| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but this must be the last intervention.
Mr. Anderson: We are about to have the opportunity to present our values and those of our European colleagues in terms of human rights in the moulding of the new common foreign and security policy structures within the European Union. In which ways is the United Kingdom seeking to give a human rights dimension to the common foreign and security policy?
Mr. Cook: I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be a strong human rights element in the position that we adopt under the common foreign and security policy. Indeed, over the past few months, Britain has been in the lead within the European Union in pressing for action in a number of cases of severe concern, particularly in Burma, where we have been working for a vigorous European response to the current situation. Britain has also been at the head of demanding troika visits in other areas of concern. I can, therefore, fully give my hon. Friend the assurance that human rights will be reflected not only in our national policy, but in our contribution to European policy.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Cook: No. I have given way for the last time. I have been generous in taking interventions.
We live in an internationalist age. There is no future in that modern world for the politics of little England. Neither is there a future for the politics of a wee Scotland. Britain has no way forward in the wider world if we start out with the perspective of so many Conservative Members of being as rude as possible to our immediate European neighbours.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe):
Today's debate, as the Foreign Secretary said, provides the House with its first real opportunity to discuss the Government's record on foreign affairs. It allows us to measure the extent to which their promises have been kept and their objectives have been met. It enables us to review the record of the Foreign Secretary, which is not as he would have us believe.
I am sure that the period since May 1997 has been a sobering experience for the right hon. Gentleman. From time to time, all Administrations face the challenge of dealing with events that they had not foreseen. No amount of preparation in opposition can fully prepare a new Government for such events as, for example, a humanitarian crisis in Kosovo or the threat posed by a dictator in Iraq.
The present Government stand out, however, for rarely can a new Administration have entered the Foreign Office with more overblown pretensions, and rarely can such pretensions have been punctured so promptly. If there is one characteristic that epitomises the foreign policy of this Government, it is the huge gulf that has emerged between the rhetoric and the reality. If there is one phrase that epitomises the foreign policy of this Foreign Secretary, it is that he talks tall but acts small.
The Foreign Secretary has his own way with the English language. His concept of truth is highly elastic, as emerged in his infamous interview in the programme "How to be Foreign Secretary". When asked about the Queen's visit to the Indian sub-continent last year, he proclaimed:
Mr. Howard:
So what? We are talking about the truth and the gulf between what the right hon. Gentleman said and what actually happened.
The same attempt to rewrite history can be seen in the right hon. Gentleman's recent attempt to explain away his infamous boast that he does not think it necessary to finish his paperwork. In the New Statesman a couple of weeks ago, he was once again in denial. He said:
Within two weeks of the right hon. Gentleman's appointment, he had already announced a brave new world. The forum chosen for the launch of his historic mission statement was not the House of Commons but a specially arranged media event. In a fanfare of publicity, he proclaimed that Britain was entering an era in which foreign policy must have "an ethical dimension". He said:
The statement was typically arrogant. The right hon. Gentleman ignored the achievements of generations of his predecessors--achievements that included the championing of the cause of liberty behind the iron curtain at a time when he was a leading member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He ignored the fact that British foreign policy has always had an ethical dimension.
Eighteen months later, the right hon. Gentleman decided once again to issue an important statement through the media. This time, the event was somewhat quieter in tone, marked neither by a press conference nor by a publicity stunt. Nevertheless, his interview with the New Statesman earlier this month was a significant landmark, as he finally announced the demise of ethics man. He announced:
Those few examples--there are many others--are not the behaviour of a Government committed to an ethical foreign policy or to a foreign policy with an ethical dimension. They are the behaviour of a Foreign Secretary who has lost his ethical compass.
Recent events in Africa provide the right hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to introduce the ethical dimension that he originally promised. The Government
of Zimbabwe have once again embarked on a process of compulsory acquisition of 841 farms, breaking assurances that they gave to farmers and to western Governments on the fairness and transparency of their proposed reforms. It is even reported that President Mugabe is returning to his previous position, which was based on the incredible proposition that Britain should accept responsibility for paying compensation to farmers who have had their land seized.
Zimbabwe is now spending more than £250,000 a day on financing the war in Congo. Meanwhile, the British Government provide it with £21 million in direct bilateral assistance each year, with even more through multilateral projects. Is that support now being reviewed? Should it be diverted to other Commonwealth countries with a significantly lower gross domestic product? What of the problems elsewhere in Africa? Sierra Leone continues to be afflicted by civil war and the Democratic Republic of Congo is on the brink of a devastating human disaster. Closer to home, there is acute anxiety about Russia.
The whole House will welcome the Wye River accord, but what are the Government doing to improve the prospects of a lasting peace in the middle east? I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement of the money that is to be made available to the Palestinian authority--that is excellent news--but will he now press the European Union to reinvigorate the multi-track discussions for which it is primarily responsible?
Unfortunately, the high expectations engendered in some quarters by the Government's statements on ethics are not the only ones to be dashed by Labour's record in office. At the launch of the mission statement, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"The fact is I never said anything about Kashmir."
Michael Cockerell asked incredulously:
"You never said anything about Kashmir?"
"No, no," replied the right hon. Gentleman. Michael Cockerell asked whether the reports were wrong, to which the right hon. Gentleman answered:
"I never said anything about Kashmir. I made no public statement on Kashmir."
Cockerell said: "No public statement?" The Foreign Secretary replied:
"I gave no background briefing to the press either. I gave no press conference. There was never any comment by me on Kashmir in the whole time I was either in Pakistan or in India."
Michael Cockerell then said:
"But the Pakistani Foreign Affairs Minister confirms that you had said this privately."
The right hon. Gentleman responded:
"Oh, I had private meetings with politicians in both Pakistan and in India and, of course, I discussed a variety of issues including, undoubtedly--with both of them--Kashmir."
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
So what?
"It was Bevin I was talking about, not me."
However, he told Mr. Cockerell:
"I have recognised that you can be a successful Foreign Secretary if you focus on the big questions not necessarily if you finish the paperwork."
Across the world--from Sierra Leone to Sind, from Jerusalem to Jeddah--other countries have been living with the consequences of the Foreign Secretary's approach to his paperwork.
"The Labour Government will put human rights at the heart of our foreign policy".
He also said that the mission statement
"supplies an ethical content to foreign policy."
"I never said there would be an ethical foreign policy".
So now we know. No one should be surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was the first British Foreign Secretary for a decade not to support a motion at the United Nations drawing attention to China's record on human rights. After all, he never said that there would be an ethical foreign policy. No one should be surprised that China's best known dissident, Wei Jingsheng, called him two faced. After all, he never said that there would be an ethical foreign policy. No one should be surprised that the Legg investigation into Sierra Leone concluded that Ministers had deliberately misled others about the effects of the UN embargo and their own Order in Council. He never said that there would be an ethical foreign policy.
"The next twelve months provide the greatest opportunity in a generation for Britain to take a leading part on the world stage".
Since then, the regularity with which he has proclaimed Britain's leadership role has been matched only by the extent to which he has failed to lead.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |