Conflict, Stability and Security Fund

Earl of Sandwich Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, again raises questions of fundamental importance, and I pay tribute to him. Another role model for me on this subject was Lord Deedes. He was fearless in visiting countries like Mozambique late in life, and I wish I were more like him, still able to report on places of conflict—once my own profession.

Conflict is even more widespread today, as we have heard, and it is complicated by terrorism. There are 17 states rated highly fragile, so it requires even more people with spirit to understand it. But I content myself with following the affairs of just a few conflict and post-conflict states, including South Sudan, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Nepal. Today I will mention only South Sudan.

I admire the courage of the humanitarian aid workers, who continue to visit Juba following every crisis. However, the doctrine that, where people are suffering, aid workers should always rush in has to be re-examined. The White Helmets in Aleppo are today’s angels, and we admire them. But they live there and they know the scene, whereas we are sending so many aid workers to South Sudan who may need months to acclimatise. Besides the obvious dangers, they are also at high risk of personal attack—even murder and rape, as we saw in the Terrain hotel events in July.

The real question before us is whether the new Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which has £1 billion to spend, is really making a difference to countries like South Sudan. We are committing sizeable sums. We already have a £12 million four-year Community Security and Arms Control project, ending this year. The Minister may know whether it is being extended. Through the CSSF, we have spent almost £1.4 million on conflict resolution and reconciliation. Again, the Minister may know whether we are committing a further £1 million, despite the real risks to these projects.

I have a wider concern, which the noble Baroness may be able to deal with; I discussed it with her briefly. Terrorism is not new, of course, but the language of anti-terrorism is new. Since “9/11” and the “Axis of evil” entered the vocabulary, Governments have been able to pin the words “terrorism” and “security” to almost any conflict in the world. This affects the transparency that we have been discussing.

I am concerned that those who are responsible for aid budgets will also use these words to justify more protection of our own citizens and less protection of the citizens of the country in conflict. I can already see this happening in Afghanistan and north Africa, but it could extend to countries where there is no threat to the UK whatever. The Stabilisation Unit was an admirable exercise in joined-up government because it was intended to recognise what was already happening—the participation of three or more government departments. This meant that the FCO and MoD had access to aid funds, considerably increased following the 0.7% Act, for soft power projects and some of the EU’s missions to help manage migration. These seem fine in themselves but I suspect that as soon as “terrorism” and “security” are mentioned, the Home Office and Downing Street will also be involved, and there are wheels within wheels. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.

In South Sudan there has been another year of considerable strain on the mediators in conflict resolution, with endless negotiations in Addis running into the sand. I know aid workers who have very real doubts about returning to Juba to work. Even the most committed peacemakers must have wondered whether there is any point in propping up such a failing state indefinitely when theoretically it has enough oil revenue to support a standing army.

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which we all admire, is conducting a review of five conflict-affected states, one of which is South Sudan. I do not envy it, as it will be a difficult task. I have read through the criteria, and inevitably a high priority will be “fiduciary risk” and the awkward question of whether our aid is reaching its targets. I have noticed that this Government are paying even more attention to value for money and aid effectiveness, not least because of the more critical attitude of the new Secretary of State. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which was mentioned earlier, has also launched an inquiry, which we look forward to.

No one can argue with the proposition that aid should reach the poorest and most deserving. But in conflict states the risks are enormous, and it is inevitable that aid gets lost, stolen or destroyed. You only have to look at the ReliefWeb map of South Sudan to realise how many roads are now closed as a result of renewed civil war. Only local knowledge will ensure that aid is moved safely. DfID is well aware of these risks and we must be sure that Governments, the Joint Committee and ICAI itself understand the circumstances and background of each conflict, which is always unique.

Any talk of stability in countries like South Sudan is premature. I do not have time to go into other countries, but Afghanistan, the DRC, and even Mozambique are post-conflict countries still in transition, where DfID can still work effectively. In Kosovo and Nepal, which have moved to relative peace, there has been considerable success with development projects in such areas as the rule of law, human rights, forestry and other projects. Yet both countries have a serious background of ethnic cleansing and civil war, and for them a return to stable, democratic government as we know it is still a long way off.