Westminster Foundation for Democracy
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s plans for continuing support to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD). I am also able to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has also agreed to provide additional funding to WFD.
The FCO will provide WFD with funding of £3.5 million for 2012-13 and plans to provide them with similar sums for 2013-14 and 2014-15, dependent on future performance across all aspects of their work. The Department for International Development (DFID) will provide WFD with an accountable grant of £6 million over the next three years (2012-13 and 2014-15), which is the first time DFID has provided funding to WFD in this way.
WFD delivers an important service in its work to strengthen Parliaments and provide assistance to political parties to support democracy across, the world. The promotion of multi-party democracy, good governance, transparency and accountability helps to support the UK Government’s priorities and the UK national interest.
The joint support of our two Departments will help WFD to become a more efficient, effective, and evidence-based organisation and to achieve greater impact with its important work.
Diplomatic Security in Syria
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that I have taken the decision on security grounds to suspend the services of the British embassy in Damascus and to withdraw all diplomatic staff
We have maintained an embassy in Damascus despite the violence to help us communicate with all parties in Syria and to provide insight into the situation on the ground. Throughout this time we have kept the security situation of our staff and embassy premises under intense and constant review. We now judge that the deterioration of the security situation in Damascus puts our embassy staff and premises at risk, and have taken the decision to withdraw staff accordingly. Our ambassador and diplomatic staff left Syria on 29 February and will return to the UK shortly.
British nationals who remain in Syria despite our longstanding and consistent message to leave the country should contact the embassy of any remaining EU member state if they require consular assistance.
My decision to withdraw staff from the British embassy in Damascus in no way reduces the UK’s commitment to active diplomacy to maintain pressure on the Assad regime to end the violence.
We will continue to work closely with other nations to co-ordinate diplomatic and economic pressure on the Syrian regime through the Friends of Syria group and the European Union, building on the new EU sanctions agreed on 27 February which will restrict further the regime’s sources of revenue.
We will give full support to former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his role as the joint special envoy to Syria for the UN and the Arab League.
And we will also continue to work with the Syrian National Council, to encourage a more united and representative Syrian opposition and the vision of a peaceful, multi-ethnic and more democratic Syria.
Hong Kong (Sino-British Declaration)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The latest report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong has been laid before Parliament and will be published today. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report covers the period from 1 July to 31 December 2011. I commend the report to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
1. What support his Department is providing to the Libyan Government.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We are working closely with the transitional Government to provide stabilisation assistance across a range of issues, including policing, security and prison reform, as well as on projects to promote youth and women’s political participation and human rights. We have also worked to ensure that Libya’s assets are available to fund its own reconstruction.
Nicola Blackwood
During a recent round table on women in Libya organised by the all-party group on women, peace and security and attended by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), we heard about the importance of the DDRRR—disarmament, demobilisation, repatriation, resettlement and reintegration—process of integrating the militias, which helps not only the men but the women engaged in the uprising by, for example, redefining “fighter” to include women. Will the Minister outline what support the UK Government are giving to the Libyan Government in developing their DDRRR plan to ensure that it addresses the concerns of women in post-conflict Libya?
Mr Hague
This is a very important issue. From the beginning, including in the very first visit that I made to Benghazi in June last year, during the conflict, we have gone out of our way to support the involvement of women in the transition in Libya. We are working closely with all the relevant organisations on this. We co-funded the first women’s convention in Tripoli in November. We are about to start a six-month programme of support to promote women’s and youth participation in the political process in Libya. I am pleased that the election law that was approved earlier this month will provide, in effect, for a certain proportion of the seats in the national congress to go to women.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
On 21 February, Gareth Montgomery-Johnson, a freelance cameraman, and several others were arrested in Tripoli by the Saraya Swehli militia. Despite repeated requests, the militia have refused to transfer Mr Johnson and his colleagues to the Libyan Government or to provide access to Human Rights Watch. His next of kin, who are constituents of mine, are increasingly concerned about the situation. Will the Secretary of State assure them that the Foreign Office will do everything in its power to release my constituent from militia captivity?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the position of his constituent. We are aware of the situation. The embassy in Tripoli is doing everything that it can to assist. It is important that consular access is given to his constituent and to one other person involved, and so, while we have not yet achieved everything that we want on this, we are continuing to work on it.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to work with his EU counterparts on tackling human trafficking.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of economic conditions in the EU.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The agreement on a second rescue package for Greece last week is encouraging for Greece and the European economy. The crisis in the eurozone is having a chilling effect on growth across Europe. The Government are arguing vigorously for EU action to promote growth by deepening the single market, boosting trade and cutting red tape.
Claire Perry
Will the Secretary of State tell the House what his Department is doing to improve the economic conditions right here in Britain? Are we using our global network of embassies and business contacts to promote British exports, especially those of small companies?
Mr Hague
Yes, we absolutely are. The prosperity of the country is one of our key objectives. My hon. Friend may have noticed that our exports to India, Turkey, Brazil and other emerging economies went up sharply in 2011. That is very important, given that the eurozone economy is flat and that our exports have declined. The Foreign Office is highly active in helping businesses, including small businesses, to seek out new export markets.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the preparations that are being made in the event of a default by the Greek Government and the possible collapse of the euro?
Mr Hague
We have contingency plans for many eventualities in the world, and I ensure that they are fully up to date. The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not go into more detail about those plans, because doing so can create a greater expectation that they are going to happen, but we are prepared for any eventuality.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
19. I suggest that EU politicians are failing to recognise that the eurozone is a dead man walking. Given the effective suspension of democracy in at least two countries and the deepening democratic deficit across the eurozone, as politicians break the rules in order to save the euro and their dream of political union, why is Britain supporting the anti-democratic zeal of those politicians as they make worse this self-made crisis?
Mr Hague
To put it in a slightly more balanced way, I have pointed out for many years that one of the disadvantages of the euro is the loss of national sovereign decision making to the countries concerned. However, there is one flaw in my hon. Friend’s argument, which is that it is very clear that not only the representatives but, at the moment, the people of Greece choose to try to stay in the euro. That is the democratic choice that they are making, and we should support them in it if that is their choice.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The European Union is our biggest trading partner, and a resolution to the eurozone crisis is clearly in our national interest. Given that our bilateral relationship with France is central to that, why is it being reported that the Prime Minister has refused to meet one of the leading presidential candidates, François Hollande, when he visits London tomorrow?
Mr Hague
Yes, the bilateral relationship with France is of great importance, and it is true that our co-operation, particularly on foreign and security policy, is the closest that it has been at any time since the second world war. Relations with France are very good and very close. Of course, the Prime Minister sometimes meets opposition leaders and sometimes does not, but I am not aware of governmental leaders across Europe taking a different approach from his.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
6. What recent reports he has received on the security situation in Syria; and if he will make a statement.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
15. What recent reports he has received on the security situation in Syria; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I am horrified at the continued violence of the Syrian regime against its own people. We will use all diplomatic and economic means to bring an end to the violence. Those responsible for the shelling of homes, the execution of detainees, the killing of political opponents and the torture and rape of women and children must be held to account in the future.
Sajid Javid
Journalists in conflict zones risk their lives every day to bring us unbiased news, and that is why my condolences go to the family and friends of Marie Colvin. On that note, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the whereabouts of the wounded British journalist who was in Syria?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is quite right—the thoughts of much of the nation have been with the family and friends of Marie Colvin. I am happy to confirm, though, that the injured British journalist Paul Conroy is safely in Lebanon, where he is receiving full consular assistance. I pay tribute to journalists who ensure that the world is aware of the crimes that are being committed, which we are determined to document and seek justice for. Too many people have already lost their lives in Homs and elsewhere in Syria, and we will urge the Syrian regime to ensure both an end to the violence against civilians and safe access for humanitarian agencies.
Mr Evennett
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the UK’s initiative to help gather evidence of the crimes against humanity in Syria. Will he update the House on the progress of that important work, and can he confirm whether other nations and international organisations are involved as well?
Mr Hague
This work is progressing. We are sending teams to border areas and ensuring that people can come to a single documentation hub to bring together the evidence of the crimes that are being committed. I spoke about that at the Tunis meeting of more than 60 nations last Friday, to encourage other nations to join in that initiative or take initiatives or their own, and I believe that other nations will be doing so.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Turkey, the Arab countries and our NATO allies about the idea of creating a safe haven in north-western Syria?
Mr Hague
I have had many discussions over the last week with Turkey and Arab nations on the margins of our Somalia conference, in Tunis and at other meetings. That idea has been debated—in public, never mind in private—but the difficulty of establishing safe areas without agreement with the country concerned is considerable. Without such agreement, military force will be required—and sufficient military to force to be wholly effective, because one of the worst things we could do, I believe, is to tell people that they might be safe and be unable to provide that safety to them. None of those discussions, therefore, have led to the idea being adopted in the international community.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Opposition welcome the fact that the EU yesterday announced further sanctions on Syria. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that those sanctions included travel bans on a further seven close associates of President Assad? If that is correct, does he agree that the public naming of many more individuals in that way, specifically including military commanders presently engaged in murder and slaughter in Homs, would help to sharpen the choice for individual members of the security apparatus?
Mr Hague
Yes—I agree in general. We adopted a number of measures yesterday in Brussels, including sanctions on the Central Bank of Syria. As the right hon. Gentleman says, we also extended by another seven names the list, which is now more than 150 strong, of individuals and entities on whom we have restrictions, travel bans and asset freezes. We are entirely open to extending that list further, but we of course take care to ensure that we are sure of our ground and that those individuals are actually complicit in the regime’s repression. As further evidence accumulates, we will certainly want to add to that list.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unpalatable fact is that we do not have many options in relation to Syria? Does he also agree that one option worth following is to persuade the Russians to give up their unquestioning support for Syria on the ground that it is deeply damaging to their long-term interests and should cease? Does he remember the impact on Milosevic and Serbia of the withdrawal of Russian support?
Mr Hague
My right hon. and learned Friend is right that that would be a desirable piece of persuasion to accomplish. I have had discussions with the Russian Foreign Minister, including at length after the vetoing of our Security Council resolution, and it must be said that the Russians are not yet persuaded of that position. However, I hope others will join in that persuasion. I have spoken in the last hour to the new UN and Arab League special envoy, Kofi Annan, who is charged with promoting a political process and solution. I hope that he will bring his persuasive powers to bear on both Russia and China.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
As the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate, an estimated 70,000 Syrians are fleeing to Jordan and many more to Lebanon. What steps has the Foreign Secretary taken to put pressure on the Syrian regime to allow humanitarian assistance and to enable civilians to leave the country?
Mr Hague
It is a constant cry of the international community, including among the more than 60 nations that met in Tunis on Friday, that humanitarian access needs to be granted, but the regime, which, in the view of the UN commission of inquiry, has committed crimes against humanity, is insensitive even to those demands for humanitarian access or for pauses each day in the conflict—it has refused to do that. We are doing our best to send humanitarian assistance. The UK has provided assistance that will amount to tens of thousands of food rations and other emergency supplies, and we are increasingly co-ordinating our work with other countries.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
7. What progress has been made in selecting a replacement for the UK’s judge at the European Court of Justice, following the end of the incumbent’s appointment in 2012.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We expect to be in a position to nominate a candidate for this position within the next month. The successful candidate should be able to take up the position when the term of the incumbent judge expires later this year.
George Eustice
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia involve their national Parliaments in the process of selecting the judges whom they send to the ECJ. Given the power that the ECJ can have on this country’s legal system, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to involve the House in any future appointments?
Mr Hague
We have improved the nomination procedure by advertising the position publicly and subjecting applicants to interview by an independent panel of experts, prior to ministerial clearance. My hon. Friend raises a legitimate point. As things stand, parliamentary decisions on this matter are inconsistent with existing constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, and any change to the current procedure would, of course, set a precedent with wider implications. That can be debated in the House. I am conscious of the interest that the House takes and commit to keeping it updated on the progress made.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
8. What support his Department is providing to private sector initiatives in the west bank.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
11. What recent reports he has received on the political situation in Somalia; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
At the London conference on Somalia, the international community agreed on the need to inject new momentum into the political process, using the Garowe principles to chart a route to a broad-based constituent assembly, chosen by the Somali people, that will determine a new and representative Government for Somalia.
Mark Lancaster
There is growing concern among British Somalis that the sense of isolation experienced by those who chew the drug khat is being exploited by al-Shabaab to recruit in the UK. Now that the UK is completely out of step with Europe, as the only country not to have banned khat, will the Foreign Secretary raise the matter with the Home Secretary as a matter of urgency?
Mr Hague
Khat is certainly quite popular among many Somali people. Indeed, the only other bit of air activity I saw when I visited Mogadishu four weeks ago were planes arriving to deliver khat. However, I will certainly look at the point my hon. Friend raises and discuss it with the Home Secretary, as he suggests.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
First, may I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his team on his work on the Somalia conference? As the final communiqué of the conference says:
“We called on all those willing to reject violence to join the Djibouti peace process.”
How will the Government reach out and engage with those individuals to facilitate the broader base for the Somali Government that is necessary to make progress?
Mr Hague
All the decisions that were made and set out in the communiqué at the end of the Somalia conference are to be taken forward by different authorities, and in this case by the authorities in Somalia, through the creation of a new constituent assembly and, then, a more legitimate and representative Parliament. That is a process that is there to be engaged with by people who want to be part of a peace process and want now to transform the position of their country. There will be some who are irreconcilable and wedded to violence, which is why the parallel agreement on expanding the funding of the AMISOM—African Union Mission in Somalia—forces is also important. This process is to be taken forward in Somalia, by Somalis, under the Garowe principles.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and the whole of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on their remarkable diplomatic and organisational achievement in convening such a widely attended conference? With an estimated 600,000 Somali refugees now living in Kenya, we now have an unusually valuable opportunity to ensure that our overseas aid expenditure goes on resettling them in their own country, before they unsettle Kenya.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. The conference was well supported by other nations, which were delighted with the outcome. We have received stronger diplomatic support, and a stronger welcome around the world, for this than for any other diplomatic initiative that I can recall in recent years. That in itself is welcome and shows the commitment of the international community to this matter. We do indeed put a great deal of our humanitarian assistance in the direction that my right hon. Friend describes. We are the second-largest bilateral donor to the horn of Africa, for exactly the reason that he described.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Given the Government’s support for the new stability fund, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in order to retain confidence, humanitarian aid, including that for refugees, should be seen as something quite separate, necessary though it is?
Mr Hague
Yes, there are many uses for development funds. Much of this is humanitarian aid delivered through international agencies, and it was of extreme importance during the recent famine in the horn of Africa. Increasingly, we want to be able to provide stabilisation support, and the more stable each area of Somalia becomes, the more we will be able to do that. At the moment, 60% of such funding is going to Somaliland, because that has become a more stable area. So, yes, we make a distinction between different things.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
12. What recent reports he has received on the political situation in the Maldives; and if he will make a statement.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels yesterday. We agreed on a number of additions to our sanctions against the Assad regime, notably the freezing of the assets of the Central Bank of Syria, a ban on imports of gold and precious metals, a ban on cargo flights, and the listing of seven more Government Ministers.
Julian Sturdy
I am always sympathetic about the dangers facing the Israeli people from some of their aggressive neighbours, and will remain so, but does the Secretary of State agree that settlement-building programmes are never a means to an end and are, in fact, becoming a serious obstacle to peace?
Mr Hague
Yes, I do agree with that. As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has often pointed out, we have made very strong representations to the Israeli Government whenever settlements have been announced in recent times. Settlements are on occupied land, they are illegal—that is the view of almost the whole of the rest of the world—and this is an issue that Israel must address.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Given the recent violence in Afghanistan in response to the unintentional burning of the Koran at a United States air base, and given that it took some time for President Karzai to call for an end to the violence, are the Government fully satisfied with the efforts that he is making to bring the situation fully under control?
Mr Hague
Yes. The British Government, along with our partners, condemn any behaviour that disrespects any religion. We welcome the apology from President Obama to President Karzai, which demonstrated sincere regret for the incident—which was, I believe, a genuine mistake, as was reflected in the right hon. Gentleman’s question—and we welcome the calls for calm from the Afghan Government. We echo President Karzai’s call to the Afghan people, as he put it,
“not to allow the enemies of peace to exploit the opportunity for their own ends”.
Mr Alexander
Is the Foreign Secretary fully satisfied more generally with the work that President Karzai is doing? The objective of achieving peace is one that we all share, but according to the latest reports there are continuing concerns about corruption, governance and, more broadly, the provision of services and security.
Mr Hague
Of course there are always things that we are urging the Afghanistan Government to do, and addressing accusations of corruption and improving governance—both from Kabul and around the country—are important examples. However, our relations with the Afghanistan Government are very good. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister and President Karzai met a month ago to sign a long-term enduring partnership between our countries, which demonstrates the good basis of trust between our Governments.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
T3. Burhan Ghalioun, chairman of the Syrian national council, has said that a revolution in Syria will not be successful without the support of the minorities in that country, and he has offered to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected in a post-Assad Syria. With Kurds representing up to 20% of the Syrian population and the Christian community a further 9% to 12%, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the SNC and its chairman on this subject?
Mr Hague
I discussed that issue, and many others, with the chairman and his SNC colleagues in Tunis on Friday. I have long encouraged them to set out their determination to protect minorities and to seek to represent all communities in Syria. On this occasion, I was impressed by the chairman’s determination to do so and by the speech he gave to the conference in Tunis, which contained a full commitment to democracy and the protection of minorities. It is very good that the Syrian opposition have made those things clear.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
T4. Given that the eurozone is a slow-motion train crash, will the Government divert some of the extra billions of pounds they are, yet again, about to throw at the inflated EU budget into furthering trade relationships with the Commonwealth? A shared language, shared accounting and legal systems and growing markets suggest that that is a no-brainer.
Mr Hague
I think that my hon. Friend has had the euro as both a dead man walking and a train crash in the same Question Time, so his metaphors are becoming a little confused. However, we certainly are putting much-increased effort into our trade with emerging economies across the world, including many Commonwealth nations. My hon. Friend might like to know that the Commonwealth represents a steadily increasing proportion of the trade of the world. That underlines the importance of our renewed commitment to it under this Government.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
T9. Twenty-four hours ago, a new President was sworn in in Yemen, yet at the same time 26 people were killed in a suicide bomb attack in the south. What steps are the Government taking to support the new Government of President Hadi at this crucial moment in Yemen’s history, and when will the Foreign Secretary visit the country?
Mr Hague
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have visited Yemen, as has my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and he will be visiting again in the not-too-distant future. Over the past few weeks we have had discussions with the then vice-president, who has since been inaugurated as the new President. Yemen now has a genuine moment of opportunity. We will revive the Friends of Yemen process, which has the potential to bring a lot of co-ordinated international support to the efforts of the Government of Yemen to bring stability and peace to their country.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
T5. Last August the Deputy Prime Minister announced that up to £20 million from the Arab Partnership Fund would be allocated to Libya from 2012 to 2015. That investment is co-funded by the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. How much of the money will be spent on poverty-reducing economic growth?
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
T6. Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that the UK will give no support, militarily or diplomatically, to Israel if it launches an armed attack on Iran?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend will be aware of our policy on Iran, which was debated thoroughly at the beginning of last week, when the Government’s approach was massively endorsed in this House on 20 February. So we have set out our policy in detail. We are not calling for or advocating a military attack on Iran, and at this moment we advise others not to do so. But we also believe that it is important to keep Iran under pressure and that no options are taken off the table.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
If the Secretary of State is committed to the UK being a world leader on business and human rights, as I am sure he is, what is he doing to persuade the Secretary of State for Justice to drop the provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that will shift liability for cost and insurance away from multinational companies and on to innocent victims in developing countries?
Mr Hague
My Department has had discussions with the Ministry of Justice about this matter, and the hon. Lady will be aware of the Government’s position, as set out by the Justice Secretary. Of course if there is any change in that position, it will be for my right hon. and learned Friend to announce it.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Reference has been made this afternoon to the emerging political and security difficulties in Afghanistan. Have the Government assessed how capable the Afghan state is of effectively administering the presidential elections due in 2014?
Mr Hague
As the hon. Lady says, those elections are due in 2014. Over previous elections the Afghan state, supported by the international security assistance force, has shown an increasing capability to administer elections safely. I am sure that that capability will increase much further over the next two years, given that the build-up of the Afghan national security forces is continuing. As she knows, it is our intention that by the end of 2014 the Afghan national security forces will be able to conduct security all over Afghanistan for themselves, and that includes supervising elections.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
T8. Given the growing tensions between Azerbaijan and Iran, which are extremely worrying, what are we doing to upgrade our diplomatic support to Azerbaijan, which is both politically and economically extremely important to this country?
Mr Hague
We have good links with Azerbaijan, particularly given its current membership of the UN Security Council—it joined a few months ago. So our diplomatic contact and co-ordination with Azerbaijan has increased. As to the level of representation, we regularly review that but I do not have any new announcement to make about that at the moment.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Earlier, the Foreign Secretary outlined the atrocities in Syria. Will he say in which circumstances he would stop maintaining diplomatic relations with Syria?
Mr Hague
There are good arguments for and against maintaining diplomatic relations in these circumstances. We have seen in recent days some of the advantages of maintaining relations, because our ambassador in Damascus has been very active in trying to secure the safe passage out of Syria of the injured journalist whom we were discussing earlier. Having people on the ground and having a channel of communication has a value, even when we so deeply disapprove of the conduct of the Government concerned. Of course, we must keep under review for security reasons the position of our embassy in Damascus and I stress that that is something that I keep under very intense review.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
T10. The Minister will be aware of the shocking murder of Christians in Borno state, northern Nigeria, by Boko Haram. Will he outline what steps the British Government might be able to take to assist the Nigerian Government in dealing with that problem?
London Conference on Somalia
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
This statement is also published in the names of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development. On 23 February the UK hosted the London conference on Somalia. When he announced this initiative in November, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of the real and pressing need to pull together the international effort on Somalia. The conference brought together 55 delegations representing over 40 countries, the United Nations, African Union, Intergovernmental Authority on Development, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and other international organisations to discuss how the international community could reinvigorate its approach towards Somalia. Somali leaders, including President Sheikh Sharif, Prime Minister Abdiweli, President Farole of Puntland and President Silanyo of Somaliland also took part.
The conference took place at a key moment in Somalia’s history. Somalia is emerging from the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. African and Somali troops have pushed Al Shabaab out of Mogadishu and other areas. The transitional institutions come to an end in August 2012, and the people of Somalia want clarity on what will follow. The situation remains precarious, and in urgent need of support from the international community.
Decisions on Somalia’s future rest with the Somali people. The Somali political leadership must be accountable to the people. The international community’s role is to facilitate Somalia’s progress and development: our strength is in unity and co-ordinated support to Somalia. The conference noted the importance of listening to and working with Somalis inside and outside Somalia, and welcomed their engagement in the run-up to this conference.
The conference focused on the underlying causes of instability, as well as the symptoms (famine, piracy, and terrorism). The international community agreed: to inject new momentum into the political process; to strengthen the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and help Somalia develop its own security forces; to help build stability at local level; and to step up action to tackle pirates and terrorists.
More specifically, the conference agreed practical measures in seven areas:
Political process—Agreement that the transition must end in August 2012, and that the political process must be broad-based and inclusive, building on agreement at the Garowe consultative meetings; the establishment of a joint financial management board to increase the transparency and accountability of transitional federal Government, and future Government, spending.
Security and justice—Agreement to create a framework for international support to develop Somali security and justice capacity.
Piracy—Agreement on the need to address the causes of piracy on land, and to build judicial and imprisonment capacity in the region; welcome for the establishment of a regional anti-piracy prosecutions intelligence co-ordination centre in the Seychelles. Ministers also signed bilateral memorandum of understanding with Tanzania on transferring suspected pirates for prosecution, with the Netherlands and Seychelles on the regional anti-piracy prosecutions intelligence coordination centre, and a regional burden-sharing statement of principles. Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also announced the creation of an international taskforce on piracy ransoms and welcomed the announcement from the shipping industry of funding for the UN development programme (UNDP) coastal community projects in Puntland.
Terrorism—Agreement to build capacity to disrupt terrorism in the region, including disrupting terrorists’ travel to and from Somalia and terrorist finances.
Humanitarian—The conference was preceded by a separate meeting on the humanitarian situation, chaired jointly by the International Development Secretary, Baroness Amos (United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs) and the United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister. Prominent themes included the continuing fragility of the humanitarian situation in Somalia and the need to create the conditions for voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced people.
Stability and recovery—Launch of a new stability fund to channel development support, such as for basic services, jobs, security and justice, to emerging areas of stability across Somalia. Founder members are the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Arab Emirates and Denmark. Agreement to a set of principles for local support.
International co-ordination—Welcome for the international contact group on Somalia’s decision to consider restructuring to improve its effectiveness, and a recommendation to establish working groups on the political process, security and justice, and stability and development. The creation of a core group of engaged countries to drive progress in support of United Nations, African Union and Intergovernmental Authority on Development efforts.
We have placed copies of the Communiqué agreed by international partners at the conference and the conclusions of the separate humanitarian meeting in the Libraries of both Houses.
Afghanistan
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 14th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
The Prime Minister and President Karzai signed the UK-Afghanistan Enduring Strategic Partnership document on 28 January. The document signals our shared vision of a secure, stable and prosperous Afghanistan able to maintain its own security and prevent the country from again being used as a safe haven for international terrorists. This builds on the strong message from the Bonn conference last year of the international community’s commitment to Afghanistan post-2014. The NATO Chicago summit in May and the Tokyo development conference in July will be the point at which the international community looks to deliver on the commitments made at Bonn. The Chicago and Tokyo conferences will demonstrate to the Afghan people and the insurgency that the international community will support Afghanistan far beyond 2014 and will not end when combat troops withdraw.
During the last month the UK continued to help the Government of Afghanistan build their capacity to deliver better public services and economic opportunities for its people. UK support to the Civilian Technical Assistance Programme helped the Ministry of Counter Narcotics and the Ministry of Public Health develop policies and programmes for the Afghan people. The UK also helped more than 3,400 people in Helmand access technical and vocational education and training, helping to raise incomes and generate economic growth.
Governor Mangal visited Kajaki for a Shura on 8 January. He was escorted by Afghan uniformed police. He travelled by road, which was the first time a provincial governor in Helmand had been able to follow this route for many years. The road move reflects a significant improvement in confidence last year.
In Central Helmand the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) successfully planned, commanded and executed Operation Rozi Roshan in Nahr-e Saraj. The operation involved 500 soldiers. Rozi Roshan was completely Afghan-led and represented a significant accomplishment for the ANSF. UK forces, while ready to assist, were present in only a supporting role.
In January the winter weather continued to have a tangible impact on insurgent activity. The number of security incidents was relatively low. However, we must expect to see these rise as the weather improves. In the spring the insurgency is likely to attempt to regain lost territory and with it the campaign momentum. The ANSF supported by ISAF are prepared for this but we should expect challenges ahead, particularly for the ANSF as they take the lead on more operations. However we continue to make steady progress, illustrated in part this month by Operation Rozi Roshan and developments at the Infantry Branch School. We remain on track for the Afghans to assume full security responsibility across Afghanistan at the end of 2014.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).
Review of Consular Evacuation Procedures
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In my written statement of 4 July 2011, Official Report, column 74WS, I informed the House that in light of the challenges posed by the evacuation of British nationals from Libya, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) had conducted a review of its evacuation arrangements in a crisis. A copy of the Review of Consular Evacuation Procedures was placed in the Library of the House.
I gave instructions that the recommendations of the review should be implemented in full by 31 December 2011. This statement updates the House on the FCO’s progress in implementing the review’s recommendations.
The crises of early 2011 were an unprecedented series of challenges for the FCO’s crisis management capability. They also presented an invaluable opportunity to learn the necessary lessons and to refine our crisis management systems in order to ensure we deliver the best possible service to British nationals in future. In response to the recommendations in the review the FCO has:
Developed a more agile and clear crisis decision-making structure, based on the Gold/Silver/Bronze crisis response system used by emergency services. As part of this, the FCO board will be carrying out a high-level training session in early March;
Introduced London Crisis Response Teams made up of trained FCO staff across London who can be rapidly deployed to augment the FCO’s crisis response;
Expanded our crisis training and exercising capability, to deliver an increased level of training across the global network;
Improved the use of digital and social media for messaging British nationals before and during a crisis;
Improved our call handling systems;
Launched a project to define our longer-term Crisis IT and communications needs, under which we have successfully piloted pre-crisis registration of British nationals via SMS text messaging;
Revised our guidance for FCO staff on crisis planning and response;
Designed a new framework for Crisis Management Planning by our overseas posts, which will be in place across the network by the end of 2012;
Increased the numbers of volunteers in our Rapid Deployment Team network, including by expanding the coverage of the Americas team to include South America, and recruiting for a new middle east and South Asia team;
Clarified key policy issues, for example on how costs are charged in a crisis, in order to ensure that decisions can be taken more quickly during future crisis responses;
Intensified our contact with others involved in our response to key crises, including private sector companies, chartering companies etc.;
Developed closer links with Ministry of Defence crisis teams, including by embedding MOD staff in the FCO’s Crisis Centre;
Increased the numbers of staff dedicated to crisis work in Crisis Management Department.
I have placed in the Library of the House a table which provides more detail of how we have implemented the review’s recommendations.
These improvements to FCO systems and practices were tested in recent crises, most notably the Bangkok floods (October 2011), the evacuation of embassy staff from Tehran (November 2011) and the sinking of the cruise ship Costa Concordia (January 2012). On each occasion, we implemented the Gold/Silver/Bronze command and control system, which promoted clear and quick decision making and communication, and activated the London Crisis Response Teams, enabling us to scale up our crisis response quickly and sustainably.
It will be a priority for 2012 to ensure that these improvements are fully embedded into FCO processes to ensure that we have genuinely upgraded our crisis planning and response systems. Specific priorities will include:
Regularly exercising the London response to a crisis, including by the FCO board;
Implementing a crisis IT project to design and implement best practice systems for maintaining reliable data about British nationals before and during a crisis;
Adopting the new crisis management plan across all UK posts overseas, supported by a programme of training and exercising;
Upgrading the FCO’s Crisis Centre to expand its operational capacity and co-locate it with its out-of-hours global response centre.
Each crisis throws up a unique set of challenges. We attach importance to learning the lessons from each one, based on a thorough and objective assessment of our response. We are confident that by implementing the recommendations of the review of evacuation procedures, we have made important and sustainable improvements to our crisis planning and response systems and that this has enhanced the quality of our crisis response. However, we recognise the need to avoid complacency in this critical and unpredictable area of work, and will ensure that we continue to carry out regular reviews of our systems.
Iran
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate and welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s policy towards Iran. I pay tribute to two distinguished predecessors of mine who have just spoken with the benefit of their enormous experience. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) made a compelling, almost unanswerable, case for his amendment and against the motion tabled by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), to whom I have often paid tribute in the House for his efforts to reach a rapprochement with Iran—I do so again today—spoke with his great experience of the difficulty of trying to arrive at an accommodation. I did not agree with quite everything he said, but he said many wise words about the current situation.
Iranian nuclear proliferation risks one of the most serious crises in foreign policy that the international community has faced in many years. As Iran moves closer to acquiring the capability to build and deliver a nuclear weapon, and as it continues its confrontational policies elsewhere in the world, that crisis is coming steadily down the track. Three years after Iran’s secret nuclear site at Qom first came to the attention of the world, it is expanding its uranium enrichment programme in defiance of the United Nations Security Council, and it is enriching uranium to 20% on a scale greater than that needed for a civil nuclear power programme. It remains in breach of its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions and it is not meeting the requirements of IAEA resolutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay asked me to read the relevant extracts from the IAEA report of November. The right hon. Member for Blackburn has already referred to one of them. Paragraph 53 states:
“The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”
The report goes on to make the points to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Paul Flynn
Does not the right hon. Gentleman see the danger that increasing tension between the west and Iran might well persuade it to expel the IAEA inspectors from its land, meaning that the transparency that we have now will end?
Mr Hague
First, it is of course not the IAEA’s view that Iran has been fully transparent. Indeed, it states in paragraph 52 of that report that
“the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities”.
I hope the hon. Gentleman listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, who pointed out that it could very well be argued that adopting the policy prescribed in the motion would increase tension and the likelihood of military conflict in the near term. I certainly hold to that view.
Another part of the IAEA report says that
“in 2005, a senior official in SADAT”—
that is, the Section for Advanced Development Applications and Technologies—
“solicited assistance from Shahid Behesti University in connection with complex calculations relating to the state of criticality of a solid sphere of uranium being compressed by high explosives.”
A solid sphere of uranium being compressed by high explosives can be found only in the core of a nuclear weapon.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I am a signatory to the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), but I was very concerned about his belief that an American military attack would have only temporary consequences. I am not suggesting that it be taken off the table, but would the Foreign Secretary care to give us his own thoughts on the consequences if we were to face a situation in which the Americans intervened militarily in order to stop the programme?
Mr Hague
It will be clear from my remarks that that is not what I am calling for, although I will shortly come to some of the arguments about it. It is very difficult to speculate about what the actual physical impact of a military strike would be, as it would depend on who did it, what they did it with, and exactly which facilities were struck. However, it is not something that we are advocating, as will be clear from my speech.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend like to disabuse the House of the notion that were it not for 9/11 there would have been a rapprochement with the Iranian regime, given that well before that period Iran was the leading state sponsor of international terrorism, as we have seen most recently in Azerbaijan and Bangkok?
Mr Hague
I am about to come to that point, so I will make some more progress in doing so.
It is our assessment and that of our allies that Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons—that is in line with what the right hon. Member for Blackburn said—and is steadily developing the capability to produce such weapons should it choose to do so. A nuclear-armed Iran would have devastating consequences for the middle east and could shatter the non-proliferation treaty. On that point, I differ from the right hon. Gentleman, because I believe, given everything that I have seen and heard in the region as Foreign Secretary so far, that if Iran set about the development of nuclear weapons, other nations in the middle east would do so as well, and that there would be a nuclear arms race in the region.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) suggests, our well-founded concerns that Iran’s intentions may not be purely peaceful are heightened by its policies in other areas. It is a regime that recently conspicuously failed to prevent the sacking of our embassy premises in Iran; that conspired to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States on American soil; that only last week was accused of planning and carrying out attacks against Israeli diplomats; that is providing assistance to the Syrian Government’s violent campaign against their own people; and that supports armed proxy groups including Hezbollah and Hamas. Taken together with Iran’s nuclear activities, this behaviour threatens international peace and security. That is why Iran is one of the very top priorities in foreign affairs for this Government, just as it was for the last Government.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
On the taking over of the UK embassy in Tehran, has the Foreign Secretary’s office or the Iranian Foreign Minister’s office made any approaches towards meeting one another since the day when the attack took place?
Mr Hague
The Iranian Foreign Minister and I spoke twice during and after those events, so we were in touch at the time and immediately afterwards. We are now in direct touch with the Iranians at official level to clarify with each other the arrangements for protecting our embassies in each country. Of course, we continue to be able to discuss matters with Iran in multilateral forums, as well as bilaterally should we choose to do so. We have not broken diplomatic relations with Iran.
Mr Hague
I had better continue, because the embassy is a bit of a side point.
Our quarrel emphatically is not with the Iranian people: we want them to enjoy the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as we do and to live dignified lives in a prosperous society. Today, they labour under a repressive political system that attempts to stifle all opposition and has incarcerated more journalists and bloggers than any other country in the world, on top of its appalling wider record on human rights. Let there be no doubt that the Iranian Government’s current policies endanger the interests of the Iranian people themselves, as well as undermining global security.
Mr Baron
One does not condone the human rights record of Iran; there are many regimes around the world that have abysmal human rights. May I bring my right hon. Friend back to the report? Does he agree that there is a world of difference between moving to the option of capability and what we have sometimes heard about evidence suggesting a nuclear weapons programme or a decision to develop one? He has still failed to present the House with proof that nuclear weapons are being developed or that a decision has been made to do so.
Mr Hague
I read out some quite interesting paragraphs from the IAEA report. My hon. Friend should also consider the evidence that is now coming out of Iran saying that it will use its expanding stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium to make fuel for the Tehran research reactor. That reactor is designed to produce medical isotopes, but its capacity is being expanded to produce near-20% enriched uranium to levels far beyond what would be required for that purpose. On that basis, one would have to be extraordinarily trusting and innocent in world affairs to believe that this programme had entirely peaceful purposes and that no possible provision was being made for the development of nuclear weapons. My hon. Friend must remember, too, that the regime deliberately concealed—we do not know for how long, because western nations revealed it—the construction of the secret underground facilities at Qom. It has a strong track record of deliberately concealing aspects of the nuclear programme, and that might lead him to be just a little bit suspicious about its purposes.
Mike Gapes
Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the Iranian people that we are opposed not to Iran having nuclear technology but to the breach of the non-proliferation treaty? The regime could have accepted the Russian proposal on Bushehr, for example, which would have resolved these issues.
Mr Redwood
Given the amount of blood and treasure that we have shed in the middle east in recent years, does my right hon. Friend agree that in this difficult and potentially dangerous situation we should look to the considerable regional powers to take the lead, in consultation with the United States of America, and not rush in ourselves?
Mr Hague
Of course we need to work on this with all the regional powers. My right hon. Friend can be assured that the regional powers are extremely concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme. However, we also have our responsibilities as a member of the United Nations Security Council, and we must live up to those responsibilities on this, as on all other occasions.
Mr Hague
I will give way later, but I must have regard to the number of hon. Members who wish to speak.
Our Government’s objective is simple. It is shared by the international community as a whole and, I believe, by this House and by our country. We wish to see a peaceful, negotiated diplomatic settlement to the Iranian nuclear crisis by which Iran gives the world confidence that it is not developing, and will not develop, nuclear weapons. All our efforts are devoted towards such a peaceful resolution.
Our strategy to achieve this and to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon coming about has two elements: first, diplomacy and engagement with Iran; and, secondly, pressure on Iran in the form of peaceful and legitimate sanctions.
Mr Hague
I think that I must carry on with my argument for a few minutes.
This strategy of diplomacy and pressure has been reflected in six consecutive United Nations Security Council resolutions backed by all its permanent members including Russia and China, which work alongside Britain, the United States, France and Germany as the E3 plus 3 to negotiate with Iran on behalf of the international community. These resolutions have shown that the world is united in opposing Iranian nuclear proliferation and in supporting a diplomatic solution. The UN sanctions target companies and individuals associated with Iran’s nuclear activities and ballistic missile programmes. On top of this, European Union member states have adopted successive rounds of sanctions, including, most recently, an embargo on Iranian oil exports into the EU that will come to effect on 1 July.
Mr Hague
I am going to carry on for a few minutes.
Those are unprecedented sanctions and we have been at the forefront of bringing them about. Members will be aware that Iran announced this weekend that it would end oil exports to the UK and France. Given that we are already imposing an oil embargo, that will have no impact on Britain’s energy security or supplies. Britain has also adopted stringent sanctions against Iran’s financial sector, severing all links between British banks and Iran, alongside similar measures taken by the US and Canada.
Mr Hague
I shall finish the argument on sanctions before I give way again.
Sanctions are designed to show the Iranian Government that there is a considerable price attached to their current policies and to urge them to change course. The sanctions have a practical impact, slowing Iran’s progress towards a nuclear weapons capability. They are also necessary to uphold the authority of the UN and the IAEA, which have called on Iran to suspend its enrichment programme—demands that Iran would otherwise flout with impunity. The Iranian Government can act to bring sanctions to an end.
Sanctions, however, are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Our ultimate goal is a return to negotiations that addresses all the issues of concern about Iran’s nuclear programme and the successful conclusion of the negotiations. The door of negotiations has been open to Iran at every stage over the past eight years and it remains open today.
Mr Hague
I will give way in a moment—I want to conclude this point.
To help bring Iran to negotiations, the E3 plus 3 has offered it help to develop civil nuclear power stations—a point that was just made—and its economy in the form of economic and agricultural assistance, provided Iran satisfies the concerns of the international community about its nuclear programme. That offer was most recently put to Iran again at talks in Istanbul in January last year. It remains on the table and we urge Iran to respond to it in good faith.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a former Foreign Secretary, has said that he reckons the bar for military action is quite far away. Does the current Foreign Secretary agree with his analysis?
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Thus far, our debate has concentrated on the political and the pragmatic, but does the Foreign Secretary feel reinforced in the attitude he has just expressed from the Dispatch Box by the fact that, under customary international law, there is an obligation to exhaust all possible political and diplomatic alternatives before embarking on military action? Is that not what we are engaged in?
Mr Tom Clarke
As one who supports the amendment, I welcome the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks in the past few minutes, as I believe engagement is important. He might recall that some years ago four hon. Members of the House, including me, were asked to go to Iran to meet the leaders and negotiate on the release of Terry Waite, John McCarthy and Brian Keenan. I am saying not that it was a pleasant experience or that we succeeded immediately, but that we made a contribution to an improved situation and their release. As somebody much better than I once said, jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
Mr Hague
That is very much what we want. This may be an opportune moment for me to update the House on where we are now on negotiations.
On 21 October last year, Baroness Ashton, who chairs the E3 plus 3 in her capacity as EU High Representative, wrote to Iran to ask it to set a time and place to resume meaningful negotiations. In the last few days, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Mr Jalili, has finally responded to that letter. Mr Jalili states in his letter that Iran is willing to resume negotiations with the E3 plus 3 on the nuclear issue. We are studying the letter in consultation with our American, French, Russian, German and Chinese counterparts to assess whether it amounts to serious intention by Iran to negotiate with the international community, which would permit talks to resume. As the Prime Minster has said:
“If there is going to be dialogue then Iranians need to enter it in a new spirit and recognise they are taking a different path.”
We hope the Iranians do so in respect of any such negotiations as we study that response.
We will continue to intensify our diplomacy and the peaceful, legitimate pressure on Iran. There is still time for peaceful diplomacy to succeed. That remains the best course available to achieve the goal of an Iran without nuclear weapons and to avert the risk of any military conflict.
Mr Hague
I shall speak for a few minutes before I give way again; otherwise I will take too much time.
That is why the Government are not seeking, advocating or calling for military action against Iran. One hundred per cent. of our efforts is devoted to the path of diplomacy and peaceful economic pressure. Our strategy is designed precisely to increase the pressure for a peaceful settlement, not to lead to any conflict. I am on record in this House as saying that although Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would be a calamity, the consequences of military action might well be calamitous themselves. As the Prime Minister has stated in this House,
“nobody wants military action, by Israel or anyone else, to take place”.—[Official Report, 28 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 580.]
That is our position, and the effort we have put into negotiating, securing and implementing sanctions on Iran is testament to our determination to pursue robust diplomacy, which we are pursuing daily. We are in regular contact with our E3 plus 3 partners about Iran, and I discuss the issue frequently—daily—with other Foreign Ministers from around the world. An entire unit—one of the largest in the Foreign Office—is devoted to finding a diplomatic way forward with Iran. We confirmed our commitment to engagement by not completely breaking off diplomatic relations with Iran even after the outrageous provocation of the attacks on our embassy compounds, which made it necessary to withdraw our diplomats.
We also play a leading role at the IAEA and support its efforts to work with Iran to address the concerns about the military dimensions of its programme. Senior IAEA officials are visiting Iran today and tomorrow. They are seeking co-operation from Iran in addressing the agency’s findings about the “military dimensions” of the programme, including access to a sensitive site at Parchin. We urge Iran to co-operate with the IAEA and to permit access to that site. The House will join me in paying tribute to the dogged and painstaking work of the IAEA in Vienna and on the ground in Iran, under very difficult circumstances, and we look forward to the next meeting of the IAEA board on 5 March, at which Iran will be discussed.
All those efforts will continue, and diplomacy remains the driving force of our policy towards Iran, but the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay calls for the Government to take a course that no responsible Administration could take on this issue, namely unilaterally to rule out the use of force.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Given all that my right hon. Friend has said, especially on the unanimity on the six UN resolutions, was he as disturbed as I was at reports in today’s press that some of our friends and allies are engaging in barter deals to weaken the unprecedented sanctions to which he and the E3 plus 3 have agreed?
Mr Hague
I would be very disappointed if that took place, but I believe the sanctions will be well upheld across the EU. Some countries have difficulties because of the extent of their supplies from Iran, which is why we have phased in those measures. The sanctions will also be well supported by many nations outside the EU. Other major consumers of Iranian oil have indicated that they will reduce their purchases or that they have already done so. My hon. Friend may have seen press reports this morning that Iran is currently having difficulty selling a large part of its oil production.
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend’s approach on sanctions is to be warmly welcomed, but I wanted to follow up directly on the previous intervention, and particularly on press reports that Iran is speaking to China and India. We clearly and rightly have warm relations with India. As he knows, we have a large aid programme in India and rightly support its desire to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Can we use our warm relationship with India to put pressure on it as our ally not to help Iran with its sanctions-busting programme?
Mr Hague
We have made and will make that point to India, as we have to many other nations. My hon. Friend mentions China, which, perhaps for other reasons, has substantially reduced its purchases of oil from Iran in the past two months. We will energetically make the argument that he calls on us to make.
Chris Bryant
I wholly support everything that the Foreign Secretary has said about diplomatic efforts and I want to achieve the same outcome as every other hon. Member, but my anxiety is that diplomatic language, by moving from forceful to robust to pugnacious to belligerent, can sometimes have a ratchet effect that makes the use of violent force almost inevitable. I hope that he will stick with forceful and assertive, and move no further.
Mr Hague
It is certainly our approach to be forceful and assertive without being belligerent, and I hope that we will be able to continue with that posture. We have had many occasions to be forceful in our language about Iranian behaviour over recent months.
Our policy is that while we remain unswervingly committed to diplomacy, it is important to emphasise to Iran that all options remain on the table. This policy is not new. It was the position of the previous Government, and it is the position of our closest allies not to rule out the use of military force while emphasising that peaceful diplomacy is the way forward that we all wish to see.
No United States President has made a more powerful appeal to Iran peacefully to negotiate an end to its differences with the international community than President Obama, and yet as he said in his State of the Union address last month,
“America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”
That is the approach of our Government, and it was also the approach of the previous Government. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said when asked in July 2007 if he would rule out a military strike against Iran:
“I firmly believe that the sanctions policy that we are pursuing will work, but I’m not one who’s going forward to say that we rule out any particular form of action”.
It is also the position of France and Germany, and I believe that on this issue we and our key allies should stand united together.
Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the middle east, some of which are deemed capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Iranian revolutionary guard corps commanders have repeatedly hinted at their ability and willingness to strike at their opponents overseas. Iranian officials have threatened to use military force to close the strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most vital trading corridors, including for the passage of oil supplies.
Under these circumstances, no prudent Government, despite what the motion implies, could rule out any use of force in the future. Let me be clear that ruling out other options would be irresponsible given the serious nature of our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme and the consequences of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. We should not relieve Iran of any of the pressure it is currently facing. If we rule out military action, Iran might perceive that it can get away with aggressive actions. Taking other options off the table might cause Iran to respond by stepping up its aggressive and destabilising activity in the region. Taking options off the table would also have implications for the positions of several nations in the Gulf and potentially undermine their security. This adds up to a compelling case to keep the policy that we have.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is making a brilliant speech, and I agree with every word he has said. Can he shed light on Ahmadinejad’s standing with his own people? Does Ahmadinejad’s belligerence command the backing of the Iranian people, or are we simply talking about the Iranian regime?
Mr Hague
That is a hard thing to determine in a country in which opposition is not free to operate in the way it should. Just last week we commemorated the one year under house arrest and effective imprisonment of both main opposition leaders. It is not easy to assess the state of democratic opinion in such a country. We know that there are many divisions in the regime and that there is much discontent about many issues in Iranian society. I doubt that support for the policies of the President overall is universal.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am deeply heartened by much of what my right hon. Friend says, but my understanding of article 2 of the United Nations charter and the Kellogg-Briand pact, which I understand is still in force, is that the United Kingdom is not entitled to hold military force as an option on the table and that we long since delegated that power to the United Nations—[Interruption.]
Mr Hague
Not all international law is in the charter, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), with all his legal experience, says. It is the view of many of the leading nations in the United Nations that we are fully entitled to retain that position.
If we were to adopt the course of action proposed by my hon. Friend in his motion today, we would break with longstanding British policy, abandon the position of our allies and create the appearance of division and uncertainty between leading members of the international community. We would send the wrong signal to our allies in the region, and we would weaken the diplomatic pressure on the Iranian regime at the time when our efforts to persuade Iran to return to negotiations are more vital than ever, giving the impression that our determination to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons is waning, and possibly emboldening those within the regime who favour a more aggressive approach. This would be the wrong course of action for this country and for all those who wish to see a peaceful resolution of the crisis. Far better is the approach that the Government are taking with our allies of diplomatic engagement combined with robust pressure pursued with will, energy and determination. That strategy is the world’s best hope of averting any military confrontation with Iran, with all the very serious risks and consequences that that might bring.
Today the message that this House should send out is to call on Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activity; to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations and the IAEA; peacefully to negotiate a settlement to its differences with us and with the international community; to abandon any intent to acquire nuclear weapons now or in the future; to turn away from confrontation; to stop support for violence and terrorism; and to allow the Iranian people the full benefits that would flow from their nation enjoying its rightful place in its region and the world at large. To send this message to Iran with one voice today there is no course for this House but to reject the motion and vote in support of the amendment.
UK/France Summit
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I would like to update the House on the UK/France summit on 17 February in Paris.
Last Friday’s summit followed that of November 2010 which resulted in the signature of two historic defence treaties at Lancaster house.
The Summit
The summit was hosted by President Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace. President Sarkozy was accompanied by Prime Minister Fillon and his Foreign, Defence and Energy Ministers.
The British delegation was headed by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, accompanied by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and me.
France and the UK are co-operating more closely on foreign and security policy issues than at any time since the second world war. Discussions covered foreign policy, defence, security and energy issues, highlighting our shared challenges and priorities. Within this context, we discussed the importance of stabilising the eurozone and restoring growth to the European economy. There were also frank exchanges in areas where we disagree, including the proposal for a financial transaction tax.
At the conclusion of the talks, the President and Prime Minister issued joint declarations covering defence and security, energy and Syria. These can be found at: www.number10.gov.uk.
Energy
A centrepiece of the summit was our landmark agreement to strengthen co-operation between France and the UK on civil nuclear energy. The joint declaration signalled our shared commitment to the future of civil nuclear power, setting out a joint long-term vision of safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy, that supports growth and helps to deliver our emission reductions targets. The declaration reiterated our commitment to the role of nuclear energy as part of a diversified energy mix, agreeing to work together with the International Atomic Energy Agency to strengthen international capability to react to nuclear emergencies and establish a joint framework for co-operation and exchanging good practice on civil nuclear security. British and French public and private sector bodies in the civil nuclear power industry will also work more closely on education and training; research and development; and security. This strengthened co-operation will be supported by a new Franco-British high-level group on nuclear energy, bringing together industry, Government, and other key stakeholders.
This partnership agreement was underpinned by a number of commercial deals in the field of nuclear energy, worth more than £500 million and creating more than 1,500 jobs across the country. These agreements represent a significant strengthening of the relationship between France and the UK in the field of civil nuclear development and signal the emergence of a competitive supply chain capable of servicing global opportunities. They also constitute the first concrete orders which make the UK new nuclear programme a reality, thus meeting critical objectives for securing our energy supplies and meeting our carbon reduction targets.
Defence and Security
The summit reinforced both sides’ commitment to the increased co-operation initiated in the 2010 Lancaster house treaties. We are similar-sized powers, with similar-sized armed forces and similar ambitions. The strength of our relationship and our determination to improve it were demonstrated throughout our leadership of the campaign to protect citizens in Libya. As part of our work to establish a new joint rapidly deployable force, we will design and develop a deployable headquarters comprising permanent and experienced staff drawn from existing French and UK high readiness command structures; this will be enhanced by an increase in the number of exchange officers on both sides. Beyond this, we agreed to work together to move to the next stage of developing a new generation of unmanned aerial vehicles. We also discussed a wide range of actual and potential co-operation on equipment procurement and support to enable both improved capability and interoperability while delivering efficiency savings.
We also confirmed our joint approach to a range of current foreign policy challenges, including the threat of Iran’s nuclear programme, Somalia ahead of the London conference, Afghanistan and Burma.
Syria
Our discussions on Syria focused on the continued and appalling violence and concluded with a declaration that set out the joint measures that our two countries will take in support of the Syrian people and their aspirations for a better future. These included calling on the UN and other humanitarian agencies to carry out an urgent assessment of humanitarian needs, an increase in humanitarian aid, support for increased pressure on Assad, including an asset freeze on the Central Bank of Syria, and support for a subsequent transition process in Syria.
Conclusions
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated, the summit showed the strength and depth of the UK’s ties with France.
One year on from the Libya uprising, we are working together to stand up to the murderous Syrian regime and to stop a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran. At the United Nations, we co-sponsor more than three quarters of Security Council resolutions. Our commercial relationship is deep and growing with exports increasing and French investment sustaining almost 10,000 jobs in the UK. Our armed forces are working together at the cutting edge of military technology. The UK and France are committed to working together, for the security and the prosperity of both our nations.
Zimbabwe (EU Restrictive Measures)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The EU has announced its decision to roll over the Zimbabwe restrictive and appropriate measures. Following an in-depth assessment of the current situation on the ground, the UK and its EU partners have unanimously agreed to the renewal of the measures for a further 12 months, while removing 51 people and 20 companies from the list of those subject to an EU visa ban and asset freeze on the grounds that they are no longer involved in or associated with human rights abuses or undermining democracy or the rule of law. These amendments reflect the positive progress made by the Inclusive Government and SADC facilitation process in the implementation of the global political agreement and preparing for credible and peaceful elections in Zimbabwe.
While our assessment is that there have been demonstrable improvements in the overall situation in Zimbabwe, there remains a pressing need for further progress. The implementation of political reforms remain slow. Politically motivated looting, violence and intimidation continue, albeit on a lesser scale than in previous years. Further political and democratic reform is essential to promote the rule of law, human rights and democracy, as agreed under the global political agreement. For these reasons, we have extended the travel restrictions and asset freeze applicable to the remaining 112 people and 11 companies for a further 12 months. The listing of the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC) will be reviewed in six months. The arms embargo remains in place.
The restrictions on appropriate measures covering EU development assistance have also been renewed for six months. During this period, the EU will engage Zimbabwe in preparations for a country strategy paper in the framework of the European development fund. The EU will also invite the Government of Zimbabwe to intensify political dialogue, including through the Zimbabwe ministerial re-engagement team, and to define further steps towards a normalisation of EU-Zimbabwe relations. The appropriate measures will be reviewed again at the end of the six months on the basis of progress on the ground in Zimbabwe, including core Cotonou principles of human rights and rule of law. EU and UK bilateral development aid will continue to be channelled directly to the people of Zimbabwe through the UN and non-state actors, rather than through the Government of Zimbabwe.
The UK and our EU partners emphasise our willingness to revisit the measures at any time should there be further concrete developments on the ground in Zimbabwe. In this context, we fully support the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and its member states in their effort to facilitate agreement among the parties in Zimbabwe on creating an environment conducive to the holding of free and fair elections. To facilitate unfettered dialogue between the EU and Zimbabwe the EU has agreed to suspend the travel bans on the two ZANU-PF members of the Zimbabwean ministerial re-engagement team.
Britain remains a committed friend to the people of Zimbabwe. UK aid to Zimbabwe this financial year (2011-12) will reach £80 million—our largest ever programme. Over the next four years UK aid will provide almost 1 million more people with clean water, give more than 700,000 women access to family planning, create 125,000 new jobs and help 80,000 children complete primary education. UK aid to Zimbabwe is channelled through UN agencies and NGOs, not the Government of Zimbabwe, and its delivery is independently monitored.