BBC World Service

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I heartily endorse everything that my noble friend, with his considerable experience, rightly says. The World Service is an immensely powerful network for soft power and for underpinning and promoting the values for which we all stand. Everything that he says is right.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

Does the Minister agree that in these very unstable times there is a clear need for unbiased and independent news and information, which is uniquely provided by the BBC World Service? Does he also agree that a 25 per cent cut will inevitably lead to challenges that the World Service will find difficult to meet? That is what is being proposed and it is an unacceptable threat to the world’s most respected broadcaster.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I certainly agree with the first point that the noble Baroness makes. Indeed, one wants to see a well funded and effective BBC World Service, but she has to recall that under her Government a substantial cut was imposed as a result of the fall in the value of sterling, which must have hurt a lot. Under the cuts announced on 22 June by my right honourable friend the Chancellor, the BBC World Service has to make a modest further contribution and—I have to say, given the appalling financial situation that we have had to unscramble and are still unscrambling—there will be further spending-round cuts. That is unavoidable and we will all have to share them.

Human Rights: Journalists

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I will do my best to do that, but a number of the approaches are informal and some are continuous. Some have had an impact, as in Mexico, where we have had a lot of co-operation with the Mexican Government. Of course it is their concern, but they have welcomed our help in meeting the horrors of the assassination of journalists and other killings that have taken place.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My noble friend Lord Judd is right to raise these important issues. Is the Minister aware of the murder of a well known and respected Rwandese journalist, Jean Rugambage? Many NGOs and others are claiming that he was a victim of the current clampdown on the independent press and media in Rwanda in the run-up to the presidential elections. Can the Minister assure the House that strong representations have been and will be made by the UK to the Rwandan Government on the need for freedom of expression and freedom of the press?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness is right to raise this. Our embassy engages regularly with the Media High Council of the Rwandan Government and a range of journalists in Rwanda. We are very concerned not only about the case she mentioned but also about the reduction in media freedoms over recent months, including the closure of two independent media outlets and the BBC Kinyarwanda service. We have raised these concerns with the Government and, I should add, we support training for journalists working on both sides of the Rwandan/Democratic Republic of Congo border. These matters assume an additional and critical importance for us because Rwanda is now a member of the Commonwealth.

Chagos Archipelago

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the declaration of the marine protected area did not cost anything, but by implementing a no-take fishing zone, the British Indian Ocean Territory's Administration loses between £800,000 and £1 million of revenue which they would have got from the sale of fishing licences. That revenue used to go towards the cost of maintaining a British Indian Ocean Territory patrol vessel for surveillance duties, and so on. The annual cost of running that vessel is about £1.7 million, including fuel costs, so the costs not offset by the fishing licence loss were met by subsidy from the overseas territories programme fund. The short answer to the noble Lord is that we need to find an additional £800,000 to £1 million, and the overseas territories division is in discussion with a number of foundations and charities which have offered to meet that requirement for a five-year period.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, I acknowledge the merits of marine conservation, but does the Minister agree that the MPA has caused considerable tensions, not least with our close allies, the Government of Mauritius? Will he respond positively to the expressed desire of the Mauritius Government for the dialogue initiated by their Prime Minister and Gordon Brown to be continued as soon as possible by the current Government? Would he be prepared to meet representatives of the Chagossian community in the UK?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, under the previous Government, of which the noble Baroness was a distinguished member, there were some difficulties about the consultation continuing. It began, but then problems arose on the Mauritian side. We remain happy to talk to the Mauritian Government at any time about the marine protected area, but if it takes us into the broader issue, on which the noble Baroness touched in the second part of her question, of the Chagossians’ right of return, all I can tell her at this stage is that the new Government are looking at the whole pattern of issues raised by the British Indian Ocean Territory's situation. I will certainly communicate with her and your Lordships as soon as possible on that issue, but I cannot say more today.

