Iran
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Cryer
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord on accountability, and we have used our position on the Human Rights Council to further that and to get missions in place to gather the facts that are needed. I will of course read what he suggests on transnational repression; it is incredibly important, and I will make sure that I do that. I have not looked at the Charity Commission issue that he raised, but I will commit to doing so. I welcome the suggestion around Wilton Park; it is a very useful opportunity to get people together in a closed environment to have the kind of conversations that can make a real difference to these situations.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, the impression has been created that government policy has changed and that we are about to ban the IRGC or will do so at some point in the near future. Is that the case, or is it not, because some of us are starting to get a bit fed up with raising this?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I appreciate the frustration that my noble friend feels and I would never seek to make him feel that way—I have known him for a long time and I know how he can get. All I can do is restate the position. We commissioned the review by Jonathan Hall, and we accept fully his recommendations, which are that we need a change to our legal framework in order to do that which the noble Lord wants to see happen. We are committed to doing that, because we need to do that first, and we have made that commitment. If he wishes to continue to push with urgency on that, it would not be an unhelpful role for him to play and I know that it is one that he will do well.
Venezuela
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Cryer
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Noble Lords will understand that we talk all the time to our American friends about security issues, but we would not comment on specifics, as the noble Baroness is encouraging me to do.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, the idea that this is the end of the world order is fantastical. As we have just heard, previous American Presidents have intervened; for instance, in Grenada and in Panama. The difference is that President Trump does not really mind letting people know that he does not give a monkey’s about world opinion or international law.
The real danger is if this marks a departure from previous policy, in that if Trump sees spheres of influence—which we have heard much talk about—and the reassertion of the Monroe doctrine, would that possibly mean that he would see the Americas as his sphere of influence, eastern Europe as belonging to the Russian sphere of influence, and so on? That is the real danger of what has happened.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not recognise that characterisation of the world, but it is right that we ask ourselves these big strategic questions, because the world is changing. The most significant example of that has been Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and its stated intention to expand Russia. It is legitimate that we concern ourselves with questions of spheres of influence. I do not think it is as simple as the characterisation the noble Lord just put forward, and I do not think that is what he believes either, but it is absolutely right that we continue to ask ourselves these really important geopolitical questions.
Israel: Royal College of Defence Studies
Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Cryer
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, could my noble friend tell the House whether this means that the Government operate a proscribed list—in other words, a list of proscribed countries—where the royal college is concerned? If there is a proscribed list, could that be provided to both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The straight- forward answer to that is no; we do not operate such a list.