Middle East: Gaza and Syria

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, yes, I can absolutely give my noble friend an assurance on the second part of her question: these matters are being looked at extremely carefully. That is why we have a stepped approach in relation to support. I can assure my noble friend that these are ongoing discussions. The immediate crisis is at the forefront of our minds and it must be dealt with now. I can assure her that the decision on the United Nations General Assembly vote has not been taken. We are using our relationships and all efforts to make sure that the ultimate aim of a negotiated two-state solution is achieved, and we keep reminding people of the best way of achieving that.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her repeated assurances that no decision has been taken about the vote in the General Assembly on the status of Palestine. However, does she not recognise that the way in which the Statement was cast was highly negative in that effect and that the reference to the possibility that a voting of a resolution might paralyse the peace process is, frankly, a travesty? The peace process is paralysed by the position of the Prime Minister of Israel, who has been refusing to enter negotiations with President Abbas for a very long time. The idea that some action of the United Nations—which would, in any case, not involve recognising Palestine as a member of the United Nations but would be an intermediate status—could not possibly be said therefore to paralyse something that is already paralysed. Does she not further recognise that the consequences of Britain’s negative vote in those circumstances could be quite serious and would be very damaging to the position of President Abbas, who is already in great enough difficulties as it is?

[Baroness Warsi]

That is exactly why it is important for these Statements to be repeated in this House. It is important that the views of this House are taken on board. I and officials who are listening will make sure that this is taken back. We make it very clear in all our discussions with Israel that time is running out for a negotiated two-state solution. We have made it clear that of course they have to make progress in relation to the building of illegal settlements and in getting back to the negotiating table. As I said in the Statement, we use the same approach in relation to President Abbas. We encourage him to take the necessary steps to ensure that this matter is resolved through negotiation.

Piracy

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, the incidence of piracy in the Indian Ocean has rather slid off the front pages of the newspapers in recent months. That is partly due to the relative success of the measures taken by the international community to combat this modern form of an ancient scourge. However, it would be ridiculously complacent to believe that the problem has gone away or been mastered. There is all the more reason, therefore, to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Luce for initiating this debate and for swinging the spotlight back onto the many aspects of this problem which have yet to be effectively addressed.

I want to concentrate my own remarks on one aspect of the problem to which the EU home affairs sub-committee, which I chair, has devoted a good deal of attention, without as yet receiving any fully satisfactory response from the Government. That is the question of the laundering of the money paid out to the pirates in ransom. Some facts are not disputed. The pirates or their sponsors—their godfathers—have received and are still receiving massive quantities of cash in ransom for ships and their crews. Much of that money is assembled in this country, which is not in any way illegal. These moneys are therefore quite evidently criminal assets—the proceeds of crime—as soon as they are handed over. Yet those assembling these ransoms are not required to file with the Serious Organised Crime Agency a suspicious activity report, as they would have to do in any other circumstances in which money was being transferred to criminals or people suspected of being criminals.

My committee has stated on several occasions that it considers this omission—the omission of the requirement to file an SAR—as quite indefensible. Moreover, it surely does hamper any attempt to prevent these moneys subsequently being laundered. More recently, in a move that I warmly welcomed, and as part of the international community’s fight against piracy, it was decided to established a regional intelligence centre in the Seychelles to pursue, among other matters, the issue of money laundering. I asked in an earlier debate whether any relevant SAR material we might have would be made available to this new intelligence centre as it surely should be. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, who was at the time a Minister at the Home Office, said he would reply to that in writing, but I have still—some months later—not received any substantive reply on this point.

Therefore, I should be most grateful if the Minister would now respond to both these questions. What justification can there possibly be for not requiring the assemblers of ransoms to file an SAR? Are we making available relevant SAR material we may have to the intelligence centre in the Seychelles? Any serious campaign against piracy in the Indian Ocean must surely get to grips with the issue of money laundering.

I have one final point which was also made by speakers who preceded me. The challenge of piracy in the Indian Ocean cannot, of course, be met by naval action alone or even by naval action backed up by good intelligence. It must also involve the gradual re-establishment of stability and the rule of law in Somalia and the other countries of the region. I hope that the international community, of which we are a leading part in this region of the world, will not allow that task to fail through lack of resources and lack of political will, as it so lamentably did before in the 1990s.

Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I fully endorse everything he says. I believe your Lordships are at heart, and certainly have been in past statements, fully in support of these very difficult negotiations and this high ambition of the British Government and that we should today take the opportunity further to reinforce the support for what officials have struggled to achieve over the years under successive Governments.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise—and I am not asking what our negotiating position is—that between now and Friday it is highly likely that we will have to make a choice between a robust treaty, which is not signed by everyone, and a weak treaty, which will not be worth the paper it is written on because it will be subscribed to by countries like Russia, which is busy exporting arms to a situation of humanitarian disaster in Syria as if there were no tomorrow? Will he confirm the very welcome position he gave that we will stick to our guns—perhaps a slightly unfortunate phrase—and not water down the arms trade treaty that we have set out to get, even if this means that some of the largest exporters are temporarily at least not going to sign up?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I have said that we are not going to sign a weak consensus. I know that the noble Lord, who is very versed in and a master of these negotiations, would not expect me to make statements about our negotiating position at this crucial stage. I repeat that a weak consensus or a feeble abandonment is not what is contemplated.

Court of Justice of the European Union

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I shall speak briefly in support of the Government’s resolution on the reform of the European Court of Justice. I will not go into the detail of the reforms, which have already been very competently described by the Minister, or into the detail of the grounds, which were well prepared by the excellent report produced during our last Session by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and his Sub-Committee E of the EU Select Committee, which the Home Affairs sub-committee, which I chair, works in very close concert with. I join the noble Lord in deploring the fact that the Government have not agreed to the increase in the number of members of the General Court recommended in the report.

I shall address one or two more general issues about the European Court of Justice. It remains a cause for dismay, and sometimes despair, that so little is known in this country about the European Court of Justice, its rationale and its work. Even generally well-informed commentators find it difficult to distinguish between the European Union’s Court of Justice, which we are discussing this evening, and the Council of Europe’s human rights court. Yet these two bodies have jurisdiction over completely different areas of international law, which apply to a completely different membership— points that one would have thought were fairly easy to grasp.

Many commentators do not even try to understand the distinction. In their eyes, the two courts are simply part of some supposed European conspiracy designed to deprive law-abiding British citizens of their rights and sovereignty. All that is asserted despite the fact that the jurisdictions of both courts and the laws they exist to apply have all been established by the votes of this Parliament, just as our domestic laws have been. That these ill-informed criticisms have such a wide currency is no tribute to either the commentators who use them or the audiences to which they are addressed.

Just in case anyone is minded to regard what I have just said as a trifle paranoid, may I suggest that reading Hansard on the debate in another place on the reforms we are discussing tonight would cure them of that illusion? Not only were some of the interventions larded with phrases that would never be considered parliamentary if directed towards any court in this land, but in addition it was seriously suggested that our national interests would be best served if the European Court of Justice were indeed “bunged up”. Those are not my words; this rather juvenile, puerile humour in which European issues are often discussed in the other place is not one I would choose myself. That is surely a prime example of worst is best—a reasoning that it is bizarre to hear coming from supporters of the Government. With supporters like that, one wonders why they need an Opposition.

In contrast to that argument, I would suggest that the rationale for the European Court of Justice is a simple one that has been made by other noble Lords in this debate. From the outset, the European Communities, now the European Union, were granted certain carefully circumscribed legislative powers, and jurisdiction over disputes about the application of the treaties and laws adopted under them was to be exercised not simply by originally six and now 27 national legal systems but by a European court on which all member states were represented. In this way, from the very beginning the rule of law was a leitmotiv of this new international project, and common sense surely indicates that it has to be if concepts such as the single market—to which, rightly in my view, this country attaches primordial importance: a fact that the Minister underlined, which was welcome—are to provide the level playing field that we all seek.

That was the European Community we joined in 1973, so please do not let us hear again the argument that somehow we joined something different. The European Community that we joined had a Court of Justice with the powers necessary to apply European law. We may sometimes dislike or even deplore the Court’s judgments. Many of us do the same from time to time with regard to the judgments of our own domestic courts, but to contest or to seek to reverse or qualify the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction is to contest our membership of the European Union itself. All that was set out far more eloquently than I can do, during our debates on the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, by the late Lord Slynn of Hadley.

Do we have an interest in helping the European Court of Justice to work more efficiently and effectively, which is the purpose of the reforms that we are debating this evening? The answer to that must surely be yes. As a country that has for many centuries been committed to the rule of law, it is desirable that legal rulings should be provided without undue delay, and that the increased workload of the Court that inevitably flows from the geographical expansion of the European Union and the extension of its responsibilities into new policy areas should not result in such delay.

I have one final point to make. In 2014, Britain will have to decide whether to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over legislation in the fields of justice and home affairs, adopted before the Lisbon treaty came into force. That is to say: it was legislation that by definition was adopted by unanimity. The Government have, very correctly in my view, decided to consult widely about the decision then to either opt out or opt in to that jurisdiction, which all other member states are already committed to accepting by the end of 2014. They have agreed to put the matter to votes in both Houses. I have no intention of entering into the substance of that decision now. My plea is simply that those consultative processes and those votes should be based on full evidence of the pros and cons of the two possible courses of action, transparently presented and carefully considered.

My committee and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, will be seeking to provide the House with that evidence in good time. Meanwhile, I suggest that it would be better not to jump to conclusions, as so many Members of the other place have already done. It is better not to decide in haste and then repent at leisure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I cannot really agree with that because I do not know exactly how the pressures will build up. It is possible, of course, that it will take a year—that is a gloomy assessment—but the report may be very well focused. The momentum behind it may increase. Indeed, the results of this evening’s debate may assist in the kind of momentum that the noble Lord wants to see.

The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who obviously speaks with enormous authority on these matters, asked particularly why Section 10 applied to the draft regulation relating to temporary judges of the EU Civil Service Tribunal. The answer is that the legal basis of that draft regulation is Article 257 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and that is listed in Section 10(1)(d) of the European Union Act 2011, which we took through this House a year ago. That is the technical answer to the very detailed question that the noble Lord rightly put, because it is the detail that this Chamber can focus on remarkably effectively. It gives me great pleasure that your Lordships’ House is able to look in such detail at these matters.

Your Lordships mentioned a whole range of other issues, all coming back to the question of delay. Obviously costs are involved. In this age, we cannot just put them aside. Although costs should not be the decisive matter, we should take them very carefully into consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out that, in addition to the fact that the Lisbon treaty obviously added greatly to the functions and responsibilities of the ECJ, ahead lie other key decisions about opting in and opting out in 2014. They are decisions that we will have to debate and they will be taken very carefully. I think that almost every other noble Lord who spoke, including the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Liddle, and I have mentioned all the other noble Lords, all referred to speeding up matters.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I just want to ensure that the noble Lord appreciates, as I am sure he does, that the extension of the workload of the European Court of Justice, by getting jurisdiction over the justice and home affairs area, does not depend on our decision. Whichever decision we make, 26 countries will be subject to that jurisdiction in December 2014, and that is going to increase the workload massively, whatever decision we come to.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am sure that the noble Lord is right to emphasise that. The workload will increase. We have heard various reasons for that but some of them must arise from the changes made in the Lisbon treaty. Some arise from the increased litigation; some, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, reminded us, arise from international pressures; and some from the increased membership. All those things add up to the fact that this is a Court which, if it is to work efficiently, must clearly gear itself to a much greater load than it has had in the past. I do not think that anyone could dispute that.

As I said, the draft regulations are minor, and the Government support them. We think that they make a step in the right direction and that they will support increased efficiency in this very important European institution. They should also help to prevent a further backlog of cases building up before the European Court of Justice and the European Civil Service Tribunal. There has been a considerable problem for the General Court, as pointed out by the committee and as highlighted graphically by my noble friend Lord Bowness this evening.

If I may meet the challenge put by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, it is absolutely clear to us that an effective and efficient Court of Justice of the EU is in our national interest. British businesses rely on the timely administration of justice within the context of the single market, and a single market that is able to operate effectively is as crucial now as it ever was as we seek to restore the growth and confidence required to build Britain’s prosperity.

Therefore, the Government will continue to work on wider efficiency reforms to the Court of Justice of the European Union, as indeed they will continue to do in relation to the General Court. Those things will have to be taken carefully but we will press on with them.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the discussion. I hope that I have covered every detailed point as well as the general points which I have been asked to comment on. If I have not, I shall of course write to your Lordships. I am grateful for the very clear message that has gone out from this House this evening, and I commend this Motion to the House.

Middle East: Recent Developments

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, faced with the kaleidoscopic series of developments in the Middle East that has followed the Arab awakening and which seems set to continue for the foreseeable future, it is clearly right that we should be debating these issues again a mere four months after our previous debate. I am grateful to the Government for making that possible, even if I cannot resist commenting that it would be even better if they could find time to debate other major areas of foreign policy.

I welcome, too, the Minister’s extremely comprehensive and helpful opening contribution to our debate. It is right that we should be debating this because the Middle East, as other noble Lords have observed, matters to this country and to the European Union as a whole in a way, and to an extent, that few other regions outside Europe do. It affects our security, our energy supplies, the flows of migration and many other issues too.

There are of course difficult policy choices to be made, ones that we have not always made very skilfully or wisely in the past, between, for example, the role of appalled spectator and victim of events or, on the other hand, that of an intrusive actor intervening forcefully and often insensitively. A third option is as a sympathetic neighbour recognising that it is for the countries of the Middle East to shape their own future, but ready to help evolutionary change across the region once the initial process of upheaval has passed. I am glad that we and our allies seem, broadly speaking, to have chosen the third option, and I think that we will need both strategic and tactical patience in sticking to it.

On the positive side of the ledger since we last debated, one can reasonably place the Egyptian presidential elections and the recent elections in Libya. Both sets of elections are of course only the first stages of a long and complex process that still has far to run, but both have confounded the predictions of the pessimists, and both are remarkable and probably irreversible developments in two countries that have never before experienced free and fair multiparty elections. On the negative side of the ledger must clearly stand the continuing conflict in Syria, disfigured by increasing evidence of massacres of innocent civilians by the regime’s supporters and by the stalemate over international efforts to bring the fighting to an end and to initiate a transitional process away from Ba’athist dictatorship.

Somewhere in between on the ledger, I suggest, stands the unsatisfactorily dilatory process of talks over Iran’s nuclear programme and the absence of any negotiating activity at all over Palestine. Both these latter two issues mask an explosive potential that we ignore at our peril. I listened with great interest to my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup’s description of the dangers that face us from a failure to achieve a negotiated solution on Iran, with which I totally agree.

In Syria, the arguments against any external military intervention—that, I suggest, includes the supply of weapons—still seem to outweigh the arguments in favour of a no-fly zone or the establishment of safe areas, even if the balance between them is not as clear-cut as it was at the outset. The international community’s responsibility to protect is still, I would argue, better exercised through diplomatic, humanitarian and economic action than through the use of force. The present stalemate, though, while the sectarian nature of the conflict becomes more and more marked, with disastrous potential effects on the future stability of the country, and while arms and military expertise pour in, particularly from Russia and Iran, is neither sustainable nor ought it to be accepted. I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about what we know about arms and military expertise flows that come from those two countries.

Surely we need to bring home more clearly than we have done hitherto that war crimes and crimes against humanity, by whomsoever committed, will one day end up before the International Criminal Court, and that the universal jurisdiction in the convention against torture already applies to those who are using these methods. Making these points is all the more urgent in the wake of the latest news we have had of yet another massacre by supporters of the regime.

More generally, is it not time that we went back to the UN Security Council and sought a mandatory resolution—that is to say, a Chapter 7 resolution—that would set stated timelines for Kofi Annan’s six-point plan and his transitional process to be accepted and backed that up by a clear threat of economic sanctions if that timeline was ignored? It is, of course, possible that the Russians will veto such a resolution. Their policy so far has been callous and opportunistic, and we have little or nothing to show for all the efforts to enlist their support for a genuine transition, but my experience is that you never find out just how firm that blocking position is until you put it to the test. Personally, I think that even if the Russians were to veto, our position would be better if we had put them before their responsibilities than if we allowed them to emasculate any resolution that we move forward in an attempt to get away from the deadlock. Meanwhile, I hope that the Minister can confirm that we and our allies are working closely with the Arab League and will urge consistently on the Syrian opposition the need for greater unity and for a public commitment to a democratic alternative to the Assad regime that will respect and protect all religious and ethnic groups in the country.

For Egypt and other countries now pursuing a peaceful process of evolution—countries such as Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Yemen and Jordan—the challenge for the international community is principally an economic one. The success or failure of these processes of evolution will depend crucially on whether the new democratically elected Governments can offer better prospects to their rapidly growing young populations. That requires better trade outlets, greater skills, more inward investment, the establishment of the tourist industry and much else besides which, while not exclusively in the gift of outside countries, can be greatly facilitated and encouraged by their activities. Perhaps the Minister will say a little about what the European Union is doing in that respect and also about what is being done through such instruments as DfID, the British Council, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the BBC. Are their activities as well funded as they need to be? Are their efforts as well co-ordinated as they need to be if they are to be effective?

With the negotiations between the five plus one in Iran still continuing, however desultorily, it is probably wise not to say too much, but I regret—here I join the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on one point that he made—that with all the emphasis on sanctions and the rumours of military action, the positive side of the equation—what Iran could hope for if it could satisfy the UN comprehensively about the peaceful nature of its nuclear programmes—is being marginalised and overlooked. Successful negotiations require benefits for all the parties to them, and we should not lose sight of that. What is not in doubt is that failure to reach a negotiated solution will bring seriously negative consequences for all concerned.

The moribund nature of the Middle East peace process while settlement activity in the Occupied Territories continues apace should bring solace to no one, although I sometimes fear that the Government of Israel regard it as better than any of the alternatives. If they do, I fear they are grievously wrong, and it will not be long before they find that out. Politics being politics and the central role of the US in any peace process not being easy to dispute, it is not likely that any serious movement will take place until after the US presidential election in November, but thereafter, a serious attempt to move ahead again will be the only alternative to a drift towards conflict. I say without any pleasure at all, having listened to a number of contributions to the debate, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that of course the case for aid and trade is a strong one, but it is never going to do the trick on the Palestine issue. Politics will always trump aid and trade. Meanwhile, I hope that the Minister can say what the UK is doing to ensure that a conference on a Middle East weapons-free zone, scheduled for the end of this year becomes the start of a continuing process, and not a fiasco or a slanging match.

In conclusion, it cannot be said that the prospects in the Middle East are rosy. Nor, I believe, are they without hope. I hope that we can resist an obsession with the precise religious content of the Governments emerging from the new democratic processes and, even more, resist the vocabulary of Islamophobia. There is far too much of it around. The Governments of these countries are for them to decide. We should judge them by their deeds, not by their words or their religious beliefs.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, support for the Bill may come as something of a surprise to the government Front Bench from someone who has been generally critical of the coalition Government’s performance on European Union issues and remains so. I regard last year’s European referendum Act as a ball and chain around any future British Government’s negotiating position, and the decision last December to refuse to join the negotiation of a fiscal discipline pact as an unnecessary and self-inflicted wound. It may come as a surprise that such a person should wholeheartedly support the legislation before the House today, which is designed to enable this country to ratify a change to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union to which our Government have already agreed and which has already been approved by both Houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said in his introduction.

I give this Bill unqualified support, and not just because the failure of Parliament to do so would create an appalling precedent whereby a British Government’s word would no longer be seen as being as good as their bond, although that is surely a compelling enough reason. But the case for support runs rather deeper than that. It is based on a belief, which I have not heard mentioned in this debate, that the European Union for the foreseeable future will consist of both members within the eurozone—I am not speculating about how many of those there will be—whose currency is the euro and whose interest rates are set by the European Central Bank, and members outside the eurozone, such as ourselves but not only ourselves, who will continue to operate their national currencies and national interest rates.

I believe that it is crucial to achieve the maximum possible degree of solidarity and to reduce to the minimum the policy and institutional distinctions between those two groups. Only thus will we have any chance of ensuring that aspects of European policy as fundamentally important to this country as the single market and its further development remain firmly under the control of the European institutions and all 27, shortly to be 28, of its member states.

By enabling the operations of the European stability mechanism, which imposes costs on the members of the eurozone alone and not on us or those outside it, to be based firmly on EU treaty provisions, we are making another modest contribution to that solidarity. That is why I agree with the Government’s assertion that the ratification of this treaty change is in Britain’s national interest. It has to be admitted that that concept of solidarity is not much in evidence these days, particularly in debates on European matters in this country, even though our own future growth and prosperity is so closely bound up with that of the other members of the European Union—whether they are in the eurozone or not, or whether we are in the eurozone or not.

The emphasis is all on how to avoid solidarity and how to ensure that this country does not incur the slightest hint of a financial liability. In the case of the present treaty change, that issue does not arise, and I am not suggesting that it should. But I would suggest that it is an approach which is both short-sighted and misguided. The greatest financial risks to this country in the present circumstances arise from a possible breakup of the eurozone, not from its stabilisation and survival.

In the case of Ireland, we already faced and drew back from taking the dog-in-a-manger attitude which is so often commended in this country. Our rather niggardly approach to IMF replenishment—that criticism I am afraid applies to the Government and the Opposition—shows just how reluctant we are to recognise that need for solidarity. Yet, the awful example of the 1930s—I have heard some pretty odd interpretations for that decade in the debate so far today—when the countries of Europe and beyond definitively turned their backs on mutual solidarity and opted for protectionism, competitive devaluations and appeasement, are there to remind us of the possible consequences of such policies.

