Democratic Republic of the Congo: M23 Group

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. When we committed to the Luanda process, we were not sure exactly what steps we could achieve in the final outcome. President Lourenço assured me about what he was trying to achieve. We cannot restore trust, but we can build confidence at each stage. Unfortunately, the 15 December summit did not take place; things fell apart, and we saw the advances. Now, as I said, SADC and the EAC have come together in Dar es Salaam, overseen by the African Union. They are taking the lead. The African Union has also appointed three facilitators to ensure that the process is moved forward in a much more consistent and coherent way.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not a danger of contradictory policies? A country invades its neighbour. Its forces carry out human rights atrocities and take several cities. We rightly condemn what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Should we not be equally robust in respect of a Commonwealth country, Rwanda?

Government of Syria: Freedom of Expression, Religion and Belief

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I said last week that we have a special envoy who has visited Syria. We are in close contact with the interim authorities. We are working closely with our allies in the region and we are carefully monitoring the situation. As I said, we are judging them by their actions, not simply on their words. We are concerned by reports of attacks on minorities, including Christians, and attempts to stoke sectarian tensions. We are monitoring the situation extremely closely.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that it is early days and that the point is currently in both directions? Would he agree that one potentially positive sign is that Turkey, our good ally, has close relations with the new regime? Should we not therefore be ready to encourage Turkey to play a positive role in influencing the new regime in these areas?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a good point. We are concerned by increased tensions in northern Syria and the impact that this may have on civilians and stability in the region. Turkey has been playing a critical role there and we have been in regular contact with it, as well as with Syrian democratic forces. Our priority across the board is de-escalation.

Sudan and Eastern DRC

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think that the noble Lord appreciates that the issues surrounding this conflict are clearly complex in terms of the history of eastern DRC. We should not forget the genocide that occurred in Rwanda, which after all is only 30 years ago. However, the integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is important, and international law is important. That is what we have been focused on. As I mentioned, we have been supporting inclusive talks so that, where there are concerns, they should be addressed in those negotiations. I felt confident that at the meeting on 15 December we would make progress, but sadly we did not.

I am deeply concerned by the reports from the UN group of experts about M23 and Rwanda illegally extracting critical minerals from the DRC, including coltan. We have made our concerns known and will continue to do so.

On Sudan, the UK condemns in the strongest terms the increasing reports of atrocities being committed across Sudan, particularly in Darfur and al-Fashir, as the noble Lord mentioned. The Foreign Secretary issued a tweet on this subject, particularly in relation to the hospital. We are committed to doing everything in our power to ensure that those responsible are held to account. That means ensuring that those parties remain committed to their Jeddah commitments. We also strongly support the ICC’s active investigation into the situation in Darfur, and we welcome prosecutor Khan’s report and briefing to the council. We are absolutely committed to hold these people to account.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on his initiatives and his very strong personal commitment of long standing to peaceful solutions to conflicts in Africa. Clearly, both these conflicts depend in part on the lure of natural resources and on external intervention—Qatar and others in Sudan and Rwanda in the DRC.

Can my noble friend say what leverage we have, and are we prepared to use it in a clear form? For example, in 2012, the British Government froze our aid to Rwanda, which led fairly speedily to a solution to the M23 intervention in the DRC. Would we consider a similar intervention?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The Foreign Secretary’s Statement in the other place last week made it clear that we will be working with our allies, and this is the important thing; we want a collective, international response that shows how serious and concerned we are about Rwanda’s activities in the eastern DRC. The first point is the one made by the noble, Lord Purvis: we have been absolutely clear in our message that it is unacceptable and there should be an immediate ceasefire. I will not speculate on what actions the international community will take, but rest assured they will be serious and will have an impact.

On the extractive industries and the mining situation, it is important to say that, when I first met President Lourenço, we talked about the Lobito corridor; we talked about the potential that Africa, and particularly that part of Africa, has in terms of greening the global economy. It has huge potential, and the DRC has the biggest amount of potential. We have focused in all our talks on saying there is a dividend for peace here—let us look at the future and not focus on the past. Sadly, we were unable to deliver that vision at the 15 December summit, but I am confident that we can refocus efforts on that and ensure we focus on progress in Africa.

UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the committee under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde. The debate on this report has provided a forum for exposing a great deal of expertise already in the House. The report itself illustrates the dynamic nature of changes in the Arctic and the importance to our interests, including security, environment and energy supply. It asks key questions about our geopolitical priorities. It is called Our Friends in the North but obviously touches on those who are not our friends, including Russia and China in particular. I hope the report will be the basis for continued serious debate about the Arctic and our role in it—particularly, of course, a key role for our friends in Norway.

I begin with the usual complaint about the delays in bringing this report to the House for debate. The inquiry was launched in March 2023, the report was published in November that year and the Government response was a year ago, in January 2024. Surely, procedurally, we can do better as a House. It is fair to say that there have been no dramatic changes in the context since the report was published, but there has been an intensification of trends, including, for example, the effect of sanctions on Russian activities. I think particularly of the abandonment—or at least mothballing—by Russia of that LNG facility in Murmansk, and the effect on the supply of spare parts for ships to Novatek and the Russian commercial fleet.

The old assumptions about the Arctic being an area of low tension and high co-operation have been undermined, perhaps most dramatically in the role of the Arctic Council. It is right that the ministerial meetings following the Ukraine invasion have been stilled, but I fear that Russia will increasingly try to use the wedge of expert co-operation to normalise relations with the Arctic Council, and we must be very wary of that. How do the Government see the future of the Arctic Council today?

Obviously, climate change is fundamental to changes in the area, including the development of the Northern Sea Route. For example, there will be a reduction of almost two weeks in the journey from Tokyo to Hamburg, and potential effects on the Suez Canal. There will be many advantages for Russia from the opening of the Northern Sea Route—pilotage and so on. Tensions between Russia and the West are unlikely to ease.

The committee stressed the relevance of China, which is a provider of money for development. For example, we know that President Xi visited Moscow in March last year and promoted co-operation. In April, in Murmansk, China and Russia agreed on what is euphemistically called “maritime law enforcement”—whatever that may mean. We can surely confidently say that, if the report were written today, there would be much greater emphasis on threats to critical national infrastructure and the grey zone, including GPS jamming, military exercises, cyberattacks and information warfare.

Most salient now is maritime sabotage. For example, we know that in November a Chinese vessel was stopped because of alleged damage to Swedish interests, and there was a very tepid response at the time. By contrast, when a Russian vessel was stopped on Christmas Day by Finland and spy matériel was found on it, there was a far more robust response by Finland—the vessel was impounded. Let us hope that is a precedent. I hope the Government will applaud the robust response of Finland and, if there is appropriate evidence, use that and say it should be a precedent. Although the time has been short, it would be interesting to know what stage the Finnish investigation is at.

There are strong geopolitical implications of the Arctic changes. Of course, every case cannot be a priority, but surely recent events have exposed our vulnerability—ballistic missile defence, for example—and the critical importance of the Arctic to the UK and what the report calls “Our friends in the North”. Perhaps we should reconsider whether the tilt to the Indo-Pacific is still as justified. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, mentioned, our good colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, was a member of the committee and concurred with its recommendations. I assume that his membership will colour some of the recommendations that he will make in his review.

Georgia

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I will not repeat it a third time because the noble Lord knows exactly what the Government’s position on sanctions is. The shocking scenes of violence towards protesters and journalists by the Georgian authorities are unacceptable and must stop. We are working with our allies to ensure that we can convey that message in the strongest possible terms. We are determined to uphold what is, after all, the constitutional position of Georgia. When I was there 18 months ago I saw that it has strong constitutional rights and very good laws, which are being breached by its Government. It is right that we stand up and point that out.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, we have close links with Georgia, and as a country we therefore have some clout. The European Union has more clout. What level and type of co-operation do we have with the European Union in respect of Georgia?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right and we are in regular contact with international partners, including the EU and the US. We are collaborating multilaterally, including on support for joint statements through the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the United Nations, where we have consistently called for human rights to be respected. We will work in consultation and in collaboration with our allies, because that is the most effective way we can ensure that they listen to us.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Earl that I shall not apply for an HGV licence—I am getting a little too crabbed with age for that.

It is difficult to add anything new to the debate that we have had since 1999, and of course today’s debate shows it. Having waited so long, I am tempted to intervene at least briefly. During that period, all options have been considered, and of course rejected, since the big bang of 1999. There have been some minor changes, with proposals on retirement, expulsion and so on, but even when there has been a consensus in your Lordships’ House and generally, such as on the Burns report, it has been rejected. I have heard many pleas this evening for yet further delay.

While we debate, numbers have increased, of course. Your Lordships’ House now has 804 Members, and the Conservatives have 86 more than the government party, Labour. I warned Mr Johnson’s Government that by recklessly increasing numbers he would provoke a counterreaction, and that perhaps is now the danger.

Even when I was in the House of Commons I voted against an elected Chamber. Why? I saw it as a recipe for conflict and that both legitimacies would challenge one another. There would be the danger of losing some expertise. I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said about what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, called the “warriors’ Bench”. There is too little practical military experience in your Lordships’ House, and we should seek to retain that.

The problem also is, if there were to be elections, we would be unlikely to see professionals wishing to join and seeking places on a party list. An elected House would be more partisan because of the process of election, and more parochial. I note that, when the Labour Peers’ working group produced a report in 2014, it suggested that there should be a referendum on an elected Chamber. They also talked about a constitutional convention. What is the Government’s policy on that?

Currently, the Government have brought forward very limited changes. They can of course make some hereditaries life Peers, or even delay their expulsion, but their removal is likely, which will reduce overall numbers and the imbalance for the Conservatives. As for the retirement age, why not combine this with a fixed term, particularly now that we are seeing more appointments at the age of 30 or so?

What are the principles for moving forward? We wish to retain the expertise and quality of scrutiny, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, mentioned, post-legislative scrutiny. We must deal with the inflation of numbers, perhaps using the Burns formula. We must reform the appointments procedures, perhaps again following the Norton Bill of 2022. We must eliminate the bias in favour of London and the south-east, and perhaps bring the devolved Administrations into the process. Diversity means that we should reduce the number of Bishops and add other faiths and denominations, but we should be careful of unintended consequences, such as an unthinking move to disestablishment or to a written constitution.

Overall, I support the Government’s gradualist approach, which is a step on the road to what I concede is an unknown destination, broadening down from precedent to precedent, as the old adage goes. As someone who is likely to die, at least politically, as a result of the Bill, and likely to be a victim of the process, I salute the Government’s proposals.

International Engagements

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The invitation extended by the representatives of the Government has nothing to do with that. There was no issue about advice or a challenge. The timing is very much up to the people who invited the former president of Taiwan and certainly nothing to do with the Foreign Secretary’s visit to China at all.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that a key justification of the Commonwealth is allowing smaller countries, particularly island countries, to walk tall? Is there not a danger that reparations could be a diversion from the real tasks facing the Commonwealth today? I fear that that issue will not go away, however. Is there not a danger also that expectations will be raised and we will be led unwillingly along a path we do not want to take?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

All I can say is that genuine concern is being expressed. The transatlantic slave trade is a diabolical stain on our history, and we do have to remember what happened in the past, condemn it and say why it was entirely unacceptable. That is the sort of dialogue we need to have with our partners in the Commonwealth. What I do know is that the agenda discussed at CHOGM was far more extensive and was looking to the future, particularly that of small, developing island states, which will experience the huge impact of climate change. I was at several launch meetings in CHOGM where we directly addressed that issue by providing information and support. The Commonwealth is dynamic and forward-looking, and I have every confidence we will be able to face the challenges of the future.

Sudan

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I join colleagues in congratulating my noble friend Lord Collins on his appointment, on his speech and on his initiative in holding this debate. One thing that has struck me forcibly is the reservoir of expertise revealed by every speaker. It is, dare I say, rather humbling for someone with fairly limited experience of Sudan.

I recall that the Sudan civil service had a fine reputation. The background is that Sudan became independent in 1956 and, since that time, its history has been characterised by turbulence and violence. I was in Sudan in 1967 and met, at his home, Sadiq al-Mahdi, who was then considered to be the great potential for peacekeeping. Alas, it was not the case, and now, since April last year, a war has been led by two warlord generals and appears to wholly ignore the plight of the people. I shall not go over all the statistics—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have set them out, and perhaps there is no merit in repeating them. But the catastrophe is appalling.

I recall that, earlier in the debate, the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Suttie, mentioned that very little attention has been paid in the British press to the catastrophe in Sudan. I would argue to the contrary that, latterly, there has been a flurry of attention—I refer to articles in the Sunday Times, the Economist and the Financial Times, and let us not forget that, in the Library publication, there was a helpful summary of the problem in Sudan.

The Economist of 31 August had a leader and a special briefing headed: “Why Sudan’s catastrophic war is the world’s problem”. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, sermonised on that text. It said the catastrophic conflict

“could kill millions—and spread chaos across Africa and the Middle East”,

causing

“the world’s worst famine in 40 years”—

presumably referring to the crisis in Ethiopia in 1984, which received so much attention. We had special concerts and petitions. One is bound to ask: what is the difference between Ethiopia then and Sudan now? We understand from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that there was a 40% shortfall in the fund for Sudan. Is it Gaza? Is it the other turbulence in the world? Is it aid fatigue? There is certainly a question about why there is such a difference.

We know that half the population is suffering from food insecurity. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, we are talking about a highly fragile neighbourhood. To the west is the Sahel, with all the turbulence and Islamism of that area. To the east is the Horn of Africa, with all its turbulence. Just a mere glance at the map of Sudan will show the number of fragile countries which surround it, including, of course, Libya to the north, which leaks arms to Sudan. Libya has in effect now been divided. Some commentators suggest that the possible solution in Sudan is further fragmentation after the loss of South Sudan, just as happened in Ethiopia with the loss of Eritrea and now with Somaliland possibly leaving Somalia.

It is a highly volatile region. If we find all the awful statistics of the human catastrophe unconvincing, surely self-interest should prevail. I repeat what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said about refugees. Who can blame ordinary families in Sudan seeing the choice as being between staying put, possibly being killed or starved and fleeing to the north to escape that conflict? The point has been made that 60% of those in Calais waiting to come to the UK come from Sudan. There is also the danger to the Suez Canal, adding to what the Houthis are doing to that vital shipping lane, and that of an implosion within Sudan itself, with Sudan becoming even more a failed state—a failed state for terrorism in that region and a failed state for Islamism and all other evils.

The second recent article to which I referred was by Alex de Waal on 1 September in the Sunday Times. I know him as a first-rate scholar, but with all respect to him, his article was brilliant in analysis but lacking in any form of solution save for increased aid, on which we would all agree.

The final report to which I shall give some attention is from the Financial Times on Tuesday of this week. It stressed the danger of fragmentation, citing the precedent of Libya, the extent to which there is a struggle for resources among the so-called great powers, which adds to the many complications of Sudan, and the role of gold on both sides.

Of course, food aid is our immediate problem, but longer-term stability depends on peace. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: what prospects are there? How can we map out a path to a solution, or is it all gloom at present, as the protagonists—or at least some of them—refuse to attend peace conferences? We know that, for them, it is a fight to the finish. One will win, one will lose; one will probably stay, one will go into exile. This is part of the problem: there appears to be no scope for compromise or for any intermediary. Does my noble friend see any potential intermediary on the horizon? There have been many attempts by the United Nations, by the African Union and by IGAD, but all have failed to broker a deal. Is there any prospect of curbing the arms supply? Sanctions have been mentioned. For example, if it be true that the Emiratis are supplying the RSF, we know that the US and others will not bring any pressure on them because they need their support for Gaza—it just adds to the many complexities of the situation.

What prospect is there of opening further parts of the border to supply aid? What more could we and the European Union do? We are the pen holder, and I believe that both sides, ourselves and the European Union, can seek to build up the strength of civil society. The most reverend Primate mentioned the role of the churches, which has always been important in Sudan. Surely there are signs of hope. Surely the world will now be ready to place Sudan further up the agenda of concern, and act.