Rules-based International Order
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Today’s debate, introduced so eloquently and powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is certainly timely and is perhaps overdue. One would need to be blind not to recognise that, in recent years, the rules-based international order has taken some heavy hits and has failed to make much serious progress towards the goals subscribed to by all members of the United Nations—whether they are reversing and mitigating climate change, increasing freer and fairer trade, reducing world poverty, combating global pandemics or many of the other pressing challenges.
In Ukraine and the Middle East we see wars raging—perhaps to be paused this Sunday in Gaza, I hope—that defy the rules of the UN charter itself and of international humanitarian law. The prospects for regress rather than progress in the period immediately ahead are all too evident. The hard fact is that this order, so laboriously constructed in the decades following the Second World War, is being deconstructed before our eyes.
We need to recognise that the proclaimed champions of this order, among whom successive British Governments have ranked themselves, bear some of the responsibility for that lamentable state of affairs. The sharp decline in our overseas aid spending from the still existent legal commitment to 0.7% of gross national income, which is now fast disappearing in the rearview mirror; our weak performance on trade issues since we unwisely decided to leave the EU; our failure to head off serious outbreaks of war in Europe, the Middle East and Africa—all have contributed to the failure to meet these challenges, which are to our own future security and stability every bit as much as they are to others’. Too often, warm words subscribed to at global gatherings have not been followed up by effective action.
Moreover, we have failed to recognise that the watchword we call a rules-based international order, and the detailed application of its component parts, have not been meaningfully communicated to our electorates. In many western countries, people are turning inwards and backing policies that are likely to make matters worse if the consequences of trade protectionism and the appeasement of the enemies of global order during the 1930s are anything to go by.
Some of this continued deterioration is likely to come upon us pretty fast, perhaps as early as the end of this month when a new Trump presidency begins in the US. It does not require much clairvoyance to predict that the US will again withdraw from its commitment to the Paris climate change accords. What will our response be? Will we simply wring our hands or collaborate with others to ensure that the next COP meeting, in Belém in Brazil, will keep alive and act more effectively towards the build-up of renewable energy resources and the reduction of carbon emissions from fossil fuels?
On world trade, how will we react if new tariffs are imposed unilaterally and trade wars break out? Will we be drawn into tit-for-tat retaliation, the damaging consequences of which, not only economically but in security policy terms, were clear for all to see in the 1930s and 1940s? Or will we work collectively with like-minded countries to sustain open, tariff-free trade and the equitable resolution of trade disputes—in particular to ensure that those benefits reach developing countries?
We must also face the grim reality that there will be other global health pandemics. Negotiations for a new WHO-based pandemic convention stalled last May and are continuing into 2025. Will we work wholeheartedly for intensified systems that will ensure earlier warnings of outbreaks? Will we back arrangements for the equitable distribution of vaccines as they are developed without leaving poorer countries behind? Will we do that whether or not the universal acceptance of those new rules can be achieved?
These are just three fields where urgent action is already needed and is likely to be required in the immediate future. The Prime Minister is clearly right to say that they are not susceptible to clear-cut binary choices, but hard and, in some cases, costly choices will have to be made if our backing for a rules-based international order is to be more than mere empty words; if that order is to be protected from falling into decay and disintegration and is to be developed and strengthened for the future; and if we are not to find ourselves in a world where our own security is to be diminished and put at risk.
I have painted a rather bleak picture. That is not to deny or belittle the good news of the Gaza ceasefire, but it is to relativise it. I hope the Minister, in replying, will find it in herself to offer us some reassurance on how the Government will point the way ahead.
Sub-Saharan Africa: Diplomatic Relationships
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That was very well put. I could have mentioned the Commonwealth; it is a vital multinational grouping, as the noble Lord says. I work closely with many Caribbean nations where the Commonwealth is well represented, and that needs to form part of our thinking in the future. I thank him for raising it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that we need ambassadorial representation in as many African countries as possible—more than we have now? We should not be seduced by the idea of multiple accreditation, which frankly is not worth a lot, as I discovered during the Somalia and Rwanda crises in the 1990s, when we had nobody on the spot.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would be very wise to take what the noble Lord says seriously, and I do note it. At the moment we are engaged in a five-month consultation with African nations and others to inform what will be a new approach to Africa. The points that the noble Lord just made will be considered as part of that approach; I thank him.
The Ukraine Effect (European Affairs Committee Report)
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as back in the mists of time, when this report, so excellently introduced by my noble friend Lord Ricketts, was published, I was a member of the European Affairs Committee. On this occasion, the delay inadvertently makes the report even more topical, as the impending change of Administration in the US brings us ever closer to important decisions that will crucially affect Ukraine’s and our own future security and prosperity. These are decisions over which we must always remember that we in the UK do not have a determinant say.
The self-image in this country and in this House of our role in backing Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion is rightly positive, and successive Governments, up to and including the present one, rightly get credit for that, but it is not the whole story. In 2014, when Russia seized the Crimea and parts the Donbas by force, we were not so forthright. By standing aside from the Normandy group—France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine—which shaped the two ill-fated and ill-conceived Minsk agreements, which Russia then ignored and trashed, we committed an error of judgment in my view, and we must not repeat that error.
While I am in the process of mentioning sins of omission, the committee’s report dealt with the issue of sanctions in detail, and I found the previous Government’s response to that report pretty unconvincing, frankly. The concerns have been considerably increased by recent reporting in the press of ways in which the overseas territories of the UK are being used as loopholes for evading sanctions. I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate she will give us an account of how the meetings this week with the leaders of the overseas territories have done something—a lot, I hope—to close those loopholes.
We and Ukraine now face critical choices, not only on the battlefield and in the supply of weaponry but in geopolitics too in relation to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, which was guaranteed by Russia in the Budapest memorandum when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and was subsequently junked by it, and in relation to Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership and to join the EU. Any geographical settlement based on Ukraine ceding territory and citizens to a neighbour that has seized them by force in disregard of Russia’s international obligations, including the UN charter itself, is necessarily precarious and risks being reopened in the future. Think only of Alsace and Lorraine, where many millions died before a final determination was achieved. Ukraine’s place in NATO could perhaps have been discussed prior to Russia’s aggression, but now, when its permanent exclusion from membership can be achieved only at gunpoint, is that still so? When the hard fact is that any guarantee given by others, ourselves included, will necessarily fall short of the commitment to collective defence in Article 5 of the NATO treaty, there is a lack of credibility there that falls short of what is needed if Russia is to be effectively deterred in the future.
As to EU membership, as a non-member we no longer have any say over that, but it is surely clear enough that Ukraine’s EU membership is in our national interest too, and I suggest that we should not hesitate to say so. In any case, as a signatory of our trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union, and hopefully the new security pact and reset which the Government aim to achieve, we will be a party to those with Ukraine too. Should we not be travelling with them every step of the way, together with our EU partners?
Speculation about which way the unpredictable President-elect Trump will lean on all these issues is probably fruitless. What is essential is that we discuss in depth with the incoming Administration their thinking as it emerges with the aim of ensuring a strengthened and reinforced overall European contribution.
Chagos Islands
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is hard to believe that it was 25 years ago. We are confident about this treaty and the fact that it secures our presence in the Indian Ocean. We accept that when there is a change of Government questions are raised and it is right that new Governments will want to cast their own eyes over the deal that has been done. We respect that and will co-operate, but we are confident that we can answer any concerns that may exist, because we think this is the right thing for us, for Mauritius and for the Chagos Islands, in securing our security.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept my welcome for what she said—that this treaty, when it has been concluded, will be brought to both Houses? If it involves the International Agreements Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, will she undertake that the committee will be given sufficient time to take proper evidence on the treaty before it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That would be very helpful indeed. My experience is that the more people find out about the treaty and the deal that has been done, the more likely that some of the concerns they will naturally have—we welcome questions and scrutiny on this—can be answered fully. I am not responsible for the scheduling and timing, but I am sure my noble friend the Chief Whip has heard what the noble Lord said.
Ukraine: North Korean Troops
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary recently spoke with his counterparts in South Korea and, indeed, in China. Noble Lords can rest assured that he raised at the highest level all the issues we would want him to raise regarding Russia, Ukraine and China.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that if North Korean troops were deployed in Ukraine or North Korean materiel were passed to Russia, that would be a breach of UN Security Council resolutions for which Russia voted in favour?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It would clearly be a breach. It is deeply concerning, and the most recent reports seem to indicate that it is highly likely, hence the deep concern we are expressing at the moment.
British Indian Ocean Territory
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we have engaged for a long time with Chagossian communities. This was a decision made between Governments, and the noble Lord will know that it is Governments who negotiate international treaties. It is right that we offer citizenship to Chagossians who want it, and a trust fund will be set up for Chagossians. As I have said, they will have the right to return to the other islands and the right to visit Diego Garcia.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Does the Minister recognise a remarkable similarity between this exchange and the last time there was an exchange on the Chagos Islands, in the last Parliament, when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for whom I have the very greatest respect, stood at the Dispatch Box and defended the negotiation of an agreement to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but to keep the base in being for Britain and the United States? Is it not a bit odd?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Far be it from me to comment on things that get said during Tory party leadership elections. However, I think it would help if I explained why the legal decisions have been made in this way. When Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s, the UK separated part of the country, in the form of the Chagos Islands, and that has been found to have been unlawful. Separation by the colonial power is not allowed in any circumstance under international law, and that is what the UK was found to have done at that time. That is why we have now had 13 rounds of negotiations to take us to this point.