Foreign Policy

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, from time to time it is necessary to stand back from the rush of international developments, get away from a purely reactive response to events that are often outside our control, and try to take an overall look at this country’s foreign policy objectives and at the methods and resources at our disposal to articulate them.

Having had the benefit of reading the Foreign Secretary’s speech this morning, I welcome the fact that he seemed to take the point that we should get away from a purely reactive diplomacy. It is surely the time for this, with the new coalition Government conducting a wide-ranging review of national security issues. I agree with my noble friend Lord Butler: we cannot afford a narrow, defence-oriented approach to that review, as has often been the case in the past. Nor, with the Cold War far behind us and a multipolar world gradually emerging, does it make any sense to allow defence issues to be decoupled from the wider foreign policy framework. The two must be matched, as they have often not been hitherto. If this debate can make a parliamentary contribution to that review, it will surely be of real value—and there is no one better to lead it than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, whose opening remarks reminded us why he remains one of the most admired and respected Foreign Secretaries of modern times, and whom I had the honour to serve throughout his tenure in office.

Any foreign policy worthy of the name must be anchored firmly in the national interest. As a great statesman of the 19th century observed, “interest never lies”. However, defining our national interest in any particular matter is no simple question: it requires intellectual rigour and the avoidance of jingoistic hype. There are two sharply contrasting approaches. The first defines the national interest very narrowly and in a reductive manner—the sacro egoismo of an Italian Minister in the First World War. That was the approach that led us to the protectionism and appeasement policies of the 1930s, and the abandonment of the first attempt at collective security, the League of Nations. It is a template to be avoided now, as it should have been then. The other approach is to define the national interest in broader terms, recognising that many threats and challenges that we now face come from outside our immediate neighbourhood, and that all of them require some kind of co-ordinated, collective global action if they are to be effectively mastered. The broader approach surely is the one that Britain should take.

We are currently deeply preoccupied by our own fiscal and economic predicament. Foreign policy practitioners cannot simply dismiss that as if it did not exist and had no implications for our foreign policy, but we need to retain a sense of proportion. Even in our financially weakened state, we remain in single figures in any global league table of capacity, whether we are talking about trade, investment or the ability to project power and influence. We must not go into a pre-emptive cringe. That is why I greatly welcome the Government standing by their commitment to 0.7 per cent of our gross national income going to our aid programme by 2013. We could improve the way in which the money is spent, particularly by better fitting together the foreign policy and developmental objectives to which it is devoted, and by strengthening collective international efforts to deal with failing states and to stop states failing in the first place.

One key conclusion that we must draw is that to achieve our foreign policy objectives in the future, we will need to act even more in concert with other countries than we have done up to now, and that we are now even less able than we have been in the past to defend our interests around the world by acting alone. That implies an active diplomacy and the strengthening of rules-based international organisations. When we look at the instruments for collective action, two stand out: the European Union and the United Nations. The new Government seem to have got off on the right foot in responding to developments in the EU—far better, dare one say, than was predicted only a few weeks ago. However, there is still too much unnecessarily negative language in the Government's presentation of EU discussions—long lists of things that we are not going to allow to happen—and so far an almost complete absence of any overall positive picture of what the Government want the EU to achieve.

There is, after all, no lack of material for painting that picture: free trade, energy policy and security, further enlargement, climate change and the rollback of state subsidies. There are real opportunities to be seized, given the considerable tension between France and Germany over economic policy, a political vacuum in the leadership of European institutions and the new phase in the development of a common foreign and security policy that is being shaped. This is no time to settle for a purely reactive and defensive EU policy just because some parts of one of the coalition partners do not want anything more constructive and positive.

At the UN, too, and in other universal or near-universal organisations such as the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, there are opportunities to be taken, and risks if we fail to take them. I refer to the climate change negotiations in the run-up to the Cancun meeting at the end of the year; to the complex of multilateral nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation talks, where the relative success of last month’s NPT review conference set a new direction of travel, but where there remains a long way to go that is strewn with many obstacles; and to the Doha round of trade negotiations, successful completion of which should be an integral part of any exit strategy from the recent financial and economic crisis. All these policy areas are crying out for determined, well focused action—and all are ones where Britain could make a real contribution.

I conclude with a quick word on resources. One cannot have an active diplomacy, which we need, without a world-class, well resourced Diplomatic Service. If we subject our overseas efforts to the double whammy of a 25 per cent loss of funds following the drop in the sterling exchange rate last year, and then to the same top-slicing that other non-ring-fenced domestic departments face, one will not have that—it is as simple as that.

Nuclear Posture Review

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the scope and timing of the proposed nuclear posture review announced by the Foreign Secretary on 26 May.

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

My Lords, the review of the UK’s nuclear declaratory policy announced by the Foreign Secretary will take place as part of the strategic defence and security review. We will re-examine all the factors that make up our declaratory policy to ensure that it is fully appropriate to the circumstances we face today and into the future. The Government expect to report their findings from the strategic defence and security review in the autumn.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is very helpful that that will be brought together with the other matters in this very broad security review. Can he confirm that the nuclear posture review, which is the object of my Question, will include a critical analysis of the justification for the “continuous at-sea” aspect of our present nuclear posture? Does he agree that that requirement was related to the Cold War need to deter the threat of a Soviet first strike and that, as that threat is no longer considered to exist by the NATO alliance, the grounds for maintaining the requirement of “continuous at-sea” no longer exists either?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

No, I cannot confirm that. The nuclear posture review, which will be in the context of the SDSR, will include questions such as our approach to nuclear-free zones and our assurances given to non-nuclear states who have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The review of Trident will focus on value for money and will be separate. It will look at whether it is possible to stick to the constant at-sea deterrent system, to which we are committed, with three boats rather than four. That is what it will examine. It will be a separate review from the SDSR plus nuclear posture review, which will be plugged together.

Latin America

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, for many decades now, Britain has not been giving the priority that it should have done to its relations with the countries of Latin America. Diplomatic posts have been closed and thinned out, ministerial visits have been few and far between and at a junior level, and our trade and investment have fallen behind those of our main competitors from both Europe and elsewhere. Latin America has become a group of far-away countries of which we know little—and this in a country that played, as other noble Lords have said, an important role both politically and commercially in the first century of every one of Latin America’s states’ histories—so the excellent initiative taken by my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein to debate our relationship with Latin America is really timely, all the more so as it comes just after a new Government have come to office and a new ministerial team has been installed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Britain’s relative neglect of its relations with the countries of Latin America is all the more regrettable in that it has coincided with the rise in world economic and political rankings of a number of those countries. Not only does Brazil supply the “B” in the acronym BRICs, which has become synonymous with the leading emerging countries, but there are three Latin American countries—Brazil, Argentina and Mexico—in the G20, which now has the principal co-ordinating role on global economic issues.

A good number of Latin American countries have paid the painful transition from military-dominated authoritarian regimes to relatively stable democracies with much improved human rights records. There have also been some remarkable economic success stories: Chile and Brazil prominent among them. We are therefore missing a lot of tricks, and we have quite a lot of catching up to do. Some of that catching up surely needs to be done through our membership of the European Union, and here I welcome the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and what he had so say about Europe in general and its relationship with Latin America in particular, with which I agree wholeheartedly. The establishment of the EU’s External Action Service provides an opportunity to thicken up and to strengthen Europe’s, including our, overall relationship with Latin America. It is high time, surely, to dust off the trade negotiating file between the EU and Mercosur and to try to bring those negotiations to a conclusion.

Of course Europe will not provide us, or anyone else, with a soft option. The days when the elites of Latin America looked almost automatically towards Europe as an alternative to their fraught relationship with the United States are past or passing, as indigenous leaders come to the fore in a number of Latin American countries and as new players—China and India—muscle in on Latin American markets. However, Europe will continue to matter to Latin America, if only it can learn to speak with a single voice and to make itself heard.

Any strengthened British relationship with Latin America has, I suggest, to begin with Brazil—the regional giant, if not a superpower—but, economically and in world politics, that country is on the rise. This October, a new President will be elected, and we need to build a new, broader and more mature relationship with her or his new Administration. It will not be entirely easy or straightforward, as reactions to Brazil’s recent efforts to broker a deal over Iran’s enriched uranium have shown. Reactions to that deal have tended to be either dismissive or submissive. Neither is the right response. The deal itself if Iran were to implement it, which now seems highly unlikely, could have bought some time, but it did not address effectively the wider issue of Iran’s nuclear programme as its centrifuges continued to spin, so it was a bit unwise to suggest that it did or that it precluded the need for another round of sanctions. We need a much deeper, broader and ongoing dialogue with Brazil that covers the whole range of international politics, and I hope the Minister will say that we intend to build that up.

I will say a few words, if I may, about our aid efforts in Latin America. Here, I declare an interest, because one of my sons runs an activity centre for deprived children in one of the most poverty-stricken parts of greater Sao Paolo. It is quite right that the main thrust of our aid effort should be poverty elimination, but I hope that we will not be persuaded by any general statistics that demonstrate rising economic growth in Latin America into thinking that there is no need and no justification for a continued effort by us in that continent. The plight of deprived and abused children, which I have seen at first hand, is truly terrible in many parts of Latin America. With our skills, our experience and well-directed resources, we can do something to make a difference, and I trust that we will continue to do so.

I have one final thought. In recent years, the developed world has found it more difficult to work with Latin American countries at the UN and in other international organisations than in the past. On human rights, our agendas seem to have drifted apart. We really cannot afford simply to accept that as a continuing trend. If we cannot work effectively with Latin American countries across a wide range of global issues when that region is less troubled by security and governance problems than pretty well any other part of the developing world, we really will be in poor shape as we search for global solutions to the global challenges that face us. I so much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, had to say on climate change, which is a perfect example of that issue. I therefore hope that we will put our backs into this relationship in a way that we have not done in recent years.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We are satisfied, but we are always on guard and always watchful for any need for improvement. The international security of nuclear materials was discussed, analysed and strengthened at the Washington conference in April that preceded the nuclear NPT review conference. A whole series of measures was put forward there and agreed. In so far as one can, one can say that these measures are a step forward in what is undoubtedly, as the noble Lord fully realises, a very dangerous situation.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, will the Minister accept my congratulations to both the Government he represents and the previous Government, since they overlapped during the NPT review, on the work that they put in to achieve a consensus outcome, which I agree was a major step forward? Will the Government press the Secretary-General of the UN extremely hard to appoint a facilitator for the 2012 conference on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, which has now been decided on, so that a really distinguished, impartial person can get down to work on this very difficult subject without delay? Will they ensure that the Secretary-General of the UN tells his facilitator that he should apply the phrase, “Don’t take no for an answer”?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Part of the action plan for the existing nuclear powers is to involve the UN Secretary-General much more closely and to seek his co-operation in the directions that the noble Lord has described. I cannot vouch for the precise patterns which he will follow, but his full involvement in these matters is a major intention of the signatories to the new conclusions.

Korean Peninsula: “Cheonan”

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. He is second to none in his expertise on North Korea and in his concern for human rights there. The problem with a commission is simply that China will not go along with it, so we would never get unity among the permanent five. Also, North Korea is not a signatory to the ICC. Although we want strong action, we want to try to keep the permanent five together and to get some kind of statement or resolution that will really have an effect and make an impact.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Have the Government had any indication of what the Chinese Prime Minister may have meant when he reportedly said in Seoul that the Chinese Government would not protect anyone responsible for this incident? Are we taking steps to bring home to the Chinese Government the proposition, with which I hope that the Minister would agree, that if they were to block an effective response in the Security Council, that would be a major contribution to insecurity in north-east Asia?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, we are taking all the steps that we can to bring the Chinese along. We would obviously like their support, but there are difficulties. The statement from the Chinese leader that he would not protect those who did this raised hopes but, thereafter, the Chinese went rather ambiguous and are now not prepared to apportion blame. That is the problem and where we are now.

Queen's Speech

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the new Government, and particularly the element of continuity represented by the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, as their principal spokesman in this House for international relations. He may have crossed the Floor literally if not in party political terms, but his views and experience are already well known to all in this House and, I believe, are greatly respected.

The world into which this new Government have been born is pretty troubled. A lot more problems than solutions are in sight. The multipolarity which succeeded that brief and unhappy period of US unipolarity has yet to take proper shape, with some of the main emerging powers seemingly uncertain as to whether to assert their increasing influence in efforts to work for the collective common good, or whether to push ahead in a mercantilist way and frustrate attempts to strengthen the multilateral institutions on whose effectiveness so much of our and their future prosperity and security depend.

At the same time we and other European countries have been punching a good deal below our weight in recent months; and the Obama Administration, who set their course so hopefully 18 months ago, and whose main international objectives still seem to be admirable ones which we largely share, remain heavily preoccupied by domestic issues and are only too likely to be weakened by the mid-term elections in November. No wonder if there is a sense of drift, cynicism and disillusionment about the international community’s joint capacity to face up to the global challenges before us—whether they are from trade protectionism, terrorism, climate change, nuclear proliferation or the shortfall in meeting the millennium development goals.

Making a serious contribution to dispelling that sense of drift must surely be a priority for the Government. I hope that the Minister will, before too long, say a bit more than he has been able to say this afternoon about how the Government intend to set about this task—what their aims are for the two G20 summit meetings already scheduled for later this year; how they plan to extract the Doha round of trade negotiations from the doldrums in which it is becalmed; and how they intend to move the climate change negotiations beyond the inadequate and fragile deal struck at Copenhagen on to the firmer ground of a legally binding set of commitments, properly monitored and verified on an international basis. I have to say that the coalition agreement on the climate change point was singularly fuzzy and vague. How do the Government intend to pursue the twin aims of nuclear disarmament and proliferation and deal with the threats to the non-proliferation treaty from the policies of North Korea and Iran? In that context, I warmly welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary, which the noble Lord referred to, about our warhead assets and our nuclear posture. In fact, I wrote to the previous Foreign Secretary before the two big nuclear conferences this spring and suggested that we should do just that. He did not do it and he did not reply.

No one reading those parts of the two parties’ election manifestos which dealt with the European Union can fail to be struck by the sharp contrast between them, as several others have said before me. The Conservative document was a long litany of negatives—a list of things that the European Union must not be allowed to do or, perhaps even less realistically, must desist from doing. The Liberal Democrat document set out many objectives which any supporter of our membership would applaud. Producing one policy out of those contradictions will not be an easy task, but the coalition agreement seems to represent a first hesitant step down that road. What this country cannot afford is to zig-zag between two unreconciled sets of European Union policies. But nor can it afford to have no EU policy objectives at all, which is what a cursory reading of the gracious Speech might lead one to suppose was the situation.

I hope that the Government will not head back down the long dark tunnel of institutional wrangling from which the EU has only just emerged with the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. Surely it is better to concentrate on the substantive policy areas where our objectives and those of the EU broadly coincide—on trade, climate change, energy security, completing the single market, resuming growth and increasing productivity—so that we are not left far behind by the emerging countries that are coming out of recession much faster than we are.

Pursuing further enlargement, against the views of the doubters, is another policy that we should support, along with preparing carefully for the next major budgetary negotiations, which will be upon us before long, and building up common policies towards Russia and in support of US efforts to achieve progress in the Middle East. All these are surely far more urgent requirements than tilting at the windmills of further and unspecified treaty changes.

Any foreign policy worthy of respect requires a minimum of resources if it is to be effective. The outgoing Government have left the Foreign and Commonwealth Office well short of that minimum, and with the prospect of falling even further short as the wider pressure builds for drastic cuts in spending. What seems not to have been appreciated is that, by removing the protection for the foreign and Commonwealth budget from exchange-rate fluctuations, and as a consequence of rising, legally binding international obligations such as UN-assessed contributions for peacekeeping, the FCO has been facing proportionately far greater cuts than any domestic department, at a time when Britain's relative decline in economic weight increases the need for a nimble, effective diplomatic effort. When a country is rising up the international league tables, everyone beats a path to its door; but alas, the contrary is also true. Surely now is not the time to starve our diplomacy of resources. I hope that the Minister will assure us, when he winds up the debate, that the extremely welcome strategic defence and security review that the new Government have set in hand will cover the issue of resources for our diplomacy, and that meanwhile no irretrievable damage to our resource base will be allowed.

The Government have set themselves the laudable objective of finishing a five-year term. That must be welcome from the foreign policy point of view, because short-termism is inimical to an effective foreign policy. I welcome it also from a wider constitutional point of view. However, we cannot afford a period of introspection, of turning our backs on the world's problems. Glib remarks about Britain not being a global policeman sound pretty odd at a time when we are providing 200 to 300 peacekeepers to a United Nations that has deployed roughly 100,000 worldwide. We need to set out now, with realism but also a degree of ambition, to make the most of our partnerships and alliances in Europe, across the Atlantic and in the Commonwealth. We must remember that, hard-pressed financially though we feel and undoubtedly are, we are still a country that, working with others, can make a difference; and that we have a responsibility so to do.