Gifting of Non-lethal Equipment (Syria)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(10 years, 4 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)
On 18 November 2013 I laid a departmental minute before the House of Commons on the gifting of non-lethal equipment to the supreme military council of the Free Syrian Army, which is closely aligned to the Syrian National Coalition. The gift consists of commercially available communications equipment, such as laptops with satellite internet connection, mobile telephones and push-to-talk radios; commercially available vehicles, such as pick-up trucks; fuel; portable generators less than 3 MW in power; logistics supplies such as clothing, rations and tents; and individual medical kits. The total cost of the gift is £1 million, which will be met by the Government’s conflict pool fund. Use of these funds has been approved by me and the Secretaries of State for Defence and for International Development. During the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which the minute was laid before the House of Commons, no Member signified an objection, either by giving notice of a parliamentary question or of a motion in relation to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House.
Following fighting at Bab al-Hawa on 7 December 2013, UK Government plans to deliver equipment to the supreme military council in Syria were temporarily put on hold. I am now lifting the hold on those plans to deliver equipment to the supreme military council of the Free Syrian Army in Syria. Both the UK Government and the supreme military council are confident that the equipment can be delivered safely. This resumption of delivery clearly demonstrates our continued and long-standing support for the National Coalition and the supreme military council of the Free Syrian Army, who represent the majority of Syrians who support a political settlement and a democratic, pluralist future for their country. I wrote to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 28 March confirming my intention to resume the delivery of non-lethal equipment to the supreme military council of the Free Syrian Army in Syria. They have raised no objections and deliveries of non-lethal equipment will begin as soon as is practical.
The UK is committed to doing all that it can to alleviate the humanitarian suffering and to promote a political settlement to end the conflict. Our support to the National Coalition and the supreme military council, with their vision for a democratic and pluralistic future for Syria, contributes to these goals. This is the UK’s second gift to the supreme military council. In August 2013 we sent them equipment to protect them from chemical weapons attack. This gift has been scrutinised to ensure that the provision of this equipment is consistent with export controls and complies with our international obligations. Recipients have been carefully selected to prevent equipment from being given to those involved in extremist activities or human rights violations.
Middle East Peace Process
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(10 years, 4 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 update the House on the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
On 30 July 2013 the United States secured the resumption of direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, with the goal of achieving a just and peaceful resolution of the middle east peace process. Over the past nine months, the UK Government have strongly supported the tireless efforts of US Secretary of State Kerry and his team as they have sought to bridge the gaps between the parties. His dedication to the pursuit of peace has been remarkable and I pay tribute to him.
It is disappointing that, despite those efforts, greater progress has not been made by the parties to date in the talks. It is now for the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to decide whether they want to seize or squander this opportunity for peace. We urge the parties to use the coming weeks to find the common ground and political strength needed to resume this process, and encourage other countries to maintain support for that objective.
A negotiated two-state agreement remains the only way to resolve the conflict once and for all. The parameters are clear: two states, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as a shared capital, a just, fair and agreed settlement for refugees, and Gaza as an integral part of the Palestinian state. The need and international support for such an agreement is as great as ever. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister highlighted during his recent visit to the region, the benefits of peace will be immeasurable, for all future generations, Israelis and Palestinians alike. But securing that two-state solution is getting harder, not easier. I urge the leaders of both sides to demonstrate the courage, vision and urgency necessary.
The UK Government remain fully committed to supporting efforts for peace. The Minister of State with responsibility for the middle east and North Africa will visit the region in the near future.
Afghanistan (Monthly Progress Report)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(10 years, 5 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 36th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
During March, three candidates withdrew from the presidential race. On 6 March, Qayyum Karzai, the President’s older brother, withdrew and threw his support behind Zalmai Rassoul. Similarly, Nader Naeem (who stepped down on 26 March) endorsed Rassoul’s campaign. However, Abdul Rahim Wardak chose not to endorse another candidate when he resigned from the race on 16 March.
First Vice-President, Marshal Mohammed Qasim Fahim Khan, died on 9 March. President Karzai declared three days of national mourning in response to his death. On 18 March, President Karzai appointed Mohammad Younis Qanuni as first Vice-President, to replace the late Marshal Fahim. Qanuni’s appointment was approved by Parliament, as required by the constitution, on 25 March.
In March the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) published its review into five of DFID Afghanistan’s bilateral programmes from the growth and livelihoods sectors. This included three projects in Helmand, two of which have now closed. DFID has welcomed the report and its recommendations as part of its post-2014 planning process. The Department is taking account of the issues raised by ICAI in its work to reduce poverty in Afghanistan over the long term.
On 20 March, insurgents attacked the Serena hotel in Kabul, targeting guests celebrating Nowruz (new year). Nine people were killed in the attack, including an Afghan journalist and his family. This killing and the murder of a dual-national Swedish/British journalist on 11 March, prompted the Afghan journalist community to enact a 15-day blackout on any reporting of insurgent messages, to extend over the election period.
On 20 March I announced the closure of the UK-led Helmand provincial reconstruction team (PRT). This is in line with President Karzai’s request that all PRTs across Afghanistan are to close by the end of 2014 in keeping with the process of transition to an Afghan lead. UK forces continued the redeployment of personnel and equipment in central Helmand, with the closure of forward operating base Price on 15 March. This leaves just Camp Bastion and observation post Sterga 2 with a UK presence in the region. Taskforce Helmand has begun the process of integration with HQ Regional Command (Southwest), and ceased to operate a separate HQ from 1 April.
I welcome the presidential and provincial elections that took place on 5 April. These will be covered in April’s parliamentary report.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the gov.uk website (www.gov. k/government/publications/afghanistan-progress-reports).
Ukraine
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(10 years, 5 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)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement to update the House on the crisis in Ukraine, developments over the past three weeks and the action that we propose to take now. I apologise for my croaky voice.
From 6 April, illegal armed groups began to occupy Government buildings in Kharkiv, Donetsk and Lugansk. From 12 April, in an apparently co-ordinated fashion, police and security service buildings were seized in smaller towns across the east of Ukraine. Like the armed men without insignia who took control of Crimea in February, many are well equipped, operate like professional soldiers who have trained together, and wear matching uniforms. Russia’s claim that these groups are purely local militias has no credibility.
NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, has stated that
“what is happening in eastern Ukraine is a military operation that is well planned and organised and we assess that it is being carried out at the direction of Russia.”
We share that assessment.
On 14 April, I attended the EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg where we decided upon additional sanctions. Those sanctions were then suspended in the light of talks in Geneva between Ukraine, Russia, the US and the EU on 17 April, which succeeded in agreeing steps to reduce tensions. The agreement committed all sides to refrain from violence or provocative actions in the south and east of Ukraine. It required all illegal armed groups to be disarmed and to vacate all illegally seized buildings and occupied public places in return for an amnesty for protesters, in a process assisted by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s special monitoring mission. The Ukrainian Government promised to take forward an inclusive, transparent and accountable constitutional process. I spoke to the Ukrainian acting Foreign Minister Deschytsia immediately after the Geneva agreement, and strongly welcomed the agreement.
The Ukrainian Government have made determined efforts to implement the agreement in good faith. They have put a draft amnesty law to the Ukrainian Parliament, begun a constitutional reform process, including decentralisation and the expansion of local authority power, and continued to collect illegal weapons. They are removing roadblocks around the Maidan, and protesters are vacating government buildings in Kiev. In addition, they have announced steps to guarantee the protection of the Russian language and its special status, and they have condemned anti-Semitism or intolerance.
The Prime Minister announced on Good Friday that the United Kingdom is providing £1 million to support the deployment of up to 400 additional observers to strengthen the OSCE mission in Ukraine. I pay tribute to the Ukrainian Government for the steps they have taken and for behaving with immense restraint in extremely difficult circumstances.
In contrast, Russia has so far failed to implement any part of the Geneva agreement. I spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov last Wednesday and although I welcomed his participation in the Geneva meeting, I said to him that I could not identify a single positive step that Russia had taken to implement the agreement. It has not condemned the act of separatists or called on armed militants to vacate buildings and put down their arms. It has done nothing to rein in pro-Russian separatist groups, which continue to attack Ukrainian arms depots and military personnel, take over Government buildings and detain journalists and OSCE military observers, which we utterly condemn. The detention and parading of those observers, who should be released immediately, is utterly reprehensible and does further damage to the standing of Russia and the reputation of such groups operating in eastern Ukraine. The deplorable shooting today of the mayor of Kharkiv is another sign of the violence being instigated against those who opted to support a united Ukraine.
Furthermore, last week Russia announced further military exercises on Ukraine’s borders, Russia’s UN ambassador claimed that it had the right to deploy so-called “peacekeepers” on Ukrainian territory and Foreign Minister Lavrov said that Russia reserves the right to attack Ukraine to defend ethnic Russians. There is of course no evidence of threats to, or attacks on, Russians in eastern Ukraine.
I proposed to Foreign Minister Lavrov that Russia could demonstrate its good faith by making an immediate public call for the full implementation of the Geneva agreement. I also proposed that Russia’s acting head of mission in Kiev could join in assisting the OSCE special monitoring mission on the ground, including by negotiating with the groups illegally occupying buildings. I warned the Foreign Minister that in the absence of such steps, the European Union and others would impose increasing sanctions.
