Greenland: Proposed US Tariffs
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of recent developments in relation to Greenland, what assessment they have made of the impact of proposed US trade tariffs on the UK economy, and what diplomatic efforts they are making to ensure the sovereign rights of nations to their territories.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is always good to hear him speak on these issues. As the Prime Minister stated this morning, the use of tariffs against our allies is completely wrong. It is not the right way to resolve differences within an alliance. Any decision about the future status of Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. The Prime Minister spoke to both President Trump and Prime Minister Frederiksen yesterday, as well as other key partners.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said and fully align myself with it. I think I speak for most, if not all, in your Lordships’ House in saying that we are at one with the Government’s position on the issue, and I welcome the recent statements by all political leaders in this respect.
I would like to press the Minister further. First, what are the implications of the tariffs, particularly for the negotiations on the existing agreement that has been made for exports such as car manufacturing? Some 17.4% of our exports go to the US and the sector needs to have long-term planning. What assessment has been made in that respect and what briefing has been given? Secondly, bearing in mind that the President of the United States is going to be in Europe at Davos, surely now is the time for the British Government to convene an emergency meeting of the NATO alliance to address the issues of the alliance’s long-term security and, importantly, not just the sovereign rights of Greenlanders and of Denmark but of other territories around the world.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As noble Lords would imagine, we are speaking constantly—this is happening in real time—with our friends, allies and partners in NATO and beyond. Any meetings that are needed to be convened will, I am sure, happen. The impact of these tariffs would be extremely damaging, not least to our car industry, aerospace, the life sciences and steel. It is not something that we wish to see happen and we hope that this proposal can be averted.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I feel that it is obvious to everyone that the US President is an unserious person whose actions have very serious consequences. The threat from the US to not only a very close ally in the European Union but a NATO partner—and then punishing us for standing with it—is utterly reprehensible. As the Minister said, the PM has said that the actions are “completely wrong”, but the Government refuse to raise a formal complaint to the WTO, the rules of which these actions are trashing. The Prime Minister said that they are completely wrong because they are economic coercion, but has refused to put in place protective anti-coercion measures. What is the point of saying something is completely wrong when you do completely nothing as a result of it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is called diplomacy. Our aim is to de-escalate the situation and not take measures which would inevitably cause this to escalate and become more damaging for our manufacturers and for people’s jobs and livelihoods in the United Kingdom.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests. I congratulate the Government on the line that they are taking. If the US were to ask nicely then it could have all the military bases and all the military personnel it would wish for. It chose to withdraw the personnel after the Cold War. My understanding is that China has negotiated contracts to extract minerals in Greenland. If the US were to barge in, in an aggressive way, what does the Minister think would happen to the Chinese rights to mine which have already been negotiated?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I appreciate that the noble Baroness takes a strong personal interest, for reasons that I understand, in what happens in Denmark and Greenland. I do not think it helps anybody to speculate about what we would do if certain things were to happen. I must also thank, as I should have done in my initial remarks, the leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, for the support that she has given to the Government in regard to the position we have taken this morning.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that Greenlanders must have a say in what is happening, and I fully accept that. What is the difference between this and not allowing the Chagossians to have any say at all in us buying and selling off the Chagos Islands and paying for the pleasure of sending them to Mauritius?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As I think we examined at length through the progress of the Bill, the right to self-determination is not something that you can claim for yourself; it is something that can be legally determined. When this question was tested before every court which has considered it so far, including here in the UK—we can all have our own personal feelings and emotions and reaction to this, as I know I do—the legal situation was found to be that Chagossians do not have the right of self-determination as regards to the Chagos Archipelago. Greenlanders have the right to self-determination and we respect that right. What happens to Greenland is a question for it and for the Kingdom of Denmark.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I will resist the temptation to pursue that last question, the Minister will be relieved to know.
