Category: Defence

  • Bill Esterson – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Offshoring Warship Production

    Bill Esterson – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Offshoring Warship Production

    The parliamentary question asked by Bill Esterson, the Labour MP for Sefton Central, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)

    Of course, if the whole contract was coming to UK yards, the investment would be more than £77 million. Now that the Minister has confirmed that the consortium is indeed Spanish-led, I remind him that no other G7 country offshores its warship production. Will he tell us how many jobs are going to Spain that would have come to this country as a result of this reckless decision by his Government?

    Alex Chalk

    I say respectfully that that is an absurd mischaracterisation. I am pleased that the overwhelming majority are coming here. By the way, jobs are also included for the people who designed this—BMT in Bath—which the hon. Member should welcome. The majority of the manufacturing is coming here. This decision also means that we will have the know-how to ensure that we have the pipeline to the future. If he wants to say that there are some jobs in Spain, that is perfectly true, but the overwhelming majority are here. Some of the Typhoons, for example, are assembled in Italy, so does he resent the fact that there are British jobs making some of the components? Of course he does not, because that is the modern world in which we live. Crucially, that modern world ensures that, as opposed to having some sort of prehistoric, antediluvian approach, we have strength for the United Kingdom, strength for the British armed forces and strength for British industry.

  • Alex Sobel – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Prime Contractor for the Fleet Solid Support Ships

    Alex Sobel – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Prime Contractor for the Fleet Solid Support Ships

    The parliamentary question asked by Alex Sobel, the Labour MP for Leeds North West, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)

    In responding to the urgent question, the Minister seems to have left out a number of important details. Will he confirm whether the prime contractor for the fleet solid support ships will be the Spanish state-owned company Navantia, or will it be a British company?

    Alex Chalk

    I invite the hon. Member to look at the things that really matter—that is, the jobs that will come into British yards. Since we set out the national shipbuilding strategy, which was refreshed earlier this year, we have ensured that, for the first time in decades, there is a lasting pipeline for all Government-procured ships, whether for defence or elsewhere. That is important because the stability ensures that there can be investment.

    On the hon. Member’s specific point, there is, of course, a role for Navantia UK—there is no secret about that—just as there is a role for BAE Systems and all sorts of other industries in other badged weapons systems. That does not mean, however, that there is any reduced benefit for British workers. On the contrary, there is £77 million of investment. I respectfully say to him that the question that he has to answer is: would he set his face against a deal that would mean £77 million-worth of investment in a British yard, which, by the way, desperately needs it? Without that investment, who knows what the future would be for Harland & Wolff? With that investment, we can be sure that it is bright, and he should welcome that.

  • Derek Twigg – 2022 Parliamentary Question about Building British Warships in Spain

    Derek Twigg – 2022 Parliamentary Question about Building British Warships in Spain

    The parliamentary question asked by Derek Twigg, the Labour MP for Halton, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said, the Defence Committee is very clear that British ships should be built in British yards. As I understand it, this consortium is led by the Spanish. Will he confirm whether it is the case that they are ultimately responsible for the contract, and how can he square that with what the Conservative party has told us for many years, which is that leaving Europe would ensure that British ships would be built in this country?

    Alex Chalk

    It is perfectly true that there is an international collaboration, but I gently point out that that is not unusual and nor is it unwelcome. In any modern sophisticated piece of engineering, whether Typhoon or F-35, there will be an international component. If all nations produced everything themselves, that would become incredibly expensive and would defeat the object. Through international collaboration, which by the way we are proud of, we will produce something world-class and meet the needs of the taxpayer as well as the needs of our armed forces, and—I have not emphasised it enough before, so I must do so now—critically, a world-class shipbuilder will bring a lot of its technical know-how into Harland & Wolff, allowing it to build excellent ships long into the future.

