On Newshub Nation: Lisa Owen interviews British High Commissioner Laura Clarke

Britain is set to exit the European Union in March next year. After that, it will be looking to build stronger trade ties with countries like New Zealand. I spoke to the British High Commissioner to New Zealand, Laura Clarke, and began by asking her how a Commonwealth trade agreement could work.
Laura Clarke: Well, I think there are opportunities to really increase trade and business links between Commonwealth countries. You’ve got what’s called the Commonwealth advantage, which is that all these countries have got the same language, similar legal traditions. And I think it’s an aspiration of all Commonwealth countries to improve trading links. That said, 53 countries are quite a lot, and so it would definitely be a big piece of work, if you think how long it’s taken with CPTPP. But, definitely, one of the key outcomes of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was improving prosperity links between our countries, but also a really positive agenda on climate change and oceans and girls education as well.
So, in terms of that trade situation with the Commonwealth, obviously there are some countries that would be excluded from being part of that — they’re still part of the EU— so Cyprus and Malta, they’re still part of the EU. So would it have to be an individually, kind of, negotiated agreement with a collective of some of those countries?
I don’t know if the thinking has got that far. I mean, frankly, as far as the UK is concerned, what we’re focused on right now is making sure that we’ve got the best possible arrangement with the EU going forward and as we leave the European Union, and also really investing in our relationships with other countries — so, New Zealand, as you know, is one of the top three for a bilateral trade agreement, once we leave the EU. And, in fact, just this week, we’ve had the trade policy dialogue. We’ve had lots of officials out from the UK talking about that in preparation for the time when the UK is able to negotiate its own trade agreements.
So, we’re now one of your top priorities in terms of trade, but do you think it’s fair to say that the UK maybe has taken New Zealand a little bit for granted in the past?
Well, I’m not sure that’s right. I think, maybe 15, 20 years ago, there was a sense, perhaps, between Australia, New Zealand, Australia — on all sides — that, you know, very loyal friends, but perhaps there wasn’t enough invested in that. That’s really changed. And that pre-dates the Brexit referendum. There’s a real sense of how much we can do together with these very old friends. We have shared values, very similar culture, so many people-to-people links. And trade is a real opportunity for UK and New Zealand, but there’s lots more besides. So, we have a domestic policy dialogue, where we’re learning from each other, and how we can deliver best for our citizens. And we’re also increasing our cooperation in the Pacific. And, in fact, one of the big announcements from the UK side at the Commonwealth Summit last week was that the UK is opening three new posts in the Pacific — in Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu.
So you don’t think historically, I mean, obviously, you joined up to the EU in the ‘70s, prior to that, we were big— we were sending lots of trade to you, and then, you know, you will remember our butter— the hassles over our butter and all the rest of it. So you think at no point we’ve been taken for granted by the UK in terms of trade?
Well, things change, don’t they? And, actually, what New Zealanders say to me is, ‘Yes, 1973 was a big moment for New Zealand, but actually New Zealand had started diversifying its trade routes around Asia before that. And then the 1973 decision, when the UK joined the EEC, accelerated that.’ And, actually, most New Zealanders, whether they’re farmers or trade policy people, now say to me, ‘Look, it was the best thing that happened.’ Because you can’t be in a situation where your major trading partner is on the exact opposite end of the world. But that’s not to say that there aren’t now opportunities for us going forward. And I think, in a way, one of the most important things about this UK/New Zealand trade agreement is that we’re able to set a really high-ambition free trade agreement that’s very inclusive, that considers things like indigenous rights, women’s rights, environmental issues. And it really sets the tone.
What difference do you think it would make to that agreement — the prospect of that agreement — if we were to restart talks with Russia— trade talks?
Well, your Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and foreign minister have been very clear that, as far as new trade negotiations are concerned, the EU and the UK are really up there, and they are the top priorities. They’ve also been clear that Russia’s actions over the past month in the Salisbury poisoning with Novichok, the support for the Syrian regime — that really changes things—
But it’s not off the table altogether. It remains part of the coalition deal. And it may be taking a hiatus, but there is the prospect, so what would that do?
Well, I think it’s in everyone’s interests— it’s in the collective interest to have a Russia that is stable, prosperous and law-abiding. And I think what Winston Peters said when he was in London was, ‘Absolutely, it’s off the table for now.’ You can’t do any sort of trade negotiations with a country that violates chemical weapons conventions, but the fundamental point is that we need to keep engaging with all partners. We need to keep engaging and having a dialogue, in the hope that you get to a point that relations can improve. But, certainly, as I understand it, from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, a Russia FTA is not a priority right now.
So, talking of Russia, the OPCW — the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons — it is confirmed that a very pure strain of Novichok — nerve agent — was used in the Salisbury attack, but that report doesn’t say where it came from. How are you so sure it is Russia?
So, it’s not the job of the OPCW to trace the source, nor is it the job of our scientists in Porton Down, but they say very clearly that this substance is military-grade nerve agent of the sort that can only be produced with state backing. And what we do, and what we have done with international partners and intelligence partners, is piece together the entire picture, which is partly the assessment of what this product is and the intelligence picture, which tells us quite clearly what Russia has been doing in these areas over the years and, of course, the pattern of behaviour of Russia — so the poisoning of Litvinenko, other hostile acts.
Even so, Theresa May has said — and these are her words — it’s ‘highly likely’ Russia was responsible. Is ‘highly likely’ enough to base punishments and sanctions and expulsions on?
We are very, very confident that this was— that Russia was responsible for this Novichok and either has lost control of it or it was sanctioned. And we’re very clear also that Russia’s response to it, to our request for further information, was inadequate. But as I say, we are trying to ensure that we’re protecting UK national interests, we’re protecting our security, we’re also standing up for our values, because actually what happened in Salisbury is not just a matter for Salisbury, it’s not just a matter for the UK, it’s a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, it’s a violation of international law. And it’s actually part of a bigger picture of Russia’s attempt to undermine the rules-based order and the rules-based order that we all depend on, particularly New Zealand as an independent trading nation.
All right, let’s talk a little bit more about that in the context that the UK is always also at odds with Russia over Syria. And Russia says the recent airstrikes by the US, the UK and France were ‘illegal acts of aggression’. You didn’t have a UN mandate, so is that right?
We’ve published our legal advice on that, actually, and the Prime Minister spent a lot of time, both in Parliament and engaging with media talking about it, and there’s three parts to the legal advice. Essentially, first of all, it’s justified as a humanitarian intervention. And the three things you need to make that justified is, firstly, you need evidence of really bad humanitarian suffering and the need for immediate relief — that’s absolutely the case in Syria; secondly, the fact that diplomatic solutions have not worked, and that there’s no other option than force; and the third one momentarily eludes me, but I think the point is that what we took is— oh, the third is, sorry, that it is proportionate, that it is not in any way— that it is simply proportionate, and what we were doing, and it was proportionate, we took action to degrade Syria’s chemical weapons capability. So it was very targeted. We weren’t interfering or intervening in the civil war. We were taking action to protect Syrian citizens who’ve been—
I understand what you’re saying there, but again Theresa May said, ‘When the global rules and standards that keep us safe come under threat, we must take a stand and defend them.’ How can you defend global rules by breaking them?
Well, I think that’s what I’m saying. We weren’t global rules—
You didn’t have a mandate from the UN.
We had the— No, but you don’t always need a mandate. For this— This was very targeted. The law on humanitarian intervention says that if you reach those three criteria of suffering needing relief, no other option and proportionate, then that actually was the case with these strikes. And we took action to degrade Syria’s chemical weapons capability, because there’s a pattern of attacks here and you have children dying in the most terrible situations. And, yes, we would have all liked a diplomatic solution, but Russia at the UN was constantly and consistently vetoing any attempt to have a formal investigation or do anything else. And if Russia vetoes a diplomatic solution, I don’t think the answer is sit back and say, ‘Oh, sorry’, to the children who are suffering, ‘There’s nothing we can do.’ Sometimes you need to take action. And, as I say, we’ve published the legal advice. And that’s available online for anyone to look at.
So, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said recently that Russia is ‘losing the last remnants of trust in Western powers’, and he said that the current situation is worse than it was during the Cold War. How worried should we be about that in the context of international security?
I think we’re in a quite interesting and scary time in terms of international security. And I think that you’ve got all sorts of new threats that you didn’t have during the Cold War — you’ve got hostile cyber, you’ve got hybrid threats. And I think that what we want to do is make sure that we are working with likeminded partners like New Zealand, part of the Five Eyes, with NATO, with our European partners, with the US to really shore up this international system, because if we don’t have laws and rules and a structure that works globally, then it becomes a much more dangerous place.
So, do you agree that we’re on the same kind of footing we were during the Cold War?
I don’t know. I wasn’t— I think it’s a different situation. I think there is a lack of trust. But what I think is really important is that we keep channels open. We kept diplomatic channels open with Russia. So, yes, we’ve expelled a lot of undeclared intelligence officials, but we’ve kept diplomatic channels open and our hope is that we get to a point where relations are better and there is increased trust, but that requires Russia to actually play by the rules. And right now, it’s not. So, for example, the Council of Europe, which is the big democracy and human rights organisation in Europe, Russia’s withholding funding from that and really trying to hold it ransom.
Okay, so, is Russia a rogue state, then?
Russia is trying to chart its own path and it’s a disrupter. It’s an absolute disrupter. And I think what we saw in Salisbury— what we saw was a very clear ‘I’m going to send this in— lob in and see how the UK and its partners respond’. Because it’s constantly testing and pushing at the boundaries. And, actually, with our very united, coordinated response, and this mass expulsion of undeclared intelligence officers, we said very clearly— we, and all our partners, said very clearly that the breaking of international law, the breaking of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the murder or attempted murder of people on another country’s territory is not acceptable.
Doesn’t that make them a rogue state, then, by your calculations?
I don’t know if those terms are helpful, because, ultimately, as I say, we want to get to a position where Russia is prosperous and stable and abides by the rules, so I’m not sure that labels like that are particularly helpful.
Okay, you mentioned before about innocent children getting killed in Syria’s civil war and the fact that you didn’t want to meddle in that, but it is estimated that the UK has sold between four billion and six billion pounds of weapons to Saudi Arabia, which is bombing in Yemen. And there are hundreds of children that are being killed there. Are you happy to meddle in that situation?
We’re not meddling. We’re providing a lot of humanitarian aid to Yemen. And it’s a devastating situation. And, I’ve got to say, I’m not cited sufficiently on that side of things, but all I would say is that we have very clear export controls on when we export weapons, and those are very carefully scrutinised.
That’s a legal question though. I’m asking you, probably, a moral and ethical question. Are you happy with the amount of collateral damage that is occurring in Yemen?
I don’t think anyone is happy with the Yemen war that’s been going on for a very long time. It’s devastating. And the humanitarian impact is huge. And it’s a very, very difficult situation there.
The UN has asked the countries involved there to cease hostilities so that a political solution can be negotiated. Will the UK cease selling weapons to Saudi Arabia?
That’s not something I can comment on. As I say, we’ve got very strong export controls, and we are working very closely on the humanitarian response to this awful crisis.
Transcript provided by Able. www.able.co.nz

© Scoop Media