Middle East

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Friday 16th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I welcome this long-awaited debate and congratulate the Minister as usual on his tour d’horizon. My only concern is the short time for the debate, which meant that even the Minister could mention only Israel/Palestine and the Iranian crisis at the very end of his speech.

In the Middle East, all things are connected; all things are distinct. As democrats, we must and should support the Arab awakening which affects the whole of the Arab world, but it is perhaps only the monarchies that appear to survive well at the moment. I heard what the Minister said about the key countries involved. In regard to some, there was, with respect, a touch of Pangloss in what he said. I agree that Tunisia is the pioneer and model of transition, but Egypt is far more problematic. The Minister might perhaps say whether it is his judgment that the Muslim Brotherhood will continue to steer a moderate path. Will the Salafists gain influence? Can the expectations of the great mass of young people be satisfied in Egypt? Most difficult of all is Libya, where there now is chaos. The militias seem to control much of the country and there is a real danger of Cyrenaica separating from Tripolitania.

It is in Syria, of course, that there is the most serious of problems. The real problem is this: can one envisage a more reasonable, moderate, safe and bloodless transition from this time on? Surely not, because the Assad regime, having watched what has happened in Libya, realised that its own future is at stake. It is fighting for survival, knowing what will happen to it if it loses. Ultimately, will the Assad regime, which observers now conclude is doomed, continue to inflict yet further bloodshed on its people? As it appears that there is obviously and rightly no prospect of western military intervention, what are the prospects of some form of regional intervention? What are the limits of what the West can do to help? Where do we draw the lines in terms of medical and non-lethal equipment? I wholly concur with the Minister that the caution of the West is surely justified.

Turning quickly to Israel/Palestine: it is surely a very bleak picture. If I were to ask the Minister to spell out where the signs of hope are, he could probably tell me only to look at certain of the economic and security developments on the West Bank. The rest is gloom. Premier Netanyahu knows that, whatever isolation there is for Israel and whatever defeats there are at the UN, he can rely on the US Congress for unqualified support. Certainly, there is no possibility of movement before the presidential election and there can only be movement at the point where the US decides to engage. The hopes raised by the Cairo speech of President Obama and by Premier Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan University speech have become a part of history. Does the Minister see any signs of hope at all?

I shall end by dealing with Iran, which is clearly the most difficult problem on the Israeli agenda and the great headache for US policy makers. I very much understand the Israeli concern about a second Holocaust from the Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad. However, there remains, in relation to the nuclear threat, the question of capability— even if it stops at the threshold—and the question of intention. I hope that President Obama has made it clear to Premier Netanyahu that the red lines of the US and its allies do not necessarily coincide with those of Israel. It is clearly a formidably difficult problem to destroy the installations. It rests on the agreement of the US; it relies on overflying and refuelling; there must be very accurate intelligence and there must be precision bombing. Iran has the recipe and perhaps such a strike could lead only to a delay of two years or so.

What are the malign effects of Iran gaining such a capability? Clearly, there would be a major shift in the power balance in the region, a major blow to US and western influence and a great effect on nuclear proliferation in the region. Iran might be emboldened to commit further acts of subversion and there would be an increased threat to Israel. It may well be that its proxy, Hezbollah, already can reach most, if not all, of Israel with its weaponry.

What would be the effect of such an attack on nuclear installations? It would further convince Iran that it needs a nuclear capability; it would destroy the Sunni front; there would be a vast increase in the oil price—there is already an Iran premium on the price of Brent crude—it would rally the Iranian population and it possibly would stifle out the green movement for some time.

For Israel, it would perhaps be rather like Samson pulling down the pillars of the Temple upon itself. All evidence suggests that Iran is moving inexorably to a military nuclear capability, even if it were to stop at the threshold. The question, therefore, is surely this: what if? I hope that western planners are now posing this what-if question as Iran, as is likely, obtains such a capability? We should not neglect the carrots but be ready to make clear the sticks that would be involved. Containment is difficult and possibly ineffective. A nuclear-armed Iran is an awful prospect, but there is a strong case that a military strike on the nuclear installations in Iran would be even worse with even more unpredictable consequences, both in the region and globally.

Death Penalty

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords—

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stern]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the courtesy of the House is that no more than one Peer is on their feet at the same time, so perhaps I may be that Peer for the moment. We have just heard from the Labour Benches; might we hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and then perhaps from the Cross Benches, before returning to Labour?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Sit down!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I suspect that the noble Baroness is referring particularly to some of the horrific stories from Iran. We regard those with horror, and we continue to press extremely hard, in line with our general desire to see the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, where those kinds of particularly repulsive and ugly penalties are inflicted.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, following the position on the US, when we make our welcome representations to the Chinese authorities, do they in fact say, “Well, how do you deal with the US?”. Does it in fact blunt our own representations that the US does have the death penalty in so many states?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I cannot answer precisely having not been personally involved in all these bilateral negotiations, but my impression is that it does not. My impression is that countries either say, “We listen politely to your views”—as, for instance, in the case of Japan—or, “We recognise that we must move forward”, in some other cases; or some of them give us a rather dustier answer and say, “These are internal matters for us. Please go away”.

Middle East: Quartet

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We all share my noble friend’s disappointment at the slowness of progress in the Middle East peace process and the difficulties that are being encountered—as well as at the suspension of the talks in Amman, although they have only been suspended and not abandoned altogether. However, I think that she is a shade harsh in her general judgment. We pay tribute to the efforts of Mr Blair and others in improving the situation on the ground in occupied Palestine, but one must be realistic: the quartet alone cannot achieve the progress that we all want to see. Such progress can happen only if the will is there, but the will is not present on all the necessary sides in the peace process to make progress along the road map. If the will is not there, the quartet cannot achieve the impossible.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Does the noble Lord agree that the quartet is divided—for example over Syria, given Russia’s view on it—and that it has been ineffective, save marginally at the lower infrastructure level; but that we cannot kill it because there is no alternative, and one day there may be a role for it?

Syria

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to cast his expert eye over the internal complexities of Syria and the uncertainties of the outcome of the immense turmoil that is gripping its society. He is right to say that although there is no question of military intervention, the outside world is putting pressure on Syria for the very good reason that an imploded Syria, or a Syria turning one way or another politically, or into a rogue state, would have major implications for the entire region and would affect us all. There is a responsibility to put on pressure, but no one at this stage is proposing military intervention, although some members of the Arab League have certainly talked about assisting opposition groups.

It is a very delicate scene. I wish I could stand here and predict exactly how things will unfold. The noble Lord is absolutely correct that among the many minorities is a very large Christian minority. The numbers vary. I have heard a figure of 250,000; the noble Lord mentioned 500,000. We are encouraging Syrian opposition groups to reach out, engage with minority communities and maintain a clear commitment to a peaceful and non-sectarian approach. They should reassure all Syrians that they are working towards a Syrian state that is democratic, inclusive and respectful of ethnic and religious minorities. That is the point that we have realised and are urging, but I repeat that anyone who says that they can predict exactly how this will turn out will not be believed because the uncertainties are very great. Syrian society could fragment into many pieces and its unity could be destroyed for many years to come.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Does the Minister agree that Russia and China have put themselves on the wrong side of history by vetoing a very diluted UN Security Council resolution and that it must be very difficult for them now to retreat? I welcome the Minister’s six points on the way forward but these are, essentially, further diplomatic pressures at the United Nations and at the European Union and further potential sanctions. There is, however, great urgency in the situation. Delay surely means further carnage, particularly among the civilian population. What is the evidence of any intervention by Iran with military matériel or personnel to assist the Syrian regime? Where does its supply come from, or does it have sufficient stocks? The reality is that the rebels are massively outgunned. Will Turkey or the Arab League have on the agenda at their meeting this weekend the possibility of assisting in this disparity of weaponry? The Minister has said that a no-fly zone is not in the catalogue at the moment. May I express the hope that, if it is not in the catalogue at the moment, there is contingency planning in case the Syrians use their air power against the rebels?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Information about Iranian supplies of weaponry to the Syrian regime is difficult to pin down precisely. There are certainly fairly substantial reports of such a supply of weapons. He asks whether, on the side of the allies, Turkey, Qatar or even Saudi Arabia, although he did not mention that country, could supply weapons to the opposition groups. They have said publicly that they are considering such moves. This is, however, a matter that the Arab League will have to deliberate on very carefully and reach their decisions on as soon as possible. As the noble Lord says, there is not much time. That is the position and I fully take the point that, as every day goes by, with delay more people are dying. This is an horrific pattern and although it is very hard to see how it can be stopped we have to find the best possible ways of doing so.

