Asked by
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 () (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.
(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.
(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.
(Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend read the speech of Henry Kissinger
in Davos, where he advised attendees at the conference not to get
swept up in the mood of the moment and suggested that
negotiations to end the war had to begin in the next two months
“before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be
easily”
contained? He suggested that the starting point for negotiations
should be the pre-invasion de facto borders. Does my noble friend
agree that Dr Kissinger is no woolly idealist but a hard-headed
diplomat with a very distinguished record? However inconvenient
it may be, should not his advice be carefully studied?
(Con)
My Lords, I had the opportunity to meet Dr Kissinger a couple of
years ago. When we look at any conflict, all wise words need to
be listened to, of course. What is equally important, however, is
that the sovereignty and integrity of every nation are protected.
(Lab)
My Lords, I completely agree with the Minister. If there is to be
a negotiated settlement, as President Zelensky says there must
be, Ukraine must be in the driving seat. But what can we do to
support President Zelensky’s objective? When I met this week, she stressed
that the Secretary-General is now much more proactive in trying
to bring the parties together. There are also opportunities for
bilateral support. Can the Minister tell us what the Government
are doing to support those objectives?
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. He and I have been speaking
about this consistently throughout. I am glad that he met
Ambassador Woodward. We continue to engage through all
multilateral channels, particularly on humanitarian issues. We
were first in line; indeed, I spoke with the Secretary-General in
New York about the importance of engaging with all sides. Even at
that time, as the noble Lord knows, Russia would not entertain a
visit from him. Later today, I will meet the Ukrainian
prosecutor-general, Iryna Venediktova, who is in town, to discuss
our support for her work on the ground. We will continue to work
with Ukraine, particularly on the current situation around food
security, to which my noble friend Lord Lamont alluded. That
issue is not just about Ukraine and Russia; it is about the whole
world.
(CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to emphasise the importance of
holding to account those who are responsible for war crimes in
places such as Mariupol and Bucha, as well as for the illegal
invasion of Ukraine. There is no moral equivalence between
Ukraine and Russia here. Will the Minister report back to the
House on what action is being taken to bring to justice those
responsible for these terrible events? Also, will he say more
about the opening up of grain supplies? This issue is now
jeopardising people living in places such as east Africa and the
Horn of Africa, where 20 million people already facing chronic
drought and famine-like conditions will now be denied grain as a
result of the blockade of Odessa.
(Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that, as I have already
mentioned, I have a meeting later today with the
prosecutor-general, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice
Secretary. The work we are doing through the ICC will also be a
point of discussion. Yesterday, along with the United States and
the EU, we announced an advisory group to look at aggression. We
welcome the first prosecution that has taken place on the ground.
On the noble Lord’s wider point, we have put additional funding
and support into the Horn of Africa, primarily on this very issue
of food security. I have visited north Africa and will do so
again later next month.
(LD)
My Lords, the element of futility in Putin’s human rights
atrocities and slaughter of the people of Ukraine is that the
current bombardments are purely within the buffer area of the
Minsk agreements. Some of us do not take our foreign policy lead
from Henry Kissinger. There have been calls from the Republican
right to negotiate on that ceded territory. The Foreign Secretary
is on the record as saying that the UK’s sanctions will be in
place until all Russian troops have left Ukrainian territory. The
very thing that Putin wants at this time, in what will be a
long-term, protracted conflict, is western division. What
mechanisms are in place for the UK to use to ensure that such
division does not arise?
(Con)
My Lords, it has been very important to show unity of purpose and
unity of action. The noble Lord mentions the role of sanctions.
As he said—I believe this passionately—the sanctions have worked
because, where one country or region has led in front of others,
we have co-ordinated and worked together. Those sanctions are
hurting Russia, Mr Putin, the Russian Government and all those
who support them. It is important that we retain them. As the
noble Lord, Lord Collins, said—I am in total agreement with
him—any negotiation must be led by Ukraine and it is the job of
any ally, partner or friend to be firmly behind Ukraine.
(Con)
Your Lordships will know that, in 1938, France and the United
Kingdom imposed on Czechoslovakia a deal that they had come to
with the Third Reich. This is not a good precedent. The
Government have rightly been praised from both sides for their
actions on Ukraine. Can my noble friend assure me that we are
talking to our allies, in particular France and Germany, to
ensure that they do not try to impose their own settlement on
Ukraine? It must be the Ukrainians who lead; we support them.
(Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend. The Government
are engaging at the top level. My right honourable friend the
Prime Minister engages regularly with President Zelensky on the
principles that he has articulated. Let us be clear: President
Zelensky has said “Let’s meet” directly to Mr Putin. It is
important that we get behind his efforts.
(Lab)
Does the Minister recall that the Foreign Secretary spoke of
reclaiming all the lands lost by Ukraine, which would presumably
include Crimea and be a recipe for continued and long-term
conflict? That was at a time when President Zelensky was speaking
of returning to the borders of 24 February, although I concede
that he has hardened his line a little. Essentially, he has been
pragmatic. Was it not unwise of the Foreign Secretary to be more
hard-line than the President?
(Con)
My Lords, what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary
articulated was on the basis of international borders and
recognising the sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine. The 2014
annexation of Crimea was illegal.
(Con)
My Lords, in relation to the impending food crisis and the 20
million tonnes of grain that are being held hostage by Russia in
Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister
Rudenko offered yesterday to provide a corridor for vessels
carrying food to leave Ukraine, but only if some sanctions are
lifted. What is the Government’s position on this?
(Con)
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that food security is very
much at the forefront of not just our thinking but our policy.
Over the next three years, we will direct more than £3 billion of
support to the most vulnerable countries, particularly in Africa.
Yesterday, in engaging with G7 partners, Foreign Minister Kuleba
said, I believe, that this agricultural crisis will not be for
just one cycle but will be repeated.
There is grain in Ukraine currently. The issue is that Odessa and
the Black Sea are blocked and mined. This requires Russia not
just to show full co-operation but to pull back. It could demine
certain parts where the Ukrainians themselves have provided
mines—they know where they are—as part of the support. Equally,
however, what guarantees do we have once we get into the Black
Sea? That is where Crimea comes in. The Black Sea allows Russia
to embargo any ship going through. Of course, mines remain a
constant challenge.
(Lab)
My Lords, it is quite clear that the early euphoria about how
Ukraine is doing must now be tempered. There is no doubt that the
Russians have twigged what a shambles they have made of this and
are now focusing on much smaller areas; for example, in the
Donbass. This war will grind on and Putin shows no desire to have
some form of agreement. We know that he behaves appallingly and
that Russia lies about these things. That means that this war
will continue because he will not come to the table until he
finds that it is causing real pain and the sanctions start to
hit. It is therefore important that we keep supplying weapons to
Ukraine and keep up that flow.
Can I ask a precise question? A lot of the weapons we have been
providing and sending to Ukraine are from orders that were for
people in western Europe. We have not let contracts to enable our
arms manufacturers to produce these weapons for our own stocks
and to replace the weapons being used in Ukraine. Can the
Minister confirm that these orders will be let because this has
gone on and on and that has not happened?
(Con)
My Lords, without getting into the specifics of each contract—of
course, that is a Ministry of Defence lead—I will look through
the noble Lord’s question and answer appropriately.
