| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Mar 2009 : Column 240WH—continued
I come to some of the more technical aspects of the constitution, such as the electoral procedures for achieving free and fair elections and the need to establish properly conducted parliamentary procedures. Again, this country has a huge range of expertise to offer on those matters. It is said frequently that this country has no written constitution, which is technically correct, but we do have in writing a huge body of statute and procedural law laid down, for example, in the Standing Orders of
both Houses, which is effectively part and parcel of the written form of our constitution. Again, will the Foreign Office consider sponsoring an outward or inward visit for those in the Constituent Assembly who want to ensure that, on electoral arrangements for achieving free and fair elections and proper parliamentary procedures, the constitution benefits from our knowledge and expertise, if they so wish?
I come to the issue of enshrining in the constitution the fundamental requirements of human rights, especially those of women, children and those, such as the Dalits, with low or effectively nil caste status in Nepal, as well as other key rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of the media. In Pokhara, we held two very valuable meetings with women’s groups on women’s rights, which, I am glad to say, were of an entirely cross-party nature, in Nepalese terms. We also had a valuable meeting in Kathmandu with Freedom Forum, a leading Nepalese non-governmental organisation, on the freedom of the media. We also have much expertise to offer on human rights and freedom of expression. I suggest to the Minister that the Government consider proposing to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), as Chairman of the all-party human rights group, that she lead a Foreign and Commonwealth Office-sponsored delegation to Nepal to focus on the human rights dimensions of its constitution.
A further critical issue is international development aid. Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world with one of the worst incidences of child mortality. Development aid is crucial. We saw the value of the programmes run by the Department for International Development and, at the Baglung district hospital, how DFID funding is helping to improve maternity care and the quality of health care for children. In the high hills beyond Pokhara, we also saw what the DFID project for community forestry user groups, which is funded through its livelihoods and forestry programme, was doing to improve the quality of forestry, environmental protection and income streams to women and disadvantaged groups in the poor hill communities. I am glad to say—this is to the credit of the Government—that the UK is the largest single bilateral foreign aid donor to Nepal, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that that position will be maintained and, if possible, aid increased.
Unusually, for such visits, we achieved one significant change in policy. When the Maoist leader, Prachanda—now Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal—was engaged in the Maoist insurgency, he made a firm commitment that he would end the recruitment of Gurkhas to the British Army. During our meeting, I put it to him that he should consider abandoning that commitment and resume recruitment. I am glad to tell the Chamber that he said that he would do so. Following our meeting, his office put out a press statement to that effect. I am sure that the Minister, and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, will do everything possible to ensure that that commitment is adhered to.
Nepal is at a crossroads: the Constituent Assembly is in existence and has a blank sheet of paper in front of it for the compiling of the written constitution. That represents considerable progress since my last visit to Nepal in March 2006, when the Parliament building
was behind shutters and the Assembly had not sat for four years. That was followed by the successful elections last year, for which Parliament contributed a British observer team led by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster). Over the next year or so, Nepal will either succeed in writing and securing approval for its written, multi-party, democratic constitution, or relapse into deadlock, factional infighting and a possible resumption of the insurgency. Its two huge neighbours to the north and south—China and India—are watching attentively, with consequences unknown should instability rage again in Nepal. This is Nepal’s hour of need, when it most urgently needs its friends, especially it longest-standing friend. I hope that the British Government will not be found wanting.
1.19 pm
David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) for securing the debate and for inviting me to make a very brief contribution. It was an honour to visit Nepal in his company a couple of weeks ago, and I am grateful to the Inter-Parliamentary Union for facilitating and organising the trip.
In the long history of Nepal, it is no exaggeration to say that the next 12 months will be critical. This most ancient of countries has the astonishing opportunity to become one of the most modern and youngest countries in the world. There are key ways in which the UK Government can assist the process. For example, it can help with the writing of the constitution. The question of how Nepal will be federalised as a nation is at the heart of the biggest challenge that it faces. We offered some assurances from our own experience of devolution, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that even more can be offered. With my experience as Minister of State in the Scotland Office and the Northern Ireland Office, I thought that he was going to offer me up as a special envoy to Nepal, which might find favour in some quarters in Government. None the less, we must help in whatever way we can.
Integrating the People’s Liberation Army into the Nepalese army is critical as well. Some 20,000 trained guerrillas are being kept as a bargaining chip should the negotiations not go as some quarters would like. That cannot be a force for stability, and we should offer whatever help and support we can.
Finally, the most important thing is for DFID to continue what it is already doing. We are the largest donor to Nepal, and we are making a real difference. We are demonstrating to the people of Nepal that stability, peace and democratic government can deliver material benefits, and that is what will ensure long-term stability in Nepal. A new country assistance plan is due, and the signals are that it is very promising. We will continue to support Nepal, which is the most important thing that we can do to help the country at this time.
1.21 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Bill Rammell):
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on securing this debate. Let me start by setting out its context. As he said, Nepal is now at a watershed moment in its history. The Nepalese people, through their
Constituent Assembly, have the opportunity to build a lasting peace and a democratic society, based on the rule of law, which serves their aspiration to live in a normal and stable society. As a close friend of Nepal, it is important that the UK provide all the support and encouragement that it can to the Nepalese people at this crucial time. Therefore, I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for visiting Nepal as representatives of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. From what I have heard, the visit was both constructive and helpful.
The UK and Nepal have enjoyed close relations since the first British resident was posted to Kathmandu in 1816. The British remained the only foreign diplomatic presence in the capital for well over a century. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we are viewed as firm friends and as a respected source of impartial advice and support.
Let me now turn to a few areas in which we have helped the Nepalese Government and their people. Both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) referred to development aid. Nepal is one of the poorest countries in Asia and the 14th poorest in the world. The UK is the largest bilateral donor to Nepal, contributing £55 million in 2007-08. As long as this Government, with their massively increased aid programme, remain in power, such donations will continue as a priority. That support is aimed at helping Nepal achieve the millennium development goals, as well as supporting the ongoing peace process.
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, foreign direct investment in sectors such as hydropower, industry and tourism has the potential to create new jobs and lift many more people out of poverty. The key to jump-starting that will be a more stable business environment in Nepal, which, above all, requires a visible improvement in public security. That must remain the top priority in the coming years, and we will do all that we can to help achieve that. On their visit, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend saw that the British Council is also an active and engaged player, helping to develop international engagement and educational opportunities in Nepal.
Let me turn to the broader peace process in Nepal, which rightly attracts a lot of international concern, and which we monitor extremely closely though our embassy in Kathmandu. That peace process has made impressive progress since the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement in November 2006. Nepal held its first democratic elections in nine years in April 2008. The UK played a leading role in galvanising, funding and co-ordinating international support for those elections. We also played a significant role in supporting the international observation of those elections, including providing two Members from this House and two from the other place.
The Constituent Assembly that was elected to write Nepal’s new constitution is the most representative legislative body in the country’s history. Unfortunately, since its first meeting last May, at which it abolished the monarchy and declared Nepal a federal democratic republic, progress has been slow. Nevertheless, we will do all that we can to support the work of the Assembly in drafting a new constitution and we urge it to take this work forward in 2009.
A Maoist-led coalition Government were eventually formed last August. Unfortunately the consensus between the main parties that allowed the elections to take place has subsequently and regrettably weakened. We are doing all that we can to encourage the parties to work together in a co-operative way to bring Nepal’s peace process to a conclusion and to agree the new constitution. A consensus needs to develop among political parties and between parties and society on their future vision for the country, and we will do all that we can to support that process.
The integration issue is also critical. The future of more than 19,000 Maoist ex-combatants and of the Nepal army remains one of the crucial elements in the ongoing peace process. It is clear to all observers, including those in Nepal, that the current limbo is not sustainable and that the cantonments that house the former rebels cannot persist for ever. As a first step, those whom the UN disqualified as legitimate combatants, including some 3,000 minors, should be discharged without further delay. Although it is for the Nepalese to decide how to take the process forward, it still falls to us to help if the Nepalese Government so wish. For example, the UK Government stand ready to offer technical support and guidance if it is needed by the Nepalese Government. We are also doing what we can to assist the Nepalese with security sector reform, which is another crucial area. We have already done some work on managing the civil oversight of the Nepalese army by helping to strengthen the Ministry of Defence. We are willing to take that forward under the new Government.
Let me try to respond to some of the specific questions that have been raised. The right hon. Gentleman asked what help we can give to support—for want of a better phrase—the devolutionary process within Nepal. That is a matter for the Nepalese Government, but we are ready to offer support if that is requested. In the meantime, we are supporting ongoing work to gather public opinion on the future constitution, and we stand ready to provide technical assistance if it is needed.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of Gurkha resettlements. That is a matter for the Ministry of Defence. None the less, it is an interesting suggestion. Following this debate, I shall write to my counterpart in the MOD, raising that issue. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of inward and outward visits in order to help build democracy in Nepal. As I said earlier, we are ready to offer technical expertise if that is requested by the Constituent Assembly and by the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), in her capacity as Chairman of the all-party human rights group, might visit Nepal. That is something to which I shall give consideration. If he is agreeable, I shall write back to him when I have reached a decision. Therefore, constructive progress is being made. We are ready to do all that we can to support that process.
Finally, let me address the crucial issue of human rights. It is rightly an issue that attracts a lot of interest from parliamentary colleagues. We regularly raise human rights concerns at all levels and co-ordinate with other international and domestic partners to put across the message that protecting human rights is the cornerstone to ensuring that peace is both sustainable and based on democratic values. We welcome the establishment of
the National Human Rights Council. The NHRC’s unique constitutional responsibility to protect and promote the rights of Nepalese people makes it an essential part of a strong national human rights protection system. We encourage the NHRC to continue to work closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and to draw on the expertise available within Kathmandu to develop its own capacity. The signing on 20 February of guidelines on co-operation between the two organisations should provide the basis for future co-operation.
In conclusion, there is a long-standing relationship between this country and Nepal. It has served us well in a variety of ways. We have contributed to the development of Nepal. At this critical juncture, we will continue to do all that we can to support the development of that important country.
Election Observation
1.30 pm
Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South) (Lab): The late Samuel Huntington elaborated the theory of the three waves of democratisation, the latest of which was the events of 1989, which resulted in swift democratisation in east and central Europe and parts of the former Soviet Union. The wave affected not only the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe area, but Africa, Asia and Latin America. Regrettably, some countries have regressed, but others have become more democratic.
Clearly, time forbids any discussion in any detail of democratisation, elections, human rights, and good government. The Economist’s intelligence unit report divides Governments into full democracies—we are 23rd out of 27—flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes. Many countries claim to be democratic, but Andrew Wilson entitled his recent book on the former Soviet Union, “Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World”.
We want democracy to be promoted and sustained. Whatever one’s definition of consolidated or full democracy, or whatever people think are the components of democracy, elections that meet international standards are integral to the process. Without elections, there is no real democracy—although I admit that there can be authoritarianism with elections—and there cannot be proper elections unless they are properly observed. One can pay great tribute to international organisations such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the United Nations, which does much less in election observations having subcontracted its role, the European Union, the Organisation of American States, the African Union and some great non-governmental organisations on all continents. Those organisations, be they international or regional, or NGOs, contribute enormously to the process of democratisation.
Unfortunately, democratisation and election observation have been suffering as a result of two major threats. Russia, which as the Minister well knows does not have free and fair elections—I prefer to say that it does not meet international obligations—has embarked on a concerted attack on ODIHR. It wishes either to downgrade ODIHR or for it to have standards more like those of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which means spurious standards or no standards at all. That has been debilitating for ODIHR, which is constantly fighting off Russia and its many allies. In meetings of the OSCE, in ministerial and ambassadorial meetings in Vienna, and in any forum in which the Russians can do so, they try to embarrass ODIHR and its election observations. I headed an election observation mission to Russia. It was a flawed election, but the Russians moralise about how elections should properly be conducted.
That process culminated in the events of a year or so ago, when the Russians made it impossible for ODIHR to observe their presidential elections—in essence they told ODIHR that they did not want the organisation to be present. ODIHR said:
“The Russian Federation has created limitations that are not conducive to undertaking election observation in accordance with our mandate.”
By inviting ODIHR to the elections late, the Russians unilaterally deconstructed the organisation’s methodology, which is the best in the world. Its method is to be present two and a half months before the elections—it does not simply look at elections on the day. ODIHR also leaves people behind to look at the immediate post-election environment. Those things were was not possible.
Unfortunately, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly thought that that gave it an opportunity to shine, and the Council of Europe followed suit. Their joint report shows clearly why election observations by such parliamentary assemblies are shallow and why observations should not be carried out in such a way. They need ODIHR.
Looking at the situation from outside, I can see that it is not quite as bad as it was. Although the relationship between Russia and ODIHR is less bad, there is a second villain: the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, or, more specifically, its secretary-general, Spencer Oliver, and his staff, who were loyally picked without competition, and a number of senior Members of Parliaments of a number of countries. It is more debilitating to be attacked by a fellow OSCE institution. We expect the Russians to be obstreperous, but we should not expect it from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
I obtained a document from ODIHR, which was in essence sent by Spencer Oliver, which states:
“The Parliamentary Assembly, which has played the leading role in election monitoring since”
being told by the Swedish Foreign Minister that it is in charge of election observation,
“should clearly be placed in charge of OSCE election observations. ODIHR can and should, as foreseen in the”
“Cooperation Agreement, play a subordinate and supportive role.”
Since that time, the Parliamentary Assembly has been truly obstreperous—I have compiled a list of what it has been doing. I observed the parliamentary elections in Georgia last year and saw exactly what its observers were doing from close by. It clearly wants to supplant ODIHR as the principal organisation and reduce it to a supportive role, and it is colluding with the Russians to achieve that objective.
It is difficult enough to observe the elections, because the Governments who are being observed do not want to be observed. Their acts of fraud are becoming increasingly sophisticated, so observers have to be on the ball and they need a good methodology, as ODIHR has. ODIHR needs to work closely with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, but it cannot. There is an important role for the European Parliament and its election observation work, and for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. As I said, people need to be on the ground two and a half months before the elections. It is difficult to observe elections of perhaps 200, 250 or 300 people, but it is almost impossible when people have to watch their backs and fronts for people who are trying to destroy or marginalise them. Those are two of the major difficulties facing ODIHR: the Russians and their allies, and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |