| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Thirdly, will Russia ever sign up? Russia is one of the main exporters of arms and many of those arms get to countries with noxious regimes. There are two reasons why Russia stands in a specific position in relation to the world armaments industry, which might
15 May 2008 : Column 1166
However, I should like to end on a more idealistic note, because I hope that this is an area in world society in which idealism and realism can coincide. Oscar Arias, who was one of the initiators of the idea of a world arms trade treaty, said in 2007 that,
- “all of us should be proud of this process, proud of how far we have come, but it is time to move forward from principles to practice ... It is time not just for declarations but also for treaties; not just for politics but also for law”.
So here is an easy one in conclusion for the Minister: will he endorse those sentiments and find it possible to set out a position that would allow us in a world society to reconcile necessary idealism with on-the-ground realism in the construction of a treaty?
2.47 pm
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support proposals for an international arms trade treaty, while also recognising that it would in no sense be a panacea and would have only a fairly limited effect. Of course, that is not unique to this issue; we pass laws in this House against drug crime which do not eliminate such crime but help to control it. In an international market in which, increasingly, brokers selling second-hand arms are playing a major role, the effort to control the international arms market is going to be a very long-term one. But an arms trade treaty that provides additional mechanisms for control, ideally for monitoring and reporting and that provides a global framework for tighter regional frameworks—and I hope that the Minister will tell us a little about whether we can work into an arms trade treaty the strong objective of trying to reduce the level of arms traded—would be a useful step forward.
As a number of noble Lords have already said, this process cannot be the north telling the south what to do, for many reasons. We need to engage the countries of the south as major purchasers and, increasingly, as competitive suppliers. There are many obstacles to this; we all know from our own country the arguments about employment and exports. When I was standing in a constituency in Yorkshire, I was staggered to discover how many small businesses in Shipley were subcontractors to the Vickers tank factory in Leeds and therefore did not want me to say anything about the British Army not needing another 1,000 tanks. The same is true of the aircraft industry. It is interesting that under the Thatcher Government we were supposed to abandon an industrial strategy, which was not a good thing, but we still have a defence industrial strategy, because that is an exceptional area kept out
15 May 2008 : Column 1167
The arguments for employment and exports are even stronger in some other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, mentioned Russia. I recall going to a conference in Ukraine shortly after Ukraine became independent, and a great deal of time was spent by our Ukrainian opposite number saying, “Tell us how we can sell anything which comes out of our defence industry”. It was almost the only viable industry that it had. It asked whether it could put up satellites for us, convert military aircraft into long-range transport aircraft or whatever, because it was desperate to keep people in business.
New producers complicate the matter even further. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that he was surprised at the South African attitude. I was in South Africa two years ago and happened to talk to someone who worked in the South African arms industry. He told me about the difficulties that it had in finding export markets and how much tighter the competition from India and Israel was getting. Brazil is also a new supplier. China, as we have heard, is a major new supplier. This is much more complex than it used to be and there are markets out there and countries desperate to find foreign exchange by supplying them.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, remarked on the broad problem of what a weapon is. We have all struggled with the question of dual use. The forces from Darfur that reached the outskirts of Khartoum the other day arrived in Toyota Land Cruisers and Land Rovers. That is how they got across Kordofan. Those are clearly dual-use weapons. We export a lot of Land Rovers from Britain. That is part of the shady area that we are in. Helicopters are very important to international aid, but of course they are very much dual-purpose. The machetes that were used in Sierra Leone as well as in Rwanda were used to frighten and wound people, but the AK47s did more damage and killed more people.
We face the increasing problem that arms are getting smaller. Tanks and fighter aircraft cannot be hidden, but unmanned aerial vehicles can much more easily be hidden and smuggled. There are in the world a large number of shoulder-held ground-to-air missiles left carelessly behind by the Americans from the support for Afghans fighting the Soviet Union. Again, they are relatively easy to smuggle. Some major problems are getting more difficult as arms get smaller—not to mention explosives. I have just been reading the chapter in Misha Glenny’s new book McMafia in which he talks about the Bombay/Mumbai explosions some years ago in which the Pakistani intelligence services provided small amounts of very effective explosives to criminal gangs working for terrorist associates to operate in Mumbai. We have a set of markets in which states are players, but there are all sorts of terrorist, non-state, criminal and other actors. It makes things extraordinarily difficult.
There is a large second-hand trade with surpluses dashing around the world and with brokers and entrepreneurs everywhere. In the Gulf states, Viktor Bout made Dubai one of his major centres. Brokers
15 May 2008 : Column 1168
Then we have the problem of the United States itself, which has been remarkably careless in providing large quantities of arms to conflicts elsewhere in the Balkans and in Afghanistan and then leaving them behind to be traded elsewhere. If any noble Lords have seen “Charlie Wilson's War”, they will have a sense of how careless the United States was in providing weapons to the Afghan resistance. We also know that the freedom of the American market provides a fair amount of leakage elsewhere. We are told that criminal gangs in the Caribbean get their heavy weapons privately within the United States. After all, you can purchase fairly heavy assault weapons in various American states if you know how to do it, and then smuggle them out of the country. There is a huge problem of internal conflict, arms and criminal smuggling of arms as well as trade between states.