Nuclear Posture Review

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am not quite sure that this relates directly to what we are discussing at the moment, but I note what the noble Viscount said.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, the Government’s approach to the future of Trident is central to any nuclear posture review, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, intimated. Will the Minister tell the House how the strong preference of one of the coalition partners for alternatives to Trident renewal will be taken into account in a future review scrutinising spending to ensure value for money?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

There will be a review, as undertaken in the coalition agreement, and the coalition partners will be free to express their views, as they have said they will. I have no doubt that there will be a very healthy, realistic and sensible analysis of the situation, but the overarching commitment is that, however we organise the matter, there must be a constant-at-sea deterrent that works, rather than one that does not work or costs a lot more money and involves a lot more missiles, as some alternatives would.

Latin America

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, first, I add my words of warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Liddle. As many other noble Lords have said, he has enormous experience, knowledge and understanding, which he clearly showed in his very impressive speech today. I have known my noble friend for many years and in many lives, in British politics and in the European Union when I sat in the European Parliament. I certainly know and admire his intellect and his total refusal ever to deviate from the fundamental principles and priorities that have guided his political life. I am sure that his parents would have been extremely proud of him in maintaining that strong position on values and principles in what he said. I know that he will bring all of that knowledge and experience to our work in this House.

To state the obvious: Latin America is a continent, as others have intimated. This excellent debate, instigated by the indefatigable and noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, has again made clear that the variety of developments and interests which we have tried to cover is limitless. Indeed, it would be unwise for anyone to try to cover the spectrum. I will therefore limit my remarks to considering some of the salient and most recent developments in Latin America. One of those has been the interest and commitment shown by the Obama Administration in that continent. On her latest—indeed, her seventh—visit to Latin America as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said:

“If I told you 10 years ago that the leaders of the United States and Europe would be taking some well deserved advice on economic management from some of our Latin American counterparts, many people would not have believed me. But today, many of the region’s governments have navigated steadily and responsibly through the global economic crisis and are on their way to recovery”.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred particularly to the importance that we should attach to building a really strong relationship with Brazil. Time magazine recently named Lula da Silva as one of the world’s 100 most influential people. By 2050, Brazil will be the world’s fourth largest economy—and that will bring with it enormous diplomatic clout.

In the past 20 years, Latin America has gone through extensive political, economic and social change, but simultaneously with that social change taking place, as we have seen, the centre of global gravity has steadily moved to the east and the south. Now we know that we cannot ignore the power and influence of the emerging economies of Latin America—or, of course, emerging economies in other parts of the world. As others have alluded to, the continent contains a mix of ideologies. There is both market orthodoxy and a subscription to what many leaders would choose to call 21st-century socialism, but because of that situation it is not possible to make generalisations about the economic success or otherwise of countries in Latin America. The reality is that of the 15 most unequal countries in the world, 10 are in Latin America. The continent has endured two centuries of deeply entrenched inequality, which is of course not easy to change.

It is a continent which has been defined, too, by its commodities. It has a huge number of valuable commodities: gold and silver, coffee, copper, coal—and now oil, the black gold. In the past 10 years, the important changes that we have seen and the improvements in economic performance are directly related to the income generated by those commodities. Latin America exports many of those commodities to the European Union—again, many noble Lords have described that situation—but the European Union is the biggest investor in the region, with Spanish corporations leading the field.

The EU is also Latin America’s second largest trading partner after the United States. However, not many noble Lords have described China’s involvement in Latin America, which would be appropriate as it is fast catching up on issues of trade. Many European companies participate in banking and privatised services such as electricity and gas, as well as in mining and other export sectors. Negotiations with Mercosur have been referred to. This has stalled over a number of years for many of the reasons described by noble Lords, but the other reason given is the pending Doha decision, which it is felt prevents any progress being made.

Does the Minister believe, as I do, that more needs to be done about our relations with Latin America? I accept that in the past there needed to be and in the present there needs to be a bolder and more innovative approach to Latin America. We need to change and adapt to the evolving circumstances that we see there. These are critical times, particularly since the United States is clearly ratcheting up its interest, and when China has had such an important role as a trading partner. Interestingly, China’s huge hunger for commodities has done more over the decades than western aid and countless Marshall plans have been able to do.

All the fine words need to be fleshed out by the European Union and the United States as well as the UK. We need more joined-up thinking—we need to get our act together and to think more coherently. For instance, as members of the European Union we need to pay more attention to the emphasis that Brazil and other emerging economies are placing on what is called south-south diplomacy. They are not looking to the north for diplomatic contacts; they are looking for their southern allies to work with. In my view, they are punching above their regional and international weight in an unprecedented way. Brazil has recruited hundreds of new diplomatic staff and is strengthening relations with China, India, Russia and South Africa. Brazil now has more diplomatic missions in Africa than does the UK and, with other emerging economy allies, is crucial to making progress, as many noble Lords have said, on climate change, trade and financial regulation. It seeks a seat on the Security Council and argues that the UN must, sooner rather than later, reflect the make-up of the modern world. Would the Minister care to comment on these Brazilian aspirations? Does he agree, too, that progress has been made by a number of burgeoning Latin American democracies, which should be more positively recognised? P5 members such as the United Kingdom must be ready to respond that all permanent members and nuclear powers now face new and unprecedented challenges.

Another country to touch upon, as other noble Lords have done, is Venezuela. We take note of the purchase of £4 billion worth of Russian weapons and the Chinese loan of £20 billion. Those are surely clear reasons to up our game in Latin America at a time when its new allies are preparing to pour in still more dollars.

Noble Lords will be aware that a growing number of Latin American countries are making serious attempts to tackle some of the human rights abuses that have been raised by many noble Lords, including impunity, and to recognise increasingly that peace and reconciliation depend on truth, justice and reparation. Six countries in Latin America now have comprehensive laws on violence specifically against women, covering domestic violence, community and state violence. However, violence against women and girls remains endemic in many countries in Latin America and discrimination against women, according to Amnesty, still lacks vigorous discrimination. Meanwhile, discrimination against the indigenous people continues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has said. They face intimidation and harassment across the whole continent. However, Bolivia has made substantial progress, including the elevation of indigenous jurisdiction, making it equal to current judicial process. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, pointed out, in many ways that country is making a great deal of progress.

Would the Minister clarify what the UK position is on the European Union trade agreements with those countries, particularly Columbia and Peru, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury? Will the Government insist, as the noble Lord asked, that there be consultation with and ratification when appropriate with the Parliaments of those countries? Will there be subsequent monitoring of any clauses relating to human rights and environmental protection? These are important points; the commercial interests are important, but they have to be seen in tandem with the leverage that it gives us on human rights.

In conclusion, we all know the stereotypes of Latin America have been transformed, but there are still structural constraints on economic growth and on political and social systems, which are in need of radical overhaul. There is insecurity stemming from the narcotics and arms trades, but this House should agree that partnership and engagement are the only way forward.

Gaza Flotilla

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. My thoughts, like those of the whole House, are with the families of those killed or injured aboard the “Mavi Marmara”. I shall attempt to keep my remarks brief to maximise the time available to hear the views from the Back Benches and to give Back-Benchers time to express their views on this tragic and deeply vexed issue.

Will the Minister give assurances that every effort is and will be made to ensure that there is safe passage to freedom for all those detained by the Israeli authorities? The UK, as the Minister has said, is in a strong position as a member of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union. I therefore seek assurance from him that the Government will continue to press for the lifting of the blockade on the people of Gaza, which is the only way in which to provide a long-term solution and meet the pressing humanitarian needs of the people. Does the Minister agree that, in line with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, all access for all humanitarian and reconstruction aid should be allowed? I very much welcome the comments on this issue from the Minister, but we want to hear that that resolution will be taken into account in its entirety in the deliberations of the United Nations.

Will the Minister confirm that there is full support from the Government for the EU’s call for a full investigation? Does he agree that such an investigation can be full and credible only if it is independent and international? That is an extremely important point. We should not be fobbed off by the notion that, if it is conducted by the Israeli authorities, we can be assured of that independence and international input into the report.

Today the Irish-registered MV “Rachel Corrie” is sailing towards Gaza. On board is a former United Nations deputy security secretary-general and a Nobel laureate, Mairead Corrigan. The Irish Foreign Minister, Michael Martin, has demanded that the vessel should reach its destination unimpeded. Will the Government give active support to the call made by the Irish Foreign Minister?

All violations of international law should be dealt with thoroughly and speedily. It remains the case that laying siege to a whole population is untenable, callous and tragic, and that should be addressed by Israel and the international community. Storming a ship carrying aid is proof, if proof is needed, of the need to end the blockade. All efforts now must focus on building that peace and security which that troubled region so needs.

Korean Peninsula: “Cheonan”

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, we are taking all the steps that we can to bring the Chinese along. We would obviously like their support, but there are difficulties. The statement from the Chinese leader that he would not protect those who did this raised hopes but, thereafter, the Chinese went rather ambiguous and are now not prepared to apportion blame. That is the problem and where we are now.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, I, too, add my welcome again to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his new role. I shall pursue the Minister on the ICC. The UN special rapporteur for North Korea has called for strong UN action. He said that a commission of inquiry should be set up on crimes against humanity in North Korea and he called for serious consideration of the need for an indictment of individual members of the regime. Does the Minister agree with that position? What action will the coalition Government take in pursuit of those objectives?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, I agree. The Government would be concerned to see that any criminals, or those accused of war crimes internationally, were properly charged, where they can be reached by the jurisdiction of the ICC. There is a difficulty, given that Korea has not signed up to the ICC, which is why we feel that the commission of inquiry may be some way down the road, as it is a difficult thing to get started now.

Queen's Speech

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on his appointment as Minster of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He has a long personal and political record of commitment to international understanding and security and, while we might strongly diverge about aspects of policy, I am certain that he is decently and patriotically motivated. I wish him well in his new duties.

We are now confronted by a national coalition Government, a condition that our British gift for understatement compels us to call “interesting”. Nowhere is the contrivance more intriguing than in foreign, international development and defence policy. Time forbids detailed examination on this occasion, but some points irresistibly invite a little prying. To establish a general disposition, for instance, does the Minister retain the opinion that he expressed in this House just last November that the Liberal party’s policies are “boring and frankly incomprehensible”, or has the elixir of coalition now made them fascinating and perhaps pellucid?

More specifically, last week’s coalition agreement to,

“create new mechanisms to give British people a direct say in how an element of the aid budget is spent”,

patently sustains the Conservative policy of distributing aid programmes,

“in proportion to how many votes they receive”.

The Save the Children Fund describes that as development policy run like “The X Factor”. Since it is the coalition’s approach, what is to be the size and qualification of the electorate? What will be the method and duration of the voting? Will the balloting be financed, perhaps, from the aid budget? Indeed, will the returning officer by any chance be Mr Simon Cowell?

There are also concerns about the coalition’s commitment to introduce a new stabilisation and reconstruction force. The purposes of such a force in post-conflict conditions might appear worthy but development aid should not and must not be diverted to subsidising military operations. Security, development and humanitarian objectives must not be muddled. The proposal therefore begs the vital question: how would the force be financed—by new money, money from the MoD, or from DfID funds, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, announced last January? We need to hear the essential detail and now would be a good time to give it.

Similar questions arise about financing adaptation and mitigation efforts in poor countries to combat climate change: the Liberal party commitment to new additional money was clear, the Conservative Party was evasive, but no undertaking not to siphon off development assistance funds has come from this coalition. Can we therefore now have an undertaking that the coalition Government will not raid the DfID budget to fund climate change measures? May we also be assured by the Minister that FCO responsibilities will not be shuffled in a way which enables gaps in that ring-fencing around the DfID budget to be created? Since that budget must be sustained if Liberals and Tories are to fulfil their solemn promises of 0.7 per cent of GNI for development, will the Minister confirm now that the commitment will be enacted in legislation and not relegated to a parliamentary resolution?

I am very proud of the Labour Government’s sustained commitment to development, particularly to efforts to foster security and justice for women and girls. In too many parts of the world it is more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier. That tragic reality is the reason why Gordon Brown gave me the cross-departmental role of special representative on violence against women. I hope the new Government will also now give priority to tackling all gender-based violence. That would, I believe, have the strength of consensus in this House.

Time is short and I will have to leave Sudan, Congo, the Middle East and many other matters—including Afghanistan, where we all strongly support our forces and their mission—for future discussions in this House.

I therefore move briefly to the coalition’s perspective on the European Union. Overall, it seems to have more smoke than an Icelandic volcano and more mirrors than Versailles. First, I strongly agree with the call to fix the sole seat of the European Parliament in Brussels. In 15 years as a Member of the European Parliament, I repeatedly voted to end the Parliament’s costly and time-consuming odysseys to Strasbourg. However, that city was specified as a city of the Parliament in the Maastricht treaty agreed by Prime Minister John Major. Changing that would require unanimous agreement. France will never vote for it; neither will Germany. The coalition Government know full well—as anyone else in Europe knows—that it is not a possible objective.

Secondly, the referendum lock adopted by the coalition was described by Liberal Democrat leaders—when there were such people—as “nonsense, ludicrous and bizarre”. When all the member states have agreed that there will be no treaty change in the foreseeable future, we should also now call it redundant.

Thirdly, the coalition policy of introducing primary legislation to control any UK use of the European Council passerelle procedure, to which the Minister referred, is equally superfluous: apart from the veto, which would prevent the use of the passerelle, we have the 2008 Act which requires majorities in both Houses of this Parliament to permit UK support for a passerelle. In short, strict passerelle control already exists and everyone but the most obsessive of what Sir John Major would call “Euro illegitimates” recognises that.

On all grounds, assessment of the coalition's “consensus” on the EU shows it to be a series of tokenistic gestures made by the leaders of the coalition to mollify Europhobes in the Tory Party. The election debate description of those people and their new group in the European Parliament by the Deputy Prime Minister enjoys justified fame. Before that, the new Energy Secretary, Mr Huhne, had called them “wackos and weirdos” and perceptively added:

“You can tell a lot about a party by the company it keeps”.

Charity prevents me making the same observation about the company currently being kept by the Liberal Democrat party.

Ours is a world riven by economic and social division and menaced by crime, climate change, religious antagonisms, political hatreds and terrorising violence. It is a world overarmed with large and small weapons, rapaciously exploited, plagued by oppression in countless places and poisoned by distrust. That is why our foreign, development and defence policies must respond to these imperatives and must continue to focus on securing global equity, freedom and justice—the essential components of global stability and prosperity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gilbert]

My Lords, it is always a melancholy occasion to be a member of a party which has been defeated in a general election, but it is an experience I have had several times over the past 60 years. Therefore, I am slightly inured to it and there are always compensations, one of which is to see some of one’s old friends appointed to ministerial positions. Although I am not allowed to call them my noble friends in your Lordships' House, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever and Lord Howell, will acquit me of impertinence if I say that I like to think of them as great personal friends. I have always admired their patriotism, competence and courtesy. I wish also to extend that to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who is not in his place. It may surprise your Lordships that he was the man who frightened me most when I was at the Dispatch Box a few years ago, for reasons that I have no intention of disclosing.

I have to say that I am rather pleased with some of the ministerial appointments. I was delighted that our new Foreign Secretary made it absolutely clear that he thought that the special relationship was extremely important and that our best friends and closest allies were in Washington DC, which has always been my view and I have no hesitation in saying so. I know that in your Lordships’ House the mention of the special relationship can produce toe-curling embarrassment on the part of some of our euro-fanatics, particularly those who are closest to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am glad to say that it is alive and well.

I shall give an illustration. I have always said that the most important parts of the special relationship were invisible, and I still think that. They repose mainly in the relationships between our sets of intelligence services and our technical people and engineers—I am glad to see that the former Minister, my noble friend Lady Taylor, is nodding her head in agreement—which are of frightful importance to this country.

I will refer, if I may, to the quite quixotic remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, who, if I heard him correctly, was saying that we should get much closer to the French. I am glad to get his acknowledgment. I wonder if the noble Lord noticed what happened to a certain Admiral Blair in Washington last week. No? That is a pity. Admiral Blair was director of national intelligence in the United States until very recently, but he has just been fired. It is sad; he is a very able man. Why was he fired? There were a few reasons—there have been certain mistakes and imperfections in the intelligence services of the United States—but the thing that apparently provoked the final breakdown was that Admiral Blair wanted to introduce between the United States and France a system of agreement by treaty that neither would spy on the other, a system that the United States has with this country. The person who prohibited Admiral Blair from doing that was President Obama himself.

There are lots of people who like to say that our special relationship is a fragile thing, built on superstitious little icons. They love to jeer at the fact that Winston Churchill’s bust is no longer in the central office in the White House that the President uses. I do not know what the room is called—

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

The Oval Office.

[Lord Gilbert]

The Oval Office, is it? Thank you. Actually, the relationship between our intelligence services is rather more important than where Churchill’s bust is. The reason why Admiral Blair was not allowed to proceed is perfectly simple: the United States does not trust the French but it trusts us. There, I said it. That is the fact of the matter, and that is wherein reposes a considerable part of the special relationship. I am delighted that it continues to be in the forefront of Her Majesty’s Government.

I was pleased with the appointment as Defence Secretary of Dr Fox, whose Atlanticism is beyond question. I was also pleased with what the Prime Minister had to say on his visit to Europe.

Unfortunately, two of the three people who made the best speeches in today’s debate are not in their places, but I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, is. It always worries me when I agree so much with the noble Lord. I hope that I do not embarrass him when I say so, but on reflection I think I agree with everything that he said today, particularly his commentary on the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, makes brilliant speeches here of immaculate, impenetrable logic—I should say “irrefutable” rather than “impenetrable”—and I could not agree with him more. There is no place for British schadenfreude in what is going wrong in the Eurozone; on the other hand, that should not lead us in any sense to be prepared to give any more of the sovereignty of this House to European institutions. We should help them but we should remain fiercely independent. Thank God—this is one of the few things for which I am grateful to the previous Prime Minister—he kept us out of the euro.

I hope that there will be one change in this Government from what was the practice in the Government that I supported. When people went to see Mr Blair about defence expenditure, he would say, “You have persuaded me, now you have to go and persuade Gordon”—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has come in; I have been saying some nice things about him, but he can read about them tomorrow—to which the answer should have been, “No, Prime Minister, it’s your job to go and persuade Gordon”, but I am afraid that none of them ever had the guts to say that.

I shall say one or two things about the noble Lord, Lord Burnett. He gave a very good speech. I disagreed with only one thing in it: he seems to want to live in a nuclear-free world. I have no desire whatever to live in a nuclear-free world. I am very grateful that nuclear weapons were invented, that they were invented when they were invented and that they were invented by the Americans and not by the Germans. I have got that off my chest. If you like to think of a world without any nuclear weapons whatever—where no one has cheated—try living in Israel and see how comfortable you feel. I could think of one or two other places. As Jim Schlesinger says, nuclear weapons are in use every day of every year and they are keeping the peace. I, for one, was extremely glad when India and Pakistan both acquired a nuclear capability. The result we have seen: for the first time the Pakistani Army has been prepared to pull back considerable sections of its troops from the Indian frontier to go and deal with the Taliban threat in the north. You cannot ask for more convincing evidence of the stabilising effect of a nuclear bounce.