EU Migration: Valletta Summit

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I had the honour this morning to have a discussion with a journalist from PinkNews. I made it clear that I believe it is for Ministers always to raise issues of discrimination against LGBT people when they are under threat and therefore seeking asylum. The Home Office is very clear on the rules it applies to asylum. Being able to show that there is a reasonable threat that one is going to face persecution in the host country is one of the first stages in being able to claim asylum.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the presumption must surely be in favour of affording protection to those fleeing war zones such as Syria, but the case is far less strong in respect of countries in west Africa. Will the Minister look at the position adopted by Spain in respect of the Canary Islands and see to what extent that might be relevant to the position of the European Union—the north of the Mediterranean looking at the south?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, all 28 members of the European Union have different economic drivers and different approaches to economic migration and asylum policy. We always look with interest at how other countries manage to welcome those in need, and I am sure we will continue to do so. We have a rigorous system to ensure that there can be legal migration and that those in need of protection receive it.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, it is sad that, at this time, we do not have the benefit of the wisdom and experience of Lord Healey and Lord Howe, and we send our sincere condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, at this very sad time.

This debate is more limited in scope than perhaps it would have been earlier this year. The starting point is surely that, after the general election, the Government can claim to have a mandate. We now need to examine the details of implementing the electorate’s decision.

In the other place, the Foreign Secretary declared that there are three variables: the date, the question and the franchise. On the date, the Government have stated that the referendum will be held before the end of 2017 and that the precise date will depend on the progress of negotiations. It has now been agreed that the referendum will not coincide with certain domestic elections. There is, however, a problem. In 2017, there are key elections in France and Germany. I agree with Liam Fox MP that, with all the different procedures in the 27 other member countries and the temptation for them to add favourite items, it is unrealistic to expect treaty change by the end of 2017. A post-dated cheque would obviously raise problems. We can do little about the date in today’s debate, but it is worth looking at the Guardian today, which suggests that there is not much urgency in the Prime Minister’s approach to the negotiations. Perhaps the Minister could reply to that later.

The question was changed for the better in the other place; it no longer invites the answer yes, but is balanced and fair. So far as the franchise is concerned, the simplest solution is, of course, the normal franchise for a general election with the addition of Gibraltar, which has already happened, and Members of this House. However, there are still many absurdities. Citizens of one foreign country resident in the UK—namely Ireland—can vote. Only citizens from certain EU countries in the UK—namely Malta and Cyprus—can vote. Citizens of Gibraltar, who along with the Falkland Islanders would face the most adverse consequences if we were to remove ourselves as advocates for them in Brussels, have the vote. EU citizens who may have spent decades here and have policy interests across the board will not have the vote, while British citizens who live abroad and may no longer have any real stake in our country, will. Surely some consideration should be given to adopting the same rules as in local government elections to allow all other EU nationals resident in the UK for a certain period of time, perhaps three years, to vote.

I have a few observations from my personal experience. I was in a European department in the Foreign Office when we in this country debated the alternatives such as EFTA, the diversion at that time. I appeared with Edward Heath on the same platform during the 1975 election. This, as Yogi Berra is supposed to have said, is like déjà vu all over again. We have a divided government party wheeling in a device like a deus ex machina for party, not national, interest. I recall in 1975 the bald assertion that the referendum would result in the closure of debate on our EU membership. Tony Benn soon recommenced his campaign against the EU, which led to the disastrous 1983 Labour manifesto.

Another precedent is of course the current debate in Scotland on a second referendum on independence. It is claimed by some that our citizens need to be asked again, as there was no mention in 1975 of ever-closer union and vast changes have taken place since. I comment that ever-closer union, which the Government now seek to opt out of, was always in the treaty. Again, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, would say, no institution is static. All political institutions are dynamic. Surely no one believed that the European Union would stand still. Still, David Cameron, our Prime Minister, wants his Clause 4 moment by seeking to avoid for us the movement towards ever-closer union.

I took part in the French referendum on the Maastricht treaty, successfully, I may say—just. Most of the debate at the time was wholly unrelated to Maastricht. That is really the problem: an in/out question can be easily misinterpreted. However, the referendum will not give a list of options for our people. What alternative would they favour if they were to vote no? How would we interpret a no vote? If the Government are so keen to listen to the people and have the benefit of their views, surely there should be a whole series of additional questions such as, “If no, what would you like to happen?”.

My experience of the 1979 and 1997 referendums on devolution in my own Wales is that the result of the vote depends on who asks the question and when they ask it. In Sweden, for example, there was one brief moment when Swedish public opinion swung in favour of the EU, and that was the time when the referendum was held. There is a danger of a passing public mood which can determine the result; for example, if immigration were to rise to the top of the agenda of concern and were linked by the public to the EU.

One brief penultimate comment on the PM’s position. Clearly he travels light on this issue, as indeed on most other policy questions. However, the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, claims in his book that Mr Cameron wants us in, come what may. Certainly up to 2012, knowing the resulting uncertainties for our business and inward investment, he gave powerful speeches against a referendum. It is his party and not national imperatives which have changed his position. It is a dangerous gamble for the UK as a whole since a no vote would deliver a powerful new impetus to Scottish independence. I wonder if that has been added to the Prime Minister’s equation.

No doubt we shall examine the details of the Bill—particularly the question on the franchise for those who are 16 and above—and debate reports on possible alternatives. The referendum involves key decisions for us. It relates to how we see ourselves and our place in the world. Will we be stronger if we withdraw? Will we be taken more seriously by key players such as the United States, particularly in international trade negotiations? Will we be more attractive for inward investment? Will our car industry flourish with higher tariffs or will we be increasingly marginalised as a middle-ranking power but still—like Norway—be heavily influenced by decisions over which we have no say? The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked, “Who wants us out?”, and the list he gave was most instructive. Thus, beyond the details of the Bill are wider questions which I fear for party reasons the Government will seek to avoid.

Freedom of Religion and Belief

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Alton, initiated a more general debate a year ago, the situation has surely become worse in terms of compliance with the universal declaration. I am appalled by the hypocrisy of so many countries ready to sign up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and yet ready to deny their citizens those same rights. Of course, one worrying development since the 1948 universal declaration is the development of non-state actors such as Boko Haram, ISIS or failed states such as the Central African Republic where the Government do not exist or are incapable of preventing violations. But the 1948 principles are universal and attempts to circumvent them by devices such as blasphemy laws should fail. There are no exemptions. We should support all persecuted minorities. I note that of the 49 countries of a Muslim culture, 17 tolerate no other religion. What should we do—what can we do—about these violations?

I shall avoid a Cook’s tour of all the defaulting countries, but I shall draw attention to some key themes. First, we are fortunate to have so much material available from official, semi-official and unofficial sources. We in this country are blessed to have so many non-governmental organisations in the field, many of them based here, such as CSW, Open Doors, Maranatha, Barnabas and Aid to the Church in Need. As a general point, although our focus today is on Article 18, those countries that respect religious minorities are also those with the best human rights records across the board.

Secondly, there are many temptations for Governments and diplomats in the field. The professional deformation of diplomats is the wish to be loved and not to offend, so often, human rights are marginalised or given a lower status in the hierarchy. Governments may claim that they use a big stick but they do so only in private, although I accept that in certain cases, such as China, private representations may be the most effective means to help individuals. The other temptation is to be strong on the weak but weak on the strong. For example, of the nine countries designated by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, three, including Saudi Arabia, are,

“for reasons of important national interest”,

given an indefinite waiver, which clearly undermines the impact of that.

Thirdly, we in the UK are fortunate because of our membership of so many international organisations. The question surely is: what use do we make of that membership? What value do we add in terms of violations of religious and human rights? What initiatives, for example, have we made in the UN, where we are now a member of the UN Human Rights Council? In the EU, do we believe that the External Action Service is adequately staffed? Are there human rights experts in the Cabinet of the high representative? Do we support conditionality in aid and development policies? The Commonwealth, as we know, has made grand declarations such as the Harare declaration and the Commonwealth Charter, yet 10 Commonwealth countries appear in the Open Doors watch list, including Malaysia, where recently life has become much harder for Christians.

Broadly, we in the UK give a relatively good example of human rights at home. However, mention has already been made of the disastrous policy in respect of the Catholic adoption agencies and the suffering of young people as a result. By passing to other agencies, this could quite easily have been avoided.

The FCO’s human rights report has improved over the years. Consultation with NGOs has become more formalised but we need to look carefully at models in other countries and see whether we can improve our position, because we have not reached perfection. I do not have time to look at all the examples, such as the example of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom or what the State Department does in its annual report on international religious freedom to encourage improvements and to give help to immigration officials.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

Could the noble Lord conclude his remarks?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

We should not be afraid to learn from others. I commend the work of the Minister, but we must rely not on individuals but on improving our institutions as well.

Iran: Nuclear Deal

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I can assure the noble Baroness that we will continue our pressure on the human rights record in Iran, which really bears no scrutiny because it is so poor. With regard to the suffering of the Iranian people, she is right to draw attention to the fact that sanctions have not affected medicines over this period.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, this is historic but risky because of the history of deception by Iran and the linkages between the Revolutionary Guards and arch-proliferators such as North Korea. Do we expect that this agreement will lead to any spillover, for example into Yemen where Iran has had a very malign influence? What reassurances have we given the Gulf states, including more military assistance, to help them over the interim period? The Minister mentioned the embassy. If our businessmen are to take full advantage of the new openings, surely an embassy would help immeasurably?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, there are still obstacles in the way of reopening the embassy but we are working very hard on them in discussions with Iran and we hope to reopen it by the end of the year. The noble Lord is right that that will help businesses from around the world, particularly the UK, to operate there. However, businesses are right to be circumspect about how soon they go in and the circumstances under which they can operate. I am sure there will be lot of caution. I think I have already made it clear that we are talking to countries in the area through our posts and also sometimes through ministerial contacts with regard to the implications of this agreement. Clearly, our diplomatic work since last summer with regard to Yemen has been trying to ensure that there is no spillover into what appears at times to be a proxy war.

Gaza

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness. We may not always agree on the Middle East but I recognise and acknowledge her commitment. Perhaps it was just a little one-eyed to claim that the raining of Hamas rockets on Israel is a form of self-defence.

The humanitarian, economic and political problems of Gaza are interrelated. On the humanitarian side, the UNHRC report of 22 June refers to the war a year ago. In many ways the report was unsatisfactory, as the commission itself acknowledges, but it does make a case against the Israel Defense Forces which needs an answer. The commission recognised its limited resources, its short timeframe of less than seven months from inception, the fact that halfway through its chair had to be replaced on a question of impartiality, and its limited resources and restricted access. Israel refused to co-operate with the inquiry, as indeed it refused to allow me and the Middle East committee of the Council of Europe which I chair to visit Gaza. The commission inferred a criticism therefore of Israel without having the benefit of the Israeli case, which in any event was the fault of Israel. The commission mentions the attempts of Israel to limit civilian casualties and the warning of attack, albeit, I concede, in congested areas, but the numbers of casualties speak for themselves.

By contrast a report on the IDF in the Gaza war led by retired US General Michael Jones and Professor Corn, formerly principal US expert on the law of war, was assisted by Israel. Perhaps not surprisingly, it reaches very different conclusions on the use of civilians as human shields by Hamas and the positioning of weapons in heavily populated areas. It is a pity that the two reports were not collated in some way.

Clearly, children suffer most, as the Save the Children report amply illustrates. The World Bank report published on 27 May shows just how dire the economic plight of Gaza is, and it can be improved only by a political breakthrough. Whatever problems Israel now faces on the external front, within the turbulent Middle East it is strong. Surely it is best to make concessions from a position of strength. Alas, there is no evidence of any compromise from Prime Minister Netanyahu, who appears to wish only to manage the situation and has no long-term vision.

I have a couple of questions on politics for the Minister. On the Israeli-Hamas front, what can the Minister tell us about the reported talks brokered by Qatar trading a five-year ceasefire by Hamas for an end to the blockade? How strong are the pressures in the European Union for more direct talks with Hamas? There has been some recent evidence of a warming in relations between Hamas and Egypt, which are very important. For example, Hamas has been removed from the terrorist list in Egypt and the Rafah crossing was opened—alas, only to be closed again after the outrages by ISIL-affiliated people in Sinai. There are contrary signs, such as the murder by Hamas of Fatah activists during the troubles.

As a postscript, the facts are clear on the population of Gaza. In 1948, there were less than a quarter of a million people in Gaza; in 2015, there are more than 1.8 million. Fertility rates in Gaza are much higher than among Palestinians in the West Bank and, indeed, Palestinians in Israel. Do the Government and other aid donors take this problem seriously? Is family spacing part of the UK and EU aid policy? If not, there will clearly be little improvement in Gaza’s situation, particularly in that of their children, as the per capita income will inevitably decline.

Burma: Ethnic Minorities

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, first, I recognise the work that my noble friend does so well for all of us as co-chair of the All-Party Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief. We are extremely concerned about the approach of the Burmese Government to those who wish to express their own religious identity. We are one of the most outspoken countries in the world about not only freedom of religion and belief but freedoms generally. The Burmese Government are left in no doubt. As to those who are prisoners of the regime, we make it clear that there should be proper treatment of prisoners and proper judicial process. It is wrong around the world if people are inhibited from practising their own belief.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

To be credible we have to be consistent, as the noble Baroness and her committee have always been. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom puts Burma in the worst category and states that its Government are wholly unwilling to investigate and prosecute those who are guilty of abuses against Muslims. The US puts Burma in its “country of particular concern” category. I am pleased that the Government and the EU are making representations with the US, but is it normal to make this joint démarche when, to be powerful and credible, we always ensure that we work with the EU and the US?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

Indeed, yes. We work with both the EU and the US on these matters. With UK support, the issue of Rakhine was discussed at a briefing of the UN Security Council on 28 May, where I raised the matter of Burma with Prince Zeid, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in Geneva on Monday. I will continue to do so. Later this morning, I meet the US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom and I will discuss the matter with him personally.

United Nations: Secretary-General

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I agree with that last statement. Certainly, if a job represents the interests of the world, people cannot exclude half the population. It is high time for a woman to lead the United Nations but of course we need credible candidates and it has to be an appointment on merit as well. With regard to having more than one candidate, a General Assembly resolution in 1946 established that it would be desirable for the Security Council to nominate only one candidate. We are at the start of a process where we look for allies around the United Nations to ensure that the next process is transparent and fair.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister, whom we welcome back, has set out an admirable list of objectives. We hope that perhaps FIFA, when it comes to its choice, will have a similar list of objectives. Can she tell us whether the other countries are ready to support those objectives, or will they continue in the old mode of regional rotation?

Queen’s Speech

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 28th May 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If he shows the same mastery in defence as he did over the health brief, we shall be fortunate. I also look forward very much to the coming maiden speech. Today we have the opportunity of a debate on themes broader than our normal foreign affairs debates, which normally cover a specific region or particular theme. I shall briefly reflect on who we believe we are and the global role that we can realistically play, and touch a little on how others see us—the Burns side. Such reflections are now particularly relevant over the next five years, when we will face key decisions that will have profound implications for our future world role.

First, at home, we have the Scottish question, with renewed talk of the case for a federal UK. Possibly we have moved beyond federalism and are now inexorably on the path to independence. If so, it would be a very truncated UK seeking to play a new role in the world. Secondly, and most of all, the decision will be made by 2017 or even earlier on our future relationship with the European Union. Who can doubt that if we were no longer a member of the European Union we would lose very much clout in the world? We would be independent and proud, but very much more limited.

Yet foreign affairs and defence appeared to figure very little in the general election campaign and our national priorities. Our press hardly covers those issues, only doing so briefly and spasmodically, and continues to cut the number of foreign correspondents. The TV debates hardly touched at all on foreign affairs. I recall one speech by Ed Miliband at Chatham House which included a controversial section linking the British-French bombing intervention in Libya with the boatloads of refugees crossing the Mediterranean. This was partially true but probably very ill-timed. The EU debate proper hardly surfaced during the election campaign, save perhaps on immigration. The chosen Conservative themes of credibility on the economy and a possible future Labour-SNP coalition dominated.

Times have changed; some of your Lordships may recall the general elections in the 1950s when foreign affairs were a major theme. I recall the groundnut scheme and the Hola camp massacre in 1959. Foreign affairs issues are now fairly marginal. Is that because of our perceived relative powerlessness in the face of the complexity of world problems, particularly as power shifts to the east, or perhaps memories of our recent military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, which leads to a rejection of intervention generally?

This national parochialism is reflected in Parliament. How many of our recently elected members of Parliament have seen service abroad? When I was first elected there in 1966, almost all the men had done national military service, and many had served in the Second World War. Many had also worked abroad in business or in government service. I recall in the debates over EU entry in the 1960s, when I was a member of our Diplomatic Service, George Thomson’s “ter-ums”, as he would call them, which included safeguarding the sterling area, New Zealand and the Commonwealth generally. That appears an echo of a very long distant past. I exempt your Lordships’ House from this criticism, but we are of course part of a different generation. The pathway to this House does not almost exclusively pass through service in the parliamentary office of a Member of Parliament.

We should know ourselves and reflect on how others see us. Clearly, the special relationship with the United States has withered, save in intelligence co-operation, and took a heavy blow in 2013 with the Commons vote on bombing Syria. The Daily Telegraph wrote in January that the reputation of Great Britain has been in free fall for several years. The warm and close Atlantic co-operation between Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan and between Mr Blair and President Clinton is no more. Sir Christopher Meyer, the former ambassador to Washington, wrote that the Americans have a growing concern about the effectiveness of the UK as a major ally. For example, we recently joined the Chinese-sponsored Asian Development Bank without consulting the United States. A recent article in Le Monde was headed:

“The diplomatic eclipse of Great Britain worries France and Europe”.

For example, France is the key ally of the United States in west Africa and has intervened massively in Mali and the Central African Republic. Where has the United Kingdom been in the fight against Boko Haram in Commonwealth Nigeria? Will the cuts to our military budget imperil the Franco-British corps due to be operational next year? Is there any prospect of our reaching the defence expenditure target of 2% of GDP? Our defence budget has slipped from fourth in the world in 2010 to sixth in the world now. An article in the Economist on 4 April entitled “Little Britain” refers to an unmistakable decline. Our contribution to fighting ISIS in Iraq is one air strike a day. I recall that 10 years ago, I was in Tehran and saw the troika of Jack Straw, Joschka Fischer for Germany and de Villepin for France negotiating on behalf of the West with Iran over the nuclear issue. This year, only France and Germany of the three are at the Minsk negotiations over Ukraine. Since 2010, the FCO budget has been cut by 16% in real terms—30% if the World Service is included. We vainly strive to make up the shortfalls in military manpower with additional reservists. Our world role has surely diminished.

The EU debate will, of course, dominate for the next two years, yet the Prime Minister has hardly shown himself to be sure-footed in this area. I cite the withdrawal from the EPP, the ineffective veto of the fiscal treaty in 2011 and the ill-fated campaign to block the candidacy of Mr Juncker, who was almost certain to become the President because he was the candidate of the major bloc within the European Parliament—all of which does not bode well for the success of the renegotiations, in spite of the good will of many friends, such as that shown by Mr Timmermans. Yet probably a deal can be done if it is handled skilfully, by avoiding unrealistic demands and not constantly emphasising British exceptionalism. Are the Government attracted by the Danish precedent of 1992, recognising that there is no prospect of treaty change and negotiating a series of opt-outs to be consolidated later into a treaty, as was the case with Amsterdam? We can perhaps show good will and smooth the path by following the example of Tony Blair. I recall that, after the difficulties caused by those in John Major’s party whose paternity John Major doubted, Tony Blair sought to repair that damage by enhancing co-operation with Europe in security and defence, with the Saint Malo treaty, and by diplomatic co-operation in west Africa. Alas, recent appointments of Eurosceptics to the personal staff of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not bode well for a balanced EU policy.

