King’s Speech

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I am honoured to speak in this debate, and I welcome the Government’s strong commitment to defence and improving relations with European partners as a vital step towards strengthening European security and upholding our unbreakable commitment to NATO and our allies. I pay tribute to our diplomats, members of the Armed Forces and the intelligence agencies that keep us safe.

Healthy defence spending, partnerships and alliances are cornerstones of our security and ability to keep our citizens safe and our country secure. However, our defence and resilience cannot be measured solely in military or economic preparedness; there is also the question of moral clarity. While nations must have the capability to defend themselves, they must also seek to have the courage and consistency to defend fundamental values and the rule of law internationally. I fear that, across much of democratic world, what we might call our “moral resilience” is weakening, with serious consequences for our long-term security.

The scale of human suffering is immense. In Sudan, Gaza, Myanmar, Lebanon, the DRC and Ukraine, wars are being waged against the civilian population with impunity. In any of these conflicts, with perhaps the sole exception of Ukraine, it is difficult to claim that we uphold international law consistently or that we value all human rights equally. At the same time, global military spending has reached historic levels. There is logic in preparing for a more dangerous world, but arms alone will not make us or the world safer. Countries shape the world not only through the power they possess but through the example they set. When democracies apply their values selectively, they weaken themselves strategically and make it easier for authoritarian states to argue that our principles are merely instruments of convenience.

In modern conflict, there are very few clean hands, even among democracies. Some democracies commit atrocities and then deny what the world has seen them do. Some provide diplomatic cover, and often intelligence, for actions that they should condemn. Some remain silent because moral clarity has become politically inconvenient. After the Second World War, leaders built international institutions—from the United Nations and NATO to the International Criminal Court, to mention just a few—designed to prevent civilisation sliding back to barbarism. They had seen how quickly peace could turn to war; how economic fear, extremism, propaganda and scapegoating could poison public life from within.

While history does not repeat itself exactly, there are echoes today that should concern us: political fragmentation, distrust of institutions, antisemitism, ethnic nationalism, economic anxiety, contempt for democratic processes, and the normalisation of dehumanising language and acts. Old ideas are returning because too many people have forgotten that they were once rejected and disregarded.

I am not nostalgic for the post-Cold War era or for the post-World War II settlement. I know war. I think of Srebrenica. I think of the promises made by the international community and then disregarded, and of the price paid by innocent civilians who were told they were safe. My concern is not that we have fallen from the imagined perfection but that we are losing even the aspiration to uphold our own standards. This is why I believe that moral authority and moral consistency must remain central to British foreign policy. This means being as clear about our views of human rights with our friends as we are with our enemies.

Sir John Major recently warned of the “fortress” generation—a society made fearful, more divided and less hopeful about the future. He was reminding us that public life carries an obligation to hand on something worth inheriting. Many young people today are no longer certain that that will happen. They see wars streamed live. They hear politicians speak of law and humanity in one context, while avoiding those same principles in another. They are losing faith, not only in Governments but in the sincerity of politics itself. This is not a sentimental concern; democratic legitimacy depends upon it.

Of course, Britain must be ready to defend her citizens and her territory. When the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, called out the Prime Minister and the Chancellor over their failure to rearm the United Kingdom at speed in the face of growing threats, he spoke for many. But military strength without moral authority is ultimately a hollow form of power. Our influence rests not only on what we can do or how well we are armed but on what we stand for.