PoliticsUK

Mr Speaker,

I rise today with your permission to update the House on matters pertaining to the Republic of Latvia and such matters arising outwith.

Mr Speaker, I think it is helpful to recapitulate what has already happened and what action the government has taken at every stage. Concerns were first raised with me personally when three Russian-speaking gunmen attacked a shipyard in Riga one month ago. It was not and is not believed that these terrorists were in anyway associated with the Russian government.

Following on from the attack, the Latvian National Guard and municipal police implemented a crackdown in Russian-speaking areas in Riga and the south-eastern parts of the Republic of Latvia. Protests began, riots developed and law and order began to crumble.

At this stage the British government urged the Latvian authorities to exercise restraint, and issued advice to British citizens to avoid contested areas. We made arrangements to enhance our intelligence-gathering operations in Latvia and the wider region, and as a result of this became aware of a large-scale Russian military exercise close to the border with Latvia. Our intelligence suggested that this exercise was not planned in advance.

Mr Speaker, it was subsequently reported that Russian special forces personnel and troop carriers were operating in parts of eastern Latvia, apparently in civilian clothing. Our intelligence corroborated this, and we continued to monitor a Russian military build-up on the Latvian border. Taking advice from the Secret Intelligence Service and others, the government concluded that the Russian government was likely to attempt an annexation of parts of Latvia, in a repeat of their 2014 operation in the Crimean region of Ukraine.

The British government ordered our armed forces personnel on the continent into a condition of high alert, and became aware of increased Russian naval activity in the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap. We deployed a number of attack submarines to monitor this increase in activity.

The Latvian government then advised us that it would be seeking to invoke Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, which would compel NATO members to militarily intervene. With strong encouragement from the United Kingdom, Latvia made its proposal to the NATO Council.

The British Government embarked on a significant diplomatic effort to win support for the invocation of Article V. I spoke personally with European leaders, finding strong support in some countries such as France and hesitancy in others. In order to secure the support of the Vísegrad Group countries, the government signed an agreement to provide £800 million in security and defence funding to the Group over five years and to establish a permanent military presence in Poland, replacing our now-closed deployment in Germany. The Prime Minister and I spoke personally with Chancellor Merkel, and met President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo face-to-face in Brussels. After an extensive diplomatic engagement exercise, we managed to secure the support of the majority of NATO allies. Unfortunately, the invocation of Article V requires unanimity in the Council; and due to votes against the proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America, that unanimity was not achieved.

Despite the failure to invoke Article V, British forces remained on high alert and we continued to share intelligence proactively with Latvian security forces.

I cannot choose words that both sufficiently illustrate the strength of feeling involved and are in line with diplomatic norms to express my abject disappointment with the governments of Germany and the United States for their failure to support an invocation of Article V at that stage. Had NATO intervened early and deployed the Very High Readiness Task Force to Latvia as Britain proposed, it is possible that order could have been restored and Russian special forces repelled from the country. The nations of the free world remain free only by virtue of their willingness to defend that freedom. The NATO alliance remains strong only by virtue of its preparedness to act when an ally calls for help. Our liberty, and the rule of international law, is credited to us by our parents and in-debts us to our children. I am sorry to say that the failure of the international community to act promptly has cast serious doubts upon the muscularity and vigour of the west, and that will have consequences which stretch far beyond Latvia.

The situation now has deteriorated considerably, and I was advised yesterday that the Latvian government was believed to be within 24 hours of total collapse. Fearing for the safety of our citizens, the government immediately gave the order for all British citizens to be evacuated from the Republic of Latvia. The government also extended an offer to Latvian officials to seek refuge at the British Embassy in Riga, or to come to London, which many did. The British Embassy is also attempting to offer assistance and safe passage out of the country to Latvian citizens who may be in fear of their lives.

Britain does not have the capacity to launch a military intervention at this stage alone. It would not be possible for the Royal Navy to secure control of the Baltic Sea before Russian forces were able to seize control of the whole of Latvia; neither could troops deployed through Poland reach the area in time. The Russian Armed Forces outman Britain by more than five to one. The port of Kaliningrad affords them control of the Latvian coastline, and were we to send British troops into battle alone their mission would be that of a kamikaze pilot.

The aforementioned notwithstanding, the best case scenario in the event of no military action at all is a Russian annexation of parts of Latvia, with a Russian puppet administration installed in Riga.

The British Government continues to maintain that military action is appropriate and justified in these circumstances, and the Prime Minister is currently engaged in meetings with major international players to that end. We are also engaged in direct talks with the Russian Federation; but I have to be frank in stating that these will probably prove fruitless. The NATO Council will shortly be called to meet again, and this time I hope that unanimity can be achieved in an invocation of Article V. The alternative is the fall of Latvia; an EU and a NATO member state; with the western world looking on as Russia remains undeterred from its aggressive campaign of expansionism.

Mr. Speaker,

Is the Foreign Secretary able to outline to the House if the U.S and German governments outlined *why* they opposed the invocation of Article V to her?

Mr. Speaker,

I thank the Rt Hon Lady for the Update that she has provided this House today. Like her, I am also strongly disappointed in the actions of President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, Chancellor Merkel, and Minister Maas. It is appalling that these allied nations would not lift a finger to help our friends in Latvia. The preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty, a document both of these nations, ours, and the Lativan state have signed, claims that "The Parties to this Treaty are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security." NATO exists for our collective security. For two nations to turn a blind eye to an attack of this magnitude was unthinkable until now and should rightly be condemned.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is more that can be done. In her response to my urgent question yesterday, the Rt Hon Lady said that Britain would "certainly offer to mediate between the Latvian and Russian governments, if NATO and the UN will support our taking that role." As I did then, let me again note that we should not be in a neutral mediatory position because we are allies of Latvia. That will never fly with President Putin, and the Rt Hon Lady knows that.

My predecessor, the Hon Gentleman for Kensington, encouraged the Foreign Secretary at her previous statement here in the Commons to use our membership in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, along with that of Latvia and Russia, to help bring both parties to a table where our voice, as a treasured ally of the Latvian people and of the right to self-determination and fair elections, may be heard. He was right then and is still right now. We have more tools in our toolbox than just NATO.

One of the OSCE's main documents, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, states that "Democratic government is based on the will of the people, expressed regularly through free and fair elections. Democracy has as its foundation respect for the human person and the rule of law. Democracy is the best safeguard of freedom of expression, tolerance of all groups of society, and equality of opportunity for each person." The Russian Federation has signed this.

The United Nations Charter, which the Federation is party , says that all nations are called upon "to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest." Latvia is a member of the European Union. Has the Foreign Secretary contacted her colleagues there? Even though we left, they should still remember who she is from those negotiations a few months ago.

And what, Mr. Speaker, about our good friends in the Council of Europe, of which we are a member? Since the United Kingdom, the Republic of Latvia, and the Russian Federation are all members, and, as such, parties to the European Convention on Human Rights? These are just some examples of the multiple ways that the UK and our allies can bring Russia to the negotiating table. To use only one way, NATO, is doing a disservice to the people of Latvia who may eventually find themselves, as the Rt Hon Lady informed us, chafing under Russian rule.

I am, as previously mentioned, disappointed. But I am not just disappointed in our supposed allies, Mr. Speaker. I am disappointed in the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. This statement is tinged with disappointment and regret for what we cannot do through NATO. However, we can and should do more. International organizations do not exist just for ministers to use the public purse to jet off for canapes at yearly meetings. They exist for our common security, our common liberty, and our common unity. To not explore every opportunity we have to defend Latvia, which is the morally right thing to do, is a significant missed opportunity, and I encourage the Government to get on the phones and work together for a solution.