Algeria

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, we fully recognise the points that my noble friend has rightly made. I congratulate him on the very successful visit that he and some colleagues recently made to Algeria. This is a country that has emerged from a very dark period. It has some way to go in some crucial areas but it is, in resource terms, immensely rich. It has a determination to move back into the comity of nations in an effective way and I believe that we should work closely with it. I think that the frequent visits that Ministers from my department have paid reflect that reality.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, the trade and energy links are indeed important but so, too, are human rights. The noble Lord must be aware of a growing tide of Islamism creeping over Algeria. It is shown at two levels: one is in the closure of many places of entertainment and the second, more importantly, is in the closure of places of worship. I know that Alistair Burt at the Foreign Office and Commissioner Füle have made representations. Has there been any response to the British and EU representations in respect of human rights?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

There has. The noble Lord is right to raise questions of human rights, which are obviously our central concern. So far as concerns jihadism and more extreme versions of Islamism, while in the south of Algeria and to the south of Algeria there are continuing difficulties which need to be watched and addressed very carefully, in the north the situation is much better controlled. The general tendency which was feared a decade or so ago—of extreme jihadism taking over—has been checked and resisted. In fact, I think that Algeria is moving on from that phase.

As to the question of religious discrimination, there has been a constant exchange, and the noble Lord mentioned Mr Burt’s dialogue with Ministers. The laws that control where churches or other religious institutions can be built apply to all faiths—this is not just discrimination against Christians. We have discussed this very carefully with Ministers in Algiers. They have assured us that the laws are applied in a relatively light-handed way and that discrimination is not against one faith. It governs all building, including of mosques. Therefore, it is a matter that we are watching. I cannot promise that immediate results have been achieved but we are working at it.

Council of Europe

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The answer to my noble friend is yes on both points. The Council of Europe can have a major role in facilitating exchanges of the sort he described, and one priority of our chairmanship is to streamline and make more efficient the Council of Europe's work in the field of democratic local governance. Also, there can be real gains for local communities where those responsible for local services and the governance of towns and cities can exchange good practice and share knowledge and experience with their counterparts in other states, and that, too, we intend to encourage in our chairmanship.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, the European Union's Europe for Citizens programme concentrates mainly on town twinning, so we should avoid duplication in the Council of Europe, but the European Union programme also deals with communicating with citizens on the work being done by the European Union. Is not there a case during our presidency for informing the citizens of the wider Europe of the valuable work being done in many fields by the Council of Europe?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, I am sure there is. The noble Lord is quite right: the Council of Europe covers about 800 million people, which is wider than the European Union. Of course there can be a constructive interchange and the work of each body can be promoted by the other to their mutual benefit.

Christians in the Middle East

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Friday 9th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the most reverend Primate—feet on the ground, eyes looking upwards and outwards. I make three simple propositions. First, the Middle East is the birthplace of Christianity. Secondly, from New Testament times there have been diverse Christian communities throughout the Middle East. Thirdly, increasingly, there is intense pressure on those communities from a resurgent Islamic fundamentalism. I shall pose the question of how best we can respond.

Christianity of course began in the Middle East. Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judaea and spent all his short life, after an Egyptian exile, in Palestine. St Peter had his vision of the expanding new religion in Joppa near Tel Aviv. The Epistles illustrate that expansion. St Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. St Mark the Evangelist was martyred in Alexandria and there are indeed other Christian martyrs in Alexandria today. St Augustine and others worked in the Maghreb. With such a crowd of witnesses, it would be a bold assertion that Christianity is some alien insertion into the Middle East.

Many diverse Christian communities were formed throughout the Middle East. Roughly 10 per cent of Egyptians are Copts. Syria has a sizeable Christian minority of at least 10 per cent. Lebanon is the only Middle East country to have until recently a Christian minority, with a remarkable constitution drawing lines between the different communities. In Israel, a proportion of the Israeli Arabs are indeed Christian, and Israel is perhaps the only country in the region that has not only total freedom of religion but also freedom to convert to change one’s religion. In Bethlehem, there used to be a Christian minority, which is now massively decimated. In Jerusalem, too, once a Christian city or at least one with a Christian majority, there is now but a small portion. There has been a Christian presence in Iraq from the second century, and the liturgical language is Syriac, which is derived from Aramaic, the very language spoken by Christ. Throughout the Middle East, there are therefore large parts of the landscape that are, indeed, Christian.

Thirdly, there is a remarkable increase in pressure on those communities from resurgent fundamentalism, to the point of religious cleansing, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said so well. There is at least a risk of Christianity ultimately disappearing from parts of its biblical homeland. The decline is certainly, in part, due to persecution, low birth rates and emigration. Certainly in Egypt, Iran and Iraq, there have been examples of massacres and burning of churches. Alas, it is perhaps the old authoritarian regimes in Egypt and Syria, as well as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which provided the safest havens for Christians. Equally, all these countries in principle support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which enjoins not only freedom of religion but the freedom to change one’s religion. Apostates are persecuted throughout that region. In Iran, Pastor Nadarkhani has bravely refused to renounce his faith, which would save him from the death penalty for alleged apostasy. A decision is expected on his fate before Christmas. Then of course there is the Arab spring—or as the Americans are prone to call it now, the Arab thing, because of the uncertainty about its future. This brings new dangers of repression, actual and threatened, as Islamic parties in a swathe from Morocco through Tunisia unto Egypt gain the ascendancy. Of course, there are moderate elements. The Muslim Brotherhood will reach accommodations and can, as the Palestine parties have shown, become ever more tolerant. It is fair to say that in Morocco, for example, the king has appointed an Islamic leader who has said all the right things. But we wait to see the eventual result. Western dreams and Egyptian realities!

Syria, currently a relative haven for Christians, is likely to become much less so if the Assad regime is overthrown. So we are left with this dilemma. Of course, according to our principles, we encourage democracy, but some of the consequences are likely to be unwelcome. How do we then respond to these challenges? What are the principles on which we should act? I give only headlines, because of the severity of the time limit. I assert that we should defend human rights in general, and Christianity only as part of that, as this may be used against Christian minorities if it is seen that the West is supporting only them. There are many other groups—and I hesitate to use the word minorities, after what the right reverend Prelate said—which are suffering, such as the Baha’i in Iran. Perhaps the Christians will be made targets.

We should remind states of their international obligations, particularly in respect of the right to have one’s religion and the right to change it, and use the embarrassment factor. We should encourage Muslim leaders in this country and the Middle East to speak out boldly, as the Grand Mufti has done. We should also give a model of toleration in our own country. Although the recent Shia procession in Kabul was bombed by a suicide bomber, a similar procession in London was greeted by a certain curiosity. Just as many of the exiles who are now returning to Egypt and Libya experienced our own toleration as exiles in this country, so I hope that some of that will rub off on them as they assume positions of authority in their own countries.

Our aid policies should encourage human rights, democracy and the rule of law and we should of course use our international institutions. Briefly, the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly has recently formed the so-called status of Partner for Democracy with Morocco and with the Palestine Authority in the lead. That status has a review provision of the human rights obligations assumed by those countries, which should be extended, but we should clearly recognise that the real battles will be fought and, I hope, won by domestic forces. There are great limits to external pressure. It is the new forces, particularly women and young people, who give us hope. They demand freedom for themselves and, I hope, for minorities such as Christians. If they are to succeed in their aspirations to modernise successfully, that can ensure that the revolutions will evolve and not be betrayed—and that new Presbyter will not be old priest writ large.