I confess that I was a little shocked but not the slightest surprised when at the briefing meeting on this Bill so helpfully organised last week by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and his colleagues, the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee in another place warned that the Bill was likely to run into major difficulties and opposition when it was presented there. I was not surprised because it is becoming ever clearer that a number of the Government’s supporters in the other place are determined to spare no effort to widen the gap between Britain and its European partners—indeed, to bring about an eventual parting of the ways between us. I say to those of that point of view that the eurozone crisis is seen as an opportunity, and not a challenge and a threat. They are frustrated that the Government do not seem to share that view, which is an opinion that has been expressed today sometimes rather eloquently but, in my view, not in a way that I could share.

As we are debating this Bill today, the leaders of the European Union are meeting in Brussels to consider how best to reconcile the policy objectives of fiscal consolidation and the need for growth in all our economies. Let us hope that our own Government are playing a full and constructive role in that wider debate and that in the next phase of the development of the European Union Britain can come to the table with ideas and not just with objections. That is surely the only way in which to make a success of Britain’s continued membership of the European Union and persuade the British people that that is the right course to take.

Arms Trade Treaty

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what their principal objectives will be in the negotiations for an arms trade treaty at the United Nations in July.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom is firmly committed to securing a robust and legally binding arms trade treaty to regulate effectively the international trade in conventional arms. The final treaty should have a demonstrable humanitarian, security and development impact, and be capable of implementation in practice to ensure the broadest participation of states, including major arms exporters. This should be achieved without creating an undue additional burden for the legitimate defence industry.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I am sure he agrees with his right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who, when speaking to the International Institute for Strategic Studies last week, said that the Government’s principal objective between now and the negotiations in July is to “raise the profile” of the arms trade treaty. Does the Minister not agree that the two steps that the Government could best take to do that would be, first, to announce immediately that the Foreign Secretary will attend the opening of negotiations at the UN in July; and, secondly, for the Prime Minister to give his full support in a speech between now and the opening of the conference? Will the Minister lend his support to those two measures?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

To be fair, I say to the noble Lord, who obviously has been very much at the centre of these things, that the full support is most certainly there. All along, from the time that this initiative began in 2008, the British Government, under the previous Labour Administration and under this Administration, have given very full support to this and we want it brought to the point where we can get a draft treaty. However, as he knows, it is no use being too starry-eyed about overcoming all the difficulties. As to ministerial attendance or ministerial speeches, we will have to look at that. I know that this is a high priority. Of course, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has many high priorities and this most certainly is one of them, so we will have to take a decision on attendance in due course.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, one consequence of the extraordinarily long opening Session of this Parliament, which has just ended, is that this is, in fact, the first opportunity that we have had to debate the coalition Government’s performance and foreign policy priorities. If I had to sum up that performance in one phrase, I would be a little tempted to turn to Winston Churchill’s lapidary comment:

“This pudding has no theme”.

In so doing I am not, I hope, falling into the error of suggesting that one can draw up a blueprint for foreign policy and simply apply it, come what may. But the lack of strategic objectives in the main areas of Britain’s foreign policy and the absence of a clear public narrative are becoming increasingly apparent, and increasingly a source of weakness and waning influence. Too often, the Government seem to be following Lord Salisbury’s description of Britain’s foreign policy as floating down a broad river, occasionally fending off the banks. Well, that policy ended in far from splendid isolation at the time of the Boer War, and 21st-century Britain can even less afford to be isolated than it could then.

Nowhere has that sense of drift been more apparent than in the handling of Britain’s vital relationship with the European Union. Last December, whether by bad luck or bad judgment—and I suspect that it was a combination of the two—we stumbled into a completely unnecessary confrontation with all but one of our 26 partners. It was never going to be easy to handle the European dimension of the great world financial and economic crisis that began in 2008, with some countries within the eurozone and some countries outside it but all depending crucially for their future prosperity on achieving the right policy mix, but it cannot be said that any of the parties to it, including ourselves, have so far emerged with a lot of credit.

Now a new phase is opening with much churn in European politics, and a major debate is beginning over how to put a proper emphasis on growth while still moving decisively towards a sound and sustainable fiscal balance. It is surely vital that Britain plays a full and constructive part in that debate and that it is a full party to any growth strategy, which should be composed of structural reforms, further development of the single market and well targeted use of European financial instruments. In that way, too, some of the damage done last December could be repaired. I hope that the Minister replying to this debate can assure the House that that—a full British involvement in and contribution to the discussion and agreement on the growth strategy—is the role that Britain intends to play in the extremely important weeks ahead of us.

However, the problems over the Government’s European policy go far wider than the eurozone crisis. There is simply a complete lack of an overall sense of direction to it. There is no articulation of the sort of European Union that we would like to see set out in terms that would appeal to other member states which attach a similar insistence and importance to the completion of the single market, to further enlargement, to freer and fairer world trade, and to a European Union able to play an effective role in the diplomacy and security of its own region and more widely.

A vision composed exclusively of red lines, no-go areas and referendum locks is going to appeal to no one—not even, I suspect, to our own electorate. This is surely a moment when, with a new French President in office, we should be thinking about what more we can do to strengthen Anglo-French defence co-operation and how we can use that to strengthen overall European performance in a field where the policies of austerity require us to do more together or, alternatively, to see ourselves sliding into irrelevance. That was the clear message of the report of your Lordships’ EU Select Committee, recently distributed.

Looking beyond Europe and its immediate neighbourhood, I cannot say that the picture there is entirely encouraging either. Some brave and successful decisions have been made by the Government—for example, over Libya. Policy towards the ferment in the rest of the Arab world, including towards Syria, where no easy choices exist, seems to be on the right track, although a long and probably painful route remains to be travelled. The twin-track policy towards Iran, pushing active diplomacy while strengthening economic sanctions, is the only one with the slightest prospect of avoiding much worse outcomes. However, in this wider field, too, a lack of strategic vision—a tendency to regard pragmatism as an end in itself and not a method—does seem prevalent.

Such indications as the Government have given about the governing principles of their foreign policy seem to be either a little naive or contradictory. Take the often-repeated mantra that we live in a “network world”. What on earth is that meant to signify? Is it simply a blinding glimpse of the obvious reflecting the communications revolution through which we are living which reinforces the concepts of interdependence and globalisation? Or is it a faint echo of something that I first came across nearly 40 years ago in Chairman Mao’s Beijing, where the government hotel’s lobby was adorned with the slogan, “We have friends all over the world”? Take, too, the frequently repeated phrase, “We no longer live in a world of blocs”. Really? Britain’s ultimate security rests today, as it has done for more than 60 years, on NATO, which is certainly a bloc; and its prosperity depends to a great extent on the European Union, which is another bloc. We also look to a number of regional blocs—the African Union, the Arab League and ASEAN—to share the burden of international security, so what on earth does that phrase signify? I suppose it is just another dog whistle to the Eurosceptics on the government Back Benches.

There is then the Government’s claim to have reinvented bilateral diplomacy. I warmly welcome and commend the extension of our bilateral diplomatic network which is being achieved, despite the pinch of austerity. But bilateral diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy are not an either/or choice for a middle-ranking power with worldwide interests like Britain. They are a both/and necessity.

I urge the Government to put rather more emphasis on the need to strengthen the great multilateral institutions on which we depend for our security and prosperity. Here I join with what the noble Lord, Lord Wood, said. Every one of them—the UN, NATO, IMF, WTO— sails through troubled waters; every one of them needs reform and needs to adapt if it is to operate successfully in the emerging multipolar world. Yet the Government’s response—indeed, in some cases, the Opposition’s response—to the IMF’s recent call for increased resources was pusillanimously feeble. Surely it is in Britain’s interest that these rules-based organisations should be sustained against the increasingly shrill calls to turn back the tide of globalisation and to revert to protectionist and isolationist policies. Surely on that ground there is a cause that the coalition Government should make their own and where they should give a lead.

Middle East

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Friday 16th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, anyone who believed that the events of the Arab spring, which I would rather see described as the Arab awakening, would lead to a quick, uncomplicated and largely peaceful transformation of the Middle East, resulting in the emergence of functioning democracies and greater prosperity for the burgeoning populations, can surely not believe that now. What faces us is a period of considerable turmoil that could well last for decades, not just years, in a region that is on Europe’s doorstep and can fundamentally influence our own security and prosperity. Should we be surprised or repelled by that? Neither, I would suggest. Revolutions are always messy and, like earthquakes, are invariably followed by aftershocks. If we were unwise enough to try to distance ourselves from these developments, we would surely surrender all influence and would soon find ourselves being painfully bitten on the ankle.

I believe that we were right to intervene militarily, as we did in Libya, with a UN mandate, which I do not believe we exceeded. The responsibility to protect, to which every member of the UN signed up in 2005, was clearly engaged and the action taken conformed to just-war principles. Now that the people of Libya have been liberated, we should do everything in our power to help them to establish a working democracy, while trying not to be too prescriptive and recognising that the journey on which they have embarked is necessarily a long and difficult one, starting as they did from zero.

