Burma

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Bob Stewart

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

We did not make a specific engagement within that process, but we learned from DFID that the Northern Ireland experience was seen to be of some value and relevance. We obviously have to be careful not to assume that what happened in Northern Ireland is automatically transferable, but some kind of understanding of how we get beyond entrenched conflict to a situation where communities can start to work together is clearly useful, and the justification for supporting Jonathan Powell’s organisation was that he had some experience of doing that. The right hon. Gentleman may have a subjective view on how valid that is, but it seemed to us that this was well-received by the Burmese who felt it helped them to think about how to stop hating people and start working with those who were enemies, and that seems to be of some value.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the report. Bearing in mind the situation in Egypt where the military have had real problems in giving up power, will he give us his candid assessment of the chances of the Burmese military ceding power to a democratic Government in the near future?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

That is a very good and fair question and we took a lot of evidence, ranging from people who felt the military would never let go to others who felt the pressures on Burma to open up were so intense that the reforms that have been started could not be reversed, although their progress will, I think, be uneven and bumpy. All I can say is that the authorities representing the military who we met looked to the Indonesian model as the way forward—in other words, a gradual move away from military control through the building of civilian capacity. But I guess that the day when the military is subservient to Parliament is a long way off.

Security of Women in Afghanistan

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Bob Stewart

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) for securing this timely debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to happen. I feel privileged to be taking part.

As important as this debate is—and it is very important —we should not overestimate our ability to influence cultural change within Afghanistan just by speaking in this Chamber; the challenge is much bigger than that. Fundamentally, the change will have to come from people within Afghanistan whom we can support.

In January, Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch said:

“Afghan women are all too well aware that international donors are walking away from Afghanistan.”

As the Secretary of State is in her place, I am sure that she will want to make it clear that that is not the case with Britain. Indeed, the longer and deeper our commitment is, and the more that we talk about it, the better we will be able to support those in Afghanistan who are working for change.

Reference has been made to the visit the International Development Committee made to the country in 2007—we also visited it 18 months ago—in which we had a robust meeting with President Karzai. He was challenged on the rights of women. Specifically, we talked about the fact that more than 80% were beaten by their husbands and other male family members, and that those who fled violent relationships were jailed while the perpetrators of the violence had immunity from any sanction.

At the end of the exchange, Mr Karzai said that we had to understand that Afghanistan was a conservative country with its own values. He said that the last ruler who challenged those values was the king who was assassinated in 1929, and Mr Karzai did not want to repeat that example.

In an article in The Guardian last month, Nushin Arbadzadah warned of the challenges. She said that

“the idea that we could empower Afghan women by making them aware of their individual rights was preposterous and bound to fail from the inception. Anyone who has spent even two days in Afghanistan knows that individualism as a concept does not exist there. The idea that we could treat women as a separate entity, legal or political, and disconnected from their family was flawed from the start.”

She said that those who fought for those values were likely to do so perpetually and in isolation. In her conclusion, she said:

“Afghanistan’s patriarchal clans have survived leftist coups and rightwing wars, becoming the only source of stability in a society constantly in turmoil. To dismantle their power would amount to freedom not only for women but also for men. But to reach that end, we need more than the rhetoric of individual rights imported from the other side of the planet.”

That is a sobering article. We feel angry and we state our case, but we must realise what we are up against. Very often, it is women, and not just men, who are oppressing women, and not supporting them when they stand up, which is why I agree with my hon. Friend that the role of men is important too and that we need to be part of it.

[Bob Stewart]

It is not only the role of men that is important, but the men themselves. They are the people who drive the change, and we must put all our efforts into making them understand and be more enlightened, in our way of thinking, towards their women.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

Of course I accept that, but we should not underestimate the challenge. That is why we need to work with local women and women’s groups and accept the way in which they want to achieve change and support them.

Our second report on Afghanistan, which was published 18 months ago, said:

“The treatment of women in Afghanistan after troops pull out in 2014 will be the litmus test of whether we have succeeded in improving the lives of ordinary Afghans over the last ten years.”

We urged the Government to prioritise women in their programmes, especially on education, supporting shelters and providing legal advice. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to give us some insight about how that is being done under the DFID programme.

Like others, we have met articulate women MPs and civil rights campaigners who were fearful that there would be push back on the gains, but were determined to protect and advance the progress that had been made. We all recognise that educating girls and women is an essential part of that.

Everyone knows that Afghanistan has an uncertain future. We do not know what the next Government will look like or who will be President, although the candidates are now lining up. The idea that the whole country will quickly fall back into the arms of the Taliban seems unlikely. Many of the people who suffered under the Taliban have gained under the current situation and will not readily succumb to that again. Furthermore, the Taliban are not a single, coherent entity.

I note that Zalmai Rassoul, one of the frontrunners for the presidency, has chosen a woman as one of his running mates. Habiba Sarabi was the former governor of Bamiyan Province. Some members of the Committee visited the province briefly in 2012. Having suffered at the hands of the Taliban, not only through the destruction of the famous Buddhas but through much more serious infringements of lives and livelihoods, the people of the predominantly Shi’ite Hazara province of Bamiyan clearly told us that they were determined to pursue their own destiny and will at all odds resist any re-incursion by the Taliban. The principal of the university told us that fathers and husbands were actively encouraging their daughters and wives to go to university and that a third of the students there are now female.

I must also say, however, that I and a number of other members of the Committee met a young woman in Kabul. She was a highly educated and very articulate postgraduate, but when I asked her about her personal circumstances she said that she would of course have to marry whoever her brother, who was the head of her household, chose for her. I asked whether her brother would consult her, to which she replied, “How on earth would my brother have any idea what kind of man I want anyway?” I asked what she would do if she did not like that person or if she suffered violence and she said, “I am used to violence; I can accept it.” She is an intelligent, educated and articulate woman, more or less saying that she must succumb to her fate.

We have made progress. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine rightly referred to girls’ education. The front cover of our first report in 2007 was a photograph of girls in school because we thought that was symptomatic of how Afghanistan was changing. My hon. Friend rightly said that 2001 was a moment of destiny, but I think that Afghanistan is a country in which the UK would be engaged regardless of that because it is one of the poorest countries on the planet and because we make a commitment to try to lift people out of absolute poverty. It is a poor country seeking to develop and exactly the kind of country that we want to help.

The Taliban are against development of all kinds, but many Afghans have experienced the benefits that development can bring. They have glimpsed the opportunities and will not, in my view, simply allow themselves to be pushed back. I suggest that our job is to stand by those who seek to move forward on their own terms. We must do everything we can to support those women who are campaigning to secure progress, but we must follow their leadership and not impose our own. They will understand how to make that change better than anything we can do. Although there are absolute rights and values that we stand by, we must accept that change will be brought about by people inside the community who understand how to do it. We must stand by them and say that we are here to help them in any way we can to secure progress.

I am grateful that the Secretary of State is replying to the debate and hope that she will be able to say that we are there to stand by Afghan women for as long as it takes.

Constitutional Law

Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Bob Stewart

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall take note of your encouragement, Madam Deputy Speaker, not to go into too much detail, but of course this is a decision that will be taken in Scotland and in which the whole United Kingdom has an interest. I think we have moved on. When the Prime Minister intervened on this issue 12 months ago, he was initially criticised for interfering in Scottish domestic affairs, but people quickly recognised that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has a legitimate interest in the future of the United Kingdom and the right to take part in the debate. It is equally true that the decision on the future of Scotland must be taken in Scotland through a process made in Scotland, which is why we are discussing the order today.

I and my political party have been almost obsessed with the progress of home rule towards federalism for my whole lifetime. Indeed, if we look back across the history of the Liberal party we can see that has been the case for at least 100 years or even, in the case of Irish home rule, 150 years. We not only can but probably have bored people with a considerable amount of detail. That detail proved extremely useful in the process of developing the Scotland Bill through the constitutional convention, and the work that we, the Labour party, the Greens, the trade unions, the Churches and the business organisations did together was influenced by the fact that many of us had thought about it in considerable detail before we had the opportunity to implement it.

It remains a matter of some astonishment to me that the Scottish National party, which lives for nothing other than Scottish independence, appears to have so little command of the detail of what that would involve and is presenting it on the basis of unilateral, unfounded and unsupportable assertions. That is relevant in the context of the time scale on the back of the briefing notes, alluded to by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, which point out that the Scottish Government propose to produce a White Paper next November. That is more than two years after they were elected and only a year before we are supposed to make a decision. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out when he intervened to make the case for Northern Ireland, many fundamental questions must be answered. As the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart)—speaking, I would guess, as much for the border as for Penrith—has rightly asserted, these are not questions that can only be answered in Scotland.

Those questions must be answered in Scotland and outside it, which is why the debate must be conducted with recognition that this is not some parochial, internal matter for the future of Scotland. It affects how Scotland might relate to the Bank of England, the European Commission, NATO, the UN and any other multilateral or international organisation. That is of course crucial, but the implications of the change for the rest of the UK are also important. Many people in Scotland will seek to balance those two questions when considering how to vote.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am a bit worried that we might be saying that we will never debate the matter of Scottish independence in this Chamber again once the section 30 order has been passed. Will we be allowed to debate and to elaborate on the arguments after the order has been passed? If we pass it today, will that mean that Mr Speaker will never allow us to debate this matter, which is very important for our constitution, again?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I am sure that the House will have the opportunity to debate it and that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that we do. Of course, we will not have the opportunity to amend or determine the Bill on the referendum, which will be decided by the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is relevant, as it is important that we recognise that the deal struck in the Edinburgh agreement involved compromise from the UK Government and the Scottish Government. The UK Government have agreed to pass substantial power to the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the referendum, but they have an agreement that it will be on a single, stand-alone question and that the Electoral Commission will at least be involved in the process. Those are all crucial issues and I reiterate my view that the Scottish Government discount the Electoral Commission at their peril. They would be wise to take that point on board. We recognise that it is a compromise, but one made in the spirit of ensuring that we have a democratic vote that we can all accept and support.

This morning, my office took a call from a number of Canadian parliamentarians who are anxious to meet me to discuss the implications from their experience. I have to point out that they are not in favour of breaking up Canada, but are warning of the dangers of a sustained threat to the continued existence of the United Kingdom rather than one that can be resolved by 2014.