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.

Middle East: Quartet

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As far as settlements are concerned, it has not improved at all. On the contrary, although the Jerusalem municipality has told the British representatives who make constant representations that for the moment it does not plan any further settlements, or any further demolition in east Jerusalem either, the settlements seem to continue. So there has been no improvement there. I was referring to Palestine industry and enterprise and some beginnings—even in the miserable conditions of Gaza—of advance in enterprise, thanks to some noble and dynamic contributions by British businesses.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, if the Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, reach agreement in the coming weeks on constituting a technocratic Government with Mahmoud Abbas as both President and Prime Minister, will the British Government use their influence to deal directly with the Government who emerge from that process and not be impeded from doing so by any objections from elsewhere?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The answer is yes, provided that Hamas shows some readiness to conform to the quartet principles, renounces violence and plays a constructive role. Provided that that happens, we could then move forward, and certainly the British Government would use all their influence and support to ensure that that process did move forward.

EU: Recent Developments

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 16th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We are both on the same committee and discuss many EU matters in great amity. However, I have to say that I do not follow him on the financial transaction tax.

I make no apologies for focusing the major part of my contribution to today’s long overdue debate on the economic and financial travails of the eurozone, particularly those aspects of the crisis that directly concern this country. This long-running saga still has far to go and, however it ends, will have profound effects on all members of the European Union, not just on the members of the eurozone. That basic reality has been grasped from the outset by the Government. I pay tribute to the firm and repeated conclusion of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is in Britain’s national interest that the eurozone should surmount this crisis; and to their rejection of the view, expressed on the wilder shores of their own Back Benches in another place, that we could regard the disintegration of the eurozone with equanimity, or even with glee.

A second reality, which the Government have been less willing to grasp, is that as a non-participant in the eurozone—in saying that I do not intend to stray into a discussion of the pros and cons of our joining the euro at the outset—our views on the handling of the crisis are neither particularly welcome nor at all influential. There is a lesson to be learnt from this about the consequences of being absent and our subsequent marginalisation in the decision-making processes of the European Union.

That lesson leads me directly to the events of last December’s European Council and the serious error of judgment that was made on that occasion. It is first necessary to dissipate some of the myths that have accumulated around that meeting and which now, like layers of varnish on an old master’s painting, obscure the picture beneath. I fear that several more layers of varnish went on in the introductory statement of the noble Lord, Lord Howell.

Myth No. 1 was propagated by the Prime Minister himself when, in his Statement to Parliament after the December Council, he said that he had refused his signature on changes to the treaty. No such signature was proposed in Brussels on 9 December; there was no text to sign. The past two months have been taken up by negotiating a text, which is to be signed next month by 25 of the 27 member states, with Britain a mere observer of the process. Why the Prime Minister rejected the tried and trusted precedent set by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in the context of both the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty—the practice of participating in negotiations to ensure that British interests were safeguarded, while keeping in reserve the right to refuse to sign if they were not—remains a complete mystery to me.

Myth No. 2 is that there was a veto at all on 9 December. All that happened was that the other member states, whose determination to move ahead was not in doubt well before that meeting, felt compelled to use an entirely predictable procedural bypass to achieve their objective of strengthening the fiscal disciplines attached to eurozone membership. Incidentally, the Government have said that they strongly support that objective and believe that it is entirely logical and reasonable.

Myth No. 3 is that the treaty to be signed in March is in some way objectionable to the United Kingdom, thus justifying our refusal to sign it. On three successive occasions I have asked three separate Ministers—the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon—to state what provisions in the treaty are objectionable to the United Kingdom and on three occasions—alas, a little bit like St Peter—they have each refused to answer. I scored a fourth one last night with an official from the Foreign Office who the noble Lord, Lord Howell, very kindly brought along to brief Members of the House before today’s debate, and who spent a very long time failing to answer that question for the fourth time. I think it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that the honest answer to the question is none. That is not a surprise really since the main safeguards we needed were to ensure that the treaty’s objectives did not have any mandatory effect on non-eurozone members such as the UK unless and until they decided to join the eurozone; and, secondly, that single market issues will continue to be decided inside the normal EU treaty procedures. They are now there, enshrined on the face of the treaty.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I know we have been told not to interrupt each others’ speeches, and I apologise for doing so, but I think that the noble Lord is confusing varnish with lacquer. Layers of lacquer improve an object rather than destroy it or obscure it. In my opening speech I set out four very detailed areas in which—as the Chancellor made clear to the Treasury Committee subsequently—the safeguards were not available, and were not going to be available had this been a European Union treaty. If we had signed it, or gone ahead with the agreement that night, it would have become a European Union treaty. That would have changed the nature of the European Union. We did not want that. We do not want to be part of a fiscal union. We do not particularly want to be part of a political union. Therefore, we stood outside, and the remaining signatories have to work out intergovernmentally how they will solve their problem. I see no difficulty with that and I cannot understand why the noble Lord, with his considerable experience and brilliant mind, if I may say so, cannot get hold of this basic, simple, central fact.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having, after two and a half months, actually managed to extract an answer to some questions that I have been asking. The answer is, alas, unconvincing because it does not relate to the text of the treaty that is going to be signed in March; it relates to the wonderful Cheshire cat smile protocol which we are not allowed to see, which the Prime Minister put forward on 9 December, and which there seems to be a singular lack of enthusiasm for communicating to Parliament, despite Parliament’s role in scrutinising matters which are liable to become EU law, which was obviously the intention of the Government. Naturally I respect what the noble Lord said about the reasons relating to the protocol, but they do not relate to the treaty. However, I move away from that.

Myth No. 4 is that, in some mysterious way, the events of 9 December have strengthened the British Government’s hand in negotiating single market legislation regulating the financial services industry. The Government’s refusal to share with Parliament the text of the proposals they put forward on 9 December in that respect means that we cannot judge their value. What we do know is that they were rejected by all other member states. The situation with regard to financial services regulation thus remains exactly as it was on the day before the December Council. That, too, seems to be the view taken by the City in the briefing that the City Remembrancer has sent, I think, to all Members of this House, and which I received yesterday.

Myth No. 5 is that the treaty somehow makes improper use of the EU’s institutions, in particular the Commission and the Court of Justice. Fortunately, the Government have decided not to pursue that legal will o’ the wisp for the moment. If we really have ended up somewhere where it is not in Britain’s national interest to be, as I believe is the case, on the outside looking in as decisions that could have a considerable impact on this country’s economy are taken what is to be done? The simplest answer would be to sign the treaty, but I have no illusion that the Government are currently prepared to run the gauntlet of their rebellious Eurosceptic Back-Benchers. Alternatively, the Government could, if and when this treaty enters into force following ratification by 12 of the eurozone countries, give serious and constructive consideration to triggering the provisions of Article 16 of the new treaty, which envisage it being brought within the EU treaty structure. That is the course that follows the logic of the conclusions of the report that your Lordships’ EU Select Committee has made to the House, and I hope that the Minister who is to reply—and I am not asking for an immediate response—will recognise that and reflect carefully on it.

It may not be surprising that the eurozone crisis has dominated all other policy aspects at recent meetings of the European Council and seems set to continue to do so, but it obscures the fact that events in the world outside the EU continue to occur at a dizzying rate. The EU is now far too important an international player to be able to take time out from those events. Nor has it been doing so, and the Minister very reasonably brought us up to date on a number of the things that the EU has been doing. Recent decisions to tighten economic sanctions against Iran and Syria, and contemplating relaxing such sanctions following the welcome easing of repression in Burma, are all decisions of considerable significance and are welcome. They underline how much more effectively the EU can work in the foreign and security policy field when its members act together. The admission of Croatia in 2013 is a reminder, too, of the unfinished business of further enlargement, which holds the key to the stability of the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean.

I conclude my remarks with a plea to the Government to put more effort and eloquence into promoting a positive agenda for the European Union. If Britain has plenty of positive ideas in addition to those that I have already mentioned, as I believe it does—such as completing the single market in services, energy and the digital industry, pushing ahead with negotiations for freer and fairer international trade, supporting the Arab spring and strengthening the EU’s strategic partnerships with the main emerging powers, such as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico—the Government should surely be speaking out about these ideas, loud and clear. They should do it not only outside this country but inside it, where so much that is negative about the EU dominates the public commentary. Above all, the three main parties that support our EU membership should be finding ways of articulating the fundamental political and economic case in terms that update for a modern audience but do not supersede the arguments that led us to join the EU 40 years ago—I pay tribute the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who reminded us that those early arguments on the foundation of the European Union have not lost their value—and which were endorsed in the 1975 referendum by a two-to-one majority.

Syria

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I fully share the noble Lord’s remarks about Simon Collis, our excellent ambassador. He is recalled here for consultation. We are not closing the embassy at this stage. Obviously it is a matter under complete review, as is the question of the security of embassy staff and everyone concerned. I can confirm what my right honourable friend said in his Statement—that the ambassador has been recalled for consultation. We are not closing the embassy at this stage.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, will the Minister also accept congratulations on the work of the UK mission in New York? To have got 13 people to vote for this resolution is no simple matter, particularly since some of the countries that voted for it are very careful not to get involved in “undue interference” in other countries’ business—so that gives the lie, frankly, to the Russians and the Chinese, who regard this as being that. Could the Minister perhaps say whether the Government are contemplating providing any humanitarian assistance to the rebels and to those who are wounded in this fighting, and also whether any thought is being given to the application of the convention on torture to people who are involved in the regime?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On the first point, the noble Lord speaks with experience, because he has done that job himself and knows exactly how difficult it is. His praise for the success of the UN team is very valid and very worth while receiving, and I hope that the team will note it. DfID is engaged and is working with the International Committee of the Red Cross on various aspects, and it is very active in seeing in what other ways it can help. I do not think that I can say more at the moment on that matter. I have to ask the noble Lord for the third question again. I wrote it down but I cannot read my writing.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I asked whether the Government are giving any consideration to the application of the convention against torture to those in the regime who are undoubtedly using that practice.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

This is obviously one of the many matters under consideration. Of course, it is related to the broader matter of whether there will be a UN resolution in relation to the reference to the International Criminal Court. It requires a UN resolution because Syria is not a signatory to the ICC. As I have raised that matter, I should just make it clear that the commission of inquiry quite clearly stated its concern that crimes against humanity have been committed in Syria, which may be a matter for the International Criminal Court. The UK would not rule out referral to the ICC, as suggested by Mrs Pillay. The commission of inquiry report does not specifically recommend referral to the ICC, 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. I would add that I am absolutely sure that issues about torture and other gross human rights abuses would certainly arise in that context.

Northern Cyprus

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, I renew my previous request to the Minister to ensure—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that since the deadlock in the talks at the moment is at least half the responsibility of Mr Eroglu, it is pretty odd to be discussing the matter on the Order Paper today?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

First, I defer to the extreme knowledge of the noble Lord on this matter. It is very hard to apportion the blame. All the parties concerned say that they want to make progress. The Governments, as it were, of the countries concerned, Turkey and obviously Greece—which are not directly involved because clearly this matter must be left to the people of Cyprus to sort out—have indicated a positive attitude. We have a positive attitude, as does the United Nations, and we just have to take our opportunities as they come. At the moment, the talks of the other day have come to a halt, but the Secretary-General is pressing ahead. He has asked Alexander Downer to do more work and to create a review. If the review is positive, he has said that he would like to move towards a multilateral conference in late April. So there may be hope on this front, but I do not want to raise those hopes too high.