| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
7.30 pm
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I hope that after so many hours of important political debate, with many useful statistics thrown at us, I shall be forgiven if I begin with a literary allusion. One of the most interesting books of the Renaissance was Tirant lo Blanc, written by a Valencian. It was published in 1490, with an English edition in 1984, yet it is lively and more relevant to us than it may seem, because the early chapters envisage how a Saracen Muslim army lands in this country and establishes itself near Warwick, there to be defeated by someone called the Hermit King of England. It took him six weeks to do so. I mention this to recall that we in Europe have experienced a threat from militant Islam before and that it was defeated.
The novel that I mentioned reminds us that in the era of the Renaissance, which was not so very long ago, the threat to Europe from the Ottoman sultanate was so great that one writer suggested that the best course might be to abandon Europe to Islam altogether and take our civilisation to the newly discovered Americas. The threat then was of a large, well directed conventional army—as we would now put it—bent on expansion and equipped with magnificent guns, such as the monster cannon made by a Hungarian engineer, Urban, which the great Gibbon blamed for the fall of Constantinople itself in 1453. It was an army supported by a large and effective navy, and of course those institutions were the articulation of a traditional empire.
Today we have a quite different kind of conflict, with a frenzied minority sect of Islam, al-Qaeda, which operates most unconventionally. Al-Qaeda, so far as we understand, constitutes a small group of armed men whose loyalty is to their own rigorous, if antique, version or vision of Islam. These men want to destroy the West’s position throughout the Islamic world, especially in the oil-producing countries of the Middle East, and in the long run they want to ruin the West itself. They operate through cells, a few of which seem to be linked to the founders, who are still at large
7 Nov 2007 : Column 89
Incidentally, those condemned in the recent trial for the murders in the Atocha railway station in Madrid in 2004 were found guilty of planning a radical Islamic republic in Spain, which had a long period of Muslim rule, although admittedly not a radical regime, in the Middle Ages. We can learn about the background of those concerned in the attack on the twin towers in New York by reading a brilliant book, The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright, published by Penguin Books—it ought to be in our Library.
Perhaps those involved in al-Qaeda and the other undertakings hope to secure in the long run, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, put it a week or two ago, a restored and radical caliphate stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. They evidently want to secure that, wherever there are Muslims in what they consider to be infidel countries such as our own, Sharia law should apply to those Muslims, not the laws of the country concerned. Presumably these agitators and conspirators hope to ensure that no press attacks are made on, and probably no jokes are made about, their religion in those countries. Even now, I wonder whether the entertaining speech about Islam by Figaro in Beaumarchais’ play “The Marriage of Figaro”, on which Mozart’s opera is based, would be acceptable on our stage. There may be a question mark, too, about the basically favourable but very secular remarks made about the life of the Prophet by Gibbon.
Al-Qaeda and its offshoots are a movement fuelled by the fact that the copy of western life and western institutions that has been taken to the Muslim world sometimes seems to be a rather shabby version of the original. The movement is helped by its success in securing so much attention in the world’s media. As I understand it, al-Qaeda is a minority within a minority, but it will prosper if it can give the impression that it is doing well, since many weak but otherwise moderate people are always tempted to join a winning side. It may also be helped, inadvertently of course, by statements from our politicians and others, such as that made last week even by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, that the threat of al-Qaeda and international terrorism must be expected to last for generations. Why are these pessimistic statements made? Is it partly because one of our difficulties is that today we wear our own Christian faith rather lightly, if at all, and are not well equipped to conduct a war of religion?
All the same, surely we in the West, with all our power and imagination, our free institutions and our laws, our intelligence and generous tolerance of approach, and the public place we give so enthusiastically to women, not least in your Lordships’ House, can envisage a much shorter time
7 Nov 2007 : Column 90
7.38 pm
Lord Bowness: My Lords, the gracious Speech contains only one sentence on the European Union reform treaty, but I have no doubt that, in the coming months, many words will be written and spoken about a referendum on it. After the distinguished contributions already made by so many experts, it is tempting merely to say that I adopt the arguments of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. Opinion will continue to be divided about whether the Government have a moral commitment to hold a referendum in the light of their manifesto promise; whether the treaty is the abandoned constitution in another wrapper, or whether it is significantly different in both style and substance to justify not holding a popular vote. All that discussion and writing will be at the expense of time which should be devoted to the treaty itself and whether it is a good thing for the United Kingdom and Europe.
I regret that I cannot agree with my noble friend on my Front Bench about a referendum. I did not believe that we should have had a referendum on the original constitutional treaty; I did not agree with the then Prime Minister when he changed his mind, and I do not think we should have a referendum now. If we had a referendum, leaving out the compelling arguments for Parliament to decide these matters, I fear that, on past performance, the case for the treaty would not be advanced with much rigour. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, indicated at the beginning of this debate, more emphasis would be given to those matters where we have successfully defended ourselves against the combined forces of the Commission and other members, who by the implication of our arguments are apparently so careless with their own sovereignty that they would be prepared to agree to anything. But it certainly will not be portrayed as the successful outcome of discussions between friendly partner states.
In any referendum, what is the question? Are we for or against the abandonment of the rotating presidency? Are we for or against the increase in the influence of national Parliaments? Are we for or against attempts to improve the effectiveness of the common foreign and security policy? These issues cannot be answered by a simple question.
To be sure, these questions will not be the subject of balanced discussion in much of what is, as it likes to describe itself, the serious or quality press. Your Lordships will have noticed that the European Union is responsible for the increase in the price of Christmas trees. If you read the detail, it is because the subsidy in Denmark has been withdrawn, something normally that one would support.
By way of example, for months the Daily Telegraph has, in its pages and those of its sister paper, the Sunday Telegraph, been drumming up support for a referendum; the number of signatories now exceeds
7 Nov 2007 : Column 91
Perhaps the use of the word “empire” was not particularly appropriate but no one goes on to point out that Mr Barroso was highlighting the difference between a European Union built of 27 free and democratic countries, each with its own elected Governments, and past attempts to build a European empire through force. One phrase taken out of context nevertheless makes the headline demanding signatures to the petition.
A number of bullet points follow. Readers are told that the treaty wishes to create a European head of state, no doubt in order to create a certain amount of anxiety among the population as to the status of Her Majesty. Of course, neither the mandate for the Intergovernmental Conference nor the draft reform treaty create a state or threaten the position of the Queen or any other monarch or president within the union as heads of state of their individual countries. Do we really believe that our partner states which have recently regained their independence would again act so carelessly with their sovereignty? We know that what is proposed is a president of the European Council for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. Even opponents of the constitutional treaty agree that the six-month rotating presidency needs reform.
The European diplomatic corps and the foreign minister are another bogey man. There is no explanation that the merger of the Commission post and the existing High Representative do away with a situation of two voices, one with influence and no resources and one with resources and rather less influence. There is no explanation that the foreign external active service shall work in co-operation with the diplomatic services of the member states and include staff seconded from the diplomatic services of those member states.
In context it is all quite a different picture. The High Representative is not taking our seat on the Security Council. All that is proposed is that when the Union has a defined position—which will in any event require unanimity—the High Representative should be asked to present the Union’s position. This is not taking the UK’s or France’s seat on the Security Council.
The giving of the European Union legal personality is seen as a huge threat, although no reference is made to the existing Article 281 of the treaty on the European Communities, which also gives the communities legal personality. The changes in voting are inevitable with enlargement and yet opponents of the treaty are often the proponents of enlargement. Are we assuming that we want enlargement only on the basis that new and smaller members should somehow be second-class citizens?
All this and other points were put before the public before even the final form of the treaty was known. For all these reasons—I was but I am no longer, since
7 Nov 2007 : Column 92
7.46 pm
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have reflected on the debate on the Middle East which took place in your Lordships’ House on 23 October. It strikes me that no speaker then opposed the proposition that Hamas and Hezbollah must be part of any effective solution. This is a major change of opinions and I now feel much less lonely. Two weeks ago I criticised the western powers for imposing “inept pre-conditions and quasi-boycotts”. Tonight I want to look in greater depth at western policy towards Israel and Palestine since the Oslo agreements.
To go back even further, we should remember that the United Nations set up the Relief and Works Agency in 1949 to provide basic services for Palestinian refugees. UN members have been paying for this agency ever since. I would describe western policy since 1994 as one of drift, while each year signing enormous cheques. Since 1994 the immense sum of $9.4 billion has been spent. We, as taxpayers, have in effect been subsidising the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and of Gaza up to 2005. It can be argued that the occupation of Gaza continues because of Israel’s control of the borders by air, sea and land. In the period 1994 to 2000 a quarter of all aid went, in theory, to build up Palestinian institutions and their effectiveness. Latterly, however, relief, energy supplies and salaries consume almost the whole budget. In Gaza, 1.1 million people out of 1.4 million depend on food aid.
Western policy towards the Palestinians has been little less than a disaster. Massive aid has not stemmed unemployment and poverty. While there is now little justice for individuals, so-called security
7 Nov 2007 : Column 93
The United States and the EU began to boycott Hamas well before the general election of January 2006. When the Mecca agreement came in February this year, the West totally failed to seize the opportunity for an effective power-sharing Government. It brought on itself the Gaza coup of last June. That has been followed by negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian president with support and supervision from the US. The negotiations are supposed to be formalised at an international conference at Annapolis. It would, however, be a brave man who could predict a useful outcome unless those who can actually deliver results are included.
Western policy towards Israel has been consistently timid and weak. During Prime Minister Olmert’s first year, the number of settlers in the West Bank increased by 5.8 per cent. One hundred and two outposts that even Israel considers illegal are still tolerated. The wall and fences continue to be built on Palestinian land. Bethlehem is now isolated and the West Bank cut up into fragments. Twelve hundred kilometres of roads on the West Bank are wholly or partly reserved for settlers. By 2003 Palestinian assets and infrastructure to a value of $728 million, funded entirely by external donors, had been destroyed by Israeli military action. Such actions have drawn only the mildest protests.
In 2005, laborious discussions produced the agreement on movement and access. That was followed by the Rafah crossing-point agreement, establishing the EU border assistance mission. So successful was the latter that 100,000 travellers passed through it in the first two months. Alas, Rafah is now shut and no movement or access provisions have been implemented. Around 5,000 students are unable to leave Gaza for further education. The Palestinian economy is largely destroyed. Israel may imagine it is secure—but for how long, with a new-style Somalia so close by?
Before worse befalls, Israel should consider whether its current policies may not be self-defeating. If its true interest lies in having a stable and peaceful neighbour, should it not encourage power-sharing between secular and religious nationalists? Should it not strongly support everything that strengthens legitimate Palestinian institutions? Imprisoning more than half of Hamas’s parliamentarians can hardly be helpful. Detaining some 10,000 people, including some women and children, must alienate minds and hearts. Closures and check-points add to the prolonged agony of the West Bank.
In the West—that is to say, the US and the EU—there is surely a need to re-examine the policies towards both Israel and Palestine. The wise warnings of James Wolfensohn, Alvaro de Soto, Jan Egeland, the World
7 Nov 2007 : Column 94
If revised policies are needed in the West, so too in Israel, which is by far the stronger party in negotiations with Palestine. I doubt that continued occupation of the West Bank can be in Israel’s true interest. Its own public opinion calls for a long-term agreement. If international guarantees are necessary to support such an agreement, it will be in our interest that they be given. There has to be new thinking on all sides. Mediterranean co-operation, with United States involvement, could be the context in which new thought will bear fruit.
This country has its own double standard to review. When the safety of a distinguished British journalist was at stake, the Government were quick to talk to Hamas. On urgent regional matters affecting world peace they refuse to engage, even on de facto terms, despite the de facto recognition that Hamas affords to Israel. They refuse although they talk to the regimes of Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma and elsewhere. The time for changes has come.
7.55 pm
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in the last throes of the Legal Services Bill a week last Thursday, I said this:
“The independence of the judiciary is under attack in a number of places in the world. The most senior chief justice in Pakistan is supported by independent lawyers, who have taken to the streets to defend this principle. It is so important that I regret that those on the”—
That, of course, was before last weekend’s events. Pakistan today is a perfect illustration of what can happen if the rule of law is abandoned. All dissent can be ignored; there is no remedy for arbitrary arrest and false imprisonment. Opponents of the military dictatorship are silenced and the only answer is street protest, rapidly descending to violence. In Pakistan, more than 60 judges out of a total of 97 have declined to take the oath under the new regime. As a result their homes have been placed under strict security and the courts have been closed, with barbed wire denying access.
Mr Andrew Holroyd, the president of the Law Society, said today that the rule of law is nothing without lawyers. He said:
“I can think of no starker demonstration of this commitment to the law than the extraordinary courage, fortitude and bravery of the lawyers we see in Pakistan. They have rightly demonstrated against the government measures. The suspension of the Constitution, the denial of fundamental rights and repeated attacks on the judiciary removes any semblance of a just and civilised society”.
7 Nov 2007 : Column 95
Geoffrey Vos QC, the chairman of the Bar Council, has written similarly to the Pakistan High Commissioner. Mr Ifath Nawaz, chair of the Association of Muslim Lawyers, has strongly urged the Government of Pakistan,
- “to end emergency rule, respect judicial processes, reinstate the judiciary, adhere to the rule of law and return to governance in accordance with the constitution”.
How are we supporting the judiciary and the legal profession in Pakistan? The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, in opening this debate, referred to a demand for the release of political prisoners and added, “including ... the judiciary”. I suppose barristers can rot, but at least she has given the judiciary some support. The world is looking to see whether the United States and Britain will place co-operation with a discredited military dictatorship armed with nuclear weapons in the so-called “war of terror” over and above the vital necessity to make a stand for democracy and the rule of law.
I recall the sustained attacks of Mr David Blunkett against the judiciary, both in and out of office. He did not restrain his language:
and said that power without responsibility undermines our democracy. We have no democracy if we do not have law to regulate, for example, the misuse of executive power and even the electoral process itself. Pakistan should make the anti-lawyer faction in the ranks of the Government thoroughly ashamed of itself.
On counterterrorism, we were told on Monday that the threat emanating from core al-Qaeda based in the tribal areas on the Pakistan and Afghanistan border remains the number one concern for the security services. It was said also that other regions of the world, such as Somalia and Iraq, are increasingly sources of training and planning for terrorists. Mr Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, stressed that terrorist attacks in this country are the visible manifestations of a deeper problem whose root is ideological, and that combating the ideology requires a much broader strategic effort across government. It is conceded that the Government are struggling with the problems of radicalisation of youngsters in this country down to the ages of 15 or 16.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |