| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.32 am
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): The picture of the conduct of foreign policy in the past 18 months that has just been painted by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) may be reflected in the fevered scribblings of some of the
ultra-right-wing press, but it will not be recognised by any serious commentator, by our European allies, by the non-governmental organisations or by those who saw the work of the Government in the establishment of the international criminal court and on landmines or any other serious matter. Neither will it be recognised by those who observed the leadership of the Government during our presidency of the European Union.
The debate gives us an opportunity to look onwards and upwards. Alas, the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe looked backwards and downwards. He put together a pot-pourri of headlines from selective sources, so I suggest that he talks more widely to diplomats and Governments to get a fairer picture of what the Government have done during the past 18 months. It has been a busy time indeed.
Mr. Howard:
I am intervening because the hon. Gentleman attacked my speech. He suggests that we should consider what diplomats and Governments have said, but it was the Prime Minister of Austria who said that the summit organised by the Government was an example of how not to organise a summit.
Mr. Anderson:
Whatever individual comments have been made, I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he considers the broad picture and that, when he makes such speeches, he looks ahead to the challenges of NATO and the future of Europe that face the Government, Europe and the west, instead of getting a researcher to put together various headlines from the right-wing press. It was an unworthy, backward-looking speech.
During the past 18 months, the Government have issued a mission statement which included a bold declaration of an ethical dimension to foreign policy--it was never said that there would be an ethical foreign policy, because we must balance priorities. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned Senator Pinochet. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary makes his decision it will indeed be a quasi-judicial decision. When he exercises his discretion under the extradition legislation, he may consider the nature of the jurisdiction to which the person in question might be transferred. We have every confidence in the legal system in Spain, which is a friendly country. My right hon. Friend may also consider compassionate factors and whether the health of an individual is such that it would be improper to extradite him. Perhaps Senator Pinochet should be recommended to consult the same doctor who advised Mr. Ernest Saunders. In any case, it is difficult to suggest that the usual legal processes should not be followed.
I was distressed this morning when I heard, on the "Today" programme, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) talking of "alleged" abuses of human rights. The abuses are well documented as is evident to anyone who cares to read the reports and talk to the victims who were tortured. If anyone suggests that
we should have compassion for an elderly gentleman, it should be mightily outweighed by compassion for the victims of the terror that he--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into the substance of the case against Senator Pinochet and I have already ruled that that matter should not be discussed. Relations with Chile are in order for discussion, as are the difficulties that the arrest has caused, but we must not go into the details of any crime.
Mr. Anderson:
I trust that it is not infringing on the rules of sub judice to suggest that the usual legal processes should be followed.
The Government have had a crowded agenda since May 1997 and their mission statement. We saw the successful transition of Hong Kong, for which almost all the credit must go to the previous Government. Then we had the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh. I concede that the key themes for that meeting--including the welcome initiatives on non-governmental organisations and on trade--were set by the previous Government, but they were successfully continued by this Government. We then had the preparation for the presidency of the European Union which we held for the first six months of this year, and we remain part of the troika thereafter.
The presidency of the European Union established Britain's role in advancing the development of the EU in key sectors. For example, the launch of European monetary union was organised during our presidency. At the Council in May, the process was set under way and, on 1 January 1999, the euro will replace 11 national currencies. Enlargement negotiations, which are vital for the future of Europe, began during our presidency and there was no serious criticism of that process. The accession process encompassing all 11 applicant states was launched in Brussels on 30 March and accession negotiations were formally opened with the five plus one members in the first wave. That was all achieved successfully, and we also advanced various items on Agenda 2000, the Commission document of July 1997. The UK presidency showed a firm commitment to helping to build a people's Europe that is relevant. In passing, I wish to point out that the only references to Europe made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe were negative. He showed why, if we were to have a Conservative Government, Britain would be as isolated now as it was before May last year.
As we look forward to the 21st century, it is clear that Britain can no longer rely on a mainly bilateral policy. Virtually all our foreign policy must be conducted through our alliances. As we move into the 21st century, it is easy to envisage globalisation resulting in vast changes in the way in which we conduct our international relations. Managing the challenges of the next century will mean finding our way forward with our allies in key sectors to maximise our national interest through the great series of alliances that the United Kingdom enjoys because of its proud history. Those include the Commonwealth, the European Union, the transatlantic alliance--and NATO--and the series of other alliances that were a feature during our presidency.
Mr. Bradshaw:
Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the greatest example of the effect of the transformation of our relations with our European partners was the lifting of the beef export ban? Does he also agree with the president of the National Farmers Union, who said that that was a result of the Government's re-engagement with Europe, in contrast with the previous Government's xenophobic tub-thumping approach?
Mr. Anderson:
Although the solution resulted partly from scientific changes, it is clear that it was carried through because of the much greater good will in Europe towards the Government and their European position.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was extraordinary to hear Conservative Members welcome the lifting of the beef ban while they simultaneously decried the qualified majority voting system that allowed that to happen? Were it not for QMV, there would have been a German veto.
Mr. Anderson:
Of course; that is clearly inconsistency on stilts, but we hear that inconsistency consistently. In passing, may I say that I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is held in great personal esteem within the European Union and beyond? An Albanian socialist told me that one of his party's candidates had a name that recalled the old regime, so he had to change it if he were to stand a chance of election. He changed it to Tony, and won overwhelmingly.
Challenges face Europe in the 21st century. There is instability at the fringes of Europe, on the Mediterranean and in Bosnia. Parts of the middle east are a continuing source of tension, as are weapons technology and weapons of mass destruction. Terrorism, the Balkans and arrangements with Russia all require us to work in close consultation with our allies. The Foreign Secretary has already shown, over both Kosovo and Iraq, that beyond the diplomatic negotiations there must be a credible threat of force. In both those critical areas, the fact that we were prepared to use force was essential to ensuring reasonably successful outcomes.
To maximise our leadership, a positive approach to Europe has been, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) has said, to the benefit of the United Kingdom in relation to BSE and many other areas. I hope that our new relationship with the incoming German Government, and with Mr. Jospin and the French Government, will ensure the greater centrality of the UK within Europe. It is unwise to talk of a special trilateral relationship with Germany and France. Sensitivities are such that we must be wary of irritating the smaller countries. However, in power terms, such a relationship can carry us forward and help the UK to show its European credentials.
On defence, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken of a new defence identity and the rebalancing of the weight of the United States and Europe within NATO--and that, contrary to what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, has been welcomed by the United States. My right hon. Friend said at Edinburgh on 13 November:
"Diplomacy works best when backed by the credible threat of force. The maxim applies to Europe too. Europe needs to develop the ability to act alone in circumstances where, for whatever reason, the US is not able or does not wish to participate."
27 Nov 1998 : Column 458
That relates to the NATO doctrine of separable but not separate, as applied to the rebalancing of links between the two parts of the transatlantic alliance. My right hon. Friend continued by outlining what was needed:
That new debate has been welcomed by the United States administration and by the key forces in the Congress. It appears, however, to be disavowed by the Opposition because of their narrow obsession with total hostility to anything with the word "European" in its title. That can hardly be good for Britain. It is a new form of isolation.
"First, rapid and comprehensive implementation of the European identity in NATO agreed in Berlin at the beginning of 1996. We need a European decision-making capacity and command structure which can operate rapidly and effectively if necessary.
Second, proper decision-making structures in the EU, headed by European Council readiness to take strategic decisions on Europe-only operations . . . we also need to check the institutions are right. To decide how the EU, WEU, and NATO can best mesh together. We have no preconceptions. Rather we want a new debate."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |