UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Foreign Affairs

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Televised Address on Ukraine

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Televised Address on Ukraine

    The televised address made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 24 February 2022.

    In this dark hour, our thoughts, our solidarity, and our resolve are with the Ukrainian people.

    They have been cast into a war, not through fault of their own. But because Putin knows that no people will choose to live under his bandit rule unless forced to at the barrel of a gun.

    The consequences of Putin’s war will be horrendous and tragic for the Ukrainian people but also for the Russian people, who have been plunged into chaos by a violent elite who have stolen their wealth, stolen their chance of democracy, and stolen their future.

    And we must prepare ourselves for difficulties here. We will see economic pain, as we free Europe from dependence on Russian gas, and clean our institutions from money stolen from the Russian people.

    But the British public have always been willing to make sacrifice to defend democracy on our continent. And we will again.

    Russia’s democratic neighbours and every other democracy that lives in the shadow of autocratic power are watching their worst nightmare unfold.

    All those who believe in democracy over dictatorship, the rule of law over the reign of terror, in freedom over the jackboot of tyranny, must unite and take a stand and ensure Putin fails.

    We must make a clean break with the failed approach to handling Putin, which after Georgia, Crimea and Donbas fed his belief that the benefits of aggression outweigh the cost. We must finally show him he is wrong.

    That means doing all we can to help Ukraine defend herself -urgently reinforcing and reassuring our NATO allies in Eastern Europe, and the hardest possible sanctions must be taken against the Putin regime. It must be isolated. Its finances frozen. It’s ability to function crippled.

    And there are changes we must make here in the UK. For too long our country has been a safe-haven for the money that Putin and his fellow bandits stole from the Russian people. It must end now.

    And this must be a turning point in our history, we must look back and say what this terrible day was actually when Putin doomed himself to defeat.

    He seeks division, so we must stay united. He hopes for inaction, so we must take a stand. He believes that we are too corrupted to do the right thing, so we must prove him wrong.

    I believe we can. But only if we stand together.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Statement on Russian Invasion of Ukraine

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Statement on Russian Invasion of Ukraine

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 24 February 2022.

    Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine is unprovoked and unjustifiable. His actions will have horrendous and tragic consequences that will echo throughout the world and throughout history.

    All those who believe in the triumph of democracy over dictatorship, good over evil, freedom over the jackboot of tyranny must now support the Ukrainian people. They have been cast onto the frontline of a war, simply for existing.

    There can be no space for equivocation when faced with the evil that Putin has unleashed. His actions pose a grave threat to the international order on which we all depend.

    There will be dark days ahead. But Putin will learn the same lesson as Europe’s tyrants of the last century: that the resolve of the world is harder than he imagines and the desire for liberty burns stronger than ever. The light will prevail.

    I know people in this country will be feeling worried and uncertain. And I know that Ukrainians and Russians here in the UK will be worrying for friends and family back home. Our hearts are with them today.

    We must now match our rhetoric with action. We must urgently reinforce our NATO allies. The hardest possible sanctions must be taken against all those linked to Putin. The influence of Russian money must be extricated from the UK. And those who have for too long turned a blind eye to Russia’s actions must reckon with their own consciences.

  • Ed Davey – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Ed Davey – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2022.

    It is time to start treating Russia like the rogue state it is. I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement in this darkest of moments and recognise the Leader of the Opposition for his strong cross-party support. In that cross-party spirit, I urge the Prime Minister to go further today and commit to the following. First, freeze and begin seizing the assets of every single one of Putin’s cronies in the UK and expel these oligarchs from our country as part of a much stronger sanctions regime. Secondly, recognise the existential threat posed by Putin to our NATO allies by immediately cancelling his misguided decision to cut our armed forces by 10,000 troops. Thirdly, no longer tolerate international sporting or cultural events hosted in Russia. Will he confirm what I think he implied in answer to a previous question, that he will push for this year’s champions league final to be moved from St Petersburg? President Putin has made a terrible decision. Will the Prime Minister ensure that he pays a terrible price?

  • Ian Blackford – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Ian Blackford – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Ian Blackford, the SNP Leader at Westminster, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2022.

    I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and thank the National Security Adviser, who has briefed Opposition leaders.

    This is a dark day for the people of Ukraine and for people right across our European continent. Europe stands on the brink of war as a consequence of Russian aggression. It is a day that communities across Scotland, right across these islands and indeed across Europe desperately hoped would never come to pass. But although that sense of darkness defines today, how we now collectively respond will define the days to come.

    This Chamber has, especially during recent months, seen fierce debate and disagreements, but today it is important to say, in the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine, that in this House we all stand together: we stand together and stand with our partners across Europe and indeed across the globe. But more importantly, we stand with the Ukrainian people, who are now under assault. A European country—an ally—is under attack. We should be very clear about what is now happening: this is an illegal Russian occupation of Ukraine, just as it was in Crimea. Russia has effectively annexed another two Ukrainian regions in a blatant breach of international law. This effectively ends the Minsk process. It is a further violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. No one should even repeat the Russian lie that this is about peacekeeping; this is warmongering, plain and simple. President Putin must hear the call from here and elsewhere to draw back before any further escalation can take place.

    I and my party welcome the sanctions that are now being brought forward, but it is deeply regrettable that the delay has allowed many Russian individuals to shift dirty assets and money in the last number of weeks. However, may I ask the Prime Minister specifically if the Russian state and individuals will be immediately suspended from the SWIFT payments system? Just as economic sanctions against Russia are welcome, Ukraine needs immediate economic and indeed humanitarian support if required. When will economic and humanitarian support be enacted and what will it entail? Can the Prime Minister also confirm that there will be exemptions for partners of UK citizens residing in Ukraine to come to the UK? They need that certainty and they need it today.

    In the days ahead we can no doubt expect a barrage of disinformation from the Russian media and its proxies. So can the Prime Minister update us on how the United Kingdom Government intend to combat that threat? This is also the moment to end the complacency in implementing the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report; will the Prime Minister now commit to its full implementation and update the House accordingly?

    Can I also ask the Prime Minister, after the UN Security Council’s brief meeting last night, when it will next meet and what co-ordination is happening across all international organisations to force President Putin to step back from the brink before it is too late?

    Finally, let President Putin hear loudly and clearly that he must now desist from this act of war, this attack on a sovereign nation. Let us all demonstrate that we stand with the people of Ukraine.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2022.

    Yesterday was a dark day for Europe. The Russian President denied the right of a sovereign nation to exist, unilaterally recognising separatist movements that he sponsors and that seek to dismember Ukraine. Then, under the cover of darkness, he sent in troops to enforce his will. Putin appears determined to plunge Ukraine into a wider war. We must all stand firm in our support for Ukraine. We support the freedom of her people and their right to determine their own future without the gun of an imperialist held to their head.

    There can be no excuses for Russia’s actions. There is no justification for this aggression. A war in Ukraine will be bloody, it will cost lives, and history will rightly scorn Putin as the aggressor. Putin claims to fear NATO expansion, but Russia faces no conceivable threat from allied troops or from Ukraine. What he fears is openness and democracy. He knows that, given a choice, people will not choose to live under the rule of an erratic and violent authoritarian, so we must remain united and true to our values across this House and with our NATO allies. We must show Putin that we will not be divided.

    I welcome the sanctions introduced today and the international community’s efforts to unite with a collective response. However, we must be prepared to go further. I understand the tactic of holding back sanctions on Putin and his cronies to try to deter an invasion of the rest of Ukraine, but a threshold has already been breached. A sovereign nation has been invaded in a war of aggression based on lies and fabrication. If we do not respond with a full set of sanctions now, Putin will once again take away the message that the benefits of aggression outweigh the costs. We will work with the Prime Minister and our international allies to ensure that more sanctions are introduced.

    Russia should be excluded from financial mechanisms, such as SWIFT, and we should ban trading in Russian sovereign debt. Putin’s campaign of misinformation should be tackled. Russia Today should be prevented from broadcasting its propaganda around the world. We should work with our European allies to ensure that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is cancelled. Whatever the sequencing of these sanctions, this will not be easy. Britain must work with our European allies to handle the disruption to the supply of energy and raw materials. We must defend ourselves and our allies against cyber-attacks. We must bring together the widest possible coalition of nations to condemn this action against a sovereign UN member state.

    Ukrainians are defending their own country and democracy in Europe. We must stand ready with more military support for Ukraine to defend itself, and we must stand ready to do more to reassure and reinforce NATO allies in eastern Europe, but we must also get our own house in order. The Prime Minister said that the lesson from Russia’s 2014 invasion of Donbas is that we cannot just let Vladimir Putin get away it, but until now we have. We have failed to stop the flow of illicit Russian finance into Britain. A cottage industry does the bidding of those linked to Putin, and Russian money has been allowed to influence our politics. We have to admit that mistakes have been made, and we have to rectify them.

    This must be a turning point. We need an end to oligarch impunity. We need to draw a line under Companies House providing easy cover for shell companies. We need to ensure that our anti-money-laundering laws are enforced. We need to crack down on spies, and we have to ensure that money is not pouring into UK politics from abroad.

    Russian aggression has now torn up the Minsk protocol and the Budapest memorandum, but even at this late hour we must pursue diplomatic routes to prevent further conflict, so can the Prime Minister tell us what international diplomatic efforts are going on and what role the UK will have in that process? We know Putin’s playbook. He seeks division; we must stay united. He believes the benefits of aggression outweigh the consequences, so we must take a stand, and he believes the west is too corrupted to do the right thing, so we must prove him wrong. I believe we can, and I offer the support of the Opposition in that vital endeavour.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on Ukraine

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on Ukraine

    The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2022.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the situation in Ukraine. Last night, President Putin flagrantly violated the Minsk peace agreements by recognising the supposed independence of the so-called people’s republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine. In a single inflammatory speech, he denied that Ukraine had any “tradition of genuine statehood”, claimed that it posed a

    “direct threat to the security of Russia”,

    and hurled numerous other false accusations and aspersions.

    Soon afterwards, the Kremlin announced that Russian troops would enter the breakaway regions under the guise of peacekeepers, and Russian tanks and armoured personnel carriers have since been spotted. The House should be in no doubt that the deployment of these forces in sovereign Ukrainian territory amounts to a renewed invasion of that country. By denying Ukraine’s legitimacy as a state and presenting its very existence as a mortal threat to Russia, Putin is establishing the pretext for a full-scale offensive.

    Hon. Members will struggle to contemplate how, in the year 2022, a national leader might calmly and deliberately plot the destruction of a peaceful neighbour, yet the evidence of his own words suggests that is exactly what President Putin is doing. I said on Saturday that his scheme to subvert and invade Ukraine was already in motion before our eyes. The events of the past 24 hours have, sadly, shown this to be true.

    We must now brace ourselves for the next possible stages of Putin’s plan: the violent subversion of areas of eastern Ukraine by Russian operatives and their hirelings, followed by a general offensive by the nearly 200,000 Russian troops gathered on the frontiers at peak readiness to attack. If the worst happens, a European nation of 44 million men, women and children would become the target of a full-scale war of aggression waged, without a shred of justification, for the absurd and even mystical reasons that Putin described last night. Unless the situation changes, the best efforts of the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other allies to avoid conflict through patient diplomacy may be in vain.

    From the beginning, we have tried our utmost—we have all tried—to find a peaceful way through this crisis. On 11 February, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Radakin, paid the first joint visit to Moscow by the holders of their offices since Churchill, who was also Defence Minister at the time, travelled to Russia with General Alanbrooke in 1944. They held over three hours of frank discussions with the Russian Defence Minister, General Shoigu, and the chief of staff, General Gerasimov, demonstrating how seriously we take Russia’s security concerns, how much we respect her history and how hard we are prepared to work to ensure peaceful co-existence.

    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary delivered the same messages when she met her Russian counterpart in Moscow on 10 February. I have spoken on a number of occasions to President Putin since this crisis began, as has President Biden, while President Macron and Chancellor Scholz have both visited Moscow. Together we have explored every avenue and given Putin every opportunity to pursue his aims by negotiation and diplomacy.

    I tell the House: we will not give up—we will continue to seek a diplomatic solution until the last possible moment—but we have to face the possibility that none of our messages has been heeded and that Putin is implacably determined to go further in subjugating and tormenting Ukraine. It is because we suspected as much that the UK and our allies repeatedly sounded the alarm about a possible new invasion, and we disclosed much of what we knew about Russia’s military build-up.

    Britain has done everything possible to help Ukraine to prepare for another onslaught: training 22,000 soldiers, supplying 2,000 anti-tank missiles, and providing £100 million for economic reform and energy independence. We will now guarantee up to $500 million of Development Bank financing. I travelled to Kyiv to meet President Zelensky on 1 February and I saw him again in Munich at the weekend. I spoke to him last night, soon after President Putin’s speech, and assured him—as I am sure the whole House would agree was the right thing to do—of Britain’s unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    Now the UK and our allies will begin to impose the sanctions on Russia that we have already prepared, using the new and unprecedented powers granted by this House to sanction Russian individuals and entities of strategic importance to the Kremlin. Today the UK is sanctioning the following five Russian banks: Rossiya, IS Bank, Genbank, Promsvyazbank and the Black Sea bank. And we are sanctioning three very high net worth individuals: Gennady Timchenko, Boris Rotenberg and Igor Rotenberg. Any assets they hold in the UK will be frozen, the individuals concerned will be banned from travelling here, and we will prohibit all UK individuals and entities from having any dealings with them.

    This is the first tranche—the first barrage—of what we are prepared to do, and we hold further sanctions at readiness to be deployed alongside the United States and the European Union if the situation escalates still further. Last night, our diplomats joined an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, and we will raise the situation in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

    Let me emphasise what I believe unites every member of this House with equal determination: the resolve of the United Kingdom to defend our NATO allies is absolute and immovable. We have already doubled the size of our deployment in Estonia, where the British Army leads NATO’s battlegroup, and when I met President Levits of Latvia and Prime Minister Kallas of Estonia in Munich on Saturday, I told them that we would be willing to send more British forces to help protect our allies if NATO makes such a request.

    We cannot tell what will happen in the days ahead, but we should steel ourselves for a protracted crisis. The United Kingdom will meet this challenge side by side with our allies, determined that we will not allow Putin to drag our continent back into a Hobbesian state of nature where aggression pays and might is right. It is precisely because the stakes are so high that Putin’s venture in Ukraine must ultimately fail—and must be seen to fail. That will require the perseverance, unity and resolve of the entire western alliance, and the UK will do everything possible to ensure that that unity is maintained.

    Now our thoughts should turn to our valiant Ukrainian friends, who threaten no one and who ask for nothing except to live in peace and freedom. We will keep faith with them in the critical days that lie ahead, and whatever happens, Britain will not waver in our resolve. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee

    Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2022.

    The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee met yesterday in Brussels. I co-chaired the meeting alongside European Commission Vice-President, Maroš Šefčovič. A joint statement was agreed and published on gov.uk.

    The Committee received an update on the work of the Withdrawal Agreement Specialised Committees since the last meeting on 9 June. They also discussed citizens’ rights and progress on negotiations to find practical solutions to the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol.

    On citizens’ rights, both parties noted the continued constructive collaboration to ensure that the rights of our respective nationals are protected. The UK urged the EU to ensure consistent support for all UK nationals living in the EU, with a focus on three areas of concern: first, UK nationals in member states having difficulties accessing their rights because of requests for permits which are not required; secondly, member states requesting information of UK nationals which is not required under the withdrawal agreement in order to secure their status; and thirdly, a lack of safeguards and clarity on appeals where residence is not granted. The EU raised its concerns with aspects of the UK’s EU settlement scheme, focused on the legal base for guarantee of rights and the need for those with pre-settled status to apply for settled status at the point of qualification. The UK made clear there is no legal uncertainty for EU citizens in the UK.

    In relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, both parties emphasised that they shared an overriding commitment to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. The UK outlined the problems the protocol posed for trade within the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom, which was putting at risk the delicate balance essential to that agreement and political stability in Northern Ireland. This underlined the increased urgency of finding solutions. Both sides reiterated the importance of further engagement, including with the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, and wider Northern Ireland civic society and business.

    The UK and EU also discussed activity in the Withdrawal Agreement Specialised Committees since the previous Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee on 9 June 2021, and agreed to adopt two technical decisions:

    Decision No. [1]/2022 amending the agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community—principally covering data sharing linked to social security co-ordination.

    Decision No. [2]/2022 amending decision No. 7/2020 establishing a list of 25 persons who are willing and able to serve as members of an arbitration panel under the agreement—to reflect a change on the EU side.

  • John Healey – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    John Healey – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by John Healey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 21 February 2022.

    The Defence Secretary has been busy in recent weeks, so I welcome his statement today and thank him for keeping the Opposition parties updated on Ukraine during these grave escalations of Russian military threats on the Ukrainian border.

    This is the most serious security crisis Europe has faced since the cold war. The Ukrainian people, citizens of a proud, independent and democratic country, face an unprecedented threat from, as the Secretary of State has said, two thirds of Russia’s entire forces now built up on its borders. There is unified UK political support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity in the face of that continuing Russian aggression.

    The Government also have Labour’s full support in helping Ukraine to defend itself and in pursuing diplomacy, even at this eleventh hour and even though President Putin has proved more interested in disinformation than diplomacy. We also fully support moves to reinforce the security of NATO allies, as the Labour leader and I told the Secretary General at NATO headquarters earlier this month.

    President Putin wants to divide and weaken the west, to turn back the clock and re-establish Russian control over neighbouring countries. The real threat to President Putin and his Russian elites is Ukraine as a successful democracy, choosing for itself its trading and security links with the west. An attack on Ukraine is an attack on democracy.

    We welcome the message from Munich at the weekend that any invasion will be met with massive sanctions in a swift, unified western response. The European Union, of course, will lead on sanctions legislation for most European allies, especially to clamp down on finances or critical technologies for Russia. How is the UK co-ordinating with the European Commission and European Council? What meetings have UK Ministers had to discuss that co-ordination?

    The other message from Munich at the weekend was that allies stand ready for further talks. The Defence Secretary has said this afternoon:

    “I am pleased with the efforts being made by a range of European leaders, including President Macron”.

    What diplomatic initiatives is our UK Prime Minister taking, befitting Britain as a leading member of the NATO alliance and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council? With the most serious tensions and developments in the Donbas, why did the UK Government remove UK staff from the OSCE monitoring mission there, when those from all other European countries have stayed to do a job that is more vital now than ever?

    The Defence Secretary said, rightly, that we continue to “support Ukrainian defensive efforts”, including with lethal aid. What more will he now do, with NATO, to help Ukraine defend itself? Can he speed up action via the Ukraine naval agreement? How feasible is a no-fly zone? What consideration will he give to support for Ukrainian resistance?

    We cannot stand up to Russian aggression abroad while accepting Russian corruption at home. For too long, Britain has been the destination for the dirty money that keeps Putin in power. Where is the economic crime Bill, which was promised by the Government and then pulled? Where is the comprehensive reform of Companies House? Where is the law to register foreign agents? Where is the registration of overseas entities Bill? Where is the replacement for the outdated Computer Misuse Act 1990? Where are the new rules on political donations? Why does the Government’s Elections Bill make these problems worse by enabling political donations from donors based overseas?

    Whether or not President Putin invades Ukraine, Russia’s long-running pattern of aggression demands a NATO response. Will the Secretary of State report from his meeting last week with NATO Defence Ministers on how the alliance’s overall posture is set to change? Will he explain what action could be taken to better co-ordinate NATO with the joint expeditionary force—for instance, creating a regional readiness force?

    Finally, does not Ukraine expose the flaws in the Government’s integrated review of last year, with its first focus on the Indo-Pacific and its plan to cut the British Army by another 10,000 soldiers? Will the Secretary of State now halt any further Army cuts, and restore the highest defence priority to Europe, the north Atlantic and the Arctic?

