| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9 Feb 2010 : Column 221WH—continued
"We must put much more emphasis on preventing conflict, on ensuring fragile states do not become the Afghanistan of tomorrow. Whilst this is much more than a military role, we must be structured and resourced to play what can often be a key part... We must get this balance right."
We concur with that across the all-party group.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, at heart, what he is discussing is predicated on the assumption that most of our adversaries are sane and motivated, regardless of how objectionable their methods are, and that as long as we have sane, motivated adversaries, the real challenge is to address their motivations? That is much more effective than simply trying to kill them.
John McDonnell: That is exactly the lesson that we have learned in recent years. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Northern Ireland. The issue is addressing the causes of conflict, rather than just the symptoms.
I pay tribute to the organisations mentioned by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that have contributed to our work. I also pay tribute to those in the ministry for peace here and in the Global Alliance for Ministries and Departments of Peace and to Kai Brand-Jacobsen, the inspirational peace worker. People should read his speech from 2006 in Portcullis House on the ministry for peace website, which gives an indication of the pragmatic and practical ways in which we can inspire peace.
I shall give two of the most recent examples of the practical work done by movements elsewhere in the world to secure peace that we and the Government can learn from. In Nairobi in Kenya last week, there was a seminar on building infrastructures for peace, which the UN helped to facilitate. It brought together 14 African countries, which examined a detailed programme of work for establishing structures, methods and resources that would identify potential conflicts and considered not only the problems encouraging those conflicts, particularly the scarcity of resources, which has been mentioned, but the role of development, the impact on the scarcity of resources and the models to be put in place at all levels of Government and civil society to promote peace and prevent conflict. That useful dialogue has occurred in the developing world, which we can learn from, because it deals with civil society structures as much as Government structures.
Costa Rica was mentioned. It is interesting that Costa Rica hosted the Global Alliance for Ministries and Departments of Peace conference. In addition to installing in its own constitution a commitment to peace, it has established a ministry of Justice and Peace. That is the third ministry for peace in the world. President Oscar Arias, the Nobel peace prize winner, opened the global alliance conference and announced the establishment of that Department. Again, there are lessons that we can learn from someone who has practical and pragmatic experience of bringing about peace in his own country and promoting it on that continent, and the Government would do well to listen.
This point was made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. We need now a commitment to maintain the momentum in government. Given the complexities of budget structures across Departments, I and others, including peace groups, are unsure of the commitment and resources being applied in government to conflict prevention and of what is planned for the long term. It would be helpful today to have some clarity about that. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot give us clarity, it would be useful if he attended the all-party group and we could have a more comprehensive discussion about the detail of the planned process in government for the investment of resources and about the Government's new ideas about how they can best be co-ordinated across Departments and then linked with advice from civil society organisations and the organisations that we have mentioned, so that the all-party group could be advised.
May I also put this on the table? I do so unilaterally; I have not consulted the joint chairs of the all-party group. I would like the concept of conflict prevention to be taken out of the knockabout of the general election debate, or at least let us set a base that the parties can compete from to best one another. May I make this offer? I apologise if it is unilateral. I think that the all-party group could play a role in bringing all three political parties together to construct a cross-party manifesto for the general election on conflict prevention. It could, for example, set the principle among all political parties that the main direction of their future international policy would be peace, that structures would be established in government, linked with civil society, to promote peace and that that would be adequately resourced. If we can facilitate that dialogue and have that principle installed in the manifesto of each party, it will send the message that we are all committed, determined and serious about conflict prevention and that we will not allow future changes of government to undermine that general direction of policy.
11.36 am
Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon) (Con): I am delighted to follow the other joint chairs of the all-party group. I am attracted to the unilateral offer that has just been put on the table and would happily pick that one up. I also pay tribute to the many groups that support us and do such excellent work. I have very much enjoyed being involved in the group in the past couple of years. That perhaps demonstrates the point that the conflict resolution agenda is not just for Guardian-reading left wingers; it cuts right across the political spectrum, although I certainly do not describe myself as a Telegraph-reading Tory any longer.
I want to make one simple point in a short speech. I believe that the issue of conflict resolution feeds into a wider debate about the role of Britain in the world that we are having because of the forthcoming strategic defence review and because we have a significant problem with debt, which we all know about. That is forcing us to focus on our priorities. Although there are those in that debate who think that we cannot afford to play the international role that we play in global affairs and that we should retrench and become a Norway, a Switzerland or a country of that ilk, I am firmly of the opinion that that would be a huge mistake, both for us and for the world, and that we have a very significant and special role to play in global affairs.
I suggest that that role increasingly should focus, with all the assets that we have, on our being a country that focuses on peace making. That is a role that Britain can uniquely offer the world. Why do I say that? We have the armed forces. That is a significant asset because we know that sometimes the threat of force or even the use of force is essential in bringing about peace. Hon. Members may not all agree with that, but the threat of force is there. We have an incredible heritage in terms of soft power. The diplomatic skills that we have and the democracy that we enjoy in this country are part of the skill set that we can bring to the table. In addition, we sometimes underplay the vast army of non-governmental organisations, large and small, in this country that have significant experience and that focus on many issues, but particularly conflict resolution and prevention. We have so much to bring to the table; let us bring it.
Some might say, "Who are we to go around talking about peace and conflict resolution and prevention?", because of the struggle that we have had in Northern Ireland for the past 30 or 40 years. I say that that is not a negative. We have gained experience from Northern Ireland. I sat in this room some months ago, at a meeting horribly traduced by the Daily Mail, and heard Patrick Magee and the daughter of Sir Anthony Berry, who had been meeting and talking together for years, talking of their reconciliation as individuals. In the end, achieving peace will come down to human beings getting together across divides to resolve issues and differences, as they have done so wonderfully in South Africa as a result of the astonishing leadership of two or three individuals. Our Northern Ireland experience can therefore strengthen our hand, and it gives us useful experience to bring to many tables around the world.
I congratulate the Government on their focus on conflict prevention over their 13 years in office, which are, of course, about to come to a crashing end. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that it would be great if policy at the Foreign Office, DFID and the MOD could focus increasingly on peace making, conflict resolution and conflict prevention and if this country increasingly acquired a reputation around the world for using its assets to bring to an end some of the conflicts that are causing such misery and poverty.
Many of my constituents will say, "But what's the national interest in doing this?"
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) (Con): It is huge.
Mr. Streeter:
My hon. Friend, who speaks from a sedentary position-I am sure that you will feel like ruling him out of order, Mr. Martlew-is absolutely
right. We live in a globalising world, and the genie will never be put back in the bottle, so if we can build peace and prosperity in other nations, our children-if we must look at these things in terms of our national interest-will be able to grow up in a safer and better environment. I therefore suggest to the Minister that the UK's future is firmly one of peace making, and I look forward to his response.
11.41 am
Mr. Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on his speech. He mentioned that regional conflicts could become international conflicts, and that we need to keep a lid on them at the regional level when we can. We tend to talk about places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, which have become the focus of international attention, but the hon. Gentleman listed a few of the many other places across the world that are witnessing conflicts, and I want to say a few words about the eastern Congo. Most people would not think of it as a place of great strategic interest, and when Governments such as ours think about where to place their emphasis and spend their money, it is not always in such places. It has to be said, however, that the UK Government are actually the main donor to every nation bordering the eastern Congo; that is certainly true of Rwanda and Burundi and, indeed, of the Democratic Republic of the Congo itself.
I want to refer to two UN Security Council resolutions in terms of conflict resolution and prevention. The conflict in the eastern Congo is a consequence of the genocide in Rwanda, which took place in 1994. There are many armed groups in the area, and the Congolese Government have little capacity, so we rely very much on the work of the international community. UN Security Council resolution 1857 relies on member states to give the Security Council the names of people and companies involved in trading minerals in the eastern Congo and the wider region, although the process is not always smooth or easy.
It is often said, although I am never absolutely clear how much truth there is in this, that UK privacy laws make it harder for the UK Government to provide the names of individuals whom they believe might be trading in minerals in the Congo in a bad way. That can simply mean that money is changing hands in a non-transparent way, but we all know what happens when that is the case: the money will invariably fund armed groups. Perhaps the Minister will comment, therefore, on how prepared the UK Government are to provide the names of people and companies operating in the UK, because one or two companies have been mentioned in international and UN documents. Britain is far from the worst offender, but in the case of at least one of the companies involved, we might not be ensuring the free flow to the UN of information that will allow it to take action.
The other UN Security Council resolution is 1906, which essentially relates to having a better focus on international efforts to resolve and prevent conflict in the eastern Congo. The United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is the largest UN contingent in the world, with about 20,000 peacekeepers, will reach the end of its current mandate on 31 May. MONUC does its very best to keep a lid on things, but its capacity will always be pretty limited, and
many hon. Members who have been to the DRC will have observed that for themselves. The capacity of the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is, if I can put it this way, enormously limited; often, they are an offender themselves.
The Congolese Government's remit does not really extend to protecting their citizens in the eastern Congo, so the international effort is all the more important. There are, of course, many other demands on the UN's resources, and each time resolution 1906 comes up for negotiation, there is talk of MONUC's being downsized so that the peacekeepers can be used in other important fields of conflict; indeed, we might hear more about those later. However, I hope that the Minister will assure us that when the new mandate comes up for negotiation-Alan Doss, who is a UK citizen, runs MONUC and is seized of all this-we will keep the same focus on co-ordinating the international effort. I also hope that he can assure us that we will do much more than we have in the past, once the mandate has been negotiated. Of course, we must recognise that there is demand in other parts of the world, but the mandate is extremely important, and I hope that the Government will place it as high as they can up their list of priorities.
11.46 am
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) (Con): I want to bring a quite different dimension to the debate by referring to my involvement in work with the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly that touches on this important subject. For me and my colleagues, the focus is not so much conflict prevention as conflict resolution, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said. In our experience, the failure to resolve Europe's frozen conflicts is the real cause for concern, certainly in terms of the European geographical dimension.
Last year, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted a report that I had produced under the title of "Europe's forgotten people". It is about the 2.8 million people-yes, it is that many-who are internally displaced within Europe's borders, mostly in the Balkans and the south Caucasus. I had the privilege of going to Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan to talk to people about the vexed problem of the still frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. On behalf of the European Security and Defence Assembly-the old Western European Union Assembly-I have also looked at the security issues in the Balkans, where the failure to resolve frozen conflicts is so important.
Some of the people I met in Armenia still live in appalling conditions, and the situation in Azerbaijan is even worse. However, when I went to Baku to visit new housing developments built by the Azeri Government, I talked to 14 and 15-year-old schoolboys and girls in the street outside their school, and these children, who were born in Baku, not Nagorno-Karabakh, said, "We will go back to Nagorno-Karabakh and fight with our bare hands to get back the country that belongs to us." The failure to resolve such conflicts and frozen problems creates a breeding ground for resentment. As a result, there is real tension in the region, and I am sure that the Minister will refer to it.
I have also had the opportunity to talk to Turkish Ministers about the situation, and there is real hope that reopening the Turkey-Armenia border will help to improve things. Again, however, it is difficult to find a political solution, because a lot of people in Turkey say that they will have to say no to such a development until problems such as that in Cyprus are resolved. However, I do not have time to develop that point further.
The Assembly has looked in great detail at the consequences of the Georgia-Russia conflict, and the conclusion that we quickly reached was that the international community had ignored the warning signs-they were there, but they were not followed. The problems in the region were not resolved, and the consequences have been utterly tragic, with ethnic cleansing, property destroyed and tens of thousands of people left homeless. Two districts of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia-de facto independent states-are completely in limbo, with no protection from the international community. We should deplore that; it is not good enough.
The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, referred to Africa. Our work suggests that 31 or 32 countries in Africa are directly or indirectly affected by conflict, yet we wonder why people want to leave there and come to Europe. That is the push factor that is driving the problem of immigration. I have said that before, and written reports about it, and it is a great joy to have the opportunity, once in a while, to talk about it in Westminster.
Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the importance of migration. Not only does conflict cause migration, but migration in turn causes conflict in the places to which people move.
Mr. Greenway: Absolutely. I wish that there were more time to deal with that, but perhaps we can discuss the issue again on another occasion.
I want to talk about four solutions. First, hon. Members might not know that two weeks ago I was appointed chairman of the Migration Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, after four years of carrying out such work. I am supposed to be leaving Parliament at the election, but I shall get this year, so that is okay-it is so important. We have just agreed a report in the Assembly about the restoration of property rights. It is critical that redress be given to people. That does not necessarily mean saying, "We will give you this flat or house a thousand miles from where you came from." What about redress for the property that was taken? International action on that is critical.
Secondly, more work is needed on the resolution of frozen conflicts. No one has mentioned the European Union, but it is the critical driver. That is also true in relations with Russia. The matter cannot be resolved without the two sides together. The European Union's policy on neighbourhood and development can provide the support that is needed for the countries that are affected.
Thirdly, the enlargement of the European Union is also vital. In the Balkans, all opinion shows that support for European Union membership relies on the benefits of security as well as on economic prosperity. The security issue cannot be overstated. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned Kosovo.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a problem, and even in Croatia, which is about to join, there are still difficulties. Turkey must be made a member of the European Union as quickly as possible, as Europe can never solve the problems in the middle east without Turkey. If we have Turkey, there is a chance. I know that the issue is a vexed one-the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) frowns-but I have studied the question and held seminars on it, and I believe that that is to be encouraged.
Finally, more attention should be given to the issue of water, resources, energy and food. To go back to the question about that posed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon in his speech, and my answer that the national interest involved is huge, I made a speech about that to my constituency association about a year ago. One lady asked, "What's it got to do with us?" There was a map on the wall that had been put there by Members of the European Parliament, and I said, "Look at that map on the wall. Show me where the energy is and where it has to come from to get to you." There is the answer.
11.53 am
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I am pleased to play tail gunner and to try to sweep up some of the points that have been made-[Interruption.] Sorry about that unintentional pun.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing the debate. The all-party group on conflict issues is an excellent one, and I shall mention a couple of others. I chair the all-party group on Sudan, which knows a little about conflict, and I also want to mention the all-party group on women, peace and security, which also plays an invaluable part in the work on this issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the work he has done for the ministry for peace. When he is not present, I end up chairing most of its meetings, and Diana Basterfield has briefed me on some of what I need to say.
To put matters in context, it is pleasing that the idea of peace institutes and peace studies is no longer seen as marginal, but mainstream. There are now more than 800 peace research institutes in the world, and about 1,500 researchers and 400 academic peace studies departments, so this is not going against the grain any more but with it. Of course, we have much to learn, and there is much to lose if we do not get things right.
There is an irony about timing, given Afghanistan and Iraq. I and other hon. Members get lectured when we travel around the world. We are told, "You are all right when you talk about the conflicts that you accept, but our conflicts are seen to be of a different order, and we are told to get our act together." I hope that we shall not renew the Trident programme, but we are talking about the comprehensive test ban treaty at the same time as considering that. In other parts of the world, that strikes a note of irony, and people look at us open-mouthed and wide-eyed when we cannot see the connections that they make. We must do more to get our house in order.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |