| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while we are working all this out, who will provide protection for the transitional authority on and after 22nd December?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am going on to advise noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to be patient. The week is young—it is Monday—and Saturday is the 22nd. There may be events between now and then; there may not be. But there certainly will not be events unless we are satisfied that the questions asked in this debate have been answered satisfactorily from a British point of view. The last thing that we are going to do is to send our troops somewhere when we do not know the answers to a number of questions.
A number of difficult and complex issues have to be worked through. They include the mandate and the length of time that any force would be there, and the way in which it would operate in relation to other foreign forces asked for by the Afghans. There are other questions too. We accept that 22nd December is an important date in all this.
For these reasons, we and our partners agreed to send a small international reconnaissance and liaison team to Kabul over the weekend. Led by Major-General John McColl, the team included representatives from the United States, Canada and Italy. It built upon our already friendly and constructive relations with the interim authority in its discussions about the role, size and relationship with the interim authority of an ISAF.
General McColl has provided our partners and ourselves with an invaluable insight into the conditions in which an ISAF would operate. We are in the midst of incorporating that advice into our plans now. There is, of course, a great deal of interest in this potential deployment. But once again I counsel patience. We can make no announcement until our plans are finalised. This House will be informed as soon as we are able to do so.
Why are we thinking of doing this? The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked that question, adding the point: even though we are the most capable. That is certainly one of the factors in our reasons for considering such an operation. We do consider that we are among the most capable. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked about clarity. Unless we have clarity as regards rules of engagement and our role there, we shall not undertake this task.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the humanitarian crisis. Of course, it remains severe, but there are some grounds for hope. In November, the World Food Programme delivered some 56,000 metric tonnes of food aid—4,000 metric tonnes more than its target. The Friendship Bridge over the River Oxus has been reopened. Last week the coalition stopped its air drops of emergency aid to the Afghan people because there are now secure air heads to deliver food and other aid instead. Some have criticised those air drops but no one has proposed realistic alternatives. The Taliban was already attacking aid organisations well before 11th September. It is worth saying that it was a magnificent effort by the United States. More than 2.4 million ration packs were dropped.
The events on 11th September raised the threshold for terrorism. Today's operations, and those that we are considering for the near future are but the first response that we must make. We must look at the structure and shape of our Armed Forces. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked questions and made strong comments about the possibility of what was described as a new Strategic Defence Review. There is no intention to have a new SDR. We are right to consider—and there is no need to fear that consideration—whether we ought to make changes, given what happened on 11th September. It would add an extra chapter to the 1998 review, but that should not worry your Lordships. It will not be as wide-ranging as the review of 1998.
Surely it is legitimate for the Government to ask questions such as what are the threats we face, and what are their causes? What are our vulnerabilities, and how can we manage risk? What is the role of the Armed Forces and the right balance between homeland defence and overseas operations? What are the implications for international organisations and our regional and bilateral relationships? Those are important questions.
The noble and gallant Lord made some fun of the fact that it had been said that the Treasury would be involved at the start. It is arguable that it is better for the Treasury to be involved at the start than just at the finish. In a sense, one is damned if one does, and
damned if one does not. In our judgment it is better to take the Treasury along with us. I notice the smiles on the faces of noble Lords who have been senior Ministers, or even Chiefs of the Defence Staff. It is important to take the Treasury with us because the case is so overwhelming.I hope that your Lordships will give a fair ride to this enterprise. We are seeking the views of not only noble Lords but other experts on this important new chapter. Time is almost up. We have had an excellent debate, like all the others before it. There has been an increase in scope this time because of the many expert military contributions. Noble Lords hold many different views and have expressed them clearly, but the view of all noble Lords who have spoken in every debate is the abiding excellence of the British Armed Forces. The huge debt that we owe them, and which we shall continue to owe them has been expressed from all sides of the House. We know that we can depend on our Armed Forces; we must make sure that they can depend on us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Middle East
8.54 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to help achieve peace in the Middle East.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it seems appropriate that we should now focus on a related area of the world to which we owe much and yet whose problems have defeated our statesmen for more than half a century. Every time we discuss the Middle East we are clutching at straws. The situation is now much more serious. We have had not only the events of 11th September but an alarming escalation of violence not only by terrorists and settlers but by those who claim to offer leadership. I am grateful to the many distinguished noble Lords who have agreed to take part, and we all look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Kilclooney.
The question is intended to encourage the Government to sharpen their policies towards Israel-Palestine, in particular, in the wider context of anti-terrorism. We rightly condemn terrorists, whether they are suicide bombers or anyone else. Those who inspire terror are not always men in masks behind the scenes. They can be helicopter pilots or tank commanders. The Israeli army has acquired a reputation for ruthless efficiency. But it was a little different at the Lutheran orphanage in Beit Jala last August when 50 children and teachers watched a tank draw up. The soldiers shut them all in one room, took over the building and started firing at Palestinians from the church roof, tearing out new floor tiles and flinging them into the street. One said, "If the kids play outside we will shoot them". That happened because someone in the illegal settlement of Gilo had convinced himself that the whole of Jerusalem was under attack.
There have been many less visible incidents recently in the so-called defence of settlements—a doctrine of security that is highly developed in Israel and is now a convenient echo of international anti-terrorism. I have personal experience of young Israeli soldiers at checkpoints and road blocks which is contrary to the international image. Most are inexperienced, uneducated and trained to cause the maximum harassment, delay and misery.
I am not denying that those qualities may also apply to Palestinian Authority soldiers. I am not qualified to judge them, as fortunately they did not search me. The weaknesses of the PA are well known from the tragic encounters of the past few weeks. The PA is a sitting target for General Sharon, which Palestinians know all too well. They cannot control Hamas; they are fragmented and lack resources.
Dr Haider Abdel Shafi, the respected veteran Palestinian leader, told me in September that he was embarrassed to ask his friends to do things that Palestinians could not do. In other words, there is a frank admission that Palestine has had to rely on so much help from abroad—from Jordan, Egypt and the EU—to build institutions such as the police, air strips and ports, only to see them destroyed by Israel. Unless Arab states and Europe take more positive action to help them to return to the negotiating table, they will remain the victims.
Your Lordships will not expect me to offer a quick fix to the Middle East crisis. In focusing more on Israel, I suggest that our Government have a duty to look beyond today's violence and push the United States more firmly and urgently towards an agreement.
To those who doubt that the UK can do that, I offer three reasons. First, we have a historic responsibility to Palestinians, partly based on our eastern Christian experience, from the crusades to colonial rule. St George, for example, is much more than a patriotic symbol. He is recognised and revered by Muslim Arabs alongside Christians near his shrine near Bethlehem, which is a reminder of the possibility and the actuality of greater religious tolerance. No one needs reminding that under the Balfour Declaration we have powerful obligations to Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, as well as to the Jewish community.
The second reason is our close friendship with the US, which has been much strengthened by the recent tragedies. I do not underestimate the ties that bind the US and Israel. The Jewish contribution to both our societies is inestimable. Israel today includes many different immigrant communities, but US influence remains strongest. When it is in a mood of isolation, such as its mood today, it is to the US that Israel looks for investment, political and logistical support
Thirdly, we owe it to our own considerable Jewish and Muslim minorities. The latter have been more in the news, but over the years we have built up a close partnership with Israel based on cultural and commercial ties. We welcomed refugees in the East End long before Hitler's persecution and the
Holocaust that followed. We have benefited from Jewish scientific knowledge, music and literature. We have a strong Jewish presence in the City and other financial centres and many of our British families belong equally to Israel and travel there regularly. The UK is now Israel's fifth largest export market and its third largest source of imports. With its total trade approaching £3 billion, Israel has been designated by the DTI as a Middle East target market. We know that that market includes the occupied Palestinian territories.It follows from all that that we have a close association with Israel and with Palestine. The plight of the Palestinians is well known and I have referred to it in previous debates, but we easily forget that Israel too is a victim as well as an oppressor. Its security is a neglected area of the peace process. The international community, engaged in anti-terrorism, has to provide the necessary guarantees to release Israel from its aggressive self-defence. That is where new thinking is needed in the Foreign Office.
That may explain why so many of our Jewish families and friends and many Members of this House feel so powerless. In some cases, they feel that it is not their concern. It is a problem for Israelis and Zionists, but not Jews. Seen from Tel Aviv, the Palestinians who live only kilometres away sometimes belong to another world. The large minority in Israel—perhaps 50 per cent or more; who knows?—who genuinely want peace and who in many cases enjoy liberal personal lifestyles, including Labour Members of the Knesset, are impotent against the fragility of their own coalition and the armour of the Sharon Government.
Another reason for helplessness is now neatly described in the word "terrorism". It is said that there cannot be peace or progress while there is terrorism. We have debated that many times. That explains the need for Israel's self-defence, although hardly the use of tanks and shells against innocent civilians. However, it should not become an excuse for our inaction. Even our Government are mouthing the anti-terrorism jargon that, since the death of Mr Ze'evi, has become the Israeli Cabinet's life support machine. The Government must not regard it as a reason, as seems to be the case at the moment, for giving up on the peace process before Christmas, in the manner of President Bush. I was glad to see that the Foreign Office has a new initiative in Lebanon and has made contacts with Hezbollah independently of the United States.
Another reason for delay is that we have a thriving trade partnership with Israel, but that can work both ways. Included in the UK's imports are goods produced by Palestinians in the occupied territories, but for how long? Is it not a basic human right for Palestinians to be recognised as the source of those goods?
The recent EU declaration did not bring us much nearer. Unless we in Europe and the United States can find new reasons to bring the parties together, the conflict will go on and there will never be a settlement.
Finally, I have given the Government notice of the following questions, which I shall summarise. How can Israel be dissuaded from acts of oppression against
Palestinian civilians? Will the Government at least urge the United States to arrange an early meeting of the Mitchell committee? Is the Minister aware of the rapid population increase in the settlements? Will the Government urge the United States and Israel not only to freeze settlements but to accept that there are other means of guaranteeing the country's security? Does the Minister agree that Jerusalem should be a central issue in any peace negotiations? Lastly, can he please explain why the United Kingdom refused to invoke the rules of origin and the human rights clauses in the EU-Israel association agreement at the ministerial meeting in Brussels on 20th November?9.4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I welcome the fact that we are debating this issue. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I am one of those who deeply cares what happens to Israel and the Palestinians. I have spoken about the issue before. Everybody who participates in the debate has a duty to ask how best they can help to advance the cause of peace between those peoples.
It is a two-way process. Each party has to be fully committed to an enduring peace. It is no good just talking about it. It has to be reflected in what we do and say about the issue. One will not do without the other.
It is no good dreaming, as some do, that Israel did not exist. I have news for those people: they had better get used to it. There may be genuine differences of opinion, but there is none in Israel about the country's right to exist.
One may ask why Arab children are fed with hate about Israeli Jews. Why are the speeches of so many Arab leaders marred with that commodity? Why is so little said by both sides about Ehud Barak's proposals to end the international stalemate and the intifada? Why is there no possibility today of seriously arguing about peace?
Surely there was a basis for discussing a shared Jerusalem, a Palestinian state and 95 per cent of the West Bank for the Palestinians. Why was the process terminated so abruptly, not by the Jews, but by the Palestinians? I think that there was a lack of leadership. It was not an intransigent Israel that blew up the twin towers or blasted the Pentagon.
The present situation calls for more dialogue before the curtain of peace comes down for the last time. It cannot go like this for ever. We have no more time. So little time is left. One hopes and prays that common sense will prevail; that Sharon and Arafat will sit down at a table and talk. At present, there is no such possibility. Why not? The stakes are high for Arafat, the Palestinians that he leads and Israel. I pray that there will be a breakthrough and I pray for peace.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate.
I agree with a good deal of what said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but he has accepted the myth surrounding what happened at Camp David. If the noble Lord reads Robert Malley, who was President Clinton's assistant at Camp David, in the International Herald Tribune or the New York Review of Books, he will find that there was no great offer. Nothing was on the table. Whatever was suggested was totally unacceptable. Nothing was said about water and what was offered on Jerusalem was unacceptable. Although American newspaper columnists are dutifully spiking Israeli propaganda, it is all untrue.
That said, Barak went further than any Israeli had done before and the Palestinians did not handle it at all well. Nor did the Americans.
The Palestinian children are filled with hatred, as the noble Lord said, because they are suffering under a brutal, racist and illegal occupation. The Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against that occupation. In doing so, they have committed some unspeakable atrocities that nobody could dream of defending. Nevertheless, their violence is of a different order from that of the occupying power, whose violence is out of order altogether. The Israelis should not be occupying the places they are. They are still building illegal roads and settlements. As the foremost Israeli commentator has said, they have only one objective—to make a viable Palestinian state impossible.
If the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, saw the conditions under which Palestinians are living and the dreadful oppression and discrimination that they are suffering, he would not be at all surprised by the hatred. He would only be surprised that there are not more terrorist atrocities than there are. I assure the noble Lord that the conditions are appalling.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page