Source · Select Committees · Foreign Affairs Committee
Recommendation 3
3
Not Addressed
Paragraph: 17
Host governments engage Wagner Network due to perceived security benefits, furthering regime objectives.
Conclusion
Host governments and other non-regime actors must perceive benefits from engaging with the Wagner Network, because they consider it the most effective form of protection and security. There are examples of its fighters furthering a regime’s security objectives, even if this meant neutering political opposition.
Government Response Summary
The government's response begins by stating 'Disagree' but then discusses the importance of close coordination on sanctions with the EU and US, and later mentions travel bans, none of which directly address the committee's observation regarding host governments' perceptions of benefits from engaging with the Wagner Network.
Paragraph Reference:
17
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
Disagree. 16. The Government recognises the importance of close coordination with the EU and US to maximise the effectiveness of UK sanctions but strong coordination mechanisms are already in place. Since President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, we have ensured the close alignment of UK, US and EU sanctions policy. This increases the impact of our sanctions. 17. We have frequent working level engagement both between capitals, and through our dedicated sanctions attachés networks in our posts in Washington and Brussels, regarding all aspects of sanctions. In addition, we have established a quarterly bilateral format on sanctions with the EU to promote cooperation and coordination and set forward strategy. Similarly, we have recently established a UK-U.S. Strategic Sanctions Dialogue. On 19 July, senior UK sanctions officials attended the inaugural dialogue hosted by the US Department of State in Washington DC. Departments and agencies discussed priorities across geographic and thematic sanctions regimes, including Wagner. 18. As these mechanisms already enable close co-ordination on Wagner, we do not judge there to be a need for a further mechanism. We will, however, keep the option of a specific mechanism for Wagner under review. We further recommend that the Government prioritises introducing and enforcing travel bans for Wagner-linked individuals as a likely deterrent to involvement in the network, in particular working with Turkey, a popular holiday destination for Russians. Partially agree. 19. We agree that travel bans have some deterrent effect, as well as an impact on the operations and morale of those designated and their networks. Designations made under UK autonomous sanctions regimes involving a travel ban on an individual only apply in relation to the UK. The individual becomes an excluded person under section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971, meaning that they must be refused leave to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom. UK designations involving travel bans would therefore have limited, if any, effect on Wagner-linked individuals’ travel to Turkey. We will continue to discuss with our international partners possible sanctions or travel bans they could adopt, as well as other steps to hold the Wagner Group accountable and to counter its destabilising and destructive activities. PROSCRIPTION