The Prime Minister is right to tell President Trump on this occasion that he is wrong. Imposing tariffs for pursuing the collective security of NATO and supporting the absolute right of self-determination for the people of Greenland is madness. It is the case that many Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, also think that Trump is wrong on this. Will the Minister tell the House what steps we are taking to utilise our considerable diplomatic presence in Washington to build on that support in helping to persuade Trump to back down?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We talk with relevant partners as appropriate, but the main conversations that have happened between the United Kingdom and the United States have taken place between our Prime Minister and President Trump—most recently yesterday, and there may have been more contact since then that I am not aware of. That is the right level at which to address such a serious situation.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I have never been one to underplay a threat, but does my noble friend the Minister agree that there seems to be no intelligence assessment whatever to say that there is an immediate threat to the mainland of Greenland? It is extraordinary that things are being done at this pace. We need to take a deep breath, look at the intelligence assessments, and assess the real threat and the real situation before doing anything.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is encouraging us to be calm and to respond thoughtfully but clearly. Luckily, that is the approach that our Prime Minister is taking.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, there is a notable difference in tone between the response of many of our European allies and that of Sir Keir Starmer to the actions and words of President Trump. Does the Minister think that the softly-softly approach of the United Kingdom is having a positive impact, or is it inviting further aggressive actions and words?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I watched the Prime Minister’s statement this morning and I would not at all describe it as softly-softly. It was made very clear what the United Kingdom stands for and what we think of this proposal. The Prime Minister stood there publicly and laid it out for people to make their own assessment of where they think we are. The right thing to do is to carry on in that vein. That has served us well up until now. Our Prime Minister has a good relationship with and the respect of President Trump—much to many people’s surprise, I might add. Nevertheless, that is where we are. He is someone I know quite well, and I would say that he is quite well suited to this kind of diplomacy.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, to hear the Minister talk about diplomacy is reassuring, I am sure. However, does she agree that, to back up that diplomacy, bringing forward a credible plan as to how we are going to meet our spending obligations in defence to meet our NATO obligations would be sensible, and that publishing the defence industrial plan now would be a good way of backing up that diplomacy?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is Monday, and these announcements were made at the weekend, so further announcements will be made. I agree that the defence investment strategy is incredibly important, but it should be published when it is ready and we should not be rushed into doing things before that.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I agree with many noble Lords who have spoken about the importance of diplomacy in this, yet I feel that there is a danger that diplomacy takes place at a high level, over the heads of the Greenlanders themselves. It was only a few days ago in this Chamber that my right reverend friend the Lord Bishop of Chester, who unfortunately is not able to be with us just yet this afternoon, asked whether we could strengthen our diplomatic ties in Nuuk with the Greenlanders directly. That would give a lot of moral support and would mean that Britain’s Government would have a much better understanding of what the Greenlanders themselves are thinking, rather than what other people are telling them to think.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree that this needs to have the Greenlanders at the heart of it. I am pleased that many Ministers have met their counterparts in Greenland, not just in response to recent events but as part of a long-standing arrangement. The right reverend Prelate makes a strong point that diplomacy should never happen somewhere else. What recent events have proved is that geopolitics is not something that happens out there, away from here. It has a direct impact on people’s jobs and livelihoods, our manufacturing industry and almost every element of life in the United Kingdom. That is why this is being taken quite so seriously by the Government.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, much of what has been said so far is of the respectful and firm way in which the intergovernmental dimension of the relationship is reacting to this news. Tomorrow, of course, we have the opportunity for someone from the interparliamentary dimension to react, with the visit of Mr Mike Johnson, who is speaker of the US House of Representatives. Does the Minister feel it is helpful if we, as parliamentarians, reflect the same respectful and firm tone on this issue in an interparliamentary dimension as well?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would not dream of advising noble Lords or my good friends at the other end of the building on what they should and should not say to a visiting speaker from the United States. The noble Earl makes a good point about having clarity in the position—which I think is widely, if not unanimously, held, at least within this Chamber—as regards Greenland.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I revert, if I may, to the matter of NATO, referred to by my noble friend Lord Ahmad. A defensive and strong alliance such as NATO requires, in addition to resource, two vital components: unity of purpose among the members and seamless cohesion among the members. The recent pronouncements by President Trump have, frankly, thrown a bucket of sand into the engine room. Will the Minister discuss with her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence convening an urgent meeting of NATO, if only to reassert what all of us believe NATO to exist for and to underpin that, while one member may have an aberrant view, the rest of us are totally united in why we need NATO, why we want NATO and why we support NATO?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Baroness on what she says about unity of purpose. That is why the Prime Minister made the statement that he did this morning. When it comes to what meetings to hold, who should convene them and when that should happen, I will leave that to others to determine. She can rest assured that I am speaking regularly to colleagues in the MoD about this and other issues.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, could the Minister assist the House by informing us which eight wars President Trump has ended?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am afraid I am not responsible for interpreting statements of anybody other than myself.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Could the Minister confirm that, under the 1951 agreement between the US, Denmark and Greenland, the United States has considerable existing powers to establish military bases in Greenland? Has the Prime Minister emphasised this point to the President?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There are many ways that the current situation and the concerns that the United States has could be resolved. What matters is that that is done collegiately, diplomatically and in a way that is respectful of the alliance that we are all part of. We are hopeful that that is what can come about.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, if defence of diplomacy, as the Minister said, is the foremost approach of the Government, and to continue the line of questioning of my noble friend Lord Purvis, when will the WTO be brought into that diplomacy? Have the Government already reached out to the WTO about these tariffs?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My response is the same, essentially. Decisions on the measures we use and the institutions we involve will be made using the test of whether those decisions are likely to improve the situation, de-escalate and bring us closer to resolution or make negotiations more difficult, raise the temperature and make a straightforward resolution harder to achieve. That is the test that we will apply at every stage.