Israel: Arab Citizens

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I too am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for tabling this debate and for his robust and excellent introduction. It is also a timely debate, because this is a critical time for the peace process. The Israeli Arabs are profoundly affected by both lack of progress and the escalation of tensions. The right reverend Prelate is quite right when he says that inequality and discrimination against Israeli Arabs is a justice issue which must be seen in the context of civil rights. After my Question on Palestine last week, I was accused by some people of being anti-Israeli. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Steel, I am not anti-Israeli: I am a friend of Palestine; I am a friend of Israel; but I am not a friend of the current Israeli Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, was right to raise wider issues about the despicable treatment of Christians and other minorities in Arab countries, and, indeed, we do debate these issues. I know that all noble Lords recognise the vulnerable situation of Israel, which in so many ways is an extraordinary country. However, as a friend of Israel it is right to be critical of Israel.

For a minority population in any country, there are issues of integration while retaining identity and culture. However, it must be extraordinarily difficult to be an Israeli Arab facing discrimination not only by the day but also, at the moment, when the Government are building settlements encroaching on areas that do not belong to them and when the Government are occupying their land.

The issue of Israeli Arabs—or perhaps, like my noble friend, I should say Israeli Palestinians—is a crucial political dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Palestinian Arabs who are citizens of Israel should have the right to continue to live in their homeland without inequality and discrimination.

As an aside, while watching the BBC news last night about Syria and all the refugees, I thought it was right to remember that some of those coming out of Syria are in fact Palestinian refugees who are now twice refugees.

On the settlements, noble Lords will be aware of the anti-boycott law passed by the Knesset in 2011 that imposes sanctions on any individual or entity that calls for an economic boycott of Israeli settlements in the West Bank or of Israel itself. This is a controversial—indeed, shameful—law that offends against basic human rights. Human rights organisations have clearly stated, as is obvious, that it targets Israeli Arabs. At the time the law was passed the Knesset legal adviser warned that the legislation was “borderline illegal”, but of course it went through notwithstanding. The High Court has recently asked the Government to explain within four months why the controversial law should not be cancelled. We look forward to further consideration of the case, which is of great importance to Israeli Arabs.

The declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 says that the state will,

“ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex”.

Yet there are so many instances of deep discrimination, about which we have heard today. The picture is depressing from the outside, intolerable for Israeli Arabs and demeaning for the State of Israel.

For example, with regard to employment, Arab and Jewish Israeli men suffer from unemployment at similar levels. However, on average Arab men earn 30% less than Jewish Israeli men. Among those employed, as has been said, Arabs are under-represented in various sectors of the economy, including business, public administration, banking, insurance, finance and high-tech, but as a result, while Arabs constitute approximately 20% of the population, they contribute only 8% to Israel’s GNP. If we look at this in an economic context, the Israelis are missing out.

The gap has grown since the 1990s when the Israeli economy began to move away from a reliance on agriculture and textiles and towards innovation and high-tech, but the state does not invest in the education and life chances of Israeli Arabs. In secondary education, a pupil in the Jewish system receives on average 2.01 teaching hours a day compared with 1.75 hours in Arab education. That is not right.

However, there are beacons of light, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Janner and others. I would draw the attention of noble Lords to Hand in Hand, an organisation with which I have had some association in the past and which I had the pleasure of visiting in Jerusalem. Hand in Hand operates a network of bilingual Hebrew-Arabic schools where Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel study together. There are five bilingual schools in Israel of which three are operated by Hand in Hand, and it will continue to build communities and open new schools to provide as many Israeli children as possible with the option of an integrated top-quality public education. However, increasing the number of bilingual schools in Israel is a challenge due to the geographical separation between most Jewish and Arab towns.

The British Council in Israel has backed several language projects, including Hand in Hand and English language communication and training for NGOs. Perhaps I may ask the Minister if there is anything else our Government can do to support these schools further. They are hugely beneficial to the students, who learn tolerance and strike up lifelong friendships, but they are also important in bringing parents together, who in turn foster understanding within their communities. I would say in passing that I am a great supporter of integrated education in Northern Ireland, and I know that Hand in Hand works together with integrated schools there. There is much that could be learnt by each of the two communities.

Many noble Lords have mentioned land distribution and planning, which is an area where Arab citizens suffer the most severe deprivation. There have been some initiatives to improve the situation, but land shortages have created the problem of illegal construction and resultant demolition orders. The frustrations caused by that must be mighty and are exacerbated by the proliferation of settlements. The Arabs see their houses being torn down, whereas the settlements are growing.

