Palestine: Recognition

Lord Williams of Baglan Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has asked me to apologise for his not being able to participate in this debate. This debate is timely and I strongly endorse the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in that regard. It is timely because there is now no peace process and this debate will be helpful in perhaps moving towards a peace process again in the future.

Here I declare an interest, as I worked for both the former Government and the United Nations as a special envoy on the Middle East for several years and got to know both parties—the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority—very well. I saw the former United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice working against the clock in 2008 to secure a peace agreement between the then Government of Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. Alas, her efforts did not succeed.

This year, President Mahmoud Abbas will be 80 years old. Israel will not find a more moderate leader and should be using this time to secure an agreement with President Abbas, working with zeal towards that end, instead of continuing with a profoundly destabilising programme of settlement building throughout the West Bank. All friends of peace in the region must ask what the purpose of that programme is. What is the purpose of building roads in the West Bank on which Palestinians cannot travel? Self-evidently, those measures, those roads and those settlements clash with the goal of peace.

The resolution recognising the state of Palestine will be a step in the right direction, reinforcing the status of the Palestinian Authority. We speak of two parties—some noble Lords spoke of two nations—but they are, of course, not equal. One is a state now approaching its 70th year, with enormous economic and military resources unequalled in the Middle East, and the other is an authority unable to challenge encroaching settlements that are being built apace. Recognising a state of Palestine would go some way to rectifying this imbalance. Our actions will strengthen the hands of those genuinely seeking a peace agreement on both sides.

The United Nations itself could do much more. The UN is the convenor of the peace process and of the contact group bringing together the US, the Russian Federation, the EU and the UN itself. The Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, is now in his penultimate year of office and not seeking a further term. He should use the ample political space that is now before him to take a real initiative, be bolder in the search for peace and work towards a conference such as the one held by President Bush in Annapolis in 2007. Sadly—and this in itself tells us so much—President Obama is not able to do this, because of his own very fraught relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Perhaps the Secretary-General might do so alongside that great Israeli statesman, Shimon Peres, for whom President Abbas has deep respect. Recognising a Palestinian state, in line with other great democracies, would be a great step forward.

I will end by referring to a recent film, “The Gatekeepers”, which some noble Lords will be familiar with. It is an extraordinary testimony to the strength of Israeli democracy. I do not think we could see a film like it in this country, at least not yet. The film’s producer was able to interview six former heads of either Shin Bet, the internal intelligence service, or Mossad, the external service. I will quote the words of one of the former directors, Ami Ayalon, who subsequently went into politics and whom I know well. In the last moments of the film, he says:

“My son, who served three or three and a half years in the paratroopers, took part in invading Nablus at least two or three times”—

the word invading is his. Nablus is a city on the West Bank of course. He goes on:

“Did this bring us victory? I don’t think so”.

In the final frames of the film, he says that the “tragedy” is that,

“we win every battle, but we lose the war”.

We have to help both sides—Israel perhaps in some respects more than the Palestinian Authority—to advance towards peace.

Soft Power and Conflict Prevention

Lord Williams of Baglan Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)]

My Lords, this has been an extraordinary debate and, like other colleagues, I pay tribute to the most reverend Primate for initiating it. Not only is soft power a concept of critical importance in addressing global conflict, it is an area where the United Kingdom excels, from our vast array of NGOs working in almost every conflict corner of the world, from Gaza to Afghanistan and South Sudan to Gaziantep, to great organisations like the British Council, the British Red Cross and the BBC World Service, once referred to by my former boss and Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, as “Britain’s greatest gift to the world” in the 20th century. I declare an interest as I am a trustee of the BBC and responsible for, among other things, the World Service.

Before I speak in greater detail about the BBC World Service, I want to pay tribute to the hundreds of UK-based NGOs working in conflict zones globally. In this, we have a long and proud record and very few equals. Our NGOs have met the needs and assisted the victims of war: the refugees, the wounded and the sick, the children and the elderly. In times of conflict, they have always responded. Save the Children was founded, remarkably, in the year after the end of the First World War, 1919. Its organisers and founders insisted that it would meet the needs of children not just in London, but also in Berlin. That was an extraordinary principle for the time. The Second World War saw the founding of another great NGO, Oxfam. It was established in Oxford in 1943 in response to the appalling famine in Bengal. Another great British NGO, Amnesty International, was founded in 1961 at the height of the Cold War to work for prisoners of conscience and against torture throughout the world. I am proud to have been head of the Asian department of Amnesty in the 1980s.

I also declare an interest as chairman of an NGO, the Mines Advisory Group, which now works on all continents clearing mines, bombs and unexploded ordnance. As someone who worked for the UN in Cambodia, the Balkans and the Middle East, I have too often seen the human tragedies that stem from the use of such weaponry. I mentioned my service in Cambodia. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, who is not in his place, referred to the role of Buddhist monks possibly in support of the Khmer Rouge. In that respect I have to set the record straight here, and as an academic I think the noble Lord would appreciate that. The murderous regime of the Khmer Rouge went out of its way to kill Buddhist monks and to suppress their religion. Very few monks survived other than those who managed to flee overseas.

I turn now to the World Service, which, from next Monday, will be directed for the first time in its 82-year history by a woman: Fran Unsworth, a journalist and editor of immense experience. I am sure your Lordships will all join me in wishing her well in leading an institution greatly respected throughout the world. But I would be less than honest if I said that the World Service did not face substantial issues and problems in trying to meet the many needs with fewer resources. Noble Lords will be aware that since the 2010 financial settlement the World Service is funded now from the licence fee and not, as during the previous 70 years, by a grant in aid from the Foreign Office. The support of this House and the other place will be critical in ensuring the independence, stability and work of the World Service in the years to come.

The World Service reacts to conflict in many ways; first and foremost, through its coverage of the wars, insurrections and riots that still blight our planet. Its coverage of the war in Syria, now in its fourth year, has been exemplary and I take this opportunity to praise the work of courageous and outstanding journalists such as Lyse Doucet, Jeremy Bowen, Paul Wood and Ian Pannell, who have brought the brutal realities of that war home to us, as well as the inability of the international community to come to a resolution of that war. Those British colleagues that I cited are joined by many other colleagues in the Arabic Service.

It is not only through coverage of man’s inhumanity to man that the BBC World Service responds. In Rwanda, after the genocide of 1996, the BBC established a service for the first time in the Kinyarwanda language. Colleagues will have heard, perhaps, of the vile propaganda of Radio Milles Collines, which stirred up racial hatred and contributed to one of the worst genocides of the 20th century. We in the BBC and the World Service felt that the BBC had to react positively in the wake of that appalling genocide by establishing a Kinyarwanda service, which still plays a critical role in that country and in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In that spirit, the BBC has also set up a College of Journalism focusing on three key aspects: skills, language and values—and I emphasise values. In addition to English and French, the college now has websites in Arabic, Burmese, Chinese, Hausa, Urdu and Turkish. Even in these straitened times, we still have the capacity to respond quickly to emerging situations. On 22 May this year, the Thai army carried out a coup d’etat, closing down the free press in that country. Within little more than a month, with the approval of the Foreign Secretary, we had reopened a Thai language service that had been closed 10 years earlier, operating online and through social media, returning impartial and accurate news to that country.

Another country I want to mention, which has already come up in the debate, is Burma, or Myanmar, as it is now called, where I recently chaired a conference on transition and reform for Chatham House. The BBC has broadcast in Burmese for 75 years—through the period of colonial rule, Japanese occupation, military dictatorship and now, I hope, a transition to representative government. Two years ago, censorship of newspapers was still in place and the BBC could not operate officially. Things have changed at such a pace that a few weeks ago the BBC’s Burmese Service launched its own-language version of a “Question Time”-style format. The BBC now has a permanent presence in Rangoon. In the rapidly changing media market of the country, its weekly audience stands at 6.8 million. The Burmese Service operates not just on short wave radio but also through FM rebroadcasts, social media and mobile telephones. In April this year, it launched a limited television bulletin which is broadcast via partner channel, Myanmar National Television.

At the end of October, British troops finally left Afghanistan, but the BBC remains broadcasting in English as well as in Dari and Pashto on radio, television and online. There is a celebrated drama in Pashto called “New Home, New Life” which recently celebrated its 20th anniversary. It has chronicled the story and the tragedies of Afghanistan in the past two decades and delivered priceless information to its vast Afghan audience. One positive example from that is that the incidence of land mine accidents has gone down, which has often been related to the attention paid to the dangers posed by that weaponry through this drama. In Afghanistan alone, the World Service has an audience of 6.5 million. Its radio audience is an estimated 35% of the Afghan people.

I express again my thanks for the very many kind words about the BBC World Service. I was particularly moved by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referring to his experience in Bucharest months after the overthrow of the appalling Ceausescu regime. I am sure that many of your Lordships have over the years experienced similar feelings. I cannot underline enough that your continued support is vital for the World Service not only to retain its audiences but to project the best of British values.

Egypt: Human Rights

Lord Williams of Baglan Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)]

My Lords, I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry for calling this debate. Lest we look unusually critical of Egypt, one has to acknowledge at the outset that violations of human rights are, sadly, all too widespread throughout the Middle East, from the Maghreb to the Gulf, with freedom of religion and freedom of speech and association routinely circumscribed and disregarded. Representative government and an independent judiciary and press are deficient or absent in many cases.

There are of course differences, and in some Arab countries there is greater tolerance than in others. I note in passing the acquittal in Bahrain yesterday of a Shiite critic of the Government, Khalil Marzook, one of the leaders of the opposition Wefaq party. As for freedom of religion in Bahrain, its ambassador here is a Christian, and her counterpart, the Bahrainian ambassador in Washington DC, is Jewish. All of us would wish Bahrain well in a process of reconciliation, which, I hope, can include the now-freed Khalil Marzook.

Turning to Egypt, one cannot begin but with the shocking jailing of the three journalists in Cairo just a few days ago. Here I declare an interest as the international trustee of the BBC and as someone who remembers Peter Greste from the time when we both worked together in the World Service at Bush House in the late 1980s. He is a professional journalist of the highest calibre who would acquit himself well in any of the world’s major news organisations. It is no surprise to me that journalists at the BBC held a demonstration on Tuesday in support of Peter and his colleagues.

I have to say that it was shocking to see footage of three journalists held in cages in a 10-minute session in court, being sentenced in two cases to seven years’ imprisonment and to 10 years in the third. It was sadly reminiscent of Europe in the 1930s. Two other British journalists were tried in absentia and, needless to say, found guilty. All this is a chilling warning to the international press, and to the British press, in their coverage of Egypt. Those sentences have been widely condemned. The Prime Minister called them “appalling”, and the Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop—Peter Greste is Australian—considered the sentences to be a serious attack on the freedom of the press. Condemnation came from Governments and press associations around the world.

Egypt is in danger of losing friends, not gaining them. For all his faults, and there were very many—especially his meddling with the constitution, which concerned Egypt’s large Coptic Christian and secular communities—Mohamed Morsi was the only civilian elected president of the Egyptian Arab Republic in 62 years. He was replaced as interim president by Adly Mansour, a judge—but he was not elected. Egypt and Egyptian politics cannot be defined for ever by the limits of the garrison state. Like other Arab countries, it needs to look to models elsewhere, such as India, South Africa and Indonesia—incidentally the world’s largest Muslim country—which have made that difficult transition to real economic development, representative government, protection of human rights and religious tolerance.

There are, sadly, many areas of human rights where conditions in Egypt fall far below acceptable international standards. The reports of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group can provide chapter and verse, including, it has to be said, reports of widespread incidents of torture.

What then should be the attitude of the British Government? I believe that we should act on the words of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and raise our concerns about the case of the three journalists and other human rights violations in Egypt. As a former special adviser to two Foreign Secretaries and the current Secretary-General of the UN, I can imagine the advice that will go forward to Ministers. At other times, I would perhaps have written it. It would include the conflict between human rights considerations and security issues, the importance of Egypt because of the peace treaty with Israel, counterterrorism co-operation and so on. It will not be easy, but diplomacy is not meant to be easy. Our Government need to be tough in addressing concerns about the behaviour of the Government of President Sisi. I therefore submit that this is the moment for Ministers to act, not necessarily publicly but in a robust manner, on human rights violations, which have no place in the fight against terrorism and which are completely counterproductive. The political contest with the Ikhwan—the Islamic Brotherhood—is never going to be won if Egypt continues to undermine human rights in this manner.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Williams of Baglan Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and commend the noble and gallant Lord Stirrup for tabling it. Like all Members of the Committee, I welcome the efforts of Secretary of State Kerry in taking forward this process. One is conscious, however, of the many other crises he is handling—above all, the Syrian civil war with all its appalling ramifications throughout the Middle East. For progress to be made on a Middle East settlement, President Obama will need to use substantial political capital, which may be depleted as a result of the current congressional and budgetary crisis.

It is important to remember that we have been here many times before. I myself participated as part of the British delegation at the Annapolis conference called by President George W Bush in November 2007. Talks subsequently followed, led by the then Secretary of State, Condi Rice, with the Israeli Government of Ehud Olmert coming close to a temporary agreement in its dying days in office. I am conscious of the fact that none of the speakers before me have mentioned the quartet—the body which is seen to oversee and support the Middle East peace process. I wonder if that is the right body to do so any longer. It is one which curiously excludes one member of the P5, namely China, and also Arab countries. I believe that if Arab countries were involved in a remodified quartet, it would lock the Arab peace initiative of 2002 into the negotiation process.

I take this opportunity to welcome the prisoner releases that have been made by Prime Minister Netanyahu, which were truly painful for him and for the Israeli Government, and I look forward to a further 26 releases on 29 October. I welcome, too, the economic progress that is being made in the wake of the reinvigorated peace talks. This is long overdue. We have been here before and the outcomes have not always been what we would have hoped and certainly fall far short of economic transformation. This morning’s edition of the Financial Times carries very welcome news that a long-stalled project which involves a British company, BG, off the shores of Gaza, has now received positive support from the Israeli Government. I would welcome any news that the Minister might have in that regard. If this is confirmed, I would see it as a strong signal and I would encourage the Israeli Government to be more generous on economic and social measures that it could make on the West Bank.

It is often said that time is running out on the Middle East peace process. My own view is that time is running out for Israel on this. Earlier this year we lost a Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad—a former IMF economist and a man of extraordinary stature—who resigned. Abu Mazen, President Mahmoud Abbas, is now well into his late 70s. How long will he remain as Prime Minister? It is doubtful whether any significant Palestinian leader after these men can command the political presence to push forward a peace agreement, a process which will be as painful for the Palestinians as it will for the Israelis. A future leader will not have the political strength to do this. Now is the time to move forward and this will require great political courage on all sides, above all from the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Lord Williams of Baglan Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Williams of Baglan]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for this debate. There is nothing more serious that a Government can undertake than conducting military action. Like many others, I commend the Government on the wisdom of bringing this matter not only to the attention of Parliament but to the Security Council of the United Nations. I strongly support the decision to await the report of the weapons inspectors, without which the case for military action could be seriously undermined. The charter of the UN is clear that approval is necessary for the legitimatisation of military action unless a country is acting under Article 15—namely, self-defence—as Britain did following the invasion of the Falklands in 1982.

The evolution of the responsibility to protect is still taking place, and I have strong misgivings about that being used to justify military strikes in the next few days. In all probability, we will see those strikes. However limited, we must be clear that they are acts of war. Many Members have referred to the possible risks that that entails. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to an article that I wrote earlier this week. I believe that those risks are considerable. Syria is not Kosovo in 1999 or Libya in 2011. Unlike those two countries, Syria is firmly embedded in a military and political alliance with Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, which is almost certainly the most heavily armed non-state actor in the world. Within its ranks, that alliance is known as the axis of resistance. Syria is the bridge between Hezbollah and Iran, and neither could afford to see that relationship rupture. Syria, as has been noted, also enjoys considerable political cover from Russia. While it is improbable that Iran or Syria itself would engage in overt military action in retaliation for expected US raids, I believe that it is highly possible that Hezbollah would at the very least deepen its assistance to the Syrian regime, whose downfall it could not tolerate. It could also do so by widening the war to Lebanon, which in the past two weeks has already been the scene of two very large car bombings, where bombs have been planted in Sunni mosques.

Hezbollah might also threaten UNIFIL, the 10,000-strong UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, in which many NATO countries are represented, including France, Italy and Spain. It might even seek to break the cessation of hostilities with Israel, which has lasted since the 2006 war. Hezbollah, an organisation that I had much to do with in my UN service in the Middle East, has already warned of the consequences of strikes against Syria and considers that it will undermine the balance of power and deterrence—concepts in which the axis of resistance believes strongly. Indeed, intervention could intensify the civil war in Syria. It would make a decisive military victory or the formulation of a compromise to end the war more difficult. In this regard—we should note this, I believe—both Syria and Hezbollah will draw some comfort from the fact that an allied military strike will not meet with support in much of the world, particularly in key developing countries with which we are trying to develop closer relations. I think of Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia and even India in that regard.

Questions of legality will, as with the 2003 war, dog the West for some years to come if military strikes take place. There will also be consequences, perhaps profound, for the West’s relationship with Russia—a relationship that is hardly in good shape anyway. Seeking a political solution after air strikes would be extremely hard. Terrible though chemical weapons are, there are even worse weapons—I refer to nuclear weapons. Sitting in Tehran and perhaps watching on television missiles falling from the sky over Damascus, Ayatollah Khameini may well decide that Iran’s acceleration of nuclear power is the only option to preserve its independence. Russia and China, whose support we have counted on for so long in the nuclear negotiations with Iran, may well become less supportive of our position and that of our allies. Certainly the outlook for the next round of talks over Iran’s nuclear weapons will become much more complicated.

I believe that the Government, while seeking to prevent any further use of chemical weapons in Syria, must somehow at the same time forge a strategy that redoubles our efforts to seek a diplomatic and political solution, which is the only way to end this civil war.