Should we follow the same course in Syria, even if a Security Council mandate was not being blocked by the callous and opportunistic policies of Russia and China? I rather doubt it. The situation there is much more complex and less clear-cut. Those who are rebelling against the Assad regime are divided. It is possible that external military intervention there would make things worse, not better, leading to even more carnage than we have already seen. However, we should sharply step up our humanitarian support for those who are suffering and remove the regime’s impunity for the crimes that it is evidently committing by pressing for the extension of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to Syria. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on those two points. Nor do I think that we should necessarily rule out supporting external military intervention in all circumstances, particularly if the Arab League were to give a clear lead.

Elsewhere in the Middle East—in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, where regime change has come about, as it should, though the actions of their own people—we need to focus firmly on building up their economies and encouraging trade and investment. If ever there was a case for applying the new emphasis in DfID’s mandate on helping fragile states, it is here before our eyes. I hope that we can hear a little more about what we are doing from the Minister. I suggest that what is needed, above all, is a well co-ordinated European Union effort, not just a solo British one. It would be good to hear what is being done in that respect.

It sometimes seems that the orphan child in all this upheaval is Palestine. Israel is in a state of denial over the need for a negotiated two-state solution, hoping that the problem will somehow go away, which it will not. The US Administration are in balk during the election campaign. If this stagnation is maintained beyond the end of this year, we should have no illusions. There will be more violence in a region where the new democratic states will be subject to the promptings of popular opinion much more than in the past. Meanwhile, I hope that the Minister can confirm that if the Palestinians pursue their quest at the UN for an enhanced status, albeit one that is short of full UN membership, Britain will support that, and that if Fatah and Hamas establish a Government of technocrats, we will give that Government our full support and co-operation.

At this moment, no debate on the Middle East can afford to ignore the tensions arising as a result of Iran’s nuclear programme. The Iranians have no one to blame but themselves for the fact that the temperature is rising so sharply. Indeed, at times, they seem to be seeking to provoke such a rise. However, everyone will be the loser if a diplomatic negotiated solution cannot be found. It is surely deeply worrying that we appear to be in one of those situations where one mis-step or misjudgment could tip the balance decisively away from such a peaceful outcome.

Much will therefore be riding on the next round of negotiations between Iran and the five plus one. What are needed are both some short-term confidence-building measures and a clear route towards a long-term solution, in full conformity with Iran’s obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and its membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Many ideas have been canvassed for ensuring that Iran can develop as much civil nuclear energy as it wishes, while removing any conceivable threat of a weapons programme. It is time that a little more imagination and flexibility were demonstrated on all sides in discussing such possibilities. At the same time as addressing these urgent nuclear issues, it is surely vital also to address Iran’s general security concerns and to demonstrate in practical terms that we recognise the need for Iran to be an important regional player, preferably as part of some grouping of states in the Gulf region.

Finally, later this year there is to be a first-ever international conference on the creation of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle East. That may sound a trifle optimistic—indeed aspirational— but establishing the beginnings of a continuous dialogue on that issue could mark the difference between a region moving, however slowly, in the right direction and one sliding back towards conflict. I should be most grateful if the Minister could say a few words in his summing up about the attitude that we are taking to the organisation of that conference.

Syria

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is quite right. Access for independent observers or, indeed, access for humanitarian relief is the problem in this very dangerous situation. We have been working hard at the United Nations. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has been working extremely hard and taking the lead in trying to persuade Russia and China to take a more positive and co-operative attitude in all aspects, including, of course, getting a more effective UN resolution forward which would, we hope, increase the heat and pressure on Mr Bashar al-Assad. That is what is going on at the moment.

As for the mine situation, I have seen the reports of mines being laid. Syria is not—regrettably but perhaps not unsurprisingly—a signatory to the international prohibitions against land mines. This is yet one more area where we will increase to the maximum volume and ability our pressures on the Syrian regime to behave in a less uncivilised and more understanding way.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The Minister referred to the human rights mission that has been sent to the region. Would the Foreign Office classify decisions by the Syrian regime to prevent humanitarian access to the areas that need it most as a breach of international humanitarian law which may, one day, need to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is certainly possible. The position vis-à-vis the International Criminal Court is that the commission of inquiry of the UN, as I think the noble Lord will know, clearly stated its concerns that crimes against humanity have been committed in Syria and that this may be a matter for the International Criminal Court. The United Kingdom will not rule out referral to the International Criminal Court, as suggested by Mrs Pillay, the human rights commissioner. The COI report does not specifically recommend a referral to the court, nor does the Human Rights Council have the power to refer cases. It would be for the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC prosecutor. That is the formal position and I must stick closely to those words about it.