Relations between Sudan and South Sudan

Mark Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I would like to update the House on developments in the relationship between Sudan and South Sudan, and what action the UK took to support the negotiations between the two countries that led to the signing of nine agreements in Addis Ababa on 27 September.

The African Union has been facilitating discussion of a number of important issues that were unresolved at the date of South Sudan’s secession in July 2011. A breakdown in talks at the start of this year was followed by shutdown of oil production in South Sudan and an increase in tensions and military actions by both countries across their shared border. This put a great strain on the already struggling economies of both countries.

In response to the worsening situation, the Peace and Security Council of the African Union set out a road map for resumed talks towards a comprehensive agreement. This agreement was endorsed by the UN Security Council in its resolution 2046. Five months of intensive dialogue within the framework of the road map, and UNSCR 2046, led to a four-day presidential summit between the two countries in late September, and the signing of an overarching presidential agreement on co-operation, and eight detailed agreements between the two countries on 27 September.

Negotiations have been facilitated throughout by the African Union high-level implementation panel led by former President Thabo Mbeki. The UK has provided funding for the work of the panel and for the negotiating teams. We have seconded staff to offer expert advice on security and other issues, and deployed diplomatic support to implementation of the road map. The UK special representative for Sudan and South Sudan and other officials have been involved at key stages of the negotiations.

The agreements signed in Addis Ababa are a significant step forward. In particular, they open the way for the establishment of a safe demilitarized border zone and deployment of a joint border verification and monitoring mechanism with international involvement, as a means of avoiding military confrontation at the border and attempting to prevent cross-border assistance to rebel groups in either country. The agreements also allow significant improvements in practical co-operation, including on cross-border trade, the rights of citizens, and on the payments for transit of oil. These measures should help alleviate the economic difficulties both countries have faced in recent months.

There are, however, still significant elements of a comprehensive agreement that are outstanding. We regret that no agreement was reached on the final status of Abyei, despite President Mbeki’s presentation of a comprehensive proposal on the subject, and final demarcation of the international border remains subject to Sudan and South Sudan settling a number of disputes and claims. We have urged both countries to press on immediately with negotiation on these remaining issues, in the spirit of compromise that brought the latest round of talks to a successful conclusion.

We are deeply worried by the lack of progress in the parallel talks between the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement—North (SPLM-N) to end the conflicts in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, which also form part of the African Union’s road map and UN Security Council resolution 2046. Both sides appear to be set on a military solution that is having a serious humanitarian impact on civilians in both states. The indiscriminate military tactics employed by the Sudanese armed forces are a cause of particular concern. As of the end of September, the UN Office for the Co-ordination for Humanitarian Affairs estimated that 212,000 refugees had fled to neighbouring countries as a result of the fighting and humanitarian situation.

Both parties in the conflict agreed a proposal put forward by the African Union, the United Nations and the League of Arab States for full independent humanitarian access. However, no substantive progress has been made implementing these agreements since they were signed. We continue to press the Government of Sudan in particular to allow impartial delivery of aid to areas held by the SPLM-N.

Ultimately a permanent cessation of hostilities in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile must be agreed, and a political process established to address the causes of the conflict. Wider national reform will be necessary to address these conflicts and others in Sudan’s periphery as well as the aspirations of all Sudanese people. The UK will continue to press the Government of Sudan and the SPLM-N to recognise that there is no military solution to their disputes, and that they must agree a cessation of hostilities and enter into negotiations. We will work closely with the African Union, the Arab League, President Mbeki’s high-level implementation panel and through the UN Security Council to this end.

EU-UK Relationship (Reform)

Mark Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I am delighted to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Hollobone. I am sorry that the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), could not be present this morning. He very much wanted to participate in this important debate, but I was enthused to understand that I would be responding within my first 10 days in my new ministerial role.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing the debate and on the articulate, intelligent and comprehensive way in which she introduced it. I thank all colleagues who have participated, many of whom fall into the category of what I call distinguished and principled colleagues. In the time available, I am afraid that I will not be able to answer all the specific questions.

I also want to put on the record the Government’s thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire, for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who deserve enormous credit for the valuable, significant and serious work of the Fresh Start group. I hope that my hon. Friends and others will continue to engage with such a vital issue, in particular as we analyse the balance of competences in a process that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced just before the summer recess and about which I intend to say more later.

[Mr Cash]

One fundamental competence that I hope my hon. Friend agrees needs to be reviewed is whether the British people are able to govern themselves by their own consent in general elections. Does he not agree that that is the most fundamental democratic question that needs to be addressed on the European issue?

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will not answer that question directly this morning. I urge him and others, however, to engage positively and constructively with the forensic analysis of the balance of competences, which will feed into a national debate about the relationship that we should have with the European Union.

I want to be up front in ensuring that all hon. Members understand that the Government have been absolutely clear that there should be no further transfer of competence or powers from the UK to the EU over the course of the Parliament. That is in stark contrast with the Labour Government’s record. They were clearly wrong to sign the Lisbon treaty without consulting British voters in any way. They were quite wrong to give away £7 billion of our rebate and to get nothing in return, and they were quite wrong to drop out of our opt-out from the social chapter, which means that employment laws are decided in Brussels, not here.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does that not illustrate the folly of the comments by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds)? She said that Britain is more isolated by taking a stance. We gave away all that money, and what did we get for it?

[Mark Simmonds]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister’s veto back in December played a significant role in ensuring that he and the Government are always seen to be protecting the UK’s national interest. That is absolutely right. The comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on this matter are confusing, particularly in view of her unwillingness to rule out British membership of the euro, which the Government have done.

[Chris Bryant]

If we are talking about things that will happen in the future, I would be delighted to know when the Government expect to have a resolution of the next financial perspective. The advice of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire is to have a shopping list for the next couple of years, but a shopping list normally involves some spending, and I wonder whether, to secure some of the things she wants, the Government will abandon the rebate in that perspective discussion.

[Mark Simmonds]

It is clear that the UK’s agenda and priorities—I hope to come to them in a moment—are about driving global competitiveness and economic growth to alleviate some of the problems that are prevalent in the eurozone. That includes further trading with the eurozone and—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is no longer in his place, made this key point—not just with the eurozone, but further afield. This debate is extremely timely, and provides an early opportunity to discuss the issues. It is clear that events in the eurozone will have wide-ranging implications, and its ultimate shape is unknown and uncertain. The Prime Minister made it clear on the Floor of the House in June that as Europe changes to meet the current challenges, our relationship with it may also change. It is vital for Britain’s national interest, and for the European Union’s strength and prosperity, that we meet those challenges.

The coalition agreement that was set out at the beginning of this Parliament stated that the UK should be a positive participant in the European Union, working with our partners to ensure that all European nations are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century, by far the most important of which is global competitiveness. I am the first to acknowledge that there is still much more to do to restore growth, both inside and outside the eurozone. The Government remain vigorously committed to developing the European single market, to smarter and less costly EU regulation, and to more free trade between Europe and the rest of the world. We need a Europe that delivers prosperity, job and wealth creation, and security, and a Europe that is more outward-looking, more dynamic and more competitive on the global stage.

[Emma Reynolds]

Would the Government not have more authority and influence when talking about growth in other European countries if we had growth here in the UK?

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. It is vital in a globalising world to remain on the competitive side of the line. The reforms that this Government have put in place since the May 2010 election will make a significant contribution to that. They include making our tax system the most competitive in the G20, making the UK the best place in Europe to start, to finance and to develop a business, encouraging investment and exports as a route to balancing the economy after the shambolic economic mess that the Labour Government left to the coalition Government, and creating a more educated work force. Over time, those changes will deliver economic growth.

Aligned with that, the single market is a significant driving force for prosperity. That is why we will continue with an ambitious programme of deepening the single market while seeking to reduce unnecessary burdens. The single market supports UK jobs, prosperity and growth through increased trade and, vitally, helps the UK to attract inward investment from inside and outside Europe. We want the single market to continue to encourage competition and innovation throughout Europe, to help to increase productivity in the UK, and to bring down prices for consumers so that UK businesses can benefit from a single regulatory regime, simplifying regulation, liberalising services and developing a single digital market that will bring benefits to the UK.

Our national interests, our influence and our values are all advanced internationally through the co-operation of states. However, as many hon. Members have rightly said, there is no doubt that the EU requires reform, and we certainly do not agree with everything the EU does. It is absolutely clear that reform is required now more than ever. In our view, the UK should champion growth and the single market, and take the opportunity to shape Britain’s relationship with Europe in a way that advances our national interest in free trade, open markets and co-operation.

We have led the debate on reducing the burden of EU regulation on business, and securing agreement on a breakthrough step to exempt micro-businesses from new EU proposals, but clearly more needs to be done. We have secured agreement on a unitary patent after 23 years of EU negotiation. Amid all that change, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced an analysis of the balance of competences between member states and the EU. That vital review will be an audit of what the EU does and how it affects us in the United Kingdom. It will look at where competences lie, how they are used, whether exclusive, shared or supporting, and what is important for our national interest. The process will begin in the autumn, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to participate.

[Mr Bone]

Can my hon. Friend answer the question that our hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) posed earlier? He and I delivered a letter to No. 10 Downing street with more than 100 signatures from Conservative Members requesting legislation in this Parliament for a referendum in the next Parliament on the balance of competences

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I confirm that the Prime Minister met my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on 9 July to discuss the contents of the letter, and I understand that a formal reply will be sent to him shortly.

We have pressed for an open trading agenda that presents real opportunities and allows us to benefit from investment in the UK. Our commitment to free trade is why the UK is still the leading destination for foreign investment into Europe.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Simmonds]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me. I am coming to a conclusion, but I will be happy to discuss with him afterwards the point he wants to make. I am running out of time, and I want to make a couple of key points.

The UK has been leading the way in trying to facilitate free trade negotiations and agreements, and it has done so successfully with South Korea. It is leading the drive for such agreements with Japan, Singapore, the USA and Canada.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred to the Barroso speech. I confirm that we are looking closely at its contents. We agree with some of the President’s analysis of the EU’s financial problems, such as the unsustainable levels of debt, the lack of competitiveness and some irresponsible behaviour in financial institutions, but the direction of travel is not always one that the UK wishes to take.

In conclusion, the immediate priority must be to restore market confidence, to drive growth, to negotiate more trade agreements, to open up new markets, and to create wealth and jobs through competitiveness, innovation and liberalisation.

Protecting the Antarctic

Mark Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner, for my first Westminster Hall debate as a Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), first, on securing the debate; secondly, on doing such detailed and through research into the subject, and, thirdly, on the lucid, articulate and knowledgeable way in which he introduced it. He detailed the important history of the Antarctic, his constituency links to it and his visit to Cambridge. I am delighted that my first Westminster Hall debate as a Minister is on this key environmental and important part of the globe.

The debate is extremely timely. The Antarctic and the environment should never be far from our thoughts, particularly because it is the world’s fifth largest continent—nearly twice the size of Australia. The debate is timely because of the centenary of Captain Scott’s expedition and the coming celebrations of Ernest Shackleton’s famous exploits on the Endurance.

Even though I have been in this office for only a short period, I am aware that the UK has the oldest sovereign claim, stretching back to 1908, to any part of Antarctica, and that we have maintained a strong and permanent presence there since 1943. I want to make sure that everyone is aware that, as a nation, we should be proud of the continuing British presence in the region provided by the skilled and dedicated men and women of the British Antarctic Survey and of the Royal Navy’s ice patrol ship HMS Protector.

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he was seeking: the commitment to supporting the current level of UK activity in the region, particularly scientific research and tangential matters, will not change. I want to place it clearly on the record that the UK is firmly committed to upholding the Antarctic treaty system, and we take our responsibilities towards the proper governance and environmental protection of the British Antarctic territory extremely seriously. However, we are not complacent, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be interested and pleased to hear. We need to look consistently at what more we must do to protect and promote the future of the continent.

I want to acknowledge and reinforce the references that my hon. Friend made to the positive British influence in the Antarctic treaty system. It is fair to say that it would be hard to find an international treaty that has been more powerful, influential and successful in preventing unnecessary conflict and exploitation. As he rightly pointed out, the environmental provisions of that treaty were brought into domestic law by the Antarctic Act 1994, but it is right that we continue to review the importance and the workings of the legislative architecture surrounding Antarctica.

That is why we are particularly delighted that my hon. Friend has introduced his Bill. The UK is already committed, absolutely rightly, to implementing such provisions and related ones into domestic law. I am confident that, subject of course to the will of the House, the provisions set out in the first part of the Bill offer a targeted, proportionate and reasonable way to implement our international obligations. They will ensure that those organising Antarctic expeditions and other tours take preventive measures and establish contingency plans to reduce the risk of environmental emergencies, and that they secure insurance and other financial security for response action in the event of such an emergency. A good example of that might well be in relation to oil leakage from a ship or other vessel. There is every opportunity to make a practical difference to protecting the Antarctic environment and its wildlife, as well as to enhancing Britain’s international leadership and strategic interests, which are also important.

I want to be clear that there is no risk that the UK will be disadvantaged by early adoption of the proposals in the Bill. The liability provisions will not come into force until all the international parties to the Antarctic treaty have adopted them. By acting now and leading the way on this useful protection, we will be at the forefront in regard to influence and we will thereby strengthen our leadership role, without tying our hands by adopting rules that other countries do not.

The second part of my hon. Friend’s Bill details a range of changes to existing Antarctic legislation. The changes aim, first, to recognise and respond to the increasingly international flavour and co-operative nature of scientific activity; secondly, to provide better protection of historic sites and monuments, and thirdly, to ensure that the lists of protected species—fauna and flora—are up to date to reflect the likely pressures presented by global temperature changes.

Taking all those elements together, the Bill demonstrates in a practical way—with the Government’s support—the UK’s commitment to upholding the Antarctic treaty system and to having comprehensive environmental protection of Antarctica. The Government therefore stand ready to support the passage of the Bill through the House. The Bill will ensure that our domestic legislation is among the most comprehensive in the world, which is good both for the Antarctic environment and for the many people, British and others, who visit the continent and do scientific research there.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) made an important point about potential resource exploitation. I want to confirm that the UK is a key player in and is committed to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, which is the framework that regulates fishing in the Southern ocean. The architecture takes a very conservation- based approach and, thanks to a UK proposal, there is already a large marine protected area in the Southern ocean. We are working with other members of that organisation to promote further areas, and I hope that such protection will be put in place in the future.

I want to confirm, as this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), that, absolutely without question, the Government agree about the importance of peaceful human activities in support of peace and science. Tourism and fishing are very strictly regulated, and hydrocarbon extraction is prohibited under the Antarctic treaty. Given the fragile environment—a key point made by other hon. Members—we fully support the continuation of this indefinite prohibition.

[Mr Gray]

It is of course very important that hydrocarbon extraction could be prevented in the Antarctic. However, it does occur in the south Atlantic, and it is terribly important that the strongest possible environmental controls should be applied to oil exploration off the Falklands and down towards Antarctica to prevent oil spills and so on from affecting that continent.

[Mark Simmonds]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is one of the main focuses of the first part of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, which will be debated on the Floor of the House later this year. It is absolutely essential that we maintain the prohibition within the Antarctic treaty area.

To conclude, Antarctica is vast, but it is vulnerable, as we have heard. The UK has a long and proud history of active, positive engagement and leadership in protecting Antarctica for the good of all, and we are keen to maintain the UK as a leading force. Now is exactly the right time to renew and refocus our efforts to protect this sensitive region to ensure that it remains a place of peace and co-operation into the next generation and beyond.

I am extremely happy to meet my hon. Friend, and other Members if they are so interested, to discuss the detail of the Bill to make sure that we get it exactly right. I look forward to debating its finer points later this year. I very much hope that, with co-operation, the Bill will receive an expeditious passage through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Olympic Truce

Mark Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I wish to inform the House about the Government’s work on responding to the UN General Assembly’s resolution on the Olympic truce of October 2011.

It was a real honour for the UK to have the responsibility to promote the Olympic truce message. We worked closely on delivering an international response to the Olympic truce, working with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic games, the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Culture Media and Sport.

On 17 October 2011, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office secured unanimous co-sponsorship, by all 193 United Nations member states, for a UN General Assembly resolution on the Olympic truce entitled “Building a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal”. Since then we have taken the conflict prevention and peace ideals of the UN resolution internationally as part of our diplomatic work to build stability overseas.

The UN resolution calls upon UN member states to undertake concrete actions at local, national, and international levels to promote and strengthen a culture of peace. The unanimous co-sponsorship of the resolution afforded an important foundation for the UK to work in partnership with a broad range of international actors that included Governments, parliamentarians, national Olympic committees, the UN and civil society, including faith groups and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

We wanted to show that the UN resolution could be translated into international action. Our diplomatic missions across our network and the FCO in London arranged over 70 events and activities which showed how important the contribution of youth, women and those with disabilities is in promoting peace through sport, culture, education and wider public engagement. While activities took place in every continent, we specifically wanted to bring the Olympic truce to life in conflict affected and fragile countries.

For example, in Sri Lanka we hosted a Paralympic-style sports day for disabled soldiers, disabled ex-Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (ex-LTTE) combatants and disabled civilians. Sport demonstrated its mediating influence, bringing together former adversaries to understand each others’ perspectives, embracing diversity and encouraging inclusivity. In Khartoum we brought together young people from different communities in Sudan and South Sudan, specifically refugees and residents from Darfur met to play in a football tournament, which supported ongoing work to create a youth football league. In Mindanao, in the Philippines, we co-hosted with the Zamboanga City Government and Zamboanga Football Association “Time out for football”, a football tournament and clinic bringing people together from a diverse range of communities, bridging gaps between Christians and Muslims. In Armenia, Pakistan and Trinidad and Tobago, children portrayed what the Olympic truce means to them through art.

As the Foreign Secretary said when speaking at the international Paralympic inclusion summit on 6 September,

“We wanted to create a legacy that would last a lifetime. On top of the Government’s financial and political commitment to conflict prevention and poverty reduction, we decided to mobilise the ideals of the Olympic truce”.

The UK is the first games host to deliver this level of international ambition for the Olympic truce. The UN Secretary-General, in the presence of the International Olympic Committee, recognised the UK’s Olympic truce work on the eve of the opening ceremony of the London 2012 games. Now others are seeking to build on our experience. We are currently sharing our experience with the UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser’s Office on sport and development for peace, as well as with Russia, which will next take stewardship of the Olympic truce in 2013, ahead of the Sochi winter games in 2014. This level of international interest, paired with our continued engagement, will help cement our legacy of encouraging future games hosts to promote the ideals of the Olympic truce in their own ways.

Zimbabwe

Mark Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

Following discussions between the UK and its EU partners, the EU announced on 23 July its decision to suspend with immediate effect the restrictions on appropriate measures covering EU development assistance and indicated that it would respond to a peaceful and credible constitutional referendum in Zimbabwe with a suspension of the majority of EU restrictive measures on all but a small core of individuals around President Mugabe, particularly those who will most directly influence the potential of violence in the next election.

This followed the EU announcement in February 2012, where 51 people and 20 companies were removed from the list of those subject to an EU visa ban and asset freeze on the grounds that they were no longer involved in human rights abuses and in recognition of progress made so far in Zimbabwe and regionally in preparation for credible and peaceful elections in Zimbabwe. In February 2011, thirty-five people were removed from the list following significant progress in addressing the economic crisis in Zimbabwe and improving the delivery of social services.

There has been further progress in the last six months in Zimbabwe, including on the drafting of a new constitution; legislative progress such as the Electoral Amendment Bill and Human Rights Commission Bill being passed; and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) under the leadership of President Zuma reiterating their commitment to facilitate agreement among the parties in Zimbabwe on creating an environment conducive to the holding of free and fair elections. There have been continuing calls for the EU’s restrictive measures to be suspended in order to further support the reform process including from all parties to the inclusive Government, SADC and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Our aim is clear; we want to support the process towards free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. A peaceful and credible constitutional referendum would represent an important step along that path and it is right that the EU responds appropriately. The proposed move is not an endorsement of the content of the draft constitution itself but will demonstrate to reformers across the political spectrum that the EU is serious about responding to real progress on the ground and reflects our confidence in the facilitation process being undertaken by President Zuma and the leaders of SADC.

It also puts the onus on Zimbabwe to live up to their commitments. The constitution making process has been and continues to be, much delayed and the way forward is uncertain. The international community is monitoring developments closely. We will ensure there is a robust review process following any EU move on measures and that the EU has the ability to respond appropriately should the situation deteriorate.

Britain remains a committed friend to the people of Zimbabwe. UK aid to Zimbabwe in the 2011-12 financial year was £89 million—our largest ever programme. The funds are being delivered through multilateral partners and civil society partners and the EU decision on appropriate measures has no impact on the UK aid programme. Between 2011 and 2015 UK aid to Zimbabwe will provide almost 1 million more people with clean water, give more than 700,000 women access to family planning, create 125,000 new jobs and help 80,000 children complete primary education.