Middle East: Defence

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Verdirame

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, the legal basis for this intervention is the collective self-defence of our allies in the Gulf. The Government’s position is that under collective self-defence, we may only target missiles and drones launched by Iran and the missile facilities. However, the law of armed conflict, once an armed conflict has begun, allows the targeting of all military objectives, which includes, at a minimum, all military personnel and all weapons. The UAE has now endured 250 ballistic missiles and 1,500 drone attacks. Are the Government really suggesting that a state under such an attack should respond by targeting only the specific weapons used against it, but not any other lawful military objectives, including any weapons such as, for example, an Iranian fighter jet? The Government have chosen to set out their targeting policy in this conflict in very legal terms. Are the Government not now concerned that, unless that statement from last week is updated and clarified, we risk conveying the impression to allies and enemies that our legal approach to targeting is now uniquely benevolent?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

All I can say to the noble Lord is that the UAE was at the briefing discussion we had in the MoD earlier, and we are working with the UAE as well as other allies to defend the UAE from attack. We have seen that happen, and it has been very satisfied with the way in which we have defended it against missile attack, as have other Middle East states. Some in this Chamber will know the difficulty, sometimes, of ensuring you can get the permissions you need in order to be able to do that. But we are working really hard, and the co-operation of all of those Middle East allies ensures we can protect as many of them as we can, including the UAE.

I know not everybody here agrees, but the legal basis on which we operate, to make a differentiation between taking offensive action and taking action in our self-defence and the defence of those in the region, is something that the Middle East countries themselves support, because they are worried about what is happening extending and developing in a way that becomes uncontrollable. All I am saying is that we are taking prudent, sensible and proportionate action to deliver the self-defence we all want.

Boarding of Sanctioned Vessels

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Verdirame

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The legal basis is the fact that these ships are operating as either false flag or stateless vessels. That gives us the legal basis. I have read the reports that the noble Lord has read, but the current situation is that that is the legal basis that we are using in relation to the stateless, flagless ships that are sanctioned. We use that as the legal basis for the actions that we either take or support.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I understood, as the Minister has just confirmed, that in the case of the “Bella”/“Marinera”, the legal basis was premised on the fact that she was deemed to be stateless, at least at the point at which the pursuit began. If the Government are now considering extending the policy to other sanctioned vessels, including those that do have a nationality, can the Minister tell us what the legal basis would be?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I shall not stray into that territory, because I am sure that other people are more legally qualified to answer than I am. However, the action that was taken was on the legal basis that it was a stateless, sanctioned vessel. It sailed on one flag when it was in the eastern Caribbean and, when it fled from the United States, it changed to a Russian flag. I say to the noble Lord, as I say to all noble Lords, that, when we question the United States and its willingness to take on Russia, the big strategic point that we should not lose is the fact that the United States took on a Russian-flagged shadow vessel. That should give us all comfort.

Caribbean: US Military Action

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Verdirame

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Verdirame]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of US military action in the Caribbean, including airstrikes on vessels and the threat to use force against Venezuela.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, recent US military action in the Caribbean and the Pacific, including strikes against boats allegedly involved in drug trafficking, is a matter for the United States. The depth of our defence relationship with the US remains an essential pillar of our security and we jointly recognise the significant threat that organised crime presents at home and abroad.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the US claims that the boat strikes are justifiable as acts in self-defence, and because it contends that there is an armed conflict with drug cartels. It is fair to say that very few outside the US Administration agree with those views. The Government have repeatedly said that their policies are guided by international law. Can the Government tell us what assessment they have made of the position under intentional law in respect of the boat strikes? Separately, a number of countries with which we have good relations, including Colombia, are being threatened by some of the US’s actions. What steps are we taking to defuse the risks?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising an important question. The position of the Government has not changed. We continue to state that the lawfulness of the strikes is a matter for the United States. That is our position and what we believe. The United Kingdom, as far as the Government are concerned, was not involved. We are committed to fighting the scourge of drugs and organised crime, including with our partners in Latin America, such as Colombia, and the Caribbean, in accordance with international law and the UN principles. If we are acting according to UN principles and the principles of international law, the UK Government can be proud of that.