Arab Spring

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

How does the Minister respond to critics such as Ann Widdecombe, who say that there are double standards on the part of the Prime Minister in that, quite properly, we withdraw aid from Uganda because it discriminates against homosexuals but do not use our aid policy against countries that manifestly discriminate against Christians and other religious minorities?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is not quite correct that the withdrawal of aid is geared to particular attitudes on policies in the way that the noble Lord describes. Support for Governments through aid is brought into question where they are upholding policies that we clearly regard as highly undesirable and objectionable. It does not mean to say that aid does not continue through non-governmental agencies and, as directly as we can organise it, to good development causes and projects—indeed, even in support of private sector operations. These things can be done without having to uphold the views of Governments. The noble Lord says that that is double standards, but in the real world one has to talk about selectivity and to make selections and choices. Some Governments are clearly ones whom we want to support; some are ones whom we would have great reluctance to do anything to enhance or entrench.

EU: Integration

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is asking for an answer that would take longer than the patience of the House of Lords could tolerate. The simple answer is that a bloc tends to be a congealed and sometimes compelled form of integration under tight central control, while a network is a much more modern, less fragile and less rigid structure in which exchanges of views and dialogues in addressing new issues can constantly be adjusted in the light of changing circumstances.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, do not the ambitions set out by the Minister depend essentially on the concurrence of our partners? What expectation does he have that that will be forthcoming? Is it not a fact that as a result of the economic and financial crisis, there will be strong pressures for more integration in certain sectors? We as a Government and as a country have a choice, either arrogantly to rail against them from outside, or to be part of them and seek to bow them in a way that we want, including on principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Some of those aspects are correct, but the noble Lord overemphasises the polarity and the rigidity of the choice. There is no doubt that one of the propositions that is current throughout the eurozone is that the only way forward is towards fiscal union. Indeed, if that is a way of avoiding total chaos in the European markets, it is in our interest, too, that the process should be non-chaotic. That is perfectly clear. However, in other areas, as I said earlier, some degree of decentralisation and flexibility might play a much more useful part in making the European Union fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Somalia

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It has not yet come before the United Nations, and there is strong evidence at the United Nations that an interest in the matter is not encouraged. Indeed, there are indications that if a resolution were pressed it might lead to further validation in precisely the opposite direction to the one that the noble Lord indicated. Of course, Article 51 does not permit unrestricted self-defence; it requires a real sense of challenge to national security and that the necessary defence should be proportionate. That is very important. That is what the Kenyan authorities will need to establish to satisfy our criteria for support.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, should not a key factor in our response be that a friendly Commonwealth country, Kenya, has been subject to intense provocation from the failed state on its borders, which has harmed its financial interests in terms of tourism as well as the major humanitarian matter? Is it not also a factor that the stability of the area might be increased if we were to encourage Commonwealth countries to move towards the recognition of the only stable part of Somalia; namely, Somaliland, the former British protectorate, which wants to join the Commonwealth?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right about the challenge to Kenya. We all bear in mind the stories of the hideous kidnappings that have taken place, including the revolting story of the pirates or kidnappers who abducted a disabled lady and refused her drugs until she died. It is a repulsive story. He is absolutely right that there are grievous pressures on Kenya and indeed on all Indian Ocean and African states to do something. Co-operation between states—between Mogadishu and Nairobi in this case—must be a sensible starting point for action. As to the recognition of Somaliland, the problem is that this is not a country recognised by anybody in the international community. It would be a one-off development. We take the view that Somaliland should decide its own relationship with Somalia. We work very closely with it. Its administration is good, in contrast to that of the rest of Somalia, and we support it. However, we do not think that fracturing the area and recognising a single state individually would help matters. It might hinder them.