Ukraine

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I entirely sympathise with the noble Lord’s views. The talks that are expected to take place next week will indeed involve the Russians with Mr Poroshenko, Monsieur Hollande and Chancellor Merkel, and those talks deserve to be given a chance. The Russians are feeling the brunt of sanctions, as they should for their illegal occupation of Crimea and for what they are doing in sending their troops into eastern Ukraine and making the humanitarian situation there worse. Diplomacy can be a strong tool—let us ensure that it is.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that an absolute precondition for any change in sanctions has to be that Russia observes the commitments that it entered into in Minsk and that those commitments are verified by international organisations such as the OSCE? Could she perhaps say how she would characterise the proposition that if we had not been so beastly to Mr Putin, he would be behaving a lot better?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s proposition with regard to the fact that the Minsk protocol must be adhered to by Russia; it must have oversight by the OSCE. It is absolutely clear that being beastly to Mr Putin has been no part of this country’s activity. We have sought to make sure that Russia keeps within its international commitments and international law, to which it has signed up. Nobody is to blame for what is happening to Russia now except Mr Putin.

Iran Nuclear Talks

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, who I know has great experience in foreign affairs matters—we have discussed them—that I think that the question is a lot more complicated than that. As we know, Israel is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Iran is not. There are meetings with regard to the treaty next year, when a lot of these matters will be under discussion. I was interested to note last night that Mr Netanyahu made it clear that no deal is better than a bad deal. I think that that was an important thing for him to say, because it reflects exactly our view that, in order to achieve security there, we need a good deal for all.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, first, will the Minister accept support from these Benches for the reaching of a decision that was far better than breaking off negotiations or doing a bad deal? I add my voice to those who praise the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for a remarkable performance over the years. However, does the Minister recognise that, on the banks of the Potomac, there may be less all-party support for this prolongation than there is in this House? Will the British Government use the contacts that the embassy in Washington has with the Hill to explain why we think that this is the best outcome? Secondly, I express slight doubt as to whether the division of the next seven months into two periods as clearly as it has been done will bear the stress that time puts on it. Can she confirm, therefore, that the whole of the seven-month period will be available for negotiations and will not be artificially divided into two parts, which, if the first cannot be fulfilled in the time available, renders nugatory the second?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Lord. He asks us to ensure that our colleagues across the Atlantic—perhaps all other colleagues involved in these negotiations—remain firm. In the meetings that were held last week by the Foreign Ministers, as the noble Lord will be aware, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary went twice to Vienna, on Friday and yesterday, in order to try to make sure that we got as close as possible to a result and, we hope, to a full result. All those taking part are showing an absolute resolve, so the E3+3 plus Iran have ended in a position where all have a determination to continue. I can give an assurance that our determination will be relayed to all our colleagues who are taking part in these negotiations. The noble Lord refers to the 4+3. Clearly we want to drive momentum. There must be no thought that there is time available to let anything drift and leave any nailing-down of the political framework until too late. That is why we have proposed 4+3 as a structure. If, at the end of four months, we have not got to the most perfect position on the political framework, I suspect that a huge amount of work will be going on to make sure that we do, but behind that there is a determination by all parties that we do not let this opportunity slip.

Iran: Nuclear Programme

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I find it difficult to get into the mind of one member of any other Government, let alone the minds of all members, and sometimes my own—I mean my own mind, of course. It is a serious question. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties; Israel is not.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are satisfied that all parties to the interim agreement have implemented it correctly and in a verifiable manner? If her answer is positive—I believe that most observers think that they have—a situation where a final comprehensive agreement eluded the negotiators in November but a continuation of the interim agreement proved possible would be some way short of disastrous.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord has a deep understanding of the issue. Certainly, we know that that the progress that has been made so far has been positive and, it is true to say, delicate. We do not wish to predict that a failure to achieve a resolution on 24 November would lead to a complete breakdown. We do not think that that would be the case. We are still hopeful of an agreement by then. After all, the negotiations are being led by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and we know that we have confidence in her.

