United Nations: Secretary-General

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

I have the enviable task of being responsible for UN reform, among other things, and it is an area of my work that I find difficult. I am trying to find international consensus in an organisation that is now established as the organisation which responds to international affairs but with member states each putting forward their national interests. It is therefore important that reform is done in a way that makes the United Nations much more effective and efficient. The United Kingdom’s priority is to contain the UN budget, focus less on staff and more on delivery, link funding to results, prioritise countries and mandates, make better use of IT and streamline back-office work.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister perhaps come back to the point of the original Question and address it slightly more specifically? Are we opposed to regional pre-emption before the process even starts? If we are not, should we not be, because is that not what narrows down the gene pool quite undesirably before we have even looked at all the possible candidates?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord, with his expertise, will be aware that the United Kingdom has never formally endorsed the process of regional selection in the appointment of the United Nations Secretary-General. Like many practices, it has developed over time, through non-binding resolutions at the UN, but it is important that member states around the world should feel that the whole world has an opportunity to put forward a potential candidate.

Cyprus

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, being the final Back-Bench speaker in a debate, it is always a little tempting to refer to those who have preceded you. I will try to resist that temptation other than to say to my noble friend Lord Maginnis, whose views I do not entirely share, that as I listened to him launch into his narrative, I closed my eyes and I thought I was back in Rauf Denktas’s office, the former district commissioner’s office in Nicosia, where if you could hear anything above the budgerigars that used to tweet around that office, he would give you that narrative. The only two differences are that his version lasted for 40 minutes—

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

Mine could, too.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

—and that he never laid any claim to objectivity.

It is normally sensible not to speak in debates on Cyprus when there is nothing new to say and it is certainly wise not to count the chickens of a Cyprus settlement before they are hatched. After all, no one has yet lost money betting against a Cyprus settlement. Neither of those considerations seems to apply to this debate, initiated in such a welcome and timely manner by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. What leads me to this relatively positive view is the emergence of a number of new factors, many of which have been mentioned already, affecting what is after all one of the longest lasting and most debilitating international disputes.

The first of those factors is the presence as leader of the Greek Cypriot community and President of Cyprus of Nicos Anastasiades, a man with a proven track record of supporting the compromises needed to achieve a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, and someone who campaigned in favour of acceptance of the Annan plan, even when such support was likely to be damaging to his own political prospects. Since becoming President and despite the distractions of the economic crisis, which nearly overwhelmed Cyprus last year, he has worked steadily to get the settlement negotiations back on track.

Secondly, there is a fundamental shift in the underlying economic arguments in favour of a settlement. In the period from 1996 to 2003, when I was involved in the settlement process, those economic arguments were either ignored or traduced. The Greek Cypriot economy was riding high in the run-up to EU accession. The Turkish Cypriot economy lagged far behind and was stagnant. It was argued, mendaciously, that a settlement would load a huge, fat fiscal burden on to the Greek Cypriot economy. That gap has now narrowed, and the potential advantages for the recovery of the Greek Cypriot economy of a settlement and of free access to the massive Turkish market are more evident and can no longer be discounted.

Thirdly, the discovery of substantial gas deposits in the waters around Cyprus has introduced a new and positive element to the equation. No doubt, I suspect, those energy resources could be developed and commercialised in an autarchic manner by the Greek Cypriots. That remains to be proven, but I think it is unwise to assume that it could not be done. There can surely be little doubt, however, that the benefits to the peoples of Cyprus will be far greater if that development and commercialisation could take place in the framework of a reunited island and with the willing co-operation of Turkey.

Fourthly, there is almost certainly going to be the emergence of Mr Erdogan as the next president of Turkey. That looks more and more like a matter of when and not if. Mr Erdogan did much in the period from 2002 to 2004 to reverse the traditional Turkish policy of supporting Rauf Denktas in blocking a settlement in Cyprus. If he comes to office with a clear, democratic mandate next month, it will surely be fitting and would be advantageous to Turkey—a Turkey which has argued that it needs to have zero problems with its neighbours—if he could use that mandate in support of a negotiated settlement to the Cyprus problem.

Do these four new factors mean that all is set fair for a Cyprus settlement? Of course not. This is, after all, the Cyprus problem, which has defied all attempts at a settlement for 50 years, and where the stars favouring a settlement never seem to be in conjunction. There is, however, enough here, I would suggest, to justify a renewed major effort by the parties in Cyprus, supported by the international community, to reach a settlement. It would be good to hear from the Minister what contribution Britain, which has so many close links with Cyprus and with both its communities, intends to make in support of a search for a negotiated solution.

I will conclude with a few remarks about public opinion and the involvement of Cypriots in a settlement. I have great admiration for Alexandros Lordos, whom the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, mentioned. He has worked tirelessly to try to erode the barriers between the two communities, and the work he does in testing opinion is extremely valuable. The real obstacle, however, is that the leaders of both sides in Cyprus are not preparing and will not for the moment prepare their communities for a settlement which needs to be based on compromise. That was what went on in 2003 and 2004. On the Greek Cypriot side in particular, there had been no preparation of public opinion at all. Public opinion had been fed for the past 35 years on an unadulterated diet of Greek Cypriot maximalist claims. Not surprisingly, it proved impossible to turn them round on a sixpence when the Annan plan was produced. It will be the same again if the leaders cannot bring themselves to prepare their communities for the sort of compromises that will need to be made. I do hope that that process can get under way. Perhaps the noble Baroness could talk a little bit about that too.

Sri Lanka

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

We have encouraged the Sri Lankan Government to co-operate with the UN human rights commissioner’s international investigation, and we have seen some of the statements that have come out of Sri Lanka which suggest that the position is otherwise. However, we believe that the UN’s independent investigation has a strong team. As the noble Lord will be aware, people such as Martti Ahtisaari, Silvia Cartwright and Asma Jahangir—the phenomenal human rights campaigner in Pakistan—have been appointed to this investigating committee. We hope that, despite the Sri Lankan Government’s not co-operating, the committee will produce a good and strong international investigation. As for the recent tensions, of course we are concerned about the actions of Bodu Bala Sena. Our representatives at the British High Commission in Sri Lanka met with the group last year to raise our concerns in relation to the anti-Muslim violence. But they have met also, in relation to other minorities, with the Sri Lankan Government.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Will the Minister, who has just brought the attention of the House to the very high-level names who have been put in charge of this inquiry, agree that our Government should make clear to the Sri Lankan Government that their refusal to deal with this inquiry is not acceptable; that the people who have now been appointed to it are very objective and very experienced people; and that we hope that they will reconsider their position? Is that point being made clear?

[Baroness Warsi]

We will continue to make that point throughout the investigation. It is in Sri Lanka’s interests to co-operate fully. The reason we find ourselves in this position is that the internal investigations did not do what they said they would do. This is an opportunity for Sri Lanka to truly meet its commitment to reconciliation.

European Union: United Kingdom MEPs

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord makes the important point that the European Commission and the President of the Commission have an incredibly important role. That role has most autonomy and has the right of initiative, and the Commission itself plays a quasi-judicial role. It is important for those reasons that whoever leads the Commission is a candidate who commands respect and who understands—this was clear at the last European Parliament elections—that people need a change. All political parties in this House will agree that the process that has been adopted is not one with which any of us here agree.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister perhaps agree that changes in policy should normally be evidence based? If so, could she perhaps list the advantages to either her party or this country of withdrawing from the EPP?

[Baroness Warsi]

This matter has been reiterated on a number of occasions. In my previous job as party chairman, I had many dealings with the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists. I think that the noble Lord will have to accept that there is change across Europe and that there are many more political parties that are aligned with the view that reform is needed, and that reform goes beyond what some of the parties within the EPP think.

Iraq

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, as far as I can see, reactions to recent events in Iraq have tended, both here and across the Atlantic, to be dominated by a combination of short memories and a number of rather self-centred analyses based on unhappy experiences following the 2003 invasion. Yet, neither of those reactions seems particularly helpful for determining an effective response to recent events. In particular, some of what I would describe as unwise and self-serving attempts by those responsible for the policy decisions taken in 2003 to revisit the rights and wrongs of those decisions will frankly not be a helpful guide to future policy. However, nor is an analysis that treats the 2003 invasion as the root of all Iraq’s problems. After all, it was Saddam Hussein who gassed the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. It was his helicopter gunships that slaughtered the Shia in Najaf and Karbala in 1991. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq may have been a secular state but it was also a sectarian one with a minority Sunni elite dominating and repressing the Kurds and Shia.

There has been, too, a lot of loose talk in recent days about the break-up of Iraq. Here I part company a long way from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who wishes to break up Iraq into its various parts. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was also flirting with that idea. Put simply, it is hard to see how that could occur without a great deal of sanguinary fighting over the boundaries of the three states that Iraq might be composed of. It could not be done without substantial ethnic cleansing or the risk of even more war crimes and atrocities than have already taken place. Moreover, an independent Kurdish state could trigger instability and perhaps hostilities in Iran, Turkey and Syria—all of which have substantial Kurdish populations. Then a Shia state, heavily dependent for its survival on Iran, could simply accelerate the drift towards a Shia/Sunni confrontation right across the Middle East. A Sunni state, land-locked, with no natural resources and probably dominated by ISIS, would be a security nightmare within the region and far beyond. I suggest that the splitting up of Iraq is a worst-case scenario not a prescription for policy.

What then is the right response? Clearly, the sine qua non of restoring any sort of security and stability to Iraq is the formation of an inclusive Government that brings in elements of all three main communities on the basis of the democratic elections that took place in April. I welcome very much the Minister’s description of how important it is not to move away from that democratic legitimacy. It is encouraging that that is roughly what was said by the spiritual leader of the Shia community, Ayatollah Sistani, who has so often been a wise voice of moderation. He seems to be calling for such an inclusive approach. It is neither necessary nor, I suggest, desirable for outsiders to tell Iraqis who should lead that Government, or even who should not lead it. If the establishment of democratic processes, which was one of the few truly positive outcomes of the 2003 invasion, means anything it must mean that such choices are for the Iraqis.

What can outsiders do? The cautious but positive response given by President Obama to the Iraqi Government’s plea for help—the dispatch of a limited number of military advisers and the prospect of targeted air strikes—seems, I suggest, the right response. I very much hope that we, too, will respond positively if we are asked to help by the Iraqis or if the Americans indicate that they would welcome more help. The security threats from a fragmented Iraq were spelt out by the Prime Minister. I find it ironic that most of those who spoke on the other side of the argument about Syria said last year that keeping out of Syria would safeguard us from any possible blowback from jihadi extremists. Now we are seeing just how much good keeping out of Syria has done us.

If we and the US want our views about the need for the formation of an inclusive Iraqi Government to be taken seriously, surely we have to be ready to support such a Government. Are we and should we be doing anything to muster wider international support for Iraq in its hour of need? It should surely be possible to get the UN Security Council to reaffirm Iraq’s territorial integrity and single sovereignty and to call for international backing for that and for humanitarian relief efforts. This is surely a case where the responsibility to protect the civilians of Iraq, which their own Government are not well placed to do at the moment, should not be as contentious as it has been in other areas.

Is any thought being given to a Security Council approach? What is being done to rally support for Iraq more widely? I very much welcome what the Minister said about the European Union’s contribution to that. Iran is clearly an important player in all these matters. President Rouhani’s reaction to the events has had some positive features, but there are risks that Iranian military involvement could end up exacerbating the sectarian divisions and dimension to the fighting and make the formation of an inclusive Iraqi Government more difficult. What use are the Government planning to make of the welcome newly established channel of communication with Iran following our decision to reopen the embassy there? Are they consulting the Iranian Government directly on their views?

There are, alas, no particularly good or easy policy choices at the present juncture, but inaction is a choice too. There I very much join the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who pointed that out. I believe that inaction or the mere offering of gratuitous advice from a safe distance is not a particularly good option or one that is likely to have much effect.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the silver lining in last month’s otherwise pretty disastrous European Parliament election results may have been well concealed at the time but there is a real opportunity, none the less, as was shown by the leaders of the European Council at their dinner on 27 May, to shift the debate on to a new positive reform agenda and away from the obstructive and disruptive prescriptions of the populist parties whose support has increased so sharply. Will that opportunity be taken, or will it be frittered away among demands for repatriation and renegotiation for more red lines and more British exceptionalism? Will Britain give a lead in shaping a new reform agenda whose aim would be to benefit all member states? That, surely, is the challenge that faces the coalition Government, and indeed all three main parties, as they prepare for next year’s general election. That was what they should have done but, with one exception, did not do in the campaign that preceded the European Parliament elections.

Here are some suggestions for what might be included in such a positive reform agenda. First, an important component will necessarily be policies to encourage sustainable economic growth, particularly in the countries of the eurozone where it is lagging most, and thus to get to grips with the blight of youth unemployment. The lead obviously will be taken by the eurozone member states and the European Central Bank, but we should be in no doubt that it is in our interest that they succeed and we should give them full support and encouragement. Moreover, we stand to gain considerably from the implementation of the structural reform programmes which are a necessary part of that process.

Secondly, the completion of the single market in services and in energy needs to be given a shot in the arm, and a level playing field for the expansion of the digital service industry needs to be created. So far, there has been an awful lot of talk about the digital issues and precious little action. Would it not make sense for the new Commission to publish a White Paper of the same sort that Lord Cockfield, former Member of this House, produced in 1985 on the single market setting out precisely what needed to be done to achieve that level playing field? The European Council could then endorse and implement it.

Thirdly, it is surely essential to make a living reality of the treaty principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in EU law-making and strengthen the role of national parliaments in that process. Your Lordships’ Select Committee gave the Government, some two months ago, a broad menu of measures that would, without treaty change or undue delay, make substantial progress towards those objectives. When will the Government respond to those ideas? What action will they take to implement them? It is within the framework of a positive reform agenda of that sort that we can most effectively also address some of the principal irritants in our relationship with the EU—issues such as the working time directive and the whole range of matters bound up with welfare benefits for migrant workers. We can hope to find solutions to those in the overall context and interest of the EU, not just of one member state.

That domestic reform agenda needs an external component, too. Here, too, I offer three suggestions. First, the eastern challenge represented by the seizure of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine is one we cannot afford to duck. I very much welcome the robust way the Government have handled that so far. Russia’s actions have risked driving a coach and horses through the whole post-Cold War settlement of Europe. We need to help Ukraine consolidate a thoroughly reformed political and economic structure. We need to deter Russia from further meddling in that process by showing credibly how costly that would be for it. We need to diversify our energy security and reduce our collective dependence on Russian gas supplies to a level that would mean we could sustain any politically motivated interruption longer than it could.

Secondly, we should recognise that we have a fight on our hands if we are to realise the major benefits that would accrue from a successful completion of the transatlantic trade and investment negotiations and from freer trade with Japan and India—whose new Government surely offer a real opportunity to revive the negotiations that have so far been languishing. The recent European elections strengthened protectionist pressures, as has the backing and filling in the US Congress. There is a need for a major advocacy campaign in favour of these trade initiatives, as has been proposed by your Lordships’ EU Committee in its recent report.

Thirdly, we must not turn our backs on further enlargement. Progress with Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo and Macedonia is a crucial element in stabilising that fragile region and consolidating the gains of recent years.

These EU priorities are pressing. There is not a great deal of dispute about them. What I said bears a striking resemblance to what came out of the meeting in Sweden last night. What is lacking so far is a real will to move forward on that agenda. I hope the Government will do that when the European Council meets later this month. I hope that we can lift up our eyes from an obsession with issues of personalities, which undermines our ability to push this agenda forward.

European Commission: President

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an incredibly important point. That is why the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that he wants the right person in the role of Commission President. It is very important that the British people have confidence that the next President will deliver change in the European Union.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the right order of priorities is for the European Council to focus on what it wants the next Commission to do as a first stage, and only then move on to deciding who might best carry that out? I congratulate the Government on picking up that point two weeks after having got the stick by the wrong end.

[Baroness Warsi]

I take it that there was a compliment for the Government in that, and I shall take it.

BBC World Service

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that, after listening to her first and subsequent replies, one might say that the Government are flying on a wing and a prayer in this matter? Does she not recognise that it is high time that there was a structured solution to the future funding of the World Service within the BBC and not just one that relies on the vague network of bureaucratic lines that she mentioned?

[Baroness Warsi]

The sense was that long-term financial stability will come from licence fee funding as opposed to the way in which the BBC World Service has been funded in the past. Indeed, the BBC World Service is in contact with DCMS to consider how alternative forms of funding could come on tap in due course.

Ukraine

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, no doubt there is previous history in a very similar matter. We can draw parallels between Russia’s intentions in what is happening now with what happened not so long ago in relation to Georgia. That is something that we are acutely aware of. Only last week we were talking about sanctions with regard to Ukrainian politicians and now here we are talking about sanctions of a completely different kind. That just shows how quickly the situation is moving on the ground. We have already seen some of the consequences of sanctions and economic costs in what is being felt within Russia in relation to both its currency and its stock exchange. As to what is now happening and the consequences of Russia’s actions, it is important that we keep up that pressure. I do not think that a military option is on the table—the noble Lord opposite was kind enough to refer to that—and therefore I do not draw any parallels in relation to defence expenditure.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister accepts my warm support for the careful enumeration at the beginning of the Statement of the international obligations and breaches of international law that have taken place. That is absolutely vital. Since it is quite clear from the Statement that Russia has not fulfilled its obligations as a member of either the Council of Europe or the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, will the future position of Russia in those organisations be one of the areas under consideration? Would she also accept my very strong agreement with her that there is absolutely no parallel with the peaceful separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia? Many years before, of course Czechoslovakia had been the object of something that much more closely resembles what Mr Putin has been doing in the Crimea.

[Baroness Warsi]

I add my support to what the noble Lord has said, and I thank him for his warm words. I agree with him that Russia’s membership of organisations has to be because Russia agrees with the values of those organisations regarding democracy and human rights. When it clearly appears to be violating the very values that it seeks to espouse in those organisations, then of course they have to consider whether such membership is appropriate. However, these are all matters that will be discussed and will be part of the package of options available to the international community. I return to what the intention is: it must be to de-escalate the situation and do whatever is needed to get to that stage.

Syria and the Middle East

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, when contemplating the recent course of events in the Middle East: Syria’s seemingly unending agony, Egypt slipping back into a military-dominated regime, and Libya struggling to cope with post-Gaddafi chaos, it is far too easy to succumb to pessimism and to allow it to persuade us—and perhaps even to justify—the merits of detachment and inaction. One can hear from time to time in this country when discussing this region the mutterings of little Englanders who say, “Let’s just leave them to get on with it”.

I say that that is easy, but it is quite misguided, even in terms of a narrow definition of our national interest, let alone of the stake we have, as a permanent member of the Security Council and, as with the rest of Europe, as a close neighbour of the Middle East, in that region’s future stability, security and prosperity. After all, for the foreseeable future we will depend on that region for a substantial part of our energy security. It is the origin of a large proportion of the illegal immigrants flooding into Europe, and it represents an all too present threat to us of a new wave of terrorism. All that is without counting the risk of a new regional conflict if the Iranian nuclear problem cannot be resolved by peaceful diplomatic means. Therefore, detachment and inaction would simply be against our national interest, however unappealing and challenging engagement might seem to be.

Engagement need not—and it should not—be seen as favouring military intervention. Here are four elements of such a policy of engagement which do not involve military engagement, to which I would welcome a response from the Minister when she replies to the debate.

Expectations of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva last month were, mercifully, low, so we can afford to salute the persistence and ingenuity of the UN’s mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi, to whom other noble Lords have referred, without appearing to be totally Panglossian. Brahimi has, so far, kept in his hands the slender thread—a very slender thread now—of a process that could lead to a transition to a post-Assad Syria. He has managed to bring some modest relief to the beleaguered citizens of Homs, but he needs help and much wider and stronger strategic international backing if he is to move beyond that. I agree with others who have said that the short-term priority should be to bring humanitarian relief to the citizens of many other places—to Aleppo and parts of Damascus, in particular—who are being starved into submission and bombarded with weapons whose use in crowded, inhabited areas must surely constitute a war crime.

Last week’s unanimous Security Council resolution was, of course, very welcome, although the fact that it is not mandatory must leave us with a little scepticism about how much humanitarian relief will actually get through. I would be grateful if the Minister would say what we are going to do to press the regime in particular, but also, of course, the other combatants, to let humanitarian relief through. Should we not be thinking of ways to increase the pressure on the regime if it does, indeed, block the application of that resolution? Is any thought at all being given, for example, to suspending Syria from its membership of the United Nations General Assembly, a course that was taken with South Africa and with Serbia in the past and which did a great deal to sober those regimes up and bring home to them that they were at real reputational risk, to put it mildly.

Secondly, I shall say a word about the oft-derided Middle East peace process. Perhaps because the spotlight is no longer on the principal participants in that process, the talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, to which the US Secretary of State is so laudably devoting a high priority, seem marginally less hopeless than they have often appeared in the past. Perhaps it is finally dawning on the two sets of protagonists that they can no longer count on the unquestioning support of their external backers. The fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been criticised for even contemplating the possibility that some Israeli settlers might find themselves living in a Palestinian state is surely a welcome first and a sign that some new thinking may be starting to percolate.

Are the Government encouraging the United States to put some proposals or ideas for a comprehensive settlement on the table? Surely, experience tells us that it is hard to believe that without that, any decisive progress will ever be made. It is not the two parties that are going to put proposals on the table who will break the deadlock. What thought is being given to the contribution that the European Union might make to any such settlement? Would it not also be valuable if something was said in public, including about the contribution the EU might make, and also about the sort of relationship that a post-settlement Israel could hope to have with the European Union, a relationship which is obviously extraordinarily important to Israel in the longer term?

Negotiations with Iran, to which several noble Lords have referred, for a comprehensive successor to the interim nuclear agreement reached last November are just getting under way. Can the Minister say anything about the objectives that the Government, together with their partners in the 5+1 process, will be pursuing in those negotiations? What would we, and they, be prepared to put on the table in response to an Iran that could satisfy the international community durably and verifiably as to the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme? That is, what would the end state from our side of that negotiation look like if the Iranians came to the end state that they would want to see on their side? What, too, are we doing to set out the case to those in the US Congress who are contemplating action that could shipwreck the whole process? What action are we taking to bring home to them our hope that they will stay their hand and give diplomacy a chance? We should, after all, be under no illusions. If diplomacy fails with Iran, the risk of a conflict that could draw in other regional players and those outside the region would be real, and the possible consequences of that are likely to be seriously damaging for all concerned, ourselves included.

It is obviously difficult to plot a direction of travel for our policy in the Middle East, which will clearly be prey to insecurity and instability for years and possibly decades to come. But the setbacks that have followed the Arab awakening should not, I suggest, divert us from pursuing the broad objectives of helping all the countries in the region to move towards pluralist democracy, sound market-based economies, the rule of law and respect for human rights and for religious and ethnic minorities. The route that each country takes may well involve more zig-zags than straight lines, as is the case in Egypt. We should not be too prescriptive in our responses. What we should do is to respond with firm support for those such as Tunisia, which seem to be making real progress along that path. Is that how the Government see things?

I am sure that I have overlooked much—Bahrain, Yemen, Sunni-Shia tensions and more besides—but I hope that the main message that the Government will give is that Britain is not about to turn its back on a region that needs to remain a key focus of our foreign policy.