Foreign Affairs and International Development

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Let me begin by paying tribute to the many Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, both at home and abroad. Their contribution is significant, their skills considerable and their efforts very much appreciated by Members on both sides of the House.

This debate takes place at a time when Britain’s influence in the world has rarely been more needed, but when threats to that influence are growing. We meet in the shadow of a Europe convulsed by a continuing currency, banking and economic crisis. We have seen changes in the Arab world that have brought down old orthodoxies, but which have thrown up new challenges that the global community still grapples with today. Also, as we have just heard, we witnessed the death of Osama bin Laden, which marked a decisive moment in the struggle against al-Qaeda, but also signalled the emergence of a new era, defined more by the events of 2011 in the middle east than 9/11.

Such dramatic events alone would be enough to shake the foundations of the global order in which we operate, but underlying these moments in history is a far deeper historical trend that we in this House would be irresponsible to ignore. In recent years, there has been an ever-accelerating movement of wealth and power from north to south, from west to east. It is unlikely that our generation will witness a more profound reordering of geo-economics, and, potentially, geo-politics, than the one currently under way. It means that today Britain risks becoming less relevant in the two key relationships that have for decades defined our place in the world: less relevant in a European Union that has focused on the crisis and consequences of a currency that the last Labour Government rightly decided not to join; and less relevant to a United States that is weary of 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq and that is now consciously rebalancing its priorities and focus from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Yet at this time when our influence risks being undermined, this Government do not appear to have a compass by which to navigate the changes we are witnessing.

I say this with respect, but self-congratulation, schadenfreude and a hint of imperial delusion are not a recipe for a serious strategy in these troubled times. Only this morning, The Times quoted from a newly published report that sets out the Government’s failures in stark and graphic terms. The Atlantic Council report, compiled by some of today’s foremost foreign policy practitioners, offered a damning judgment on the incoherence that has marked this Government’s foreign policy. It stated that the

“coalition government has yet to develop a coherent strategic vision for the United Kingdom’s role in a changing global landscape…Aside from pursuing a policy of ‘commercial diplomacy’ and robust development assistance, British foreign policy vision and strategy remain unclear.”

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to congratulate British business, whose exports were more than £50 billion extra last year, across 2011?

[Mr Alexander]

I am only too happy to congratulate and applaud British business, but if the hon. Gentleman is urging people to say the right thing to British business, he might direct his remarks to the Foreign Secretary, who chose to insult British business this weekend in The Sunday Telegraph. If the hon. Gentleman wants a job in government, he should, to quote the Foreign Secretary, work a little harder.

This Government’s inadequate foreign policy approach is being exposed by analysts concerned by the path that the Government have chosen, as well as by events that the Government are unable either to navigate or to predict. They have sought a foreign policy of conscious minimalism and strategic shrinkage. They emphasise trade and bilateralism—we heard it again today—because a clear strategy of our interest is not being articulated and because of a limited ambition for what we, as a nation, can today hope to achieve. Such an approach risks our being left unprepared and ill equipped to face the new challenges that we may face in the coming years. Regrettably, we saw that in the Government’s approach to the strategic defence review, which was not anchored in any clear view of Britain’s role in the world and so left us with significant and, indeed, dangerous gaps in defence capability, which were all too quickly exposed in the Arab spring. This Government are careless about the influence of the United Kingdom and complacent about the risks to the United Kingdom.

Before I discuss the areas where our concerns are greatest, let me first generously acknowledge those areas where we are in agreement with the Government and there is common ground across the House. First, on Afghanistan, an issue that I will address in more detail shortly, we continue to support the mission and we will continue to seek a bipartisan approach as combat operations move towards their conclusion. I also, of course, echo the Foreign Secretary’s condolences to the families of the fallen.

On the issue of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, there is clear support on both sides of the House for the islanders’ right to self-determination, a principle set out in the United Nations charter and recognised in the Falkland Islands constitution. More broadly, we share the Government’s concerns about the continued repression of human rights in countries around the globe. Where those injustices continue, as in the case, as was mentioned, of Belarus, Burma, Russia and Colombia, the Government can rely on our full support in seeking to tackle them.

On Ukraine, the case of Yulia Tymoshenko casts a continuing shadow that country. The circumstances of her trial and the treatment she has received in custody are, of course, matters of grave concern. In light of that, can the Minister say what the British Government’s policy will be towards UK Ministers visiting Ukraine during the European football championships? On the accession of Croatia, we support the Government’s Bill. On Turkish accession to the European Union and on the recently negotiated French defence treaty, we also have a clear and bipartisan approach.

On the continuing combat operations in Afghanistan, we will discuss a number of countries in today’s debate, but only in one country are the best part of 10,000 British troops still in harm’s way. It is right that we take this opportunity to praise the professionalism, courage and sacrifice of our armed forces and of their families back home. Let me also pay tribute to our diplomats and aid workers, who, in challenging circumstances in Afghanistan, are doing truly outstanding and important work. The Prime Minister came to office promising that Afghanistan would be his No. 1 foreign policy priority, so why is it now 10 months since he made a parliamentary statement about the situation in Afghanistan?

We welcome the fact that the Government have been clear in their commitment to withdraw British combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, but a strategy for withdrawal is just one element of what we need if we are to have an end state in Afghanistan to match an end date. To honour the sacrifices that have been made over the past decade, an exit strategy cannot afford to be all exit and no strategy. The coming days will see the NATO summit at Chicago, and as a bare minimum we suggest that it must have four key achievements. The first is a co-ordinated timetable for the withdrawal of NATO forces, a matter that the Foreign Secretary chose to glide over in his remarks about the summit. British troops are currently expected to stay in Afghanistan in a combat role until the end of 2014, the newly elected President of France has said that he wants all French troops to leave Afghanistan by the end of this year and the US Defence Secretary claims that American forces will end their combat role by mid 2013, so today there remains a very real risk of a disorderly rush for the exit as NATO countries announce unilateral and divergent withdrawal dates. I hope sincerely that that is addressed in Chicago.

Secondly, there needs to be a stable and sustainable funding arrangement for Afghan security forces, and I welcome what the Foreign Secretary had to say on that matter. Thirdly, more clarity is needed on the status of forces agreement required between Afghanistan and international forces in the country post-2014 draw-down. We welcome the signing of the strategic partnership agreement between the United States and Afghanistan earlier this month, but many issues remain unresolved, not least the position of British forces. Fourthly, the summit must surely agree a new diplomatic effort to match the scale of the military sacrifice. We need a standing meeting of Foreign Ministers to lead on the political process and a serious attempt at closed-door diplomacy, even at this late hour, on the scale of Camp David, Sunningdale or Wye River. An inclusive political settlement is needed with the tribes in, and, of course, al-Qaeda out, and regional partners need to be engaged and involved.

When I met Prime Minister Gilani on his visit to London last week, it was clear that Pakistan, just like China, Russia, India, the central Asian republics and Iran, would be ill-served by a chaotic Afghanistan that is a stage for the kind of problems that were encountered following the departure of Soviet troops in the early 1980s. It is now apparent, however, that Pakistan will not even be present at the coming Chicago meeting. Will the Minister tell us what actions the British Government are taking to get relations with Pakistan and key members of the international community on a better and more sustainable footing?

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the international community comes together at next week’s Chicago summit to discuss the future of Afghanistan, it should also discuss the issue of women in Afghanistan? A recent survey by ActionAid showed the concern that many women still have about their futures once NATO troops leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy to give the assurance that my hon. Friend is looking for. Indeed, she anticipates what I was about to say. The gains that have been made by many Afghan civilians, particularly women, as regards their political rights, access to health and education and basic human rights are significant, of course, yet any of us familiar with that country knows how fragile those rights are, particularly for women and girls. I hope that the Minister will set out what steps are being taken at Chicago to ensure that the process is embedded, not eroded, in the coming years.

[Mr MacShane]

On a tiny technical point, since the debate started, I have received information that Pakistan is being invited by the United States to Chicago. That is a decision of the US State Department and has very little to do with our Government.

[Mr Alexander]

If that is the case, I welcome it. Of course, Pakistan is not a member of NATO, but anyone who is familiar with the challenge of trying to secure an end state as well as an end date in Afghanistan knows that Pakistan will have a key role to play. As well as attendance rates at the NATO summit in Chicago, land transportation for ISAF forces is an issue. In recent weeks, there has been a significant issue with the ability of land convoys to supply troops. If attendance has now been secured by the US Department of State that will anticipate further changes in Pakistan’s attitude to supply lines coming into Afghanistan.