What can Britain do and what are Britain's responsibilities? Clearly, we should tighten our own controls further to make sure that we have greater transparency about our arms exports. I am glad to see that the Government have taken some steps in that direction and reduced what used to be the almost automatic export subsidies for arms transfers. We would like to see more reporting to Parliament. Indeed, a working group from my party recommended that all significant arms sales should be overseen by a parliamentary committee. It seems to us that there are questions about a new defence industrial strategy based on the assumption that we will maintain a major domestic industry by selling abroad. After all, that is what took us down the road to the Al Yamamah contract, keeping the British aircraft industry going by selling an enormous amount of weapons to Saudi Arabia under circumstances which we all know were rather dubious in terms of how much money went where in commissions—some of which flowed back into Britain through some British universities, although I think not yet the LSE.
The UK certainly needs to ensure that none of our offshore financial centres are involved in the financing of arms sales or arms brokers. As a member of the European Union, we should be working as far as possible to strengthen a common EU position and to make sure that those negotiating with the European Union and those wishing to become closer associates of the European Union also raise their standards. Croatia has been mentioned. It is negotiating to become a member of the European Union. What is it still doing in the arms trade in such a dubious fashion? We have some influence over Switzerland in the same way and perhaps also Ukraine.
Lastly, the British Government and others need to work to tackle the surplus of arms in circulation—above all small arms and the illegal networks that trade them. The arms trade treaty would be a useful contribution to a major problem, but we should have no illusions that it would solve this very complex and partly criminal activity.
15 May 2008 : Column 1169
2.57 pm
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving the House an opportunity to debate the international arms treaty. He gave an impressive overview of some of the problems of the arms trade, with examples of the different countries responsible for some of the worst cases of irresponsible arms exports and human rights violations.
This issue is a good example of persistence paying off. Without the efforts of Amnesty International, Oxfam, and others such as Alex Vines at Chatham House, the issue of controlling the trade in small arms and light weapons would not have gained the public awareness and sympathy that it now has; nor without their dedicated lobbying would the draft Bill have got as far as it has.
I am very happy that the UK has not been backward in its support for this treaty. Our representatives at the United Nations have been at the forefront of measures to promote it, and, just as important, our defence industry operates to some of the highest standards in the world. We should be proud of the UK's efforts to reduce the illegal arms trade and the horrors to which it contributes. I congratulate the Government on their contribution to progress on such a treaty.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, progress has been very slow. The issue has been on and off the table since 1995. We have now reached a point where a group of government experts has been appointed and is sitting as we speak in one of the three sessions planned for this year. What indication can the Minister give the House of how long it can be expected to take for the process to be completed?
There are other problems ahead apart from the interminable workings of international bodies. Despite the enormous support for the resolution in both July and December 2006, there was the notable opposition of the United States and, as the noble Lord said, 24 abstentions. These included both China and Russia, which are themselves heavily involved in the international arms trade at all levels. It is clear that persuading these countries to make a positive contribution is necessary for the success of the treaty. As we are all aware, China was the source of the shipment of ammunition and rocket-propelled grenades to Zimbabwe last month.
The intentions of a treaty are only as effective as the subsequent actions of its signatories. Without the active support of these countries, little can be done to mitigate the death and destruction that follow from the indiscriminate and criminal use of light weapons. Does the Minister have any confidence of being able to change the abstaining countries’ minds? We can hope that the support given by other countries will exert some pressure, but our examples of how to maintain a successful defence industry that still meets higher standards will be the key to reassuring them that the treaty will not harm the legitimate defence industry or the responsible export of munitions.
I also hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government will not support any suggestions that the treaty should be watered down to make it more attractive to these reluctant states. If the treaty is not sufficiently robust, it will be meaningless. Will the
15 May 2008 : Column 1170
Another concern that I believe we all appreciate is the question of enforcement. How do the Government expect the treaty to be policed? It is of course the illegal trade in small arms and light weaponry that leads to the most harm around the world. We cannot rely on dock workers to hold up every suspect shipment en route to unstable countries. How do the Government intend to target the non-signatory countries and organisations that actively and knowingly participate in the illegal arms trade? Who will take responsibility for identifying and prosecuting those breaking the treaty’s provisions? And how will the Government stop the costs and burdens of enforcement from falling primarily on those states that already run their arms industries responsibly?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, that this has been an interesting debate. I listened carefully to—and, as always, was enormously impressed by—the words of my noble friend Lord Selsdon, who made the point that it is not just heavy weapons that are a threat but often the knife, the machete and the kukri that kill people.
I am pleased with and proud of what this county has done so far to promote the treaty. I am hopeful that we will eventually achieve success with a comprehensive, robust, fair and effectively implemented treaty. I therefore encourage the Government to continue their efforts towards that goal, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in answer to the questions that I and other noble Lords have raised.
3.04 pm
Lord Bach: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on securing this debate and on starting such an interesting and worthwhile discussion on this important subject. Before I address the points that have been raised, I remind noble Lords that I was Minister for Defence Procurement from 2001 to 2005 with responsibility for defence exports and that later on, while out of government, I worked for a time in the defence industry.
As my noble friend made clear, the debate could not be more timely. As we speak, the second in a series of three UN group of government experts meetings is under way in New York to discuss issues of direct relevance to those discussed in this House today. We are pleased to have been at the very forefront, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, reminded us, of initiating this UN process towards an ATT in 2006, pleased to be working closely with our partners in the NGO community and with industry to take that process forward, and pleased to remain fully engaged internationally in strong support of the United Nations process towards an arms trade treaty. Together we have achieved success in taking the process forward towards a treaty. It has not always been easy to convince sceptics, but I believe that our innovative co-operation is beginning to yield results.
I remind the House that this country, along with six others, introduced a resolution into the United Nations in December 2006 calling for work towards an arms
15 May 2008 : Column 1171
The second phase of work arising from the resolution began in February this year, with a meeting of a group of government experts from 28 countries, selected by the United Nations Secretary-General to consider the feasibility, the scope and the draft parameters of such a treaty. There will be three meetings of the group during 2008, the second of which is under way while the third session will be in July this year. The experts include representatives from countries that voted for this process, from those countries that abstained and from the United States, which voted against it. The debate will therefore cover the full spectrum of views on a treaty, and I suggest to the House that that is a good thing.
Our disarmament ambassador from Geneva, John Duncan, leads our team. We will of course press for high standards and appropriate coverage to make a treaty effective, but this series of meetings is considering only the mandate given it by the Secretary-General on the basis of the agreed resolution, so we will also be listening carefully to the views of others with a view to building consensus for the chair to report back to the Secretary-General at the end of the summer based on sound expert advice.
My noble friend Lord Judd said that this was a high priority matter, and we agree; such a treaty is a high priority for the Government. However, we will not settle for anything less than a robust treaty. What do I mean by that? I mean a treaty that is effective in preventing the irresponsible trade in arms, which is the source of much of the weaponry that finds its way into the illicit market and which is used in attempts to undermine democracy, human rights and development. We want a treaty that has globally agreed high standards against which states assess whether to authorise arms exports. That includes assessment against high standards of human rights, international humanitarian law and taking into account the impact an arms export might have on sustainable development or conflict. There is widespread international support for such a treaty, both among states and in civil society. However, some states have reservations and many questions that I have been asked relate to those states. These reservations include whether a treaty will raise standards or simply legitimise lower standards. There is also the question of whether we can achieve the same ends by strengthening existing mechanisms.
The Government’s view is that these concerns are legitimate and must be explored if we want to see an effective treaty. However, there can be no question of agreeing a weak treaty: we would not legitimise lower standards. As we see it, a treaty of this kind is fundamentally new ground. It is the first time that the international community is taking forward this level of debate about global standards for arms export controls. The aim is to plug the gaps and inconsistencies
15 May 2008 : Column 1172
An arms trade treaty would not affect domestic legislation on arms ownership. Nor would it affect a state’s inherent right to purchase arms for self-defence. The treaty would establish common standards that each country would use to assess arms exports. With common standards, there would be a greater consistency of approach and more objectivity in assessing arms export licences. This would create a more certain environment in which legitimate and responsible arms trading would become more straightforward and international collaboration between defence industries on investment, production and the chain of supply would become more attractive.
We are committed to moving forward quickly within the UN, so that a robust and effective treaty can be achieved as soon as possible. However, it is important, if we are to be successful, that we take full account of the views of our international partners. We have to listen to their views on what they need from an arms trade treaty and we need their help in making sure that a treaty is as effective as possible in addressing the irresponsible trade in conventional arms. This will take time, but it is better to invest time now in achieving a robust and workable treaty that states will want to implement, than to rush ahead and not take into account the needs of those countries that will be affected.
In achieving the high standards that I have referred to, we need to balance a number of issues. We need to ensure that the legitimate and inherent defence needs of individual countries are respected. The task of protecting society is complex. Defence and security capacity underpins the ability to protect civilian life and to maintain democracy and development. We need to be sure that the steps that we want to take to protect human rights, security and development with an arms trade treaty do not have unintended consequences. The UN consultative process will help to identify these issues and will inform further debate. For example, if we claimed that no defence exports at all were legitimate—the British Government never make that claim—we would never get a treaty signed at all.
Despite the complexities of these issues, I hope that our message remains clear. We want an arms trade treaty that will be effective in preventing irresponsible arms trading and transfers. We want this because it will help to prevent weapons getting to terrorists, insurgents and armed groups that threaten human life and the values that we hold dear of democracy, freedom and humanity. Those are fundamental rights not just for us, but for all members of our global society. We want this treaty because we believe that it will help to take guns out of the hands, for example, of those who target our troops when they defend those fundamental rights in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
I was asked a number of questions. Some I have answered in my speech, but let me be more specific. My noble friend Lord Dubs made the point that time is of the essence—we must not take too long over this. He has heard me say that, for the treaty to work effectively, it must be agreed by as many countries as possible, and must cover agreed parameters. The noble
15 May 2008 : Column 1173
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |