Brexit: UK International Relations

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in very much missing the wise presence of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I wish him well.

Brexit does not mean that Britain’s place in world affairs will diminish or recede. On the contrary, far from declining, we can now be a more influential voice for the maintenance of peace in international affairs and co-operation with like-minded countries. No longer 1/28th of a voice, whose aims and ideas are suppressed by others, Britain will have a strong independent position on the Security Council and in relation to NATO, and the opportunity to maintain good relations with the USA. No matter what views are held on President Trump’s record, any one four-year presidency should present little risk to the 100-year history of a close relationship between the two countries. It is a good sign that the Prime Minister is visiting and that the President has expressed keen interest in a trade deal, whereas the EU has never managed to conclude such a deal with the US.

In the United Nations the UK’s position could be even stronger for there will be no EU competition for influence in the Security Council. EU views can competently be put by France. Indeed, the whole idea of a seat for the European Union as a whole in the UN, or in other international bodies concerned with foreign affairs, has come up repeatedly against a real stumbling block: the EU’s inability to agree on a foreign policy or to have one at all. There is no sign of a unified EU policy towards Syria—Assad or no Assad—or Russia, and its meddling with the Israel-Palestine situation has not improved matters.

British foreign policy, once freed from entanglement with the EU, can make progress, and we can start to challenge Turkey on its serious breaches of human rights and the rule of law. Out of the EU, we will not need to flirt with Turkey or be blackmailed by it over migrants. Our Government should invest more in its relationship with the UN and should develop other relationships, including with, but not limited to, the Commonwealth, which should never have been neglected.

Brexit must allow NATO to flourish. It should not continue to be deprived of its rightful share of resources by the refusal of most EU states to pay their contributions. Their failure no doubt helped to create the impression in President Trump’s mind that it is obsolete. One hopes that the Prime Minister will be able to persuade the US President of the importance of NATO, and that it will be a vital channel of US-UK influence and interests without having to consider what the strategy of the other 27—if there is one—might be. Britain will have to step up to international defence, even on behalf of the other 27. Germany in particular, for understandable reasons, has failed sufficiently to express to its people European ideals and aims, and its Government have left a vacuum that is being filled by the far right. The far right and anti-Muslim sentiments are on the rise in Austria, Poland, Croatia and Hungary. Walls are going up all over Europe, which has its own mini Trumps. Europe’s need to struggle against those movements will distract the EU from a more global role.

Next, on security, in the EU it seems to have gone from bad to worse. After the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and the 2016 terrorist attacks in Brussels, which showed how weak the measures were for sharing intelligence across Europe and how vulnerable the lack of borders made us when it came to tracing terrorists, the European Counter Terrorism Centre was set up. But then came the Berlin Christmas market attack, which is prima facie evidence of no improvement.

Being a member of the EU has undermined the UK’s relationship with other countries in security matters, because some of the member states are not trusted. Some have close ties with Russia or are plain incompetent. The former US Attorney-General Loretta Lynch warned that the planned EU data protection law would stand in the way of transatlantic information sharing, and a former CIA director said that the European Union,

“in some ways gets in the way”,

of security services. Not only is there little confidence in EU intelligence-sharing, but the EU itself has attacked Britain’s intelligence-sharing agreements with other countries, which have been at the heart of security policy since the end of the Second World War. Therefore, all in all, our international, security, United Nations and world position can only grow in stature once free of the impossible task of formulating foreign policy with 27 other countries with wildly different aims and standards.

Israel and Palestine

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Time is short, my Lords, so I will start with my conclusion. The essence of the issue is the right of Jewish self-determination, and the Arab rejection of Jewish statehood—its refusal to recognise the legitimacy of the State of Israel. Solve that, and the other issues can be negotiated. There is no enduring value in sitting at the negotiating table and talking peace while, in the Arab street, media and politics, hate and denial prevail. The whole world needs a change in the Arab Islamic political culture, which does not currently promote peace, democracy and human rights.

If not direct negotiations then we need a new ideology, Israeli/Palestinian co-operation and support from Europe for Israel. We need grass-roots activism from young Palestinians in institutions such as the Interfaith Encounter Association, OneVoice and the Peres Center for Peace. We need to support the British Council in Israel, Ben-Gurion University and the UK Government, who should be congratulated on the Science and Innovation Network, which is enabling Israeli and Palestinian water experts to meet and co-operate in the UK.

To change hearts and minds, the Government should call on the Palestinian Authority to stop promoting the murder of Jews, to stop the financial support of murderers and to stop indoctrinating children with hatred and suicide tactics. Two states would be fine, but the real issue is the recognition of Israel, on which Abbas has reiterated refusal over the decades. Let us be clear about this: the Palestinian National Covenant aims at the elimination of Israel in its entirety and denies nationhood to Jews. How can you negotiate with this stance any more than nation states can negotiate with ISIS?

The Palestinians rejected the offer of statehood in 1947, 1967, 1978 and 2008. There were no settlements then. That was never the barrier; it was the Palestinian rejection of any Jewish presence. Proof is present in the proclaimed Palestinian plan to sue the United Kingdom for the Balfour Declaration. How can they say at one and the same time that the barrier to peace is settlements but then seek to undermine Israel’s moment of conception? The hostile attitude of some parliamentarians undermines the position of the UK as a partner for peace or negotiation.

There have been 334 debates and Questions about Israel in this Chamber in 12 months and 13 about Libya. If Israel, instead of Russia and Syria, were bombing Aleppo or killing and arresting children on the scale that is happening in Turkey and Syria, then protests might be justified. Israel looks at the silence in relation to other countries and cannot take criticism of Israel here or in the United Nations with any seriousness. The anti-Zionists encourage Palestinians to believe that, if they hold out with terror long enough, they will get what they want.

It is not the occupation that causes the conflict; it is the conflict that necessitates the occupation. Israel is perfectly capable of withdrawing its citizens from disputed territory, as happened in Gaza and Sinai, with the result that terrorists moved in and no state-building occurred. In any case, why should there not be 400,000 Jews living in a tiny 1% or 2% of the territory of the future Palestine? Is Palestine to be yet another judenrein Muslim state, where no Jews, or Christians, are to be allowed to exist?

Peace can occur only with a change of heart not only on the part of the Palestinians but on the part of the West, with its obsessive bias against Israel, and on the part of the United Nations. Many more states in the Middle East are recognising that Israel is not an enemy but an ally in the fight against fanaticism. The United Kingdom needs to be on its side.

Middle East

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, to my mind, this is a debate centring on disinformation, the deliberate spreading of inaccurate information in order to cover up the truth or to mislead public opinion. Our main sources of information about the Middle East are the media and teaching at universities. Journalists are exceptionally brave purveyors of information, but to a large extent they can go only where it is safe and they can send accurate dispatches only from that region where permitted to do so. Scores of journalists have died or been imprisoned there, and their reports are censored by the majority of countries in the Middle East, without the reader necessarily knowing.

Reporting from the area is bedevilled by the failure to use the right words—for example, not saying the word “terrorist”—and consequent downplaying of the violence. There is disproportionate coverage of Israel, and nothing is ever reported about the Palestinians’ way of life or their diaspora, save for victimhood. Opinion is disguised as news—for example, Tim Willcox of the BBC, at a Charlie Hebdo rally, saying to a Jewish demonstrator:

“Many critics of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well”.

There is a lack of context; there has never been an East Jerusalem, except during the Jordanian occupation period of 1948-67. There is selective omission—for example, the headlines proclaiming that a Palestinian has been killed, when in fact he was brought down after murdering Israeli civilians in the street. That is why it is so important that complaints about the media inaccuracies are handled by independent arbiters, and the BBC has to reform its complaints system.

Our universities have accepted money from various repressive Arab regimes—money directed almost exclusively at teaching Middle Eastern studies and putting in place curricula and professors subscribing to that point of view. An example is the Islamic Centre at Oxford, which has received £75 million from Saudi Arabia and other such regimes. The same is true of nearly every professorial post in this subject. I hope that the Minister will announce an inquiry into the foreign funding of our universities and that university donations are to be made public.

Iran: Nuclear Deal

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I certainly appreciate that the noble Lord has experience and is right to be cynical. However, the agreement takes into account several factors relating to how Iran could re-equip and get fissile material, and what we can do to stop that. For example, with regard to Iraq, the international joint venture will assist Iran in redesigning and rebuilding a modernised heavy-water research reactor in Iraq which will not produce weapons-grade plutonium, thus removing it from the picture. Fuel will be exported and Iran will not undertake reprocessing. Fordow will be converted into a nuclear physics and technology centre, and the IAEA will have daily access to it—not just every now and then, but daily access. We will be watching.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

What confidence can the Minister give the House that verification will work, given that 24 days’ notice has to be given to Iran of an inspection, which even then may be refused by a commission? Surely, of course, only a very short-notice inspection would be worth it, given Iran’s history of secret nuclear development. Why does she think that Iran has insisted on retaining and working on many thousands of centrifuges? What on earth can its motive be, if that state wishes to keep those thousands of centrifuges?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, as I think I explained in the Statement, the number of centrifuges is dramatically reduced, as is fissile material. What we have aimed at in this agreement is that Iran should still be able to have a civil need for use of reactors but not a military one. That is what we believe has been achieved. As for whether Iran can break out quickly, and the time between it being noticed and reported that something is going wrong and action being taken—how long it would take between a request from the IAEA to get access and being able to insist on access—it would typically take about 21 days between demand and access. There is, then, a very clear process that has to be followed, which I am happy to discuss with the noble Baroness in detail outside the Chamber, given the time available. Of course, the breakout period cannot be achieved except in a period of over a year. We have time to prevent breakout into a future with Iran having a nuclear weapon. It will not happen.