  • Mick Whitley – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Whether Ship-Building Contracts Should be UK Only

    Mick Whitley – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Whether Ship-Building Contracts Should be UK Only

    The parliamentary question asked by Mick Whitley, the Labour MP for Birkenhead, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)

    The union Prospect has warned that, as a result of this decision, as much as 80% of the work on these vessels could be offshored to Spain. This is a devastating blow to British shipyards and will compound the anxiety felt by workers at Cammell Laird in my constituency following last week’s announcement that, as a result of procurement laws imposed by Whitehall, much of the work on the new Mersey ferries will take place in Romania. It is time that the Government began to back British business. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister now commit to implementing Sir John Parker’s recommendation that all Defence-funded vessels should be open to UK-only competition and speak to Cabinet colleagues about the need for a broader overall procurement law so that, at last, we can begin to build in Britain by default?

    Alex Chalk

    These are British ships built to British designs in a British dockyard. I am pleased to be able to make that absolutely clear. The contract is essential to ensure not just that there are British jobs but, critically, that there is the best know-how—wherever in the world it comes from—so that our yards are equipped with the expertise, skills and talent they need to sustain these ships and ships into the future.

  • Alex Chalk – 2022 Statement on Fleet Solid Support Ships

    Alex Chalk – 2022 Statement on Fleet Solid Support Ships

    The statement made by Alex Chalk, the Minister for Defence Procurement, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. On 16 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that Team Resolute—consisting of Harland & Wolff, BMT and Navantia UK—has been appointed as the preferred bidder in the competition to build the fleet solid support ships. Having appointed Team Resolute as the preferred bidder, the Ministry of Defence expects to award it a contract around the end of this year. That appointment follows on from the award to BAE Systems in Glasgow of the £4 billion contract for five Type 26 frigates earlier this week. Both are excellent news for UK shipyards and the shipbuilding skills base in our country.

    Those crucial vessels will provide munitions, stores and provisions to the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates deployed at sea. Ammunition and essential stores will ensure that the mission can be sustained anywhere around the world. The contract will deliver more than 1,000 additional UK shipyard jobs, generate hundreds of graduate and apprentice opportunities across the UK, and a significant number of further jobs throughout the supply-chain. Team Resolute has also pledged to invest £77 million in shipyard infrastructure to support the UK shipbuilding sector.

    The entire final assembly will be completed at Harland & Wolff’s shipyard in Belfast to Bath-based BMT’s British design. The awarding of the contract will see jobs created and work delivered in Appledore, Devon, Harland & Wolff Belfast, and within the supply chain up and down the country. This announcement is good news for the UK shipbuilding industry. It will strengthen and secure the UK shipbuilding enterprise as set out in the national shipbuilding strategy, and I commend this decision to the House.

    Chris Evans

    The awarding of this contract raises one fundamental question: are the Government on the side of British workers? When the Secretary of State for Defence designated these ships as warships in 2020, he said:

    “The Fleet Solid Support warships competition will be the genesis of a great UK shipbuilding industry”.

    However, he then seemed to cool on the idea. When speaking in front of the Defence Committee in July, he stated that ships will only be constructed and integrated in the UK, and two weeks ago at Defence questions he said that he would

    “not cut corners for party political ideology”.—[Official Report, 7 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 13.]

    This is not about party politics; this is about creating British jobs for British workers, with British ships using British steel.

    Ministry of Defence spin doctors were quick to get to work on the press release, claiming that this bid will create 2,000 jobs in UK shipyards and in the supply chain. However, research by the GMB and Team UK’s contract bid shows that if these ships were built in the UK rather than in Spanish shipyards, it would mean more than 6,000 UK jobs. The Government have created a new Spanish armada more than 430 years since the last one lost. It is also highly unusual for warships to be built abroad, due to security implications. Earlier this week, the Government announced that the new Type 26 warships will be built in the UK, yet the fleet solid support ships will not be. Why has a different decision been made, and how will security and economic concerns be managed?

    Before we hear calls from the Government Benches of “What would Labour do?”—well, we would build British by default. Our approach has broad support. The Defence Committee has said that Ministers should

    “ensure that warships are built in UK yards and that this designation continues to include the Fleet Solid Support ship contract”.

    The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has argued that building and maintaining fleet solid support ships in the UK was strategically important, but how much of those ships will be built in Spain and not the UK? Will Ministers continue to use UK steel to build those ships? British workers have the right to know whether their Government are on their side. Based on their words and deeds, the answer is a resounding no.

    Alex Chalk

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but, with great respect, what a load of nonsense. He started by saying that the Labour party would be on the side of British jobs for British workers, and that is exactly what the contract delivers. There will be 1,200 jobs—not any old jobs but fantastic new jobs—in our shipbuilding sector. The Government are already investing in Type 26, and we are seeing full order books in Scottish yards. This will mean additional jobs in Harland & Wolff. It is worth focusing on what Harland & Wolff had to say. Its chief executive said:

    “I am pleased to see UK Government seize the last opportunity to capture the skills that remain in Belfast and Appledore before they are lost for good”.

    The contract is about ensuring that there is strength and depth in shipyards across our country.

    The hon. Gentleman went on to make points about how some components will be built overseas, but in modern engineering designs ’twas ever thus. Take, for example, the F-35—a highly sophisticated bit of equipment built in the United States. Where is much of the equipment designed and manufactured? Here in the United Kingdom. That is exactly what we do. Do the Americans think that, somehow, because of its British components, it is some latter-day invasion on the lines of the Spanish armada, as he referred to? Of course not. That would be complete nonsense. This is fantastic investment that, by the way, also ensures an additional £77 million invested in Harland & Wolff. That is supporting British jobs, British know-how and a pipeline of British expertise that will sustain our shipbuilding industry into the future.

  • Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Exposing Military to Nuclear Weapons Testing in 1950s

    Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Exposing Military to Nuclear Weapons Testing in 1950s

    The parliamentary question asked by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Labour MP for Salford and Eccles, in the House of Commons on 16 November 2022.

    Rebecca Long-Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)

    A 1958 instruction from Whitehall ordered medics to take blood samples regularly from exposed veterans during nuclear weapons tests. I have been made aware that many veterans and their families have been reported being unable to obtain the test results, so are denied the ability to make any sense of what they, and in some cases their families, suffered. Will the Deputy Prime Minister investigate and inform me of the legal rights of these men to obtain their medical records? Will he undertake to ask the Prime Minister to order that the medical files be opened to veterans and the UK Health Security Agency immediately?

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Dominic Raab)

    I thank the hon. Lady, who has been a consistent champion on this issue, for which I recognise and pay tribute to her. My understanding is that the information is available to veterans and their families, who may request details of their service and medical records, but if the hon. Lady would like to write to me, I will make sure that she gets an adequate answer on her more specific point.

  • Ben Wallace – 2022 Comments on the Promotion of Vice Admiral Keith Blount

    Ben Wallace – 2022 Comments on the Promotion of Vice Admiral Keith Blount

    The comments made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 18 November 2022.

    I am delighted to congratulate Vice Admiral Keith Blount on his promotion to Admiral and appointment as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

    His appointment demonstrates the United Kingdom’s unwavering commitment to NATO and our leadership in European defence. I pay tribute to the contribution Vice Admiral Blount has made to the Royal Navy and the Alliance in his career to date. He brings extensive leadership experience and has served on operations across the globe alongside our allies and partners. I look forward to continuing to work with him and NATO.

  • Ben Wallace – 2022 Update on Shipbuilding

    Ben Wallace – 2022 Update on Shipbuilding

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 16 November 2022.

    Today I am providing an update on our plans for the next stage of the fleet solid support ship programme.

    I am pleased to announce that Team Resolute has been selected as the preferred bidder to provide three solid support ships for the Royal Navy. This appointment follows on from the award to BAE Systems in Glasgow of the £4 billion contract for five Type 26 frigates earlier this week. Both are good news for UK shipyards and the skill base.

    Team Resolute, comprising Harland & Wolff, BMT and Navantia UK will, subject to final approvals from Ministers and HM Treasury, be awarded a contract worth £1.6 billion, before inflation, to manufacture the crucial vessels providing munitions, stores and provisions to the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates deployed at sea. The contract will deliver more than 1,000 UK shipyard jobs, generate hundreds of graduate and apprentice opportunities across the UK and a significant number of further jobs throughout the supply chain. Team Resolute has pledged to invest £77 million in shipyard infrastructure to support the UK shipbuilding sector.

    Blocks and modules for the ships will be constructed at Harland & Wolff’s facilities in Belfast and Appledore, and this work will also support a significant UK-based supply chain. Some build work will also take place at Navantia’s shipyard in Cadiz in Spain, in a collaboration allowing for key skills and technology transfer to the UK from a world-leading shipbuilder.

