Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the objectives of the administration of the United States in relation to the status of Greenland.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has been clear that Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and that the future of its constitutional arrangements is a matter for the people and Government of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The collective threat that we face in the Arctic is from Russia. That is why NATO has stepped up, including by increasing our collective defence spending, to ensure that we defend the region from increasing Russian threats.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister’s comments. However, does she agree that an annexation of Greenland by the United States—the President of the United States has given a timetable for this happening by the end of his current term—would be one of the most dangerous pivotal points for UK and European security into the future since 1945? Does she also agree that one of the lessons we should learn is that we should have been far more assertive much earlier with our European allies around our view on that annexation? Perhaps a little bit more notice would have been taken if we had not just wished that the subject would go away and evaporate.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are completely clear in the position that we take, as are our allies and partners, and the noble Lord will have seen that in the statement that was made a few days ago. Yesterday, the noble Lord reminded me that we travelled to the Arctic together at about this time last year or two years ago. I know how much interest he takes in the importance of the security of the Arctic region, and I can assure him that the Government share his views.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
We will hear from the Cross Benches.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
Are Ministers seeking to persuade President Trump that he can achieve all US security objectives in and around Greenland by working with Denmark through NATO and using the existing treaty it has with Denmark? Also, to show that Arctic security is a genuine NATO priority, is the UK considering deploying at least some military capability of our own to that collective endeavour?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We keep in constant and close contact with our friends and allies in the United States, on this and many other issues. Noble Lords will be aware of the phone call that took place between the Prime Minister and President Trump last night, where these issues were discussed. Obviously, I am not going to respond to what may be several hypothetical positions that get put to me today, but I note what the noble Lord says, and I interpret it broadly as support for the very clear position that the United Kingdom is taking on the need for the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark to be the people who decide what happens to Greenland.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as being half-Danish and having studied at the University of Aarhus. Since 1951, it has been perfectly open to the United States to establish more military bases and a bigger military presence in Greenland. If the issue is not military but to extract minerals, it is perfectly possible for the United States to negotiate agreements to mine the minerals, as Chinese companies have done. Is the Minister aware of the position of Members of Congress? Are they likely to support this very aggressive stance taken by the US President?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I should imagine that, as in this Parliament, there will be a range of views on any issue on any given day. The key principle and guiding point that will shape the UK’s position on that question, and on any others concerning the territory of Greenland, is that those decisions should be taken by Greenlanders and, on the issue of sovereignty, by the Kingdom of Denmark together with the people of Greenland.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we are talking about the security of the Arctic. The United States of course has legitimate interests, but so does Denmark, Greenland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and, more recently, the United Kingdom. Following my noble friend’s Question, the reality is that, if the US takes a unilateral action against the NATO alliance, it will not increase security but damage it and open the door for Russia and China to make more incursions into our space. Can the Americans understand that they are going down the wrong path?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Any question that starts with “if” is, by definition, a hypothetical—to which I am not in a position to give a concrete response. All I would say is that, clearly, anything that causes dispute between NATO allies would be very pleasing for Vladimir Putin to see, and that is not something that we want to bring about.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has been entirely consistent. On Tuesday, she told the House that, should Denmark wish to enter into a negotiation about the future of Greenland, it is free to do so, with the consent of the people of Greenland. She said it again today and I agree with her; she is right. However, can she explain to the House why that impeccable logic does not apply to the people of the Chagos Islands, who were not even consulted before their homeland was surrendered to Mauritius?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have explained to the noble Lord the issue of the right to self-determination countless times, and I refer the noble Lord to my previous seven or eight answers.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, is it not time that the Royal Marines and other European allies moved their Arctic training from Norway to Greenland?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Having visited the training facilities in Norway, I think that they are first class. Operational decisions, such as the one that the noble Lord has put to me, are not things that I will be commenting on or giving opinions on today.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I think the whole House agrees with everything that the Minister has said today. Could she just clarify whether any of the protocols that cover the stationing of US bases in the United Kingdom would preclude the use of those forces in the event of an invasion of, or military action in, Greenland? I realise that is yet another hypothetical question: none the less, I think the Minister began by saying that she did at least recognise that she would get several.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is no world in which I am answering that question. There is always negotiation and discussion about the appropriate use of bases in this country. I just remind noble Lords—I do not think they need to be reminded—that the very close military, security and intelligence co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States is decades old. It has kept us safe. It is the world’s closest such relationship and it will continue.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note the reference that the Minister made to increasing dangers in the seas around the United Kingdom. I also note that the Navy managed to provide a fleet auxiliary vessel as our contribution to the taking of this stateless vessel. We are desperately short of coastal and near-sea patrol boats in this country, given the rising threats that we face, both hybrid and direct. Is it not an urgent matter to ensure that we procure and put into service more vessels to manage the safety and security of our surrounding waters and undersea cables?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is why there are now contracts out for more such vessels. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that we made some difficult decisions last year about spending. The purpose of that was to increase our spending on defence, which I think is being shown this year to have been the right decision.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
Given the darkening geopolitical situation and the reality behind the pace at which more money is being spent—frankly, there is this faffing around with the defence investment plan, which is really an exercise in “How can we present to the public something that is shambolic but at least reassuring?”—is there no murmur at all in government that they should take a strategic decision to rapidly change the pace and scale of our own national rearmament? Frankly, without that, all the noise that we generate in this place and in government is frankly laughable.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord characterises as “faffing” a new defence industrial strategy, an increase in funding and clear, effective leadership when we inherited the smallest Army since the time of Napoleon.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Might it be helpful to pass to President Trump and the Washington team the useful advice of the late Professor Joe Nye of Harvard, who was a good friend of this country? His message was of course that, in modern conditions, you gain much more in terms of influence, security and getting things to move in the right way by being attractive, helpful and friendly to a country than you do by being plain nasty.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I share the noble Lord’s admiration for Professor Nye. I never had the privilege of meeting him, but I think he was somebody whose words we should always bear in mind. You need to do both, and that is what we do. We have a much better co-ordinated approach to our use of what Joe would call soft power, but that needs to go hand in hand with our investment in defence. Given the precarious nature of many parts of the world right now, the idea that we need to do both is I think the correct one.