Ukraine Update
Lord Jopling Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, have the Government given any attention to the close parallels between the situation in Ukraine and the one in Georgia? Both states have adjoining boundaries with Russia and in both cases Russia has already attained illegal footholds, in Georgia through South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We have been supplying very helpful defensive weapons to Ukraine. Are the Government giving any attention to supplying defensive weapons also to Georgia, if that is what it requires?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As my noble friend will be aware, and as I said earlier, the United Kingdom, both bilaterally with Ukraine and in concert with our NATO allies, has been concentrating on responding to the situation in Ukraine. That response has called for a specific commitment from the United Kingdom in relation to defence resource and defence equipment, and that is the focus of our thoughts at the moment.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Jopling Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jopling (Con) [V]
My Lords, I cannot think of a greater shift in geopolitical world power in my lifetime than the rise of China over the last 50 years. I remember visiting China for the first time in 1973 with Lord Shaw of Northstead, who sadly died a few months ago. There we found what I will describe as a sleeping giant: drab, solemn and brandishing the Little Red Book. But at about that time, China introduced the profit motive into the economy and superimposed it on to the communist system. This caused a dramatic explosion in economic activity which released the inbuilt entrepreneurial instincts and genius of the Chinese people. Now, China is one of the world’s most dynamic economies. It has been an astonishing change and has been likened to a young bird breaking out of its shell. But with it, sadly, has come a partial—I emphasise the word “partial”—rejection of the global liberal order which has been enjoyed successfully by so much of the world over recent decades.
Today, sadly, we find China adopting an aggressive and confrontational posture towards the world in so many aspects: be it Hong Kong; the disputes in the South China Sea; the treatment of the Uighurs and other minority groups, which the noble lord, Lord Alton, referred to; human rights; secrecy; investment in overseas utilities and resources giving potential power; or even Taiwan—perhaps the greatest danger of all—where we could find ourselves in open warfare unless we are very careful.
China also confronts us backed by the world’s second largest military power. We heard earlier about its potential to have the largest naval fleet in the world. We must of course be robust in expressing our serious concerns at these developments. I am old enough to remember a similar show of strength by the USSR after World War II, when it flexed its muscles. This caused us to combat the Russians’ aggressiveness by creating NATO, an alliance that has perhaps been the most successful in the history of the world.
At that time NATO’s success was echoed by an arrangement being set up in south-east Asia, SEATO. It was not a success and was quietly abandoned, mainly because there were no threats in the region, unlike the threats that China produces now. Our approach to these should be that we pursue an open but frank dialogue with Beijing and promote a balanced policy towards China that protects allied security without compromising the core values on which both the global liberal order and our way of life were founded.
I ask this question of the Government: should we not be wondering whether it would be wise to set up new alliances of nations in south-east Asia also alarmed by the intemperance of modern China? I do not necessarily mean a rehash of SEATO. The defence review refers to
“closer defence cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states”
but should we not be wondering whether it would be wise to have a more formal alliance? Will the Government tell us more about their feelings about building alliances and strengthening existing ones? Surely there is merit in pursuing diplomacy backed by unity and strength.
Defence and Security Industrial Strategy
Lord Jopling Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The strategy lays out a clear basis for how we will engage not just with our companies at home but with potential suppliers abroad. At the end of the day, we want a quality product providing what our Armed Forces need at a price fair to the taxpayer. Internally, we will be very clear about the pricing structures for these products. Equally, we are very clear that, if we are going abroad or dealing with an international provider, we will monitor and scrutinise that closely. We will be guided on a case-by-case basis as to what we need, who best can provide it and whether it needs to be regarded as a strategic imperative or to have operational independence, in which case it will almost certainly be with a UK provider.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, it is all very well for the Government to tell us that there will be opportunities for the British defence industry. Does the Minister agree that sometimes, contracts have been awarded strongly influenced by political or industrial pressures, which sometimes leave our forces with unbalanced structures and indeed with equipment inferior to the best available? Surely, the prime need is that the forces should get the best that is available. One example is the Challenger 2 battle tank: the promised export orders fizzled out very quickly and we were left with a tank which could not share its ammunition with any of the other NATO forces.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The sort of scenario to which my noble friend refers may well have happened in the past—but that is where it belongs. The point of this strategy is that there will be hard imperatives for the commercial decisions we take. These will be based on what we need, what is best and who can best provide it for us.
NATO
Lord Jopling Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in that—except for a four-year break in the years after I came to your Lordships’ House from another place—I have served as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for 32 years, if noble Lords can believe that. I was recently vice-president of the assembly and I am currently a rapporteur to one of its committees.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, complained about the lack of information from the Government on the web. If he were to look up the website of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, he would find the report which I presented last November on Russian hybrid warfare which, I am glad to say, was adopted unanimously by the assembly.
The Minister referred to the current president, Madeleine Moon, who presides over the assembly with a great deal of distinction and to much admiration. That takes me back to my early days, when the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was Sir Thomas Dugdale, later the 1st Baron Crathorne and father of my noble friend Lord Crathorne, who inspired me, in my early days, to take up a political career. This debate completes the circle in many ways.
I am, and always have been, a great admirer of NATO. As the Minister said, it is perhaps the most successful defensive military alliance in history. Given the reborn posturing, outrages and mischief of Mr Putin’s Russia, I most strongly support the deployment of those four battlegroups in the Baltic and Poland, which cannot be seen, by any stretch of the imagination, to be offensive or regressive so far as Russia is concerned, but provide a vital tripwire.
However, I have a number of serious reservations about NATO’s forward thinking and housekeeping. The Minister referred to occasions when NATO is not as quick on its feet as it should be, and I very much agree on that. Frankly, the construction of the new headquarters in Brussels has been a joke. The decision to build it was taken in 1999 and plans were approved in 2003, with planned occupation 12 years later, in 2015. In fact, no real positive entry was made until last year, 2018.
Again, I am concerned to be told that the penny has dropped only recently about the major problems of moving heavy, bulky military equipment around Europe. The problems of low and unstable bridges or tunnels have caused all sorts of dilemmas. These are just two examples which do not give the impression of an organisation which is flexible, decisive and quick on its feet.
This afternoon, my principal concerns regard NATO’s internal financial management and bookkeeping. This is all audited by the International Board of Auditors for NATO, known as IBAN. It has highlighted a number of serious shortcomings, which have appeared in its reports. I have drawn some of these reservations to the attention of the Secretary-General twice, in public. On both occasions, I was rudely brushed aside and the questions I asked were ignored. I conclude that either he did not know the answer, in which case he should have, or he did not care, in which case I wonder if he ought to have the job at all.
To be fair, I got a letter from the Deputy Secretary-General on questions I put to her in November last year. I am glad to say I got a letter dated 13 March, just over two weeks ago. That followed another letter from her, dated 13 November last year, on questions I put in July.
I spoke in your Lordships’ House last June regarding IBAN’s published reservations about NATO’s accounting procedures. I will not repeat them now—they are on the record—but the problems persist. IBAN reports that there is progress, but no assurance that all NATO’s entities will improve their financial management reporting collectively and significantly, and there is a lack of unity and consistency in the systems and applications of financial reporting rules.
With regard to the 2018 audits, 39 opinions were issued by IBAN. Nineteen of those were unqualified, which is good. Twenty-three were qualified—which is not good. In two there was a denial of opinion by IBAN, and in one of those two IBAN had a problem—the impossibility of carrying out an audit due to the unreliability of the documents and figures submitted.
IBAN has repeated difficulty in dealing with the accounting representation of NATO’s tangible assets. This was one of the problems last year in terms of properties, plants and equipment. Again, IBAN tells us that there is no clear and consistent series of guidelines applicable by all to detect and deal with cases of fraud and corruption, which of course is so much a part of IBAN’s responsibility. Finally, IBAN is evidently concerned that no single responsible person in NATO seems to be charged with co-ordinating all these and other reservations. To sum up, there appears to be an unfortunate reluctance to respond and endorse too many of IBAN’s reservations and recommendations. I realise that the Minister may not be able to respond to all these comments today. I hope that he will write to me in the near future, and put a copy of his reply in the Library.
I will end by putting two questions which the Government might like to answer, and also to raise them with NATO itself. First, does NATO intend, effectively and sufficiently, to establish an internal audit capability in all NATO bodies—including ones concerning international staff? Also, regarding international staff, does NATO agree that an independent, professional internal audit force, compliant with the internal audit international standards, should report both to the Secretary-General directly and to the international staff audit committee?
Secondly, why has IBAN, which is made up of professional, experienced experts in public management and holds a broad understanding of NATO, not given advice in the international staff functional review? Noble Lords may feel that these are rather obscure issues, but a great deal of public money is involved in all NATO’s activities. However successful and admirable the alliance has been, it is very important that these sorts of questions do not give rise to the disquiet which they have done. They are worthy of answers.
Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2017
Lord Jopling Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I am sure this debate has been immensely enhanced by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, who has just sat down, whose huge experience is of massive value to all of us. I begin by reminding the House that for many years I have been a member of the delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where I am currently chairman of one of the committees.
It is only seven weeks or so since we had our last defence debate, but in view of continued tensions which confront us it is timely that we have another one today—I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister for that. That is especially so when one contemplates what I describe as the “arc of trouble”, which stretches from the Baltic states in the north, through the Middle East and North Africa, to the Atlantic Ocean, where Nigeria continues to struggle with Boko Haram. Not all of it, but much of this tension, which has increased in recent times, stems from Russia’s increasing posturing and provocation, and I will concentrate most of my remarks on Russia.
This increased provocation by Russia comes despite a faltering economy, which we should remind ourselves has been compared in scale to that of Spain and which is mainly a consequence of crude oil prices that are near $50 a barrel. At the same time we are seeing burgeoning defence spending—admittedly from a comparatively low base when we remind ourselves that Russian defence expenditure only four years ago was less than that of the United Kingdom—and an intensification of Moscow’s military build-up throughout the entire region from the Arctic through to the Mediterranean. We have seen evidence of their tinkering in Libya recently.
Our allies in NATO and the east continue to feel threatened by the hard power imbalance in their neighbourhoods. Russia has the ability rapidly to amass significant forces on its border, and continues to mount anti-access and area-denial capabilities in the Baltic, Black Sea and Mediterranean regions. The Russians have threatened nuclear strikes against NATO allies and have withdrawn from or violated key arms control agreements. In addition, very importantly, they have developed a highly sophisticated propaganda and disinformation campaign, often blatantly distorting facts and the truth—a matter I shall return to in a few moments.
One cannot help feeling that, with the mounting threat from Russia, the NATO allies are relatively sleeping through all of this, and it is not helped by the continued uncertainty which comes from Washington. That is not only down to the wild and sometimes contradictory tweets and speeches from the President himself but down to this period of uncertainty in the formation of a new Administration in the United States. In the past, it has often taken up to June before all the political appointments are made, but last week, upstairs in the International Relations Select Committee, of which my noble friend Lord Howell is chair, we heard evidence that the current appointments in the United States are proceeding very slowly and that some of the most senior Pentagon political offices remain unfilled.
Perhaps one of the few firm messages, though, to come from Washington recently is President Trump’s dissatisfaction at the poor response to the target declared at NATO’s Welsh summit of moving towards 2% of GDP going to defence. When the noble Earl, Lord Howe, opened the debate, he referred to the five states whose defence spending comes to less than 1%. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in his speech, talked about the need to name and shame those that do not spend even 1%. Unfortunately, he did not name them, and therefore I will. It has been implied in the past that it is bad manners and not very friendly to name the backsliders, but it is Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Slovenia and Hungary that currently spend less than 1%. That is a disgrace, particularly given that some of those countries are extremely wealthy and really ought to be moving towards the Welsh summit target. Indeed, some of them, particularly Belgium, seem to be spending less each year, which again I would have thought was indefensible.
This has been said before, but I repeat that it is a sad reflection on our European friends that after Brexit —I speak as one who was not in favour of it—80% of the spending on NATO’s defence will come from non-members of the European Union. That is also a disgrace. However, one constructive and praiseworthy development in recent times has been the decision to deploy battalion-size battle groups in the three Baltic states and Poland. I have expressed concerns in the past about the delay in their deployment, and I am very relieved that the first of the UK-led contingent has already arrived in Estonia. I have felt for some time that these months, which we are in the middle of now, covered a dangerous period of change and uncertainty which could have encouraged Mr Putin to make another provocative incursion one way or another.
I have two particular questions to ask the Minister. First, will he tell us when the Estonian deployment of UK troops will be complete? Will he tell us when it is expected that the other deployments—I am thinking of the Canada-led one in Latvia, the German-led one in Lithuania, and the United States one in Poland—will be complete? These deployments, although small in size, will provide an essential tripwire, which should warn Moscow that to engage with them would have immediate Article 5 implications.
Finally, I referred earlier to the propaganda and misinformation programme which the Russians are so good at. I ask the Minister to confirm that all preparations have been made, alongside our Estonian battle group deployment, to have adequate back-up of Russian speakers and media facilities to counter the inevitable sniping and vilification which we can be assured that the Russians are bound to spray over them in the months and years ahead.
NATO: Member State Spending
Lord Jopling Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord for having instigated this debate. I congratulate him on that and would like to follow on from some of the points that he has helpfully made. It is timely that we should have this debate so soon after the change in the Administration in the United States. Quite frankly, there has not been too much to cheer President Trump for over the past few weeks. However, we must begin by expressing a sense of relief that during the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington, he managed to bring himself to say that he has 100% support for NATO. That is most welcome and a relief. We must especially commend him for again raising the way in which some NATO states, especially in the European sector, remain freeloaders in supporting NATO.
As the noble Lord said, it was only two years ago, in 2014, that all the NATO countries solemnly got together at the Welsh summit and committed themselves to spending 2% of GDP on defence. Following on from what the noble Lord said about the UK spending 2%, according to the statistics in the most helpful Library briefing pack, current UK spending on defence is 2.1%. When the Minister replies, will he say whether the Government believe that this is the correct figure? If it is, surely it kills all the arguments of those who say that in justifying 2% we are loading various other costs on to the defence budget. The costs to which the noble Lord referred—pensions is one—are easily absorbed in the excess over 2% which the UK is now spending.
Where have we got to two years after the Welsh summit? I find it quite extraordinary that four European states are still spending less than 1% of GDP on defence. For many years I have been a delegate to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I was very recently vice-president and I am currently chairman of one of the committees and a member of the standing committee and the bureau. For years it has been thought rather bad form and bad manners to draw attention to those states that do not shape up. The time has come to put the record straight. Let us put it on the record now. According to the statistics in the Library’s briefing, Slovenia is still spending 0.94%, Spain 0.91%, Belgium, if you please, 0.85%, and Luxembourg, one of the richest countries in Europe, 0.44%—less than half of 1%.
The noble Lord referred to the background we face, with Russia rattling its sabre on NATO’s eastern frontier. Following the outrageous transgressions of Russia in recent years in Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea and Ukraine and, as the noble Lord said specifically, in placing highly offensive weapons in the Kaliningrad part of Russia next to the Baltic states, it is worth pointing out that NATO is responding to the situation, which reflects the urgency that NATO clearly feels. We are in the process of deploying battalion-sized battle groups to three Baltic states and Poland—the United States leading the one to Poland, Canada to Latvia, Germany to Lithuania, and the United Kingdom to Estonia. The battle groups will be in place in order to ensure that any offensive action by the Russians in any of those states in taking on the battle groups will be a clear transgression of Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
I have already referred to the member states who spend less than 1% of GDP on defence, but, there are 14 who are still spending less than 1.5%. The figures on page 5 of the Library briefing are extraordinarily helpful. They include rich countries which should not be in this position. I have already referred to Belgium and Luxembourg in the under 1% group, but those in the under 1.5% group include rich countries such as Denmark, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.
One might ask what they are doing to put defence spending closer to their solemn commitments. This makes dismal reading. Looking again at the statistics the Library has produced, in the last year Belgium has decreased its spending by 5.3%, Croatia by 8.8% and Poland, surprisingly, by 7.8%. It is a dismal picture—it is a disgrace, quite frankly—given the antics of Mr Putin as we see them. I hope the Government will tell us of the positive and timely steps they are taking to name and shame, as I have tried to do tonight in the House, and that they will use every effort to persuade these countries in the strongest terms to come to the figure they all solemnly agreed two years ago at the Welsh summit.
Lord Soley
I accept that clarification; it is very helpful. I must admit that I am more concerned in a way about things such as pensions, particularly civilian pensions. What on earth are we doing including those in defence spending? If I was in Luxembourg right now, I would be thinking very hard about our accountancy system. I say to the Minister and to my own Front Bench that we should ask all NATO members to spell out what is included in that defence spending. I would not expect to see pensions and contributions to United Nations peace- keeping. We should take quite a hard line on that because, if we did, the figures would look much worse, but at least we could address the matter more seriously.
Lord Jopling
It might be helpful to have what the noble Lord suggests, but also let us point out that if defence spending is 2.21%, which the Library says it is—that same figure appeared in the Times only a few weeks back—it is worth roughly £4 billion, which is a massive amount of spending on top of the 2%.
Lord Soley
I understand and accept that point, which the noble Lord made very clear in his contribution, but I simply say that if we have a system where we include such things as defence expenditure, first, it opens the door to other countries which are paying in very little to do exactly the same—if they are not already doing it—and, secondly, it does not really help to say, “Well, because we’re spending a bit more, it covers that up”. Covering it up is not the answer. We are here to hold Governments to account, as I am sure the Minister will know. The aim is not to have accountancy of this type. That is where the Government have to answer.
I want to conclude on a wider point which is entirely political. We have talked about the potential threat from Russia, terrorism and other issues. What we do not look at in this current debate about Brexit is how Europe will change. We are so focused on the changes that the United Kingdom has to make, but we need also to focus on what will happen in the European Union, which cannot stay the same as it is now unless it is to have more problems of the type it has had with Brexit. There is discontent in Europe for a variety of reasons—they are not all the same as those here, but many are similar.
One of my concerns in this context was brought out by Mr Tusk’s comments on Mr Trump. He said that we should now see the United States as one of the risks faced by Europe. That is a dangerously unwise statement to make, but where it is true is that there is a problem about the relationship now between the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. We need to think that through in other areas. My strong view is that we need a settlement where Britain comes out of the European Union—I do not think that there is any going back on that in the near future; some people may disagree—but it does not come out of Europe. We must recognise that we need, and Europe needs, a very close relationship—indeed, a special relationship—between the EU and the UK. One way to do that—and it is not discussed in the present debate about Brexit—is via our expertise and our contribution in defence and international relations. Europe needs that as much as we do. In the current situation, we need to do more than just step up to the plate; we need to take a lead on defence and international relations in a way that not only reassures Europe that we are not walking away from it but helps cement what will have to become a special relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom.
For all those reasons—and I recognise the economic priorities around—we need to increase the spending, not to get back to Cold War proportions but to recognise the threat from President Putin and the threats in the rest of world. I would also make a special plea for paying a bit more attention to how all the nations within NATO account for the money they provide. It is not sufficient to say that it is all right to use it for pensions and United Nations peacekeeping. If we allow that philosophy to go any further, let us not be surprised if other countries use it, too. That is a seriously bad idea for all of us.
Iraq Inquiry
Lord Jopling Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, speaking towards the end of this debate, and finding myself squeezed between two of the most highly regarded and admired Mandarins of the Foreign Office, I feel rather like orange juice, if I can put it that way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to the fact that during the second Iraq war I was chairman of Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee, which dealt with defence and foreign affairs. A few weeks before the war, we were in Washington. As a consequence of what we saw and heard, I returned and spoke in the same debate on 18 March 2003 to which the noble Lord, Lord Wright, has just referred. In that speech I dissociated myself from the Labour Government, my own Front Bench and from the United States’s plans for war. We had no vote but, if we had had one, I would have voted against the war. Looking back on it, then and now, I had, among many reservations, particular reservations about WMDs, the intelligence, the legality and the United States’s new arrogance which I noticed at that time, although I had no reason then to doubt the intelligence that we were getting. Like most people, there was no reason to do that.
However, tonight I want to concentrate especially on what I regard as the wicked lack of preparation for the post-military phase. It is a separate chapter, reflecting an astonishing lack of planning by all concerned, together with what seems to me an apparent lack of interest in preparing for that phase. It reflects a period of political leadership which I think marks the lowest point in competence in both the United States and the United Kingdom that I have ever lived through. In the United States, George W Bush, who I believe one can argue is the worst United States president in my lifetime, left two unwinnable wars and a major financial crisis behind him. In the United Kingdom, we had a Government led by a Prime Minister who allowed himself to be led by the United States into supporting its policies like a pet sheep, and who, having agreed to go to war, consistently failed to plan for the post-military phase. I may say that my own party at that time had the most unconvincing leadership I have ever known in my lifetime.
I draw attention to a few of the facts which come out of the Chilcot report which demonstrate that crucial lack of planning for the post-military phase, which, of course, has led to the current chaos. I give a few examples from either the main report or the summary.
As early as 9 September 2002, Mr Hoon went to meet Secretary Rumsfeld in Washington, armed with a departmental briefing on the post-conflict phase. Chilcot tells us there is “no indication” that he raised it at all.
A little later, on 17 January, Mr Straw sent a paper to the Prime Minister about the aftermath of the military phase. Chilcot says:
“Mr Straw did not give due consideration to what might constitute a satisfactory plan for the UK and whether UK participation in military action should be conditional on such a plan”.
Following that report—it is all connected—Sir David Manning is quoted as saying to the Prime Minister:
“I don’t think they affect your decision in principle”,
to which the Prime Minister replied, “Agreed”.
Moving into 2003, I was again struck to read the quote from the memoirs of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. He says that in January 2003, he asked Mr Blair,
“‘What happens after you’ve won? … You can go in there, you can take out Saddam but what do you do with Iraq? You’re going to have a country on your hands. I don’t know what your plan is. I don’t know how you are going to do it. Who is going to run the place?’ Tony replied: ‘That’s the Americans’ responsibility. It’s down to the Americans’”.
Moving on to 19 February, Chilcot says:
“There is no indication that, when Mr Blair discussed Iraq with President Bush on 19 February, he raised either post-conflict planning or the post-conflict role of the UN”.
These are damning comments on the preparation for that war, and are, if I may say so, exactly the things that bothered me so much and which caused me to dissociate myself from the mood at that time.
Moving on to 6 March, Chilcot says:
“On 6 March, Mr Blair chaired the first”—
mind that, the first—
“Ministerial meeting convened solely to address humanitarian and other post-conflict issues”.
He goes on, in Paragraph 781, to say, “No decision was taken”.
In the same Cabinet meeting, on 6 March, it says in the Chilcot report:
“For the first time, Mr Blair requested a consolidated UK plan for post-conflict Iraq, including the key decisions for Ministers to take”.
That is on 6 March, days before the war began. On 21 March, shortly after the debate in this House, Chilcot says:
“The Inquiry has seen no evidence that a cross-government humanitarian plan for Iraq was ever produced”.
Moving on to 12 March, the report says:
“The draft objectives and guiding principles for post-conflict Iraq were resubmitted to Mr Blair for approval on 12 March. No decision was taken and there is no indication that Mr Blair discussed the objectives and principles with Ministers. In the absence of a decision from Mr Blair, post-conflict planners remained without clear Ministerial guidance on the nature and extent of the UK’s post-conflict commitment”.
These are, quite honestly, dreadful indictments of what happened at that time. You may say, “This was all the British side of things”, but, to be truthful, the Americans were no better. In the report, on 18 March, when Major General Cross came through to London on his way to the region, he is quoted in Paragraph 1075 as saying:
“I was as honest about the position as I could be, essentially briefing that I did not believe post-war planning was anywhere near ready. I told him that there was no clarity on what was going to be needed after the military phase of the operation, nor who would provide it. Although I was confident that we would secure a military victory I offered my view that we should not begin that campaign until we had a … more coherent post-war plan”.
The Americans are equally culpable on this. In the speech—I am sorry I am taking so long—that I made on 18 March, I made the point when I said:
“When we were in Washington”,
with that committee,
“several people admitted that too little thought has been given, and too late, to what will happen afterwards”.—[Official Report, 18/3/03; col. 171.]
On 23 February, there had been an article in the New York Times regarding the Bush Administration’s new office of post-war planning, which held a secret session,
“to assess the government’s plans for securing and rebuilding Iraq if Saddam is overthrown”.
This last paragraph is, I think, crucial. I reminded the House at that time that the,
“office will be directed by”,
General Garner. That was only a few weeks before the conflict started. The post had already been refused by Dr David Kay,
“a former chief nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq, who had considered taking it. He was quoted as complaining that promoting democracy had too little priority in the new office and that the mission itself was under-financed and poorly staffed”.—[Official Report, 18/3/03; col. 171.]
The American approach to the post-military phase is lamentable.
It is a sorry and outrageous story of political leaders ignoring advice and pressing ahead with foolish and ill-prepared military adventures. They were consistently warned, on both sides of the Atlantic. Now we are harvesting the whirlwind. Is Iraq a better place? I have to say to my noble friend who opened the debate that a number of us in this corner of the Chamber rather raised our eyebrows when we heard him say that it is a better place. There is chaos in Iraq and in the region, and terrorism is rampant. What should our lessons be? Our lesson is a simple one—political leaders should not take on these sorts of adventures purely on their own. They must do so in an infinitely more democratic way in the future.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Jopling Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I suppose this debate, inevitably, is dominated by the referendum, and to begin with I will just make two short points on that.
First, I will repeat what I have said to your Lordships before. I have listened to Brexit supporters banging on about what to them seems the holy grail of politics—that one should not give up national sovereignty—but I never hear them question, or refer to, the greatest delegation of national sovereignty which is involved in the United Kingdom’s universally supported membership of NATO. We should remember that to send our troops into harm’s way under the leadership of foreign commanders is a far greater delegation of national sovereignty than anything which arises from the European Union.
Secondly, it is not so much that Brexit could lead to war, as some have said, but rather that one of the main influences which has led to 70 years of comparative peace among the great nations of Europe has been the creation of the European political community, whether through NATO, the Council of Europe or the European Union itself. We dismantle that European community at our peril.
On a wider field, I want to refer to my concerns over the increasing instability in the Middle East. Of course, we are all conscious of that great arc of instability in countries such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Libya and Tunisia, and the Israeli-Palestine conflict. However, having visited Saudi Arabia some time ago this year and Egypt more recently, and having had the opportunity to talk to the leadership in both, I am concerned about other trends. In Saudi Arabia, I was struck by the intense loathing of Iran—I have not been to Tehran in recent years, but I guess if one did go, one would find it mutual. The Saudis are very concerned that the recent nuclear deal and the release of frozen funds will mean that Iran is likely to use some of that money to promote terrorism to the disadvantage of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi economy has been seriously hit by lower oil prices. The deputy crown prince, who is now the coming man there, has been put in charge of the budget. It looks as though serious economies are likely, and the nation may well have to face extremely unattractive options in the future. It has already agreed to a partial privatisation of Aramco. The House of Saud could well come under greater pressure in the time ahead.
I am also concerned about possible greater instability in Egypt. There are some pretty horrible things going on in Sinai, where the Egyptians are holding jihadi prisoners in intolerable conditions. The recent terrorist attacks on aircraft going to or from Egypt have almost closed down the tourist industry, and they face a very serious economic situation. Again, they are extremely concerned about the vulnerability of their 2,000 kilometres of borders with Libya and Sudan, and about the incursion of Daesh terrorists in the immediate future. It is also a fact that their Saudi friends may not be able to be as generous to them as they have been. Currently, President Sisi is extremely popular but, again, nasty options clearly lie ahead for his Administration. I say in passing that I was surprised that the Egyptian leadership did not see the Russian malevolence and intrusion in quite the same way that we do, and seem much friendlier to Russia than one finds at home.
My instinct is that there could be further instability in future, particularly with regard to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I hope the Government are aware of these increasing dangers.
Somalia: Piracy (EUC Report)
Lord Jopling Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jopling
My Lords, I want to begin with a complaint. I find it absolutely intolerable that a committee such as ours sits for a number of weeks or months, takes evidence and brings a lot of people kindly to give evidence before us; we produce a report in August; the Government respond shortly afterwards; but we cannot find time for the House to debate it until the following March. I find this quite intolerable. We have a government Whip who is kind enough to be with us—it is nothing to do with him—and I hope that he will pass on to the usual channels and those who organise our business that we really must treat Select Committee reports in a better way than this. I find it very unsatisfactory indeed. I say no more about it.
I should like, secondly, to express a number of thanks. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who has been chairman of this sub-committee, ably supported by the staff who help us enormously—I thank all of them.
The next thing I want to do is to welcome the reduction in incidents of Somali piracy during the past year or so. This is a very significant fall and reflects great credit on the various military and naval forces which have helped to bring it about. I suppose that it has been helped particularly by the fact, referred to by the noble Lord, that a great number of merchant ships now have armed guards on them. We heard evidence that this has had a salutary effect on potential pirates, who find that there is a certain amount of fire directed towards them when they start attempting to board merchant ships.
As the chairman said, the committee changed its mind over this matter. In the earlier report, I think that a number of us were a little anxious lest we moved into a situation where oil tankers with a huge amount of inflammable material aboard started being attacked by rockets fired by pirates. There is a danger that, over months, as a response to armed guards on ships, the pirates might start using much more lethal weaponry which could lead to a major attack on a ship causing it to catch fire. So far, however, having armed guards has been a big success.
The chairman did briefly refer to another success—that 1,000,000 tonnes of food has been brought into Somalia under the World Food Programme. This is a wonderful record in an area where there is a great deal of belligerence. Many people would say that they did not deserve it, but of course starving people always deserve it and we should salute those who have taken in this 1,000,000 tonnes of food under considerable difficulty.
Another salutary episode which has helped to reduce the number of incidents was the single land attack on one of the harbours used by the pirates. I am glad that Admiral Potts said that we would do it again. There has been a certain amount of criticism about attacking a land target but it was quite right to do it and I think the committee agreed with that. When we went to Northwood I suggested that it would be a good idea to have another one just to show that it was not a one-off. I may sound rather belligerent but it did have an enormous salutary effect and another attack should not be ruled out.
When the Minister responds, I hope he will speak about the political progress that has been made in Somalia itself. From our committee’s report and from the comments of virtually everyone who has spoken about the crisis in Somalia and in the seas around it has been agreed that, on the ground, the long-term solution is a political one. This is very important and I hope the Minister will talk about it.
I am very disturbed indeed to hear that the newly elected president has decided to release 959 pirates by way of amnesty. Again, I hope the Minister will explain this because, from the brief I looked at which said that the president had given an amnesty to 959 pirates, I am not sure whether they were convicted, or that they were held and awaiting trial, or that they were known to be pirates to the civil authorities, such as they are in Somalia. I am interested to know quite what the basis of this amnesty is. We are told that the amnesty does not extend to what I would call the godfathers—the evil plotters who have been organising these attacks and who have been receiving vast amounts of money in ransoms. I am glad to know that the godfathers have not had amnesties but it would be helpful to know about it.
I turn now to the future. It seems to me that those 959 pirates who have received an amnesty are now free to get up to their monkey tricks again. The godfathers are presumably still there, ready to organise such things. Again, I hope the Minister will talk to us about the future. As the number of attacks has been so significantly reduced, there will be a temptation on the part of NATO, the Americans, the European Union and others who have been involved to say, “Oh well, it is much less now—we can relax our presence”. I am sure that there will be political pressure, particularly given the pressure on all the militaries around the world, to say that they are going to reduce the military and naval presence there. Having done so, however, there is a danger—because the pirates have received an amnesty and the godfathers are still there—that it will all start up again using the assets which have been used previously. I hope that the Minister will speak about this.
Another matter which I very much hope the Minister will speak about—I will try to fill in for a moment until the Minister has got his brief; I quite understand that one has to do that—is the fact that we said in our report that it was important to enthuse the Gulf states about attacking the pirates and causing the incidents to be reduced. Quite honestly, however, the Government’s response to our suggestion that the Gulf states should be encouraged to take a much more active part was pretty wishy-washy. I will not read aloud the Government’s response but they gave us four answers to that: we have a headquarters in Bahrain; there are port facilities in Oman; there is co-operation in Dubai; and a whole lot of countries came to a conference in London. With great respect, that is not at all what we meant. These Gulf countries are earning monumental amounts of money for their hydrocarbon exports. As far as I know, their physical assistance in all of this is not as great as it might be. I hope the Minister will look into this and say whether a much more positive approach can be made to our suggestion, in paragraph 87 of our report, to get those states much more actively involved.
Finally, I was concerned that we were told during the inquiry that quite a few convicted pirates were going to be returned to Somalia from Kenya, the Seychelles and other places. It seemed to some of us that to send them back to prisons in Somalia was not very clever because one could not be sure of the security around those prisons. We were told that the United Nations was building a prison and that it would be properly supervised. Given that 959 pirates have received an amnesty, does that mean that the United Nations prison will be redundant and not used? I do not know who these 959 pirates who have received an amnesty are, but it seems to me rather a strange decision that the prisons within Somalia are secure enough to hold convicted pirates. It would seem to me to need a great deal of expert outside supervision to ensure that those prisoners could not be freed. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
European Defence Agency
Lord Jopling Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, there are no rifts and there is no hidden agenda. We said that we would review our membership after two years. We will then provide an Explanatory Memorandum and notify both Houses in the normal way as soon as possible. I am aware of the benefits that the EDA has delivered, but we need to review the full benefits and improvement goals that it has set for itself. In an age of financial austerity, we must ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money counts for defence.
Lord Jopling
My Lords, did the Minister see the recent report of the same sub-committee which the noble Lord just referred to? The committee’s report said that given that the EDA,
“is deemed to be well directed under its current management, it should be given the proper tools and commitment to do a proper job. The UK and France should take the lead”.
Will the Government take that opinion into account in coming to a decision?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I have read the report of Sub-Committee C and, as I said in my reply, we will take this into account in the review.