    The entire final assembly will be completed at Harland & Wolffs shipyard in Belfast, to Bath-based BMT’s British design.

    The awarding of the contract will see jobs created and work delivered in Appledore, Devon, Harland & Wolff Belfast and within the supply chain up and down the country. This announcement is good news for the UK shipbuilding industry. It will strengthen and secure the UK shipbuilding enterprise as set out in the national shipbuilding strategy.

  • Jens Stoltenberg – 2022 Statement on the Attack on Poland

    Jens Stoltenberg – 2022 Statement on the Attack on Poland

    The statement made by Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, on 16 November 2022.

    Good afternoon.
    We have just finished a meeting of the North Atlantic Council.
    We addressed yesterday’s explosion in the east of Poland, on the border with Ukraine.

    Our top military commander General Cavoli briefed Allies.
    And the Polish ambassador updated us on the incident, and the ongoing investigation.

    Yesterday’s explosion took place as Russia launched a massive wave of rocket attacks across Ukraine.
    Since the start of Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, NATO has increased vigilance across our eastern flank.
    And we are monitoring the situation on a continuous basis.

    An investigation into this incident is ongoing, and we need to await its outcome.
    But we have no indication that this was the result of a deliberate attack.
    And we have no indication that Russia is preparing offensive military actions against NATO.

    Our preliminary analysis suggests that the incident was likely caused by a Ukrainian air defence missile fired to defend Ukrainian territory against Russian cruise missile attacks.

    But let me be clear.
    This is not Ukraine’s fault.
    Russia bears ultimate responsibility, as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine.

    In the meeting today, NATO Allies offered their deepest condolences on the tragic loss of life.
    They expressed their strong solidarity with our valued Ally Poland.
    And made clear that we will continue to support Ukraine in its right to self-defence.

    Russia must stop this senseless war.

    Last night, I spoke with the Polish President Andrzej Duda and with US President Joe Biden.
    We agreed that we need to stay vigilant, calm and closely coordinated.

    We will continue to consult.
    And monitor the situation very closely.

    NATO stands united.
    And we will always do what is necessary to protect and defend all Allies.

     

    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
    And with that I’m ready to take your questions.

    NATO Spokesperson Oana Lungescu: Polish radio [indaudible]

    Polish Radio:
    Thank you. Polish radio public broadcaster [inaudible]. Secretary General what could be the outcome, concrete, in concrete terms of today’s meeting? Can we expect enhancing the Europe’s air defence; especially in the countries bordering Ukraine because as long as the war continues there will be Russian rockets striking Ukrainian citizen. There is a risk that such situation can happen again, thank you very much.

    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
    In the meeting today, NATO Allies expressed their strong support and solidarity with our Ally, Poland. They also expressed their deepest condolences for the tragic loss of life. And NATO has significantly increased its presence in the eastern part of the Alliance, in particular since the invasion of Ukraine in February. With more troops on land, ground troops, but also with significant substantial air and naval power. And this has of course, both increased our air defence capabilities, but also our capabilities to monitor, to have a full picture of what’s going on, on the border between NATO Allies like Poland and Ukraine, and we are constantly assessing what more we need to do. We also have made important decisions at our Summit in Madrid to further strengthen our presence in the eastern part of the Alliance.

    NATO Spokesperson: BBC.

    BBC:
    Thank you, Jessica Parker for BBC News. I just wanted to ask, given the incident that happened last night, do you think this was perhaps the most tense moment for NATO? In this conflict so far? Thank you.

    NATO Secretary General:
    I’m always careful to rank different incidents and situations. It demonstrates that the war in Ukraine, which is President Putin’s responsibility, continues to create dangerous situations. At the same time you have to remember that this happened at the same time as Russia launched a wave of new indiscriminate missile and air attacks on Ukrainian cities. Attacking critical civilian infrastructure, hitting civilian targets. Then it’s nothing strange, then, of course, that is in itself a very dangerous situation. And then, that we then also see that there may be also consequences on NATO territory is a consequence of the war that Russia wages against Ukraine
    NATO Spokesperson: Then we go to the Ukrainian News Agency in the middle.

    Ukrainian News Agency:
    Thank you for the floor, [inaudible] national News Agency of Ukraine. I just want to mention that Ukrainians do understand the pain now of the Polish people and have the greatest sympathy with them. My question is how that incident will be reflected on the assistance that Allies provided for Ukraine in air defence. Where will be some kind of new systems to cover the Ukrainian sky? Thanks.

    NATO Secretary General:
    There will be a meeting today in the Contact Group for Ukraine to coordinate the support that NATO Allies and partners and others are providing to Ukraine. And the main focus of all our efforts over the last month has been on air defence. Especially since Russia started to launch these indiscriminate attacks on Ukrainian cities a few weeks ago. And I welcome that more and more Allies and partners are providing advanced air defence systems to Ukraine. NASAMS, HAWK batteries from Spain and others and I also know that Sweden has made the new announcement of additional support also with air defences to Ukraine. So we are mobilising additional support, especially when it comes to different types of air defences. NATO is also providing counter drones systems. We need many different systems to protect against cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, but also drones. We need a layered defence of Ukraine. That’s exactly what Allies are providing in different ways.

    NATO Spokesperson: Bloomberg.

    Bloomberg:
    Does this incident, will this for more air defence for Allies on the eastern border, I mean you said, there has been a step up since beginning of the war, but does more need to be done? Thank you.

    NATO Secretary General:
    We’re constantly assessing our presence in the eastern part of the Alliance. We have significantly increased our presence on land, at sea and in the air, and that has significantly increased our air defence capabilities, especially in the eastern part of the Alliance. At the same time, we have no indication that this incident was a result of a deliberate attack on NATO territory. And we have no indications that Russia is planning offensive military actions against NATO Allies. I think this demonstrates the dangers connected to the ongoing war in Ukraine. But it hasn’t changed our fundamental assessment of the threat against that NATO Allies. It shows the importance of monitoring, of being vigilant, of the presence, and we made decisions for long term adaptation or NATO’s deterrence and defence at the Summit in Madrid in June, and that includes partly more presence in the east, partly more pre-positioned equipment, in particular in the eastern part of the Alliance and partly earmarked forces, so we can quickly scale up the battle groups we have in the eastern part of the Alliance. And of course all of this will also further strengthen our air defence capabilities. Then air defence is partly land based but air defence is also very often air-based, also aircraft and naval-based, based on our ships, and of course, Air Forces and Naval Forces is something we very quickly move in. SACEUR, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe has already authorities to move in additional forces, including air and naval forces to augment our air defences quickly if needed.

    NATO Spokesperson: Frankfurter Allgemeine.

    FAZ:
    Secretary General, a few factual questions if I may. First of all, the debris found near the border of Poland and Ukraine. Is this debris only from an Ukrainian rocket launched to intercept Russian missile? Or is there also debris of a Russian missile? Secondly, what is what was the likely trajectory of the Russian missile that was meant to intercept by Ukraine? And thirdly, did NATO forces present at the eastern flank, activate their air defence systems yesterday? Because they saw an incoming, potentially incoming, missile? Thank you.

    NATO Secretary General:
    We have air defence systems in place, that are active 24/7, all the time. We have AWACS planes, we have aircraft, we have land based systems and we have naval-based systems. So we have air defences, which operate constantly throughout the Alliance. Then of course, we have a significant focus and in particular increased our presence in the eastern part of the Alliance and this also includes Poland. Then on the details of the findings and the ongoing investigation, it will not be right if I go into those details, but as I said, our preliminary findings are that this is likely caused by a Ukrainian air defence missile, and we have no indication that it wasn’t a deliberate attack on NATO.

    NATO Spokesperson: Politico.
    Thank you very much. Just a brief question. Has there been any communication between NATO and the Russian authorities, even on a technical level over the past 24 hours regarding Russian activity close to NATO’s border? Thank you.

    NATO Secretary General:
    We have major lines of communication, so we’re able to communicate with Russia in different ways as NATO and as Allies, but I cannot go into the details of exactly what kind of a contact there has been over the last 24 hours.

    NATO Spokesperson: Deutsche Welle.

    Deutsche Welle:
    I thank you. Does the fact that the Polish government, even after hours of assessing what had happened was still ready as of this morning, as I understand it, to possibly ask for Article 4 consultations. Does that indicate to you that they do not feel reassured despite all of these measures that have already been taken? And you said that you’re constantly assessing and you’ve got things on tap. Are military planners making any additional plans at this very moment? To send more to Poland to reassure them? Because obviously this is a credible scenario since they had an article four teed up, even after investigations were underway. Thanks.
    NATO Secretary General:
    So I spoke to President Duda last night, we agreed on the importance of waiting the outcome of the investigation. We don’t have the final outcome of the ongoing investigation, but all Allies agree on the assessment I just shared, That we have no indication that this was a deliberate attack and of course that has consequences for what kind of responses that we need to take. Since we have no indication of this was a deliberate attack or that Russia is planning any offensive military actions against NATO Allies. But we’ve also agreed that Russia bears the ultimate responsibility. They are responsible for the war in Ukraine that has caused this situation. And if it hadn’t been for the war, of course, we wouldn’t have been in this situation with the two casualties and the incident we saw in Poland yesterday, But Allies agree on the approach. There’s been no call for an Article 4 meeting. That’s based on the findings, based on the analysis and based on the results so far of the ongoing investigation.
    NATO Spokesperson: Ok, Spiegel.

    Der Spiegel:
    Secretary General, as you said that everything would be done to protect the allies. Now, the village where the missile hit yesterday was very close to the Ukrainian border. So in order to effectively protect Poland, from incidents like these in the future, would it not be conceivable or make sense from your point of view to extend the NATO air defense umbrella into Ukrainian territory in order to intercept missiles, which might be headed to potential targets near the Ukrainian-Poland border.

    NATO Secretary General:
    NATO allies are not part to the conflict in Ukraine. NATO and NATO Allies provide support to Ukraine. We help Ukraine to uphold the rights for self defense. That is a right, which is enshrined in the UN Charter. And of course, Ukraine has the right to defend itself against Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. And our main priority now, or one of the top priority now is to provide more air defense systems for Ukraine. Our air defense systems are set up to defend against attacks around the clock. But we have no indication this was the result of a deliberate attack and this incident does not have the characteristics of an attack. And that also explains why the reactions were as they were last night because this was not a deliberate attack and didn’t have the characteristics of a deliberate attack against NATO territory.

    NATO Spokesperson: ARD

    ARD:
    [inaudible] Two questions if I may. The first one is a more personal one. Everybody was very scared. I think yesterday evening everybody understood that could be potentially a very dangerous situation. How was your personal reaction when you first heard about it? And the second one is about, you said that debris that was found is probably from a Ukrainian air defense missile. The Ukrainian foreign minister said this is a Russian conspiracy theory and it’s not true. How do you judge that, that he made this judgement on the origin? Thank you.

    NATO Secretary General:
    Last question?

    ARD:
    Kuleba said is it is the Russian conspiracy theory that it is Ukrainian air defense missile, but your preliminary findings are apparently very different. Thank you.

    NATO Secretary General:
    Well, the investigations are not finally concluded. But based on what is so far now, this is most likely Ukrainian air defense systems or missiles. But again, this is not Ukraine’s fault. Russia bears responsibility for what happened in Poland yesterday because this is a direct result of the ongoing war and the wave of attacks from Russia against Ukraine yesterday. And of course Ukraine has the right to shoot down those missiles that are targeting Ukrainian citizens and critical Ukrainian infrastructure. NATO is prepared for situations like this. We are exercising, we are preparing, for instance for accidents like this to first and foremost to prevent them from happening. But if they happen, to ensure that they don’t spiral out of control. So yes, of course we were concerned when we got reports yesterday, and especially, we were saddened by the fact that there were two casualties but at the same time, we are monitoring we are following very closely. And therefore we are prepared to handle situations like this in a firm, calm, resolute way, but also in a way that prevent further escalation.

    NATO Spokesperson: Agence France-Presse

    AFP:
    Thank you very much. Secretary General, you’ve said repeatedly that NATO has all the capabilities along the eastern front and that you’re ready for these sorts of incidents at any moment. So what’s this a failure of NATO’s defenses that this missile was able to hit Polish territory?

    NATO Secretary General:
    Well the air defense systems, they are set up to defend us against attacks and attack missiles, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, they have special characteristics, which we then follow up and we monitor and then we make a judgement whether it’s an attack or whether it is something else. As I said this was most likely a Ukrainian air defense missile [inaudible] and of course, that missile doesn’t have the characteristics of an attack. And therefore that explains also why the actions were as they were. And that doesn’t say anything about our ability to defend against deliberate attacks against the NATO territory.

    NATO Spokesperson: Wall Street Journal

    Wall Street Journal:
    Dan Michaels, Wall Street Journal. Just a couple more factual questions, if possible, if the analysis yet shows this. Do you know if there was a Russian missile in the immediate area that the Ukrainians were specifically trying to target? And do you know, if the Ukrainian missile exploded on the ground, if it exploded potentially in the air and in contact with the Russian missile and if what was on the ground was just shrapnel or debris from that? Thank you very much.

    NATO Secretary General:
    Although there are relevant questions, I will not go into details, partly because there is an ongoing investigation. And, we had to decide later on how many details we can reveal. But anyway, there are ongoing investigations. So it’s an ongoing investigation that will look into those issues.

    NATO Spokesperson: TV2, lady over there.

    TV2 Norway:
    [inaudible] from TV2 Norway. Mr. Secretary General, the France president, Emmanuel Macron, he urged China to play a greater mediation role during this conflict. Do you see a greater role for you for China? And second question, do you see any possibilities for peace negotiations in the near future?

    NATO Secretary General:
    First and foremost, I believe that China should clearly condemn the invasion of Ukraine, which is a blatant violation of international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and, for instance, in the different votes in the UN, China has not voted in favor of those resolutions clearly condemning the invasion. Actually, China is also sharing much of the Russian narrative about the war and that’s a narrative which is not correct. It is Russia and President Putin that are responsible for the war and they can also end the war. We have to remember this is this is a war of aggression, where one country, Russia, invades another country and tried to control and take territory from that country. And of course, Ukraine has right to defend itself against the invasion, against the Russian aggression. If President Zelensky and Ukrainians stop the fight, of course, then then then Russia will win and they will achieve their military goals. So the reality is that if President Putin and Russia stops fighting, then we will have peace. But if President Zelensky and Ukrainians stop fighting then Ukraine will cease to exist as an independent sovereign nation. They have the right to defend themselves as an independent nation. Most likely this war, whether that’s on stage and at the negotiating table. At the same time, we know that the outcome of those negotiations is closely and fundamentally linked to the strength on the battlefield. So the best way we can ensure, maximize, the likelihood for a peaceful negotiated solution is to support Ukrainians on the battlefield, because that will maximize the probability for them achieving an acceptable negotiated solution on the negotiating table. So yes, we all want peace. We all want this war to end. That’s the best way we can contribute to a peace which ensures that Ukraine remains a independent sovereign nation, is deployed the military support Ukraine, so there can be an acceptable negotiated solution at the end of this war.

    NATO Spokesperson: Ok one final question, TVN24 Poland.

    TVN24 Poland:
    Thank you, Secretary General, as you said, it’s too early to assess whether it was an accident or not. But for sure it was a stress test for the whole NATO. Could you assess that and the first reaction of the Polish government the channel of communications, and the reaction of the NATO. Any room for improvement and any lesson learned for future?

    NATO Secretary General:
    NATO allies and Poland reacted in a calm and measured and well-coordinated way. We coordinate our responses. So we, we spoke together of course, during the evening yesterday, and also our military commanders informed. I spoke with the Supreme Allied Commander, both yesterday and this morning. And he also came to NATO Allies to the North Atlantic Council here in the NATO Headquarters this morning and briefed the Allies. So the coordination, the exchange of information, and then measured responses and also the message that we need to establish the facts before we draw any final conclusions on the incident in Poland, that shows that NATO Allies reacted in a prudent and responsible way. I think we have to understand that to manage this kind of incidence is partly about being firm and reacting quickly. But it’s also about being calm and preventing unnecessary escalation. And we always need to find that balance. Therefore it’s also important to have the best possible picture of actually what happened. Therefore, we actually said yesterday that we need some time to look into the incident. We did that over the course of the night. And then we have a clearer picture today. A picture that also stated that we have no indication that this was a deliberate attack and no indication that this was something that was targeted on NATO territory, and no indication that Russia is planning any aggressive military actions… but what we do know is that is that the whole incident is caused by Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine. So the best way of preventing anything like this from happening again, is for Russia to stop this war.

  • James Heappey – 2022 Statement on the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Mali

    James Heappey – 2022 Statement on the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Mali

    The statement made by James Heappey, the Minister for the Armed Forces, in the House of Commons on 14 November 2022.

    West Africa is an important region for the United Kingdom and our allies across Europe. And the UK is strongly committed to supporting the UN to deliver its peacekeeping commitments around the world. That is why since 2018 we had been supporting the French-led counter-terrorism mission in Mali with CH-47 Chinook helicopters under Operation BARKHANE and more recently, since 2020, through the deployment of a Long Range Reconnaissance Group as part of the UN’s MINUSMA peacekeeping mission.

    The House will be aware, however, that in February, President Macron announced the drawdown of French troops in Mali and was joined in that announcement by all other European nations, as well as Canada, that were contributing to the French-led Operations BARKHANE and TAKUBA. In March, Sweden announced that it would be leaving the UN’s MINUSMA mission.

    Today, Mr Speaker, I can announce that the UK contingent will also now be leaving the MINUSMA mission earlier than planned.

    Mr Speaker, we should be clear that responsibility for all of this sits in Bamako. Two coups in three years have undermined international efforts to advance peace. On my most recent visit last November, I met with the Malian Defence Minister and implored him to see the huge value of the French-led international effort in his country.

    However, soon afterwards, the Malian Government began working with the Russian mercenary group Wagner and actively sought to interfere with the work of both the French-led and UN missions. The Wagner group is linked to mass human rights abuses. The Malian government’s partnership with Wagner group is counterproductive to lasting stability and security in their region.

    Mr Speaker, this Government cannot deploy our nation’s military to provide security when the host country’s Government is not willing to work with us to deliver lasting stability and security.

    However, our commitment to West Africa and the important work of the UN is undiminished. We’ve been working closely with our allies to consider options for rebalancing our deployment alongside France, the EU and other like-minded allies. On Monday and Tuesday next week, Mr Speaker, I will join colleagues from across Europe and West Africa in Accra to co-ordinate our renewed response to instability in the Sahel.

    This will be the first major gathering in support of the Accra Initiative – a West African-led solution focussed initially on preventing further contagion of the insurgency into Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Togo, Benin and Niger and tackling the growing levels of violence in Burkina Faso as well as Mali – making this a very timely conference indeed.

    And of course, Mr Speaker, it is not just the UK military that will remain committed in West Africa – the UK will continue its commitment to Mali and the Sahel through our humanitarian, stabilisation and development assistance, working in close coordination with partners.

    Nor, Mr Speaker, is this a reduction in our commitment to the United Nations. The UK remains an important contributor of troops through Operation TOSCA in Cyprus, and staff officers across several missions, and provide training to around 10,000 military, police and civilian peacekeepers from a range of countries annually. We remain the fifth largest financial contributor and will continue to drive reform in New York. Indeed we are working with New York on developing a pilot – to be delivered through the British Peace Support Team based in Nairobi – to develop the capacity of UN troop contributing nations across Africa.

    Mr Speaker, we will of course co-ordinate with allies as we drawdown from Gao and have been sharing our plans with them over recent months. The Army will be issuing orders imminently to reconfigure the next deployment to drawdown our presence. We are leaving the MINUSMA mission earlier than planned and are, of course, saddened by the way the Government in Bamako has made it so difficult for well-meaning nations to remain there.

    The work of our troops has been outstanding, and they should be proud of what they’ve achieved there. But through the Chilcott Report and our wider experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, we – like so many allies – are clear that the military instrument should not be deployed on counterinsurgency or countering violent extremism missions unless there is a clear and compelling commitment towards political progress.

    We will work quickly with allies in the region and across Europe to support the Accra Initiative to deliver security, stability and prosperity in West Africa. Our commitment to that region is undiminished.