To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of US military action in the Caribbean, including airstrikes on vessels and the threat to use force against Venezuela.
My Lords, recent US military action in the Caribbean and the Pacific, including strikes against boats allegedly involved in drug trafficking, is a matter for the United States. The depth of our defence relationship with the US remains an essential pillar of our security and we jointly recognise the significant threat that organised crime presents at home and abroad.
My Lords, the US claims that the boat strikes are justifiable as acts in self-defence, and because it contends that there is an armed conflict with drug cartels. It is fair to say that very few outside the US Administration agree with those views. The Government have repeatedly said that their policies are guided by international law. Can the Government tell us what assessment they have made of the position under intentional law in respect of the boat strikes? Separately, a number of countries with which we have good relations, including Colombia, are being threatened by some of the US’s actions. What steps are we taking to defuse the risks?
I thank the noble Lord for raising an important question. The position of the Government has not changed. We continue to state that the lawfulness of the strikes is a matter for the United States. That is our position and what we believe. The United Kingdom, as far as the Government are concerned, was not involved. We are committed to fighting the scourge of drugs and organised crime, including with our partners in Latin America, such as Colombia, and the Caribbean, in accordance with international law and the UN principles. If we are acting according to UN principles and the principles of international law, the UK Government can be proud of that.
My Lords, it seems from all the media reports that the Attorney-General has struck again, now banning the sharing of intelligence with the US on this issue. I am sure that the Minister will not comment on whether the US has retaliated on this. To his credit, he has again today told the House of his commitment to national security and defence. Does he think that putting our crucial Five Eyes intelligence relationship under threat because of a debate over the US use of force against Caribbean drug smugglers is prioritising the security of this country?
The Government of the United Kingdom do prioritise the security of this country. We are acting in accordance with international law and the fundamental principles of the UN charter. That is the guiding principle for the Government. As I have said time and time again from this Dispatch Box, the security relationship between the US and the UK is fundamental for this country, for Europe and for global security. That is the important principle to which this Government adhere. The noble Lord is smiling, but he agrees with that and he will know that that fundamental principle guides the actions of the Government.
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows well that for many years we have been deeply involved in JIATF-East, the joint intelligence drugs task force in the Caribbean. We work very closely and share intelligence across the board. There is nothing strange in having over the years been selective sometimes in what intelligence is provided. We did that when we worked in Iraq and other places in the Middle East. It is not surprising. Would my noble friend agree that it is very important that we stay involved in stopping that drugs traffic, which is so destabilising, but that we must be very careful over what intelligence we share? That is nothing new. It is something that we have done over many years.
My noble friend makes a really important point. At the end of the day, of course we must act according to the UN charter and international law. The UK Government do that. This is nothing new across the world, let alone between the US and the UK. We are always sensitive about intelligence sharing and about how much we discuss that.
My noble friend has highlighted the fact that the UK, along with our friends in the Caribbean and with the alliance with the US, acting in accordance with those principles of the UN Charter, has stopped hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of drugs coming out of that area of the world and into the US or Europe. Sometimes we should talk about that as much as we talk about other things.
My Lords, there is no doubt that the regime in Venezuela is authoritarian, represses dissidents and is probably involved in drug trafficking. Does that justify extrajudicial killing without evidence by our ally? If the Government have withheld intelligence, as the press reports say, we on these Benches welcome that, but can he clarify? Does he not recognise that when an ally loses trust or changes a relationship of trust to one of transaction, transactional decisions can go both ways?
What I am saying to the noble Lord is a really important point. The lawfulness of the actions of the US is a matter for them. As far as the UK Government are concerned, we act in that region in accordance with international law and the fundamental principles of the UN charter. By doing that, we protect many people’s lives, in the United States, the rest of America and in Europe. That is something we ought to celebrate as well.
That is a very good question. What we have in Venezuela is an embassy in Caracas; we are the only Five Eyes member who has an embassy there. We make our points to the Government in Venezuela, but we also recognise the responsibility of having that embassy there and the importance of keeping it there so that we have a line of communication to all the parties in Venezuela. That embassy is extremely important.
My Lords, as chair of the ISC, I do not want to comment on this individual case, but my noble friend also knows that our intelligence sharing is governed by the Fulford principles, which came from a review of the consolidated guidance in 2019, which came out of the report of the ISC in 2018 into rendition and detention.
A principle, implemented by the Conservative Government at the time, is that we do not share intelligence if there is a likelihood that an individual is going to be extrajudicially killed or tortured. That is accepted by our international partners and well known and implemented by the security services. Does that not show that we have the highest regard for international law and that this was something the last Government were right to actually implement?
My noble friend makes a really good point, and he is right to point out that the last Government implemented the particular review and the principles that he is referring to. All I am saying is that the lawfulness of the strikes that the US has conducted is a matter for them. As far as the UK Government are concerned, what we are doing is consistent with international law and consistent with the principles of the UN charter, and that is something I am proud of with respect to our own Government.
My Lords, the Minister is being uncharacteristically coy in declining to say the Government’s position on whether the extrajudicial killings are a breach of international law. Surely it is not simply a matter for the United States, as the Minister says. This Government have been very vocal in announcing their view of the conduct of other nations under international law, whether in Ukraine or in Gaza. Why not on this occasion?
The Government have not been coy at all in saying that international law should be adhered to. They have not been coy at all in what they have said about adherence to the UN charter and its principles. What I am trying to do, as a responsible Minister in a responsible Government, is deal with a difficult international situation and to say we have to be careful about what we say in terms of intelligence sharing. It is not in anybody’s interest sometimes to discuss these matters in the open, but what is important is for us to lay out the principles that the UK Government operate according to, and that is what I have done.
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government quite properly did not recognise the last Venezuelan election, which was marred by fraud and widespread human rights abuses. I ask the Minister whether, consistent with that decision, His Majesty’s Government have plans to make available the interest from the Venezuelan gold reserves in the Bank of England to the legitimate Government of Edmundo González, and whether they have any plans to evict the Chavista squatters from the Venezuelan embassy on the Cromwell Road.