Mediation, Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding
Lord Bates Excerpts(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Hastings. He is the last of those who could be accused of remaining silent in the face of injustice. He has been at the forefront of so many cases and I agree very much with what he said, including his words about Dave Beasley, with whom I had the privilege of working, when I was Minister of International Development, at the World Food Programme. He did immense work there.
I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for initiating this debate. No one in this place has done more over the years than him to advance the agenda of stopping wars and saving lives. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for the work that he does not only in this place but, as we heard in his introductory remarks, around the world. I place on record my interest as qualified mediator with the International Mediation Institute and I serve as an officer with the All-Party Group for Sudan and South Sudan.
Peace-seeking and peacemaking are never popular. In the short term, everyone wants to be a Churchill; no one wants to be a Chamberlain. Yet, in 1954, Winston Churchill became so deeply concerned about President Eisenhower’s refusal to talk to his Soviet counterpart amid rising tensions that he went to the White House to tell the President publicly that
“jaw to jaw is better than war”.
Eisenhower listened and agreed to hold talks which temporarily defused the tensions.
Often, we are unable to meet jaw to jaw on our own and we require an intermediary, a trusted mediator or a mediating institution to bridge the gap and facilitate the dialogue. When both sides are shouting, no one is listening. Mediation does not compel us to agree with our enemy, but it does require us to listen to them, and they to us, and for both sides to do so respectfully.
I recall being the most junior of bag-carriers to the Security Minister in the Northern Ireland Office in 1994, when messages were being received about a possible ceasefire. But the experiences of the terrorist atrocities, the lack of trust and a deep suspicion meant that we could not bridge that chasm on our own. It was not until President Clinton sent, as a gift, Senator George Mitchell as an envoy to Northern Ireland later that year that we had someone who would stand in the gap for us and form a bridge for mediation that led to the Good Friday agreement. There was nothing weak about negotiating that agreement—it was done with huge political and personal risks by all those involved—but it saved hundreds, if not thousands, of British lives.
It is so much easier to throw a brick or build a wall than it is to build a bridge, easier to raise a fist in vengeance than it is to extend a hand in forgiveness. That is easy for me to say—I have never lost family members in war or been a victim of violence. Erich Fromm, on the other hand, was a German Jew, one of the greatest psychoanalysts of the last century. He was living in Frankfurt when the Nazis came to power. He narrowly escaped the Holocaust, but members of his family did not. He had every reason to be filled with self-righteous hatred and judgmentalism. But instead, he wrote a small book, The Art of Loving, which I will quote some of here today:
“The lack of objectivity, as far as foreign nations are concerned, is notorious. From one day to another, another nation is made out to be utterly depraved and fiendish, while one’s own nation stands for everything that is good and noble. Every action of the enemy is judged by one standard—every action of oneself by another. Even good deeds by the enemy are considered a sign of particular devilishness, meant to deceive us and the world, while our bad deeds are necessary and justified by our noble goals which they serve … The faculty to think objectively is reason; the emotional attitude behind reason is that of humility”.
In a world where nine men have at their fingertips enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on this planet many times over, our only hope is human reason. But Erich Fromm reminds us that reason is built on objectivity and humility. The capacity to reason is that we see things not as they are but as we are; where we sit determines where we stand. We do not see the whole picture, we may be wrong and our enemy may even have a point. Let me illustrate this: I follow Newcastle United Football Club.
Lord Bates (Con)
Thank you. As you can tell, I am an optimist. Even my blood group is B positive, and that helps. But when I am at St James’ Park, watching a game from the stands, the minute one of our players just trips over a shoelace in the opposition box, 50,000 fans rise as one to call for a penalty for such an obvious and devious foul. Yet when the opposing player is flattened by big Dan Burn in our box, the crowd rise as one to call it a clear dive that deserves nothing but a yellow card for simulation. But when I watch the game at home on TV, I see multiple different perspectives replayed endlessly in slow motion and from every angle. We have them assessed by a referee and a linesman, and independent commentators, and we see things differently, perhaps more objectively.
The point is that we live in a Westphalian world of sovereign independent states where each state is its own referee. We call events as we see them, but then so does everybody else. We believe we are right, but then so does everybody else. We believe our actions are just, but then so does everybody else. It is a system designed for chaos and conflict. Yet, with our incredible human ingenuity, we have designed mediating institutions to compensate for our human weakness, chiefly the United Nations to act as a bridge between sovereign states and within states to maintain order and over which they can seek to mediate their differences. When we uphold the United Nations, we are upholding international order. When we attack or undermine it, we are destroying the critical infrastructure on which the very future and hope of civilisation depend.
I believe it is no coincidence that today we are seeing armed conflicts at their highest levels since 1946, when at the same time great power rivalries are undermining the United Nations at every turn and cutting its budgets. In international relations, as in life, you get what you pay for. Global military spending last year was $3 trillion, 1,000 times the budget of the UN. The entire peacebuilding budget of the United Nations to respond to 65 active armed conflicts around the world is $124 million, less than the cost of a single modern fighter jet. We could mediate an entire peace process for less than the cost of a single cruise missile.
Moreover, we are blessed in this country with some of the most skilled and respected diplomats in the world. The convening power of London is second to none. We are a soft power superpower, but that superpower is hard power. We have also been the beneficiaries of patient mediation ourselves in Northern Ireland, and that imposes an obligation on us to repay it by mediating for others.
It is also in our own enlightened self-interest to do that. Around three-quarters of those arriving in small boats in this country are from areas of conflict abroad. We are more secure at home when there is peace abroad; we are more prosperous too. Peace is the greatest generator of prosperity humans have ever discovered, and war is the greatest cause of poverty. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor told us yesterday that they are seeking opportunities to invest for growth. My message to them is simple: invest in peace.
Official Development Assistance
Lord Bates Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, when I saw the noble and learned Lord’s name on the speakers’ list, the Henry VIII element came to mind from previous occasions taking legislation through this House. He makes a pertinent point about legislation, but I assure him that we are looking specifically at our obligations under the Act and we are of course taking advice in this respect. I am sure that in due course, we will be able to provide further detail on the return to 0.7%.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, British taxpayers can take immense pride in the fact that their funds have helped to save the lives of over 1 million people in the last five years alone, most of those children. The fact that this budget is now being reduced means that tens or hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost. It is a life-or-death issue, and I know that my noble friend cares as much as any of the rest of us about the consequences of these difficult decisions which need to be taken. I will mention just one, and in doing so record my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on WaSH. Over 50 million people have depended on UK Aid for clean water and sanitation, which are crucial during the current Covid pandemic. Does my noble friend agree that it would be inappropriate if WaSH programmes were disproportionately impacted by the overall reductions in the aid budget?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I recognise the important role that my noble friend has played and continues to play on the development scene, in particular in a specific number of programmes and through his role as co-chair of the APPG on WaSH. Having visited projects in the field, I know the importance of the WaSH programmes. As I am sure my noble friend recognises, that is why we continue to work with the likes of Unilever and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. I can also assure him that I am working directly, notwithstanding the challenging reductions we have had to make, with all key agencies of the UN to see how we can optimise the work of multilateral organisations through the UN and indeed complement them through our bilateral programmes in country. The WaSH programmes provide a very good example of what can be sustained and retained, and indeed of prevention of the spread of further diseases and viruses, as we have seen throughout the pandemic.
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Lord Bates Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have to disagree with the noble Lord. I accept that the treaty the right reverend Prelate talks about has noble intent but there are existing mechanisms, treaties and obligations that have ensured the decline in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Indeed, with the treaties that we are part of and the partnerships that we have forged, since the end of the Cold War we have seen a 50% reduction in our own arsenal. While respecting the right reverend Prelate—and, of course, all noble Lords in this House—on this occasion I do not hold the same view.
Lord Bates (Con)
I welcome my noble friend’s confirmation that it has never been the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to have the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons but to seek a world free from all nuclear weapons. This is stated in the national security strategy, set out in pillar 2 of the non-proliferation treaty and stated in the first resolution of the UN General Assembly, held 75 years ago this weekend across the road in the Methodist Central Hall. How could my noble friend use this anniversary to advance our declared ambition of the complete elimination of all these weapons of mass destruction before it is too late?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure my noble friend, who speaks with a great deal of insight and expertise in this area, that we remain very much committed. Our commitment to our obligations and our adherence to the rules-based system of international law and the treaties that we are part of will ensure the very objective he seeks and I seek as well.
Sanctions (EU Exit) (Consequential Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Lord Bates Excerpts(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
We will now take a short break of a few moments to allow the Front Bench teams to change over safely.
Treaty Scrutiny: Working Practices (EUC Report)
Lord Bates Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I call the next speaker: Baroness Goudie.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
If we cannot reach the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, we will go to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) (V)
My Lords, the three reports we are considering today—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
Baroness Bowles, I do apologise. Can we can just pause for a moment while we try to reconnect with the previous speaker?
Baroness Goudie (Lab) (V)
Thank you, my Lords, I am so sorry: I forgot to unmute. I welcome the reports of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on the setting up of the new committee. I tend to agree with a number of my colleagues that it ought to be partly made up with Members of the House of Commons. Further, we must talk and be involved with the devolved Parliaments. This is very important, particularly in respect to Northern Ireland.
I am a member of the European Union Security and Justice Sub-Committee, where we have been looking at a number of these issues over the last 12 months. I wish to concentrate today on the final recommendation of the committee report Scrutiny of International Agreements, which draws attention to the fact that the CRaG Act applies only to international agreements that are binding under international law. This leaves a scrutiny gap because it excludes scrutiny of both political agreements and agreements with non-state entities. Important examples of political agreements excluded from scrutiny are memoranda of understanding, which are the same as treaties in terms of political commitment.
Paragraph 71 of the report highlights
“Air Services Agreements, which had been treaties between the EU and third countries”
but, as part of the Brexit process, have been converted into memoranda of understanding and not published. Air service agreements are important in facilitating international, commercial air-transport servicing and granting economic bilateral rights. These agreements have been around almost as long as flight itself. This scrutiny gap must be plugged. Proper scrutiny must not be circumvented. The committee’s recommendation is helpful so far as it goes, but it is too weak in asking only for consideration to be given. There are likely to be further examples of EU treaties under third countries being replaced by UK arrangements with those countries.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Lord Bates Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord, a former PUS to what was the Foreign Office, that I have already given a commitment to the 0.7% target. Yes, global Britain is about our development leadership and our diplomacy, and the FCDO brings the two together.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. She is not there, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Boateng.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, poverty and hunger are fuelled by instability and conflict. Will the Minister give the House the assurance that the new department will work closely with the Ministry of Defence in addressing those issues, that there will be adequate funding—indeed, an increase in funding—for that, and that it will be subject to scrutiny by this House and the other place to ensure aid effectiveness?
China
Lord Bates Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. That concludes the Hybrid Sitting on Oral Questions.
Rwanda
Lord Bates Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I should declare an interest as I was Aviation Minister when we gave landing rights at Gatwick to RwandAir, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Popat as trade envoy. The issue of slots at Heathrow is very much a matter for Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd, but we regard our relationship with Rwanda as a strong one; indeed, only yesterday I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda about preparations for CHOGM 2021.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now come to the third Oral Question, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.
Fly-tipping
Lord Bates Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
There has been an increase in the number of people who have been brought to justice on the back of fly-tipping, and that increase has happened year on year, so I think that we are heading in the right direction. In 2018-19, local authorities in England dealt with over 1 million fly-tipping incidents—an increase of 8% from the year before. Nearly two-thirds of that involved household waste but a very small component, around 3%, involved industrial-scale disposal of waste—of tipper lorry-load size or larger. Therefore, I think that the legal framework has been strengthened and it seems to be taking us in the right direction.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We come to the second Oral Question, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury.
The Situation in the Gulf
Lord Bates Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the second point, I shall write to the noble Baroness. We are reviewing all our military assets. “HMS Montrose” has been deployed for a while in the region; “HMS Duncan”, on arriving, will immediately take over the operations of “HMS Montrose”.
On how we further bolster military assets, we are looking at that carefully. It is directly linked to the noble Baroness’s first question, on the operability of the current scheme. I can assure her that we are working closely with colleagues, particularly our French and German colleagues, to see how quickly we can make this proposal operational. The noble Baroness will have heard in the Statement the series of steps that we have taken. We continue to work with the maritime industry and are keeping it informed. On the commercial side, I stress again that any ship seeking or planning to navigate the Strait of Hormuz should inform us in advance so that we can provide all appropriate protections. That includes working with our key European partners in the region.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I was initially concerned about the Statement, in particular the contacts made by the Foreign Secretary over the weekend. It mentioned eight countries, with Iran’s Foreign Minister making it nine, but not India. I was significantly more encouraged by my noble friend’s response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. Can he confirm press reports in India that, of the 23 crew, 18 are Indian citizens? If so, does he accept that India is a critical Commonwealth partner for us in resolving this dispute, not only because it has so many of the crew but because of the strong historical and cultural ties between India and Iran and because India is the third largest consumer of oil and one of the largest receivers of gas and oil through the Strait of Hormuz? Could India not be an important partner in mediating a peaceful resolution to this dispute?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with my noble friend. I reassure him that we have reached out to our Indian counterparts as part of wider engagement on this issue. We wish to ensure that anyone who can help de-escalate the current tensions is fully engaged. I agree with my noble friend also on the strength of our relationship with India, historically, currently and into the future, and on the importance of its presence in the region given its bilateral relationship with Iran. For all those reasons, India has an important role to play in de-escalating not just the current crisis but further tensions in that region.