taken literally. But the problem is that the people who now have to listen to what he says and judge whether to take it seriously or literally are his allies, not necessarily his adversaries, and the negative energy that will be consumed will be wasted energy, especially since the global challenges are immense.
Transactionalism at the core of United States foreign policy will potentially lead to openings of opportunity for the Kremlin and Beijing. The challenges of the 21st century are immense and include technology, AI, the climate and many others. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, indicated, we will see a combination of an uncertain American partner and the concentration of power in people such as Elon Musk or Peter Thiel—individuals who consider law as discretionary, standards as weakness and norms as anachronisms.
In 2015, there was considerable consensus that we should not only meet the 0.7% obligation but set sustainable development goals and work with others to meet them. It is 10 years to the week since we had the Second Reading of that 2015 legislation, on 23 January. I want to close my remarks now as I closed them then. In that debate, when we passed that legislation, I never felt that we would honour it in only three out of the following 10 years—and it is likely to be only three out of 15 by the end of this Parliament.
As I said then:
“I conclude by saying that the UK has less than 1% of the world’s population. Our global footprint is massively disproportionate to the size of our tiny islands. If the UK is a citizen of the world, what kind of citizen must we be? I say we are one that comes to the assistance of others who are in need, does not shrink from challenging those who abuse minorities, refuses to support those who prevent women accessing rights, and never turns a blind eye to those who disempower their own citizens. We establish our place and our identity as a citizen of the world if we uphold our obligations and encourage others to do likewise”.—[Official Report, 23/1/15; col. 1520.]
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this has been yet another fascinating, wide-ranging debate in your Lordships’ House, and I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing it. I thought she introduced the topic very well, although I have to say that I did not agree with her on her list of authoritarian leaders, including President Trump alongside Presidents Putin and Xi. Of course, like many people, I do not agree with or support some of the wilder statements that President Trump comes out with, but there are many checks and balances in the US system that simply do not exist in Russia and China: Congress, 52 independently minded states, independent courts, et cetera. As my noble friend Lord Gascoigne reminded us, Trump won a fair, democratic election, and, of course, we know that he can serve only a four-year term. By all means, criticise some of his statements—I suspect that we will spend a lot of time in the next few months and years ruminating on the various utterances of President Trump—but I think the noble Baroness made a flawed analogy in comparing the US, which, in my view, is still the world’s greatest democracy, with Russia and China, so I hope she will reflect on that.
The rules-based international order has enabled nations large and small to co-operate under shared principles, ensuring that the rule of law prevails over the rule of might. Today, however, as many have pointed out in this debate, this order is under threat as never before, and it is incumbent upon us, as defenders of freedom, sovereignty and stability, to address many of those challenges head on.
As many have pointed out, the first and most visible challenges come from the authoritarian states that I just mentioned, particularly Russia and China, whose actions flagrantly undermine international norms. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and brutal war in Ukraine represent a blatant rejection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, a core tenet of the UN charter. I listened with interest to the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Liddell: possibly like Tony Blair at the time, I was optimistic about the direction Russia could go in following the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think all of us wanted to see Russia admitted into the family of western democratic states, and there was a possibility that that would happen, but we all now see the direction that Russia has taken, and we have to recognise it for what it is now: a threat to the international order and to European security. Similarly, across the South China Sea, we see China’s militarisation, economic coercion of smaller states, and flagrant disregard for any international rulings on territories or the famous lines that they impose on the maps, seemingly making up and deciding what is Chinese sovereign territory. This really offers a systemic challenge to the global order.
These actions are not just mere aberrations. They are, in my view, deliberate attempts to reshape the international order into one that privileges power over principles. Such behaviour destabilises regions, weakens alliances and creates a permissive environment for other rogue actors to flout international law—we can see how Russia is now cosying up to those paragons of democracy in North Korea and Iran to further its aims.
The second challenge lies in the erosion of trust within the system itself. Many multilateral institutions that were indeed put in place initially to safeguard global stability are increasingly seen as ineffective or politicised. The failure of some organisations to act decisively against aggression or hold nations accountable risks undermining their very legitimacy. We believe in strong, accountable institutions, but this requires reform to ensure that they are fit for purpose and responsive to the challenges of the 21st century.
Furthermore, the rise of economic protectionism and deglobalisation poses a subtler but equally significant threat. Free trade and open markets have lifted millions out of poverty and fostered interdependence, which discourages conflict. Yet, we will have to return to the battles many of us thought were won in the 1980s and 1990s in favour of multilateralism, free trade and globalisation, and refight those ideological battles, because retreat into economic nationalism risks dividing the world into competing blocs, undermining both prosperity and stability.
