Baroness Ashton of Upholland
Main Page: Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Ashton of Upholland's debates with the Ministry of Defence
(2 months ago)
Lords Chamber
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate. This week, as the right reverend Prelate has just referenced, some of our most experienced former military chiefs wrote:
“When crises are left unaddressed, they do not stay distant for long”.
One of the most important lessons in foreign and security policy that I learned in my years as the EU foreign policy chief was the connection between what we call the three Ds: development, diplomacy and defence. When the leadership of Operation Atalanta to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia rested at NATO in Northwood under British command, I would hear time and again that solutions to piracy “lie not at sea but on the land”. Military leaders pushed for greater efforts to rebuild Somalia, to provide alternatives to teenage boys persuaded into piracy on the promise of $10,000 if they succeeded in capturing a vessel, and to engage in more effective diplomacy to get others to support our military and civilian missions. Their determined, highly effective military operations could ultimately succeed only if the range of foreign, security, development and defence capabilities worked together. I hope that my noble friends share the assessment, in their new modernised approach, that the three Ds are not interchangeable but part of the same comprehensive approach.
We cannot spend what we do not have, and streamlining, reviewing and modernising what we do is a vital part of good government. Massive effort is now needed to bring our defence capabilities to where they should be but, necessary as that is, it is insufficient in tackling the crisis we face. When crises are left unaddressed, they do not stay distant for long. If we seek an example, we need look no further than the Strait of Hormuz, a 104-mile stretch of water full of small coves, narrow in many places, and now the subject of one of the worst standoffs in my experience of foreign policy.
My experience of negotiating with Iran over four years to reach the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as chair and lead negotiator, gave me useful lessons not just for Iran. The Iranians now engaged in negotiations are quite familiar figures, not least Abbas Araghchi, the Foreign Minister, though they are probably now more constrained by hardliners who stand beside them or behind them. They have some experience, but so do we. I often describe the Iran deal as a jigsaw puzzle. Put together, it creates a picture. In 2015 the picture showed that we could be confident that Iran was not building a bomb. It was not. The picture was made up of pieces covering different parts of the deal, including levels of enrichment, types of centrifuges, stockpiles and heavy water reactor capabilities, inspection and monitoring regimes and more. The deal began from knowing what our objectives were.
The challenge now is that the reasons for the war, and therefore the problems to be addressed, seem to fluctuate—getting rid of an oppressive leadership, freeing the people, continuing to degrade and dispose of any nuclear weapons capability, preventing support to proxies, or some version of all of these. The vital first jigsaw puzzle piece, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which requires detailed, hard negotiation, does not of itself settle any of these underlying issues.
I ask my noble friend to lay out what proposals we are making to the countries most concerned with the negotiations, from the United States and of course Israel to Pakistan, the Gulf countries, Turkey, India, China and others. I worked with six nations on behalf of the United Nations, but I engaged with 20 more in pursuit of the agreement. There is much we could offer, so perhaps he can tell your Lordships’ House what exactly we are doing.
Finally, as my noble friend the Minister said, there is nothing that we can deal with alone. Foreign policy is domestic, not remote. We cannot keep people safe, offer opportunities or grow our economy without collaboration. The closer the collaboration with the like-minded the better, and that means Europe. Going back to the past is not an option—the world has moved on—but having a plan to get to a much better place is a must.
I am not arguing here for rejoining the EU, but perhaps the Government could be a little more careful in talking about our red lines as though they somehow will prevent what I see as a tidal wave of anger and resentment at being let down in so many communities. People want to see better living standards; that is impossible without better economic growth. They want to see a better life. I hope that my noble friends will take these comments in the spirit of willing them on in the tough decisions that lie ahead. The Government need to be as clear as they can be why foreign policy is about domestic issues and why engaging and showing leadership in taking tough decisions is more vital than ever.