Finally, in the Queen’s Speech, another area of potential difficulty that could lead to the loss of allies in the European Union is human rights. The European Convention on Human Rights, which was drafted by UK jurists, is the core of the Council of Europe. Are we to continue automatically to accept the court’s judgments? If we make those judgments advisory only, we will face the danger of leaving the Council of Europe and give a bad example to serial defaulters, such as Russia and Turkey. A compromise has long been available—for example, on prisoners’ voting rights—the so-called margin of appreciation. Dominic Grieve MP was sacked as Attorney-General because he realised the dangers of failing to reach a deal. I invite your Lordships to read his very carefully drafted article in today’s Times relating to the effect of the Human Rights Act on Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and the effect on our relationship with the Council of Europe.

However, all is not lost. The Prime Minister has a new mandate. The new intake of Members of Parliament may be Eurosceptic, but they owe their election to him. Our European allies hope that in his second term the Prime Minister will end what Le Monde calls “l’effacement britannique”, which is perhaps best translated as “the British obliteration”. If the Prime Minister pursues realistic goals in a flexible way, seeks allies in a spirit of co-operation and avoids populist cul de sacs, he may well succeed in securing his place in history and will certainly deserve the support of this side of the House and the country generally. Alternatively, failure to obtain a positive vote on the European Union will lead to the loss of Scotland, which wishes to remain part of the European Union, and to the United Kingdom being weakened in both our reach and our clout overseas.

EU and Russia (EUC Report)

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith. With this debate, we have certainly played into his strong suit. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and the members of the committee. They stress as a continuing theme the need to understand Russia and Russian civilisation. In our country we have lost much of that expertise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, mentioned in her contribution. I recall that when we recognised this in the 1960s we set up the Hayter report, as a result of which several new posts were established in our universities. Where are they now? I understand that many of them no longer exist. We need to encourage the study of Russian and Russian civilisation.

I have two preliminary observations. This is of course a fast-moving situation. The report was ordered to be printed on 10 February, two days before the conclusion of the Minsk II agreement. Secondly, the report exposes the effect of the limit of the remit of the House of Lords European Union Committee: we do not have a foreign affairs committee so everything must be looked at through the lens of the European Union, which has meant that the report is not as rounded and comprehensive an analysis as it might have been. Hence, for example, the important NATO dimension is hardly examined in the report but it would have been had there been a foreign affairs committee, as in the other place. To be fair, the report mentions the Council of Europe, which has exercised its own sanctions in its Assembly, in that the Russian delegation has withdrawn itself.

Equally, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, paragraph 325 of the report contains a postscript on UK government policy on the European Convention on Human Rights. If we were to have a pick-and-choose policy in relation to the convention, that would certainly give the Russians a major precedent to pick and chose, and we would devalue any influence we might otherwise have.

A crisis of this magnitude throws important light on the principal actors in the drama. What does it tell us about Russia? Given its economic weakness, which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has just underlined, President Putin has played his cards with consummate skill. We must understand Russia’s fear of encirclement, its desire to end the perceived humiliation after the loss of the Soviet Union and the Soviet empire, the reaction to the anarchy of the 1990s, the search for the restoration of great power status and the pivot to the east to make up for the loss in the west. All this explains the return to traditional themes of authoritarianism, patriotism and the role of the Orthodox Church. It also exposes the weakness of our policy assumption before and after the 1990s that Russia was on a journey to western-style democracy.

On NATO expansion, many serious observers argue that Secretary James Baker gave the clear impression to Russia that, in return for recognising the independence of the Baltic states, NATO would not expand eastwards. The Istanbul summit put an end to that. I understand the Government’s case that Ukraine is a sovereign country which can choose its alliances as it will, but to join NATO would be hugely provocative to Russia. A wise course would be for President Poroshenko to recognise this and for NATO to give a similar undertaking. That is surely necessary if we wish to live in peace with Russia.

What does the crisis tell us about the West? Once military intervention has been ruled out, only sanctions and attempts to isolate Russia remain. So far, there has been a remarkable degree of consensus within the European Union but, as last week’s Council illustrated very clearly, this may well not last as President Putin is seeking to divide and conquer. It is possible that there will not be the required unanimity when we renew the current sanctions, particularly tier 3. As over Georgia, economic interests will prevail. There will be business as usual. For example, last week, we saw Russia’s incremental quasi-annexation of South Ossetia to provide a possible precedent for Donbass.

What does the crisis tell us about the UK’s role? We recall that the UK was one of the four signatories of the Budapest declaration 1994, which has now been massively breached by Russia redrawing national boundaries. The fact that we were not part of the EU team at Minsk can be construed only as a signal of our diminishing status.

How should the West respond? On the economic side, clearly we must mobilise western capital, with conditionality, for Ukraine. We should continue to assist with constitution building with the Venice commission and other groups, and particularly with proposals for decentralisation. Just as Ukraine will have to deal with Russia for energy supplies, we should aim to make progress with Russia in areas of policy of common interest. Russia apparently showed a very positive response at the pre-conference on the non-proliferation treaty. Other areas include counterterrorism, ISIL and Iran. We should maintain sanctions but be ready to ratchet down if Russia continues broadly to observe Minsk II. Overall, the trust has disappeared.

Finally, Galbraith said something like, “All foreign policy decisions involve a choice between the disastrous and the unpalatable”. It would be disastrous to provide Ukraine with US arms. Can one imagine the effect when the first Russian soldier was killed by US guns? It would, nevertheless, be unpalatable but realistic if we were to allow some time for monitoring the implementation of Minsk II.

Crimea is not mentioned in Minsk II. Surely, like it or not, it is now permanently part of Russia, symbolised by the fact that Russia is spending €3.5 billion to construct a 19-kilometre bridge that will link Crimea across the straits to what it would call its motherland, to be completed by 2018. A credible referendum held in Crimea now would probably confirm the illegal one. It is absurd for the US to argue that sanctions must remain until Russia gives up Crimea, which would mean indefinitely. Obviously the options with regard to Donbass are very difficult and different; there would have to be negotiations over the autonomy measure. It is also unpalatable to yield to Russian aggression and lies, but we shall have to live with the new, nationalist Russia: keep doors open, but sup with a longer spoon. Almost 70 years after Kennan’s historic article, we should perhaps re-examine the case for containment.

Syria

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we should remember that President Assad as, also, commander-in-chief of the Syrian forces, presided over the deaths of 200,000 of his own people. He has barrel-bombed them and used chemical weapons. Indeed, a recent report of 16 March suggests they have been used in Idlib. Assad is not the person with whom to negotiate for the solution. We are in negotiation with moderates. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green, that it is important that negotiations achieve a peaceful transition in line with the Geneva communiqué. It is that work in which we are engaged.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, however distasteful, should we not recognise that if a long-term solution is to be found to this tragic conflict, we will have to engage with President Assad in some way? In spite of the barrel bombs, the torture and the enormous loss of life, and with all his faults, Assad is marginally less bad than ISIL.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I would not like to say that he is a lesser of two evils. He has shown that he is evil in himself. I will not try to calculate percentages of evil—that would be an affront to those whom he has been responsible for killing in Syria. However, the noble Lord has made a very strong point. With whom does one negotiate? I am aware when I go to the Human Rights Council in Geneva that Assad’s people are there. They are part of the furniture. They are part of those who negotiate on whether a human rights Motion on Syria is passed there and at the United Nations. Negotiation with Assad himself is not part of our proposals.