Those challenges are compounded by the growing influence of the non-state actors that a number of noble Lords referred to—from cybercriminals to extremist groups—that exploit the gaps in governance and the vulnerabilities of our interconnected world. Their actions transcend borders, creating a fragmented and volatile global landscape.
We must, first, reaffirm our commitment to the principles that underpin the rules-based order: sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law. This requires a robust defence of our values on the global stage, supported by credible deterrence. NATO’s unified response to Russian aggression is a great model of how alliances can serve as bulwarks against authoritarian threats. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how we are continuing to build alliances around the world that help ensure that the rule of law is upheld while protecting our sovereignty.
Secondly, we have to champion reform of many international institutions to ensure they remain relevant and effective. This is not about abandoning multilateralism but about strengthening it to reflect modern realities. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s view on reform of institutions such as the ICC, the ICJ and the European Court of Human Rights? Does she agree with the ICC arrest warrants that have been debated? The ones issued for Netanyahu and Gallant were, in my view, ridiculous and demonstrate how that institution needs serious reform.
Thirdly, we have to prioritise economic resilience—investing in secure supply chains, fostering innovation and supporting free trade agreements with like-minded partners. Finally, we have to harness the power of our values—freedom, enterprise and the dignity of the individual—to rally allies and inspire those in many parts of the world who yearn for a better future.
The challenges to the rules-based international order are real, but so too is our ability to overcome them. By standing firm to our principles and working with others who share them, we can ensure that this order continues to deliver peace, stability and opportunity for many generations to come.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing this debate and for sharing her thoughts on how we have arrived at where we are and what we need to do next. This debate has raised important questions that I hope we can continue to consider in the months and years ahead. I thank her for sharing her experience of serving as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, now 10 years ago—I hope she does not mind me saying that—and for her continued dedication in the years that have followed. Her long view was inspiring and sobering. Her debate has enabled us to hear vast experience from across the House as well as fresh perspectives. By no means have we had unanimity, but there is broad agreement that the rules-based order is necessary and our best, if not only, prospect of tackling the greatest challenges the world faces.
It is interesting how much emphasis has been placed on populism and threats to our democracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, we are not immune to these pressures. We must defeat populism and rebuild our international reputation. His words about our relationships in Africa are well worth heeding.
Equally, concerns about disinformation, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and others, are an urgent call to action that must be answered multilaterally through technology, governance and, as several noble Lords said, our use of soft power. We need global action to address global challenges and—more optimistically, perhaps—to make the most of global opportunities.
The rules-based international order continues to play an important role in making sure we can take action at the scale and pace that is needed, including in facing crises, with most countries trusting the United Nations to act effectively as first responder. Of course, we can all see, as many noble Lords reminded us, that the reality of today’s world is piling on the pressure. The system is being stretched by the strain, with millions of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people bearing the brunt of the consequences.
We can all see opportunists, such as Russia and China, seeking to set themselves up as the true defenders of the system and the true champions of the global South, even as they contribute so very little and strive to set countries against one another—just when we most need to be working together on everything from respecting sovereignty and upholding rights to getting help to those in desperate need and making sure the system is fit for the future. Indeed, it should give us pause to see just how hard they are working to pervert and undermine a system that is still robust, resilient and widely shared. We can all see, 80 years since it all began to come together, in the shadow of the war between great powers that engulfed the world in a generation, that it endures.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and—as he reminded us— Tony Blair have warned us, we must not take this system for granted. Our focus must be on making sure it thrives. As my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary told the United Nations General Assembly and the summit of the future in New York last September, the Government are committed to multilateralism and to the mission of the United Nations. We recognise that this is an important part of how countries work together on everything from conflict to the climate and nature crisis, economic shocks, poverty, public health, and trade. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, our commitment to justice and peace must be renewed, consistent and shared internationally. These partnerships are the only way forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, warned us that we need a massive global effort to get back on track to meet our shared goals for sustainable development by 2030. Learning from history, we must make progress towards our climate and nature goals together or we will never meet the urgent and growing humanitarian need that we see in so many countries. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary said in a major speech just last week, across the board what we need now is
“a whole new level of global engagement”,
not only with our closest allies and strategic partners but with all those who are committed to the principle of the UN charter. That is how we work together: in genuine, respectful partnership with others, taking realistic steps towards progressive ends.
Over the last six months we have been putting this into practice across a vast range of work, spanning everything from irregular migration to emerging technologies, and the needs of women and girls and other marginalised people. At the UN Security Council, as well as standing with Ukraine, we used our presidency to keep the world’s worst crises firmly in the spotlight when others would prefer to look away. No doubt noble Lords will have seen the Foreign Secretary’s passionate address in November on the catastrophe unfolding in Sudan. We have not only doubled UK aid to Sudan but pushed our partners to do more for the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, and worked intensively with our partners to support people living through traumatic situations in Yemen, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the central Sahel, Somalia, Mozambique, Bangladesh, and more.
