Ukraine: Defence Relationships
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Liddle for his initiative. If the first casualty of war is the truth, Ukraine is a fine example. It is hard to know who and what to believe. Ukraine’s Prime Minister, Denys Shmyal, claims that Putin’s forces have destroyed more than 15,000 miles of roads, hundreds of bridges, 12 airports, 100 school, college and university campuses and 500 medical facilities, and contaminated 150,000 square miles of land with explosive devices. Other reports claim 90,000 cars destroyed, and 34 million square metres of residential buildings wrecked at a replacement cost of $30 billion. The World Bank estimates $60 billion in infrastructural damage. The IMF predicts a 35% and rising contraction in the economy, with 11 million people displaced and 6.5 million refugees escaping violence while leaving loved ones at home. We have 8.5 million on either food assistance or exceptional health support. We have the disruption of education for 3.5 million children and a collapse in family income, leaving millions of pensioners unable to move while trapped. That was the position a few weeks ago.
The Kyiv School of Economics forecasts a potential war cost of $600 million—four times the national GDP. These are cash cost estimates. Then we have the loss of life: 22,000 in Mariupol alone. Wider estimates speak of an additional tens of thousands of civilian and military war dead. If that is not enough, we have President Zelensky’s spokesman demanding more weaponry when he states:
“If you ask me, I would say far too slow, far too late and definitely not enough. We are not happy with the pace of weapons delivery”.
Then there is the cost here at home: escalating fuel and food prices, and worrying inflation with additional millions in need, particularly in low-income households. We have economic destruction throughout Europe with the potential to destabilise all populations. I say, when it comes to war, never underestimate the potential of the unpredictable, which in this case is a distinct possibility. Yet all I hear is cries for more war, more weapons, more sacrifice and a refusal to even talk against a background of escalating threats from Moscow.
We need a period of reflection. Personally, I have never ducked a need to face up to decisions on war when national unity was required. I have supported war in the Falklands, and in the case of Iraq visited Washington repeatedly, calling for intervention, but this is different. This war is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, and the silence of the British public begs questions as to the level of real support, indeed concern, out there. I beg the Government to start thinking outside of the box and reflect on the route to a solution and ending the conflict. Humiliating a proud Russian people in whose name a tyrannical Putin is pursuing a brutal, inhuman and crazed war is no answer.
The man has lost all reason, he is desperate as to his legacy and is acutely dangerous. We need a post-Putin strategy which facilitates the development of a more democratic Russia and its joining a world of more civilised nations. There was a possibility in the early 2000s, but it never materialised. Compromise all round is now needed. I plead: do not destroy the Russian economy in a flawed process. Humiliating Germany in the 1920s brought a world war, and history can repeat itself. We cannot win overall militarily; equally, neither can the Russians—they can only damage their economy.
I say: start the talking, and with an open mind. When the Minister in a recent reply insisted on what appears to me to be total capitulation by Russia, my heart sank. The Minister should listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, who has supported calls for early negotiation to end conflict. He should listen to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who in a recent debate set out a comprehensive set of proposals for the resolution of the conflict. He should listen to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who is to follow me now, and who, while supporting military intervention has heavily qualified his remarks on the issue of preparedness.
Finally, I can only repeat my own calls, made before the war started, for protectorate status for Donetsk and Luhansk within Ukraine under international monitoring arrangements and, additionally, the disbanding and withdrawal from theatre of the Azov and associated battalions and the Donbass militia. I believe all this was possible under an agreed settlement before the war started. It is still possible to deliver as Russia’s war losses mount up and make compromise increasingly possible. At least we should start the talking. If history judges that we have fought a war—call it a proxy war if you want—to secure less than what we would have secured by way of negotiation, we will be condemned by our descendants as little more than party to an historic error. I say: listen to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, which was very impressive today.
