Nuclear Disarmament

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a trustee of Saferworld. Along with others, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for having made this debate possible. It is always particularly telling when people with such a strong military background speak out in the way that he has spoken out today. I also want to say how moved I was by the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. Ever since coming into this House, over 20 years ago, I have admired his contribution almost without limit. He speaks with the firm authority of a former Chief of the General Staff but he also speaks with great enlightenment. I shall never forget his speeches before we went into Afghanistan and before the Iraq war, and I wish they had been taken more seriously. The House will miss his wisdom and experience.

Disarmament and arms control are essential elements in an effective defence policy. So-called irregular, and indeed terrorist, activities underline this, and Afghanistan, Mali and Algeria are all recent examples. The easy availability of dangerous and lethal arms makes arms control all the more imperative. Light arms, vehicles, spare parts and, more sinisterly, the biological, chemical and crude nuclear possibilities are all part of this. Nuclear waste from civil industry is highly relevant. The international arms trade must be under constant scrutiny. Sadly, the prevailing culture seems still too often to be that arms exports are an important part of our export drive and should be debarred only when there is some overriding reason for doing so. Surely, the culture should be that, in our highly turbulent and unstable world, arms and ancillary equipment are highly dangerous and lethal exports which should be permitted only to the closest firm allies in whom we have total confidence or for very specific controllable reasons of international security and defence. Confidence about end-use and potential end-use is essential.

Because of the introduction of the nuclear, biological and chemical dimension of all this, I hope that noble Lords will permit me to say a word on the arms trade treaty negotiations. The final conference, after failure to agree in July 2012, will be in less than two months’ time. If that conference again fails to deliver a treaty, the issue will return to the UN General Assembly in its current session, where the assembly as a whole will take over, with the possibility of voting a treaty through. The methodology in negotiations has been to proceed by consensus. However, this must not be allowed to become a treaty at any cost. That would not be a success—quite the reverse. It must be effective and curb irresponsible transfers. In other words, it must uphold the original purpose of the ATT; it has to cover a comprehensive range of arms and ancillary equipment; and it has to include ammunition. Upholding human rights must be a key part of it all. The Government, like their predecessor, have played a dynamic lead role in emphasising all this and in taking the conference forward. It would be tragic if they were to weaken and fall at the last fence. A treaty must of course meet the challenges of Syria.

Specifically on multilateral nuclear disarmament, the need is urgent. There is growing evidence of pressure for still more proliferation. There are the issues of Iran and Israel. The non-proliferation treaty has as a cornerstone the firm commitment of existing nuclear powers to pursue nuclear disarmament themselves. Our nuclear policy must at all times be, and be seen to be, consistent with that. How do we influence constructively if we are perceived to be moving in the opposite direction? To argue that our own nuclear weapons are essential to the defence of the realm can be provocative and positively encourage others to use exactly the same argument. It has been powerfully argued that nothing would better promote nuclear disarmament than for us to announce the intention not to replace the Trident system, to abandon continuous at-sea deterrence, to mothball our submarines and to put them on the negotiating table as a challenge for all to abandon nuclear weapons. I strongly believe that the case and need for, and relevance of, a new Trident have never been established.

There are other practical steps that we can take. We can reduce patrols, thereby lengthening the life expectancy of submarines and pushing off the need for replacement. We can further reduce warheads, demonstrating that numbers can be very small but still effective. We can step up our proactive diplomacy and technical co-operation around the P5 process. It is going slowly at present. The Chinese are blamed, but more could be done to find out from them what they require in order to have confidence in the process. We could take Russian concern and apparent paranoia more seriously. This paranoia harms our own security as well as the prospects for arms control. We have to address more convincingly their concerns. We could open up Britain to inspections that mirror the US-Russian transparency in the new START process. Why do we have to be more secretive than the US and the Russians? Indeed, we could have our own bilateral arrangements with Russia. Central to the current considerations by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister on all this is which systems will provide more flexibility to move further forward on disarmament and which will not.

It is essential to remember that the UK has said it believes that a nuclear abolition treaty will one day be necessary and is desirable. Surely now is the time to go beyond William Hague’s May 2010 declaratory posture; for example, by adopting a policy of no first use—that is, negative assurances—Trident is then for use only in deterring a nuclear strike. We could then recommend to the P5, alongside China, that they agree a no-first-use treaty. No first use would be an important confidence-building measure for the wider community of non-nuclear armed states. It would enhance the spirit of the NPT and be an important and concrete step along the long road to nuclear disarmament.

We could also build on the UK-Norway warhead dismantlement initiative by commissioning studies on how the UK could in practice move from being a nuclear weapons state to a non-nuclear weapons state. We could then share these studies with others in the P5 and encourage similar studies by them. The transition to being a non-nuclear weapons state would of course require extraordinary legal, political and practical measures. The international community would need high levels of evidence and confidence to be convinced not only that the UK had disarmed but that the change was genuine and absolute and that it would not reconfigure its nuclear arsenal in future.

Long ago, when I was Minister of State for the Foreign Office, I had some responsibilities in the sphere of disarmament. One of the issues that always concerned me—and I do not think that it concerns me any less now than it did then—was that, because of the complexity of the issues, there was a great temptation to get involved in an intellectualised process in which good minds, as it were, played chess with each other. I am a crude politician when it comes down to the point. The issue is: do we believe that a disarmed world would be safer or more dangerous? Do we believe that a nuclear disarmed world would be safer or more dangerous? Clearly, a nuclear disarmed world would be a much safer place in which to live. Our job is to think about how we do it, not to prevaricate and look at all the difficulties.

Bahrain

Lord Judd Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an important point. We have a strong relationship—a strong friendship—with Bahrain. It is because that friendship is so strong that we can have very honest conversations. I assure him that, from the Prime Minister through to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister responsible for Bahrain, and in the discussions that I have had, we do not lose any opportunity to raise these concerns. We get real support from the other side: there is a willingness to move these matters forward. As I said in my recent discussions with the Foreign Minister, the more that can be achieved and the more progress that can be shown in terms of these recommendations from the BICI and the UPR, the better this relationship will become.

[Lord Judd]

In the Government’s negotiations or conversations with the Government of Bahrain, do they take the opportunity not only to raise this issue in human rights terms but to point out forcefully to the Bahrain Government that to indulge in disproportionate action of this kind is to play into the hands of extremists who seek to capture the desire of countless ordinary people for progress and human rights developments within that country, and that the way to ensure security for their country is to avoid like the plague counterproductive action?

European Union: Recent Developments

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I for one was very glad that my noble friend mentioned so firmly the Nobel Peace Prize at the beginning of the debate. I know that there has been controversy about this, but as one who was beginning to reach political consciousness and going through my formative years politically at the end of the Second World War and that post-war period, I remember it all very clearly.

Our sense of history becomes rather short. The European Coal and Steel Community was the beginning of it all. The great statesmen who were involved in this were not just interested in economic arrangements; they were seeing economic relations as the means by which one builds stability and peace in Europe—the two went absolutely hand in hand from the beginning. We should not be so reticent these days as to fail to mention and reassert the interrelationship between the economics and the politics, and how the economics are there to support the reality of a stable, peaceful Europe.

The noble Lords, Lords Maclennan and Lord Taverne, got it right when they reminded us that it would be much better to put our energies into explaining to the British people, in our schools and through informal public education, the benefits of the Community rather than just always putting across a picture of how we are defending ourselves against all sorts of pernicious and sinister forces that are trying to defeat us, which is nonsense, of course. Though we may think that we understand it or begin to understand the single market, we need to explain to the people of Britain why it is so important, not least in terms of inward investment to this country and of meeting the challenges of south-east Asia, China and Brazil.

But there is much more to the Community than just this, and noble Lords have referred to it. There is the reality of the new multinational businesses and of international crime. How are we helped in coping with the power and influence of multinational business or dealing with international crime if we try to do it all on an individual-state basis? It will not work; we have to co-operate. That is why the police are so adamant that we should be very careful about pulling out of any of the relationships that they have painstakingly built to help them to do their job effectively. Of course, this applies in the sphere of terrorism as well, as it does in that of global warming, because pollution and the consequences of global warming know no national frontiers and we are foolish if we think that we can build up effective arrangements for coping with it on a national basis alone.

We ought also perhaps to put a bit more time into talking about social legislation in Europe. We ought at least to examine whether there is some interrelationship between German economic success and the social provisions that prevail in its industrial relations and industrial law. Why do we have this knee-jerk, prejudiced reaction against it? Perhaps there is a relationship between enlightened approaches in these spheres and effective economic performance. I happen to believe that there is, but let us be open-minded about it and examine it rather than react to it.

I believe—here, I want refer to the very effective speech by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, with all his experience as a Commissioner—that in the eurozone, if we have it, economic integration, as the events of the past few years have made clear, is going to be indispensable. But one cannot encourage simply economic integration; social policy has to be integrated. If there is not a matching social policy for the member countries of the eurozone, I see disaster and acute political instability ahead. One has to think of the consequences of what is being done economically and how one handles it in countries such as Greece, for example, or Spain.

There is one other issue that I should like to mention, because we ought to take it into account more often. One of the difficulties that we face in Britain is the remoteness of Brussels—an apparent elitism and even arrogance in the style of Brussels. This is partly a consequence of technocracy and technocratic organisation, which can too easily start generating its own momentum and leave a gigantic gap between it and the people who are closely involved in society as a whole. We need to look at that issue, because I personally believe that there is a cultural issue there which needs to be addressed.

Whether we like it or not, Britain is part of the world. It is intimately involved in and interconnected with the world; there is no way in which we can go our own way in isolation. Indeed, isolationism in political talk in our country serves the people, our children and our grandchildren no good whatever. We are part of the global international realities and our energies need to go into ensuring that we are working with the international community to do the right things for people as a whole, including the people of Britain—our own people. It is not us against the others; it is us working together with the world in getting it right for everybody, including the British people. If we do not take that approach, we shall certainly be in trouble.

The language that has surrounded the whole, great opt-out saga that we are just about to enter is the language of doing it exactly the wrong way. To think that we can make everybody suspicious within Europe, and everybody increasingly resentful of us as an irritant within Europe, and then cherry pick the bits that we want to go back into, expecting them automatically to say, “Yes, okay, we’ll have the Brits back for that”, is very naive. We have to provide and build a context in which we can be there, benefiting our own people and bringing our influence to bear in the interests of our own people, because we are working for the European and the international community as a whole.

Palestine: United Nations General Assembly Resolution

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, it is obviously a time when we should all turn our minds to how we take things forward. However, in our concern about how we take things forward, it is also important to have some historical context for what has happened, and it is a long story.

We have special responsibility in this country towards Israel because we were one of the principal powers that played a key part in bringing Israel into existence and we must therefore not betray our responsibility in that context. It is also important to remember that, historically and objectively, no people paid a higher price for the creation of the State of Israel than the Palestinian people. It is important therefore to see both sides of the argument in history, because it is not just a current crisis that we face but a deeply rooted history.

I do not happen to believe that the West and our own country under successive Governments have been even-handed in their approach to this situation, when, if any issue in the world demanded even-handedness, it was this one. We have been pro-Israeli, and history will read the message very clearly. We may try to persuade ourselves that we were not letting down the Palestinians but we were, repeatedly. Where has our voice been on the blockade, on the screwing of the economy of Gaza? In two or three years’ time, the one remaining aquifer in Gaza will collapse, because spare parts have not been allowed in through the blockade to maintain it. Ninety per cent of the water in Gaza is not fit for human consumption. The schools, the health, and the economy of Gaza have been screwed.

Almost exactly a year ago I was in the West Bank and Jordan, and up until then I had not realised quite what the settlements meant. They are not just a few nice settlements—Israeli suburbs in the West Bank and Gaza—but fortified encampments with security gates. Palestinian life is absolutely distorted. People are humiliated day after day as they pass through the security gates, where they are treated rather brusquely, to say the least. Farmers are able to get to their land and back again only at certain specified hours. I asked what would happen if a farmer had a heart attack. The UNRWA people told me, “Well, somebody would have to get on to us, and we’d have to try to negotiate an arrangement with the Israelis so that the gates were opened to allow the people back”. We have not faced up to the realities of what is going on.

Another issue worries me very deeply. I recall how in 1967 I was in Israel for the duration of the war. I talked to Israelis then, who said to me, as they listened to militant, pro-Israeli language being broadcast into the country in the excitement of everything that was going on, “It’s all right for these people, but we’ve got to make a future with our neighbours and all the people in the region”. Israelis said that to me. Since then Israelis have refused to serve in the armed services, because they will not be part of what is going on, and other Israelis have made brave stands against these policies. Our absence of even-handedness has let down those brave and courageous Israeli people who have tried to advocate an alternative policy for their country.

We have to look to the future. We must not suddenly switch from our responsibilities. History will not allow us to do that. But it is because we have special responsibility for the creation of the State of Israel that we must always speak honestly and bluntly about what really matters for Israel’s survival. The truth of the matter is that the present policies of Israel—and we all know this—could not be better designed to undermine the future prospects of the people of Israel. They prolong the danger and the threats that will accumulate.

How will we approach the future? Reference has been made to the need for a regional approach, which I am sure is right. We must have a regional approach to secure the future. However, a regional approach cannot impose a solution. No one can impose a solution. The solution will have to be generated by the Palestinian and Israeli people. That is where it will come from. We have an example in our own history, that of Northern Ireland. If it is to work, it must have the commitment of the key parties, which will mean a readiness to talk to people with whom it may not be very easy to talk, just as we learnt that we had to talk to the political wing of the IRA if we were to make progress. That was critical.

However, we also learnt something else in that process in Northern Ireland: that we must keep any preconditions to an absolute minimum because they will only distort everything, and they will not be owned by the participants. Some of the things that as outsiders we see as obviously essential must come from the participants in the negotiations, who have to come to those conclusions themselves. They must go through a process of learning in the negotiations that go on. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, would agree with me that that is exactly what happened in Northern Ireland.

We should also be encouraging and supporting them in practical co-operation. The conference on water organised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, which I was so glad to be able to attend, was a very interesting example of this. It demonstrated how we can help them to get into practical situations in which they see their mutual interdependence.

The most important point of all is that a negotiated, lasting, enduring solution will have to be inclusive. It will have to draw in the widest possible cross-section of people. It is nonsense, and stupidity, to refuse to see that Hamas has to be part of the solution. This can no longer be tolerated, because of course it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It undermines any chance of emerging moderate or more enlightened leadership in Hamas, and plays right into the hands of the extremists, who are there, and who will use Hamas for their own irreconcilable ideological religious—or other—objectives.

This will take a lot of imagination. What is tragic—and I use the word in the real Greek sense—about the vote last week is that we marginalised ourselves. I hope that my noble friend, who introduced the debate with a particularly good speech, will not mind my saying that the Question refers to talks with the Palestinian leaders since the vote. I cannot imagine that we are very high on the Palestinians’ list of priorities for talks at this juncture.

Middle East: Gaza and Syria

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

That is exactly why it is important for these Statements to be repeated in this House. It is important that the views of this House are taken on board. I and officials who are listening will make sure that this is taken back. We make it very clear in all our discussions with Israel that time is running out for a negotiated two-state solution. We have made it clear that of course they have to make progress in relation to the building of illegal settlements and in getting back to the negotiating table. As I said in the Statement, we use the same approach in relation to President Abbas. We encourage him to take the necessary steps to ensure that this matter is resolved through negotiation.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, the missiles into Israel are wrong and they are totally counterproductive. That cannot be said too strongly. But the settlements, with all their security arrangements, roadblocks and the rest, are wrong and totally counterproductive in the irritation and humiliation that they cause every day to ordinary Palestinian people. So, also, was the prolonged blockade that was undermining the whole economic, educational and health infrastructure of Gaza.

Both sides have been strengthening the intransigent and extremist arguments on either side. As friends of both, we cannot overemphasise the counterproductivity too strongly. But will the Minister agree that any lasting peace has to belong to the people of the region and cannot be imposed? In that sense, talks must be as inclusive as possible. If they are not inclusive—as we learnt in Northern Ireland, it is a matter of talking to people with whom it is not very comfortable to talk—the danger again is that one is strengthening the extremists and the militants.

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord raises some important points. I think he would agree that success in the challenge of getting to the negotiating table those who do not even accept the basic principles laid out by the Quartet is probably much further away. But the challenge we have at the moment is that we are finding it difficult to engage those who do abide by the Quartet principles. Therefore, what is needed more than ever is political will on the part of those who, as the noble Lord says, consider themselves to be friends of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. That political opportunity is now: the United States has had its elections and the President is in his second term; and Israel is in election mode, with its elections being concluded by early next year. This provides an opportunity when, as I have said many times now, the window of opportunity is shrinking.

International Law: Use of Drones

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

The right reverend Prelate raises an important point. I can confirm to the House that the UK has not used armed drones against targets in Pakistan. It is a matter for individual states engaged in those practices to discuss those matters.

[Lord Judd]

Does the Minister not agree that there is great urgency in this situation? There is a real danger that we could slip into an age of political assassination, targeted killing and the condoning of extra-judicial murder. Is there not also a danger that, if this trend continues without careful international deliberation about its implications, we could slip into an age in which war becomes an easier management option as distinct from a really grave step to take after everything else has been tried?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord is right to raise the matter; this is an important issue and an important debate. In fact, it was on the front page of the Times today and has been on the front pages of many of our newspapers over time. He will be aware of parliamentary interest in both this House and the other place. In relation to the UK’s conduct, specifically in Pakistan, I can confirm that we do not use armed drones against targets there. We do use unmanned air systems—drones—in Afghanistan, predominantly for surveillance and recognisance tasks.

Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Judd]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in negotiations on the arms trade treaty taking place at the United Nations in New York, which are due to reach their conclusion on Thursday 26 July and what their ultimate negotiating position is.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. In asking this Question, I declare an interest as a trustee of the charity Saferworld and a former director of Oxfam.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, negotiations in New York are due to conclude on Friday 27 July. The negotiations are complex and sensitive, and at this stage it is not possible to predict the outcome. However, our ambitions remain unchanged. For the UK, success means a robust and effective legally binding treaty with strong provisions on international humanitarian law and human rights. The treaty must include everything from fighter planes to rifles, and bombs to bullets and ammunition. Arms brokering must be controlled and corrupt practitioners prosecuted. It should establish a transparent system whereby states publish a list of controlled goods and report regularly on their arms exports.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that on matters of such vital importance for global security—as is being underlined every day in Syria, the Gulf, Africa, Asia and elsewhere—that it would have been better for the Government to come with a considered statement on how the negotiations are proceeding and on their position, so that there could have been full and proper exchanges in this House? Does he not accept that there is growing disillusion and indignation across the world that there are all kinds of aspirations but no firm and binding conclusions? If we do not achieve a firm and binding outcome from these negotiations, is there not a case that it would be better to have no treaty at all?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I understand the noble Lord’s strong feelings. He has always been a robust fighter in this very important cause. However, we are at this very delicate and sensitive stage in the negotiations, when we are fighting to achieve a robust treaty and avoid what we would totally reject, which is having to sign a weak consensus. I am not sure that in the middle of the negotiations it would be better to discuss them. The noble Lord, with his experience, will possibly understand that. Although I fully applaud his feelings on this matter, we are at an absolutely crucial stage of mid-negotiation. This is something that has been fought for by officials under successive Governments for over six years. We are poised to achieve the very most that we can, as I outlined in my Answer.

British Council: Funding

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bach is certainly to be congratulated on having initiated this debate. Furthermore, it was very interesting to hear about his background in the British Council. It must have been a very special experience.

We live, as I said in an earlier debate, in a totally interdependent world. That is the first reality of life for all of us. We will be judged, as a generation, and certainly as politicians, by the success we make of belonging to that world, and of finding a positive role for Britain within it. What are the things that are at our disposal in finding that role? We have the British Council, with its unrivalled reputation. I have done international work all my life and I have travelled all over the world. I know the esteem in which it is held across quite a wide spectrum of people right across the world. That is important. We also have the BBC overseas service. I am still fearful of what is happening to the BBC in that area. We must resist any further cuts, because that is one of our richest assets.

It also seems to me that we have the English language. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said about the importance of the work of the council on languages in both directions. However, in this interdependent world, English is a predominant language. Therefore, to allow people across the world to play their part in that world, having the English language in their hands and within their power is also crucial. We are making a great contribution there.

I have also worked most of my life on issues relating to development. The thing that is often underestimated in sustaining development is the quality of leadership that is available to a country. That involves learning, scholarship, wisdom, enhanced judgment and the rest. In that, cultural exchange is incalculably important. In Britain, we are particularly good at universities and higher education. We are particularly good in our cultural and creative activities. We are the envy of the world in theatre, film and the rest. I believe the council has done terribly important work in making our cultural richness available to the world.

It is also important to remember that if we want a secure world in which to live, we want to enable the poorest countries of the world to have the kind of leadership and experience that are necessary to make a success of their place in the world. They are far less likely to be prone to extremism and terrorism if they have good, effective leadership. The council is making a crucial contribution there. What seems to be absolutely self-evident is that if we make cuts, we are undermining the work in some of the most important parts of the world where the council cannot possibly expect to win back the cost of its operations from the services it is able to sell.

This debate seems rightly to involve a fan club of the council, and it is a real delight for me to sit next to my noble friend Lord Kinnock, who, as its chair, led the council with much enthusiasm and commitment. However, I have one cautionary remark that I would want to make. My reservation is that in an anxiety to pay its way, the British Council must not lose its vision. It must not lose its commitment to the creative arts—the cultural dimension that is so important. It must not forgo its work in the most challenging and demanding parts of the world, where perhaps the input is disproportionately good, as compared with other parts of the world where it is easier to operate.

Arms Trade Treaty

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

To be fair, I say to the noble Lord, who obviously has been very much at the centre of these things, that the full support is most certainly there. All along, from the time that this initiative began in 2008, the British Government, under the previous Labour Administration and under this Administration, have given very full support to this and we want it brought to the point where we can get a draft treaty. However, as he knows, it is no use being too starry-eyed about overcoming all the difficulties. As to ministerial attendance or ministerial speeches, we will have to look at that. I know that this is a high priority. Of course, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has many high priorities and this most certainly is one of them, so we will have to take a decision on attendance in due course.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government and civil servants should be warmly congratulated on their hard work and consistent commitment to achieving this treaty? Does he agree that it would be better to have no treaty than an inadequate, weak treaty? In that context, does he further agree that talk of taking into account the criteria, such as human rights, end-use and the rest, is simply not enough? There must be an absolute refusal of permission where these matters are in any kind of doubt.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is on to something, which he has been on to before. He has been second to none in arguing the case for a robust treaty. Indeed, it is the Government’s view that this treaty should be robust and that a weak treaty which would have the effect of legitimising lower standards of arms control, arms export, arms import, arms trade and arms transport would be no addition at all. He is entirely correct that this needs to be a robust treaty. We have aimed for that. We believe that certain things are in reach. Countries which appeared to be extremely negative to start with are now taking a more positive and constructive attitude, and we aim to make substantial progress on a robust treaty.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, most people in the world do not believe the agendas of international deliberations are their agendas. Repeatedly these agendas are seen as those of the traditionally powerful and privileged and dominated by a determination to preserve their advantage. Reform of the United Nations Security Council and its membership is long since overdue to make it representative of the world as it is rather than the world of 1945. Its credibility depends on this; so, too, do the arrangements for governance in the international financial institutions and climate change negotiations. The world as a whole has a stake in the outcomes, and this must mean that it has a stake in the making of the agendas.

Transparency and accountability in the appointment arrangements of the United Nations Secretary-General and the chief executives of the other global institutions is crucial. The world also needs a United Nations Economic and Social Council with clout and of the same status as the existing Security Council.

Consider the acute threats to humanity across the world, as 1.3 billion men, women and children are trapped in absolute poverty, struggling desperately to survive and not knowing when or where they will have their next meagre meal, let alone any other basic essential. Consider, as the noble Lord, Lord King, powerfully reminded us, the Sahel. There are between 18 and 19 million people in imminent danger of starvation, with hardly half the required emergency assistance yet provided. This is no time to consider modifying our aid commitment—in other words, reducing it. Of course we must constantly strive to ensure the best possible use of the resources that we provide, but to ensure that it is essential to listen to the experience, the truth as seen by them, and the priorities of the disadvantaged themselves. They are tired of being hectored and lectured on what they must do; they want to be heard and to share in the ownership of the solutions. This is something that the Prime Minister would do well constantly to remember in his new role on the United Nations high-level panel to design a post-2015 development framework. To succeed, the panel must speak with and for the dispossessed and poor, not about or at them. The world needs solidarity.

How can we settle for less than a world in which every new-born child has a meaningful prospect of reaching its full physical, mental and creative potential? With all the ingenuity, information technology and expertise on hand, it is obscene to settle for anything less. That is why I am glad that, despite the regrettable absence of promised legislation in the Queen’s Speech, the Government remain committed to the 0.7% of GNP target. It is high time that we joined Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden in demonstrating that this is an imperative.

Of course, the battle for a stable, secure and just world is not just about aid but about fair trade and fair access to limited and finite resources. In other words, it is about social priorities in economic policy. At times of stringency these matters become more essential, not less. Monetary disciplines and social justice are never incompatible. To claim that they are is blinkered, fatalistic nonsense. We shall have neither stable, secure societies nor the basis for sustained economic well-being and progress unless this is understood, as must be the indispensability of prioritised and targeted investment to ensure our future.

In our highly unstable age, with its threats of terrorism, the cause of global social justice has never been more vital. So also, of course, is the cause of human rights. Terrorist potential may be impossible to eradicate, but it can be contained, minimised and marginalised. It is no exaggeration to say that where there are few human rights issues, the phenomenon of extremism and terrorism can be marginalised. Where there are significant human rights abuses, the breeding ground for terrorism will always be present. Human rights are not an optional extra for society; they are a muscular indispensability for stability and security. We erode or neglect them anywhere in the world, not least in the UK itself, at our peril.

That is why institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights are so essential. They establish an agreed shared commitment in a wider context. That is why they must be properly resourced. It is also why ruthless action by the Russians or their surrogates in the North Caucasus, or by Israelis against Palestinians, about which my noble friend Lady Blackstone spoke so well today, not least the military detention of children, is so inexcusable and wrong. It fans the flames of extremism. It is never irresponsible, and always right, to ask why people are recruitable as suicide bombers.

We must also beware counterproductivity here in the United Kingdom, with the pressures to amend and streamline our well tested legal principles and systems. The pitfalls of counterproductivity should always be uppermost in our analysis when confronted with abominations such as the Syrian or Gaddafi regimes. Have we always researched as thoroughly as we should have what we are intervening in and what the longer-term consequences will be? Did we get that right in Libya? Did we have in place what was needed in time to make a success of Kofi Annan’s peace initiative in Syria? These situations are too complex to be seen largely as just a matter of ridding the world of a particularly nasty tyrant.

I conclude by reflecting for a moment on the arms trade treaty, in which the United Kingdom has played such a commendable role and on which it is planned to have its final diplomatic conference in July in preparation for its adoption. It is a highly desirable, urgently necessary treaty when we are faced with so much conflict, and possible conflict, crushing the already disadvantaged people of the world. Do the Government agree that it is better to have no treaty than a weak treaty? Is not the essential principle that states shall never transfer arms where the end-use cannot be guaranteed and where there is a clear risk that they will be reused to commit violations of humanitarian and international human rights law? Will the Government refuse to compromise on this and resist the subtle pressures—or sometimes the blunt pressures—to settle for words such as “take into account” as compromises? What progress is being made in these respects to bring Algeria, Syria, Iran and the United States itself on board?