Rules-based International Order

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the quality of this debate has done justice to the outstanding manner in which my noble friend introduced it. She argued, in clear terms, why we have rules and why there is a structure for the way that nations relate to each other. It is to resolve competition and govern the means by which disputes can be mediated or adjudicated, and therefore for accountability. Representative institutions were formed to be the secretariats for this system of governance, in finance, trade, maritime law and, more recently, development policy, climate—as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated—and human rights, with global judicial procedures.

My noble friend outlined in compelling form the history. As my noble friend Lord Thomas indicated, that history was written by the UK and the US in many regards, and it is the UK and the US that loom large over this debate. Is this generation honouring the previous generation who designed the very system on which we rely? It is based on fundamental principles that should apply to all equitably, but, as my noble friend said, the concern is whether we in the UK apply them equitably. The double standards we have recently seen, as my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece said, have perhaps been seen elsewhere, as my noble friend Lord Marks indicated.

The rule of law is not just for our adversaries but for our allies. War crimes are crimes, whatever the war. A human right when denied to one is denied to all. It is interesting that, last year and just this week, when I have asked questions about war crimes, the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Collins, agreed with sincerity that war crimes have been committed by Putin. They said so at the Dispatch Box. However, just on Monday, the Minister said that she could not proclaim what a war crime was within the Gaza-Israel conflict.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

We were talking specifically about genocide. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could make that clear.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for interacting, but what she said was in response to my question on war crimes. The Minister replied from the Dispatch Box that she could not proclaim what a war crime is. The point I am making is that, for other conflicts, Ministers speaking from the same Dispatch Box over the last year have proclaimed what war crimes are. It is not about whether Ministers have adjudicated; it is about whether Ministers can state what they are. That is where the world sees UK Ministers perhaps taking a different approach.

From these Benches, my noble friend Lord Thomas has said that we have had to be the vanguard in Parliament against recent Governments who have, in our country and abroad, moved away from honouring commitments—whether through the casual treatment of the ECHR or the Rwanda legislation, as referred to. We have tried to be dogged in what we believe: we believe in honouring commitments and know that, if we do not, we give license to other countries to dishonour them too. The United Kingdom remains a leader on rules and rights and others look to us. It is coming up to Burns Night, so we should

“see ourselves as others see us”.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce that it was catastrophic for the UK to cut by a third our development partnerships and in the way that we did. It was heartbreaking that a new Government, with a historic mandate, chose in their first Budget to reduce even further ODA. It is now at its lowest level in 17 years.

As a prime example, over this period, the challenges of the world, be they Covid, the climate or conflict, have made the development need even greater. Some 80% of developing nations still have not recovered their economies to pre-Covid levels, as the World Bank’s most recent reported indicated. With the growth of conflict exacerbated by the climate emergency, the most recent data shows that 282 million people in 59 countries and territories face acute food insecurity. This is seen especially in Sudan, Afghanistan and Myanmar. Despite the global aim of abolishing absolute poverty by 2030, which was set in 2015 in the SDGs, the lowest estimate is that 600 million people will remain in absolute poverty by then.

In 2015, all parties in this Chamber agreed with the SDGs. They also agreed with the International Development Act, a statutory duty that we should honour our commitment and continue to honour it. We should be dependable, reliable and predictable. I agreed with 99% of what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said—I did not agree with 1% of it because it was not the Labour Government who met the 0.7%. As political parties, we were all aligned to that ambition, and there is a need to restore dependability, reliability and predictability.

Those three words are not often used to describe the incoming President of the United States, but perhaps the Trump Administration will again have as their approach dysfunction by design. It is true that the previous Administration of Donald Trump had leverage, but I disagree that it was used to net benefit. I believe that legitimising the North Korean leadership, removing the guard-rails on Iran and putting at risk the NATO alliance was not strength. We have to ensure, as my noble friend indicated, that our relationship with our European partners and like-minded countries is as strong as it can be, given that we may well have uncertainty in the next Administration of the United States.

Many Trump supporters say that what he says should be listened to seriously but not taken literally. But the problem is that the people who now have to listen to what he says and judge whether to take it seriously or literally are his allies, not necessarily his adversaries, and the negative energy that will be consumed will be wasted energy, especially since the global challenges are immense.

Transactionalism at the core of United States foreign policy will potentially lead to openings of opportunity for the Kremlin and Beijing. The challenges of the 21st century are immense and include technology, AI, the climate and many others. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, indicated, we will see a combination of an uncertain American partner and the concentration of power in people such as Elon Musk or Peter Thiel—individuals who consider law as discretionary, standards as weakness and norms as anachronisms.

In 2015, there was considerable consensus that we should not only meet the 0.7% obligation but set sustainable development goals and work with others to meet them. It is 10 years to the week since we had the Second Reading of that 2015 legislation, on 23 January. I want to close my remarks now as I closed them then. In that debate, when we passed that legislation, I never felt that we would honour it in only three out of the following 10 years—and it is likely to be only three out of 15 by the end of this Parliament.

As I said then:

“I conclude by saying that the UK has less than 1% of the world’s population. Our global footprint is massively disproportionate to the size of our tiny islands. If the UK is a citizen of the world, what kind of citizen must we be? I say we are one that comes to the assistance of others who are in need, does not shrink from challenging those who abuse minorities, refuses to support those who prevent women accessing rights, and never turns a blind eye to those who disempower their own citizens. We establish our place and our identity as a citizen of the world if we uphold our obligations and encourage others to do likewise”.—[Official Report, 23/1/15; col. 1520.]