 Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Becky Anderson, the Managing Editor and Bureau Chief for CNN in the Gulf and Anchor of Connect the World with Becky Anderson. I'm delighted to be moderating this panel today. We'll do about 15-20 minutes and then I'll open the floor for questions that should give us about 10-15 minutes towards the end of this. Thank you both. Y Llyfrgell yn fawr i'ch cynllun ymddangos a'r angen, a'r Rysgwrdd Type 10 yn allu gan gael ar y llyfr aros fynd, ar rhan o'r ddysgu'r cyhoedd. Dyma'r disgynnu, y dyma'r angen er mwyn i'r llyfrgell yn ddiogel yma i'r llyfrgell yng nghymru eu cyfrannu Llyfrgell. Yn y tyd, yr Ylensgyr Prysyn, yna'r angen i'r angen i'r hyn o'r cyfrannu, o bobl, phrosio yr un, a byblanwch y cyfreith ffordd mwy. Day byddwch ar y ocondmwyllfa hwnnw i'ch cwrnod. Mae'r glifer y gyfer hynny ymweld yw, yma y cwrddol yn ynddo, yw'r ymgylch yn roedd y gwrthon i fwyfyr rhagorol a'r llwyddo cyflwydd. Mae cyflwyr gwir yng Nghyrch i bobl yr ysafodd gwrthon yn ymgylch gan Ygdiani Gwyr Nesafolau ac mae'r gweithio'r llwyddoedd yn bwysig i gyrfa'r llwyddoedd. A mae'r prosbyg yw'r cyfnod, yw'r llwyddoedd. Rwy'n gweithio'n gweithio'r Llywodraeth David Cameron, yng nghymru, yng nghymru yw'r llwyddoedd yng nghymru o'r Unedig Cymru, ac Dimitro Kulaba, yng Nghymru o'r Ffarae Llywodraeth i'r Ynwchryn. Rwy'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. Yn y glwyddoedd Minister Kulaba, rydych chi'n go fo'r pleif ystod o Peir Llywodraeth i'r Llywodraeth. A gweld yn cyceptio'n cyhoedhau, fel y Chyfodd Pwylltyn, mae'r prosbyg ar hyn yma, a'r Cymru o fod yw'r llwyddoedd ym Llywodraeth? Rwy'n ei ddylen, ac yn olygu'r llwydoedd hynny. Rwy'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. os rydyn ni'n ffas y mynedd, rydyn ni'n cael ei wneud. Roeddwn ni'n rhoi'n gweithio ar gyfer hyn yn siaradau ar gyfer hwnnw, sy'n ymgyrch chi'n siaradau ar gyfer hwnnw, rydyn ni'n gwneud ar gyfer hwnnw i Ukrainian a'r ëydydd ar gyfer o'ch cyfnodol yn y cwyrtio i'r ysgolwyd, o'r gyfer y gallwn gwahoddau ar gyfer hwnnw i'n gweithio ar gyfer hwnnw. Rydyn ni'n gwneud ar gyfer hwnnw o'r ddaethau ar gyfer hwnnw, wynaeth. Maen nhw'n dod i mae'r hyn yn iawn o'r bod yn mawr ymlaen i gynhyrchu'r yma i losbyddgo'u'r cyffrede yma. Rwy'n dda i, rwy'n dda i'r gyfarcheb gyttwch achod. Mae'r 10 hynny arddangos, rydyn ni'n gallu bod yw ddau, dda i'r gyflyniad. Wrth fyfaf ymddych chi, rydyn ni'n defnyddio ar gyfer gyda gwagodau hilyn sy'n ei ddau'i gyda'r rai cyntaf ar y cael bachon yma. A'r hyffordd yn cael bachon'n amser sydd yn ymddangos ar y cyhoedd. Ond yw'r yn cyfrifio'n amser? Ac rwy'n dweud am y Unedol? Oherwydd, yn ymddangos y gael ar gyfer y llef, mae'n gweithio bod yna'r best strategiaeth gydag yma yn ymdweud i'w ddweud. Felly we have now approached one bridge and trying to cross it, which is this package. When we approach the next one, then we will be working on that. And frankly, I do not know when we will reach that bridge. But 2024 seems to be certain and we understand the timeline of developments. But I doubt any capital in the world has a clear vision for 2025. Foreign Secretary Cameron, what's your sense of whether Ukraine will receive the military support it needs to turn the tide in its favour this year? I think it will. And I just take an incredibly clear view about this. Putin's invasion of Ukraine provides the challenge of our generation. This is the most naked example of one state illegally invading another. A full member of the United Nations, a country that should have its independence, its sovereignty and its borders. And if you look at the allies that back Ukraine, and back Ukraine not just with money and diplomatic support but also with weapons, our GDPs combined are 25 times the size of the Russian GDP. We just got to make our support count to help the Ukrainians in their brave struggle. And I'd also challenge a bit the sort of current narrative. I mean, if you sort of zoom out and look at the big picture here, this has been a catastrophic disaster for Putin. I mean, since the start of the war, he has lost half of the land that he took. He's had 300,000 casualties. He's been cut off and sanctioned by a good part of the free world. And those sanctions can only get tougher. And yes, of course, things have become quite stuck on land. But on sea, on the Black Sea, he's faced another catastrophe where over 20% of his navy has been sunk by a country Ukraine that only has a very small navy. And we talk about the support we need to give to Ukraine, and rightly we do. But also it's worth saying that with the Black Sea open, not thanks to the magnificence of Putin or the action of the UN, but the Black Sea open because of the action the Ukrainians have taken. They're exporting again, ships are sailing again, grain is leaving their ports again. And so I take a different view, look at the big picture, and actually Ukraine has done well, is doing well. And our job is to support Ukraine through this winter where again I think Russia is failing in terms of their attacks. Missile after missile has been shot down effectively to help Ukraine through this winter and to set up a system so that Ukraine can prevail in what will clearly be a longer war, but where there's no doubt in mind the West actually has the ability to support and to effect the right outcome. You've called for the seizure of some $350 billion of frozen Russian assets to fund the war effort. Can you legally justify that move? I know there's a big discussion about that at present. And is this an admission that the current sanctions regime on Russia has quite frankly failed to change Moscow's population? The way to think about it is we've already frozen those assets. The question is what should we do next? And I think there's a legal argument, a moral argument and a political argument. The legal argument, the lawyers will give their advice about the right way this can be done, but there's growing legal support for the idea that there is a way of using these resources. I think the moral argument is quite straightforward, which is that at the end of the day Russia is going to have to pay reparations for its illegal invasion. So why not spend some of the money now rather than wait till the war is over and have all the legal wrangling about reparations? I think the moral argument is strong. The political argument about what are the consequences does this change the way people see the way financial centres operate and all of those political arguments, on those I would say look, when Putin launched this illegal invasion, the world changed and we have to change with it and recognise we are in a more dangerous, uncertain and difficult world and so we should be prepared to do some innovative thinking about how we use these resources to help Ukraine. So I'm certainly working very hard on that. I think the rest of the G7 are. I think we're going to make some progress. As well as that, let's use all the sanctions regimes we have to hit the Russian individuals responsible with travel bans, asset freezes, all the other sanctions that you can do. One of the things Britain is doing is making sure we don't just announce the sanctions but we actually check that they're not being bypassed in other countries and I'm going to be encouraging every other European and Western leader that's here and foreign ministers that's here to make sure they're doing the same thing. Thank you. Foreign Minister Culebon, on the eve of this forum your government launched a new piece initiative bringing together 80 odd delegations. Well certainly it was part of an initiative that has been ongoing. I think this is the fourth meeting that's been held. Notably a lot more from the global south were in attendance amongst those 80. China didn't participate. Of course Russia wasn't there as talks with Russia have been declared illegal by President Zelensky. Given these significant and worrying current narrative about whether or not there will be as much if any support for Ukraine particularly out of the US going forward. How long do you think you have to end this war and what are the prospects of peace at this point from Ukraine's perspective? Can you share more detail on what that peace proposal looks like? Well less than a year ago the first meeting of national security advisers on Ukraine's peace formula took place in Copenhagen Denmark and it brought together 15 participants. The fourth meeting brought together 83. In the meantime a lot of things happened in the world and we heard so many discussions about destruction, about fatigue, about the different kind of defeatist voices but we see that the actual dynamics in engaging countries from all over the world into the Ukrainian plan is very positive. I think we are setting a precedent here where the terms of peace are being defined by a country whose peace was broken by an invader. It's not the invader who imposes his peace terms on the victim. It's not the third party that is proposing a compromise solution in a form of peace terms. It's us, the country that is fighting back, that defines the rules of peace. I think it's quite a remarkable moment in human history in the history of wars and diplomacy. There are 10 points in this plan and one of them is accountability. Accountability implies the tribunal and paying for the damage inflicted. The most important part of this peace plan is of course restoring territorial integrity of Ukraine. When we hear arguments coming from some experts or thinkers that maybe it's worth freezing the conflict, our response is we need frozen assets, not frozen conflict. This is the way forward. This is the way forward to send a clear message to everyone in the world that if you dare to break rules you're going to pay. If we don't send that message, if we don't make it very clear, the number of conflicts, interstate conflicts and tensions across the globe will be growing. And I think this is, and the price of fixing them will be much higher than the price of helping Ukraine. And I think this is one of the motivations that brings all these countries at the table because they realize the consequences of not participating in an effort to restore peace on just terms. The next step will be summit and President Zelensky agreed with President of Switzerland to begin working on organizing the first summit here in Switzerland actually. And yeah, there is a lot of diplomatic work we will be coordinating with the United Kingdom and I guess David and I will be working a lot on making it success because this success is important not just for peace in Ukraine but for global peace. David. I guess right, I mean you get peace through being strong and I think that it's always worth remaking the point that when Ukraine had its referendum in 1991 every single part of Ukraine including Crimea, including the Donbass, voted to be independent, to be one Ukraine. And I think the job of Allies is to back Ukraine in this struggle and to allow them to work out the agenda for when they want to do more work on peace and settlements and all the rest of it. I sometimes say to other foreign ministers, if you say let's support Ukraine and also let's promote a new peace process you won't get either of those things. If you support Ukraine you may well get the second thing. But that's what we need to do now and as I say I think that, I think we should think about the next year as one in which Ukraine with this support can actually grow stronger, grow stronger economically, diplomatically, militarily. That is, should be the aim and that will make peace more likely. I think that is the way to think about it. As Dimitrius says, this is not just about Ukraine security, this is fundamentally about European security but also about American security too. History demonstrates to us that if you appease an aggressor in Europe the aggressor comes back for more and when the aggressor comes back for more the price you eventually pay in your own troops and in the cost of your own country the price gets higher and higher. I think that's the argument we need to make in the United States. Obviously they've got some big political arguments taking place there but fundamentally there is a majority in Congress for the support. We just need to find it and make sure it votes for it. It turns me to my next question for Minister Culebi. Your president concedes that one of the things that splits support for Ukraine in the US is elections and the fact that in Ukraine elections, certainly presidential elections are unlikely. Does that worry you that voices on the hard right in the US are trying to tie further support to what they see as the need to show that this is a democratic process in action? Are you confident that you will still be around as well should there be a vote ultimately? Governmental and presidential? It's always remarkable to hear far right caring for democracy especially in a foreign country but I think the good news is that they seem to have run out of arguments if they resort to this one. Ukraine is a democracy. I'll tell you more. Ukraine would not have survived, would not survive if it was not a democracy. It's our democratic nature and the way our country is organized that helped us to repel the aggression, the Russian invasion and save the state. We are a democracy. We will remain a democracy. We have pre-district rules in the constitution on holding elections during the wartime. We have a wartime reality. For example, as foreign minister I'm in charge of the vote abroad and depending on whose data you find credible from 5 to 10 million Ukrainians who found who became refugees abroad will have to vote. It's technically at this point it's just technically impossible to organize a proper vote for them and let them express their will. But the whole discussion must end at one simple point. We will, we are committed, deeply committed to remaining a democratic country, a part of the democratic world because what we fight for is actually democracy itself. Well, I'm not the one who's making decisions. If I have to go and vote, I will. If I have to organize the vote under the circumstances I described, I will organize them. But I asked all countries with huge Ukrainian communities about the legal and technical framework for organizing elections. And some responses came, some responses were that we can organize a vote only on the premises of our diplomatic mission. How can you have hundreds of thousands of people make them vote in one premise? I also have a feeling that the very same people who are complaining about this point, if elections were held with all the difficulties of getting people to vote in parts of Ukraine that are occupied by Russian soldiers, they'd be the first to complain that these elections aren't accurate, are not proper, are not fair. The only thing I'd say is someone who's led a country, recently I saw President Zelensky, his approval rating has slipped from 90% to 80%. I used to dream 80%. One of the first things I did as foreign secretary was to go and visit Kiev and Odessa. One of the things that most strikes you is the incredible unity of purpose of the Ukrainian people. Actually Putin not only has he united the Ukrainian people as perhaps never before, he's also united NATO as never before. He's worried about the expansion of NATO. He has caused Sweden and Finland, two countries, Sweden by the way has just announced it's doubling its defence budget to highly capable countries joining NATO and making it stronger. Ukraine clearly at the top of your box, it was your first trip out of the gate as soon as you took this job recently. I must ask, I think it would be remiss of me not to ask, given that we're talking elections UK lightly to go to the polls by the end of the year. UK are passionately about Ukraine and as I say it's clearly at the top of your box. Do you have any confidence that you will be in place to drive that policy forward come this time next year? Well, we have an election year and I'm absolutely sort of committed. I didn't join this government simply