Ukraine

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Friday 25th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate after my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup. It is a well-known fact that the Cross-Benchers do not toe any party line, but I can say without any hesitation that I agreed with every single word in his contribution. It is also a privilege to speak after the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar. I was delighted that he raised the issue of what we are doing to counter the disinformation of the Russian regime of Putin. I raised that in the first debate that we had, two days after the invasion, and I am still waiting for a reply. When the Minister responds to this debate, I hope that in reply to the noble Lord’s maiden speech she will say something on that aspect.

My own contribution to this debate will be about the diplomatic, political and historical background to it, about which I have some modest knowledge, rather than the all-important military background, of which my experience is slight. It must be clear to any observer now that the West’s position of virtually unqualified support for Ukraine, backed up by economic sanctions and supply of funding and weapons, is getting less backing from what is known as the global South than it did at the outset of hostilities, when Russia invaded Ukraine. Some of that loss of support is due to a fairly classical game of playing two sides off against each other, which is like mother’s milk in the diplomatic services of developing countries, but some of it goes deeper and deserves careful consideration and countering. It is striking, to say the least, that so many of the states that have abstained in recent UN General Assembly votes on Ukraine, or voted against them, are small countries with larger and better armed neighbours that run the risk of being treated by them as Russia has treated Ukraine. That is pretty odd. Do they not appreciate the risk, or do they just discount it? We need to talk that through with these Governments in a calm and dispassionate way and try to persuade them that we all have a collective interest in deterring behaviour like Russia’s. It is all very well talking about a moral high ground, but the bottom line for every country tends to be its national interests.

Then there are those—a few in this House and many more elsewhere—who feel that we should push Ukraine to come to terms with Russia, accepting some pretty large losses of territory. I have just spent a few days during the Recess in the French regions of Alsace and Lorraine, and have become more familiar with their tragic historic background—conquered by France from the Holy Roman Empire in 1676, seized by the newly established German empire in 1871, returned to France in 1919, seized again by Hitler’s Germany from 1940 to 1944, and only finally at peace and in security within the post-war establishment of what has become the European Union. In between that time and during that course of events, many millions of people died because of those botched settlements and the determination to overthrow them. That is the risk of going down what could be called a Minsk III route.

Then there is the double standards argument, cited in many different forms—Suez, Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the failure to recognise a Palestinian state and neglect of the civil war in Sudan, as well as many more expressions of what I am afraid can be described as “what about?” arguments. Some of these have validity in their own right, but not one contains a scintilla of justification for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, in blatant disregard of its own guarantee of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity when that country handed over its nuclear weapons in the 1990s. Not one of those arguments contains a smidgen of legal or political backing for bombing and seizing large swathes of Ukrainian territory inhabited by Ukrainians. There are things that can and should be done to address the double standards criticisms, but those do not alter the basic case for reversing the aggression against Ukraine.

All this leaves the impression that there is much that an active diplomacy by western countries needs to do but that there is no justification for changing our basic policy of solid support for Ukraine—quite the contrary.

Relations with Europe

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, a triple congratulations is surely in order for this debate: first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who has obtained a topical and substantive issue for us to cover; secondly, to the Government, for having set out so clearly in the gracious Speech the twin objectives of their European policy, a new security pact with the rest of Europe and a reset of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU; and, thirdly, to the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, whose chair, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, spoke earlier in this debate, and whose previous chair, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, set out in April 2023 a very clear agenda of what needs to find its place in such a reset.

We can now see, more unmistakably than ever, just how bad the Brexit deal that the Johnson Government “got done” in 2019 really was. It was bad for Britain’s trade and economy, bad for our relationship with the rest of Europe and bad for our influence around the world when we need it most in troubled times. Such mitigation as came with the Windsor Framework and rejoining the Horizon research programme has not altered the case for the substantial reset that the Government are now contemplating.