We are committed to upholding and promoting the rule of law, putting it at the heart of our approach, from our domestic legal and judicial system, to strengthening accountability and the international institutions that defend international law, including the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We are seeking re-election to the Human Rights Council and to return a UK judge to the International Court of Justice. This Government will not withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this Government support the effective and independent International Criminal Court.
We are pursuing justice at the local level too, and that includes helping Ukraine to build capacity to investigate and prosecute allegations of war crimes in its own judicial system. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked who attended Ukraine’s First Lady’s conference on sexual violence. I can tell him that our ambassador in Kyiv attended that event to represent the UK. I also highlight that Prime Minister Starmer is in Ukraine today to progress and highlight our determination that we have a long-standing partnership with Ukraine.
We continue to promote compliance with international humanitarian law, including in Gaza. From our first day in office, this Government have pressed for an immediate ceasefire, to free the hostages and to bring relief, reconstruction and hope to civilians, who have suffered so much. All phases of the ceasefire deal announced yesterday must now be implemented in full. We were all pleased to hear that news yesterday, and we are hopeful that every phase of the agreement that has been reached can be implemented. The UK will continue to make every diplomatic effort to get lasting peace, security and a two-state solution for the Israeli and the Palestinian people.
The UK remains a top donor to the multilateral system. We are the largest flexible funder of the World Health Organization. Indeed, we have unlocked $42 billion from the International Monetary Fund to support our partners’ health systems, saving lives and safeguarding economies from future pandemics, as well as building long-term systems that will support communities for the future. From the UN regular and peacekeeping funds to the World Bank, we are channelling UK assistance through the multilateral system because it is effective and cost effective.
For example, last year we increased the UK’s pledge to the World Bank’s International Development Association by 40%. We did that because partners agree that this will help them to grow their economies long term. Indeed, since 1960 that fund has had a transformative impact for so many countries around the world. It supports 1.9 billion people, almost one-quarter of the world’s population, in 75 countries. Already every £1 that we put in pays for itself in results three or four times over, and that is set to rise as we encourage private sector investment as countries add their own fiscal resources to multiply that even further.
As we use our leverage to secure reforms, we are delighted that Tom Fletcher has started his new role as UN relief chief, working on the reforms that are needed to make sure that all our efforts are much more joined up across the humanitarian and development system that is so stretched. We are working with pioneering partners such as Mia Mottley to get more climate finance to those who need it faster and with greater impact, and to reform the global financial system, making the most of our leverage as a major donor to secure the reforms that we need to achieve it, not least through the multilateral development banks. In all my visits, I have heard our partners underline just how important that is for them. The UK is not only at the forefront of developing innovative financial tools in areas such as insurance but we are using our heft to implement much-needed reforms, with the World Bank now mainstreaming climate resilient debt clauses.
As part of our work to strengthen, improve and reinvigorate the wider system—as, to be fair to him, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said we should—we are supporting expanded membership of the UN Security Council, with additional permanent and non-permanent seats. In all that we do, our approach is one of genuine partnership grounded in mutual respect.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for highlighting the launch of the soft power council yesterday. I can assure him that promoting our values of the rule of law and democracy will be central to that work.
This Government are committed to fulfilling our first duty, which is to keep people safe, and determined to make good on our guiding mission to grow our economy and bring opportunity to people across our country. In today’s world, the work we do with our partners, overseas and globally, is an essential part of how we achieve that. I say that partly in answer to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. I agreed with much of what he said about ensuring that what we do in foreign affairs is directly relevant and interesting and feels important to people from every part of our country. That is why this Government are focused on making sure that the way we do things works in today’s world, so that we overcome those who seek to set us against one another and reinvigorate hope for a shared future by working towards it together.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and, as I expected, this debate has been very wide-ranging, drawing on huge expertise. I must respond to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I suggest that he reads back over what I actually said about President Trump, including the potential checks on him in the US system. I believe in being precise.
In this debate, it comes across loud and clear that noble Lords support the principles of a rules-based international system, with internationally agreed laws, fairly applied. There has been considerable concern about, first, the potential weakness of that international order and, secondly, the profound challenges we face: in particular, the new challenges of climate change and AI. It was out of appalling catastrophe—genocide, a devastating war and the flattening of cities, including the first use of nuclear weapons—that our current international system was born. We have to hope that we can work together to improve and modernise that system, without needing catastrophe to enable it. There was clear cross-party agreement on the need to do that, which I welcome.