Russia and Ukraine: Settlement
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the circumstances in which they would endorse the terms of a settlement between the government of Russia and the government of Ukraine regarding the current conflict.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we applaud Ukraine’s efforts to engage in dialogue in the face of continued Russian aggression. The United Kingdom and our allies support Ukraine’s efforts to secure a settlement that delivers a sustainable peace in line with established principles of European security. Any outcome needs to ensure Russian withdrawal and a ceasefire, and to strengthen Ukraine so it is able to deter future Russian aggression and, if necessary, defend itself.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, why, prior to a war now riddled with Russian atrocities, did we reject the December 2021 Russian-proposed talks on a draft treaty covering security guarantees, arms control, self-government within Ukraine for Donetsk and the maintenance of the existing corridor of non-nuclear barrier states from Finland to the Black Sea? Jens Stoltenberg agreed to the talks; why did we not? Russia’s proposed treaty was only in draft. Why did we not use it—indeed, why do we not use it—and build on it as the basis for negotiation and at least try to end this proxy war? There is a copy of the draft treaty in our Library.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, there is a simple answer to that. Any partner to a negotiation needs to uphold the rule of law. Russia has repeatedly failed, including in 2008 through its aggression in Georgia and in 2014 through its annexation of Crimea. Those were illegal acts of aggression, as is the current war in Ukraine.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the 1990s, Edwina Currie and I were invited to Moscow to undertake a series of talks in the Duma on democracy. During that visit, and on a later visits under different auspices, I gained two distinct impressions. First, our embassy staff were convinced that the embassy was bugged, with its staff under surveillance. Secondly, Russians I met seemed convinced to the point of paranoia that American-sponsored nuclear deployments encircling Russia were a constant threat to Russian security. The problem was that both accusations were essentially true.
That belief, set against a background of 26 million losses in the Second World War, stands at the heart of Russia’s paranoia. This is why decent, innocent and patriotic Russian citizens, when additionally subject to propaganda on Ukraine’s Nazification, believe that the West is conspiring to undermine the Russian state. It is that combination—the perceived Nazification of Ukraine, the 26 million losses and the nuclear threat—which underlines and reinforces Putin’s grossly exaggerated case. He has been able to justify his actions and appalling brutality by drawing on the work of Lev Golinkin, a prominent Jewish writer with impeccable credentials, who, in his detailed 19-page report, “Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine”, available through our Library, details concerns over what he describes as “dark nationalism”. His case is endorsed by Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the US-funded Radio Free Europe, Amnesty International and the World Jewish Congress. His report details the scale of alleged Nazification of Ukrainian institutions, the sponsorship of violence, the role of the Azov Battalion with its roots in extremism, the persecution of Jews, Roma and LGBT groups, the treatment of the liberal media, attitudes to the Holocaust and the banning of the Russian language.
We cannot simply ignore the impact of such reporting on Russian public opinion. It is influencing events and attitudes to military intervention. Our democracies are identified with these reactionary movements and our response is ill-judged. We are set on a very dangerous course. For weeks, I have set out my reservations: the internal pressures that increasingly underly a volatile Russia—over which Putin, in truth, has limited control—invite danger. We need to rethink our current and post- Putin strategy. We do not need a humiliated Russia and a Versailles; there would be no real winners.
I have argued previously in this House the case in detail for a deal to avoid war. Macron, who has been appallingly treated by fellow Europeans, has promoted within the Normandy Format a
“desire to maintain the stability and territorial integrity of Ukraine”—
but outside of NATO. He is being completely undermined as the West runs its proxy war. Equally, the deal proposed by Anatol Lieven of the Washington-based Quincy Institute has been blocked and rubbished. Unsettling the world in a prolonged proxy war can only unleash forces which extend far beyond the borders of a small European state. We need to talk. Lives are being lost in a fruitless conflict which is being used—as has been argued in the media—by some in government to consolidate their leadership. The war is provoking inflation and penalising the poor at home here in the UK. The only silver lining is that brutal Putin’s days are numbered as the truth dawns on the innocent Russian people as to the scale of the brutality taking place in their name.
I believe—as I always have—that there was a deal to be done with Russia prior to this conflict and we failed to pursue it. Ukraine will end up worse off, and that is a real tragedy. The truth will come out in the end.
I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on the brilliant speech he gave just a few moments ago.
Ukraine
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite him to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will we not look rather foolish if, having driven Abramovich out of Britain with threats of property confiscation, it turns out that he was genuinely trying to negotiate some way forward with the Russians, whom he knows very well, and in doing so paid the very heavy price of possible poisoning for his efforts? What happens if that turns out to be true? Will we not look rather unappreciative? It might be that, in the end, we have to thank him for his efforts and perhaps even rely on his efforts.