I can well understand that Arabs have served as elected representatives in the Knesset since Israel was founded, and they also sit in Israel’s powerful Supreme Court, but notwithstanding that, we must be honest about the lack of rights for Israeli Arabs and the intolerable discrimination that they suffer. The Israeli Government are taking action to combat inequalities, but not nearly enough. The commitment of the current Israeli Government to the needs of the Arab population was apparently affirmed after they were elected in 2009 with the establishment of the Authority for Economic Development of Minorities which aims to tackle socioeconomic gaps between the Arab and Jewish communities. But words are meaningless if they are not followed by action and radical changes in practice.

In March 2010, the Israeli Government launched an initiative that allocated £135 million to develop employment, provide housing solutions, improve access to transportation, empower human capital and increase personal security and safety, but again, that is not enough. These initiatives are welcome, but they do not counter the systemic inequality and discrimination that is suffered by Israeli Arabs. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what action the Government might consider they could take with our European partners, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Warner and the noble Lord, Lord Steel. We cannot just sit back and talk about discrimination, we have to take some action.

I understand that Israeli civil society is working to advance equality through, for example, the Abraham Fund Initiatives, which seeks to advance coexistence and equality between Israel’s Jewish and Arab citizens. It runs the Language as a Cultural Bridge Initiative in co-operation with the ministry of education. But while this is welcome, much more action must be taken. I wonder if civil society in Israel is talking to civil society in Northern Ireland because so much was done about inequality there as a consequence of action taken by civil society.

Health inequalities are unacceptable, as has been said, but I draw attention to the wonderful Hadassah hospital where Arabs and Jews are treated together by Arab and Israeli doctors and nurses, everybody working together, putting the patient first. There were some real insights recently in a magazine when some of the staff were interviewed: they said that it is a learning process for all. These people, who live totally separate lives, when they come to work start to understand the differences between their communities. A credible peace process is the best way to ensure that Israeli Arabs can continue to live in their homeland without discrimination and inequality. However, they cannot wait for a two-state solution which grows ever more distant. A peaceful Middle East needs a strong Israel living side by side with a strong Palestinian state, but Israel can be truly strong only if it is tolerant within and without and if all its citizens have equal rights in practice as well as in theory.

Palestine: United Nations General Assembly Resolution

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Lords Chamber

Tabled By

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Palestinian Leadership in the light of the outcome of the debate on the Resolution on the status of Palestine within the United Nations at the United Nations General Assembly on 29 November.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, like all Members of this House, I believe that the two-state solution is and must be the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; that is, a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and with a just, fair and agreed settlement for refugees.

However, as both the Foreign Secretary Mr William Hague and my right honourable friend Mr Douglas Alexander have said countless times over the past few weeks:

“Time is running out for a two-state solution”.

The news that Israel has seized more than $120 million of the tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority has made the situation much more dangerous, as has the announcement that Prime Minister Netanyahu has authorised the construction of 3,000 new homes and settlements and the speeding up of 1,000 existing planning permissions. Indeed, the UN Secretary-General has said that this could be,

“an almost fatal blow to remaining chances of securing a two-state solution”.

Last week, there was a massive vote at the UN General Assembly in favour of Palestine moving from an observer entity to an observer state at the United Nations. There were 138 nations in favour, including France and Spain; nine against; and 41 abstentions, including the United Kingdom. This was a strong global signal in favour of an independent Palestinian state. It also happened to reflect the views of the British people: 72% of respondents in a recent YouGov poll said that they were in favour of recognising the Palestinian state, and only 6% were against. Ephraim Sneh, a former Israeli Deputy Defence Minister, said before the vote that,

“Abbas’s statehood bid can be a game-changer if the American and Israeli governments respond prudently. Or it can be another missed opportunity—and a potentially disastrous one at that—if they respond punitively to a remarkable Palestinian achievement at the UN General Assembly”.

Sadly, prudence has been abandoned by the Israeli Government.

We strongly believe that the British Government were wrong not to support the Palestinian resolution. It is one of the steps to achieve and negotiate a two-state solution. The fact that we abstained was an abdication of responsibilities to both the Israeli and Palestinian people, most of whom wish to live in peace. The vote was also an important means of demonstrating support for President Abbas, crucial at any time but especially in light of the most recent conflict in Gaza, in which the power and influence of Hamas were enhanced. The Palestinians not only wanted Palestine to be recognised as a state—a prerequisite, I suggest, for a two-state solution that is impossible when only one side is recognised as a state—they also wanted a strong leader. They, like the world, wanted tangible proof that diplomacy works better than rockets.

In the House of Commons last week, Mr Hague said that Government relations with President Abbas were excellent. Indeed, I hope that they are. However, I wonder what the Palestinians think of our position now that the feared retributions have begun. I have no doubt that the Middle East will be a priority for President Obama in his second term of office. However, the UK’s abstention will not have helped—quite the contrary—and it will have diminished our position as a global leader in the eyes of the world.

Before the vote, the Foreign Secretary said that recognition at the UN risked paralysing the peace process, but for far too long there has been only paralysis and no process. There has been continued settlement building, and continued rocket attacks, but no process. I utterly condemn the rocket attacks from Gaza. Like many parliamentarians, I have visited Sderot and spoken with the Israelis whose lives are blighted by rocket attacks—and constant fear. However, I have also seen the settlements, which I utterly condemn and which are against international law. Each house built entrenches the Israeli occupation of Palestine and makes Israel and its people less, rather than more, secure.

Last week’s announcement that some of the new construction would be in E1 has alarmed the global community. E1 is a five-square mile controversial development on the outskirts of Jerusalem that would partly divide the West Bank and would hugely complicate efforts to create a contiguous Palestinian state. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has called it,

“the worst slap in the face of a US President”.

I welcome Mr Hague’s comments that:

“Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and undermine trust between the parties. If implemented, these plans would alter the situation on the ground on a scale that makes the two-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, increasingly difficult to achieve”.

Mr Hague is absolutely right. I understand that Israel’s ambassador has been called to the Foreign Office for a meeting with Alistair Burt, the Minister for the Middle East. Clearly this is the right thing to do, but it will not undo the damage done to Britain’s standing on this issue as a consequence of its misguided abstention. The Minister will know that there has been much press speculation today that our ambassador in Tel Aviv could be withdrawn. I would be grateful for clarification. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had on this issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, the EU’s High Representative?

It is said that Mr Netanyahu is taking these actions with one eye on the elections in January. I suggest that the crisis in the Middle East is too important for the area to be used as a political football. Indeed, it is terrifying. Then, of course, there are the tax revenues, collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, which Israel has refused to hand over and which it will review on a monthly basis. This punitive action is intolerable and again exacerbates tensions and frustrations rather than enhancing the safety and security of Israel. In the past, when Israel has frozen the monthly revenues of the Palestinians it has resulted in the late payment of salaries for thousands of public servants in the West Bank and Gaza.

I wholeheartedly condemn violence but is it any wonder that the level of anger is heightened when men and women can no longer provide for their families? These tax revenues are not gifts to buy treats; they are moneys owed to the Palestinians on which they rely for their day-to-day existence. I would be grateful if the Minister would say what representations the Government have made to the Israeli Government on this critical matter, and what discussions they have had with Secretary of State Clinton.

I have no doubt that the Saudis and other friends of the Palestinians in the Arab world will do what they can to assist financially. This would be an understandable and welcome short-term solution for the Palestinians, but it cannot be sustainable for any of the parties concerned, including Israel. I wonder what the British Government will do on the issue. For the past four years there has been a near-total cessation of terrorist activity in the West Bank, partly as a result of co-operation between the Israel Defence Forces and the Palestinian security forces, organised by Lieutenant General Keith Dayton’s team. However, if the Palestinian economy collapsed as a result of external economic pressures, the situation could easily be reversed and Israel would become even more vulnerable.

The vote in the UN last week demonstrated that the world wants a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: a two-state solution in which both states live in security and with dignity. Whereas recognition of Palestine as a state by giving it observer status at the UN is a positive step forward, the subsequent announcements by the Israeli Government are a deeply worrying development that could jeopardise hopes for peace. The UK’s ill judged abstention at the UN was supposed to secure continuing influence with Israel, but there is little evidence of that strategy working. I now urge the Government to co-ordinate their actions with European partners so that further steps can be taken to help ensure that Israel complies with international law and demonstrates a commitment to peace. Most urgently, I trust that all efforts will be made to ensure that Prime Minister Netanyahu hears this message loud and clear when he meets Chancellor Merkel in Berlin on Wednesday.

Syria

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Baroness raises an important matter. We have heard some suggestions that the Syrians have indicated that they would not be using these chemical weapons, certainly in relation to their own people. However, going back to the foreign ministry spokesman’s threats made, sadly, in July of this year, he said they would be prepared to use them against external aggressors, as they call them.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I note the very firm answer given by the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Wright, about the use of non-lethal weapons. I noted in the newspapers that the Prime Minister was very moved by his visit to the refugee camp, as one would be. Will a Statement be forthcoming on the Prime Minister’s visit, because I wonder how things will move on as a consequence of that visit?

[Baroness Warsi]

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister visited a refugee camp on the border between Jordan and Syria yesterday. He made some important points—first, in relation to a potential exit for Assad, that this country would not offer him asylum but we would not stand in the way of any other country offering him asylum, which could bring the violence to an end. Secondly, we said that we would engage more with the opposition, including the armed opposition, with a view to taking forward some political agreement. Thirdly, we committed additional funds of £14 million to the humanitarian relief efforts, which brings the UK total to just over £53 million.

Bangladesh: Human Rights

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, must thank the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, for initiating this important debate. Following discussions with some Bangladeshi friends at the beginning of September, it was an issue that I, too, intended to pursue, but I am very grateful to the noble Lord for doing so. These are matters of great concern to many people in this country, including the diaspora, many of whom are not only concerned about individual cases but are deeply ashamed of what is happening in their country.

This debate also provides me with an opportunity personally to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, to her new post. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was an excellent FCO Minister and I put on record my personal appreciation of his diligent work in the Lords at all times. However, I know that the noble Baroness will herself do a splendid job.

Of course, we celebrate the fact that Bangladesh is a democracy—albeit a fragile one—and there are some good things happening in the country, not least the empowerment of women thanks to the Grameen Bank, which now has projects in Glasgow and on the west coast of Scotland. That is an interesting development in our north-south relationship. We have much for which to thank Mr Yunus, who I believe is a very fine man.

However, this afternoon, we have heard some very disturbing facts and figures about torture, murder and enforced disappearances, including of politicians. Indeed, we have heard of some horrific cases of torture leading to death. This is an intolerable situation in any country but especially in a democracy which is a member of the Commonwealth. The rule of law should be an integral part of any democracy, especially in a country that is part of our Commonwealth family. These are the actions that one might associate with a lawless, despotic state, not a 21st-century democracy.

As we have heard, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other human rights organisations believe that there is a pattern of enforced disappearances in Bangladesh, with the abduction and persecution of specific groups of people seeking to protect vulnerable groups or running opposition party campaigns. It is clear that human rights defenders, trade union activists, student activists and opposition party members have been targeted, and it appears that Bangladeshi security forces have been involved in the disappearances—particularly the Rapid Action Battalion. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I question whether it is any longer appropriate for us to provide training for the RAB, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

I understand that the Bangladeshi Prime Minister pledged to ensure that extrajudicial executions would be stopped, but the killings and disappearances continue. Indeed, there have been 216 deaths just this year. As my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, there is a culture of impunity no matter who is in power in Bangladesh, and that must be stopped.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, drew attention to the violence against minority communities in Bangladesh. For example, more than 20 Buddhist temples and monasteries and at least one Hindu temple, along with scores of homes and shops, were set on fire during attacks in the southern cities of Cox’s Bazar and Chittagong earlier this month, according to Amnesty International reports.

The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, spoke of laws that have been passed to protect minority communities and to ensure the empowerment of women. However, these laws have to be implemented, and the action of government forces, with the culture of impunity, is counter to the laws that have been passed.

I was interested to learn of the assurance given by Sheikh Hasina to my right honourable friend Ed Miliband. I will discuss that with him to see how we might ensure that the next elections really are free and fair and bring about the necessary changes in Bangladesh.

What discussions are we now having with the Bangladeshi Prime Minister and his Government bilaterally, at EU level and through the Commonwealth to ensure that these abominable practices cease? What progress has been made since the noble Lord, Lord Howell, answered the Oral Question from my noble friend in May?

The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, quite rightly drew attention to the development aid that we give to Bangladesh. While I would certainly not wish to put the poorest people in Bangladesh in harm or to jeopardise their futures, I wonder whether there is any way of linking human rights to the future provision of development aid.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby spoke of the excellent work of Christian Aid in capacity-building, among other things. Although I recognise that our aid will be targeted at the poorest people, I very much hope that it also includes capacity-building, because the poorest people need that in order to be empowered. Therefore, I hope that we are able to support the work that Christian Aid is doing.

I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said about the war crimes tribunal and the invitation to him and Members of this House, and I very much look forward to the answer from the noble Baroness. Like the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Harris, I would also be interested to learn whether the UN working party on disappearances has been invited to Bangladesh. If not, we should encourage Bangladesh to issue an invitation and, together with our European and Commonwealth friends, put pressure on the country to ensure that the working party is invited in to do the work that it really must do to ensure that there are no further disappearances and to find out what has happened to those people who so tragically have disappeared.

Syria

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for repeating the Statement on Syria made earlier in the other place by the Foreign Secretary.

If anyone was in doubt as to the seriousness of the situation in Syria, a simple examination of the facts should be enough to convince them of the scale of the horror that we are witnessing. The conflict in Syria has been raging for 15 months. The death toll is now estimated at more than 15,000. As the Minister has today told the House, two weeks ago, the village of al-Houlah was the scene of one of the worst reported massacres. United Nations observers on the ground have confirmed that at least 108 people were killed, including 49 children and 34 women. I join the Minister in praising the work of UN monitors in attempting to document those events. They have been repeatedly shot at and obstructed in trying to carry out that important task.

This is not some historical conflict; it is unfolding in real time, documented on television screens and YouTube footage, so I welcome this opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s response. Fifteen months on, instead of approaching its end, if anything, in recent weeks, the conflict seems to be entering a new and bloodier phase. The Assad regime continues to show utter contempt for the value of human life, perpetrating a violent and brutal crackdown on innocent people across Syria, for which the regime must ultimately be held to account

However, expression of revulsion in response to that slaughter is not enough. Let us be candid and admit that the international community is dangerously divided in its response to the conflict and that division is drastically hampering the effort to stop the violence. The point of consensus for the time being is the Kofi Annan peace plan, but by any reckoning, the UN-backed plan has so far failed to bring an end to the violence. Do the Government think that increasing the number of monitors and boosting Mr Annan’s resources would improve the prospects of that plan succeeding?

To date, the Annan plan has been judged to be the only option on the table, but, as the Minister rightly said:

“The Annan plan is not an open-ended commitment”.

What are the time limits and tests for the Annan plan? How much slaughter is required before the international community acknowledges that the plan has failed and begins to formulate an alternative means of ending the crisis? Of course, further diplomacy is needed if the divisions in the international community are to be overcome, but the difficulty of the task must not detract from its urgency. What is the Government’s assessment of the recent judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, who is in his place, our former high representative in Bosnia, who said of the Government’s strategy for dealing with the crisis:

“I don’t think that is wise diplomacy”?

As the Annan plan is currently not working, the challenge is to ask what beyond the Annan plan can be done, even accounting for the divergence of views in the international community. There are several steps short of military intervention that should be considered to sharpen the choice facing the Syrian regime.

First, on the financing of the regime, without a comprehensive oil embargo in place, Syria is still able, in principle, to export oil to countries outside of the EU and US. What discussion has the Foreign Secretary had with the Government of India, who do not have bilateral sanctions in place and who have allegedly recently been approached by Syria to purchase Syrian oil? The Syrian regime is also still able to import diesel from countries such as Venezuela, which allows the regime to sustain its military operation, including tanks, through such foreign imports. What is the likelihood of a comprehensive oil ban being agreed at the UN and, failing that, what pressure have the Government put on countries considering trading with Syria in that way?

Secondly, there is the security situation and support for the opposition. There are steps that, without breaching the arms embargo, could alter the realities on the ground, such as blocking the communications of Assad’s forces and choking off his remaining finance by neighbours such as Lebanon enforcing the Arab League sanctions which they have previously agreed.

The Syrian military is one of the key pillars still sustaining the political regime in Syria and the newly appointed head of the SNC, Abdel Basset Sayda, was right to call for mass defections from the regime in one of his first statements since taking control. What is the Government’s assessment of the present rate of such defections, and what steps can be taken by the international community to encourage and facilitate them further? Does the Minister agree that more should be done to publish internationally the names of any officers ordering atrocities as a clear signal of intent that they will face the full force of international justice for their crimes? The Minister mentioned al-Qaeda as operating in Syria. What is the British Government’s view of the scale of that activity?

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to Russia. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether he believes that the Russian position is likely to shift significantly in the immediate future as the situation deteriorates further? I welcome, too, the Government's comments on the Friends of Syria group and news that a further meeting of the group is planned. Alongside that group, how effective does the Minister think that an international conference on Syria—as has been suggested by Russia—would be, and does he share our concern that it may simply allow the regime to play for time?

The Minister said that the Prime Minister intends to raise the issue of Syria at the G20 in Mexico. In the light of statements from a Chinese Minister earlier today that the situation in Syria should not be on the agenda at the G20, can the Minister give us the Government’s assurance that they are taking all the necessary steps to ensure that appropriate time is found to discuss it?

The Minister says in the Statement that if the Annan plan is not implemented, the UK Government will argue for a new and robust UN Security Council resolution aimed at compelling the regime to meet its commitments under the plan. How will the British Government endeavour to shift the view of Russia, in particular, to allow for agreement in the Security Council for the passing of such a resolution?

The scale of the humanitarian crisis is growing by the day. The Foreign Secretary talked at the weekend of the British Government having committed £8.5 million to help alleviate the humanitarian situation. This morning, the Times newspaper reports that a group called the Union of Free Syrian Doctors is questioning that commitment and says that help for doctors trying to get medical supplies in through Turkey has come only from a one-off donation by France and from private individuals. Can the Minister use this opportunity to clarify that case? Finally, what thoughts have been given to creating large humanitarian enclaves for civilians—safe areas in countries such as Turkey or Jordan?

All of us in the House have the same objective. We want the violence ended and the Syrian people free to decide their own future. In the 1990s, the world failed to act to prevent a genocide in Rwanda. The Foreign Secretary warned at the weekend that the bloodshed resembles that of Bosnia in the 1990s. Within weeks of the conflict starting in Bosnia, thousands of refugees were herded into concentration camps and suffered appallingly at the hands of the Bosnian Serbs. Those crimes were broadcast around the world at the time, just as the slaughter in Syria is being relayed on our screens today.

In Bosnia, it took three years and the massacre of 8,000 people at Srebrenica before a bombing campaign led to a peace settlement. Despite the best efforts of Kofi Annan, no effective diplomatic response to this crisis has yet been agreed by the international community. After Rwanda and Bosnia, we said never again. The coming weeks and months will determine whether the international community meant it.

Syria

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 28th May 2012 Lords Chamber

Tabled By

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the United Nations statement this weekend, what steps they plan to take to help end the conflict in Syria.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we are outraged by the appalling events in Houla and have condemned these in the strongest possible terms. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made clear that we are working with international partners to make the Annan plan work. This aims to bring an end to the violence and drive forward a political process in Syria.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I share the outrage expressed by the Minister. The massacre was appalling and deplorable, and it is difficult to find words to express the revulsion at the slaughter of vast numbers of innocent people, including 49 children and 39 women. UN condemnation is welcome but it is not enough. What is the Government’s assessment of the potential changes in policy by the international community following the clear change of position by the Russians, both at the UN and in discussion with the Foreign Secretary?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness is quite right that words are difficult and certainly condemnation alone is not enough. She speaks about the change in the Russian position. It is perfectly true that Russia has joined in condemnation of these revolting events—as all civilised and responsible nations must do—but the question goes beyond that, to whether the UN Security Council is prepared in a united way to take a variety of further actions, including referral to the ICC, tougher sanctions and other pressures. That requires the support of the Russians and the Chinese in the UN Security Council.

My right honourable friend is in Moscow and has had discussions this morning with Mr Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Various views have been set out by Mr Lavrov, and discussion continues internationally about exactly what happened and precisely who is to blame. But we are quite clear that the Annan plan, requiring an immediate laying-down of weapons on both sides and action by the Syrian Government to withdraw their heavy weapons and tanks from all the areas they have been bombarding, is an essential step to taking this forward. The key is to get agreement in the United Nations Security Council, and the key to that is what my right honourable friend is working on at this moment.

Iran

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement on the EU, Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, made in the other place by the Foreign Secretary.

We on these Benches welcome the extensive international engagement in this policy, especially from our European partners, but also from other long-standing friends and allies. I was, of course, pleased to learn of the announcement by the Australian Foreign Minister this morning. Will the Minister outline how much support this policy has managed to garner at international level, particularly from Russia, China, India and Japan? The ban by Russia and China on supplying military equipment as well as training and maintenance is very welcome, but will the Minister say what assurances they are giving that this will be continued, and what influence they are exerting on Tehran to ensure a more responsible attitude from the regime?

On the diplomatic front, we have seen reports that at a meeting in Moscow on 18 January, Russian officials presented the Iranians with a proposed framework for negotiations with the P5+1, probably based on Russian proposals made in August. Can the Minister inform the House of any response the Government have received from Russia? The Government and the EU have rightly made it clear that we have no quarrel with the Iranian people. Before the Arab spring, we had the green movement in Iran, in which we saw huge numbers on the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities seeking reform. Although this protest was barbarically repressed, it showed the considerable public alienation in Iran from the regime. In that light, what assessment have the Government made of the state of public opinion in Iran and of divisions in the political elite? What weight do the Government give to the threat by Iran to attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz? Do the Government intend to participate in any international naval task force to keep the strait open? What agreement have the Government obtained from other P5 countries for such action as well as from those in the Gulf? What reaction has there been from other countries in the Gulf to the threat to the Strait of Hormuz? Given the defence cuts, can the Government guarantee that vessels could be made available for such operational activity?

The policy position as set out yesterday by the former Leader of your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lady Ashton, in her capacity as the EU’s high representative on foreign affairs, is undeniably correct. However, there is no doubt either that the crisis in the Gulf could further weaken worldwide economic growth, so can the Minister outline the reaction from the main oil-consuming countries in Asia, which have a high dependence on Iranian oil, to the policy of a ban on crude oil imports from Iran and—this is almost as important—the export of refined products back to Iran? Given the disproportionate effect that these necessary sanctions will have on the vulnerable economies of southern Europe, will the Minister indicate what measures are being taken to protect them?

Finally, in the event of a crisis in the Gulf having a material impact on the world economy, what indications have the Government had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in such circumstances contingency plans are in place to deal with any economic effects? The position in the region, the attitude being struck by Iran and the economic impact of any implementation of the threat by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz are unquestionably serious. Your Lordships’ House and we on these Benches look forward to the Government continuing to keep this House fully informed.

EU: Integration

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not know about my noble friend’s remarks on referenda. There is a case for them on certain occasions, as the Government have made clear. However, the broader issue she described is not very different from what we had in the past. This nation and several others are not members of the eurozone; others are. There is absolutely no reason why we should not co-operate very closely with those who are in or out of the zone in what is in effect a multi-speed Europe, as long as we recognise that we work together in a co-operative pattern within the Union to address constructively the very dangerous challenges from the outside world.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that there are dangers with a two-speed Europe, and that if a inner eurozone were to be created, it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom to be present at all discussions that took place within that eurozone, even if we were not at the table?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Again, I do not necessarily believe that it would be a sort of inner and outer pattern or that the inner zone would necessarily move at a faster speed than the outer. After all, as someone pointed out to me, if you want to get around Paris you go on the Périphérique and not through the middle. So it may not be quite like that, but obviously we want to be closely involved in the evolution of the European Union and its refashioning, to quote my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and we certainly will be. One of the things we should discuss together, not just bilaterally between London and Brussels but in the interests of the whole Union, is a more balanced approach as to the powers and competences between the nation states and essential EU authorities. That, I gather, is also the policy of the Labour Party.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, I think we do, and we have to address the fact that, on the Bosnian side, the formation of a Government has been very slow and stumbling, with the largest parties in effect excluded, so there is a very weak situation. That is quite aside from the Republika Srpska side, where, as we have recognised in the past few minutes, a policy is being pursued which, if pushed through to a referendum as proposed, would lead to a direct challenge to the whole Dayton structure. Do we need to move rapidly? Yes, we certainly do. Do we need to support the EU new strategy, including a new figurehead to work alongside the Office of the High Representative? Yes, we do. Will we do these things? Yes, we will.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that in the longer term the only way to guarantee peace and stability in this region is to ensure that all countries are able to meet the Copenhagen criteria and that they are welcomed into the European Union?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is certainly so. Obviously, the aspiration is there for the west Balkans to be part of the European Union in due course. Unfortunately, there are a number of very important conditions, and the noble Baroness is absolutely right to point to some of them. These immediate concerns that we are discussing need to be addressed; it is a question of consolidating the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and preventing its breaking down into the old rivalries. Beyond that comes the prospect of the west Balkans joining the European Union, which we should certainly work for.

Middle East and North Africa

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating for this House the Statement made by the Foreign Secretary on the Middle East and north Africa. We on the opposition Benches join him in supporting the Gulf Co-operation Council initiative to resolve the crisis in Yemen and to achieve a peaceful political settlement. I also associate these Benches with his remarks regarding the continued need for focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, indeed, on the review of the European neighbourhood policy.

Every Member of this House will have been appalled by the recent reports of government violence and repression in Syria. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the number of UK nationals who are in Syria at present? How many are in the southern city of Deraa? It has been reported that 5,000 soldiers and seven T55 tanks entered the city on Monday and attacked the protestors. Have the Government had any discussions with our European Union partners about working jointly, as we ended up doing in Libya, eventually, on contingency plans to try to help to get our people out if the need arises? Of course, I fully support the condemnation in the Statement of the actions of the Syrian Government.

It was only a few weeks ago, on 27 January, that the Foreign Secretary travelled to Damascus to meet President Assad. From these conversations, how likely do the Government judge it that President Assad will heed the Foreign Secretary’s calls for restraint and reform? I welcome the Minister’s statement that work is under way at the United Nations, but can he provide a more detailed analysis of what progress is being made regarding a statement and/or a resolution from the Security Council? In particular, can he outline what financial sanctions and freezes are being discussed at UN or EU level to make clear the international community’s condemnation?

In a statement this morning, the Foreign Secretary said:

“There needs to be accountability for the deaths that have occurred”.

What discussions have been entered into regarding the investigation of accusations of crimes against humanity and the call from Human Rights Watch for an official commission of inquiry? Finally, given the strong lead that the Arab League showed in relation to the unacceptability of Colonel Gaddafi’s actions, what diplomatic work is being done across the region to marshal unified condemnation of these actions?

While news has subsided slightly regarding Bahrain, the reports of the arrests of opposition figures, deaths in custody, allegations of torture and the denial of medical treatment are extremely concerning. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of the political reform process initiated by King al-Khalifa? Can the Government also tell us what recent discussions they have had with Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who, it has been reported, has been close to reaching agreements with the protestors? Britain’s historically close ties to Bahrain should give us all the more reason to be clear and unequivocal in our urging for reform, not repression, as a response to popular protests on the islands.

We join the Minister in commending the brave service of our forces in Libya while the House has been in recess. The specific operational steps announced by the Government during that time—providing telecommunications, body armour and 10 military advisers —each had an operational rationale reflecting the new realities on the ground. Although we understand the rationale for these steps, will the Minister now update the summary of the legal advice previously provided, to cover each of the announcements that have been made during the Recess?

The ad hoc and unco-ordinated manner in which the Government steps were announced, rooted in no clearly articulated plan, has, we fear, served only to increase public anxieties, although in truth none of them is likely to significantly affect the strategic situation in Libya. As things stand neither Benghazi nor Tripoli appears likely to fall imminently to either side. Can the Minister give the House a fuller assessment of the present military situation? I ask this because the spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office stated this morning, in summarising the Foreign Secretary’s report to Cabinet colleagues earlier today, that we need to prepare for the long haul. Yet, on the Foreign Office website, there is a press release, published this weekend, entitled: “Foreign Secretary denies claims of stalemate in Libya”. The situation on the ground led the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, to observe on Friday that Libya is “moving towards stalemate”. What information or insight does the Minister possess about military progress that apparently has not been shared with America’s most senior military figure?

That brings me to the question of political objectives and the military mission. On 21 March, speaking of Resolution 1973, the Prime Minister told the other place:

“It explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/11; col. 713.]

However, in the Times on 15 April, the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the United States and France said,

“so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds”.

Would the House be correct in understanding the language of this article to mean that, in the view of the British Government, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 cannot be enforced without Gaddafi’s departure? Given the explicit commitment to maintain NATO operations so long as Gaddafi remains in power, is a Libya free of Gaddafi now a political aim—one, incidentally, shared on all sides of the House—or a military objective of the British Government?

Can the Minister further explain whether, following this joint statement, American fighter aircraft have been once again engaged in ground assault operations and whether this statement of aims has led to any significant alteration of the US force posture? Can he be clearer on the means by which the Government seek to achieve the outcome that they seek? It is vital to do so not simply to ensure that the Government address the real concerns at home and abroad; crucially, it matters also to convince Gaddafi’s henchmen that there is a credible strategy in place to ensure that his brutal attacks on civilians will not prevail.

We seek as broad a coalition as possible for these efforts and, in that spirit, I add my welcome for the addition of Italian fighter aircraft to the mission, as we heard announced today. Can the Minister update the House on the precise number of EU, NATO and Arab League countries that are respectively participating in the military operation? What efforts are being made to expand those numbers further? Do the Government believe that the contact group is proving agile and effective enough to direct the mission?

Does the Minister agree that the comparison made last week by the Defence Secretary between the present mission in Libya and the Afghanistan campaign, where, a decade on, we have about 11,000 troops in theatre, not only ignores the different order of the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its supporters but needlessly threatens support at home and abroad for the mission? In the light of that comparison, can he assure the House that no personnel or equipment will be redeployed from Afghanistan to Libya, given the continuing national security threat being confronted in Afghanistan?

The Government are acting in Libya for principled reasons, but that does not remove our obligation to look at practical questions. On the rebels, can the Minister update the House on whether any further information has come to light regarding possible al-Qaeda involvement? Amid talk of the long haul, it should not be overlooked that Resolution 1973 contained a number of diplomatic measures and non-military powers designed to maintain the pressure on and isolation of the Gaddafi regime, including sanctions and embargoes. What further progress has been made on this front, in particular to put the financial squeeze on the Gaddafi regime?

From these Benches, the Opposition remain steadfast in their support for the enforcement of the United Nations Security Council resolution. That decision, implemented with professionalism and bravery by both our own and our allies’ armed services, saved the 700,000 residents of Benghazi from a grim fate. The continued threat of murderous slaughter in Misrata shows why NATO forces still need to be in the skies over Libya, but we are not and should not be deaf to the anxiety in the country about Britain’s present and future role in the Libyan mission. Therefore, as the Opposition, we urge clarity and coherence from the Government’s side so as to maintain support for this mission at home and abroad.