Of course, we keep a whole range of factors in mind. These are complex situations and negotiations, and we do not underestimate that. But it would be very wrong for us to deny ourselves the opportunity to have these conversations, because you do not get a chance to secure the trade that I have mentioned or the discussions on security or human rights, or any of the other issues that we need to discuss with the second-largest economy on the planet, if you do not engage.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will have noticed that, in the earlier Question, the House ran out of supplementaries, and, on this Question, it is fairly sotto voce. Will she accept that that does not reflect an unwillingness to engage with this issue, but rather an acceptance that some time has now been allowed for China to take some initiatives itself, but unless it does, and gives reasonable fair play to these people who have suffered so much, the House undoubtedly will want to return to this issue?
I am in no doubt at all of the level of concern and interest that this House has in the issues that we are discussing. Sometimes, that means that sessions run out of time; sometimes people do not want to ask questions. I do not read anything at all into that. I understand how important these issues are, and I am very happy to come whenever the House would like me to discuss them.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, surely we should stop being mealy-mouthed about this issue. There is no basis in the international framework of law that can justify this action. If Russia had marched into Ukraine a few years ago, kidnapped its President, put him on trial in Moscow and locked him up, we would be shouting blue murder. Our voices should be heard loud and clear condemning this action by the United States.
There is no moral equivalence whatever between the illegal invasion of Ukraine and what has happened in Venezuela, the legal arguments for which are for the US to defend. These are not UK actions and our commitment to international law remains.