UN Security Council

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it is clear that at the formation of the United Nations, after the problems with the League of Nations, we were one of the major five states and therefore part of the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council. We remain there and our position is strong. I do not see any future in discussing our removal. Indeed, the discussion in the United Nations area is about enlarging the Security Council. There is no threat to our membership that I can foresee now or in the future.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister, in the same sense in which she has just replied, confirm that there is no possibility that Britain could lose its place as a permanent member of the Security Council unless it developed suicidal tendencies? The charter makes it perfectly clear that you would have to change the wording to remove one member, and that could be done only if all five permanent members then ratified it. It is, therefore, up to us. As far as the qualifications for permanent membership are concerned, it might be useful to look at the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which set out a long list of criteria which it believed any new permanent member ought to be able to fulfil before being accepted.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who has great experience of these matters not only in the diplomatic field but because of his role in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the United Nations. I was very glad last week to be invited to stand alongside the United Nations Association to celebrate its 69th birthday. He is right with regard to membership, and our position there is secure.

United Nations: Secretary-General

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

I have the enviable task of being responsible for UN reform, among other things, and it is an area of my work that I find difficult. I am trying to find international consensus in an organisation that is now established as the organisation which responds to international affairs but with member states each putting forward their national interests. It is therefore important that reform is done in a way that makes the United Nations much more effective and efficient. The United Kingdom’s priority is to contain the UN budget, focus less on staff and more on delivery, link funding to results, prioritise countries and mandates, make better use of IT and streamline back-office work.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister perhaps come back to the point of the original Question and address it slightly more specifically? Are we opposed to regional pre-emption before the process even starts? If we are not, should we not be, because is that not what narrows down the gene pool quite undesirably before we have even looked at all the possible candidates?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord, with his expertise, will be aware that the United Kingdom has never formally endorsed the process of regional selection in the appointment of the United Nations Secretary-General. Like many practices, it has developed over time, through non-binding resolutions at the UN, but it is important that member states around the world should feel that the whole world has an opportunity to put forward a potential candidate.

Cyprus

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, being the final Back-Bench speaker in a debate, it is always a little tempting to refer to those who have preceded you. I will try to resist that temptation other than to say to my noble friend Lord Maginnis, whose views I do not entirely share, that as I listened to him launch into his narrative, I closed my eyes and I thought I was back in Rauf Denktas’s office, the former district commissioner’s office in Nicosia, where if you could hear anything above the budgerigars that used to tweet around that office, he would give you that narrative. The only two differences are that his version lasted for 40 minutes—

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

Mine could, too.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

—and that he never laid any claim to objectivity.

It is normally sensible not to speak in debates on Cyprus when there is nothing new to say and it is certainly wise not to count the chickens of a Cyprus settlement before they are hatched. After all, no one has yet lost money betting against a Cyprus settlement. Neither of those considerations seems to apply to this debate, initiated in such a welcome and timely manner by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. What leads me to this relatively positive view is the emergence of a number of new factors, many of which have been mentioned already, affecting what is after all one of the longest lasting and most debilitating international disputes.

The first of those factors is the presence as leader of the Greek Cypriot community and President of Cyprus of Nicos Anastasiades, a man with a proven track record of supporting the compromises needed to achieve a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, and someone who campaigned in favour of acceptance of the Annan plan, even when such support was likely to be damaging to his own political prospects. Since becoming President and despite the distractions of the economic crisis, which nearly overwhelmed Cyprus last year, he has worked steadily to get the settlement negotiations back on track.

Secondly, there is a fundamental shift in the underlying economic arguments in favour of a settlement. In the period from 1996 to 2003, when I was involved in the settlement process, those economic arguments were either ignored or traduced. The Greek Cypriot economy was riding high in the run-up to EU accession. The Turkish Cypriot economy lagged far behind and was stagnant. It was argued, mendaciously, that a settlement would load a huge, fat fiscal burden on to the Greek Cypriot economy. That gap has now narrowed, and the potential advantages for the recovery of the Greek Cypriot economy of a settlement and of free access to the massive Turkish market are more evident and can no longer be discounted.

Thirdly, the discovery of substantial gas deposits in the waters around Cyprus has introduced a new and positive element to the equation. No doubt, I suspect, those energy resources could be developed and commercialised in an autarchic manner by the Greek Cypriots. That remains to be proven, but I think it is unwise to assume that it could not be done. There can surely be little doubt, however, that the benefits to the peoples of Cyprus will be far greater if that development and commercialisation could take place in the framework of a reunited island and with the willing co-operation of Turkey.

Fourthly, there is almost certainly going to be the emergence of Mr Erdogan as the next president of Turkey. That looks more and more like a matter of when and not if. Mr Erdogan did much in the period from 2002 to 2004 to reverse the traditional Turkish policy of supporting Rauf Denktas in blocking a settlement in Cyprus. If he comes to office with a clear, democratic mandate next month, it will surely be fitting and would be advantageous to Turkey—a Turkey which has argued that it needs to have zero problems with its neighbours—if he could use that mandate in support of a negotiated settlement to the Cyprus problem.

Do these four new factors mean that all is set fair for a Cyprus settlement? Of course not. This is, after all, the Cyprus problem, which has defied all attempts at a settlement for 50 years, and where the stars favouring a settlement never seem to be in conjunction. There is, however, enough here, I would suggest, to justify a renewed major effort by the parties in Cyprus, supported by the international community, to reach a settlement. It would be good to hear from the Minister what contribution Britain, which has so many close links with Cyprus and with both its communities, intends to make in support of a search for a negotiated solution.

I will conclude with a few remarks about public opinion and the involvement of Cypriots in a settlement. I have great admiration for Alexandros Lordos, whom the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, mentioned. He has worked tirelessly to try to erode the barriers between the two communities, and the work he does in testing opinion is extremely valuable. The real obstacle, however, is that the leaders of both sides in Cyprus are not preparing and will not for the moment prepare their communities for a settlement which needs to be based on compromise. That was what went on in 2003 and 2004. On the Greek Cypriot side in particular, there had been no preparation of public opinion at all. Public opinion had been fed for the past 35 years on an unadulterated diet of Greek Cypriot maximalist claims. Not surprisingly, it proved impossible to turn them round on a sixpence when the Annan plan was produced. It will be the same again if the leaders cannot bring themselves to prepare their communities for the sort of compromises that will need to be made. I do hope that that process can get under way. Perhaps the noble Baroness could talk a little bit about that too.

Sri Lanka

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

We have encouraged the Sri Lankan Government to co-operate with the UN human rights commissioner’s international investigation, and we have seen some of the statements that have come out of Sri Lanka which suggest that the position is otherwise. However, we believe that the UN’s independent investigation has a strong team. As the noble Lord will be aware, people such as Martti Ahtisaari, Silvia Cartwright and Asma Jahangir—the phenomenal human rights campaigner in Pakistan—have been appointed to this investigating committee. We hope that, despite the Sri Lankan Government’s not co-operating, the committee will produce a good and strong international investigation. As for the recent tensions, of course we are concerned about the actions of Bodu Bala Sena. Our representatives at the British High Commission in Sri Lanka met with the group last year to raise our concerns in relation to the anti-Muslim violence. But they have met also, in relation to other minorities, with the Sri Lankan Government.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Will the Minister, who has just brought the attention of the House to the very high-level names who have been put in charge of this inquiry, agree that our Government should make clear to the Sri Lankan Government that their refusal to deal with this inquiry is not acceptable; that the people who have now been appointed to it are very objective and very experienced people; and that we hope that they will reconsider their position? Is that point being made clear?

[Baroness Warsi]

We will continue to make that point throughout the investigation. It is in Sri Lanka’s interests to co-operate fully. The reason we find ourselves in this position is that the internal investigations did not do what they said they would do. This is an opportunity for Sri Lanka to truly meet its commitment to reconciliation.

European Union: United Kingdom MEPs

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord makes the important point that the European Commission and the President of the Commission have an incredibly important role. That role has most autonomy and has the right of initiative, and the Commission itself plays a quasi-judicial role. It is important for those reasons that whoever leads the Commission is a candidate who commands respect and who understands—this was clear at the last European Parliament elections—that people need a change. All political parties in this House will agree that the process that has been adopted is not one with which any of us here agree.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister perhaps agree that changes in policy should normally be evidence based? If so, could she perhaps list the advantages to either her party or this country of withdrawing from the EPP?

[Baroness Warsi]

This matter has been reiterated on a number of occasions. In my previous job as party chairman, I had many dealings with the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists. I think that the noble Lord will have to accept that there is change across Europe and that there are many more political parties that are aligned with the view that reform is needed, and that reform goes beyond what some of the parties within the EPP think.

Iraq

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, as far as I can see, reactions to recent events in Iraq have tended, both here and across the Atlantic, to be dominated by a combination of short memories and a number of rather self-centred analyses based on unhappy experiences following the 2003 invasion. Yet, neither of those reactions seems particularly helpful for determining an effective response to recent events. In particular, some of what I would describe as unwise and self-serving attempts by those responsible for the policy decisions taken in 2003 to revisit the rights and wrongs of those decisions will frankly not be a helpful guide to future policy. However, nor is an analysis that treats the 2003 invasion as the root of all Iraq’s problems. After all, it was Saddam Hussein who gassed the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. It was his helicopter gunships that slaughtered the Shia in Najaf and Karbala in 1991. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq may have been a secular state but it was also a sectarian one with a minority Sunni elite dominating and repressing the Kurds and Shia.

There has been, too, a lot of loose talk in recent days about the break-up of Iraq. Here I part company a long way from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who wishes to break up Iraq into its various parts. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was also flirting with that idea. Put simply, it is hard to see how that could occur without a great deal of sanguinary fighting over the boundaries of the three states that Iraq might be composed of. It could not be done without substantial ethnic cleansing or the risk of even more war crimes and atrocities than have already taken place. Moreover, an independent Kurdish state could trigger instability and perhaps hostilities in Iran, Turkey and Syria—all of which have substantial Kurdish populations. Then a Shia state, heavily dependent for its survival on Iran, could simply accelerate the drift towards a Shia/Sunni confrontation right across the Middle East. A Sunni state, land-locked, with no natural resources and probably dominated by ISIS, would be a security nightmare within the region and far beyond. I suggest that the splitting up of Iraq is a worst-case scenario not a prescription for policy.

What then is the right response? Clearly, the sine qua non of restoring any sort of security and stability to Iraq is the formation of an inclusive Government that brings in elements of all three main communities on the basis of the democratic elections that took place in April. I welcome very much the Minister’s description of how important it is not to move away from that democratic legitimacy. It is encouraging that that is roughly what was said by the spiritual leader of the Shia community, Ayatollah Sistani, who has so often been a wise voice of moderation. He seems to be calling for such an inclusive approach. It is neither necessary nor, I suggest, desirable for outsiders to tell Iraqis who should lead that Government, or even who should not lead it. If the establishment of democratic processes, which was one of the few truly positive outcomes of the 2003 invasion, means anything it must mean that such choices are for the Iraqis.

What can outsiders do? The cautious but positive response given by President Obama to the Iraqi Government’s plea for help—the dispatch of a limited number of military advisers and the prospect of targeted air strikes—seems, I suggest, the right response. I very much hope that we, too, will respond positively if we are asked to help by the Iraqis or if the Americans indicate that they would welcome more help. The security threats from a fragmented Iraq were spelt out by the Prime Minister. I find it ironic that most of those who spoke on the other side of the argument about Syria said last year that keeping out of Syria would safeguard us from any possible blowback from jihadi extremists. Now we are seeing just how much good keeping out of Syria has done us.

If we and the US want our views about the need for the formation of an inclusive Iraqi Government to be taken seriously, surely we have to be ready to support such a Government. Are we and should we be doing anything to muster wider international support for Iraq in its hour of need? It should surely be possible to get the UN Security Council to reaffirm Iraq’s territorial integrity and single sovereignty and to call for international backing for that and for humanitarian relief efforts. This is surely a case where the responsibility to protect the civilians of Iraq, which their own Government are not well placed to do at the moment, should not be as contentious as it has been in other areas.

Is any thought being given to a Security Council approach? What is being done to rally support for Iraq more widely? I very much welcome what the Minister said about the European Union’s contribution to that. Iran is clearly an important player in all these matters. President Rouhani’s reaction to the events has had some positive features, but there are risks that Iranian military involvement could end up exacerbating the sectarian divisions and dimension to the fighting and make the formation of an inclusive Iraqi Government more difficult. What use are the Government planning to make of the welcome newly established channel of communication with Iran following our decision to reopen the embassy there? Are they consulting the Iranian Government directly on their views?

There are, alas, no particularly good or easy policy choices at the present juncture, but inaction is a choice too. There I very much join the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who pointed that out. I believe that inaction or the mere offering of gratuitous advice from a safe distance is not a particularly good option or one that is likely to have much effect.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the silver lining in last month’s otherwise pretty disastrous European Parliament election results may have been well concealed at the time but there is a real opportunity, none the less, as was shown by the leaders of the European Council at their dinner on 27 May, to shift the debate on to a new positive reform agenda and away from the obstructive and disruptive prescriptions of the populist parties whose support has increased so sharply. Will that opportunity be taken, or will it be frittered away among demands for repatriation and renegotiation for more red lines and more British exceptionalism? Will Britain give a lead in shaping a new reform agenda whose aim would be to benefit all member states? That, surely, is the challenge that faces the coalition Government, and indeed all three main parties, as they prepare for next year’s general election. That was what they should have done but, with one exception, did not do in the campaign that preceded the European Parliament elections.

Here are some suggestions for what might be included in such a positive reform agenda. First, an important component will necessarily be policies to encourage sustainable economic growth, particularly in the countries of the eurozone where it is lagging most, and thus to get to grips with the blight of youth unemployment. The lead obviously will be taken by the eurozone member states and the European Central Bank, but we should be in no doubt that it is in our interest that they succeed and we should give them full support and encouragement. Moreover, we stand to gain considerably from the implementation of the structural reform programmes which are a necessary part of that process.

Secondly, the completion of the single market in services and in energy needs to be given a shot in the arm, and a level playing field for the expansion of the digital service industry needs to be created. So far, there has been an awful lot of talk about the digital issues and precious little action. Would it not make sense for the new Commission to publish a White Paper of the same sort that Lord Cockfield, former Member of this House, produced in 1985 on the single market setting out precisely what needed to be done to achieve that level playing field? The European Council could then endorse and implement it.

Thirdly, it is surely essential to make a living reality of the treaty principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in EU law-making and strengthen the role of national parliaments in that process. Your Lordships’ Select Committee gave the Government, some two months ago, a broad menu of measures that would, without treaty change or undue delay, make substantial progress towards those objectives. When will the Government respond to those ideas? What action will they take to implement them? It is within the framework of a positive reform agenda of that sort that we can most effectively also address some of the principal irritants in our relationship with the EU—issues such as the working time directive and the whole range of matters bound up with welfare benefits for migrant workers. We can hope to find solutions to those in the overall context and interest of the EU, not just of one member state.

That domestic reform agenda needs an external component, too. Here, too, I offer three suggestions. First, the eastern challenge represented by the seizure of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine is one we cannot afford to duck. I very much welcome the robust way the Government have handled that so far. Russia’s actions have risked driving a coach and horses through the whole post-Cold War settlement of Europe. We need to help Ukraine consolidate a thoroughly reformed political and economic structure. We need to deter Russia from further meddling in that process by showing credibly how costly that would be for it. We need to diversify our energy security and reduce our collective dependence on Russian gas supplies to a level that would mean we could sustain any politically motivated interruption longer than it could.

Secondly, we should recognise that we have a fight on our hands if we are to realise the major benefits that would accrue from a successful completion of the transatlantic trade and investment negotiations and from freer trade with Japan and India—whose new Government surely offer a real opportunity to revive the negotiations that have so far been languishing. The recent European elections strengthened protectionist pressures, as has the backing and filling in the US Congress. There is a need for a major advocacy campaign in favour of these trade initiatives, as has been proposed by your Lordships’ EU Committee in its recent report.

Thirdly, we must not turn our backs on further enlargement. Progress with Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo and Macedonia is a crucial element in stabilising that fragile region and consolidating the gains of recent years.

These EU priorities are pressing. There is not a great deal of dispute about them. What I said bears a striking resemblance to what came out of the meeting in Sweden last night. What is lacking so far is a real will to move forward on that agenda. I hope the Government will do that when the European Council meets later this month. I hope that we can lift up our eyes from an obsession with issues of personalities, which undermines our ability to push this agenda forward.