All of us who have engaged with such issues will know that there is neither a military-only nor a development-only solution to the challenges faced by Afghanistan. Only politics can complete the bridge between where Afghanistan is and where we need it to be by the time of the NATO transition. We have heard too little on that matter from the Government today and over recent months.

[Caroline Lucas]

In light of those comments, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether he and his party support the position of the French socialist Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister in favour of a very swift return of troops from Afghanistan?

[Mr Alexander]

It is not the Labour party’s position that troops should be withdrawn by the end of this year. We want a co-ordinated approach. I understand that the discussions within NATO reflect the fact that some countries have already unilaterally announced that they are going to withdraw, with France saying that it will withdraw troops by the end of this year, the Americans talking about the end of the 2013 fighting season and the British Government holding to the position of having a NATO transition by the end of 2014. I hope that there will be greater clarity on taking a genuinely co-ordinated approach because if one has the opportunity to see, as I have, the work that British troops are doing in Helmand, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which American combat operations could cease in July, August or September of 2013 and Britain could maintain its current presence in central Helmand after that.

In the same way that we have been able to benefit from a strong bipartisan approach to the Government’s conduct in relation to Libya, I hope that we can continue to speak with one voice in the House on Iran, about which the Foreign Secretary said more this afternoon. The threat that Iran poses to Israel, to the wider stability of the region and to international security as a whole is real and deeply concerning, and it warrants urgent and concerted diplomatic efforts. We are clear that our objective in Iran is a change of policy, not a change of regime, and we support the steps taken by the Government to introduce and impose strict sanctions on the regime. However, I would welcome more clarification from the Minister in summing up than the Foreign Secretary was able to offer on the issue of providing insurance for ships carrying Iranian oil. There were many words, but not many answers. Given the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, I think that oil prices are a material consideration in determining the timing on when Britain chooses to impose sanctions on Iran. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm where the balance of authority on this lies within Government and whether this is a decision being led by the Treasury or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because many allies and many in the international community will have been troubled by the Foreign Secretary’s remarks. If some of the reports—they are only reports—are to be believed that Britain is one of the back markers and that this is being driven by a view from within the Treasury, that would be of great concern to Members on both sides of the House.

More broadly, we all welcome the fact that the next meeting of the international community—the P5 plus 1 process—will take place in Baghdad on 23 May. However, previous negotiation rounds have too often started in earnest and ended in frustration. The stakes are too high for that to be allowed to happen again. We must be clear about what we are seeking from the talks, and I would welcome a little more clarity from the Minister on what the British Government are looking for at Baghdad beyond the 20% enrichment issue that the Foreign Secretary shared with the House a few moments ago. This is delicate but vital work and we must not allow misjudged rhetoric to inflame or hinder vital diplomatic efforts. Let us be candid: if this debate had taken place three months ago, it would have been dominated by the threat of a potential strike on Iran. Since then, thankfully, the Iranians have signalled that they might be willing to make some compromises, and senior elements of the Israeli security establishment have signalled that they would be uncomfortable with a strike any time soon.

A negotiation path has now been opened up and the UK has a key role to play within it, but as surely as the temperature on this issue has dropped in recent weeks, so it could rise again in coming weeks. There may well be voices claiming that negotiations have stalled and that military action is therefore required immediately. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will be unyielding in its commitment to advancing the case for negotiations as a diplomatic settlement in the immediate months ahead? To assist the negotiations, all options must remain on the table, but we are firm in our view that this opportunity must be seized by all sides so that military action can be avoided.

Let me address the pressing issue of Europe and the eurozone crisis.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on, may I ask him about Zimbabwe? I wanted to ask the Foreign Secretary about this, but he did not give way. If we had been having this debate two years ago, the Foreign Secretary would have mentioned Zimbabwe. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who is responsible for Africa, has done a very good job, but should not the Secretary of State be saying how he is going to ensure that pressure is put on South Africa to continue the work needed to get a global political agreement brought to fruition and get Zimbabwe back to being a fully democratic country?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the salience of Zimbabwe. In that, of course, we are as one. I had the opportunity in recent weeks to meet Morgan Tsvangirai when he visited the United Kingdom and was able to emphasise on behalf of my party our continuing interest, concern and deep worries about some of the developments that endure within Zimbabwe. When I was in the Foreign Office and had the opportunity to meet Morgan Tsvangirai long before he took office in the Zimbabwean Government, there was a constant tension between Britain’s capacity to make public statements and its capacity to exercise private influence in relation to the South Africans. The Minister may be able to comment on that. We were constantly aware that if we made some of the statements that we were minded to make in relation to Zimbabwe, we were vulnerable to their being used to offer succour, encouragement and a propaganda advantage to Mugabe. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government are following a path of quiet diplomacy and making sure that the regional leaders who bear a heavy responsibility—principally South Africa, as my hon. Friend suggests—recognise their heavy responsibility as we anticipate the potential for further violence and intimidation ahead of further elections in the country.

On the pressing issue of Europe and the eurozone crisis, there are many in the House who would like any discussion of Europe to focus on the question of an in/out referendum. If we are to believe the blogs and the briefings, our part-time Chancellor of the Exchequer is spending more time considering the electoral implications of such an approach than he appears to be spending on helping to solve the eurozone crisis that is engulfing parts of the continent. Let me be very clear about this. Opposition Members believe that Britain should now be focused on jobs and growth and leading the recovery in Europe so that many millions of British jobs that depend on Europe are secured, even in these turbulent times.

Within the eurozone itself, forecasters are predicting that Spain, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and Belgium would all miss the EU deficit target next year, as well as Ireland, Greece and Portugal, which are not expected to be able to comply with the terms of the EU bail-out programmes. The International Monetary Fund is forecasting shrinking economies and rising debt. No wonder firms are reluctant to invest, with such bleak prospects. An austerity-only economics—the voodoo economics of our time—driven by 23 out of the 29 Governments of Europe being held by the centre right, has been shown to have failed both here at home and abroad in Europe, yet have this Government shown themselves to be worthy of this moment? I would argue, far from it.

When British exporters and firms desperately need influence, the Prime Minister last December chose isolation instead. Why did he make that choice? Perhaps he was following the advice that was attributed to the Foreign Secretary on the eve of that fateful summit:

“If it’s a choice between keeping the euro together or keeping the Conservative Party together, it’s in the national interest to keep the Conservative Party together.”

But at what cost has this political party bargain been struck? They claim that they used their veto to stop a treaty that would harm British interests, but even the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not present in the House today, begged to differ. He said:

“The language gets confusing. Veto suggests something was stopped. It was not stopped.”



What of the so-called protections that the Government secured for British jobs and for British business? The Foreign Secretary was totally silent today on the fact that not one of the measures included in the fiscal compact would have applied to Britain, and still the Government are unable to point to a single extra protection that their so-called veto managed to secure for Britain’s financial services. But he need not take our word for it. It was no less than Lord Heseltine who summed it up so well in the week of the summit when he stated, “You can’t protect the interests of the City by floating off into the middle of the Atlantic.” We now know that this is not a Tory party following in the tradition of Macmillan, who applied to join the EEC; of Heath, who took us into Europe; of Thatcher, who signed the Single European Act; or of Major, who signed the Maastricht treaty. This is a Conservative party being followed and not being led by those on the Government Front Bench.

[Michael Ellis]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when he was Minister for Europe in the last Government he gave away £7 billion at the last European Union budget negotiations? Does he not accept that it is rather difficult to take him seriously when it comes to negotiations with Europe?

[Mr Alexander]

I am flattered and touched by the interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in my record as Minister for Europe. If he had been in the House at the time, he would have known that there was broad bipartisan support for the accession of the eastern European countries to the EU. If he is respectfully suggesting, seven years on, that somehow there would not be consequences for the European budget from the accession of 10 former eastern European countries, I would respectfully differ. If he wants a job for reading out the Whips’ briefing, he has to work a little harder than that.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

Somebody else can have a go.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I was a Member of the European Parliament when the right hon. Gentleman was giving away most of our rebate, and I remember the discussions distinctly. What did he get in return for giving away that amount of the rebate?

[Mr Alexander]

What we managed, which most people would recognise, was the successful integration of 10 former eastern European countries into the world’s largest single market. There were also some changes in the common agricultural policy in 2008, which followed as a consequence of the budget deal that was struck in December 2005. But, as I say, it is simply an attempt to rewrite history for Government Members to suggest that there would never be consequences for Europe’s budget from the inclusion of 10 former eastern European countries.

[Mr MacShane]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1984, Britain’s contribution to the EEC was £656 million? Under Margaret Thatcher, it rose to £2.54 billion by 1990. It went up 400% under Margaret Thatcher. God bless her.

[Mr Alexander]

I think I am with my right hon. Friend in all of his remarks. Perhaps I shall write to him on the final phrase of his intervention.

In all seriousness, isolation can sometimes be a price worth paying for getting one’s own way in international affairs, but isolation achieving only defeat is surely unforgiveable. Even at this late stage, the Government must set out what steps they will take to ensure that real and urgent progress is being made at this month’s EU Council meeting. Alongside the welcome measures—

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy to give way and I am sure that it will be a comradely and unifying question.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. On a positive note, it is certain that at least one member of the eurozone, and almost certainly several others, are about to recreate their own national currencies. Given that we sensibly have our own national currency, is there not a good case for us building strong relationships with these countries with their new national currencies? We could work with them to mutual benefit and help them in their difficulties.

[Mr Alexander]

There is a rare moment of unity between myself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that I am not sure it is entirely wise to speculate today about which countries have a future within the eurozone. But I would certainly concur with my hon. Friend’s point that the Labour Government did make the right choice in saying that the economics did not make the case for Britain entering the euro. I know that it was the present Foreign Secretary who argued that we had 24 hours to save the pound. I checked, and I think we have had 90,192 hours since he made those remarks, and as far as I am aware, we all still have a pound in our pocket, thanks to the actions of 13 years of a Labour Government and a little time from the Conservatives thereafter.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I have been generous and I am keen to make a little progress.

Alongside the welcome measures set out in the Bill to allow for the establishment of a eurozone-only bail-out fund, further steps are needed if we are to have hope of a genuine recovery in Europe, including a real capital lift for the European Investment Bank, new infrastructure bonds and a comprehensive review of how EU structural funds operate.

Before I leave the subject of Europe, let me ask the Foreign Secretary another question that curiously he omitted from his lengthy remarks today. The Government defined themselves in opposition and in the early days of government by their commitment to publish a White Paper on the repatriation of powers from the EU back to Britain. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will update the House on when we can expect that White Paper to be published. With great flourish, he announced another White Paper was due to be published on the overseas territories, but he curiously omitted any mention of a White Paper in relation to repatriation. The last time he mentioned it in the House was November 2011, when, in a written answer to me in February, he said:

“The Government’s stated intention is to examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences. That review does not have a pre-determined outcome.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 366W.]

Can he at least confirm to the House whether it has a pre-determined time frame? I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will be able to share that information with the House.

If there is one example of where the European Union could serve to amplify Britain’s voice and maximise our influence, surely it is in the middle east and north Africa in the wake of the extraordinary events we have witnessed over the past 18 months. In the early part of last year we saw protests spread, from Morocco in the west to Iran in the east, with the success of one set of demonstrators giving energy and inspiration to others. But the Arab spring has not been uniform in its impact, and nor are its outcomes guaranteed. We see continuing and very different challenges in countries as diverse as Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain. In the case of Syria, I can assure the House that there is bipartisan support for the continued efforts the Foreign Secretary spoke of to stop the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on its own people.

At a time when the waves of change are sweeping through the region, it is surely a matter of deep regret to us all that progress on the negotiations in Israel and the Palestinian territories remains frozen. Our shared goal across the House is to secure a universally recognised Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state. The international community and the majority of Israelis and Palestinians share a common view of what the principles of a final agreement should be based upon: land swaps around the 1967 borders, Jerusalem as a shared capital, and a fair settlement for refugees.

[Mr Slaughter]

Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that Prime Minister Netanyahu has once again refused to countenance a settlement freeze as a precondition for opening negotiations? Does he accept that while settlements are being built there are unlikely to be meaningful negotiations?

[Mr Alexander]

Of course I regret continued settlement building, because the position of the previous Government and, to be fair, that of the present Government are the same: settlement building in the occupied territories is illegal. That is why it was a matter of some pride that, when Secretary of State for International Development, I was able to commit funds to the Palestinian Authority to allow them to map the settlements themselves so that in the subsequent negotiations—alas, we are still waiting for them—there would be documentation allowing justice to be achieved and a proper settlement to be secured. It is a matter of regret, which I am sure is shared on both sides of the House, that so little tangible progress has been made in that regard. Progress seems to have stalled and efforts are needed to reinvigorate it.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I think that we all agree that a two-state solution is the answer, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that leading conflict resolution experts from Israel who are trying to come to the UK to promote a two-state solution, such as Dr Moti Cristal, are being denied a voice by certain organisations in the UK? Will he condemn that?

[Mr Alexander]

I am not familiar with the specific case of which my hon. Friend speaks, but I am clear that I do not regard boycotts on the basis of nationality as in any way constructive or helpful in achieving the two-state solution that we all want to see. That, in part, informed the position we took on the issue of universal jurisdiction when it came before the House, because surely we cannot be in a position in which those parties that are committed to a two-state solution are physically barred from countries and so are unable to enter them and facilitate that dialogue and those discussions. I will be very clear that those who continue to argue that the way forward is to seek to isolate and somehow delegitimise the state of Israel, whatever political party or organisation in the United Kingdom they are in, do a disservice to the pursuit of peace, and the absence of hope about those negotiations is one of the greatest threats to seeing and securing them.

[Alex Cunningham]

When I put this question to the Foreign Secretary he dodged it and said that he would address the issue later in his speech. What is your view on the use of EU grants by businesses in the illegal settlements in the west bank? Do you not agree that those grants should be stopped once and for all?

[Mr Alexander]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sure that you will not presume to speak for me, Mr Alexander. I think that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) was asking you for your view, not mine, and when you answer him will you make sure that you address the whole Chamber? Thank you.

[Mr Alexander]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend’s question. I am not familiar with the grant of which he speaks, given that the principal EU grants I encountered when in government, as I recollect clearly, both related to the EU Co-ordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support and provided facilities, training and support for the Palestinian Authority to develop their own security capability, something that has been one of the glimmers of light in the enveloping darkness of recent years. Significant support has also been provided for economic development in the west bank. Alas, that has not proved possible in relation to Gaza, because of the continuing security blockade there, but there has been real economic development that has been secured in part thanks to EU funding.

[John Woodcock]

Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that the new coalition within the Israeli Government can—and must—provide a new impetus for peace and a return to negotiations by both sides?

[Mr Alexander]

I find myself echoing the spirit of the Foreign Secretary’s words on that point. Of course, all of us must hope that as broad a degree of support as Prime Minister Netanyahu has now secured in the Knesset can be the foundation on which he takes steps that he has previously chosen not to take.

There needs to be engagement from both sides on the way forward, but I have listened carefully to, and read with interest, the remarks about the opportunity that the inclusion of Kadima members of the Knesset affords the Prime Minister, and I sincerely and genuinely hope that he takes that opportunity, because honestly, as someone who for many years has advocated a two-state solution, I am concerned that time is not on our side.

This situation represents perhaps the greatest diplomatic failure that we have seen in the middle east for many decades, and I am deeply concerned by the number of voices now being heard in the region itself, arguing that a two-state solution is no longer feasible. In that sense, all of us who remain resolute in our view that a two-state solution is the way forward have to ensure, through whatever channels are available to us, that a real sense of urgency is brought to the need to create an effective and credible re-engagement in negotiations.

When we speak in this House of a middle east peace process, we are in denial of the fact that meaningful negotiations are not happening, so I very much hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu, Abu Mazen and others will seize the opportunity afforded by the new Government to advance negotiations.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

To take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of European trade with Israel, does he agree that it would be completely inappropriate to upgrade the EU-Israel trade agreement while Israel continues its settlement policy and the imprisonment of Palestinians, and that there should be no stealth by which any other agreement opens up European markets to, for example, Israeli pharmaceutical companies and others, given that it would undermine the whole resolve behind trying to enforce human rights through the EU-Israel trade agreement?

[Mr Alexander]

I have just spoken of the important role that economic development can play on the west bank, and I genuinely believe that, if we are to offer young Palestinians hope and an opportunity to renounce violence and to build a better future for themselves, economic development and trade will have a key role to play. It would therefore be difficult to argue that part of the solution to the conflict is to encourage development on one side of it while on the other hand saying that the way to secure an advance in the peace process is to deliver greater isolation to the Israelis. Instead, we have to say, “How do we use what political pressure we can to encourage both sides to seize the moment and to recognise,” as I have said, “that time is not on our side?”

Let me turn briefly to an issue that my shadow ministerial colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) will address more extensively in his closing remarks this evening. As a previous Secretary of State for International Development, I know the vital role that aid plays in embodying the values of this country, as well as in securing and protecting our vital interests. That is why I regret the fact that the Government have broken yet another promise by failing to include in this year’s Queen’s Speech legislation on the 0.7% target, despite promising to do so in both the Tory election manifesto and, indeed, in the coalition agreement.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. Was he not a little surprised, as I was, that the Foreign Secretary, during his rather long speech, could not say a few kind words about his colleague the Secretary of State for International Development, and even more so that the Foreign Secretary failed to explain this very important omission of something that we know has been dear to the heart of the International Development Secretary, namely introducing legislation on the 0.7% target?

[Mr Alexander]

I am entirely in favour of people being very nice about past and present Secretaries of State for International Development, and in that sense it was a curious omission, given the close friendship that the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary enjoy and their close working relationship, which I hope is of genuine benefit to the United Kingdom.

Today’s foreign policy environment poses grave challenges to this country that are hard to resolve but even more difficult, at times, to predict. It is true, as the Foreign Secretary said, that the United Kingdom has significant strategic and economic interests that are dependent on engaging and influencing countries that vastly outstrip us in terms of population, natural resources or the scale of their militaries. However, I would argue—I think that this is a divergence of views between those on both Front Benches—that bilateral relationships can take our country only so far. We need a coherent approach to conducting multilateral foreign policy in an increasingly multi-polar world, and yet this is where the Government’s current approach is surely falling short, at least on the basis of the speech that we have heard today, in lacking any real defined strategy for demonstrating leadership at a multilateral level.

The threats that we in the United Kingdom face today transcend borders—threats to do with global security, climate change, terrorism, and food and water supplies—and they all require international co-operation to an extent that was not previously required. Later this week, as leaders of the G8 meet at Camp David, they will be contemplating the need for international consensus in the face of many of these global challenges. Co-operation requires leadership, and yet we heard little from the Foreign Secretary about what this Government hope to achieve and plan to deliver as a result of the G8 summit that is only a few days away, and even less about what their agenda will be when they take the leadership of that grouping in 2013.

[Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make a little progress, but I will give way once more.

[Jeffrey Donaldson]

Before the shadow Secretary of State leaves the question of strategy, will he at least acknowledge the excellent work of the stabilisation unit in many parts of the world today, and the role of the building stability overseas strategy, which is widely acknowledged as something that we can all support? It is setting very high standards and giving the UK some credit in many places where there has been conflict.

[Mr Alexander]

I am entirely in favour of the stabilisation unit, and I am always happy to pay tribute to the Government when they continue a successful policy that was begun under the previous Labour Government.

On all these multilateral fronts, the Government are failing to meet the demands of the moment. It was a genuine disappointment that no leadership role was set out as regards the G8 meeting later this week, and that we heard nothing about the 2013 meeting of that grouping. Nor has any clear strategy been set out for the forthcoming G20 meeting that takes place next month. There was no mention of how the Government intend to try to engage in the World Trade Organisation talks, despite the fact that if we were to see progress in the WTO, that would surely offer a shot in the arm for the global economy at a time when that is vital. There is a continued failure to set out the steps that the Government need to take to ensure that the NATO summit does not merely deal with the build-up of the Afghan forces but ensures the far more comprehensive political settlement that is required. In relation to Europe, where we have a responsibility to help to lead and shape the agenda because of its impact on British jobs, British manufacturers and British firms, the Government seem content with isolation at the expense of Britain’s influence and interests.

At a time of great risks and peril, Britain deserves better. Impotence, not splendour, is the consequence of isolation in today’s world. The price, I fear, will be paid in British jobs, British growth and British leadership. We need leadership worthy of these troubled and challenging times.