| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.48 pm
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh): I wish to draw out the aspects of the Gracious Speech on the ethical foreign policy and relate them to the control of instruments of torture. A few years ago, the Foreign Secretary told us, in reply to a written question, that the Government were
- "committed to preventing British companies from manufacturing, selling or procuring equipment designed primarily for torture".
- "take the necessary measures to prevent the export or the transhipment from the UK"
- "We are examining how to . . . ban the manufacture and possession"
- "sought views on the extent to which any new legislation should seek to control trafficking . . . and brokering of such deals."--[Official Report, 28 July 1997; Vol. 299, c.65-66W.]
The Hamburger Woollen company is a specialist in police equipment, and has been since 1940. It advertises for sale equipment supplied by Hiatt-Thompson, which claims to have been established in 1780, and specialises in nickel-plated steel heavy-duty leg-cuffs, with heavy-duty 14-in chains, and lead chains, belly chains, leg and handcuff connectors and chains. Those instruments of torture are distributed in America by Hiatt-Thompson.
Although Hiatt-Thompson is a separate company from Hiatt of Birmingham, it proudly claims to have been "simply the best since 1780"--the very year that Hiatt of Birmingham was established as
When the company was challenged about the presence and provenance of those instruments which, although they are banned in Britain, clearly bear the imprint "made in Birmingham, UK", it said:
When Hiatt-Thompson, of the United States, was challenged on the manacles and chains, it claimed that they were made at its own premises, which turn out to be a warehouse that is barely the size of the average high-street shop.
Thus a British company seems to be manufacturing components of banned instruments and implements of torture--oversized cuffs and separate chains--which, subsequently, are assembled overseas. Moreover, the practice is perfectly legal under current legislation. Customs and Excise officers have seen components in packing cases, but are powerless to intervene in their export. According to the Government's own annual reports on strategic arms exports for 1997 and 1998, outsized handcuffs were exported at least to Egypt, Barbados and the United Arab Emirates.
It is, therefore, still legal in the United Kingdom to broker leg-irons, gang chains and shackles. It is still legal to make leg-irons, gang chains and shackles in the United Kingdom and to export them, provided that they are in component form. The only legal change since the Foreign Secretary's July 1997 statement has been the change in the wording of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 to include electroshock equipment.
Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling):
I shall be very brief, as I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) wants to speak. The Government Whip has also promised me that, although I have only 10 minutes in which to speak and must hurry, he will not report that my speech was rushed or overlooked major issues.
Today's debate is on foreign and defence policy. It is often said that people are not particularly interested in that policy sphere, as it does not deal with bread-and-butter issues. However, today's debate--and the increasing amount of correspondence and number of surgery appointments with constituents who are concerned about foreign affairs and international matters reported on television--has demonstrated that foreign and defence matters are becoming increasingly important to our constituents. Young people, especially, recognise that global interdependence rules out isolation as an option. The way in which the Government have worked with international organisations in dealing with some of the difficulties confronting us has the general support of the population.
The Government's declaration that ethics is central to their foreign and defence policy is important. It is easy to scoff at the idea of an ethical defence or foreign policy. However, it is not particularly helpful to be 100 per cent. pure about such matters. In the real world there is an element of compromise and of trying to do one's best. Taking a cynical view of any political decision, and believing that only 100 per cent. will do, leads to an underestimation of the very real achievements of all Governments, whatever their political party.
I should like to highlight some of the Government's achievements since they came to power in 1997. Signing the Ottawa treaty and banning land mines was a major step forward. Our role in Kosovo, pursuing humanitarian goals and putting human rights centre stage, is something of which we can all be proud. We now have a code of conduct on arms control, and annual reports are produced about its effectiveness; we have made statements on the restoration of democracy in Pakistan and the importance of the Commonwealth; and we are looking to reform the European Union to make it a more effective organisation for good in the world.
I do not think that anyone has yet mentioned the nuclear safeguards Bill included in the Queen's Speech, which will put into law international agreements on nuclear proliferation. Indeed, the Government have controlled the number of nuclear warheads on Trident submarines.
We can also be proud of the role of British troops at the forefront of many peacekeeping operations and missions around the world. The way in which our armed forces operate is changing. We no longer live in a time of cold war; our troops will increasingly be sent to places such as Bosnia and Kosovo, as we saw recently, and perhaps, in future, they will be sent to Africa. Many hon. Members have mentioned the stress and strain that the new type of operation places on our troops. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to listen to the real concerns about the pressures that the new role puts on our troops. Any change in the role of the armed forces must be considered.
Much has been said about human rights. Again, there are no absolutes. One could ask why the Government talked to China, Indonesia and certain African states and did not impose sanctions. To be fair, all Governments have to make a judgment about how best to promote human rights. One has to make a judgment about China. I think the Government were right to invite the Chinese Premier here, to try to influence him and promote human rights in discussions with him. Not to do that would not have helped the cause of human rights in Tibet or China. Again, it would be easy to take the purist line and say that the Government should not have entered discussions.
I was pleased to see a mention in the Gracious Speech of the 10th anniversary of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I have the honour and privilege to be a parliamentary friend of the United Nations Children's Fund and have travelled with it to Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro. The convention sets important standards by which children should survive, grow and be protected. It offers a yardstick by which we should all be judged. The plight of children around the world moves us all, and we should use the convention and work with international organisations to make a real difference to the lives of those children.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire):
I want to discuss two areas of foreign and defence policy where the Government seek credit but deserve blame: enlargement of the European Union and the handling of the Kosovo crisis.
I shall be briefer on enlargement than I might have hoped since I must contain my remarks within less than 10 minutes. The next historic function of the EU is its enlargement to the east. It is sad that the EU, the Commission and the Government talk the language of enlargement but engage in policies that make it more difficult. If the poorer, less developed economies of the former Soviet bloc are to become members of an enlarged EU, as we all hope will happen, we have a moral obligation not to erect huge barriers to their entry. High social costs, inflexible labour laws and the single currency are such barriers. At the very least, those barriers will make entry as painful as is humanly possible.
As Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, I am painfully aware that the common agricultural policy is probably the biggest barrier of all to enlargement. Britain along with the Commission has been the strongest advocate of reform but, at Berlin, at the last moment, when our support was most crucial, we gave in, to coin a phrase, to the forces of conservatism. As the final session dragged on into the small hours, the Prime Minister gave in to the French president. His diplomatic and negotiating skills failed him, and that will cost the United Kingdom and Europe dear. That happened despite the pledge in the Gracious Speech that the Government
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has made clear, however, an interesting and important document entitled "Kosovo: Law and Diplomacy" by Mark Littman QC confirms that NATO's intervention in Kosovo was unlawful, unnecessary and unsuccessful. If his judgments are correct--[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) can contain himself, I shall deal with that in a moment.
If Mr. Littman's judgments are correct, as I believe them to be, we must never again blunder into this kind of action out of a misguided sense that something must be done. As Littman puts it, respect for international law by countries such as ours is crucial. Without it,
Could the crisis have been resolved by diplomacy? It seems that it could and should have been solved without the dropping of a single bomb. A negotiated peace was on the table at Rambouillet. As Littman said:
As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made clear during his impressive speech, the bombing did not make things better for the ordinary people of Kosovo and Serbia. The ethnic cleansing accelerated as a direct response to the war; it continues to this day, although now it is Albanians who are ethnically cleansing Serbs. To say that is not to be an apologist for Milosevic, but to say that the UK's analysis should be sophisticated enough to work out the likely response of an evil man to provocation.
What is even worse is that the whole situation in the Balkans is now less stable than it was before the bombing, and much less stable than if negotiations had been allowed to run their course. Furthermore, the campaign played fast and loose with our relationship with Russia. The Kosovo Albanians now seek full independence. The risk must be that they will seek union with Albania, forming a greater Albania that could then express an interest--shall we say--in the Albanians of Macedonia. Quite what Greece will make of all that, I think we can safely predict. Only by maintaining a significant military presence in the region for the foreseeable future, can that be prevented--and perhaps not even then.
That leads to the question of cost. There is a cost to Britain's reputation; to the social, economic, environmental and cultural fabric of Kosovo and Serbia; and to the British taxpayer. That money could have been so much better spent by the Department for International Development; for example, in Orissa or dealing with the street children of Mongolia--whom I saw on a visit there in September.
"makers of prisoner handcuffs, felons leg irons, gang chains and collars to the 'Trade'".
The House may be interested to know that the trade referred to was the slave trade.
"These are old stock, made in the 1980s."
However, the New Jersey shop selling the leg-irons said that it had been received in a recent delivery. The leg-cuffs and chains were bright, shiny and seemingly new.
"will promote the enlargement of the Union".
The very next paragraph of the Queen's Speech discussed the future of NATO, saying that it
"remains the foundation of Britain's defence and security."
22 Nov 1999 : Column 428
The speech referred to the need to adapt the alliance to meet the challenges of the new century and said that the Government would work to make the Security Council more effective. How can such claims be taken seriously against the backdrop of the Government's appalling mismanagement of the wretched Kosovo affair?
A myth is being established on the Labour Benches that the NATO intervention should be treated as a model to be followed elsewhere. It is not so. The myth must be challenged. The intervention in Kosovo should instead be treated as a textbook example of what not to do. I am no apologist for Milosevic and I have only praise for the achievement of our armed forces. Milosevic is an evil man who must be removed from power as soon as possible. Our armed forces performed magnificently.
"we would be back in the condition in which we were 100 years ago when all wars were lawful."
What message does NATO's flouting of international law send to other states whose behaviour we may want to criticise?
"At a critical point in the discussions at Rambouillet, NATO abandoned diplomacy in favour of a package of non-negotiable demands contained in a document described by Dr Kissinger as 'a terrible diplomatic document' as a 'provocation' and as 'an excuse to start bombing'."
The sad truth is that by 23 February this year, a statement issued by the office of the high representative for the Contact Group noted that the efforts of all the parties had
"led to a consensus on substantial autonomy for Kosovo, including on mechanisms for free and fair elections to democratic institutions, for the governance of Kosovo, for the protection of human rights and the rights of national communities, and for the establishment of a fair judicial system."
The statement continued by pointing out that the groundwork had been laid for
"the modalities of the invited international civilian and military presence in Kosovo."
Even at that most encouraging stage, it seems that the Government and NATO were prepared to wrench war from the jaws of peace by tabling aggressive, non-negotiable proposals for the military aspects of the agreement. Those terms were unreasonable, and NATO must have known that they would be rejected. Indeed, at the end of the bombing, NATO made precisely the type of concessions that it was not prepared even to discuss when the bombing began.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |