Rules-based International Order

Lord Cryer Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cryer Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I do agree that we must put our money where our mouth is, but as we survey the landscape of European and Atlantic security on the 75th anniversary of NATO, we see—with the accession of Finland and Sweden—that NATO is in very good order indeed.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I acknowledge what the Minister of State said about sanctioning certain west bank settlers, although four seems a very low number to me. Has he raised the activities of those settlers with his opposite number in the Israeli Government?

[Mr Mitchell]

The British Government have certainly raised those activities with the Israeli Government. That is why we have asked that they should be arrested, prosecuted and punished for those activities. On those who may or may not be subject to a sanctions regime, we keep that fully under review, but the hon. Member will understand why I think it is best not to discuss that across the Floor of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cryer Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

We are greatly encouraged by the joint statement from Azerbaijan and Armenia confirming their intention to normalise relations. As I made clear to both countries during my recent visit, we fully support their efforts to achieve a historic and lasting peace.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

In answer to question 9, the Minister seemed to say that the Government were planning to completely proscribe the IRGC. Could he confirm that? If that were the case, it would be welcomed across the House.

[David Rutley]

To be clear, I said that we would be introducing a new sanctions regime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cryer Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I commend my right hon. Friend on his pursuit of this subject, which I know was very much in his thinking when he was in my position. I can assure him that a critical minerals strategy is something that I regularly discuss with Commonwealth leaders and others, particularly in Africa. It is in their interest and ours that they protect their natural resources.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Let us have another try: has the international development Minister had direct discussions with his Israeli counterpart about getting fuel into Gaza? Once the fuel runs out, hospitals stop and people die.

[Mr Mitchell]

I have not had those discussions with my Israeli opposite number, but the hon. Gentleman may rest absolutely assured that the contact with the Israeli Government—not least during the visit of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary over the past few days—focuses on every aspect of this issue.

Iran

Lord Cryer Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) on securing this important and timely debate.

As we have heard many times in and outside the Chamber, the Iranian regime’s latest wave of homicidal attacks on its own people began in September last year after the murder of Mahsa Amini by the Iranian police. Since the crackdown against the subsequent protests began, more than 500 people have been killed, more than 50 people have been executed and at least 20,000 have been detained. Those are rough figures; they are probably an underestimate of what has actually happened, for obvious reasons.

At the apex of every brutal activity perpetrated by the Tehran regime is the IRGC, as the hon. Member said. It is a worldwide operation, and let us be clear what we are dealing with: the clerical fascists and homicidal maniacs who run Iran, and their monstrous servants in the IRGC, are effectively the modern-day version of the Nazis. If they had been around in 1939, they would have been advocating declaring war, but they would have been on the other side, not the side of the allies. They want to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, they want to murder Jewish people and gay men and women, and they want to take women as a whole back to the stone age. They are doing their best to do that not only in Iran, but elsewhere.

That repellent view of the world also applies to Tehran’s proxies. We are dealing not just with Hezbollah and Hamas, as bad as they are, but with the criminal gangs to which the hon. Member referred. They operate in this country, across Europe, in North America and elsewhere. That terrorist and criminal network poses a clear threat, way beyond Iran and the middle east.

I would have thought that the very least the Government—indeed, any democratic Government—could do is proscribe the IRGC in its entirety, as the hon. Member said. What perplexes me is that I and many other Members on both sides of the House have raised this issue repeatedly on the Floor of the House of Commons. I have a lot of respect for the Minister, but I have heard Minister after Minister expressing sympathy with full proscription at the Dispatch Box, and then nothing happens. That leads me and Members on both sides of the House to the conclusion that FCDO and Home Office Ministers sympathise with the idea of proscription, but that somebody in Downing Street, the FCDO or the Home Office is blocking it. I for one cannot see the rationale behind failing to proscribe the IRGC.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that there are certain similarities with the reluctance to proscribe the political wing of Hezbollah? There is a lot of political will to make that proscription happen, but there seems to be a reluctance within the FCDO. Are there not parallels with the IRGC there?

[John Cryer]

That is probably true. The rationale is normally that elements at the heart of Government say, “We still have to talk to these people.” Well, actually, they do not need to communicate with them. We are talking about Nazi terrorists, not a rational organisation. The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.

I believe strongly that no Member of this House or of the House of Lords should have any relationship whatever with any arm of the Iranian state. Anybody who has been elected to the House of Commons or sits in the House of Lords and who has a relationship, particularly a pecuniary one, with Press TV—I think we all know what I am talking about—should look in the mirror and ask themselves why they are taking money from fascists.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cryer Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

As I said, the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety. Where it is involved in illegal activity, our security forces and police take action, and I commend the action they take. We do not routinely discuss future designations and sanctions, but we will always take actions that protect the British people and British interests and that deter malign activity.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), I have repeatedly come to this Chamber to ask about proscribing the IRGC, which is widely recognised on both sides of the House as a bunch of clerical fascists and homicidal maniacs who particularly enjoy torturing and murdering women. I suspect the Foreign Secretary agrees with us, so why does he not take the final step and proscribe the IRGC?

[James Cleverly]

The actions this Government take with regard to the IRGC are to deter its malign activity within its own borders, within the region and here in the UK and to protect British citizens, including dual nationals, and British interests overseas. We will always act in accordance with those principles. As I say, the UK Government do not routinely speculate on future designations.

Governor of Xinjiang: UK Visit

Lord Cryer Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I think this is an opportunity to send a robust message from our side about everything we judge completely outrageous and unacceptable in Xinjiang. We therefore judge that there is utility in the prospect of officials meeting this individual.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Is this the best we can do? This country used to have a tradition—on both sides of the House, in both major parties—of standing up to tyrants, butchers, fascists and great persecutors. That seems to have been abandoned. Is not the only conclusion to be drawn in Beijing from the actions of this Government that we will do nothing to stand up to them?

Iran

Lord Cryer Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating it.

It is no exaggeration to say that Iran is currently on a knife edge. The protests are growing in intensity and, sadly, the response of the Iranian regime’s forces is growing equally, with savagery. As we have heard, the protests stem from the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish woman who was arrested on the spurious charge of mal-veiling—of not wearing her hijab properly in the eyes of a member of the morality police. She was arrested and taken into custody. She was by all accounts treated brutally. She died of skull injuries. It is unsurprising that even in a deeply conservative Muslim state, such an event should give rise to such revulsion, but the popular reaction in Iran to Mahsa’s death has been nothing short of extraordinary. There are huge waves of anti-Government protests right across the country. By 28 December, it was calculated that the uprising had spread to more than 280 towns and cities across Iran and to all 31 provinces of the country. People have taken to the streets, many of them chanting anti-Government slogans. In itself, that is remarkable given the regime’s notorious sensitivity to even the mildest criticism. It is impossible to overstate what is going on at the moment.

Similarly, the response of the security forces has been savage in the extreme. People are losing their lives. It is estimated that in the past four months security forces have killed more than 750 demonstrators, over 70 of whom were young people under the age of 18. So far, more than 600 individuals killed in the protests have been identified by the principal opposition group, the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, which also estimates that over 30,000 protesters have been detained. The regime is executing those protesters. So far, around 40 of them have been sentenced to death, most, as we have heard, on the extraordinary charge of waging war on God. Two young men, Mohsen Shekari and Majidreza Rahnavard, were hanged in December. Just a few days ago, Mohammad Mahdi Karami, aged only 22, and Seyed Mohammad Hosseini, aged 39, were also executed. The UN Human Rights Office has, quite properly, condemned the executions, saying, as the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) pointed out, that they followed

“unfair trials based on false confessions”.

Even as we speak, a 22-year-old young man, Mohammad Ghobadlou, and several others are awaiting the execution of a sentence of death. Mr Ghobadlou was sentenced to death for “spreading corruption on Earth”. According to Amnesty International, the prosecution relied on torture-based evidence, a confession that was relied on to convict him of running over officials with a car, killing one.

Families of the protesters awaiting execution staged protests outside the prison in which they are being held. They continue to protest, even though the security forces fire shots in the air in an attempt to disperse them. There is no doubt that these are exceptionally brave people who are willing to risk their lives to protest against the regime. Despite the harshness of the regime’s response, they remain undeterred. It is noticeable that most protesters are young and many are women. They come from all backgrounds: university and high school students, bazaar traders, manual workers, intellectuals, and people of all ethnic backgrounds and social classes. Thousands upon thousands of them continue to take to the streets, calling for the downfall of the regime and its leaders. It is very clear that what we are witnessing is a very active political movement of people who are no longer willing to put up with the medieval theocratic regime under which they have lived for more than 40 years, and who are seeking to replace it with a modern, democratic, secular Government.

These brave people deserve our support. I commend the Government for what they have already done. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has quite properly described the executions as abhorrent. The United Kingdom has been a driving force in securing the establishment of a fact-finding mission by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate the numerous allegations of human rights violations during the uprising. The UK also secured the necessary votes to suspend Iran’s membership of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. All that is welcome, but there is, as other hon. Members have said, much more to be done. The UK should continue to lead the western response, helping to bring forward more concrete measures to deny the regime the ability to continue its repression, and to help the people of Iranian to realise their democratic aspirations. The UK, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, should lead the pressure for recognition of the rights of the Iranian people to defend themselves by any legitimate means available, given that the authorities have effectively declared war upon their own population.

As other hon. Members have said, it is surely now time for the Government to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. The IRGC is the regime’s principal means of exerting control and repression of the Iranian people. Furthermore, it is one of the world’s foremost exporters of terror. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm today that the Government intend to proscribe the IRGC, but I was extremely pleased to read in newspaper reports a few days ago that that is what is going to happen. He may, of course, surprise us and we may learn that from him today.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

What the right hon. Gentleman says about the IRGC is entirely accurate. They are a bunch of clerical fascists who rape, kill and maim their way around Iran and outside Iran’s borders. I think there is a consensus across the House that the organisation should be banned, so what does he think is holding the Government up? I think there is sympathy among Ministers to ban the IRGC, but I cannot see what is stopping Ministers from finally making that decision.

[Mr Jones]

The only conclusion I can come to is that the Government do not want to alert the IRGC on when it will happen. I think we all accept that it will happen and I would be astounded, given the noises we have heard over recent days, if it were not to happen.

The Government should also invoke the global human rights sanctions regulations against officials of the regime, including President Ebrahim Raisi, who, according to Amnesty International among others, was a member of the so-called death commission that extrajudicially executed thousands of political dissidents in secret in 1988—the notorious 1988 massacre of political prisoners. The Government should continue to work with international partners to impose a co-ordinated diplomatic boycott on Iran, and demand the immediate release of political prisoners. They should also work through the UN Security Council to insist on access to Iranian prisons and arrange for human rights officials to meet detained protesters.

To repeat, Iran is now on a knife edge. We are witnessing what may well become, and I hope does become, a transformational change in a country that has endured much over the last few decades. Iran is an important country. It is one of the oldest civilisations in the world. Now, the bravery of the Iranian people is finally presenting the prospect of a return to normality for Iran among the community of nations. We in this country must do everything we can to support them at this crucial time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cryer Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that those are two terrible crises, and money is important. It is not everything, but it is important. We will have to wait until the outturn from the autumn statement to see where we stand on that.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) has just pointed out, the IRGC has led and organised the brutal crackdown on protesters in Iran. What do those fascist thugs have to do to get themselves designated a terrorist organisation?

[David Rutley]

I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes, and it has been made with real passion, but we are not able to add anything to the points we have already made to hon. Members on this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cryer Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the UK and Israel share a thriving relationship, working together on bilateral priorities, as well as on regional issues of mutual concern. The British embassy in Israel is in Tel Aviv. I am aware of the possibility of a review but will not speculate further on this point.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

When we are talking about the people in power in Tehran and their proxies around the world, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned, we are talking about clerical fascists, who would probably have been on the same side as the Nazis if they had been around 80 years ago. Why can we not just get on with it and ban the IRGC, as we banned Hezbollah?

[Amanda Milling]

I have been clear in response to earlier questions on the IRGC and the range of sanctions to constrain its destabilising activity. I will not comment further on the possibility of proscription of this group.