Nuclear Weapons (International Relations Committee Report)

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord King of Bridgwater

Tuesday 16th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad that we have been able to reach the time for this debate but, like others, I am obviously sorry about the circumstances. I join them in wishing a speedy recovery to my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

This report is presented to your Lordships for debate against a background of a fast deteriorating world arms control environment and rising nuclear risk. Some have now suggested that the risk of nuclear weapons being used is at its highest since the Second World War. I thank my colleagues on the committee, the excellent committee staff who worked on this report and our superb specialist adviser Dr Heather Williams. She was an immense support as well.

There used to be a time when it was assumed that the international containment of nuclear weapons was in good hands, so that we could all confidently leave these matters to experts and diplomats, while getting on with more exciting and seemingly urgent matters such as Brexit, climate change or whatever Donald Trump is going to do next—but not any longer. The safe world, if one can call it that, of balanced nuclear deterrence where two sides are in mutual understanding about the catastrophic outcome of nuclear deployment has crumbled away, almost unnoticed by the world or by media busy on other issues. What seemed balanced has now become highly precarious; where there seemed progress, there is now stalemate. Some of the reasons for this are obvious and some much more obscure and complex: they lie in the deepest reaches of very advanced technology, with which Governments have barely caught up.

In this report, we have tried to throw light on some of the main influences changing the situation, including in particular the exponential growth of digital technological power. Meanwhile at the forefront, anyone who wishes to can see that at the international level rising tensions, ill will in place of goodwill and distrust in place of trust have grown, duly souring and paralysing the arms control dialogue. US-Russian contacts on these matters are now said to be less than they were even at the height of the Cold War; those two countries are still by far the biggest holders of nuclear warheads, by a factor of at least 10. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty has been dropped by both sides, starting with outright Russian violation and, incidentally, ensuring that all Europe is now moving back into the missiles’ line of fire. The START I treaty is about to run out and there is no sign at all of renewal. Other treaties concerning fissile materials and the comprehensive test ban are stuck and still await entry into force. Both Russia and America are developing new missile vehicles and inflammatory rhetoric is flying around on all sides. The scene is complicated compared with the past, in that a third nuclear great-power force is now on the scene, namely China—officially and, to my mind, foolishly declared by America to be its enemy. Wisely, we do not see it that way ourselves.

Outside the big players, Iran is, predictably, ignoring the 2015 nuclear deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as it is called, and speeding up uranium enrichment thanks to American rejection, while tensions now rise daily in the Arabian Gulf. We wait to see whether the European powers, including the UK, can rescue the Iran nuclear deal at this stage and whether the offered release of the Iranian oil tanker at Gibraltar will in any way ease the situation. Meanwhile Kim Jong-un carries on with his missile and nuclear programme, despite Mr Trump’s wooing efforts. Then there are the unofficial nuclear states, notably India and Pakistan, which carry on their bitter 70 year-old hostility.

However, the enormous technological impact on the nuclear scene is perhaps the newest and most unnerving danger. The committee was warned clearly about the vulnerabilities to nuclear command and control systems from cyberattacks. If cyberattacks can now knock out early warnings, simulate fake attacks or compromise delivery systems, the entire doctrine of nuclear deterrence is undermined. The Government’s response to our concerns on this was:

“We will work with Allies to review the implications”,


of “these new technologies”. Is that really enough? I am told that microchip processing speeds are now more than 240 million times—I repeat: 240 million—faster than they were in the Apollo 11 moon shot computer 50 years ago, which I think your Lordships will discuss later. We are now living in a completely different world from the one in which thinking on arms control was first developed.

At the core of the existing nuclear regime is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is coming up to 50 years old and due for review next year. It has certainly done its work in containing the number of nuclear states, but it is not in good shape today. Some even fear that it is becoming obsolete. Trust is the key in keeping this treaty alive and effective: trust between the five nuclear powers it legitimises—the so-called P5—and trust between these five and all the non-nuclear signatories, in whose strong interest it is to stop further proliferation or, worse still, nuclear weapons getting to non-state and terrorist actors. The deal at the heart of the NPT is that the non-nuclear signatories will accept the disparity, provided that the five nuclear powers show a sustained path towards having fewer warheads, dismantling systems and having better verification methods to show that promises are being kept. Is this happening?

The non-nuclears think not, or not fast enough, and are getting impatient. As we report, many have banded together to agree to a straightforward ban or prohibition on all nuclear weapons—just like that. This so-called ban treaty has been endorsed by 122 countries but has not yet entered into force. It sounds splendid, of course, but the reasons why it will not work are equally obvious. Just wishing will not make it so. The tensions that keep nuclear weapons in place need to be wound down first; this can be done only step by patient step, and with the most advanced verification methods possible. The ban treaty will not help and may even hinder. On this latter point, our witnesses strongly disagreed with each other. The United Kingdom, along with the rest of the P5, definitely does not support a ban. We do not believe it is helpful.

In the meantime, we can do our best here in the UK by going for minimal critical deterrence, minimising warheads, keeping systems safe and, with the most modern controls, improving verification systems all the time and grinding away at the underlying antagonisms. This is broadly what the United Kingdom, for one, is doing. Our operational number of warheads is, I understand, now no more than 120.

This step-by-step approach necessitates unending attempts at engagement in dialogue, including with Russia despite its other hostile and unhelpful attitudes and actions. This also means having a lot of patience rather than just passing hopeful treaties that get us nowhere. Nevertheless, the ban treaty’s supporters have a point, or so the committee heard in evidence. We believe that exchange and discussion between the P5 and the non-nuclear signatories to the NPT should be intense, continuous and understanding. Meanwhile, the dangers remain and grow. In this report we have urged the Government, as they currently chair the nuclear powers’ P5, to put all possible energies into making a success of the NPT and consolidating the trust essential to hold it together.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

If my noble friend will allow me, there is an important recommendation in view of the recent tension between India and Pakistan. The committee made a sensible recommendation to invite India and Pakistan to attend the next P5 meeting; they have been included in past discussions. I see that the Government’s response merely says:

“Such an invitation would require the explicit agreement of all members of the P5”.


Does my noble friend know whether the Government will propose that to the other members?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Like my noble friend, I am not enlightened by the Government’s reply. It would be a very good idea, but the P5 would have to do it. As the UK is its chair, it may have some additional influence in persuading that step to be taken. I very much hope so.

In conclusion, without the general determination between nations to co-operate closely, even with those who oppose and frustrate in other areas, the slide away from international rules towards international anarchy is certain, with nations putting their own narrow and short-term interests first, often driven by populist political appeal and force. From there, the step to nuclear deployment, accidental or intentional, unforeseen or sudden, at tactical or strategic level, is now perilously close. We can and must, at all costs, avoid and forestall. I beg to move.

Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord King of Bridgwater

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I understand the noble Lord’s strong feelings. He has always been a robust fighter in this very important cause. However, we are at this very delicate and sensitive stage in the negotiations, when we are fighting to achieve a robust treaty and avoid what we would totally reject, which is having to sign a weak consensus. I am not sure that in the middle of the negotiations it would be better to discuss them. The noble Lord, with his experience, will possibly understand that. Although I fully applaud his feelings on this matter, we are at an absolutely crucial stage of mid-negotiation. This is something that has been fought for by officials under successive Governments for over six years. We are poised to achieve the very most that we can, as I outlined in my Answer.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

Does the Minister agree that this will very soon represent the culmination of eight years’ work by determined Ministers and officials of both the previous and the present Governments and that we wish them well in these final, concluding days? I have to say that it is very bizarre to have a Private Notice Question that asks for the Government’s negotiating position two days before the final vote, after eight years’ work. Nobody denies the enormous importance of this treaty—for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has given—so that responsible defence industries can operate in the proper, licensed way and so that the illegal shipment of arms which has caused such difficulty can be properly controlled under an international agreement. In these crucial last two days, is not the best thing for us to wish our negotiators the best possible success in this important undertaking?

[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.

Government of France: Meetings

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord King of Bridgwater

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I totally accept those extremely wise rebukes from the noble Lord about my French pronunciation. It has never been very good; I will practise a lot more to see whether I can improve it.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

Does my noble friend accept that the Question goes generally to our relations with France, and in this connection to the very important issue of defence co-operation with France? I hope that we can see the continuation of the co-operation envisaged under the previous President.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, that is certainly the intention. Those matters have been discussed both between the Prime Minister and Monsieur Hollande and between my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and Laurent Fabius, the new French Foreign Secretary. Obviously a question was raised by our decision to go for the JSF variant rather than the original pattern under the strategic defence review. That has been discussed. Any suggestion of misunderstanding has been removed and both sides fully intend to co-operate very closely in the future on all defence matters.