As I have often said in this House, we do not view developments in Ukraine as presenting a zero-sum strategic choice. Ukraine can be a bridge between east and west and be able to maintain good relations with Russia. Our national interest lies in a democratic Ukraine that is able to make its own decisions and in a rules-based international system. Both considerations now require the adoption of further measures to increase the cost to Russia of its actions.
G7 Heads of Government issued a statement on Friday pledging to move swiftly to impose additional sanctions on Russia. We also all undertook to prepare to move to broader co-ordinated sanctions, including sectoral measures, if necessary. Russia’s accession to the International Energy Agency and the OECD has been suspended, the EU has suspended visa liberalisation talks and there will be no G8 meeting in Sochi this year but a G7 meeting without Russia in Brussels instead.
The US has previously sanctioned 38 individuals and two entities. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have adopted similar measures and 33 individuals are subject to EU asset freezes and travel bans. At the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a resolution was adopted suspending the voting rights of Russian members. I pay tribute to Members of this House for the role they played in that vote. Permanent representatives in Brussels have been meeting today to finalise adding substantially to the list of individuals sanctioned by the European Union. Subject to final procedures, that will be officially agreed within the next half hour and the names of those concerned will be published tomorrow. We are in further discussions in the EU about future steps, including preparations for a third tier of sanctions involving far-reaching economic and trade measures. Those preparations are now well advanced and the European Commission has sent proposals to each member state.
Increasing the scope of the sanctions placed on Russia is the right response to the failure to implement the Geneva agreement and the continued destabilisation of eastern Ukraine. In the past two hours, the United States has announced that it is imposing sanctions on seven further Russian Government officials, including two members of President Putin’s inner circle, and on 17 companies also linked to Putin’s inner circle, as well as additional restrictions on 13 of those companies. The United States has also announced that it has tightened policy to deny export licence applications for any high-technology items that could contribute to Russia’s military capabilities.
As these developments show, Russia is already paying a serious price for its actions, and the longer it breaches the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, the heavier the price it will pay, undermining its own influence in its neighbourhood, steadily disconnecting Russia from the international community and damaging Russia's own prosperity and security over the long-term. We have already seen the flight of more than $63 billion in capital out of Russia and the fall of the Russian stock market, and Russia’s economy is now forecast to shrink this year. The European Commission is preparing a comprehensive plan to reduce European countries’ reliance on Russian energy, and the G7 Energy Ministers will meet next week to discuss ways to strengthen our collective energy security.
The Ukrainian people deserve their own opportunity to make free democratic choices, free from corruption and from external interference. We are sending experts to help to improve public financial management, working with the World Bank to strengthen governance in Ukraine, co-hosting a forum on asset recovery starting tomorrow here in London to locate the proceeds of corruption, and helping to support free, fair and inclusive presidential elections on 25 May. We have helped to secure an increase in European Union assistance to help to ensure economic stability in Ukraine, bringing the total support available from existing EU budgets to more than £1.4 billion and we are calling for expert EU assistance to strengthen law enforcement and the rule of law. We support IMF plans to put in place a two-year programme worth potentially more than $17 billion that will help Ukraine to make the reforms it urgently needs and to build a stronger and more prosperous economy for the future.
Russia’s actions have caused deep alarm not only in Ukraine, but among its neighbours with Russian-speaking minorities, in particular the Baltic states. On 16 April, NATO agreed a set of measures to provide reassurance and confidence to NATO allies. These include more air policing and naval missions, and deployment of additional military staff from allied nations to strengthen NATO’s preparedness, training and exercises. The UK has contributed four Typhoon aircraft to boost NATO’s regular Baltic air policing mission, which have left today, we are contributing to AWACS reconnaissance flights over Poland and Romania, and we stand ready to provide more support as NATO’s response develops. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is discussing these measures with colleagues in Estonia today, and I intend to travel to the region next week, including to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.
It cannot be acceptable in the 21st century not only to invade and annex by force on the back of a sham referendum part of a neighbouring country, but to use military exercises and proxies to foment instability and disorder in that country, in an effort to disrupt its democratic elections. These are policies we have to be clear we oppose, and we must be ready to take measures that make very clear that approach. Russia’s actions betray its fear of democracy and the rule of law taking root in their neighbourhood. These actions are not consistent with being a strong and confident country, and are also in breach of international agreements and the UN charter to which Russia is a party.
It is in Russia's power to help to find ways for tensions to be reduced in Ukraine, and the doors of diplomacy remain fully open. We will continue to talk to Russia and to urge it to seek de-escalation. But repeated intensification of the crisis and violation of international law and refusal to implement agreements require a strong response from the international community, and the United Kingdom will be part of that, in keeping with our international responsibilities and in defence of our national interest.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for this statement and for advance sight of it.
Russia’s willingness to violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine is the gravest challenge to the European security order in decades. As this crisis continues, there are those who now argue that these actions are already undermining the belief of so many Europeans in recent years that further conflict on the European continent had become all but impossible.
The difficult but vital task of the international community, which is a matter of bipartisan agreement across the House, must be to ensure that, by demonstrating to the Russians the costs and consequences of their actions, we manage to secure a de-escalation of this continuing crisis. So I start by joining the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to Members across the House who took steps to pass the recent motion that suspended the voting rights of Russian MPs on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
At the weekend, I had the opportunity to meet a number of US Senators who were clear in their view that further action by Europe was now necessary. So I welcome the announcement made on 26 April by the G7 to extend existing sanctions against Russia, as well as today’s meeting of the Permanent Representatives in Brussels to finalise the extended list of individuals sanctioned by the EU. Similar measures have been in place since the conclusion of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 17 March and yet, as we have heard, Russia has regrettably still refused to change course. By what criteria are individuals being identified for action? Is it those with the most concrete interests within Europe, those with the biggest capacity to affect the course of events in the region or those most implicated in previous illegal actions?
The Foreign Secretary has indicated that the G7 is also exploring the possibility of wider sectoral sanctions against Russia, and I welcome those steps. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary stated in an interview on Sunday that such measures would be implemented
“if Russia continues to escalate this crisis.”
The Foreign Secretary confirmed today that the Government’s view is that the recent events in eastern Ukraine are
“being carried out at the direction of Russia.”
In the light of growing evidence that Russia is indeed escalating the crisis, will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether a continuation of the Russian Government’s current approach would itself in time constitute grounds for the G7 to decide that trade and sectoral sanctions were now necessary and appropriate?
The crisis is naturally causing real concerns among our NATO partners, in particular the Baltic states and Poland. I therefore welcome the steps announced by the Foreign Secretary today, but will he say a little more about his discussions with those NATO allies about the vital and necessary co-operation in the light of their pressing concerns given the security situation in the region?
An additional priority in the coming weeks must be securing conditions for free and fair presidential elections taking place in Ukraine on 25 May, which will involve operational and diplomatic support for the interim Government in Kiev. The Foreign Secretary is right to highlight today the £1 million pledged by the UK to support the deployment of up to 400 additional observers to strengthen the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission. In the light of the appalling treatment of seven OSCE monitors, which the Foreign Secretary rightfully condemned, will he confirm whether the OSCE intends to continue its mission in the east of Ukraine for the foreseeable future? What steps can and should be taken to try to protect those involved in the monitoring exercise?
I welcome the high-level international meeting due to take place in London tomorrow to support the Ukrainian Government’s efforts to recover stolen assets. The Foreign Secretary is right to support International Monetary Fund plans for a two-year programme to help Ukraine to reform and to become more prosperous in the long term. However, so far, no commitments have yet been made about the time frame for the delivery of that IMF support, so will the Foreign Secretary update the House about the progress made on that matter? Will he confirm whether those discussions are taking into account the significance of the period leading up to the elections on 25 May?
The current crisis has seen a series of tactical steps taken by the Kremlin, but it has also revealed longer-term strategic issues for Europe. Russia supplies around a third of the EU’s gas, but the Kremlin is also dependent on revenue from oil, gas and coal exports to the EU. I therefore welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments on the European Commission’s plan to reduce European countries’ reliance on Russian energy and the announcement by G7 Energy Ministers that they will hold discussions next week. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether a date will be set at that meeting for the publication of a report? Further, will he offer the House the British Government’s estimate of what actually is a realistic timetable by which the necessary infrastructure could be put in place to ensure a more meaningfully diverse supply of energy to Europe in the years ahead?
In conclusion, the days ahead mark a crucial juncture not just for Ukraine, but both for the European Union and our NATO allies. This is a moment of real geopolitical significance. Russian action, together with the international community’s response, is being watched not simply in the region, but right around the world. As in past weeks, in the days and weeks ahead, the Government will have our support in their efforts to help to ensure a de-escalation of the crisis by evidencing the costs and consequences to the Russians and by allowing Ukraine the opportunity to choose its own future.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting out a bipartisan approach, which is very welcome at important moments in foreign policy; it helps this country to send, and other countries to hear, a clear and united message. He joined me in paying tribute to Members on all sides—and I mean all sides—of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for their work over the past few weeks.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the criteria for placing people on the EU sanctions list. We have focused so far, including in the list that is about to be published, either on people in Crimea who have been part of what has happened there or on Russians involved in supporting the actions that have been taken in Crimea or eastern Ukraine—in other words, people with a direct political or other responsibility for what has happened. Of course, that could be broadened in future—the basis of the US sanctions is broader—but that is what we have focused on in the European Union. A question for the coming days will be whether to change the criteria for future rounds of sanctions if they prove necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman asked at what point in Russia’s escalations we will apply the third tier of sanctions, which is one of the major issues facing those countries applying sanctions. I do not think that it would be helpful to set out in detail a trip wire or red line, not least because that would invite Russia to go up to that point, knowing that it would not be subject to such sanctions. In the minds of many European countries, such sanctions are to be applied in the event of a Russian invasion of parts of eastern Ukraine. However, I think that it is important to hold out the option of applying such sanctions in circumstances that amount not to a military invasion, but to a political and forcible takeover by other means of large parts of eastern Ukraine.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about NATO Foreign Ministers. We are in close consultation across NATO. NATO Foreign Ministers met at the beginning of the month to discuss the situation in detail, and many of the measures that NATO has announced are the result of our discussions. The OSCE mission, which he asked about, is certainly continuing. The observers who have been taken hostage and paraded are not actually part of the special monitoring mission that is supporting implementation of the Geneva agreement; they are part of the military monitoring that the OSCE does anyway in an attempt to reduce tensions across eastern Europe. So far, the situation has not affected the OSCE’s determination to continue its mission. As of Friday, 122 observers have been deployed. As I mentioned in my statement, one of the reasons we have provided additional funding is so that up to 400 additional observers can be deployed, and we are in favour of the OSCE deploying a great many additional people.
The IMF support is a two-year programme, and its delivery depends upon the financial needs and performance of the Ukrainian Government over the coming weeks. It takes into account the proximity of the presidential elections. On the long-term strategic issues, I am in favour of being as transparent as possible at an early date about what the plans might involve, but clearly they still require further discussion.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how long it would take to change the infrastructure of Europe. Of course it would take many years to change the infrastructure in all the ways that could be considered, for example by completing construction of the southern gas corridor from the Caspian sea, or by changing infrastructure in the United States so that liquefied natural gas could be exported from its east coast. However, I think that a determination to embark on those and other measures would have an economic effect long before they were fully implemented. Russia has to take that into account in its actions now.
Mr Speaker
We do not have time for an exhaustive recital of the contents of the treaty, but we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the essential flavour of it.
Mr Hague
Treaties of the 18th century are important, and we do indeed rest our case in some international disputes on those treaties, including the treaty of Utrecht. My right hon. Friend should nevertheless bear in mind the fact that Mr Khrushchev transferred the sovereignty of the Crimea to Ukraine—[Interruption.] I think I am receiving some support from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Russia took that decision—also a validly taken international decision—so my right hon. Friend should reflect on the fact that we now try not to settle international disputes in the same manner as in the 18th century. The fact that Russia annexed the Crimea by force in the 1770s does not allow the Russians to do so in the 21st century.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary say a word about Germany’s view on economic sanctions? One of the kidnapped military monitors is Colonel Axel Schneider—a high-ranking German officer—so does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that might concentrate the mind of the German people on the need to be firm against Russia?
Mr Hague
Four German observers are involved, which is a matter of great concern to Germany and to us. Chancellor Merkel spoke very clearly about these matters on Friday, saying that we needed to adopt additional sanctions and that G7 and EU measures come with the full support of Germany. She has called for the extension of the EU list of names, for further additions to it and for intensified preparation for the wider economic measures that may prove necessary. The support of Germany is certainly there.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that his very strong condemnation of the continuing aggression of Russia towards Ukraine is an acknowledgement that the rather symbolic sanctions measures taken thus far—despite the annexation of Crimea—have had absolutely no impact on Mr Putin’s thinking or his continuing behaviour? Does my right hon. Friend accept, and will the western community now accept, that the time for wide-ranging trade, economic and financial sanctions has come? Will he confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will undoubtedly support at the very least economic, financial and trade sanctions if a single Russian soldier again crosses the border into its neighbouring state?
Mr Hague
My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard me talk about the intensified preparation of those sanctions. That is going on now; I gave a little detail about it in my statement. I mentioned earlier the debate about the criteria for imposing those sanctions, but a Russian military invasion of eastern Ukraine certainly triggers such sanctions—certainly in the view of the United Kingdom and, I think, of the great majority of European Union nations. We stand ready to take such measures and we will not shy away from them.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s statement and with the thoughtful response from my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander). The puzzle surely is this. On one reading, Russia is acting with a kind of irrational belligerence and aggression, given that it is inviting the retaliation that the Foreign Secretary has explained, which will be intensified, so what is Russia really after? Will the right hon. Gentleman share his assessment? Could we pursue an alternative strategy, because it does not seem to me that we are getting anywhere with this approach? Russia is not getting anywhere—it is suffering economically—and we are not getting anywhere.
Mr Hague
I believe that Russia’s actions in Crimea, and now in eastern Ukraine, are a response to the unexpected and rapid fall of President Yanukovych and his Government, which was understood in the world—and indeed in Russia—to be a major reversal for Russian foreign policy. The long-term consequences of that response have not necessarily been thought through. Russia has acted to restore some of what it might think of as its prestige internationally or domestically, and therefore taken these actions. There is an alternative approach—the one agreed in Geneva only 11 days ago, with Russia’s Foreign Minister present—which is for all concerned to de-escalate tensions while the Ukrainian Government pursue constitutional reform, including decentralisation to the regions of Ukraine. That is the alternative model.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Is not one of the most chilling features of this affair the continued assertion of the right of Russia to intervene in other countries on the pretext of protecting Russian citizens or Russian passport holders? Has my right hon. Friend taken the opportunity to advise the Government of Ukraine, and other Governments perhaps in a similar position, about the importance of avoiding a response to any provocation—whether accidental or deliberate—that might be seized upon as a justification, however spurious, for further such intervention?
Mr Hague
That is a very important point. It is a chilling aspect of Russia’s statements on this crisis, and I have indeed discussed it with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Ukraine. I commend them again for their restraint and their refusal to rise to provocation. They have been doing their best to create and maintain law and order in their country without giving a pretext for Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine, and so far they have done a very good job under intense domestic political pressure.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Several ISAF countries are heavily reliant on Russian heavy lifting capacity and access to airspace as part of their withdrawal from Afghanistan. Is there any evidence that Russia is using that airspace and capacity as a bargaining counter in the negotiations?
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend believe that NATO has adequately asserted its willingness to defend itself and its allies, and will he also remind the House that we have much business to do with the Russians, not least in Syria and Iran?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend makes the point that I made in my previous answer. We continue to work with Russia on the Iranian nuclear negotiations and many African issues. We also try to work with Russia on Syria, although we have not succeeded in agreeing a common approach on that particular subject. He may be assured that we will maintain those efforts in the coming weeks.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary will continue to receive widespread support in all parts of the House if he maintains the calibrated but determined approach that he has laid out in his statement. The trick is to make certain that the Russians realise the level of determination to resist their incursions into Ukraine, balanced by allowing them the time to think through the consequences of their actions—I am not at all sure that they have done so. Does he agree?
Mr Hague
Yes, I absolutely agree. Thinking through the long-term consequences has not necessarily happened, as I said to the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). Part of our approach is to take certain measures that have an impact while making it clear that there are further and more serious measures that we are prepared to take. We are giving the time for that to sink in and for negotiations to take place such as those in Geneva 11 days ago. I hope and believe that we have the calibration right, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support for it.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend’s robust but typically graduated approach, which together with Ukraine’s restraint gives every opportunity for Russia to come back into the situation and be part of the future? If there are to be costs and consequences for Russia’s illegal action, and if they are to mean anything, there will be costs and consequences for the United Kingdom. Is my right hon. Friend confident that, in particular, the City of London is well prepared for that and will give him every co-operation in making sure that the sanctions he imposes are effective and that London will not become a bolthole for the investment of those who are seeking to evade the sanctions placed on them?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. If we do have to move to a third tier of more far-reaching sanctions, it is important that they cover various economic trade and financial areas, and the United Kingdom would have to play a very important part in that. It is important that sacrifices that are necessary are shared across the whole of the European Union, but we would certainly play our part, and of course we would seek to construct these measures in a way that had the maximum effect on the Russian economy and the minimum effect on European Union economies.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
There has been some talk of the possibility of providing arms to Ukraine’s military. However, when I was there two weeks ago with a number of colleagues it became apparent that more basic support equipment such as tents and protective clothing would be welcome. Has there been any consideration of providing that?
Mr Hague
I very much welcome the visit to Ukraine by Members of Parliament from both sides of the House; that is, in itself, an important sign of our willingness to work with Ukraine and to understand the issues in that country. We have long supported projects of defence reform and improvements to the armed forces in Ukraine. We are not supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons, but we are open to supplying the sort of equipment that the hon. Lady asks about. We are looking sympathetically at its requests for these things at the moment.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
Is it not clear that Russia, having repudiated the 1992 Budapest agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, and now the Geneva agreement as well, is intent on invading eastern Ukraine? While I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced, not least the deployment of four Typhoons, may I renew my plea that NATO be charged with the responsibility for sending a maritime taskforce at least to deter the Russians from attacking Odessa, because that if that were to happen the remainder of Ukraine would have no access to a sea port?
Mr Hague
I am not announcing any additional military deployment today beyond what I have said about the air policing mission, but I take note of my hon. Friend’s suggestion. I do not think that what has happened necessarily means that Russia has decided to invade eastern Ukraine. Clearly, it means that Russia has put itself in a position to do so, and the threat to do so has to be taken seriously. It also means that it has embarked on the destabilisation of Ukraine and a deliberate attempt to make it as difficult as possible for that country to function and for its presidential elections to be held—and that, of course, is bad enough.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
When we were in Ukraine a fortnight ago, the extent to which Yanukovych has run down the country’s armed forces, presumably in anticipation of events such as these, was absolutely clear to me. May I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and urge the Foreign Secretary and his NATO colleagues to consider urgently what can be done to strengthen Ukraine’s defences and to provide basic equipment such as secure radio and bullet-proof vests, and military advice and technical equipment, so that the country is more able to defend itself?
Mr Hague
Broadly, yes—although I am not saying yes to all the items the hon. Gentleman mentions. I reiterate the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire. I do not think that former President Yanukovych anticipated his own demise and flight to Russia, but nevertheless it is true that the Ukrainian armed forces have been run down for a long time. We will be able to supply them with some basic items that help them to function and I will keep the House informed about that.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, with all business with Russia grinding to a halt, Russian stock markets in free fall, the rouble weakening, serious outflows of capital, interest rates rising and a possible forced debt sell-off, the markets are in fact providing de facto sanctions already?
Mr Hague
Yes. Indeed, that should be of more concern to Russia than any sanctions we impose on individuals. The Russian economy is already slow-growing, certainly compared with our own. It has slowed further in recent months and it is possible, as I mentioned in my statement, that it will shrink this year. Every time Russia destabilises Ukraine, it is destabilising its own economy and reducing its own economic prospects, which will bring serious long-term consequences for Russia.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Most of the sanctions thus far have been targeted at individuals and the Foreign Secretary earlier announced more targeted sanctions by the United States of America against individuals. Is there not a real danger that all that will do is unite and cement the Putin regime and bind its members more to one another and to the Russian people? It would be far more productive to have serious economic and financial sanctions that affect the whole of the Russian economy.
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for that. We have those more far-reaching sanctions in preparation. It is very important to keep like-minded countries together on this—that is a major consideration for us. That means the whole of the European Union and G7 acting together. It is certainly the majority consensus opinion that targeted sanctions—followed later, if necessary, by the more far-reaching measures—is the way to do this. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have advocated taking more far-reaching measures now, but I think on balance it is right to stick to the calibrated approach that I advocate and that the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) has commented on. It makes it clear to Russia that such measures will follow a further serious escalation of this crisis.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does the end game of the Foreign Secretary and the European Union include the requirement on Russia to disgorge Crimea, given the arrangements under the association agreement that were agreed in the conclusions of the EU summit a few weeks ago?
Mr Hague
The association agreement and any other actions or documents of the United Kingdom and the European Union are not going to recognise the annexation of Crimea. It cannot be accepted internationally. That is why we are also looking in Europe at the economic measures we are going to apply to Crimea in its current condition, annexed by Russia. The only agreement we have with Russia on these matters is the Geneva agreement, which relates to de-escalating tensions in Ukraine. That is what the international community has come together to require.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is there not a connection between the bully-boy tactics the Russians are now employing in Ukraine and the way in which democratic reforms and changes in Russia itself—the sorts of changes brought in by Mr Gorbachev in the late 1980s—have been reversed?
Mr Hague
There is a connection. I said in my statement that I think Russia is fearful about the establishment of more fully fledged democracy and rule of law in its neighbourhood. There are domestic implications for Russia. That is part of the explanation for its actions and I think that is the wrong course for Russia to be embarked on. In the long term, a more open economy, better relations with its neighbours and a better functioning democracy in its own country would be in its own best interests.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Are contingency plans now in place to import energy from the United States and elsewhere if Russia decides to escalate the situation and interrupts the gas supply to European countries?
Mr Hague
As I mentioned earlier, some things would require long-term changes in infrastructure, but changes are taking place already. Today, Ukraine and Slovakia have signed an agreement for what is called a reverse flow of gas into Ukraine from European countries. Taken with other agreements, that means that Ukraine could now receive about 17 billion cubic metres of gas in total from the EU and other European countries. Changes are therefore already being made, but major changes in infrastructure will take years.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
As has already been said, Putin’s popularity is increasing—really solidifying his approach—and sanctions may take some time to have an impact on ordinary Russians. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore tell us a little more about the discussions he is having with Russia’s neighbours and allies, and about the pressure that they might put on him? Why are we doing so little, or so it seems, in terms of the relationship with the UN?
Mr Hague
The relationship of the UN to this matter is of course very important. A debate took place several weeks ago in the UN General Assembly, when a resolution making clear the support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine was carried by 100 votes to 11. That illustrated the extent of Russia’s diplomatic isolation, but such a vote has not of course affected Russia’s behaviour.
We, of course, talk closely to neighbouring countries. I mentioned that the Minister for Europe is in Estonia today. The Baltic states are particularly concerned about what Russia has done, and we are increasing our military support for them. We will continue to work with neighbouring countries very closely, and I will visit Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine next week to reinforce that.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given the danger that these tactics, if successful, will embolden Russia to do something similar against a NATO member state, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, is any thought being given to increasing the prominence of defence expenditure among Britain’s national priorities?
Mr Hague
Defence remains a very important priority for the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend knows very well. These events mean that at the NATO summit in September, which we will be very proud to host in Wales, there will be increased consciousness of the need for NATO in Europe and of the need for confidence in the collective defence of NATO nations. I have already made the case at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting that that will mean, over the coming years, some NATO nations that spend much less than 2% of GDP on defence having to think again and to increase their defence expenditure.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
When we were in Kiev over the Easter recess, an official made the point to me that Ukraine did not think, when it gave up its nuclear weapons, that it was doing so in return for a few targeted sanctions on individuals. If we are to make any meaningful progress on nuclear non-proliferation in future, do we not need to show the world that we will do whatever it takes to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including discussing now the prospect of a long-term energy boycott on Russia?
Mr Hague
We do have to show that there are very serious consequences, which I have set out. Let us remember that a complete energy boycott of Russia would be very difficult to implement—at this moment, at any rate—for many EU nations, such as Bulgaria, that are heavily dependent on Russian supplies of gas. It would therefore be rash for the whole European Union to advocate an energy boycott of Russia, but it is right to talk about reducing—long-term—the reliance on Russian energy and to change the balance of leverage, as I have put it previously in this House, between Russia and the European Union. We are engaged in that, and Russia should really pay heed to it.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the assistance the British embassy gave the cross-party delegation that visited Ukraine 10 days ago. Is he aware that many Ukrainians believe that their country will soon be at war and that this country has a special obligation to help them, as a signatory to the Budapest memorandum? Will he consider their request that targeted sanctions be introduced now against Russian financial institutions that can be shown to be supporting the separatists, and that we provide assistance in the form of intelligence sharing and the supply of non-lethal military equipment?
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend knows very well, I do not comment on intelligence matters on the Floor of the House, but I note the point he makes. I join him in paying tribute to our embassy, which is doing a very good job in extremely demanding circumstances. In our application of sanctions, we are taking into account those Russians who have been engaged in creating instability in eastern Ukraine. One of the next decisions that we will face, as I mentioned earlier, is whether to widen the criteria so that a greater range of Russians can be included in future.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
At a time when the security of Europe is genuinely seen to be in question, will the Foreign Secretary agree that our membership of the European Union is integral to our ability to respond properly to crises such as that in Ukraine?
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I welcome the escalation of sanctions and note what my right hon. Friend said about Russia’s self-inflicted wounds to her economy and her standing in the world. What is his message today to any individual or company that is considering investing in or doing business with Russia?
Mr Hague
We have not declared a trade war or a boycott of Russia. There are British companies with huge investments in Russia that made those investments in good faith. If it comes to the adoption of more far-reaching economic, trade and financial measures, that will have an impact on some of those companies. However, any such message is for that point. We are not declaring an economic boycott of Russia today.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
In just over three weeks, there will be presidential elections in Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary said in his statement: “NATO agreed a set of measures to provide reassurance and confidence to NATO allies.” Are any NATO measures under consideration to give material military help and support to Ukrainian forces if Ukraine’s eastern border is invaded by Russia in order to disrupt those elections?
Mr Hague
No, not as things stand. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Our response to the situation has not been military outside NATO’s borders. Our additional assurance is to NATO members and relates to our collective defence. That does not extend to a military guarantee to Ukraine.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
While we are all looking at Ukraine’s eastern border, what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the threat to Ukraine’s south-western border, given that the Russians have troops in Transnistria?
Mr Hague
That is another reason why I will visit Moldova and why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe visited it recently. It is true that the security threats to Ukraine come from several directions: from the Black sea and Crimea, from Transnistria and from Russia forces on the eastern border. That underlines the importance of the strong messages about the costs of such intervention to Russia that I am sending today and that others, including the United States, are sending.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Quite rightly we are discussing south-eastern Ukraine, but there is an issue on the Polish border to the west. What assurance can the Foreign Secretary give my Polish constituents that he is not neglecting that aspect of the problem in his discussions?