But we should have no illusions. Such a reset will need to be one that brings mutual benefit to both parties—otherwise, there will just be a lot of talk about cherry picking. That does not mean that every item of the reset has to be perfectly balanced; that would be to fall into the trap that Brussels has rightly criticised as the “juste retour”. But there will need to be an overall balance—otherwise, a better deal will not be struck. The Government are surely right to give priority in timing to the new security pact. That will be needed whoever wins the US election. It will need to cover security issues in the widest sense, including not only defence issues but law enforcement and the vexed issues relating to migration, which are showing so many signs of destabilising the domestic politics of too many European countries.

In responding to the debate, I hope that the Minister, who not only is responsible for defence but has experience with migration, will be able to say something about the objectives the Government are pursuing in the security pact. Are we thinking of joining more PESCO projects? Are we planning to establish a link with the European Defence Agency, such as the US has? Are we making a larger contribution to peacekeeping in the western Balkans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, called for? As to the wider reset on cultural, economic and trade issues, the agenda of 2023 remains as valid as when it was put forward.

All this will take time to achieve. There will be setbacks along the way. The issues are complex and sensitive. We are asking the EU to contemplate a deeper relationship with a third country than it has ever had before. It will need to be underpinned, I suggest, by a structured framework of foreign policy co-operation, from which the previous Government shied away when the European Affairs Committee proposed it. I hope the Minister will reverse that shying away, because we will need to work closely with our European partners on a whole range of issues: Ukraine, obviously; relations with China; restoring our eroding links with what is called the global South; and handling the global challenges of climate change and pandemic diseases. We will have to do that if we are not to fall far short of what we could achieve working together collectively.

I conclude with a fourth congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, on her very moving maiden speech.

King’s Speech

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, it makes no sense either to deny or condone the fact that the recent election campaign was, to all intents and purposes, a foreign policy-free zone—and that at a time when both main parties agree that the risks to our security and the challenges to the rules on which it is based, from those in the UN and Paris charters to those in the Geneva conventions on international humanitarian law, are higher than they have been for decades. A hard fact is that, although foreign policy may not be a high priority in most people’s eyes, hard choices on foreign and security policy will be thrust upon us in the period ahead. Today’s debate is an opportunity to remedy that lapse.

The two foreign and security policy issues that stand out in the gracious Speech—the reset of the UK’s relationship with its European partners and the proposal for a new security pact to strengthen co-operation on the mutual threats faced by the UK and the EU—seem to me to be worthy of wholehearted support and to measure up to the challenges of the day. The security pact, interpreting the word “security” in the widest sense to include aspects of law enforcement, merits the greater priority, not because it hinges on the outcome of the US election—it will be needed whoever wins that election—but because the ruler of Russia continues to insist on his right to seize by force large parts of Ukraine, a country whose territorial integrity and sovereignty were guaranteed by Russia in the 1990s in the Budapest memorandum when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapon. This flagrant breach of international law threatens our security and that of our fellow Europeans.

How long will it take to achieve those two objectives, and in what form and substance? It is far too soon to say or even to speculate, but I suggest that the Government might do well to engage in an in-depth process of exploratory talks with the EU and its member states before tabling proposals or entering negotiations. I hope that the issue of youth mobility will be included in that probing period, because it is not free movement, as some people say it is. The watchword throughout our reset must be to realise mutual benefits to all concerned—the very reverse of cherry picking. The Prime Minister seems to have made a good start on that at the NATO and European Political Community summits. Just remember, as we go along, the Chinese saying that the longest journey begins with the first step.

If we have learned nothing else from the horrendous events in and around Gaza from last October onwards, it is surely that neither Israel nor Palestine can hope to achieve security or prosperity without a two-state solution. It is to be hoped that the Government will throw their full weight behind the recent UN Security Council resolution designed to bring about an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and a massive increase in humanitarian aid. On that last point, I welcome very much the decision to resume our funding for UNRWA. I hope that the Government will act with real determination against any party which rejects that UN Security Council resolution or last week’s ruling of the International Court of Justice. As to the recognition of Palestinian statehood, would that not best be achieved alongside the recognition of Israel’s statehood by those of its Arab neighbours that have not already done so at the outset of renewed negotiations for a two-state solution, so that recognition does not again become a hostage to the outcome of those negotiations?

In conclusion, it is good that the gracious Speech recognises the urgency of global climate change. What is needed now is not so much more warm words at successive COP meetings as the implementation of national commitments already entered into, our own included. It is also essential to strengthen the capacity of the World Health Organization to respond rapidly and equitably to the next global pandemic when it comes along, as it will do, and to catch up the ground lost in making progress on the UN sustainable development goals, not least by moving our own ODA contributions back towards the 0.7% of GNI to which we committed ourselves under law.

A challenging period lies ahead. We should do our best to rise to the occasion.

Ukraine and Georgia

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. The whole issue of the “foreign agents” law is that it is very similar to a law that is operating in Russia, although it has not yet gone through the entire democratic parliamentary process. We all saw the riots inside and outside the Parliament of Georgia earlier this week. They are a strong signal that the concept that the foreign funding of external NGOs and agencies beyond the level of 20% creates an external threat needs to be vigorously resisted. We believe in free and democratic relationships and will do all we can with our friends in Georgia to ensure that that is maintained.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

On Georgia, does the Minister recognise that the effectiveness of external action will be crucially determined by its unity—that is, that the US, the UK and the EU are all taking the same line? Does he recognise that a number of member states of the European Union may say categorically that, if this Bill comes into force, it will not be compatible with Georgia’s membership of the European Union? That does not require unanimity in the European Union. It requires only one member state to say so, and that will stop it.

UK Armed Forces in Middle East

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the diplomatic situation with Iran is that we are using every possible effort to quieten down what could have become an extremely dangerous situation. So far, that diplomacy does seem to be working.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench recognise that neither of them referred, in their replies, to the role of the sovereign base areas in Cyprus? Does he not agree that the bases we have there have played an extremely positive role in recent times, and indeed in more previous times than that? Would he offer some thanks to those who are manning those bases?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly will and would. We are part of international coalitions and there is a certain level of sensitivity around precisely which states are involved in what. But I can assure the House, in all respects, that the level of support from various areas could not be higher.

Situation in the Red Sea

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. I do not know the precise situation of where we are, but I know that there is great flexibility in transitioning to the new fleet. I will find out and respond.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will remember that, at an early stage in the crisis, the UN Security Council called on the Houthis to desist. What consideration are the Government giving to further action at the United Nations? Are they, for example, seeking to put together a majority in the UN Security Council, calling on all member states to stop supplying weapons to the Houthis and stop helping them in their illegal actions? If the first resolution went through, is there not a chance of getting something a little stronger by building on that?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Yes, there is quite some activity, but I am sure I need not point out to your Lordships that the Houthis pay scant regard to anything that the United Nations says.

Afghan Relocations: Special Forces

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I assure all noble Lords that we are in very close contact with the highest level of the Government in Pakistan. They are being extremely co-operative on the situation. Regarding the 12-week timeframe, we would like to get this sorted out as soon as possible. It has gone on for a very long period, but please keep in context the 142,000 applications. It has not been easy, and it is important that we get the safe routes correct so that people can get out of Afghanistan. Once they are in Pakistan and get the letter, we can get them out. We got another 2,900 people out fairly recently. It is a challenge, but we are getting there.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, what the Minister has said today is very welcome, even if he is denying that it is a change of policy, which of course it is. It would have been quite shameful to have continued on the basis on which we were proceeding before this change. Can he or his colleague in the FCDO say whether reconsideration is being given also to those who worked with and for the British Council over many years? I declare that I negotiated the opening of the British Council in Kabul some 60 years ago.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I will certainly take up that question about the British Council. The Government are absolutely clear about their responsibilities under ARAP and ACRS, and are doing their absolute best to ensure that we end up with a fair and equitable solution.

King’s Speech

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, today’s debate takes place against a grim international backdrop: Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, the appalling events in and around Gaza, mounting evidence that the policy commitments on climate change entered into in Paris and Glasgow are not being operationalised in a timely manner, and a massive shortfall in progress towards the sustainable development goals set in 2015. There can be no doubting that the international community, and the UN which is its principal embodiment, have taken some hard knocks. Should we, as a middle-ranking power with an important position in many multilateral institutions give way to despair, just wring our hands and let the fragmentation continue, or should we apply ourselves more purposefully and more effectively than we have done in the past few years to countering these shortcomings, reversing aggressions, reforming international organisations where they need it, and reducing the gap between the West and what is called the global South? I think that to pose that question is also to answer it.

Ministers have said time and again that it is in our national interest to sustain and strengthen the rules-based international order, and they are surely right when they say this. They talk the talk, but do they walk the walk? I fear not. The massive cuts in our overseas aid, the slowing down of progress towards net zero and the Prime Minister’s absence from two important summit meetings at the UN in New York in September all tell a different story. So too do the domestic laws coming all too frequently before this House which are inconsistent with our international obligations and are called out by those most qualified to consider these matters. Some, but not all, of these measures have been modified. We risk facing others if and when the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill reaches us and whatever plan B emerges from the wreckage of the Rwanda policy. This is a recipe for being a world leader with very few followers.

Then there is the often fraught relationship with the EU, our biggest trading partner in a grouping that contains like-minded countries that share our values and interests. The improvements in that relationship this year—the Windsor Framework, the deal on Horizon and the memorandum of understanding on financial services—were welcome if belated, but far more remains to be done. Much of it was set out in your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee’s report in April. The Government’s response to its recommendations was in most respects general to the point of meaninglessness. Not one of those recommendations has been acted on, if one excepts the improvement in school visit arrangements with France nine months after it was agreed between the Prime Minister and the President.

Here is what remains: linking our carbon price to that of the EU through our emission trading schemes or at least keeping any gap between them to a minimum, although in fact prices are drifting far apart; having similar carbon border adjustment mechanisms, although the Government are still thinking while the EU goes ahead; taking up the long-abandoned agreement to have a structured framework for co-operation on foreign policy, security and defence issues, now even more needed in the light of events in Ukraine, the Middle East and the South China Sea than when it was originally included in the political declaration at the time of Brexit; reversing the collapse in school visits to all EU countries, not just one of them; restoring cultural and educational links by exploring co-operation between the Turing and Erasmus schemes; repairing the damaged conditions for performing artists to work across Europe; and exploring the scope for youth mobility schemes. All this and more is an agenda crying out for action, but there is little sign of that in the immediate future unless the Minister intends to surprise us in his response to this debate.

It would be comforting but utterly unrealistic to expect calmer waters in 2024. It is more likely to be the contrary. Replacing the policy of neglect on the issue of Palestine will itself be a daunting undertaking. Sustaining Ukraine in its heroic resistance against aggression will be another. Plugging the gap between warm words on climate change and actual performance in fulfilling them is a third. The outcome of next November’s presidential election in the US will—like every such election, but perhaps more so on this occasion—be consequential for our own foreign policy. It will not be sufficient simply to reach for the comfort blanket of what we call the special relationship. We will need to work in NATO and with the EU to respond to whatever the result of that election may prove to be.

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament: China Report

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is very much better informed than I am but as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord West, that location is of strategic significance to both the United Kingdom and the United States and we continue to do whatever we can to preserve that strategic presence.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister say whether, in relation to the Chagos Islands, the Government are giving any consideration to a solution which would involve Diego Garcia becoming a sovereign base area of the United Kingdom while the rest of the Chagos Islands is returned to Mauritius?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

These details are somewhat beyond my field of knowledge. This principally rests with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office but I shall certainly make inquiries. If I elicit any information I shall write to the noble Lord.