Israel: Palestinian Hunger Strikers

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord King of Bridgwater

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, is my noble friend advised whether it is the Government’s view that the new coalition in Israel, which includes the Kadima Party, makes less likely the risk of a lunatic attack on Iran?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The Government’s view is that we are watching closely to see whether there are going to be any changes. It is the comment of an analyst rather than an outside Government that the change in the party structure inside Israel obviously appears to reduce the powers of some wings of its political spectrum and to increase the influence of others, but so far, although we are watching carefully, there is not much sign of change. However, we will continue looking at the matter very closely indeed.

Piracy

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord King of Bridgwater

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I should have answered that third question from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis; the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is absolutely right. The view up to the present is that armed guards on UK-registered vessels would be technically illegal unless they came under military, authorised guard arrangements. However, that matter is being looked at again by my right honourable and honourable friends in the relevant departments. Some changes might be necessary, but hitherto the feeling has been that armed guards—certainly mounted on a private enterprise basis—could lead to more bloodshed and horror, possibly not deter the hijackers, and merely increase the violence. However, the matter is being reconsidered.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested that this piracy was being funded by al-Qaeda, but does the Minister not agree that the reality is that it is being funded by the insurance companies, which are paying out substantial sums and making a number of people in Somalia extremely rich? Those people are now living in Nairobi, among other places. Did he see the evidence given yesterday at his nomination hearing by Admiral McRaven, who is being nominated as the head of the US Special Operations Command and was responsible for overseeing the operation against bin Laden, who said that there is a real need for a facility to deal with the problem of terrorists when they are captured? My noble friend gave some encouraging figures on prosecutions being brought against people, but can he give an assurance that there are no cases of these pirates being captured at sea, merely shipped back to Somalia and allowed to do it all over again?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On my noble friend’s first point, the British Government totally oppose all substantive ransom payments, will continue to do so, and advise everyone else to do so as well. That includes payments by insurance companies. It does not necessarily stop other countries behaving in what we think is a rather unwise way, but that is our position. My noble friend will have to repeat his further question, because I have forgotten it already.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

I asked about making sure that there is a facility for handling the problem of captured pirates by ensuring that they are not simply returned to Somalia and able to make the next trip.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is right. This has been a considerable worry, and that is why I was able to tell your Lordships that considerable progress has now been made in providing prison facilities. One prison has been built in Somaliland, and a further prison is planned in Puntland. These will take the pressure off countries such as Kenya, which have found themselves landed with convicted pirates and with no means of imprisoning them and making them fulfil their penalties. Therefore, there is some improvement. I fully agree that there have been bad examples in the past, but we believe that with these measures and others it will be possible to ensure that those who are caught are properly charged and convicted and pay the full penalty.

NATO

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord King of Bridgwater

Thursday 16th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, this statement has come from the United States on many occasions before, but it has been expressed with exceptional candour and frankness in what I believe could have been the valedictory message of Secretary Robert Gates, who may shortly be retiring. It has done the credit of telling people quite frankly what the feeling is in the United States. Contrary to the suggestion that might have come from the opposition Front Bench, the United Kingdom is certainly not the laggard in this matter. A number of other countries in NATO have for years failed completely to make a reasonable contribution, which very much threatens the willingness of the United States to continue to make the effort it wants. In a very dangerous and uncertain world, would my noble friend recognise that while NATO can take on a certain amount of responsibility, when considering issues such as piracy in Somalia, we should welcome the opportunity for Russian, Chinese, Indian and other forces to get involved in what are in fact issues of universal concern?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the first of my noble friend’s comments is based on his considerable experience and expertise in this area, and I totally agree with him. I agree even more strongly with his second point. These are becoming global issues on which all the responsible powers, or powers that wish to be responsible—that certainly includes great nations such as China, India, Russia and countries like Brazil—all have a responsibility, and they can no longer either enjoy a free ride while the western world tries to carry the burdens or stand aside, as we sometimes hear from Beijing, and say, “We are not going to interfere in anything. It is nothing to do with us”. They are going to find that this is something to do with them, and already we are seeing welcome signs that some Chinese diplomatic voices are raising that point and involving themselves in trying to resolve various ugly crises, such as that in southern Sudan.

Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord King of Bridgwater

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that the Statement he has just read is one of the most remarkable that many of your Lordships will ever have heard? It is about complete convulsion in a very important area of the world which threatens very significantly our whole economy and the stability of the region and the durability and survival of an enormous number of people. It is a remarkable Statement in the breadth that it has represented. We know about Tunisia originally and then Egypt; we have been involved in Libya; we now see the situation in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria; and there are uncertainties in other Arab countries, which I will not particularly mention except maybe Morocco and Algeria, where there are concerns and rumblings.

There was some comment made about the Prime Minister’s comment that we are in for the long haul. What is absolutely without question is that it is going to be a very long haul whether it comes out well or badly. The economic and security implications of what is happening now are going to be with us for a very long time indeed. There is an old phrase, “The future is not what it used to be”. There has been a convulsive change and we may be in the middle of it now or we may be only just at the beginning.

I want to add one particular point. In the first instance the Statement is concerned with the outcome in Libya. Can the Minister comment in particular about the situation in Algeria and the Polisario? What evidence is there that Gaddafi is purchasing a considerable amount of mercenary assistance which may be concealing the fact that the support he has within his own country is rather less than he might seek to pretend?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am very grateful to my noble friend whose experience in these matters is unquestioned. What he says is right: these are historic developments. They are of course different in the different countries. There is a danger, while there is a certain degree of cross-border infection and contagion, of seeing the political mechanics inside each country as similar, which they are not. Each country is different and I have been reminded of that very vividly having spent the whole of last week in the Middle East.

My noble friend asked particularly about Algeria and its involvement in this. It is something we are watching very closely indeed. We welcome President Bouteflika’s announcement that he intends to introduce political reforms, including the setting up of a constitutional commission and a revision to the law governing political parties. We hope that is a political reform statement that will be put in practice. There is no clear evidence of Algerian support for Colonel Gaddafi but it is certainly true that in the past Gaddafi has sought friends in that large neighbouring country, as he has sought friends throughout the African Union further south. Some of these friendships probably remain but I do not think I can comment further on the precise posture being taken up by Algeria externally at the moment; internally it is clear that the Algerian authorities are aware of the reform pressure operating on all governments which do not recognise the need for reform and do not recognise that the world has changed and that people now feel empowered to demand the freedoms and justice which they have been denied in the past.

Afghanistan

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord King of Bridgwater

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I must agree with the experienced noble Lord about the regional significance. On how you get that into a Statement on the regular reports on Afghanistan, I am not so sure. I can certainly say, here and now, that we recognise that the region has an important role to play in supporting Afghanistan and in facing all sorts of major challenges, including combating extremism, terrorism, illegal migration, narcotics and many other things. We welcome the fact that Afghanistan is actively seeking to support its bilateral relations in the region; indeed, regional co-operation was a major theme of the London and Kabul conferences. I cannot for a moment disagree with the noble Lord’s point that this is part of the jigsaw. We must have effective regional support. The problems that are encountered across the Durand line—the Pashtun do not even recognise some of the international boundaries—the problems that Pakistan, which we need to give all the help that we can, has faced and the continuing malign policies of Iran are all very much part of the situation and all need to be examined. I will suggest to my right honourable friends that they elaborate on that in future Statements, although it would make these Statements even longer than they are already.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that the Statement that he has made is very grave? The whole House has listened in a suitably sombre atmosphere to the account of the situation after—where are we now?—nine years, after 341 of our soldiers have died and a considerable number have been very seriously injured, and in which we have faced what in military terms might be described as a good deal of mission creep. We went to expel al-Qaeda and make sure that Afghanistan never again became a base for terrorism on a global scale. We have now picked up some enormously worthwhile objectives: the end of corruption in Afghanistan; full human rights for women in Afghanistan; the end of the drug trade, if possible; and proper electoral practices being fully observed. As one reads across that list, one realises the challenges that we now face. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, certain neighbours are not interested in ISAF and NATO succeeding in their current ventures—the activities of Iran come into question. Against that background, are not the Government, supported by the Opposition, absolutely right that, as time is not on our side, we must get maximum momentum now for Afghanisation of the programme to get properly established at the earliest possible date?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am absolutely sure that that assessment is expert, well informed and right. It is our desire and intention to maintain momentum on a number of fronts. My noble friend talks about mission creep. In a sense, the narrow and single objective to start with after 9/11, which was that somehow al-Qaeda was to be crushed and Osama bin Laden captured from his hiding place, has widened into a much bigger issue. Of course, the context has widened as well. We have seen the growth of jihadist, extremist Islam; we have seen it spread into other countries. We have seen difficulties in neighbouring countries. We have seen the rise of obduracy in Iran. All those matters have unfolded while we are struggling. That merely confirms that in the 21st century, if we want a civilised, global and stable society, we will face many such struggles in future. They will not be over quickly; they will take a long time.

Kabul Conference

Debate between Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord King of Bridgwater

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness again raises a vital point and perhaps I may reassure her. The communiqué also develops and strengthens commitments made initially at the London conference in January to implement the national action plan for women and the elimination of violence against women in law. The noble Baroness probably took part in that very constructive conference. Certainly, I would be the first to recognise the valuable work done by the previous Government in creating that conference and in providing a foundation on which to build.

We welcome the Afghan Government’s continuing commitment to protect the human rights of the Afghan people, which is enshrined in the Afghan constitution and the national action plan for women. If it was not in the 10 commitments in my right honourable friend’s Statement, I will note that and see that it is pointed out in my department. It is certainly plumb in the middle of the communiqué, which is valuable.

As to what women’s organisations felt, I am sorry if I got that slightly wrong. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, was saying that they were not represented, but she did not say that; she said that they were not satisfied. I obviously cannot comment on the state of satisfaction except to say that the endeavour was there and the realisation is there, as is the central importance of women’s role in all this. Given the horrors of women’s treatment in the past and the evil viciousness with which under Taliban rule girls’ schools were closed, women were abused and so on, this issue could not be other than absolutely central to the future. I emphasise that and I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, raised it again.

On the date by which combat troops will be withdrawn, I think that I said the other day—I am always ready for correction—that it was an aspiration. Perhaps that word was a little weak, because of course it remains an objective. However, one cannot in a thousand years be sure that everything will work exactly to plan. We just do not know. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister in another place made a point about it not necessarily being crystal clear or carved in concrete or whatever. That is our plan and our intention; it is the firm Kabul process and what it leads to.

As to the Taliban melting away and the old story that the Taliban disappears by day and comes back by night, one would not want to underestimate the fact that in the next five years—five years is a long time—there will not be a free ride for the Taliban. The combat troops—our marvellous troops—will continue to fight and to carry on their operations. The American surge army is still not complete. There are another 30,000 American troops to come. The Taliban will have a very hard time. If it thinks that at the end of five years it will be intact, it will have another think coming. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness to some extent on the important points that she raised.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there will be considerable sympathy in the House that he has to face these attacks over the incredibly difficult situation that this Government have inherited? I think that a more constructive approach would be generally welcome.

I quickly make the point that the noble Lord did not answer one question asked by the noble Baroness, which was whether there is any evidence that the Taliban has gone to Yemen. Al-Qaeda certainly has. Yemen is an extremely dangerous place. However, most of the Taliban who are killed by coalition forces are dying within 20 miles of where they were born. I strongly support the suggestion that the Government should not treat the Taliban as one uniform mass of hopeless people but recognise that in many cases the Taliban represents villages, different outlooks and different tribal backgrounds. We need to see whether we can establish a sensible dialogue with those who do not wish to see their country destroyed.

Undoubtedly, one of the most disappointing things relates to the amount of money that has gone—or was meant to go—into improving the condition of the people. Much of it has been wasted and or has not been possible to spend because of the lack of security. I welcome in the Statement the idea of concentrating on a few simple objectives so that the people of Afghanistan can see ringing benefits. In that connection, if we can concentrate on safe transport on main roads—so that people can get their goods to the market—electricity and water, people in Afghanistan will be able to see some real benefit coming from the brave work and tragedies that have gone into attempts to make the country secure.

This is going to cost a lot of money. One of our complaints in NATO is the lack of active military support from a lot of NATO members. Can I take it that those NATO members will at least be prepared to make substantial cash contributions to this continuing effort?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank my noble friend for his wise words. He is right, of course, that part of the battle is against young men who are near the homes where they were brought up, which makes it a local battle and not a nationwide battle at all. As to driving out al-Qaeda, there is evidence that there may be some al-Qaeda training units left in Afghanistan, but they have dispersed. People ask whether, in that case, we will look at other areas where they may have gone—Yemen, Somalia and so on. We have to watch these things carefully, but it is fairly clear that al-Qaeda is more dispersed and that the comfort that it originally had, using Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban for its operations, has been significantly disrupted to the benefit of our security and that of the wider world.

We are contributing more resources and we are looking to our allies to make similar contributions—obviously, the Americans are making a substantial contribution. We think that this money can be focused on the real needs of the Afghan people, although I repeat that we should not underestimate the fact that in some areas—not all—very remarkable progress has been made in recent years. There are signs of the return of real economic growth and growing prosperity for a people who have suffered very greatly in the past.