  • Ben Wallace – 2022 Statement on Ukraine

    Ben Wallace – 2022 Statement on Ukraine

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 21 February 2022.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the latest situation regarding Russia’s actions towards Ukraine. As I have already said, I apologise that the Opposition had such late sight of the statement.

    As of 09.00 hours today, there are now more than 110 battalion tactical groups massed around Ukraine’s borders with Russia and Belarus. In addition, in the Black Sea Fleet, there are two amphibious groups, nine cruise missile-equipped Russian ships and a further four cruise missile-capable vessels in the Caspian sea.

    In the last 48 hours, contrary to Kremlin assurances, we have seen a continued increase in troop numbers and a change in force disposition, moving from holding areas to potential launch locations. All the indicators point to increasing numbers and readiness of Russian forces, and, not surprisingly to many of us, the pledge to withdraw Russian troops from Belarus at the end of their joint military drills on 20 February was not carried out, and the exercise has now been extended until further notice.

    Complementing this troop build-up has been the proliferation of false flag operations, propaganda stunts, and Russian news outlets carrying fictitious allegations. These are not the actions of a Russian Government fulfilling their repeated declarations that they have no intention of invading Ukraine. In fact, over the last few weeks, we have seen the Russian “playbook” being implemented in a way that gives us strong cause for concern that President Putin is still committed to an invasion. I believe that he is in danger of setting himself on a tragic course of events, leading to a humanitarian crisis, instability, and widespread suffering—not just of Ukrainians, but of the Russian people.

    Like many of us, the Russians know the consequences of military interventions. The Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the first war in Chechnya are just two examples of where Russia saw too many young men returning home in zinc-lined coffins. The Government therefore urge President Putin—for the sake of his own people and even at this eleventh hour—to rule out the invasion of Ukraine and recommit to a diplomatic process for us to address the perceptions of the Kremlin.

    Over recent weeks, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have engaged numerous times with our international counterparts, including my own visit to Moscow to meet Defence Minister Shoigu and General Valery Gerasimov. We have made clear our determination to uphold the defensive principles of NATO and to defend the right of sovereign countries to make choices about their own security arrangements. As the Russian Government have signed up to, states have

    “an equal right to security. We reaffirm the inherent right of each and every participating state to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance.”

    That statement was signed by the Russians in 1975 in the Helsinki Final Act, in 1994 in the Budapest summit declaration, in 1999 at the Istanbul summit, and, most lately, in 2010 at the Astana summit. We urge Russia to stick to its commitments that it has openly made and signed up to over the years. My counterpart, Defence Minister Shoigu, repeated to me in person that Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine, but, while we take them at their word, we must judge them by their actions.

    At our meeting I also took the opportunity to address the proposals in Russia’s draft treaty, because, while this is not a return to normal UK-Russia relations, it is important that, as one of Europe’s biggest military powers, the UK maintains strong lines of communications with Russia in order to avoid miscalculation and the risk of inadvertent escalations. I also continue to speak regularly to my Ukrainian counterpart, Defence Minister Reznikov, as we continue to support the armed forces of Ukraine.

    Since 2015, the UK—alongside the likes of Sweden and Canada—has responded to Russia’s previous illegal occupation of Crimea with defence capacity building, including training and reform. As I announced to the House last month, we took the decision to also provide lethal aid to Ukraine. That now means that, alongside the United States, Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Netherlands, the United Kingdom has not just spoken, but acted.

    I am pleased with the efforts being made by a range of European leaders, including President Macron, to find a way through. We must remain resolute in our commitment to NATO’s formal response to the Russian draft treaties, which all NATO members signed up to. Intimidation and aggression, however, must not be rewarded.

    We should be under no illusion: the Russian forces have now massed on Ukraine’s borders 65% of all their land combat power. The formations present and the action of the Russian state to date not only threaten the integrity of a sovereign state, but undermine international law and the democratic values in which all of us in Europe so strongly believe.

    The Foreign Office has now relocated the embassy further west in the country, and two weeks ago advised that all UK nationals should leave Ukraine via all means possible. The Ministry of Defence will continue to monitor Russian actions, support Ukrainian defensive efforts and contribute to NATO’s response measures. We continue to hope that President Putin will relent and pull back from an invasion, but we must prepare ourselves for the consequences if he does not. I will update the House, as I have done over the past few weeks, both in the Chamber and to colleagues online.

  • Alec Douglas-Home – 1972 Statement on an All-Party Delegation to Rhodesia

    Alec Douglas-Home – 1972 Statement on an All-Party Delegation to Rhodesia

    The statement made by Alec Douglas-Home, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 2 March 1972.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.

    I said that I would report further to the House on the possibility of an all-party delegation visiting Rhodesia. Mr. Smith has finally replied that he would feel unable to agree to the visit of the delegation proposed. He gives as his reason not only the strongly expressed opposition to the settlement of certain members of the proposed delegation, but also their alleged support for movements in Africa which make use of terrorist methods.

    Since both the Labour and Liberal Parties have stated that they are not prepared to change their nominations to the all-party delegation, a position which I quite understand, I regret that there is now no point in pursuing the proposal further.

    Mr. Hattersley

    Will the Foreign Secretary accept that this is not simply a matter affecting the Labour and Liberal Parties but is the cause of concern to the House as a whole? Indeed, will he further accept that since Mr. Smith’s message is indicative of Smith’s character and policy, the right hon. Gentleman’s statement is central to relations between Britain and the Rhodesian régime?

    In the light of that understanding, may I put three specific questions to the right hon. Gentleman? First, having reported Mr. Smith’s message to the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what reply lie has sent to Mr. Smith’s impertinence? Second what conclusion does the Foreign Secretary draw from Mr. Smith’s attitude about the Rhodesian Front’s likelihood of honouring any bargain that may be struck between Salisbury and Whitehall?

    Third, does the Foreign Secretary realise that since he, unlike his predecessor, claims to have struck a bargain with the Rhodesian régime, he should be in a position to exercise some influence in Salisbury? When does he intend to do so?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I have always thought that if there was to be observation of the Pearce Commission from this House, that would be better done by an all-party delegation. I made that clear to Mr. Smith. I also made clear the fact that in this House it is the practice for parties to select their own members to take part in delegations and that therefore it was intolerable that the choice should be limited. Thus, my preference was for an all-party delegation, though Lord Pearce is getting on with his work successfully without observation.

    I will answer the three specific points the hon. Gentleman put to me. The answer to the first is that I have told Mr. Smith that I regret his decision. [Interruption.] The answer to the second, about the honouring of any bargain, is that that is a different matter in relation to the settlement that has been proposed; he must put the whole of his authority and party behind it if the settlement is to be brought into the Rhodesia Parliament.

    The answer to the third is that I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well that the only sanction I have—I hope he is not asking me to use it—is to withdraw the Pearce Commission, which is something neither he nor his right hon and hon. Friends want.

    Sir F. Bennett

    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be misleading to suggest that this represents an overall objection of hon. Members from this House going to Rhodesia? [Interruption.] Is it not a fact that very prominent right hon. Members from both sides of this Chamber, including one distinguished former Labour Minister and an equally prominent former Conservative Minister, have been to Rhodesia in the last few weeks?

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least some of us feel that the more that Lord Pearce is allowed to get on with his job—without interference from political sources, including those who favour a settlement and those who are opposed to one—the better?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    Yes. I have never thought that we should transfer our political differences from this House to Rhodesia, particularly while the Pearce Commission is there, or indeed at any time. It is true, of course, that hon. Members have been to Rhodesia in recent weeks.

    Mr. David Steel

    Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he believes that, although he has been unable during these negotiations with Rhodesia to get Mr. Smith to accept a modest demand that an all-party delegation from this House be allowed to see what is happening as part of the test of acceptability which is being carried out, there is any real hope or promise of Mr. Smith, once the negotiations are over and the formal ties with this country are cut, accepting the more substantial demands contained in the agreement that has been concluded with him?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    Mr. Smith has accepted the proposals for a settlement—[Interruption.]—and has agreed to put his authority behind them in his own Parliament. Having done that, I should have thought that he must keep the agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: “Rubbish.”]

    Mr. Hastings

    Is not the first objective to ascertain the views of the Rhodesian people in this matter? Is that not the responsibility of this House as well as of the Government? Has anyone explained to my right hon. Friend or to the House how this delegation could possibly help?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    No, Sir, they have not, but if there were to have been a delegation, it should have been an all-party one.

    Miss Lestor

    Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly publish all the exchanges he has had with Ian Smith over this matter so that we may see whether or not the Foreign Secretary explained to Mr. Smith why I and many Members of my party believe that violence becomes inevitable—[HON. MEMBERS: “No.”]—and often legitimate, but only if all normal methods of democratic change are closed?

    Is he aware that the conduct of Ian Smith in Southern Rhodesia since the Pearce Commission went there demonstrates that this course is rapidly becoming the position? Will he acknowledge that if ever those who believe in equal rights in Southern Rhodesia are compelled to answer force with force, they will have been taught by masters who have been supported by the Foreign Secretary?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I will ignore the hon. Lady’s final remarks. I hope she will recognise that the whole purpose of this settlement is to enable peaceful democratic change to take place so that the Rhodesians should not have to resort to violence.

    Sir Gilbert Longden

    If my right hon. Friend thinks that it would be advantageous for an all-party delegation to go from this House to Rhodesia—though in my respectful submission Lord Pearce is doing very well without such a delegation—why not put them in an R.A.F. aeroplane, fly them to Salisbury and see what Mr. Smith does next?

    Mr. Thorpe

    While not wishing to see my Chief Whip detained without trial and therefore dissociating myself from the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not feel that, in fairness to the House, he should go further than expressing regret to Mr. Smith, which is the sentiment one expresses if one is unable to accept a supper invitation?

    Does he not think that he should make it clear that he received an undertaking from the two political parties that they would refrain from expressing an opinion publicly or from taking part in political activities while they were in Rhodesia and that he had accepted those undertakings as having been given in good faith?

    Does he not believe that he should reject the suggestion that the members of the proposed delegation support terrorist methods and are themselves alleged to be terrorist sympathisers? [Interruption.] Is he aware that if the Pearce Commission concludes that there is support for the proposals that this House should be asked to grant £5 million for 10 years to lift sanctions, grant independence and give recognition to the Smith régime, this House should be given an opportunity to see how the Pearce Commission has worked, prior to such a conclusion being reached?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I have already conveyed to Mr. Smith the two suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has made. On the last point he raised, I suggest we await the Pearce Report.

    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House as well as hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite are deeply disappointed that the Smith régime has felt unable to accept the presence in Rhodesia of an all-party delegation from this House? Will he present our dissatisfaction to Mr. Smith over this?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I have told Mr. Smith that I supported the idea of an all-party delegation to observe the Pearce Commission working. I will certainly tell him that I think he has made a mistake in this matter.

    Mr. Roy Jenkins

    Is it not a fact that, contrary to the impression which the right hon. Gentleman gave in reply to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), which disparaged the value of an all-party delegation, the suggestion for an all-party delegation came specifically from the Foreign Secretary? Is it not the case, therefore, that his own suggestion has been rejected by Mr. Smith? Does not this conduct on the part of Mr. Smith affect the right hon. Gentleman’s mind about the value of any bargain that may be struck with Mr. Smith?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman was around when this was considered, but the position was that Mr. Smith rejected a request for a Labour Party delegation and a Liberal Party delegation. I have never been keen on Lord Pearce’s Commission being observed, but if it was to be observed—[Interruption.]—I agree that could have been better expressed, I meant it in the sense that Lord Pearce could get on with the work of the Commission perfectly well without any external observation—but if there were to be observation, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I said that it should be an all-party delegation, that was the best form. This has now been turned down.

    Mr. Roy Jenkins

    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he told Mr. Smith that he was not very keen on the proposition he was putting forward?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I told Mr. Smith that he ought to accept an all-party delegation. He has not done so.