Ukraine

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow two speakers with whom I am in such complete agreement, and who have stated the reasons for supporting Ukraine so eloquently. I begin by declaring an interest because your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee has just begun a new inquiry into the implications of everything that is happening in Ukraine on the UK’s relationship with the European Union. I am not speaking on behalf of that committee, as we have only just begun our report, but I assure the House that what is said in this debate will be a valuable contribution to what we are putting our minds to between now and the end of the year.

The debate we held in this House the day after Russia launched its war of aggression against Ukraine in February 2022 was a memorable one. It was memorable because it demonstrated from the outset that there were going to be no party divisions in this country in our response to that aggression and our support for Ukraine. It was memorable too because that unity was based on a clear-eyed recognition that Russia’s aggression was not only a contravention of international rules as fundamental as those in the UN charter and the 1990 Paris accords on European security, but because it would directly threaten our own security should Russia succeed in its attempt to overthrow the Ukrainian state. Those fundamentals remain as true today as they were then, and the Government and opposition parties deserve credit for standing by them and taking effective action to sustain them.

What has changed since our debate on the first day after the aggression began is the realisation of Ukraine’s remarkable resilience and success in repelling an onslaught from apparently superior military capabilities. This is all the more reason to stand firm now, even if the costs in both military and economic terms are inevitably painful—even more so in human terms for the Ukrainians.

Part of our response has been the array of sanctions on exports to and imports from Russia. We must recognise that, with Russia showing no signs of relenting in its aggression, these sanctions will be needed for the foreseeable future, and should be progressively strengthened in both their scope and, most particularly, their implementation. We need a more structured frame- work for co-operation in these tasks with the European Union and its member states, whose actions on sanctions have far exceeded what might previously have been expected. I hope, in replying, that the Minister will be less reticent about the need for such a framework, such as we have already with the United States.

We also need to co-operate with the EU and its member states in the planning and first stages of Ukraine’s reconstruction. One conference, welcome though it was, is not enough. The European Union, within the ambit of negotiating Ukraine’s accession, which I believe will be decided at the end of this year, will inevitably be the largest donor in civil terms—I am not talking about military support. It is only in our interest to work closely with it and to avoid any scope for being played off against each other.

We also need to find ways of giving effect to our commitment in the NATO summit communiqué last July for non-EU members of NATO—we are one of those—to contribute positively to the strengthening of EU defence and security policies. Our score on that is pretty skimpy so far: a bid to join the mobility partnership and only after the US and Canada have already done so. Is there not more in the pipeline, or are we content for EU-NATO co-operation to proceed without our direct involvement? I think that would be a mistake.

While we need to recognise that we have so far been less successful than we might have hoped in enlisting what is now known as the global South in support of sanctions and reconstruction, we must not accept that shortfall as inevitable or irremediable. The hard fact is that there are many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America which are put at risk by Putin riding roughshod over the UN charter and which will be even more at risk if Russia succeeds in its aggression. We should not be too hesitant about explaining those points, although we should do so in polite and non-aggressive terms. I suggest that we also need to recognise that, if we are to list more countries in the global South, more attention must be paid to and action taken on the priorities of those countries, most particularly on climate change, health, the handling of debt and the supply of essential foodstuffs.

It is not the time now, while the war is still raging, to address decisively Ukraine’s bid to join NATO, but we will need to in due course. Talk of separate, non-NATO security guarantees does not seem terribly convincing, given that their deterrent effect will inevitably be less than that of NATO membership. So, when the time comes—and it will come one day, but not now—we should be ready to give a positive response to Ukraine’s bid.

So much for some of the diplomatic challenges we face in this new Cold War which Russia triggered by its aggression. It could well last as long as the previous one, and we should be prepared for that. What we cannot afford to do is flinch from the prospect because it will bring some unwelcome military and economic burdens.