to be foreign secretary. I joined the government because I think we have a highly capable Prime Minister who leads a very strong team. There's now got a growing economy that is making important steps in the world with a vital domestic reform programme and I think we have every opportunity. So I've been around in politics for a while. I stood in 1997 when we lost an election very badly. This does not feel like that at all. It feels like we've got a very dynamic Prime Minister, a dynamic team with a very clear agenda and crucially the right values to help our country in a world that is troubled and difficult and uncertain and dangerous and I think that core conservative value of security is the one that we need right now. And let's talk about that world which is increasingly feeling frightening and dangerous. Your Cabinet colleague, Defence Secretary Grant Shaps this week said and I quote, we find ourselves at the dawn of this new era. We've come full circle moving from a post war to a pre war world. And he name checks China, Russia, Iran, North Korea there. Do you agree with that assessment? And I have to ask, given what is going on in Gaza at present with that conflict and the evidence of spillover, significant spillover at this point, are you concerned that that is a distraction in support for Ukraine? You have called for a sustainable ceasefire but not an immediate ceasefire. Where do you stand on that? Of course, I mean, it's absolutely right. This is a very dangerous world. Not only have we got the Ukraine illegal invasion, you've got the situation in the Middle East, the more wars taking place in Africa at the moment that we've seen for perhaps 40 years, but turning very directly to your question. Look, we want this conflict to end as soon as possible. We don't want it to go on for a moment longer than necessary. And what I said very clearly yesterday, first of all, we need an immediate pause, an immediate humanitarian pause so that we can get aid in and we can get hostages out. That is absolutely essential. And I think the really important question is, is there some way of turning that pause into the sustainable ceasefire that we want to see? Because it would be much better if we didn't, after a pause, return to fighting, return to violence, return to destruction. But in order for that to happen, a number of things would have to happen. We'd have to see Hamas' leadership leaving Gaza. We'd have to see an end to the threat of rocket and terrorist attacks into Israel. We'd have to see a Palestinian authority perhaps bolstered with Palestinian expertise from elsewhere, perhaps including Gaza, helping to provide the governance and the services that people need. And of course, as part of that, you're going to need this longer term horizon for how you see a historic settlement of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But I think that should be the approach we try to take. Let's get this pause in place, get the aid in, get the hostages out, get that hostage negotiation done, and see if we can turn that into the sustainable ceasefire we all need to see. And the reason for using this word sustainable is, look, if you think you can just stop fighting and do nothing else, you'll never get a two-state solution because you can't have a two-state solution with Hamas in Gaza able to launch rockets and terror attacks. And that's why it's so important that those conditions are put in place. Briefly, how big a distraction does it feel at present, a conflict in the Middle East to sort of, you know, eye on the ball when it comes to support for Ukraine? Well, we know better than anyone else that every war is a tragedy. And I really find it inappropriate to consider wars taking place in the world through the perspective of destructions. Destructions, yes, destructions. So that's just not the way we think about it. When we meet with our partner governments, we feel that they are focused, here in Davos everyone is focused, everyone wants both wars to end and peace to be restored. The world has capacity to handle conflict, a number of conflicts at the same time. We should not create the impression that the world does not have that capacity. And as David rightly mentioned, the combined GDP of the coalition that stands for Ukraine and for the world order is much, much, much bigger than Russia and its partners or those who stand behind Hamas, including Russia. So we do have resources. We do have the capacity. We seem to have the will. What we have to do is to put the will into action. Questions? Yes, sir. A question for Lord Cameron. When you're having meetings at Davos at the moment and speaking to other world leaders, is what's happening at home with the Rwanda Bill, an embarrassment to Britain on the world stage? And just secondly, on asset sieges. Where are most of the Russian assets frozen currently? And which of our partners do you most have to persuade on the points that you've made? On the second point, on the assets, I mean we can get you the figures, but there's a substantial amount in the UK, but there's an even bigger amount in Europe, actually specifically in Brussels because of what's tied up in Euroclear, but we can get you the statistics. 180 billion. What I'd say is that there's different legal opinions about the best way to do it, but there are lots of legal opinions that it can be done. And so that's the work that's being done. On the first, I would say quite the contrary. I would say, to be frank about this, the problem of illegal migration is a problem every country is having to deal with, particularly countries in the west. And I would say there are, if you like, two sorts of politicians. There are those politicians that realise if you want to deal with this problem, it's absolutely fine to talk about dealing with backlogs of asylum seekers, which we're doing. It's absolutely fine to talk about smashing criminal gangs, which we're doing. It's absolutely fine to talk about the collaboration you're going to have with neighbours and partners, which we are doing. Even providing the money as well as collaboration. But unless you're prepared to do something that stops this trade in human beings, that means that if you take a boat from one perfectly safe country, France to another perfectly safe country, Britain, unless you're prepared to say that if you take that boat, you won't be able to stay in the country. Unless you're prepared to do the innovative thinking, the out-of-the-box thinking, then you are a politician that has got nothing to say about solving this problem. And I would say that what Rishi Surak and what the government is doing is yes, it's quite unorthodox in some ways, but it's necessary to do this out-of-the-box thinking to break the model of this appalling people smuggling, which is not just something that totally undermines the migration system in the UK. It costs so many people their lives. We've seen this week another four people drowning in the freezing cold water of the English Channel on a January night. We've got to stop this. And so I think, as I say, you'll find lots of politicians here who've got lots of things they want to do, but if they're not prepared to stop the boats, if they're not prepared to make sure that people who arrive from a perfectly safe country can't stay, they're not going to solve the problem. And I think there's a growing understanding for that. As I talked to leaders from places like Italy and Austria and elsewhere, there's a growing understanding that we have to take some of these novel steps if we really want to stop this trade. And that's exactly what that bill is all about. Yes, sir. Question also for Lord Cameron, John Paul Ford Rockhouse, from The Daily Mail. Just on Rwanda again, Paul Kagame said today here at Davos that there are limits for how long this can drag on. So are you worried that unless this is resolved in the UK that the whole plan may fall apart anyway? Second question also Lord Cameron, you mentioned the UK economy doing well now. Do you admit that you were wrong back in 2016 to worry as much and warned as much as you did about what would happen to the UK economy after we left Brexit and hasn't Brexit actually been a big success? First of all, on resolving the situation. Look, the Rwanda bill will have its third reading tonight in Parliament. I'm confident it will be passed. We have signed this new treaty with Rwanda, which puts beyond doubt that there are no dangers of asylum seekers being sent back to the country from which they came if they genuinely are asylum seekers, the principle of reformal. So I think that is important. And also in response to the Supreme Court judgment, there's a huge pack of information that's been published about actually what Rwanda is like as a country in terms of refugees. And I would just point out that Rwanda actually hosts schools that have relocated from Sudan. It hosts people that have relocated from Afghanistan. I think there are over 100,000 people who've claimed asylum who are living and working in Rwanda. But of course we want to see this resolved. That's what the bill, that's what the treaty, that's what the process is all about. As for life post 2016 and more particularly life post November 2023 when I came into post, I'm very clear that look, we made a decision as a country through a democratic referendum, which I promised a full two years before an election, we held that referendum, we're bided by the result of that referendum. I've often said this that the country's made its choice and our job now is to make that choice work. And I think what we're demonstrating is that Britain is a country that is perfectly capable of making a relationship work where we are friends and neighbours and partners to the EU and we can make a success of that. And I think actually our engagement with Ukraine is a classic example of this. I was delighted when in Ukraine that Britain was described really as the number one partner. And we do that in partnership with EU countries. But it's a good example as it were of how we are small enough to be nimble in our help for Ukraine and how we've got out in front of others and really done things that have helped. But we're also big enough to matter. We are the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. We have some of the finest defence forces in the world, one of the best diplomatic networks in the world, one of the biggest aid budgets in the world, which I'm responsible for. And we make those things count in our relationship with countries like Ukraine and in the way we work with the EU. Ffarran Sotri, David Cameron, and Ffarran Minister for Labour. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. Thank you.