Libya
Graham P Jones Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
I am afraid that I cannot, really. I can give a personal view: I would expect that we would be talking about a training mission of the sort of scale of those that we are carrying out in other countries around the world. I therefore would expect there to be between tens and hundreds of trainers, not thousands of trainers.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary says that we must tackle Daesh, but Prime Minister Sarraj only operates with the permission of the militia. Does not the Foreign Secretary think that in certain circumstances some of the militia are aligned with malevolent forces, particularly in other parts of the country, and is he not concerned that the militia are at the heart of the Government and of the future process of government? Where will that leave Libya in the future?
Mr Hammond
I think that there is a misunderstanding about what the militia are. After 2011, Libya fragmented. Every city, every town and every region had its armed forces—armed men who were protecting their communities. That does not make them bad people. They are not extreme Islamists in most cases; they are simply people who have formed home defence units, and they are the only force on the ground. It is not possible to talk about raising new Libyan armed forces that will then take on all the militias—that would be a completely unrealistic project. The only way forward is to co-opt militias into a nascent Libyan armed forces, backed by a political system that is highly devolved and that assures them of autonomy and fair shares of Libya’s wealth for the communities they seek to back.
Central and East Africa
Graham P Jones Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Phillips
Having made those decisions, my right hon. Friend will know far more about them than anyone else. I do not say that they were bad decisions at the time, but in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), the UK has probably had something of a lesser voice in the counsels of Burundi than might otherwise have been the case. I have made a suggestion—the Minister may be aware of it—that given his ministerial responsibilities, he might like to encourage his counterparts in China, who do have a strong voice in Burundi, to discourage President Nkurunziza from going down the route that he appears to be attempting to go down.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that one consideration in withdrawing aid from Burundi, which comes through from speaking to British aid workers in the region, is simply the level of corruption and the inability to deliver an aid programme against that backdrop?
Stephen Phillips
I do accept that. Indeed, extensive corruption and the lack of assurance that the aid was reaching its intended targets were among the reasons I gave to explain why aid was withdrawn from Burundi.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing this timely debate, particularly given the situation in Rwanda, on which I shall focus; the fact that this week we are commemorating Genocide Memorial day on 27 January; and the events that continue to take place in the region. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who gave an outstanding speech. He always speaks with honesty and integrity on the region.
Rwanda has long been one of the UK’s closest allies in Africa and certainly in east Africa. Since the genocide in 1994, the UK Government have helped Rwanda probably more than any other nation. In the past decade or so, Rwanda has experienced some of the highest economic growth rates anywhere in the world. The World Bank report, “Doing Business 2010”, which tracked global business regulation, put Rwanda at the top of the reform table, stating that Kigali had lowered more barriers to investment than anywhere else in the world. When I visited Rwanda, that was certainly the impression I gained.
It is evident that Rwanda has made significant improvements in reducing poverty, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said: 1 million children have been lifted out of poverty in the past four years, and a poverty reduction programme has been under way for more than two decades. Partly as a result of UK aid, partly as a result of UK policy in Rwanda and partly because of our bilateral relationship, we have been able to attract other donors. Crucially, we have managed to get that through general budget support to the Rwandan Government, which has been highly effective.
Our own Foreign and Commonwealth Office country advice states:
“President Kagame and the [Rwandan Patriotic Front] have achieved significant advances in poverty reduction and economic development through a strong vision for the transformation of Rwanda following the genocide. Rwanda has significantly lower levels of crime, violence and corruption than other countries in the region.”
The report adds:
“Rwanda is an open economy and has achieved impressive economic growth. Between 2001 and 2012 GDP growth averaged 8%”.
That contrasts with Burundi, its neighbour, which continues to struggle, with a per capita income that is just 25% of that of Rwandans.
On my two visits to Rwanda, I noticed the number of billboards advertising an anti-corruption hotline. That concurs with the FCO report. FCO country advice is that there is very little corruption in Rwanda due to an ongoing Government commitment to eliminate it. I have personal experience of that, as I was prevented from getting on a flight leaving Rwanda. That was not my fault—due to strict adherence to rules by a junior member of staff, I was not allowed to leave the country.
Today, we find ourselves conflicted on Rwanda, and too easily taken in by those who seek to change Rwanda from the outside and wish to impose the level of democracy that they want, irrespective of the wishes of the people of Rwanda. The recent referendum on an extension of presidential terms is an example. The United States and European Union warned that the move undermined democratic principles. The US Department of State said in a statement that Washington was “deeply disappointed”, and the US ambassador, Samantha Power stated :
“We expect President Kagame to step down at the end of his term in 2017”.
Sections of the international press followed suit and viewed the referendum as a
“manipulation of democracy to breed a dictatorship.”
All of this threatens to undermine development and stability in Rwanda. This strategy risks emboldening terrorist organisations such as the FDLR militia, which is hiding out on Rwanda’s border and still seeks Hutu power. Its sympathisers, including in Europe, are given credence as a result of these statements. Also, policies on aid are shifted for political purposes, not for a beneficial purposes. It is acknowledged through UK aid’s general budget support that the Rwandan Government have long been one of the best conduits for efficient aid spending. UK aid’s primary purpose is to spend UK taxpayers’ money in a way that is most effective in meeting millennium development targets and reducing long-term poverty.
For Britain, there is a third consequence: our friendship with Rwanda is becoming unnecessarily frayed. International election observers described the referendum as “free and fair”. In my time there, it was abundantly clear to me that Kagame had phenomenal support, in public and in private. He emphasised Africa’s biggest problem as
“a lack of good governance”
and posed the question,
“Why has Africa remained the poorest continent, meaning its people are the poorest, yet the continent is the richest?”
The west is in the paradoxical position of criticising free and fair elections yet denouncing the will of the Rwandan people, 3.7 million of whom—more than 60% of voters—signed the petition to change the part of the constitution limiting the President to two terms. In that vote, 98.3% were in favour of the change. That sounds like a phoney figure, but when I went there and spoke with taxi drivers and ordinary people in private, I found that the level of support for the Government was immense. It is easy to see why: growing incomes and living standards; free education; free healthcare; phenomenal development across the country, often targeting the poorest; and streets that are safe at night. It was also easy to see the fear of a return to Hutu Power. Speaking to recent FDLR militia soldiers, it is worrying that the FDLR seems able to recruit new members and, importantly, that they share the arguments and tone of the opposition against Kagame.
It does the west no good in east Africa, or indeed anywhere, to make over-the-top statements about Rwanda, and I am pleased that the UK Government refrained from such statements on the recent referendum. I was pleased that France and Belgium, as far as I could see, also refrained from direct criticism. For too long their former colonial interests have trumped their international responsibilities in the region. The effect of this 20-year dispute has been not only to strain relations—although I am concerned that the wider European Union was allowed to repeat the criticisms of Rwanda by the United States on the recent referendum—but to destabilise the politics of the region and the international community and to promote the causes of those who wish to see the current Rwandan Administration fall.
Rwanda has real concerns with Belgium and France, particularly in relation to the genocide, leading to its acceptance within the British-led Commonwealth in 2009. Rwanda has adopted English as the first language in place of French as a result of these tensions. It is important that these politics do not influence or shape our aid commitments through the international media or institutions that wish to influence us. Speaking to officials both in UK aid and in Rwanda, it is clear that this flexibility has helped them achieve remarkable developmental and economic achievements. Sadly, that has now changed due to the politics that comes with aid.
Following the UN report, which I have read, of Rwanda’s involvement in illegal military support in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, supporting the M23 militia, our aid programme was changed away from general budget support towards direct budget support or targeted programmes, reducing the Rwandan Government’s ability to function and deliver services that it had previously delivered. The UN report is considerable and provides plentiful anecdotal evidence against Rwanda, but it lacks documentary evidence—guns, munitions, photos, attributable quotes, dates and times of events are all missing. I have no doubt that Rwanda has engaged against the supporters of Hutu Power in neighbouring countries; they are fearful even today, 20 years on. The threats from the militia still exist, and they see a west that has long had a policy of liberal interventionism in self-defence in its own interests, but that seems to have a hypocritical position.
As a result of the UN report and growing criticism by opponents of Rwanda, in 2012 the UK Government held back £21 million in aid, reversing a decision by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who part-authorised the aid payment. It is no surprise that this aid change caused consternation in Kigali. Central Government budget programmes supported by UK aid were put in jeopardy and the trust in donors was eroded. It is seen as an intrusion into sovereignty. UK and western donors would be wise to consider fully the consequences of such changes in aid provision.
Rwanda has been at the forefront of poverty reduction in Africa. It is unusual in that it has a popular and stable Government, which is something we should be mindful of. It is also a close ally of the UK—a special relationship —and we should value that friendship as well as the progress Rwanda has made.
The reason we should value that relationship can be seen in Burundi, which is another country I have had the opportunity to see at first hand. Crossing the border, we noticed the differences immediately. In Rwanda we saw well-dressed people going about their business, walking freely along the road, but that gave way to impoverished Burundians, lacking substantial clothes, often barefoot and hanging about aimlessly along roadsides. Half the population are under the age of 16. Per capita income has fallen to a quarter of that in Rwanda over the past 20 years. Burundi is the fourth poorest country in the world, and the UK and the European Union have stopped providing aid because we cannot guarantee that it will not be lost to corruption. Such instability makes it difficult to find structures to deliver aid.
Burundi has elections that we consider, on paper, to be more democratic than those in Rwanda, but is that a meaningful comparison? Outside of the capital, Bujumbura, it is a country without much structure and with endemic poverty. With the collapse of presidential support, the country is once again on the verge of widespread violence. Hundreds of Burundians have died so far in the disturbances. It is a democracy led by patronage and corruption. Magazine sellers in Kigali can sell anti-Kagame magazines—they do so outside the Milles Collines hotel—and the country has a universal healthcare system, a low level of crime, and free education. By contrast, the people of Burundi have to live in poverty, with little state support and under the dark cloud of sectarian violence and killing.
However noble the aim, Burundi is an example of the west’s failure to support or uphold a healthy democracy, despite much effort, and the casualties are some of the poorest people in the world. The comparator with Rwanda should teach us that we should be far more careful in our criticism, for the forces of terror and Hutu Power seek solace and support from our easy criticisms.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing this important debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who is sadly unable to join us, and I welcome the opportunity to speak in it.
Many Members have spoken about various countries in the African region. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) made some interesting points about Kenya and the need to tackle corruption—something that is important to us all, and to our constituents. I want to touch on the two countries that I have visited most in Africa—there are hon. Friends in the House with whom I have visited them—which are Rwanda and Burundi. I first travelled to Rwanda about 10 years ago, on my first ever trip to central Africa. Over the years, I have gone back regularly, and I have been incredibly impressed and moved by two things. The first is the friendships that I have developed there and the way that people have shared with me their experiences of the terrible genocide 20 years ago. With that memory, we must ensure that we never let that happen again.
Secondly, I have noticed the huge steps forward that have been made in Rwanda in infrastructure development. On my first visit, travelling down towards the border with Burundi was incredibly difficult. The route was literally a red dirt track, which, over the years, has developed. Economic development has gone at a tremendous pace, as has education, as other Members have said. I have seen many examples of the work that DFID has done there, as well as the FCO and the many NGOs and civil society groups. I have seen how people have expanded the country’s economic development way beyond gorilla tourism, tea and coffee. I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to meet many small entrepreneurs—people who have been given a chance, a hope, and a lot of support. The British Government and DFID have a very long and proud history of working not just in Rwanda, but in many other countries.
More recently, I was able to travel to Burundi, which has also been deeply affected by conflict. As the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) said, there is a huge contrast between Burundi and Rwanda in terms of development. I, too, took that away from my visit. For me, the main message is the reminder that stability and peace really matter—not only for the countries I have visited and about which I am speaking tonight, but for the whole region and indeed way beyond it.
The region has a history of instability and fighting. We have heard many examples of the ongoing issues. I find it particularly worrying to hear reports of the deepening political, humanitarian and security crisis unfolding in Burundi. I believe that more than 200,000 have fled the country to the neighbouring countries of Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Not only is there a deepening political crisis, but a deepening refugee crisis.
Graham Jones
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Will she respond to this point, which I nearly mentioned, but wanted to raise? The stability in Rwanda enables it to supply forces to the African Union—I believe its forces are operating in four other countries with the African Union—and bringing such stability must be welcome.
Wendy Morton
When it comes to the region, the role of the African Union must be recognised, as should the strength that comes from countries working together. It is not only about Rwanda. To take the example of Burundi, its peacekeeping force has been doing worthy work in Somalia. This is about working with the region for the benefit of the region and way beyond it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing this debate. The wide range of contributions that we have heard today may have stretched the definition of the region of east and central Africa, but the United Nations’ definition —I looked this up in advance—of sub-regions of eastern and middle Africa encompass more than 20 countries—from Chad, Cameroon and South Sudan in the north to Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe in the south—and between us we have covered just about everywhere in between. I shall focus on a couple of countries in particular and reflect on some of the themes that we have heard from the Members who have spoken.
Eritrea was mentioned. It has one of the worst human rights records on the continent. It has been described as the North Korea of Africa. As has been said, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) led a very useful Adjournment debate before Christmas on the situation in Eritrea, and I know that there are ongoing efforts to establish an all-party parliamentary group, so it would be useful to hear from the Minister what recent representations have been made to the Eritrean Government about their continued use of indefinite conscription and the detention without trial of human rights campaigners, and what discussions he has had with the Home Office about the treatment of refugees from Eritrea here in the United Kingdom. I have heard from constituents and campaign groups that the current Home Office assessment guidance is totally unsuitable. People are being returned to a country where the Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself advises against travel to areas within 25 km of the Ethiopian border.
Irrespective of UK citizens travelling to Africa, many citizens from central Africa wish to travel here, not to stay, claim asylum or soak up benefits, but simply to visit family and friends, to promote business or to promote human rights and good governance. Too often, we hear stories of visa applications being knocked back, or application processes being beyond the reach of many citizens in countries with poor infrastructure. What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office on that matter?
The broader issue of population movement and displacement has been a theme of this debate. It demonstrates how very few crises are contained within one set of borders, particularly when the borders are the result of a colonial or post-colonial dividing up of the map, rather than any democratic or consultative process. This is particularly true of the discussions that have been held about the situation in Burundi and the close link that exists with the previous situation in Rwanda. Hon. Members have emphasised the contrast that now exists between the two.
I declare an interest, as Members might have heard me do before. I worked for SCIAF, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, which has projects in Burundi. I have heard stories of beneficiaries and partners who are subject to fear, restricted freedom of movement and of the economic impact of the violence on them. SCIAF is part of the global Caritas Internationalis family, which estimates that at least 400 people and probably more have been killed since April, 3,500 have been arrested and 220,000 have fled to neighbouring countries which, as we have heard throughout the debate, increases pressure within those societies. In addition, there are many internally displaced people.
The warnings about Burundi from Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, are stark: “all alarm signals flashing red,” he has said. Hundreds are dead as a result of political violence in recent months, and there have been reports of sexual and gender-based violence and, most worryingly of all, reports of systemic ethnic targeting that are far too reminiscent of the genocide in Rwanda and the previous civil war in Burundi. We cannot, and must not, stand by and allow this to happen again. Later this week we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, and this year’s theme is exactly that—not to stand by, but rather to learn the lessons of the past, speak out and never again permit genocide to happen.
The Government of Burundi have international obligations to protect their citizens, and the international community has a role in preventing violence and any degeneration of the situation. It would be interesting to know what role the Minister sees the UK Government playing to support international efforts to end the cycle of violence in Burundi. What steps are the Government taking to support a humanitarian response and the protection of humanitarian organisations already on the ground? In particular, what role do the Government see for the African Union? The hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) both touched on this. Are the Government, for example, prepared to back the African Union diplomatically if it decides to send in peacekeepers, even without the invitation of the Burundian Government? This is an important moment for the African Union to demonstrate its authority and mandate, and not only to try to resolve the situation in Burundi, but to send a message to the rest of continent about the role it intends to play in supporting development, peace and stability.
Civil society has a hugely important role to play in Burundi and across the region. Strong civil societies that can hold Governments to account ought to be—and must become—an alternative to violent protests that can spin out of control. Front-line civil society organisations play an important role protecting or supporting some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in their societies.
One of the poorest and most vulnerable societies not only in the region but in the entire world is the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) mentioned, the greatest irony is that, in fact, the DRC should be one of the richest countries in the world. We all carry around with us in our pockets a little bit of the DRC in the form of either coltan or cobalt, which are essential ingredients in mobile phone devices. Instead of being one of the richest countries in the world, the DRC is one of the poorest—it is 176th out of 188 on the UN human development index. To me, that sums up everything that is not just wrong but perverse about the systems we have in place to regulate global trade and protect human rights. How can it be that something so valuable that we take for granted in this part of the world can be so cheapened?
Graham Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point about the connection between some of the mining companies, which are in essence the wealth of Africa and eastern DRC, and some of the Administrations in Africa, particularly South Africa, that benefit from the mining interests in eastern DRC and across the Congo. Nothing seems to be done about that relationship and there is an ongoing problem. The wealth of eastern DRC and Africa is taken and nothing is done about it by those who could do more in terms of the ethics of that mining.
Patrick Grady
That is a very valuable exposition of the point I am trying to make on the regulation of multinationals. It is hugely important that they are able to report on their supply chains and who their suppliers are; the relationships they have with the producers of the minerals they use; and the tax they raise and profits they make—so-called country-by-country reporting. There is a role for the UK Government as part of the European Union and the broader global community to place those issues front and centre. As I have said, Amnesty International and others regularly produce, including recently, evidence of the use of child labour in mines. Those mines go on to supply major electronic brands, including Apple, Samsung and Sony, with the kind of things that we carry around and interact with every single day. It would be useful to know how the Government will take steps on many of those issues, and what steps they will take to work with NGOs on the ground that are trying to extend protections for artisanal miners and to end the worst forms of child labour.
As we have also heard, the DRC is, like much of the region, experiencing climate change. Climate change exacerbates the problems of food and security, access to water, and population displacement. In many ways, it ultimately fuels the kind of instability that leads to the conflicts we have heard about. The Government have a responsibility to live up to their commitments on climate change. It will be interesting to hear what steps they have taken, for example, to promote the adoption of renewable energy on the continent rather than tying developing countries into fossil fuel infrastructure that will quickly become redundant.
Hon. Members have mentioned other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) mentioned Kenya, which is experiencing instability—there are worrying reports of human rights abuses. The Scottish National party manifesto called for a special envoy in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex issues to show leadership on discrimination, which is all too prevalent in many of those countries. It would be useful to hear what consideration the Minister will give to that proposal.
Respect for human rights is at the core of much of what we have heard and debated today. If Government and non-state actors alike were to show more respect for basic human rights—both rights to material needs such as food, clothing and shelter, and political rights to freedom of thought, speech and assembly—perhaps the humanitarian need would not be so great.
Today, of course, we mark one of Scotland’s great humanitarians, Robert Burns. Perhaps in our approach to central and eastern Africa, like so many other areas, we should be guided by his great anthem to solidarity and egalitarianism:
“Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a’ that,)
That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an’ a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
It’s coming yet for a’ that,
That Man to Man, the world o’er,
Shall brothers be for a’ that.”
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham P Jones Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ellwood
My hon. and learned Friend is right to articulate the loopholes that still exist. We are hoping that Iran, which has committed itself to continued talks in the Vienna process, will make the necessary changes to ensure that the loopholes are closed.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Currency is clearly flowing out of ISIL towards Afghanistan to fund its huge operations there. As with any criminal organisation, currency will be flowing out of ISIL into foreign and western bank accounts to secure a future that it foresees. What success have we had in stemming that flow and capturing the people who are involved in the transfer of currency from ISIL as it exists as a state to wherever else it is going?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman is correct. It is not only finances that are moving out of Iraq and Syria, but people. The fighters are moving to other parts of the world to promote their extremist cause. Afghanistan is one of those places and Libya is another. We are closing in on the individuals who are providing the accounts and we now have the legislative means to close them. It will be difficult, but we need to work with those countries outside Iraq and Syria if we are to defeat extremism and close the financial channels it uses.
Daesh: Syria/Iraq
Graham P Jones Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I was going to call the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), but I wish to be assured that he did not leave the Chamber at any stage.
Mr Speaker
Very well; I will not inquire further into the hon. Gentleman’s domestic arrangements.
Graham Jones
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for a welcome statement. He talks about defeating Daesh and, of course, all the financial implications, but as we see in Afghanistan, ISIS is now recruiting in 24 of the 39 states. It is transferring money clearly from the oilfields of Syria and Iraq to fund that campaign and paying some of its soldiers—the foreign fighters— $600 a month, and it has now got trained divisions in Afghanistan and has declared war on the Taliban. What is the Government’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, and what does he think ought to be done to defeat Daesh?
Mr Hammond
Whatever the hon. Gentleman’s issues, after the 11-and-a-half-hour Syria debate, it is not a problem that any of us think you share, Mr Speaker.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. There is evidence of Daesh penetration in many countries, including Afghanistan. What we have to do in Afghanistan is to continue to support the Government, as we and the international coalition have done, to fund the Afghan national police and the Afghan national army to resist the attempt to create a new caliphate, and we will find that happening elsewhere. We need to be clear about this; it will pop up in other countries as well, and we need to be ready to respond to it, wherever it arises.
Europe: Renegotiation
Graham P Jones Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
The problem with the idea of a unilateral national parliamentary veto, which my hon. Friend advocates, is that it would mean that, for example, the most protectionist Parliament in any one member state could veto every deregulatory and every single market measure that the United Kingdom believed was profoundly in the interests of our people and our prosperity. Such a unilateral veto would be incompatible even with the arrangements that Norway and Switzerland have with the European Union. I just say to him that if he had had the privilege and responsibility of sitting at Council of Ministers meetings in Brussels, a responsibility that he may well indeed enjoy at some future stage of his career, he would be less sanguine about what he terms the unambitious nature of what we are proposing. What we are proposing is going to require some very tough negotiating indeed.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is ridiculous that the Prime Minister is putting the referendum to the British people but he cannot explain what the British people are voting for. If they are voting out but they are not voting for the arrangements Norway or Switzerland have, what is it that the British people are voting for?
Mr Lidington
That will be a question for those who are campaigning for out to make clear when the referendum comes. A number of studies have been published on what various options for British engagement with Europe would look like. As for the Government, we are relentlessly focused on securing a successful outcome to this negotiation and delivering the reformed Europe that the British people want.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham P Jones Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ellwood
I did say that there are others, including the Iraqis themselves, who have put together those numbers, and I am more than happy to share those with the hon. Gentleman if he wants to see them. With regard to the decision to invade Iraq, lessons have certainly been learned. We await the Chilcot inquiry, but I recall that after the invasion a diktat went around the Department for International Development saying that the war was illegal, so in Basra we went from being liberators to occupiers. That is not the way to do it. There are lessons to be learned, and we are learning such lessons and applying them in Iraq today.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Syria.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
Syria is facing a humanitarian crisis as a result of the continued assault by the Assad regime on the civilian population and the brutal occupation of a significant part of the country by ISIL. The Russian intervention—purportedly to join the fight against ISIL, but in fact targeting principally non-ISIL opposition positions—is complicating the situation and risks driving much of the opposition into the arms of ISIL.
Graham Jones
The Financial Times reported on Thursday that ISIS is making $1.5 million a day, plus racketeering, plus ransom money, plus proceeds stolen from the banks. It is a $1 billion organisation now. Where is that money going? It is not kept in shoeboxes under beds. What are the British Government doing to pursue the financial interests of ISIS?
Mr Hammond
The UK is heavily involved in that particular strand of coalition activity—intercepting financial streams—and, of course, the coalition is also taking kinetic action to try to disrupt ISIL’s revenue-generating activities. However, because we target cautiously, to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties, there is a limit to the kinetic action that we can take.
Civilians in Syria
Graham P Jones Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way, because of the time.
The UK supports the efforts of the UN envoy, Staffan de Mistura, who faces a complex and challenging task. The UN Security Council and the wider international community must support Mr de Mistura’s efforts as he works with the Syrian parties to deliver a political process that brings about an inclusive transition.
Mr Ellwood
No, I will not give way.
The Russian Government’s increased support for Assad has further complicated an already complex situation. They must take responsibility for their part in escalating the Syrian war. By predominantly hitting non-ISIL targets, they will only fuel more extremism and more radicalisation.
We call on Russia to cease its attacks on the Syrian opposition and civilians and to focus its efforts on ISIL. Observers of the middle east will know that Russia’s strong links with and interests in Syria are not new. Secret agreements offering diplomatic and political support were signed even before Syria gained its independence from France. The Soviets offered military help to form the Syrian army in the first place and Hafez al-Assad sided with the Soviets during the cold war and agreed the permanent basing of naval, land and air assets. This is not just about global posturing but Russia’s actions in shoring up a tyrant who was on his way out, and it will lead to Russia’s losing influence in the long term.
It took six days for Russia to strike any ISIL targets at all. More than 85% of Russian strikes have been—
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way. I have made it very clear that time is short and I am answering the hon. Member for Batley and Spen. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will hang on to his seat and I will be delighted to speak to him after the debate.
It is clear that Russia’s priority is not to defeat ISIL but to prop up Assad. Russia has violated Turkish airspace three times in the past week and the UK strongly condemns these provocative violations of NATO members’ sovereign airspace. It is important that allies show solidarity to ensure the inviolability of NATO airspace is respected, so we call on Russia to stop targeting civilians and opposition groups, which are part of the future of Syria. This is Russia’s biggest air deployment beyond its borders since the cold war, with fast jets, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare and air defence systems propping up an ailing Syrian regime whose military is exhausted, depleted and demoralised.
Russia’s entry, with all its propaganda, will no doubt delay a resolution and the political transition about which the hon. Member for Batley and Spen spoke rather than expediting them. It will also widen the extremism footprint for Russia, as significant numbers of foreign fighters supporting ISIL will no doubt react to Putin’s actions.
The hon. Lady mentioned safe zones, and I have taken a lot of time over the summer to consider the issue in detail. We will continue to look at all options along with our allies to protect civilians in Syria. There has been talk of safe or protected zones, no-fly zones and so on, but history tells us that implementing genuinely safe zones is difficult and must be accompanied by an international mandate that would provide the will, the authority and the full means to ensure that they have a chance of being effective. It would also involve significant military commitment. As we have seen, that can be hard to come by from the various Parliaments across the world.
We should also bear in mind the legal justification for intervention in another country has five means. One is a UN Security Council resolution—
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way. The other legitimate means for engagement include article 51 of the UN Charter, or the right collectively to defend others, or intervention to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, as we saw in Kosovo. The final such means is an invitation by the leader, which is what we saw in Iraq.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen mentioned the humanitarian situation. The UK has been at the forefront of the humanitarian response to the conflict in Syria. I am pleased to say that we have pledged more than £1.1 billion in aid in response to the crisis in Syria and the region. I visited the Zaatari camp in north Jordan in the summer and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is in her place, has just come back from Azraq. I am pleased to say that we are seeing how well British money is spent. It is clear that refugees want to stay in the region where they have family and cultural ties, and the cost of housing one refugee in the UK equates to supporting more than 20 refugees locally. Let me make it clear that the standard of that support is very different, but that just illustrates the difficult decisions people are having to make in every country about how much money we spend domestically and how much we spend in the region.
The Prime Minister also announced on 7 September the expansion of the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme to resettle up to 20,000 Syrians in need of protection during this Parliament. Since the crisis began in 2011, the UK has granted asylum to nearly 5,000 Syrian nationals and their dependants.
In conclusion, we are well aware that Syria remains the greatest humanitarian tragedy of our time. We must support the desire of ordinary Syrians for a future free of the cruelty of Assad and the barbarity of ISIL. I end by apologising to Opposition Members for not being able to take interventions. As they can see from my notes, I have plenty more to say on the matter—
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way, no. The hon. Gentleman is not going to tease me at this last moment. I invite and encourage a wider debate that lasts longer than 30 minutes, which I would very much welcome—
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham P Jones Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Swire
My hon. Friend is right and I congratulate him on all he does for the Chagossian community. The resettlement report will be completed by KPMG by the end of this month and the Government will publish it shortly thereafter. Should Mr Speaker agree to a debate in the House once the report has been published, the Government would, of course, be pleased to participate in it.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
With some 50 murderous, marauding militia operating in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and some 5 million dead during the conflict, what assessment have the Government made of the role of MONUSCO in bringing that violence to an end?
Mr Lidington
We strongly support the role that MONUSCO is playing, but we continue to work with European and international colleagues to see whether improvements need to be made. Ultimately, that will depend in large part on getting the co-operation of the neighbouring countries to work towards peace in the great lakes region.
Rwandan Genocide
Graham P Jones Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Last summer I visited Rwanda, and I was fortunate enough to go back in March and April this year. To be frank, I was unsure of what I would see. The country obviously has a terrible past, and it sits in the heart of Africa with no natural resources. The visit was to look at peace and reconciliation, and to see the commemorations of the 20th anniversary and the transformation that has taken place. During my visit I was fortunate enough to meet the President and executive members of the Administration, regional governors, members of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, chief executives of state-owned industries, civil society, the archbishop and bishops of all the districts, ordinary people, non-governmental organisations and our own Foreign Office personnel—a wide range of people. It was informative to speak to all those people and get a grasp of the country. That is what brings me to this debate.
It is clear that the United Kingdom and Rwanda have a special relationship. When speaking to all those people, they would say that the role of the BBC in exposing the genocide, when no help was on offer, is something for which they remember Britain. They also point to the very generous budget support from UK aid that has allowed the Rwandan Government and Rwandan people to rebuild their country. I think that that sets the UK apart from other countries in the eyes of Rwanda.
I do not wish to go over the history, but I will reflect on what I saw: the impact of the genocide, the passage from the genocide to the present, the importance of Rwanda politically and economically in Africa, and the dilemma of balancing civil and human rights with development.
The development of Rwanda has been remarkable. On landing, visitors are struck by the sight of clean streets, beautiful lush greenery and manicured gardens. There is not a broken street light in sight. Visitors have to remind themselves that this is Africa. There is impressive infrastructure, with no broken pavements or potholes in sight. Well-dressed Rwandans go about their affairs with apparent purpose. There is European-standard housing in Kigali and modern housing throughout the country. Electricity and roads have been rolled out. The level of development is impressive.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
This is obviously a very serious subject and the matters to which the hon. Gentleman is alluding are very interesting. Rwanda is a mountainous country, but the mobile phone signals there are better than they are in the highlands of Scotland.
Graham Jones
I visit Scotland, but I am not an expert on the highlands. There was some trouble with mobile signals in Rwanda—it is hilly—but I was delighted to hear that the Rwandan Government, alongside the Korean Government, are looking to resolve that with huge investment in broadband and mobile infrastructure.
The past seems to have been erased from the physical fabric of the country. We are not left with the impression that such an horrific genocide has taken place. It is remarkable to see this type of development in Africa, but there is a dilemma when one considers some of the question marks hanging over Rwanda with regard to human rights and civil liberties.
One perhaps first realises the scale of the genocide when visiting the museum and learning of the brutal killings and the horrific torture of women and children. The British NGO, the Aegis Trust, has built a fantastic memorial. My colleagues were brought to tears by some of the graphic displays of the genocide. It is a mass grave, with 250,000 people buried there. I am led to believe that it is the largest mass grave in the world. The museum displays thousands of photos of the dead, pinned by pegs to rows and rows of horizontal string. The children’s memorial upstairs lays bare the cruelty exacted on babies and toddlers, who were swung by the legs to crush their skulls, shot, burnt alive and hacked to bits by machetes in front of their parents. It becomes quickly apparent to the visitor that Hutu Power was not just about extermination, but torture and revenge. It targeted children, and that is one aspect of the genocide that is very hard to take in.
Visitors also get that feeling at some of the other sites, and I think it is only the sites that carry the history. Rwanda has changed, but the decision to protect some of the sites was wise. We crossed the Nyabarongo river, where thousands were marched, brutally murdered and thrown into the river. The three churches at Nyamata, Ntarama and Gitarama are shocking: they show the full horror of genocide. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and I were taken aback by what we saw at Ntarama. It was a small church in which 5,000 people lost their lives. We were fortunate to meet a survivor, a young boy who was aged seven at the time. His story was that, while all the people around him were hacked to death in that small church, a rather large lady who was killed fell on him and he was buried alive at the bottom of the pile of people, which enabled him to survive. He was not identified by the militia; he is here today because of that piece of fortune. He saw his family murdered in the church. Worst of all, he, other family members and adults in that particular church had taken the decision that the toddlers and young children should be located in the nearby Sunday school, which they could see through the window. That is what the militia attacked first, murdering all the children in front of their parents’ eyes.
Outside the Ntarama church I also met a woman survivor. Her family was hacked to death in front her, and her arm and part of her head were hacked off. The Government provided a small pension for her. Without UK general budget support, one wonders whether the pension and subsistence she receives would have been made available to some of the survivors. I am proud of the fact that we as a nation support Rwanda through general budget aid, allowing the Rwandan Government to provide that sort of support to people who have to live with the consequences of what happened 20 years ago.
At Nyamata Parish Catholic church, there were 45,000 victims, with 10,000 of them massacred inside the church building. In the catacombs outside, cracked skulls and bones can be seen. Seeing the small skulls is what really gets to you because these were the skulls of small children. That was very hard to take, and one or two people on the visit could not go in for that reason.
I met a young woman guide there: she is 32 now, but was only 12 when her family were murdered in front of her. She managed to escape with her eight-year-old and four-year-old sisters and lived in the marshes for 45 days. I was told that there are crocodiles in the marshes, so it was not just about surviving the militia who came looking for them every day. She had to survive in the harsh conditions of the marshes, with the crocodiles, while having nothing to eat and trying to care for an eight-year-old and a four-year-old. Heroic people like that provide inspiration, but we need to reflect on the fact that she has been left with just two young siblings in a broken country. Of course, many did not survive in the swamps; they were found by their pursuers.
We went to a third church at Giterama, at which, according to the Gacaca court judges, 64,000 people were murdered. It was an unsavoury affair, with the Catholic Church being involved in, and accused of, collecting individuals from the area to take shelter in the church, only for the militia and Government forces to turn up. Visiting that site is shocking. The bodies are just buried at the bottom of a hill in a great big pile. I understand that many were buried alive. There were only two survivors out of the 64,000; it took two days to kill them all.
These are the sort of stories that bring home the sheer scale of the murder that went on. Many of the Tutsis fled to that region when the massacres began in Kigali, and they lived in crowded conditions with little food or water, suffering from malaria and dysentery, with soldiers and militia passing by each day, picking out some to be killed. By the end of May before the Gitarama mass murder, there were 38,000 refugees living in that area. It was described as a death camp, with refugees helpless against the militia’s rape and killing. At the stadium in Kigali, 54,000 people lost their lives. These numbers are truly shocking. I was told that at the peak of the killing, the Hutu militia and the Government forces were killing more daily than the Nazis ever achieved in the holocaust, with an average of 10,000 Tutsis murdered a day.
As mentioned in the opening speech from the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), the response from the world was poor. As for the United States, President Clinton subsequently acknowledged his failure to act, calling it his worst failure, admitting “I blew it”. For the colonial powers of Belgium and France, the political consequences flow right through to today. The political recriminations over that inaction shape the political landscape, even as we speak. Belgium and particularly France stand accused of supporting the Hutu militia and ultimately the genocide. In 2010, President Sarkozy of France said that France in particular should accept that its response had been culpably weak. He said:
“What happened here is a defeat for humanity”.
He continued:
“What happened here left an indelible stain. What happened here obliges the international community—including France—to reflect on the errors which prevented us from foreseeing, or stopping, this appalling crime.”
Only last month, however, at the 20th anniversary commemorations, President Kagame accused both France and Belgium of having a “direct role” in the genocide. The Belgian Foreign Minister said that he intended to travel to Kigali to pay homage to the victims and their families, but he said:
“We are not going to pay homage to the current Rwandan Government”.
That tension exists 20 years on and it affects current policy. The role of not only France but Francophile countries still casts a shadow over the politics of the great lakes region and beyond, and that history is a dark shadow.
I do not wish to offer my thoughts on that history or any deep analysis of the genocide, other than four of my own observations. First, as with Nazi Germany, many educated people were the instigators of genocide. Secondly, identity politics led directly to a rationale that inhumanity was a justified response. Thirdly, the media played a crucial role, whereby politics of identity were openly played out in an ever-increasing measure. People pick that up when they go to the museum in Kigali and see the cut-outs and the blow-ups of the newspaper clippings, fliers and posters that circulated at that time; they see just how that politics of identity were inflated so rapidly. That serves as a warning to us all that the language of hate may be moderated at first, but it is unadulterated in its finale. The language goes from, “These people cause problems” to what we got in Rwanda, which was “Those people are cockroaches and animals.” So, fourthly, we have to be careful about what we say in the United Kingdom, because when we visit Rwanda it is easy to see some of what happened there in the current discourse among British citizens now. The first steps that the German and Rwandan people accepted as legitimate concerns—on the path to genocide—are put to British people in debate right now by certain political parties, and we ought to be mindful of that.
Rwanda today is a peaceful country that has exceptionally low levels of crime, which makes it a stand-out for Africa and the third world. It is a proud country and totally unrecognisable from its recent past. It is interesting to compare it with Burundi, which I was fortunate enough to visit, as Burundi reminds us of Rwanda two decades ago—indeed, it even used to be one country. When someone crosses the border from Burundi to Rwanda they can see the difference, as there has been GDP growth in Rwanda of 7.4% on average in the past 10 years. Small things capture the eye: the police and armed forces are personally attentive, in smart uniforms, quiet and not oppressive; everything is organised; there is a lack of people hanging about hawking or just loitering; the pavements are perfect; the people are not in rags and instead are looking healthy and well-dressed; there are cats eyes in the roads and the street lighting works; and the roads are smooth and well made, with well constructed drainage channels at either side.
During my travels around Rwanda we met many people and travelled to many districts. No restrictions were placed on whom we met or spoke to. We were free to travel, but what was abundantly clear was an omnipresence of a philosophy from the central Government of national unity. It was clear that Executive power was concentrated in Kigali and in Kigali’s RPF Administration, but the opposition are allowed to speak with certain freedoms, within that concept of nationality. There was nothing oppressive about how we were treated on our visit and we were not followed around. I found MPs in the Rwandan Parliament to be informative and prepared to discuss difficult issues; there was nothing they were not prepared to consider. I did not consider it anything other than a free society, to a large extent. When we spoke to ordinary people, however, it was clear that they were cautious about offering a dissenting voice. They feared that that would be unpatriotic, that it would risk a return to the past, and that it would not represent the Government’s view of the future.
We also had an opportunity to discuss the presidential election, which will take place in 2017 and which is focusing many eyes on the future of Rwanda. I spoke privately to many MPs who believed that President Kagame wished to end his tenure in 2017—that he had no desire to carry on. However, the conundrum was that the general public wanted him to carry on, because they did not want instability. They had experienced so many good years of progress that change represented a risk, and they were not prepared to take that risk. It was clear to me—although I may have been wrong—that Kagame was under pressure to stay not for political reasons, but for reasons of stability. In the light of my visit and the people to whom I spoke, I do not necessarily accept the view that he is an autocratic dictator, or that there is an authoritarian regime and he wants to hang on to it. Indeed, I think that the opposite may be true.
Another thing that we noticed was how different local government was from national government. It is important to bear that in mind when we talk about freedom. There seems to be much more freedom at local level. People come together—the police, civic society, the Church, the military, religious organisations and others—to discuss openly the future of their areas. We sat in on some of their discussions, and it was interesting to hear some of what was said. I did not have the impression that any freedoms were impinged on, or that there was anything oppressive about the meetings. People were frank about wanting the best for their areas, expressing their collective view.
It was interesting to observe Umuganda, the mandatory community work days designed by the community itself. The Rwandan people both have to and want to contribute to the rebuilding of their community: they seem to be hugely committed both to the community and to the country as a whole. There was a suggestion that the authorities took a very dim view of those who did not participate in that mandatory community work, or participated reluctantly.
I was also interested by the social contracts whereby every household, street and neighbourhood must set its own targets for achievement each year and present them to local government, or, in the case of district councils and regions, present them to the national Government. The achievement might be acquiring an extra cow, adding an extension to a property, cleaning the roads, or rebuilding the gulleys in the roads. The Government are clearly slightly authoritarian—there are Government notices on buildings asking people to make the best of their ability, and to ensure that they finish the jobs that they have started—but I think that those are reasonable things to expect, and I would not suggest for a minute that Rwanda is a particularly authoritarian country at local level. Nevertheless, the social contracts return us to that big question about Rwanda, that big dilemma: do they represent the heavy hand of the state, or social progress? I think that those who visit the country are perpetually faced with that conundrum.
One democratic element of life in Rwanda is the fact that the appointment of regional governors is rotated to prevent corruption, and there are billboards throughout the country advertising corruption hotlines. It is pleasant to live in a place where one not only feels safe, but feels that the institutions of government are representing the people in a very honest way.
Bob Stewart
During his visit, did the hon. Gentleman see any evidence of tension, or, indeed, encounter any people who said that they had taken part in the genocide and were sorry for it? Are any such people still in the country, or are they now outside it?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before the hon. Gentleman responds, it might be helpful if I point out that there are five further speakers to come as well as the Front Benchers and the winding-up speech. I believe there was an instruction to keep the length of speeches to about 10 minutes, and the hon. Gentleman has gone way over that, but I am sure he is coming to the end of his remarks.
Graham Jones
Travelling around the country, we see the reconciliation villages, the process of peace and reconciliation and the coming together. What we see is people openly admitting that they committed crimes, although one gets the impression that where they have committed 40 crimes, perhaps they will admit to four or two. We also get, rather bizarrely, reconciliation villages in which there is intermarriage between families, the members of one having murdered those from the other. It is remarkable that people in such circumstances now get on and can be so forgiving. To be absolutely honest, where people do not get on, they tend to accept that and move out of the area, but in general there is not any conflict. We do not see retribution; instead we see people openly admitting that they need to come together. I never thought I would ever in my life see people so forgiving as I saw in Rwanda.
The Government have been instrumental in all of this and it is important that the Government move Rwanda on. They have been very helpful to those who have been involved in these events. This has caused tensions, as it is necessary to let the perpetrators off and sometimes the victims feel frustrated about that. It is a managed process, but it has been managed very well.
The Rwandan Government have had to absorb some 3 million refugees returning to the country, which is a huge challenge during such a process of forgiveness and reconciliation. The Gacaca courts have been criticised by human rights and civil liberty groups, but it has been difficult to deal with so many criminals. This has been a remarkable process. I do not think anybody would say that it was an all-round success—there might have been individual injustices, although it is not a Faustian pact—but it has moved Rwanda on and I think we have to accept certain things as part of that process.
I will conclude now, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow others to speak.
Pauline Latham
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) will remember that during our most recent visit we met people who had married across the Hutu-Tutsi divide and were making a go of it, difficult though it has been. They were not isolated examples; there were others. That shows the tremendous distance that the country and particularly individuals have moved.
Graham Jones
To add to that, there was not just a marriage; one of the partners had murdered the other partner’s family.
Pauline Latham
Again, that shows the tremendous journey that people have taken. We can all look back to the past. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire talked about going to Murambi and seeing the bodies. We have talked about seeing the memorials at the genocide memorial centre, and I defy anyone to come out of there without having been moved, but that is the past and it is fantastic that the country has moved on. We have heard stories about good roads and street lights that work, but there are many other examples of how the country has moved on. It still has a long way to go to be perfect, but it has moved on enormously.
One of the criticisms has been about the fact that there has not been press freedom. However, last time I went to Rwanda I was most impressed because it has decided to have freedom of the press—it is in legislation. The problem is that it does not know how to use that freedom and it needs to be trained. Even broadcasters from Parliament are allowed to choose what they broadcast, whereas when I visited three years ago they could not do that and had to produce the stuff that was being spoken about in Parliament, which is often deadly dull for most people. They are now going to do all sorts of other things. That is a huge freedom for the people of Rwanda.
It is understandable that there was no press freedom at the beginning. That is where much of the agitation came from during the genocide. The radio broadcasters incited violence and said, “Prepare to kill the cockroaches.” They encouraged people to do that, so it is understandable why any President taking over a country that has gone through 100 days of slaughter did not want press freedom. It will take a while to mature, but it is there and journalists are grateful for it.
There has been huge criticism of the President, but we must look at where he came from. He took over a broken country with massive problems. It is understandable that he has been authoritarian, but he is beginning to relax what is happening now and he is also very popular. The hon. Member for Hyndburn painted a graphic picture in everything he said about our visit, but we heard how popular the President is with the people, who will try to persuade him to stay for a third term. Whether he chooses to do so will be up to him, but I am certain that the pressure will be there. One of his problems is that there is no recognisable candidate to succeed him. People need to plan for the future so that there is a credible candidate to follow him. So far that has not happened.
Something that the Rwandan Parliament has got right, even though it is done by quotas, is its huge proportion of women—far better than ours and better than many other countries in the world. The Parliament has some very effective women and I am sure that that has changed the nature of debate, as indeed it does when more women are here in the Chamber.
The after-effects are beginning to go. After the genocide, there were very many orphan-headed households. Of course, by now those orphans must be more than 20 years old, so there are grown-up heads of households. They probably have multiple problems, including mental health issues, that need help, but at least there are no longer orphan-headed households where children are trying to bring up and look after their siblings. Many people adopted neighbours’ children because the parents had been slaughtered. Many people did an awful lot of things to help those who were in a very difficult situation.
People have mentioned a film called “Shooting Dogs”. Many people have seen “Hotel Rwanda”, which is very much a sanitised version—the Hollywood version—of what happened, and I understand that it is not terribly accurate. The two films that have affected me most are “Sometimes in April” and “Shooting Dogs”. I wish more people would watch them, because they would have a greater understanding of what happened.
Let me go back to progress in the country. During our last visit, we met the President, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. The President talked about the fact that, for the first time, the country is now self-sufficient in food. That means that people should be able to go on to export even more; they already export tea, coffee, bananas, and so on. I have even bought Rwandan coffee in Sainsbury’s, so these things are out there. This country should be encouraging them to become even more self-sufficient and to do even more towards exporting, because that will help their economy.
That process has been helped by the villagisation project. Rwanda is the most beautiful country one could possibly imagine. It is one of the most beautiful countries in Africa. It is green and hilly. It is not very big—no bigger than Wales. Previously, there was no planning law, so people built all over the place, and there were no cohesive villages. People are now being moved into villages away from their homes. One could say that that is not a good idea, but in fact they are being given proper homes with electricity and sanitation, which leads to better health. It is in people’s interests to move into those homes, thus freeing up land for more agriculture. That is why people are now being successful. One can drive around to see the villagisation projects and how they are working. They are very well-structured places. Many of them even have fibre-optic cables so as to be able to access the internet.
The president has a long-term vision, and he is delivering on it. He is not at the end yet, but he is getting there. It is important for this country to recognise that. It would be jolly nice if we all had fibre-optic cables; in fact, it would be good if we all had the chance of broadband.
Syria
Graham P Jones Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
A transitional governing body is no easy thing to bring about in any country, and, as I said in my statement, we must not underestimate the difficulty of doing that in a war-torn, divided country such as Syria. The provision to do so by mutual consent is very important, because through that a transitional governing body could just work, mutual consent being required for the membership on both sides. It is very important to uphold that commitment of our Geneva communiqué of 2012 as we go into the talks next week.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Will any democratic settlement at Geneva II include or preclude Assad? Will it include or preclude those around him—those who are culpable in what has gone on? In particular, will it include or preclude the jihadists and the fundamentalists?
Mr Hague
I go back to what I have referred to before. What we are seeking—the basis of the invitation letter from the UN Secretary-General—is a transitional governing body formed by mutual consent. Such a thing, drawn from regime and opposition, would naturally guard against the extremes, as each side would have to agree to the representatives of the other. That would not be a recipe for Assad to continue, as I mentioned earlier, or for the al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists to have a role. Again, that shows the importance of our sticking to this principle and this formula in the forthcoming negotiations.