United Kingdom: Global Position
Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell on securing this debate, though I fear I cannot quite share his degree of optimism. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, on a most accomplished maiden speech. We look forward to hearing many more. It is of course a privilege to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken, who brings his considerable expertise to bear on our discussion of these issues.
The global position of the United Kingdom has changed beyond all recognition in the last few weeks. That is because the world has changed beyond all recognition in the last few weeks. We are at a turning point comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, but this turning point is not, alas, for the better. It is making the world a more dangerous place than it has been since 1989, or perhaps even longer ago than that.
The great certainty that has dominated all global strategy since 1945 has been that the United States has been the leader of the free world. It has seen its role as the guarantor of a rules-based world order which it helped to devise. Of course, it has made mistakes—not all of its interventions have had beneficial results—but, on the whole, both it and the world have benefited enormously. Millions more people now live under freedom and many more millions no longer have to suffer the grinding misery of poverty. Of course, the United States has not been the sole author of these benefits, but without its leadership, it is very doubtful whether this progress could have occurred.
This great certainty has gone. It grieves me to say what I am about to say. I lived in America for a year as a young man. Both my children are married to Americans. All my grandchildren are dual citizens of the United Kingdom and the United States. But the last few weeks have made it clear that the United States is no longer a reliable ally of this country.
It is not the act of an ally to impose tariffs on friendly countries. It is not the act of an ally to threaten to take part of another country’s territory—Greenland—by force. It is not the act of an ally to vote with Russia, North Korea and Iran in the United Nations against a motion that recognises that Russia invaded Ukraine. It is not the act of a freedom-loving country to withdraw intelligence and military assistance from a democratic country that has been invaded by a tyrant.
It is foolish to pretend that we can rely on a country which is led by a man who rejoices in his unreliability, who revels in his unreliability, and who uses unreliability as a weapon of choice. The Prime Minister has spoken of himself as a bridge, and his efforts have been commendable, but a bridge needs firm foundations at both ends, and those firm foundations no longer exist on the other side of the Atlantic.
So what is to be done? It is clear that we, in common with other countries, not only European countries, must spend more on defence. It is true that we have been freeloading on the United States for far too long, but I am afraid that this new need for increased defence spending must have as its objective not merely the need to convince the United States that we are paying our fair share of the costs of NATO but the ability to defend ourselves and play our part in the defence of Europe without the United States.
The changed attitude of the United States is said to be in order that it can devote itself to the challenges it faces in the Pacific, in particular from China, but its democratic allies in the Pacific have hardly been reassured. South Korea is reportedly considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons since it no longer considers the United States a reliable ally, Japan’s nervousness is palpable, and what confidence can anyone now have for the future of Taiwan?
But we and the rest of the world will be poorer, too. That is an inevitable consequence of a damaging trade war, and the extra spending on defence which is now essential will have to be at the expense of other elements of government spending to which we have become accustomed.
The United Kingdom’s global position has changed in the last few weeks, and it has changed for the worse. We are weaker and we may become poorer. But we can—we must—also become more self-reliant. In doing so, we can yet provide a degree of leadership to like-minded countries which do not see international relations as a series of transactions but recognise that we share a system of values which is worth cherishing, sustaining and defending. That would be an honourable role to which we can and should aspire.
Israel: Arms Sales
Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the UK remains and will always be committed to supporting Israel’s security and wider regional stability. The Foreign Secretary reaffirmed this with his Israeli counterparts on a recent visit to Tel Aviv on 19 August with the French Foreign Minister, and our position has not changed in this respect. We continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself and to take action against terrorism, provided it does so in accordance with international law.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Foreign Secretary in his Statement said that the commitment to comply with international humanitarian law is not the only criterion in making export licensing decisions, and he justified the decision to exempt the F35 equipment on other criteria. So does it not clearly follow from that the Government could, had they wished, have decided against a ban on the ground that Israel is acting in self-defence against an organisation committed to its destruction and recognised by our own Government as a terrorist organisation? In the light of that, will the Minister now accept that when she told your Lordships’ House on Tuesday that the Government were required to suspend certain export licences, what she said was both factually inaccurate and grossly misleading?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
No, I do not accept that. The legal test we have is that there is a clear risk, and the advice we received was that in the case of these 30 licences it could present a clear risk—not that it has done, not that there is a breach, but that there is a clear risk. This is not an embargo on sales of arms to Israel. I am fairly confident that the noble Lord will know that the case of the F35s is different. We supply components which are part of a global supply chain, and stopping those components being provided could cause very difficult disruption and there would be an impact on global security.