Russia: Sanctions
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, during last Wednesday’s Statement to the House, I suggested that, prior to supporting a proxy war military intervention, and now sanctions, all concerned should read material from the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which reveals assurances given to the Soviets on NATO expansion—an issue at the heart of the Russian case. Was my suggestion followed up or ignored? Will not those undertakings given to the Russians not go away and, in the end, become central to this whole debate on both sanctions and the potential for conflict?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord is right on his specific suggestion but, on his broader point about the importance of diplomacy, that is exactly what Her Majesty’s Government are doing, along with our key partners. It is important, though, that Russia also recognises that it is about its actions. Let us not forget that Crimea was annexed—what, eight years ago?—and it has subsequently continued to take aggressive stances on the borders of Ukraine. I said earlier that we have now seen over 100,000 Russian troops amassing across three different fronts. These are not mere exercises; they are attempts to intimidate Ukraine. It is important that we stand with Ukraine and underline the support that we give to it, including what the sanction would be if there was a Russian incursion or invasion into any parts of Ukrainian territory. It is important that Russia understands that message, which is articulated not just by the United Kingdom but by us and our allies. I assure the noble Lord that the door of diplomacy, as I said in my previous answer, is very much open and the UK is at the forefront of that.
Kazakhstan
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, wishes to speak virtually. I think this is a convenient point to call him.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is not one of the drivers behind Kazakhstan’s unacceptable aggression America’s unrelenting desire to foment trouble in former Soviet satellite states? If our policy is to promote democratic values in Kazakhstan, would it not be more effective to foster a very different policy approach from that adopted by the Americans and challenge many of the decisions they are now taking in eastern Europe?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my job is to speak not for the American Government but for Her Majesty’s Government. We are engaging constructively on the principles of democracy, and thriving democracy means that all human rights are respected—the rights to media freedom, to freedom of religion and to protest. We make those points consistently in international alliances and directly with countries, as we are doing today with Kazakhstan.
Vaccine Distribution
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had in the last month with vaccine manufacturers on vaccine distribution.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Vaccine Taskforce is in constant communication with vaccine manufacturers to carefully manage UK vaccine supply. Due to commercial sensitivities, we are unable to comment on the details of these discussions. The UK manages our vaccine supply so that all procured doses are either used in the domestic programme or shared internationally. We continue to ensure that any vaccine that the UK does not need is, wherever possible, reallocated to other countries that require it.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, how do we justify a vaccination programme that leaves the third world innocently unable to stop disease spread to the unvaccinated in the developed world? If the answer is vaccine supply shortage on the one hand and refusenik human rights on the other, then why not respond by challenging patents, increasing vaccine manufacture and now, while resisting mandatory vaccination, selectively isolating refuseniks where they risk spreading the disease? Or is it that refusenik rights outweigh those of the vulnerable millions who are now forced to work from home, as I am having to do, as the disease spreads?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is important to recognise that, as has been said repeatedly, there is a global response to this; that is why the UK led on supporting the COVAX Facility. The noble Lord refers to the developing part of the world, and he will be aware, for example, of the additional donations promised by the Prime Minister. Some 20% are going bilaterally, and this includes countries such as Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica and Mozambique. We are also working on technical support, which has ensured the manufacture of vaccines within, for example, South Africa.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what a beautiful, beautiful, moving contribution that was from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. It is perhaps the finest I have heard in my 20 years as Member of the House.
Having read the 16 November Commons debate and the procedural opinion of the Commons authorities on sub judice, I have to say, surely, whether or not the High Court upholds, IMS’s liability to repay MODSAF should have no bearing whatever on what is essentially a moral argument—one of right or wrong. My comments do not relate to the legal position or the concern of the Commons authorities—only the moral argument.
What is obvious is that in recent months the view of the Commons has become clear and is well documented in Hansard. I cannot understand why the Commons authorities intervened in the way they did. No doubt, the Iranian embassy in London will be closely following events in Parliament. It will now, as we speak, be on live feed, listening to this debate. It will evaluate statements made by Ministers, including our Prime Minister, whose contribution to this debate has been less than helpful.
Let us be in no doubt that the louder the calls for a settlement, the more likely it is that the Iranians will hold out in the belief that a financial settlement is likely to come sooner rather than later. That is the Catch-22 position we are now in. Transparency will inevitably have its price. The louder Parliament shouts, the more resolute they will become. When caught in the headlamps of such a dilemma and in such contradictions, it is best to turn to the principle. To me, it is clear: we owe them money. The so-called niceties, norms, modalities and complexities of international diplomacy are obstacles, but they should be set aside. We have all been brought up to pay our debts, and so should the state. Arguments over the background to the debt are a hindrance, only exacerbating a position that is increasingly indefensible. We owe the money. It is their money. It is not our money. The response of the Government lacks all credibility. I say: pay up, and pay up now.
Perhaps I may say something more controversial. We should ignore our kith and kin in America who, at the moment, are suffering a worldwide-role identity crisis. Trump is a symptom of that. We need to begin a process of rapprochement with Iran and others. We need to rethink our approach to relationships with Islamic states and if, as we heard in the previous debate, we can talk to the Taliban, I am sure we can talk to the Iranians. As the world moves on from oil to renewables, the relationship between oil-dependent Islamic states and the advanced nations, particularly in the West, will change. It will be more problematic. Today’s differences of opinion could turn very ugly indeed, and therefore we should act with very great care.
Finally, the Minister today is bound by his brief and, despite his reputation for frankness, cannot say what he might believe, and I suspect he agrees far more with us than with the brief he has been given. The much respected mantra “We recognise the legal duty to repay the debt and will explore the legal options for doing so”, which we see repeated in all sorts of documents and speeches, is simply not good enough. I hope that the powers that stand behind the Minister are listening to this debate. They should think again and pay up. Parliament says pay up. We should pay up.
Rivers and Coastal Waters: Sewage
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, one of the things that the Government committed to during the passage of the then Environment Bill, now Act, was to conduct an assessment of what it would cost to eliminate storm overflows and—separately, because it is a different question—to eliminate the harm from storm overflows. We do not know yet what the cost of the former would be; estimates vary wildly from £150 million to £600 million. So we do not know what the cost will be or even where the opportunities are, but that is the purpose of the study that is being conducted and we will act on its results as a matter of urgency.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have a very simple question. I cannot understand how the Government can trumpet the privatisation of water as a success when companies such as United Utilities not only unsettle whole populations by failing to control their assets and stop flooding in Lake District towns such as Keswick, but also, following flooding, seem blind when their sewage plants overflow, fail and then pollute lakes such as Lake Bassenthwaite, destroying local wildlife. For how long do we have to tolerate these excesses and failures?
Nepal: Covid-19 Vaccine Request
Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I return the compliment by paying tribute to my noble friend for his work and his advocacy for Nepal. I can also further assure him that this morning I met with the Minister for the Armed Forces, and the MoD is standing up a military, medical and advisory team on the ground to assess. They will be leaving early next week to assess the requirements on the ground. I am directly engaging with the Government of Nepal. Indeed, I had a very constructive meeting with the Foreign Minister yesterday, establishing exactly what the key requirements are, and later this afternoon I will be meeting the Nepalese ambassador to the Court of St James to further discuss issues of logistics. We have already extended support, including funding an oxygen generation plant at the Nepal Police Hospital, and we are working on the ground through our embassy, and with officials within the FCDO and the MoD, to see what further support can be extended at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, despite the work of COVAX, is not the absence of an effective international vaccine manufacturing and distribution system that meets world demand perfectly illustrated by Nepal’s reported difficulties, particularly when the Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest manufacturer, is situated in Pune, in the state of Maharashtra in India, next door to Nepal? With an 8 billion world population at risk and potentially only a 4 billion worldwide double -dosage manufacturing capacity, as yet unrealised, how can world demand be met?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The challenges—the noble Lord mentioned the Serum Institute of India, which I know well as the Minister for India, and the challenges in India in terms of the current wave sweeping across the country—are well known. We have seen a stepping up in terms of manufacturing and collaboration, and the United Kingdom’s structured approach to the COVAX facility demonstrates the importance, as the noble Lord himself acknowledges, of a global supply chain which guarantees the distribution of Covid-19 vaccines across the world.