Palestine and Israel

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the short time available to me I want to give my support to the motion for two main reasons. First, three years ago at the United Nations, the then Foreign Secretary said that Palestine met the conditions and was ready for statehood. How long do they have to wait? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, against the backdrop of recurring violence, regular incursions into Gaza and settlement-building activity, we urgently need to find new ways forward, and I believe that recognition can and should be a part of that new process.

The Palestinians have waited a very long time for this debate, but the developing international consensus is that Palestine is ready for recognition. One hundred and thirty four countries have now recognised it diplomatically, including some members of the European Union, and the new Swedish Government made Sweden the 135th at the beginning of October. UN observer status was granted in 2011 by 138 votes to nine. There were 41 abstentions, including by the United Kingdom, but France, Italy and Spain all voted yes. Contrary to what the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Union have all separately reported that the institutions in Palestine are appropriate for the formation of a state.

The then Foreign Secretary elaborated the Government policy, saying that the decision on recognition should be

“at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help to bring about peace”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 290.]

There are many reasons why the timing is now right. Recognition would give a very clear signal about the illegality of occupation. We have talked incessantly about settlement building. There are 550,000 settlers in Palestinian territory, and recent announcements suggest that that figure will increase rapidly, so now is the time.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

If we believe in internationalism and self-determination, is it not wholly unacceptable, unjust and illogical not to allow the Palestinians to have a state?

[Mr Love]

I shall come on to that, but the short answer is yes.

On settlements, we must take action now to ensure that the building activity that so undermines the whole peace process is brought to an end. I believe that recognition will be a symbolic gesture towards that.

Recognition addresses real fears about the fact that the window of opportunity for a two-state solution is narrowing rapidly. Many now openly question whether it has any current validity, but recognising Palestine—a second state—would help to ensure such a solution. Recognition would help to highlight the root causes of the conflict and address the cycle of violence that has ravaged Gaza three times in recent years. It would strengthen rather than, as has been suggested in the House, weaken the voices of moderation and compromise on, I hope, not only the Palestinian side but on both sides. It will help to avoid the dangers of adopting a one-state solution, which would be a disastrous conclusion to the negotiating process. Declaring that Palestine is the second state would undermine a one-state solution.

People have suggested that even if recognition were accepted, the Palestinian Authority would engage in some form of unilateralism. The reality is that the PLO is in no doubt—it has stated this publicly—that the occupation can end only through a negotiated settlement. We need to reaffirm that this evening.

The motion has the great merit of acknowledging that statehood is solely a bilateral issue for the United Kingdom and Palestine. Recognition should not be part of a negotiated settlement. Israel would never have accepted that some other country had a veto over its statehood, and we should not accept such a veto in the case of Palestine.

What would be the consequences of rejecting the motion? It would send a signal that we do not think it is a priority to recognise the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to self-determination. We would underplay the need for a viable sovereign Palestinian state, which our Foreign Secretary has said is in place. We would accept an extension of the Israeli military occupation, which is now in its 48th year, and enshrine it further into the future.

We should vote in favour of recognition because it will strengthen the belief of the Palestinians in diplomacy and democratic debate, which will go a long way to improving the climate for the discussions—

Ukraine

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It seems clear that further and tougher sanctions might be necessary. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is absolutely imperative for members of the EU and other states to work together carefully to ensure that each supports the other in any sanctions relating to energy?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. The EU nations, and some countries beyond the EU, need to work very closely on this matter. As long as any one country of the EU is heavily dependent on Russian supplies of gas, the whole of the EU is affected by that vulnerability. Addressing the vulnerability of each individual nation, as well as the EU as a whole, is very important.

Ukraine

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). His analysis of history is extraordinarily interesting, but of course in this House we must confront the political realities that exist as a consequence of an aggressive Russia. This is where we are and that is what we must do.

We need to recognise two or three things. First, President Putin is obsessed with energy and control. He is also, as has been noted already in this House, a bully who is bullying from a weak-ish position. We must recognise the dangers of that, because it is dangerous for weak people to get into difficult situations. Secondly, Russia is in effect becoming disconnected from the international world, and we cannot afford for that to happen. All our actions must be couched in terms of a tough approach, while considering what we must do in the long run to ensure that Russia returns as part of a proper international environment.

We have to bear in mind what is really happening in Ukraine. This whole business drives a coach and horses through self-determination and we cannot accept that. An unstable situation has been created in an area that ought to be promoting and enjoying economic growth. Anybody who thinks it is not in Britain’s interests to have a stable Ukraine and a stable wider region is wrong, and we have to express that in those terms. There is also the question of how Ukrainians have behaved. As has already been said, there is no evidence of inappropriate actions against Russian speakers, either in Crimea or elsewhere.

What can we do? We have to think about the next steps. The great problem is that this situation is part of a pattern of behaviour exhibited by the Russian political system which has to be stopped in its tracks. We have talked about energy, which is key to President Putin’s thinking and should be key to our solution. The EU has a huge opportunity to hang together and demonstrate how it can promote meaningful action against the Russian state. We must ensure that our energy policy is diverse and less reliant on Russia. We cannot allow one European state, or other European states, to be picked off. We cannot invite European states to take actions that are detrimental to themselves, without seeing support from the European Union. The challenge for the EU is twofold: to express an energy policy that gives comfort to all member states, and to recognise the importance of having an energy policy that makes it possible for Europe to act in unison.

It is important to ensure that Europe acts together immediately in a forceful way to prevent a repetition of this situation and to act firmly as a matter of urgency. I am pleased with the overall feeling of the House. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s speech and I endorse what the shadow Foreign Secretary has said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. It is important that we never describe the strategic context for Ukraine as a zero sum game. We welcome the idea of closer links between Ukraine and the European Union. We have supported the association agreement and a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement. We believe that those agreements would benefit the economy and people of Ukraine, and the economy and people of Russia. We absolutely recognise that Russia has important and legitimate interests in Ukraine. That, however, is not a justification for the armed violation of the sovereignty and independence of the country.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

19. Russia’s actions in Ukraine represent the ramping up of a strategy of pursuing self-interested, unbridled, robust and determined actions. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that he will seek unification in Europe’s approach to finding a solution, with a focus on acting together in a robust and meaningful way?

[Mr Hague]

We will do that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels yesterday while I was in Kiev. There will be a meeting of the European Council—the Heads of Government of the European Union—on Thursday to discuss these matters, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will attend. Yesterday evening, he telephoned President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel to co-ordinate our approach. I therefore can assure my hon. Friend that we will play a leading role in a united European approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We shall leave the Minister now to recover his breath.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Yesterday I visited Ukraine, and tomorrow I will attend the international support group for Lebanon in Paris.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer.

With the Antarctic Act 2013 now successfully passed, what reassurance can Ministers give on encouraging other signatory states to the treaty to ensure that they, too, put into their domestic law measures to protect the Antarctic?

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

My hon. Friend deserves huge congratulations on successfully piloting his private Member’s Bill through Parliament and the significant positive contribution that the Antarctic Act 2013 will make. Other countries need to ratify the treaty’s provisions quickly so that they can come into effect. I know that through his contacts he is pushing Germany and the United States, and I can inform the House that my officials are in regular contact with their counterparts and will use the Antarctic treaty meeting in April to continue to push other countries to ratify.

Ukraine, Syria and Iran

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, I call Neil Carmichael.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to be here for the final question.

It is absolutely right that the issue of political and constitutional reform is a priority, and that the integrity of Ukraine remains an objective. However, does the Foreign Secretary agree that any economic support through the IMF should also be supported, in effect, by development of international trade through and with Ukraine in order to embed political reform and to avoid any binary choice, which he correctly notes is a threat?

[Mr Hague]

We must strongly encourage international trade for Ukraine, which currently has a current account deficit of more than 9% of GDP. The absence of sufficient exports is part of its very serious economic problem. We will tell it very clearly that one of the things that can be achieved if the right economic programme is implemented and political stability and unity is achieved is, of course, a serious improvement in that position.

Syria

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We must continue to discuss that with Russia. I mentioned in my statement the discussions today between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov. They covered some of these issues, such as how humanitarian access can be improved ahead of next week’s talks and the possibility of localised ceasefires. Of course, we are disappointed that Russia is not readier to agree international statements or resolutions at the UN that we ought to be able to pass and that it would be wholly appropriate to pass and enforce. The Russians are not prepared to do that, so we try to work with them in other ways to relieve humanitarian suffering and we will spare no effort in doing so.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

President Putin has made some small conciliatory steps in connection with the forthcoming winter Olympics. Is there any sign that the same logic and approach apply to his thoughts on Syria?

[Mr Hague]

We will see. The subject is very different and, of course, Russia has played an important role in the work on chemical weapons—it has been and remains indispensable in that regard. I hope that, following the discussions today between the US, Russia and the UN, Russia will demonstrate its readiness to deal with the Syrian regime. The Syrian Foreign Minister is going to Moscow this week and I hope that the Russians will say to him, “There are now certain things you have to do to relieve the suffering and to give humanitarian access, as well as to go to the Geneva talks, fully in the spirit of the Geneva communiqué, to bring about a transitional governing body.” We look to Russia to make those things plain to Damascus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I am not sure that I understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman makes, because the Government have repeatedly condemned Israel’s announcements about expanded settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are illegal under international law and, as I have said, they undermine the possibility of a two-state solution. We are quite clear about that.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

15. What assessment he has made of progress on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership talks.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Negotiations are progressing well and are on track to meet our shared ambition of concluding them in 2015. There will be a third round of talks next month, followed by an EU-US ministerial stock-take of progress to be held in early 2014 to set the direction of talks for next year.

G8 Foreign Ministers

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I honestly think that that is a matter for the BBC and the LSE to pursue. Since I have spent the day talking to the South Korean Foreign Minister, hosting the Moroccan Foreign Minister, launching our human rights and democracy report, preparing for this statement and overseeing the diplomatic arrangements for the funeral of Baroness Thatcher, I have not formed a view. It is for the BBC and the LSE to take the matter forward.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has correctly noted that North Korea should be encouraged to participate in a multilateral framework. Following Secretary Kerry’s visit to the region and the encouraging signs that emanated from his talks with the Chinese, what can the Foreign Secretary tell the House that would encourage us to think that North Korea will move in the right direction at the appropriate speed?

[Mr Hague]

I have no immediate good news for my hon. Friend and the House on that matter, except for the clear unity in the G8 to which I referred. That unity extends beyond the G8 to our working closely with China. My hon. Friend referred to Secretary Kerry’s visit, during which he agreed that the United States would work with the Chinese Government. China has more leverage and influence over North Korea than any of the other nations to which we have referred. The extent of Chinese concern and determination that North Korea should not go down the path that it is on is one encouraging piece of information in an otherwise very difficult situation.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

I totally agree. The way in which we look after the Falkland Islands has got better and better, under the previous Government and now under this one. The organisation that the hon. Gentleman mentions does a great job.

It is right to make it clear that the United Kingdom wants nothing more than peace, trade and prosperity with Argentina and the other south American countries. There are so many problems in this world, and it is surely wrong that we are in any way falling out over these islands. While we in this House stand four-square behind the residents of the Falkland Islands and their overwhelming vote in favour of self-determination, we must try to reach out to the Argentine and other south American peoples and stress that this is a matter entirely for the islanders.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I welcome the overwhelming majority vote in favour of the Falklands remaining a British overseas territory. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that vote was in a way a reaffirmation of our position in Antarctica, and that it further underlines the importance and the peaceful nature of our activities in there.

[Guy Opperman]

Indeed, the 1959 Antarctic treaty froze all sovereignty claims there. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, whose private Member’s Bill, the Antarctic Bill, has passed through the House and is now law.

Many Argentines continue to work in the United Kingdom, and many British people work in Argentina. They are able to get along in a positive way. Perhaps the wisest words spoken in the past two weeks were those of one of the international electoral observers, who said:

“The Falkland Islanders are citizens and they have the right to express themselves.”

Those were the words not of a local, but of Senor Jaime Trobo, the Uruguayan electoral observer.

I suggest that now is a good time to evaluate from where the right to self-determination originates. The principle is set out unequivocally in article 1.2 of the charter of the United Nations, which states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is

“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.

Protecting the Arctic

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Sheridan, not least because I thoroughly enjoy being a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, particularly when producing our report, which is both inspiring and slightly alarming at times given our findings.

I thank virtually everyone in the room, because, in one way or another, they have contributed to my other great passion: the Antarctic. The Antarctic Bill is progressing through Parliament, and I have been greatly supported in that endeavour by a large number of my colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee. I am grateful, too, to our Chairman for remarking on that work at the beginning of her speech.

There are some obvious differences between the Antarctic and the Arctic. One is location, and the other is that polar bears live in the Arctic and penguins live in the Antarctic. Another important difference is jurisdiction: we have jurisdiction in the Antarctic. We are part of a treaty structure, and we have taken a strong leadership role in promoting not only Britain’s interests, but those of the Antarctic through that mechanism, which, ironically, is what my Bill is all about and what the British Government’s work supports. The British Antarctic Survey does a huge amount of excellent work in logistics, science and maintaining British presence through its several bases. The recent opening of one base, Halley VI, was celebrated by a large number of people this week. We are doing a huge amount in the Antarctic, which is excellent and should be saluted and recognised.

However, jurisdiction in the Arctic is, of course, a different kettle of fish, because we are not an Arctic state. We are not on the Arctic Council, and, therefore, we are at a disadvantage when making policy statements about the Arctic. I can find nothing to disagree with in the report when it comes to the overall interest in protecting the Arctic and the danger that various measures might exacerbate the already serious threat of climate change.

The fundamental question is this: what can we do? The Government made that clear in their response to our report, which was published on 9 January. Essentially, the Government recognise the difference in jurisdiction between the Antarctic and the Arctic, and, as our Chairman mentioned, they go on to talk about a framework for the Arctic.

We must recognise our limitations, but also the challenges we need to meet to do something about them. There is another paradox, which is that Norway is an Arctic state. Many people talk about Norway’s non-membership of the European Union: Norway pays a lot of money to be involved with the European Union, and it salutes virtually all EU regulations, but it has no say. Perversely, that is the problem we have in the Arctic that, as an Arctic state, Norway does not.

I am making two points: one is about Europe and the importance of being a member of the European Union, and the second is about the Arctic and our relatively weak position in delivering some of the report’s promises and expectations.

Recognising all that, because they are statements of accepted fact, what can the Government really do? We must apply appropriate pressure. We can signal what we have already achieved in the Antarctic as an example. Do not forget that there is no exploitation in the Antarctic, which is a demilitarised zone. We agree on who owns what, and we are taking further steps to protect the Antarctic. That is British leadership at its best, and we will have to apply such leadership not directly, because of the jurisdiction problem, but collectively with others. That is the task before us. Basically, we must say to Arctic states, and to other states that have indicated their interest, that there is a problem we must work together to solve.

In summary, protecting the Antarctic is important. The problems are enormous, the threats are great and climate change must be tackled. In many ways, the report points to how that should be done. The difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic must be recognised, and we must respond in a slightly different way. I have set out my thinking along those lines, which the Minister may want to consider. I hope we can all agree that this is a working-together operation, and if British leadership can be exerted through the European Union and our other international relationships, that would be good.