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the credibility of international agreements such as the Geneva convention, the UN charter and the Budapest memorandum is now at stake if the post-second world war international system is not to fail in the way the post-first world war system did?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
With a mind to the presidential elections on 25 May, has the Secretary of State assessed the number of British nationals who will play a role in monitoring those elections, and if so, what security arrangements will be put in place to protect them from any molestation?
Mr Hague
I do not know how many British nationals will be involved, although some certainly will participate in the monitoring and in the work of the OSCE mission that I mentioned earlier. In the vast majority of the country I do not think security arrangements will be an issue, but we will, of course, look carefully in eastern Ukraine at what we need to do about that.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I echo the importance of the cross-party visit that took place during the Easter recess? It was clear for us to see the role that Russian ringleaders were playing in stirring up tensions there. Given that two thirds of Ukraine’s GDP is owned by just 11 oligarchs, does my right hon. Friend agree that that powerful group could, if it chose, play a more influential role in stabilising Ukraine?
Mr Hague
Yes, I do agree. My hon. Friend made some important reflections on the visit that he and other hon. Members made and which, as I said earlier, was very welcome. Those oligarchs can play an important role and I have spoken to some of them myself to urge them to play a strongly positive role in the future of their country.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
When we were in Ukraine it was clear that what the Ukrainians call “little green men” are agitating in the east. Will the Foreign Secretary work with our international allies to step up our intelligence so that we can affirm what is known to everyone but not yet clearly evidenced in the international community and the public eye—that those are indeed Russian agitators in the east?
Mr Hague
Again, I do not comment on our intelligence, but I can say that we are very confident that those personnel are Russian operatives—not exclusively so. When one considers how they are armed and equipped, how well trained and co-ordinated they are, and how well what they have done in eastern Ukraine mirrors some of what happened in Crimea, it would defy common sense to think them anything other than Russian personnel.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Given that most of the Ukrainian media has been shut down and that east Ukrainians are receiving a diet of Russian propaganda each day, what more can Britain do to use its soft power, including the BBC World Service, to ensure that we get some balanced propaganda and that the presidential and other elections take place?
Mr Hague
The concept of balanced propaganda is a good one, and one we are all very fond of in this House, no doubt. My hon. Friend makes the good point that a multi-billion dollar true propaganda machine is operating on behalf of Russia, putting out stories to the people of east Ukraine in particular that often bear very little resemblance to reality. There is no shortage of outlets from the western media, and other outlets that are free to report things as they are, but it is one of the issues I will consider when I visit the region next week.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
My constituents have been horrified at the incursion into Ukraine’s sovereignty in recent weeks, but they will be equally horrified at the recent comments by Scotland’s First Minister. Does the Secretary of State agree that Alex Salmond did not speak for Scotland on Kosovo, and he does not speak for the people of Scotland now when he claims that rising Russian nationalism is a force for good in the world?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely. I think people throughout Scotland—indeed, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom—will be horrified by those comments. To pay tribute, even as Russia was annexing Crimea by force, to the restoration of pride in Russia is a gross error of judgment in international relations. The attitude of the Scottish National party is very concerning.
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary give us an update on what is happening in Crimea?
Mr Hague
The Tatars, an important minority in Crimea, have grave concerns about what has happened and what it will mean for them. In the European Union, we are looking at the economic restrictions that will apply to goods that are made in Crimea but not exported through Ukraine. It will be a difficult future for Crimea following the forcible annexation of the region.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
It seems clear that further and tougher sanctions might be necessary. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is absolutely imperative for members of the EU and other states to work together carefully to ensure that each supports the other in any sanctions relating to energy?
Mr Hague
Yes. The EU nations, and some countries beyond the EU, need to work very closely on this matter. As long as any one country of the EU is heavily dependent on Russian supplies of gas, the whole of the EU is affected by that vulnerability. Addressing the vulnerability of each individual nation, as well as the EU as a whole, is very important.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments on the importance of reinforcing NATO and our own gesture of sending a flight of Typhoons to the Baltic states. Will he tell us which of our allies, apart from the United States, are involved in a similar move?
Mr Hague
Other allies are involved. The United States and United Kingdom have most quickly provided assets, but other nations will be involved in some of the other actions of assurance. Rather than giving my hon. Friend an off-the-cuff selection of countries, I will write to him with the up-to-date list.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Russia’s power derives from its ability to charge different countries different prices for its gas and thereby divide and rule, so why does the EU not create a single buying entity for Russian gas?
Mr Hague
There would be implications for national competence and sovereignty in deciding to take that measure, but we can have co-ordinated plans to make sure that Europe is able to diversify its energy supplies. One of the most valuable things that could be done in Europe is the creation of a true single market in energy, with the necessary infrastructure and pricing. That would do more to reduce both prices and, ultimately, dependence on Russia than having a single buying agency.
Human Rights and Democracy Report
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(10 years, 5 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 have today laid before the House a copy of the 2013 Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on human rights and democracy (CM 8842).
The report is a comprehensive assessment of the global human rights situation in 2013. It sets out what the Government are doing through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to promote human rights and democratic values around the world in three principal ways. First, it documents how we are seeking to exert a positive influence in a range of countries where we have serious concerns about the human rights situation. Secondly, it assesses progress on a number of thematic issues that cut across geographical boundaries. And thirdly, it reports on the benefits for UK citizens of our work on human rights, in terms of prosperity, security, and human rights for British nationals overseas.
The primary criterion for inclusion as a country of concern continues to be the gravity of the human rights situation in the country, including both the severity of particular abuses and the range of human rights affected. This year we introduced a list of human rights indicators and indices in order to ensure that our analysis of this criterion was strictly evidence-based. As a result of this analysis, no countries were removed from the countries of concern category, and the Central African Republic was added to the list.
Country case studies are a way to report on countries that do not meet the overall threshold for a country of concern, but which we judge nonetheless to be facing human rights challenges, or to be on a trajectory of change with regard to their human rights performance. The Gambia has been removed from this category, and the report features Swaziland and India as thematic case studies this year. The remainder of country case studies is unchanged from 2012: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Ethiopia and Rwanda.
Our topical theme for the report is “Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict”. Rape as a weapon of war needs to be removed from the world’s arsenal of cruelty, and the culture of impunity that surrounds the issue put to an end. It is an issue of fundamental importance to international peace and security and conflict prevention. Since the launch of the preventing sexual violence initiative, the UK has worked with many Governments around the world, the UN and other multilateral organisations, and a wide range of committed NGOs and civil society organisations to achieve greater global awareness of the scale of sexual violence in conflict, and to promote changes in how the international community perceives and responds to the issue. I am determined that political will now turns to practical action. In June, I am co-hosting the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict, with the special envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Angelina Jolie, in London. Over 140 countries will be represented and it will be the biggest meeting ever held on this issue.
Human rights are at the heart of our foreign policy, and remain a priority for the Government as a whole. In 2013, we were successful in our bid for election to the UN Human Rights Council, giving us a greater opportunity to support countries working to improve their human rights record, and to call to account those nations that commit serious and systematic violations against their citizens.
In 2014, the UK will continue to work on our six global thematic priorities: women’s rights; torture prevention; abolition of the death penalty; freedom of expression on the internet; business and human rights; and freedom of religion or belief. We will aim to protect those most vulnerable in society, promote human dignity for all, and respond proactively to the many existing and, as yet unforeseen, challenges on human rights that 2014 brings.
The full report can be read at: www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
12. What recent assessment he has made of threats to the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We are gravely concerned about the situation in Crimea and in the east of Ukraine, where armed groups have seized Government buildings in Donetsk, Kharkiv and Lugansk. There can be no justification for this action, which bears all the hallmarks of a Russian strategy to destabilise Ukraine. Russia should be clear that the deliberate escalation of this crisis will bring serious political and economic consequences.
Graham Stringer
In February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered financial assistance to Ukraine. At the start of this month, Gazprom put up the price of gas to Ukraine. What safeguards has the Foreign Secretary put in place to stop any aid we give to Ukraine going straight to Russia via increased gas prices?
Mr Hague
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the aid that he is speaking of is the International Monetary Fund programme, and work continues on that programme. The Ukrainian Government have been discussing the first stage of that with the IMF. To obtain that aid, Ukraine must meet the conditions set by the IMF, including on how that money is used. Of course Ukraine would enjoy a more successful and prosperous future if Russia were to join the rest of the international community in supporting the economic future of Ukraine.
Mr Burns
Following the praise of the UK Independence party on Russian-controlled television yesterday, will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the guiding principles of British foreign policy towards Ukraine, namely that Ukraine has a democratic right to self-determination and that sending in the tanks and holding a sham referendum in the Crimea under the shadow of the Kalashnikov is not only aggression but illegal in international law and a threat to the security of the world?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The guiding principles for us are that the development of democratic institutions in Ukraine and a rules-based international system are in the national interest of the United Kingdom. For any parties or leaders in Britain to feed a Russian propaganda machine after the invasion of a neighbouring country is not a responsible position to take, particularly for anyone who professes to believe in the independence and sovereignty of nations.
Kevin Brennan
The authorisation that President Putin obtained in February to use troops in Ukraine did not specify that it applied to Crimea only. What is our policy in the event of such a Sudeten-like land grab in eastern Ukraine?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and that was of course one of the most alarming aspects of the authority that President Putin asked for in February—that it covered the use of armed force in Ukraine in general. As he knows, the European Union and the United States have imposed certain sanctions, but the European Commission has been asked by the European Council to draw up further far-reaching measures and economic and other sanctions to be implemented in the event of a further escalation and intensification of the crisis by Russia. Any invasion of eastern Ukraine of course falls into that category.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I appreciate that this is not in my right hon. Friend’s gift, but in the event of the situation deteriorating materially, will he at least support the notion that Parliament may have to be recalled? When talking to other Foreign Ministers in the European Union, has he emphasised the importance of a concerted and determined approach to these issues and that any sign of disunity or lack of commitment would undoubtedly be exploited by Moscow?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely. On the first point, Parliament must always be able to deliberate urgently, although I have always taken the view that before Parliament has gone into recess is too early to call for it to be recalled. However, I take my right hon. and learned Friend’s point about that. I absolutely agree with his second point. At the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Athens over the weekend, I emphasised that the strength and unity of the European Union on this issue will be a vital determinant of the ultimate outcome.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Although I fully support the Foreign Secretary’s strategy, does he accept that the more the Ukrainian Government can reach out to the Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine, the less of an excuse President Putin will have for taking provocative action there?
Mr Hague
Yes. I think that is an extremely important point and it is one that I have emphasised over the past couple of weeks to both Prime Minister Yatsenyuk of Ukraine and Foreign Minister Deshchytsia. We say constantly to the Ukrainian authorities that it is important that the Government in Kiev show that they represent all the regions of the country. It is of course important to discuss decentralisation in Ukraine without necessarily accepting an agenda of paralysis by federalism, as proposed by Russia.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Although all historical analogies tend to be misleading, can it be borne in mind that if we are looking back to the 1930s, as we are fully entitled to do, the occupation of the Crimea and Sevastopol bears more resemblance to the Anschluss than to the invasion of Sudetenland? If the Russians were actually to invade Ukraine, that of course would be an act of naked aggression.
Mr Hague
I think there was a good deal of naked aggression in what happened in Crimea. Of course, my right hon. Friend is right about the great seriousness of any further encroachment into Ukraine. That is something we should bear in mind, as well as his point that historical analogies can always be misleading.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
As the Foreign Secretary’s earlier answers show, the protests across the east of Ukraine, in cities including Donetsk, highlight the continued risk of violent escalation and further bloodshed in Ukraine. In his first answer, the Foreign Secretary spoke of recent events bearing all the hallmarks of Russian involvement. Would he be willing to set out for the House in a little more detail his judgment of the form that the involvement of Russia has taken in recent days?
Mr Hague
Well, I said that it had the hallmarks of a Russian strategy to destabilise Ukraine and that is something we must expect in the run-up to the Ukrainian presidential elections on 25 May. It would be consistent with Russia’s strategy and behaviour over recent weeks to try to damage the credibility of those elections, to take actions that would make it appear less credible to hold the elections in eastern parts of Ukraine and to make it more difficult for Ukraine to operate as a democratic state. Those hallmarks are all present in what has happened in recent days.
Mr Alexander
I note and welcome the Foreign Secretary’s answer. The Prime Minister said in his statement to this House on Ukraine:
“The international community remains ready to intensify sanctions if Russia continues to escalate this situation”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 350.]
In the light of the Foreign Secretary’s answer, and if reports of Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine prove correct, does he believe that that would constitute grounds for widening the economic and diplomatic pressure on President Putin?
Mr Hague
That will depend on the course of events over the coming days and on the evidence of Russia’s involvement. The latest this morning is that the authorities in Kiev say that the situation is dangerous, as we have said in this House, but under control. Indeed, the administrative buildings in Kharkiv appear to be back under the control of the Ukrainian authorities. I think we will have to assess the situation over the coming days, but I say again that a deliberate escalation of the situation by Russia will bring serious political and economic consequences.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
To what extent has the ability of our European allies to wage effective economic sanctions against Russia been undermined by their dependence on Russian gas sources and do we have a strategy for trying to persuade our allies to diversify their energy sources so that that dependence will be lessened in the future?
Mr Hague
I think the answer is that that has not affected what we have done so far, but we have to be very conscious of that point and the effect it could have. We are very active—I at meetings of Foreign Ministers and the Prime Minister at the European Council—in saying that it will be necessary to accelerate measures that reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian gas. The G7 leaders discussed that at some length at the meeting in The Hague two weeks ago and my hon. Friend will be aware that we are convening a meeting of Energy Ministers in the G7 precisely to discuss that ahead of the G7 Heads of Government meeting.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
2. What recent progress has been made on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
7. What his priorities are for tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity internationally; and what steps the Government are taking to promote the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people worldwide.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The UK is committed to combating violence and discrimination wherever it occurs. FCO Ministers have recently raised LGBT issues with the Governments of Nigeria, Russia, India and Uganda. We used our 2013 chairmanship of the Council of Europe to reform legislation in Europe, and at the UN we have raised concerns about several other countries.
Mrs Hodgson
There is great concern across the House that the Government’s response to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act has been too weak. This dreadful violation of human rights needs a strong international response to send a clear message not only to Uganda but to other countries contemplating similar legislation. Does the Secretary of State accept that quiet diplomacy is not enough and that it is now time for targeted travel bans and meaningful sanctions as a real statement that the UK will not tolerate such abuse?
Mr Hague
I have spent a good deal of time studying this issue, which I regard as very important. First, it is important for us to encourage a long-term change in attitudes. In Uganda, we support training, advocacy and legal cases related to the protection of LGBT rights. We fund a project by the Kaleidoscope Trust. I myself met the leading Ugandan LGBT human rights activist, Dr Frank Mugisha, to illustrate the importance we attach to this. However, I judge that were we to implement sanctions or other measures, it would penalise poor people who benefit from our development aid or could produce a counter-productive response in other African countries. It is a difficult judgment, but the approach I have outlined is what I consider to be the right one.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
There is anecdotal evidence that since the passing of the law there has been an increase in persecution of and attacks on Ugandans who are homosexual. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Home Office on what approach it will take to those who seek refuge from persecution?
Mr Hague
Of course, the Home Office applies strictly and properly the criteria for accepting people who are vulnerable to persecution as asylum seekers into this country. That can include people persecuted or at risk of discrimination or violence on grounds of LGBT activism, so that is an important criterion.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
9. What recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in Brazil on closer economic and political co-operation between that country and the UK.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
10. What recent assessment he has made of the political and security situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Bosnians are deeply frustrated by the failure of political leaders to deliver on any of the issues that matter. During my visit to Bosnia 10 days ago, I urged Bosnia’s leaders to respond to protesters’ legitimate demands and to avoid ethnic and secessionist rhetoric. The redrawing of borders in the Balkans is finished.
Damian Collins
The challenge of Bosnia continues to be exacerbated by secessionist voices within the entity of Republika Srpska. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Europe and the United States must address this threat to the stability of Bosnia and that the international community must be prepared to sanction those responsible for it?
Mr Hague
Certainly, the international community must address those issues. We will discuss them at the European Union Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg next Monday. It will be vital, after the elections take place in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October, for there to be a major international effort to ensure that a functioning state is created in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is not happening at the moment.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
This is the first opportunity I have had to put on the record my sadness at the passing of Margo MacDonald, the former SNP Member for Glasgow, Govan. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would wish to pass on their condolences to Jim Sillars—himself a former Member for Glasgow, Govan—and the extended family.
On Bosnia, the Foreign Secretary is aware that Croatian Bosnians are able to access and have passports from the Republic of Croatia; that, soon, Bosnian Serbs will be able to have Serbian EU passports; and that the one group of citizens in Bosnia and Herzegovina who will not be able to have EU passports are the Bosniaks themselves. What can the Foreign Secretary do to ensure a European perspective for all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
Mr Hague
I join in the tribute to Margo MacDonald on her passing and to her strong record in this House in the past.
On the very important question of what happens to the whole population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I spoke about it on Saturday with other EU Foreign Ministers, including those from EU candidate countries, and stressed the very point the hon. Gentleman has just made. An unstable Bosnia threatens the stability of the whole of the western Balkans. That is why we have to make sure there is a functioning state in that country in the coming years.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
11. What recent assessment he has made of progress in peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In the past few days, I have discussed progress with Secretary Kerry and President Abbas, and I will speak to my Israeli counterparts in the coming days. Secretary Kerry’s tireless efforts provide an unparalleled opportunity to achieve a two-state solution. I urge both parties to show the bold leadership needed to resolve this conflict once and for all.
Ann McKechin
I certainly welcome the information provided by the Foreign Secretary, but he will be aware of press stories that the latest report by the European heads of mission in East Jerusalem states that Israeli policies in Jerusalem are aimed at
“cementing its unilateral and illegal annexation of East Jerusalem”,
with an unprecedented surge in settlement activity. Does the Foreign Secretary concur with that view and, if so, what is he doing to ensure the future of Jerusalem as a shared capital as part of the negotiations?
Mr Hague
Jerusalem, as a shared capital, is part of what we believe is a characteristic of achieving a two-state solution, along with a solution based on 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps and with a just, fair and agreed settlement for refugees. It is vital that that possibility is kept open. That is why so many of us on all sides of the House have voiced such strong disapproval of settlements on occupied land, which are illegal. We make that point regularly to the Israelis—indeed, I will do so to an Israeli Minister this afternoon—and we urge them to take the opportunity of peace.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Last December, the Foreign Secretary said that the British Government have been
“clear to the Palestinians that there is no alternative to negotiations”
and that “we oppose unilateral measures”. What representation has he made to the Palestinian Authority following its return to unilateral actions last week, in violation of its commitment to abstain for the duration of direct peace talks?
Mr Hague
I called President Abbas last Thursday to repeat our view that the only chance of achieving a viable and sovereign Palestinian state is through negotiations. President Abbas assured me that he remains committed to negotiations, so we will continue to encourage him and Israeli leaders to make a success—even at this stage—of this opportunity.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
It is essential that both sides return to negotiations and that they recognise that they will both have to make great compromises to secure a negotiated peace. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that the Palestinian leadership has been preparing the Palestinians for peace when terrorists freed by Israel have been welcomed in the Palestinian Authority as heroes? A broadcast by Palestinian Authority TV has honoured Dalal Mughrabi, who was responsible for a hijacking in which 37 Israeli citizens, including 12 children, were killed.
Mr Hague
Prisoner releases are always controversial in a peace process, as we know well in our own country, but I absolutely regard President Abbas, the leader of the Palestinians, as a man of peace, and I pay tribute to the bold leadership that he has shown on these issues in recent months. As the hon. Lady has just heard, I have urged him to continue with that, and we must focus on that point.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
What is Government policy on Palestine applying as a state to be a member of international political or cultural organisations?
Mr Hague
Last week, President Abbas signed and submitted letters of accession to 15 conventions, including the fourth Geneva convention. No decision is imminent or necessary at the moment on these things, and given that our focus is on urging both Palestinians and Israelis to make a success of the negotiations, I do not believe that it would be wise for us or other countries to pass judgment on those applications now.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
13. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the 25th session of the UN Human Rights Council on global efforts to uphold universal human rights.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
15. What contribution the UK is making to international provision for displaced Syrians.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The UK is leading international efforts to help the estimated 4.1 million Syrian refugees in the region and 6.5 million internally displaced people. So far we have provided £241 million in life-saving support to civilians caught up in the conflict and allocated £292 million to help refugees and host communities in neighbouring countries.
Fiona Bruce
Is my right hon. Friend concerned by reports from Open Doors that 3,000 Christians have fled their homes in Kessab, in northern Syria, in the past few days owing to fighters of the al-Nusra Front and ISIS entering north-west Syria from Turkey? Ethnic conflict is increasing there and aid cannot get through. Has he made representations to the relevant authorities about Turkey’s porous borders?
Mr Hague
We are very concerned about reports of violence and of people being displaced in Kessab. It is difficult to establish accurate numbers, but we are working closely with the Turkish Government to restrict the ability of foreign fighters to cross into Syria. I have discussed that recently with the Foreign Minister of Turkey.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
It has been promised many times, but what progress has been made on gaining unimpeded humanitarian access in Syria?
Mr Hague
Very little progress has been made, despite the successful passing of UN Security Council resolution 2139, which included the authorisation of cross-border access. The Security Council is due to review the position every 30 days, and at the coming review we will press strongly for full use to be made of what is authorised in that resolution.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Yesterday I attended the commemoration in Rwanda on the 20th anniversary of the genocide, and today I will join in welcoming the President of the Irish Republic on his historic state visit.
Mr Buckland
Does my right hon. Friend welcome robust political engagement with European politicians such as Martin Schulz, the socialist President of the European Parliament, or will he be on his knees begging him not to come to the UK during the European parliamentary campaign, like the Labour party?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I welcome the UN Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka, but given that President Rajapaksa has failed to comply with previous resolutions and with the very generous last-chance offer that the Prime Minister gave him at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, and has now rejected the current resolution outright, does the Foreign Secretary still think it is appropriate for President Rajapaksa to continue as chair-in-office of the Commonwealth? If this is referred to the Commonwealth ministerial action group, what position will the UK take?
Mr Hague
The UK is not on the Commonwealth ministerial action group, as the hon. Lady knows, nor is it in our gift to determine the chair of the Commonwealth ourselves, but it was within our gift to decide to go to Sri Lanka and to raise these issues. As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) has just made clear, there would have been no chance of succeeding in the Human Rights Council, as we recently did, had it not been for the Prime Minister’s leadership, our presence in Sri Lanka and our willingness to show how passionate we are about what happened in the north of Sri Lanka. The Opposition’s attitude of not going to Sri Lanka would have been a terrible misjudgement.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
T3. I was pleased to read in a recent report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that the Government have been developing a strategy towards the Gulf. In view of the obvious complexities of the middle east, does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is now a very good case for opening up that approach to a broader regional strategy?
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Since independence in 1991, Ukraine has held a number of elections in which the results have been called into question by the various participants, and it is crucial that that does not reoccur. What help and support are the UK giving to the Government of Ukraine to ensure that the forthcoming elections are truly free and fair?
Mr Hague
I have made that very point strongly to Ukrainian leaders that it is important that the elections on 25 May are well observed internationally and are accepted as fully free and fair, which includes accepting the recommendations made by observers of previous elections. I believe the Ukrainians have the resources to do that, so our efforts will be focused on ensuring good observation and trying to ensure good procedures.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. The Foreign Secretary has talked proudly of his preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative and the summit in June. Given the concerns that many hon. Members have about what is happening in Sri Lanka, does he believe that the Sri Lankan Government will attend, and what action will he take if they do not?
Mr Hague
Of course, I am not able to compel any Government to attend. I have invited the 143 nations that so far have endorsed the declaration that I launched on ending sexual violence to attend the summit in June, but I cannot force any of them to do so. However, given events in Sri Lanka in recent decades, it would be highly appropriate for the Sri Lankan Government to be there and to present their plans. I have encouraged them to do so.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
As a unique financial hub, we have the power to inflict more painful sanctions not only on Russians who are involved in assisting intervention in the Ukraine, but on the wealthy friends and backers of Vladimir Putin. We also have a unique responsibility as the European guarantor of the Budapest memorandum, which should have protected Ukraine from Russian aggression. If Russia further violates Ukrainian sovereignty, should we not use that power to uphold that responsibility?
Mr Hague
The Budapest memorandum of 1994 does not give us a specific power other than to call for consultations with the other signatories. Although we, Ukraine and the United States have done that, Russia has refused to join those consultations. However, the European Commission has been asked to prepare more far-reaching measures which, as the Prime Minister has said, cover economic, financial and trade areas. It is doing that work. We will be in favour of such far-reaching measures if Russia deliberately continues and deliberately escalates the situation in Ukraine.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T8. Greenpeace campaigns against Procter & Gamble’s use of palm oil, which reports say is being sourced from companies contributing to the deforestation in Indonesia, endangering the habitats of Sumatran tigers, elephants and orangutans. Given that the Minister is the Government’s strategic relations manager for Procter & Gamble, what discussions has he had with the company on the matter, and can he say whether this would be endorsed under the Government’s action plan on business and human rights?
Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had about the situation in Ukraine with his counterparts in other countries in the former Soviet Union but outside the European Union, such as Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, to understand their perspectives and concerns as he develops his thinking on that area?
Mr Hague
We have had many discussions at many different levels with those countries. I think it was significant that, when it came to the vote at the UN General Assembly on what has happened in Crimea, only 11 countries in the world supported the Russian position. Even many of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States were not willing to support the Russian position. That is an illustration of Russia’s diplomatic isolation on the issue.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
The long-suffering Christian communities of Kessab were mentioned earlier. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that this community is predominantly of Armenian origin, facing the 100th anniversary of the last Armenian genocide. Many of my Armenian constituents are convinced that Turkey is facilitating, or at least not preventing, the cross-border attacks and atrocities. Will he undertake to raise this matter with his opposite numbers?
Mr Hague
As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), we are very concerned about what has happened, particularly in recent days, in that part of Syria. We do, in any case, raise with Turkey the importance of doing everything possible to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Syria. Given the concern in this House, it is a point we will raise again with the Turkish Government.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Following the Minister for Europe’s visit to Georgia last week, does he now discern a pattern of prosecutorial intimidation of Opposition politicians, and does he share my extreme concern that the highly respected Giga Bokeria was hauled in by prosecutors on Friday?
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Once again there has been very little discussion today of the situation in Syria, yet the conflict continues. Thousands are being killed and millions are being displaced. What are the Government and the international community doing to stop this dreadful conflict?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady is quite right. This remains the most serious crisis in international affairs, even by comparison with all the others we have discussed. The international community has so far failed to resolve this conflict. We remain in favour of a third round of the Geneva talks, but that requires greater flexibility on the part of the regime with regard to what it will negotiate. In the absence of such progress, our focus is on humanitarian assistance to the millions of people displaced. On that, the United Kingdom plays a leading role in the world.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary will have heard the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the impact of climate change. What diplomatic initiatives are his Department taking to broker international agreement to cut global carbon emissions?
Mr Hague
The United Kingdom is one of the most active countries in the world diplomatically in promoting global, binding agreement to address climate change. The IPCC report underlines the extreme urgency of this issue. I discuss regularly with Secretary Kerry what we can do with the US Administration to push forward international agreement. We will remain very active on this issue.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Fifteen thousand UK jobs rely on employment in the Ford plants at both Dagenham and Bridgend, which is close to my constituency. What does the Minister make of the comments by Steve Odell, the chief executive of Ford’s European operations, who said:
“I don’t want to threaten the British government”—
but, and it is a big but—
“I would strongly advise against leaving the EU for business purposes, and for employment purposes in the UK”?
UN Human Rights Council (Sri Lanka)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(10 years, 6 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)
Further to my written ministerial statement of 18 March 2014, Official Report, column 40WS, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution on Sri Lanka on 27 March. This resolution calls for an international investigation into allegations of violations and abuses of international law on both sides during the civil war, and for progress on reconciliation, human rights and a political settlement. The British Government are pleased with this outcome and strongly believe that it was the right decision.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister committed the UK to calling for an international investigation following his visit to Sri Lanka last year where he witnessed the situation on the ground first hand. The UK was an important co-sponsor of the resolution, alongside the US, Montenegro, Macedonia and Mauritius.
The passing of this resolution sends an important and strong message to the Sri Lankan Government—that they must address the grievances of the recent past in order to help secure lasting peace and reconciliation, and a prosperous future for all the people of Sri Lanka. The resolution represents a significant step forward in ensuring the truth is established for the Sri Lankan people.
By voting in favour of this resolution, the international community has shown that it has listened to the many independent voices, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights herself and domestic support in Sri Lanka, calling for an international investigation and helped the UNHRC to establish a strong and unambiguous resolution. The United Kingdom will continue to work with the UNHRC and our international partners to ensure proper implementation of this resolution. We encourage the Sri Lankan Government fully to co-operate with the resolution, and to work alongside the international community for the benefit of its people.
It is important also to recognise that Sri Lanka is an extraordinary country with enormous potential and the end of the conflict presents an opportunity for it to become a strong and prosperous nation. This resolution will help to address the legitimate concerns of all communities. It presents an opportunity to tackle the root causes of conflict, continued human rights concerns and set Sri Lanka on the right path for reconciliation. We hope that the Sri Lankan Government will embrace that opportunity.
Balance of Competences (Review)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(10 years, 6 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)
My written ministerial statement of 13 February 2014, Official Report, column 76 WS updated the House on progress with the review, on publication of the second set of reports. I wish to inform the House today of the launch of semester four of the review. This is the final semester in the review that I launched in July 2012 and, which will conclude by the end of the year.
Calls for evidence for the seven reports in the fourth (and final) semester cover: economic and monetary policy; information rights; police and criminal justice; education; enlargement; voting, consular and statistics; and subsidiarity and proportionality. The call for evidence period for these reports will open from 27 March and close the week of 30 June 2014.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has overall responsibility for the reports covering enlargement and subsidiarity and proportionality, and joint responsibility for the report on voting, consular and statistics. Lead Ministers for each of the other reports will be informing the House separately of the publication of their calls for evidence.
The Enlargement report—will assess the balance of competences between the EU and the UK in the field of enlargement of the European Union, including the impact of enlargement on UK interests, the development and effectiveness of the EU enlargement process and lessons learned from previous enlargements, the role of the member states and EU Institutions in the process, the use of conditionality and of financial and technical assistance, and future challenges and opportunities that enlargement will bring.
The Subsidiarity and Proportionality report—covers the concepts of subsidiarity and proportionality which are fundamental principles to the functioning of the EU. It will address how these are used and applied in practice across EU activity: whether the EU acts only when necessary, and whether action takes place at the lowest level possible, and that the means are proportionate to the end. The report also covers article 352 which provides the EU with the power to act to achieve any of the objectives laid down by in the EU treaties where no other treaty article so provides, including the use and impact of the procedural safeguard provisions on competence.
The Voting, Consular and Statistics—review covers three policy strands each led by the relevant Department: Cabinet Office (voting), the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (consular) and the national statistician on behalf of the UK Statistics Authority (statistics). The voting strand seeks views on the balance of competences on subjects including how to vote and stand as a candidate at elections, the franchise and EU democratic engagement initiatives (such as the European citizens’ initiative). The consular strand will consider the EU’s limited competence in consular services, which extends to the co-ordination of efforts between member states and the requirement for member states to treat unrepresented EU citizens, in consular matters, in the same way as they would treat their own nationals. The statistics strand of the review looks at EU competence to require statistical reports, and how that impacts issues such as data collection, respondent burden and the level of demand for information at a time of resource pressure.
The FCO, along with the Cabinet Office and Statistics Authority will take a rigorous approach to the collection and analysis of evidence. Each call for evidence sets out the scope of the reports and includes a series of broad questions on which contributors are asked to focus. The evidence received (subject to the provision of the Data Protection Act) will be published alongside the final report, which is due to be published by the end of 2014, and will be available on the Government website: www.gov.uk.
It is important to encourage a wide range of interested parties to contribute to ensure objective and evidenced based reports. The FCO will therefore pursue an active engagement strategy, consulting widely across Parliament, the devolved Administrations, think-tanks, business and civil society in order to obtain evidence to inform our analysis. The EU institutions and our foreign partners will also be invited to contribute, as will members of the public. These final reports will also consider evidence submitted in previous semesters where relevant.
The call for evidence documents are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. They are also published and available on the Government website: https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences
Afghanistan (Monthly Progress Report)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(10 years, 6 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 35th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
On 2 February, the presidential election campaign opened. Seven of 11 candidates formally launched their campaigns on the first day, with only one choosing to do so from outside Kabul. The remaining candidates began their campaigns in the following days.
On 8 February, the UN reported a 14% rise in the number of civilians killed or injured in 2013. The report considered armed opposition groups responsible for the majority (74%) and Afghan and international forces for 11% of casualties in 2013. A total of 10% of casualties resulted from engagements between pro and anti-Government forces while the remaining 5% were unattributed.
On 13 February, the Government of Afghanistan released 65 US captured detainees who the US believed to have committed serious crimes, including killing US soldiers, and against whom the US thought there was good evidence.
On 27 February NATO Defence Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to support continued planning for a post-2014 training mission in Afghanistan. Defence Ministers also tasked NATO military authorities to assess the implications of delays to the future mission and to undertake planning for other contingencies, including a “zero option”, in light of the uncertainty of securing the necessary legal permissions for the mission.
UK development support of £5.3 million was provided to improve public services in Helmand, Uruzgan and Bamyan provinces through DFID’s strengthening provincial administration and delivery (SPAD) programme. The funds help build capacity in local systems while ensuring the money is properly spent to help local authorities provide better public services to local people.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the gov.uk website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/afghanistan-progress-reports
Illegal Wildlife Trade
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(10 years, 6 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)
On 12 and 13 February I chaired the London conference on the illegal wildlife trade, which was organised by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Home Office. I would like to inform the House of the outcomes of the conference and to explain how the UK Government will take forward further action to combat the illegal wildlife trade.
The London conference brought together over 50 countries and international organisations to agree new and bold measures to tackle the illegal wildlife trade, signalling a new level of political commitment to tackle the issue. As well as the devastating consequences for biodiversity and the environment, the illegal wildlife trade is a serious criminal industry worth billions of pounds, which damages local communities and sustainable development, particularly in Africa.
Participating Governments at the conference agreed a political declaration that should mark the turning point in the fight to save endangered species and to end the illegal wildlife trade. Governments committed to action designed to strengthen law enforcement, reduce demand and support alternative livelihoods of communities affected by poaching and the trafficking. Notably, Governments committed themselves for the first time to renounce the use of products from species threatened with extinction, which sends the strong signal that Governments will not procure the things that drive demand for illegal wildlife products. Governments also went further than earlier commitments and promised to support the current position within the convention on the international trade in endangered species of flora and fauna (CITES) to prohibit commercial, international trade in elephant ivory until the survival of elephants in the wild was no longer threatened by poaching. Governments also committed to treating poaching and trafficking in wildlife as a serious, organised crime; the same category as trafficking in drugs, arms and people.
Implementation of all the commitments made in the political declaration will be reviewed at a follow-up conference, to be held in Botswana in early 2015.
The London conference also provided a platform for Governments to make new commitments, including the elephant protection initiative, launched by the Governments of Botswana, Chad, Ethiopia, Gabon and Tanzania. These Governments committed to an extended moratorium on the sale of ivory and also to put all ivory stocks beyond economic use, showing their determination that it is the elephants that hold value for them and their communities, not their tusks. In response, the partners would access a fund to support measures contained in the African elephant action plan. Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) committed to match the first tranche of private sector finding for the elephant protection initiative, amounting to £1 million.
The UK Government’s approach to tackling the illegal wildlife trade following the London conference is set out in the UK Government “Commitment to Action”, published on 5 February 2014. This includes the provision of a £10 million fund to help Governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and charities tackle illegal wildlife crime across the world and help deliver the outcomes of the London conference; continued funding and active engagement and leadership in CITES; and a guarantee of funding for the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) until 2016. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to use its network of diplomatic posts to influence international efforts to combat the illegal wildlife trade, including through supporting anti-poaching and trafficking initiatives, promoting demand reduction measures and providing support to the Government of Botswana in preparing for the follow-up conference on the illegal wildlife trade in early 2015.
I have laid a copy of the “London Declaration on the Illegal Wildlife Trade”, and of the “Elephant Protection Initiative”, in the Library of the House.