China: UK Government Expertise
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(2 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank my noble and learned friend for that question. He raises an incredibly important point. I hope I can reassure him by saying that the FCDO has an extensive and integrated pool of China expertise, both in the UK and, crucially, across the world. He talked about political analysis. This includes a cadre of research analysts covering China who provide timely, high-quality, evidence-based research and analysis. In the last financial year, we have trained over 1,000 people from government departments, agencies and public bodies to build knowledge and language skills, working closely with the Great Britain-China Centre and other leading implementing partners. As I say, my noble and learned friend raised an important point, and I hope that that gives him some confidence that we are addressing the point that he made.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to recruit into the FCDO UK students graduating in Chinese studies, including spoken and written Mandarin? Can she confirm that—and explain how—not one of the graduates with such a degree from our top universities who applied to the FCDO was recruited? Are we now not only having to make existing staff redundant but unable to invest to build expertise for the future?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I do not have the figures on recruitment, but I assure the noble Lord that, as I said, we have Mandarin speakers working across our overseas network and we continue to invest in Mandarin skills. Some 58 FCDO staff achieved qualifications in advanced Mandarin at C1 or C2 level during the five years to September 2026. We also introduced a China pathway as part of the diplomatic Fast Stream, which reflects the need to develop future leaders. I hope that that addresses the point the noble Lord made about future leaders. We want to see them have a strong understanding of China’s political system, economy, language, culture and global influence.
Iran: Execution of Dissidents and Opposition Activists
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(2 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for that question. The UK Government do not comment on how they vote in secret ballots at the United Nations. That said, we strongly regret that Iran has been elected to the UN Committee for Programme and Coordination. Frankly, Iran’s continuing threats to its regional neighbours, its violation of human rights and its broader destabilising conduct serve to undermine multilateralism and make Iran unfit to serve on a UN body of this nature.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, later today the Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign will present its 2026 outstanding human rights award to Mohammad Javad Vafaei Sani, the Iranian boxing champion and political prisoner. He will not be able to accept it in London tonight because he remains in prison in Iran under a sentence of death on proceedings that have been condemned as grossly unfair. I thank the Minister for her comments so far. Will the Government raise his case directly and at the highest level with the Iranian authorities and work with our international partners to make it clear that executing him would carry serious diplomatic and political consequences? Finally, given the threat facing women and others on death row, what can we do to make it clear to the Iranian regime that criticism or opposition should not end up on the gallows?
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I agree with all the comments that the noble Lord has made. With regard to the action that we can take, I certainly take on board his point about raising this case and re-emphasise that we have repeatedly called on Iran to establish an immediate moratorium on executions. We repeatedly raise the issues with regard to human rights at every level. I certainly undertake to look at the case that he has raised.
International Claims Commission for Ukraine (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2026
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(4 days, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this introduction. We debated this in June. This is the next step in its implementation, and I think it is welcome on all sides. As the Minister said, this is an instrument of the Council of Europe, and I have just a few questions for him.
This obviously takes us further down the road. Has the commission started work or when is it likely to start work? It is understood and accepted that there are no plans to visit the UK and that whatever plans might happen in the future are limited, but presumably there is the possibility that members of the commission may wish to interview Ukrainian exiles in the UK in order to get evidence for assessing damages. It would be interesting if the Minister could clarify whether that would be the case. Certainly, one would not want to obstruct such a process.
We are debating this against the backdrop of current meetings between Russia and the United States, which, to be honest, are quite concerning. What it seems is being discussed comes pretty close to something like persuading the Ukrainians to surrender, which I know is not the UK’s policy. Apart from a few fringe people in the political arena, all the official parties are strongly supportive of Ukraine.
Can I test the Minister a little? I know it is hypothetical, so I have no doubt that he will use that as a defence. President Zelensky has said that he is worried that we may be facing a new Yalta: a situation where the great powers carved up Europe without much reference to the people who were directly affected by it. That is obviously President Zelensky’s concern. People can recognise that the brave people of Ukraine are war-weary and exhausted and would welcome peace, but not peace at any price.
Are we involved in these negotiations, and to what extent does Britain have the opportunity to influence the outcome and ensure that the interests of Ukraine and, indeed, the wider interests of Europe, are fully appreciated? One of the concerns that many of us have is that there is a degree of ignorance and carelessness within the American Administration and, indeed, America’s wider political society, in regarding Europe as some faraway place that does not affect them very much. It affects us very much, and it is not acceptable that it should be carved up by outsiders who are not party to this. I hope that the Minister will understand the concerns we have.
On the specifics of the commission, I remember from the last debate that the seized Russian assets added up to about half the assessed damages or liabilities at that time. Is that still the case? Can we be sure that this is the best case for ensuring that those assets are not returned to Russia but are instead used for these purposes, and that the other half is still an obligation on Russian when it comes to the time of reconstruction?
On a very minor but important detail, on the fact that the commission does not allow road traffic offences to be given immunity, we realise from past experience that this is important. We have had concerning misuses of immunity in the past, so I want to acknowledge that we are grateful that this has happened and to accord the fact that the devolved Administrations have said that those aspects of the commission’s activities that are devolved will be subject to separate legislation, which I understand is at hand.
To conclude, I welcome this development. Timetabling would be of interest and, obviously, assurances that it will happen and that we will not be left with a situation where outsiders, in effect, negate its efficiency.
As a passing interest, many years ago I was for several years a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, an organisation for which I have huge admiration and was very grateful to be part of. It continues to produce valuable initiatives and support democracy and human rights, more vigorously than perhaps any other institution in Europe. I hope that the United Kingdom will continue to be a full and active participating member of the Council of Europe. As an aside to the Conservative Front Bench, I am concerned that the Conservatives are going down a path that could lead to Britain’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe if we were to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. Support for the convention is a precondition of membership. I hope that that will not be the case, but I cannot leave this without saying that it is a concern.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for going through this debate on the International Claims Commission for Ukraine. As he said, the order gives effect to the privileges and immunities required by the convention in establishing the International Claims Commission for Ukraine (Immunities and Privileges) Order. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, we debated the convention in detail in June, and I will not detain the Committee with a rerun of that detailed debate. However, some points raised by my noble friend Lord Callanan in that debate remain relevant. I hope the Minister will be able to provide an update on them.
On the question of Russia’s liability for the costs of the commission, can the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the likely total cost to the UK of the commission, should Russia never join it? In addition—and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, touched on this—can the Minister say what the Government’s latest position is on the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine? The Minister’s predecessor did not answer the point in our previous debate about including compensation for Russian actions between 2014 and 2022. Perhaps I can press the Minister for an answer on that today.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned the position of my party on the ECHR. The Conservative Party would leave the ECHR. This policy has been considered in detail, and it has been set out in full. We would, of course, continue full-throated support for Ukraine outside the ECHR, and I see no reason why leaving the ECHR should prevent us backing efforts to ensure that Ukrainians who have suffered such loss as a result of Putin’s illegal war get the compensation they deserve.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I wonder if I might get clarification, because leaving the ECHR means leaving the Council of Europe. There are only two countries in Europe that are not members of the Council of Europe. They are Russia and Ukraine. So, is the Conservative Party’s position that the UK is going to be the third one?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
I think I will leave it as I have already said. We are steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and we will support the Government when they are doing the right thing by our Ukrainian partners, who have suffered so terribly at the hands of Vladimir Putin.
Mediation, Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I join all other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on initiating this debate and on the way he introduced it. We have had a pretty wide-ranging debate, with lots of different perspective brought into play, which is as it should be and is extremely valuable.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said that the problem with the Government is that they have tended to step back rather than step up. I am glad that he went on to say that there were some more positive things, and I think we should relate to that. However, it seems to me that the conversation we have is less about peacekeeping at the moment and more about conflict resolution, because until you resolve a conflict it is very difficult to keep the peace, and things have been moving in a pretty bad direction. However, this debate has been extremely instructive.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about his role as an intermediary were fascinating. He made it absolutely clear, as many other speakers have, that quiet engagement below the headlines can often make the difference, and he cited some really interesting examples. The work that has been done there is extremely valuable and not to be overlooked, and I am glad that he brought that to the debate.
It was also pointed out that peacekeeping and conflict prevention represent value for money, but, unfortunately, we are not actually providing the money at the moment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford touched on a very powerful point. She said that the concept at the moment seems to be that you have to wage war to secure peace. That is increasingly the way some of the conflicts look, and it is extremely difficult to know how you can pull them back to say, “Actually, no, you have to fight for peace”. That was an interesting analogy because, as I will come on to say, one of the problems we have is that too many of the protagonists are not interested in peace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, quite rightly said that we should not just reach for the same old toolkit, useful as it may be; we have to recognise that, in a changing world, we are going to have to find different ways of doing things. Increasingly, also, it is not just about states but non-state actors, and sometimes we have to invest in the long term.
I was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, whose intervention was not unexpected. I do not wish to discredit his own genuine view, which is not widely shared but which he has come to on his own basis—I am not suggesting that he is an agent for anybody else—but the reason I raised the Budapest memorandum is that he is looking for a solution which will require the same guarantors who have not honoured the original memorandum. It is difficult, therefore, to see how you can get a settlement that can be trusted, which is really the problem we face.
I want to pick up in particular what the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Lord Bates, said. We have to engage with people we do not like, we have to take the criticisms as to why we are talking to them, and we have to do it both publicly and privately, and extensively, and be more objective. Those are powerful arguments, and all the best peace outcomes have always had that characteristic to make them happen.
As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said in his opening remarks, conflicts have proliferated to the extent that we currently have the highest level and number of conflicts since the Second World War. The worst ones, with none showing any capacity for peace interventions, are clearly Sudan, the Middle East and Gaza and Ukraine. I am afraid that, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the UN’s current weakness is revealed for all to see. Much of this is exacerbated by the disengagement of the main players on whom the UN depends: notably, Russia, the US and, to a lesser extent, China.
The UK, which supports peacekeeping and conflict prevention and resolution, has actually cut its funding to peace initiatives. I just checked the figures for the integrated security fund: for the current year, there is £854 million; next year, £545 million; the following year, £499 million; and the year after that, £471 million. That is the Government’s financial commitment to peacekeeping declining. It is not all about money—I accept that—but it is, I suggest, a movement in the wrong direction.
Turning to some of the conflicts, in Sudan I find it slightly extraordinary that, with Saudi Arabia supporting the Sudanese Armed Forces and the UAE supporting the Rapid Support Forces, they are also half of the mediating quad, which also includes Egypt and the United States. It is difficult to see progress or even the capacity to prevent the most appalling atrocities and humanitarian abuses when the mediators are also protagonists in the process. The UK is the penholder, so one question to the Minister is: to what extent can we exert some pressure? We had an earlier Question about aerial bombardment in Sudan, which has been perpetrated as extensions of two of the outside players. What can the Government do to put pressure on those two players to stop these atrocities and to pay a price if they do not, as my noble friend Lord Purvis called for in the earlier Question?
In the Middle East, we have not yet had the results of the Israeli elections, but Prime Minister Netanyahu has escalated assaults in the West Bank and Gaza, and he has been actively encouraged to do so by the White House—although I am not quite sure who is encouraging whom—when President Trump described him as a warrior Prime Minister, which is supposed to be a compliment. We are talking about peace, and he praises a warrior Prime Minister. Both sides in the Middle East are now promoting single-state solutions, turning their backs on the two-state solution, which is the only thing that offers long-term peace and stability. We still must not abandon our aspiration to get there, however difficult it may be. Tony Blair commented of the Belfast agreement, when he was made envoy for the quartet, that it was ironic that there was no agreed long-term solution to the division of Ireland, but peace had been secured, whereas there was an agreed and viable long-term solution to Middle East peace, but there was no peace. In the midst of this current situation, Trump and Netanyahu have started a war that they do not know how to end.
On Ukraine, we have equivocal support, not from us, but from the United States—or from the White House; I see the difference—and pressure to end the war by surrendering. It is no longer just equivocal support; it has now switched to outright support for Putin’s Russia, with Trump’s envoy, Witkoff, describing Putin as humanitarian for releasing one US prisoner. That might be welcome, but he was ignoring the daily slaughter of Ukrainian civilians by Russian drones and missiles, aggravated by the United States’ degrading of Ukraine’s defence capability.
It difficult to see how we can get out of these situations while the main players are behaving in this way. It must almost be observed that they do not want peace. They just want their side to win at all costs. How on earth are we supposed to respond to this? We must of course support the United Nations and initiatives that may fly. However, when President Trump seriously nominates Viktor Orbán as the candidate to be Secretary-General of the United Nations, it is obvious that, for the time being, we must look to other ways of promoting peace.
The conflicts that I have referred to are promoted by misogynistic leaders with the characteristics of bullies and cowards. The UN recognised in the year 2000 with Resolution 1325 that lasting peace required the active participation of women. Yet, precisely because so many of these conflicts are about power and control by men, they are still too often ignored—while mobilising humanitarian relief and exposing abuse is all that we are left with. Yet women played a key role in the Northern Ireland peace process and are conspicuous in the fight for Ukraine’s survival.
We have been talking about the United Nations and the international community. What is the role of the UK? We need a reset, a SWOTs analysis, to see what our strengths are and to deliver them on a priority basis. I ask the Minister whether that could be considered.
Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor: Citizenship
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I will have to return on the question of participation in future conferences. On the broader question of government action on antisemitism, I explained in the House last week that over £300 million has been committed to attacking and addressing antisemitism at home. Antisemitism is unacceptable. It is a scourge of any society, especially democratic society. At UNGA, in our upcoming event hosted by the Foreign Secretary in New York, we are going to focus more on this, and there will be more to say from the Government in due course on antisemitism.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the Israeli military initially responded to “NAZA” by saying that it categorically rejects the allegations, but, in a later statement, it said that
“the allegations required a detailed, evidence-based response rather than a blanket dismissal”,
which I think most people would agree was the correct response. But is there not a danger for Israel in having a Minister who has suggested that he is going to move to remove citizenship? If that happened and it was challenged in court, would there not be a real danger that the personnel in the movie, who are anonymised at the moment, would be identified, and that would discredit the process and, indeed, embarrass the Government of Israel?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a number of complex hypothetical issues around this, and they may or may not transpire, but they are matters for Israeli courts, Israeli politics and Israel in general rather than for me.
Saudi Arabia: Nuclear Power Programme
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that and share with him a concern in general, of course, that all parties to the non-proliferation treaty exercise their obligations. The UK has long supported strong and effective safeguards arrangements, including the IAEA additional protocol, which the noble Lord mentions. We do not know what the nature of this deal is because, as I said before, it has not been published and we cannot really comment on it, but in addition to the fact that both parties are states parties to the NPT, and that Saudi Arabia has a comprehensive safeguards agreement, we know that there are bilateral safeguards agreed as part of this deal.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, given that Russia is building nuclear power stations in Turkey and Egypt, is not the concern about proliferation real? Is not the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, right to say that the problem with this agreement is lack of transparency, compared with the UAE agreement, which has no processing and no nuclear enrichment? Is that not the model which should be followed? Should not the UK be using its influence to try to persuade the Americans to publish the agreement and abide by those safeguards, and not encourage another nuclear arms race?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point about transparency. The UK works extremely closely with the United States across a wide range of issues, including civil nuclear co-operation. But to go back, this is an agreement that will be lodged with the IAEA. There are bilateral safeguards, as well as a general obligation that comes from the comprehensive safeguards agreement. Those are the due processes that should be in place when civil nuclear co-operation deals occur.
Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear my noble friend, who also wants us to move on frozen assets. It is something on which we all agree. Along with our partners, we have managed to release the $50 billion in the ERA, but I completely hear that noble Lords want us to do more.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister said and I am glad that we have cross-party support for this. I wonder whether I could inject a question relating to some of the comments that have been made by the American Administration about the possibility of easing sanctions against Russia, which President Trump has said on more than one occasion. Can I seek clarification and assurance from the Minister that our sanctions regime is under our control and subject to Parliament’s approval or disapproval for any change?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our sanctions regime is the UK’s and we make our decisions in accordance with our laws. Although we do not comment on future designations or lifting designations, I have no reason to think that it is the UK Government’s intention or that we have any plans, until there is peace between Ukraine and Russia, and Putin withdraws his troops—as he could today—and stops this illegal war, to change our general approach to the use of sanctions on Russia.
United Kingdom: Global Position
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue at a crucial time. I also welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and look forward to hearing a lot more from him in the future.
We have a long history and a clear footprint around the globe, even though our reach and capacity have diminished. Our global position has been defined by our interconnection with America, Europe and the Commonwealth. However, whatever was special about our relationship with the United States is now over; trust is broken. That does not mean that we should cease to have a relationship with America but, from now on, it will be on different terms and that is irreversible.
I have always taken the view that the UK’s most important ties, by force of geography, history and culture, are with our neighbours across a narrow stretch of water, as opposed to a vast ocean. During our 47-year membership of what is the EU, the UK carved out a unique, semi-detached position. We threw that away with Brexit and now run the risk of being isolated from both the USA and the EU. By leaving the EU, we weakened both ourselves and the EU.
I commend the Prime Minister for his efforts to co-ordinate with European partners and maintain good relations with the White House, and they have been rightly praised. I understand it when he says he is not seeking to choose between Europe and Washington. However, what he must avoid is allowing President Trump to dictate in any way how we reset our relationships with the EU and Europe, either on trade or defence and security.
Historically, the UK has reached around the globe, but we have sadly neglected that in recent decades. It is surely time to revitalise our relationship with the Commonwealth. The savage cut in aid compromises that, but we must look to commit more in promoting trade, investment, diplomacy and culture—soft power—to show that we value our membership. I recently spoke with a member of the Government of one of the smaller Commonwealth countries and asked what benefit they perceived in King and Commonwealth. I was told that it was a matter of complete indifference, as it made no impact. That is a travesty and should surely change.
There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said, a legacy of goodwill towards the UK in many parts of the Commonwealth and around the world, which we fail to reciprocate adequately. I note that the King met Justin Trudeau in London recently and has been seen in public wearing Canadian uniform and insignia. King Charles is the King of Canada, and I have seen suggestions in the Canadian media that, as their king, he should publicly support Canadian sovereignty and independence. Is there any protocol to prevent him doing that? Surely Canadian Ministers can advise him to do so.
No relationship is perfect. The UK has friends that we have undervalued, and it now appears that we have others that we have overvalued. Our global position should be based on relationships we can trust, even when there are differences. As the world has changed, the UK cannot afford to be dogmatic about negotiating closer links with the EU. We need to build our own defence capacity and reset our relationship. The UK knows what it is like to have continental Europe occupied by dark powers. That was the case when I was born and for more than half my life. Our destiny requires the vision to create the means to prevent that happening again.
Official Development Assistance
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government how aid priorities will change following the decision to reduce the Official Development Assistance budget to 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI), and whether they intend to restore the commitment of spending 0.7 per cent of GNI in future.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear, increasing our security and defence spending has demanded the difficult but necessary decision to temporarily reduce our ODA budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI from 2027. This Government remain fully committed to the UK playing a globally significant role on development; it is both in our national interest and in the interest of our partners. We remain committed to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
First, I congratulate the Minister on her promotion, albeit in somewhat difficult and unexpected circumstances. I will seek to work with her to try to ensure that aid, in its reduced capacity, gets to where it matters most. Nevertheless, I believe that the cut in ODA is a strategic error, which not only gives a terrible signal but is a mistake that threatens our security. Anneliese Dodds, in her resignation letter, said that the scale of the cuts would make it virtually impossible for the Government to deliver their continuing commitments. So may I ask, in particular, how the UK will maintain engagement in conflict prevention, reducing migration pressure and building resilience? On top of the cuts inflicted by the previous Government, how can we prevent Russia and China supercharging their presence within the vacuum left by the US and the UK, pulling most of Africa and south Asia into their sphere of influence, undermining democracy and what is left of the rule of law, and seriously compromising our security? I am glad that she said this was temporary, but how temporary is it? When will we get back to 0.7%?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will get back to 0.7% when we no longer use debt for day-to-day spending and our overall debt starts to decline. We have not done this because of values or a wish to turn away development; we believe in international development, and we are proud of the record of the United Kingdom on international development. However, I should not have to remind anyone in Parliament that the first responsibility of any Government is the safety and security of our citizens, and we have committed to and will spend 2.5% on defence. That is the decision that the Prime Minister took, and it will not change; it was taken for reasons that I think we can all understand. We do not wish to turn away from our global commitments to development. I am glad that the noble Lord has reached out and offered to work with me on this, and I accept that offer. Undoubtedly, some choices will have to be made, and spending will have to be reprioritised; I will embark on that process today and I look forward to working alongside the noble Lord on it.
Rules-based International Order
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome very much the debate introduced by my noble friend—which is absolutely necessary at this time—the way she has introduced it and the shape it has taken.
It is perhaps inevitable that any rules-based international system of order is going to be determined by the relative political, economic and military strengths of the parties. Nevertheless, these rules were constructed with a motivation to reduce conflict and increase the space for better living conditions. What has threatened that order in the last 20 years has been a series of crises that have undermined increasing prosperity and threatened living standards. We had the financial crash, the growth of mega-multinational corporations largely outside the control of Governments, a global pandemic, accelerating climate change and an outbreak of conflicts. Big-player states have turned in on themselves and become protectionist, suspicious and expansionist: the actions of Putin’s Russia and the rhetoric of Trump smack of craving for Lebensraum.
Sadly, I have to say that the UK has not only been prey to these developments but, to some extent, in the vanguard. When a once-major political party threatens to take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights and hypocritically promotes large-scale immigration while then demonising immigrants as a prime cause of social breakdown, it is clear that human rights and common humanity are at risk. The driver of Brexit, which has been mentioned, was a diversion to blame failure at home on outside factors but also to attack international agreements as hostile to our national interests. It is questionable whether the narrow victory for Brexit would have been achieved if the Ukraine war and Russia’s aggression had been foreseen. As a result, the outcome of Brexit is a weaker UK and a weaker EU—a divided Europe in the face of dire threats. I very much welcomed my right honourable friend Ed Davey’s speech this week on how we rebuild our relations with Europe.
The incoming US Administration threaten intervention in Greenland, Panama and Canada, even as they are handed a ceasefire in the Middle East. Vladimir Putin has a twisted vision of history that makes Ukraine the cradle of Russia and the demise of the Soviet Union a disaster that needs to be reversed. Aggression and conflict, usually promoted by male bullies, do nothing to enhance the welfare or security of citizens who crave peace and security.
On Tuesday this week, I raised my concern about diminished UK engagement in Africa. On the one hand, the continent has huge potential, but corruption and rapid population growth hold it back. Yet Russia and China are moving in to secure economic resource and political advantage, while we stand back and let them do it with their total disregard for transparency and support for anti-democratic forces. The UK’s behaviour in recent years has undermined our integrity and trustworthiness, which surely we need to rebuild. Many countries in Africa will inevitably accept involvement from Russia and China, but many would also welcome much more engagement from us. In my years as chair of the International Development Committee, and since, I have found a surprising reservoir of good will towards the United Kingdom, which we seriously undervalue.
When Boris Johnson called overseas development
“a giant cash machine in the sky”,
he showed not only total ignorance of the transformational impact of our development programmes but a lack of respect for the partners with whom we were working. When he followed this up with a chaotic merger of two departments and a sudden drastic slashing of the budget, he left development partners shocked and disillusioned. When he threatened to tear up agreements with the EU post Brexit, he exposed the UK, once a proud upholder of the rule of law and what we were pleased to describe as an international rules-based system, as, in effect, tantamount to pirates. People’s hopes were dashed, lives were lost and a process of building resilience and capacity to sustained poverty reduction and a path to prosperity was summarily terminated.
If we expect countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia to have a favourable attitude to the UK and our role in the world, we will require to invest in rebuilding trust and integrity. If the international rules fall away and the world breaks into like-minded authoritarian blocs, we should not be surprised if many choose to throw their lot in with the BRICS, given how little leadership we have offered them in alternative. We need to act urgently in rebuilding relationships with partners who would welcome the right approach, whether it be the EU, the Commonwealth or the global South, but there is not much time.