| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The reason why China’s presence on the world stage is so important is multi-faceted. Of course, one is first aware of its huge and continuing economic success, but that is by no means the only factor. When one considers the other features, it is worth recalling how much we can rely upon the good faith of China by looking at the way in which some of its key commitments in the Hong Kong negotiations have been maintained. They are remarkable commitments. For example, the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong still has in its membership two Members of your Lordships’ House, currently the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Scott of Foscote. That was a remarkable proposition to have been accepted; it is still being faithfully observed and is of enormous help to the stability of the territory. A commitment yet to be fulfilled, but still remarkable, is not just the accountability of the Executive to an elected assembly, but also the commitment to increasing progress towards universal suffrage for it. It will be a great advantage, as both the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown, and I pointed out, to see steady progress towards the fulfilment of that last commitment.
In China itself there have been positive developments, some of which have been taking place over the whole of the past 30 years since Deng Xiaoping successfully replaced the Gang of Four. But it is not just about China’s dramatic economic growth. It is fashionable for some commentators to respond to that by saying, “That’s all very well, but look at the rest of the record, which is alarming and disturbing”. The Economist, a magazine that I have respected for many years, in its issue of 30 June spoke of China as a “viciously repressive dictatorship”. While the Chinese themselves would concede that much still remains to be done, I do not think that the analysis is helped at all by hyperbole of that kind.
It is important to recognise that there has already been much improvement in the conditions of the
7 Nov 2007 : Column 59
“The first thing to notice in China was abundance in food. There are foods everywhere. There are clothes everywhere. Second, freedom is guaranteed”.
That may be a slight overstatement, but it is what they say. They continue:
“Third, personal property and possessions are permitted. The harvest is mine to keep. When I gain profit by business, it is also mine to keep. Fourth, there is freedom of residence, freedom of speech, and freedom to travel ... I could move to an area of my choice ... I became aware of the fact that North Korea is the only country where you have to apply for a pass to travel from place to place”.
It is clear that, understandably enough, China is there seen through rose-tinted spectacles, but it certainly deserves to be taken into account.
Beyond that, China is playing a much larger international role. It is developing a worldwide network of investment, for the most part in developing countries, and an increasingly effective and widespread diplomatic representation, often in countries where we are closing our own posts, such as Madagascar. China recognises the need for soft power in a way that the United States seems to have forgotten with the establishment of Confucius Foundation Centres around the world, including in this country. Further, China has been particularly useful over the more difficult international problems facing us in recent years. The North Korea nuclear programme has been tackled successfully because China was one of the six participants in the six-party talks.
On Darfur, having hesitated for some time, China supported Resolution 1769; it has appointed an envoy to the country and has sent almost 200 engineers to support what has been done there. Even in Myanmar, which raises difficulties because of its proximity, Miss Suu Kyi requires all the support she can get, and there has been some support. It is very unlikely, for example, that the UN representative, Mr Gambari, would have gone there recently had it not been for Chinese intervention.
It is encouraging to record the conclusions of the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, which I do not often quote in this House or anywhere else. It committed itself, in what is a kind of equivalent of the Queen’s Speech, to a continuation of “reform and opening up” and to “continuing to take an active part in multilateral affairs”. There is, as I have said, much scope for it to do more, and we should work from there. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I go on for a minute or two more, otherwise I shall miss the central point.
That is the setting in which the United Kingdom and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, need to mobilise and manage our foreign policies. I am afraid I react with less than enthusiasm to the attempt of my noble friend Lord Howell to emulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, with his, “No, no, no”. It tends to get the hackles rising. Of
7 Nov 2007 : Column 60
But it is tempting, is it not, for France and Britain, as seems to be happening this week, to believe that we can handle all these things vis-Ã -vis the United States by our very own special relationship. Ours is built on the Magna Carta and France’s on the sacking of the Bastille, I suppose; they are different badges of democratic freedom. But it may not be possible for that to happen.
Finally, let me address the issue of the treaty to which much reference has been given. I cannot help recalling that one of the documents which I handed to Chancellor Kohl in 1985, with Margaret Thatcher present, was entitled “Europe: The Future”, which contained our support for progressive movement towards an increasingly co-operative European foreign policy. That is what the Single European Act was about and it remains one of the most important components for addressing the world as it is today. It is exactly the kind of solution we need and for which we have been campaigning for a very long time.
For the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, it is an entirely sensible treaty. It contains measures which are essential to the operation of our foreign policy if it is to be amplified by partnership in the kind of world in which we live. I am distressed by the dilemma that has been created because democratic competition has landed both our major parties with a commitment to a referendum on this issue. I cannot believe that the prospect of a referendum on this treaty—worst of all if the treaty had already entered into force—will be of any value at all. Indeed, at this time, the prospect of a referendum is disruptive to a certain extent. That is what happened in 1975. There was a hiatus in which the foreign policy of this country and a lot of its business was paralysed because of uncertainty about our position.
So, while I can understand why we have got into the hole in which we find ourselves, I endorse the speeches of noble Lords who can see that the only way out of it is by proceeding now with the implementation of the treaty, negotiated and renegotiated, as it has already been. If it is accepted by everybody but ourselves, there is a limit to the extent to which we can remain in a corner of our own making.
7 Nov 2007 : Column 61
5.40 pm
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I infinitely prefer the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, to that of the noble Lord on his Front Bench. I have listened with great interest to his comments on China, particularly with regard to its growing influence on the international scene. He said it had already been instrumental in arriving at a solution to the North Korean nuclear problem and was being increasingly helpful in other areas of the world; he cited Burma and Darfur. I hope the changes in Chinese policy that he examined will extend to other parts of the world, particularly Zimbabwe, with which China has always had a close relationship. That relationship is increasingly intimate but does not include the exercise of China’s political influence on that dictatorship.
As the gracious Speech reminds us, in two weeks the Commonwealth Heads of Government will be meeting in Kampala and they will need to formulate a collective response to the crisis in Pakistan, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said, is a source of huge anxiety worldwide. With the constitution suspended, martial law in force, the free media silenced and thousands of people detained, including two-thirds of the supreme court, lawyers, democrats and human rights activists, CMAG is holding an extraordinary meeting here in London next Tuesday. If Musharraf is still defying the call, made by the Foreign Secretary and others, to restore the constitution and the rule of law, CMAG should recommend that the CHOGM suspend Pakistan from membership of the Commonwealth. There should also be a Commonwealth travel ban on Musharraf and his collaborators, and both military and development aid should be suspended. Domestically the auto-putsch and the emasculation of civil society will encourage the extremism and terrorism Musharraf said it was intended to counter and make it even harder to restore peace and stability in neighbouring Afghanistan. The utmost pressure must be brought to bear on him to hand over the reins of government to the president of the Senate, as provided by the constitution, and to hold an election within 90 days.
Africa is not mentioned in the gracious Speech, and the Government seem to have forgotten the commitment of Mr Blair’s Commission for Africa, billed two years ago as “Changing a continent, saving the world”. Aid was to have increased by $25 billion, with improvements in the governance of receiving countries. But there was no plan to follow up the ambitious goals, or to sustain the momentum created by the UK’s presidency of the G8. The target date of 2015 for the millennium development goals is approaching and Africa is faltering. My noble friend Lady Northover paraphrased the UN Secretary-General when she said that Africa is lagging behind the rest of the developing world. The proportion living on less than a dollar a day, the under-five mortality rate, the proportion living with HIV, the number lacking basic sanitation and the urban population living in slum conditions are worse in sub-Saharan Africa than in any other region of the world, and the goals will not be realised at the present rates of progress.
The commission examined some of the man-made hindrances to development but was silent on population growth, which is the biggest of the lot. In
7 Nov 2007 : Column 62
Armed conflict is a second brake on development. The UN Peacebuilding Commission has a much narrower remit than was envisaged, and has no part to play, for instance, in the stalemated dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia. There is no real pressure on Meles Zenawi, who was a member of Mr Blair’s team, to comply with the recommendations of the Boundary Commission which both parties had agreed beforehand to accept without reservation. Instead, Ethiopia has found spurious excuses for refusing to comply, and now that the commission is about to dissolve at the end of this month, the war could start again. What are we, as friends of Mr Zenawi, doing to get him to honour his undertakings?
Many of the conflicts in Africa have been fuelled by the competition for resources. Unfortunately, the UN panel on the illegal exploitation of resources was wound up four years ago and the evidence that it uncovered has never been pursued. The Blair commission recommended a permanent body to monitor the trade in conflict resources and ensure that sanctions on them are enforced. Why have the Government not taken up that proposal with the Security Council? Where does the wanted war criminal, Laurent Nkunda, obtain the resources to pin down 20,000 government troops in eastern DRC, causing the internal displacement of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands to flee into Uganda? The Government earned only a paltry $23 million from mining royalties last year and are aiming to cancel or renegotiate some concessions that were the subject of allegations by the expert panel. Is DfID giving them technical help in getting a better share of their own mineral wealth?
In Sudan, failure to reach agreement on control of oil-rich Abyei contributes to the fragility of the comprehensive peace agreement between north and south, and the withdrawal from the south of the Government of national unity. The UNMIS mandate had to be extended to the end of October 2008 at a cost of $850 million. It is only one of eight UN peacekeeping operations in Africa, which will cost more than $4 billion in 2008. The conflicts destroy even huger economic and human potential. The Blair commission said the international community should invest in the continent’s own early warning, mediation and peacekeeping capacity, yet the AU has neither the resources nor the expertise to contribute effectively to those objectives. It did not protect 200,000 victims of the genocide in Darfur, or even its own soldiers who
7 Nov 2007 : Column 63
5.48 pm
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I make no apology for devoting a substantial part of my contribution to this debate to the EU reform treaty, which this House will be called on to clear for ratification in the coming months. Not only is this legislation an important element of the legislative programme before us, but also it is of great significance for the future development of the European Union. I do not wish to plunge into the scholastic debate about whether the treaty is of greater or lesser weight and significance than previous EU treaties, which have hitherto invariably been ratified by this country following parliamentary procedures; nor shall I dwell on the equally scholastic debate about whether the treaty is “broadly equivalent” to the constitutional treaty which has now been dropped, except to observe that the scrutiny committee in another place might have done well to study the carefully argued opinion of the Dutch Council of State, to the effect that the treaty is not broadly equivalent to the constitutional treaty, even for member states which are not covered by the special provisions negotiated for the UK. It would have done well to think of that before reaching its own not very rigorously or even clearly reasoned contrary conclusion.
I shall focus on an examination of whether the main provisions and innovations of the new treaty are likely to lead to the better functioning of the European Union and are in this country’s interest. This is an angle of approach simply ignored so far in our national debate—though not, I am glad to say, in this House this afternoon—including in the Prime Minister's Statement after the recent European Council in Lisbon. Surely it needs to be at the centre of any process of decision to ratify this treaty.
Let us look at four main issues: the reform of the Union’s institutional structures with regard to foreign policy; the creation of the office of the president of the European Council; the involvement for the first time of national Parliaments in the Union’s legislative procedures; and the extensions of qualified majority voting, particular in the field of home affairs and immigration. The common foreign policy of the European Union has expanded rapidly in recent years, with every step decided by unanimity. It is hard to believe that it will not continue to do so, with so many of the threats and challenges that Europe faces capable of being handled only by a united collective effort. Europe is in the lead in stabilising the Balkans, a key player in the Middle East peace process, the international community spokesman in the effort to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme and is deploying security missions in Bosnia, Gaza, the West Bank, Chad and the Central African Republic.
Only those in a state of total denial could fail to recognise the scale of this development. But the European
7 Nov 2007 : Column 64
The new post of the president of the European Council, together with the provisions on foreign policy, marks the effective end of the rotating presidency—and not before time. A device that worked well for a community of six, nine or even 12, a community with no major foreign policy responsibilities, has become hopelessly anachronistic and even counterproductive for a Union of 27 with a growing external policy dimension. Presidencies skewed towards the priorities of this or that member state, lack of continuity and sustained effort, lack even of representation in many parts of the world when a small member state holds the presidency—all those weaknesses need to be and should be remedied. The balance between the supranational institutions, the Commission and the Parliament, and the intergovernmental ones such as the Council, has been shifted, albeit modestly, towards the latter.
Subsidiarity is an ugly word and an obscure concept, but it does matter if the centralising tendencies of the Brussels institutions are to be subjected to a reality check when legislative proposals are brought forward. Giving national Parliaments a role in that reality check surely makes sense. Some argue that the provisions in the new treaty will be ineffective, but we will know whether that is so only when we, the national Parliaments, have tried to make use of them—and without the treaty we will have no chance to make use of them.
As to the extension of qualified majority voting, I can often hardly believe my eyes when I read what is written about it in the press. The words “surrender” and “sovereignty” tumble out as if we had not on balance benefited enormously from the use of qualified majority voting and hardly ever been voted down. Without qualified majority voting, we would not now have the single market. Would that have been in our interests? In this treaty, the main areas shifted from unanimity to qualified majority voting are either clearly in our interests, such as with energy policy, or leave us with an opt-out. Sovereignty is a bit like the biblical parable of the talents. Do we want to cling on to an asset that is increasingly difficult to use effectively on our own or do we want to increase its effectiveness by using it in concert with others?
In all these four main areas and in any others, such as the reduction in the size of the Commission, Britain will benefit substantially from the entry into force of the new treaty. No doubt there are many other complex issues in it, which we will need to examine in detail in the months ahead; but it would be good if that debate could be a hard-headed one, focused on the actual provisions of the treaty, not the
7 Nov 2007 : Column 65
I turn from a subject that many may feel we spend too much of our time discussing to one, disarmament, which I suggest we spend far too little time discussing. In the last decade of the Cold War and in the years immediately following its end, the world made some major advances towards a reduction in armaments and a strengthening of the policies restraining the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Chemical Weapons Convention came into force; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was extended sine die; the two nuclear superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, reduced their arsenals; regional agreements such as that on conventional forces in Europe were negotiated; and a number of regional nuclear-free zones were agreed. Iraq’s attempt to break out of these multilateral disciplines was frustrated. But since the turn of the century, the international community has neglected this field. Indeed, there has been regression. Now we face the risk that these disciplines will be flouted and eroded, leading to a much less, not more, secure world.
Is it too late to do anything about this to reverse this dangerous trend? I do not believe so. It is late but not too late. Next year new presidents will be elected in Russia and the United States. That should provide an opportunity to relaunch the process of both bilateral and multilateral disarmament and arms control. Already a debate is under way in the United States, led by statesmen of impeccably realist credentials such as George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry and Sam Nunn, about the need to move towards nuclear disarmament. It is surely time that we turned this domestic US debate into an international one. We should be contributing our own ideas and our own willingness to play a part. Some of the proposals we are contributing already—the idea of an arms trade treaty and the uranium enrichment bank—are excellent ones; others would be if they were taken further. We should move decisively to ban all cluster munitions, not hide behind an unconvincing and unsustainable distinction between dumb and smart munitions.
But what is still lacking in our Government’s programme is an overall political concept and the promotion of this policy area much higher up the list of the UK’s foreign policy priorities. The former Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, made a good start in her last days in office with her Washington speech to the Carnegie Institute last June. What would be good now would be for the new Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister to take up the baton and play a leading role in the discussion of these issues both within Europe—I include Russia in that term—and across the Atlantic. I fear that if we do not create an opening towards a renewed disarmament and counterproliferation strategy within the next two years—and no one should doubt that these two things are indissolubly linked—the opportunity will not recur any time soon, if ever.
7 Nov 2007 : Column 66
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |