United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the United States: Leaked Messages

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, it is obvious that the leaks were contemptible and that they were intended to corrupt the process of deliberation within the British Embassy in the United States by giving the impression that the embassy is leaking and therefore cannot be trusted. If one looks at the leaks, it is striking that there is nothing worrying there. No state secrets have been leaked; all that has been leaked is somebody’s view of somebody else. The view leaked is that the ambassador thinks that the American President, or his Administration, is dysfunctional, and asks the British Prime Minister to be careful. I am sure that the American President does not need our ambassador to tell him that—he is smart enough to know what people think of him. What seems to have happened is that he took those charges seriously, not in order to answer them but to use them as a stick with which to beat the British people, and the British Prime Minister in particular, who had dared to question him on one or two occasions, and to make abusive remarks.

The first thing to bear in mind is that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion at one level, because the American President, who is thin-skinned and rather touchy, decided to take absolutely ordinary, normal remarks by a professional ambassador as an occasion for abuse. That is the first point I want to make: we should not get these leaks out of proportion. They are not leaks involving state secrets or anybody’s personal life.

My second point is that these leaks are not systematic, nor can they be compared to whistleblowing. Sometimes we have leaks which are intended in the public interest to disclose things that are going on. This is not a case of whistleblowing, because the leaks are the product of a systematic attempt over a period of time to gather together a particular kind of case against the British Government. Since this is the intention behind the leaks, a question arises. I do not want to question the freedom of the press but to look at the morality of it. Somebody leaks these things to a journalist. What is the responsibility of that journalist? If somebody sells or passes on to me stolen goods, what is my responsibility? Is it to say, “I didn’t know”, when of course I knew that they were stolen? Am I completely free to do what I like with them? This is what liberal society tends to think, but many of us who are critical of liberal society want to ask: what about the ethics of the individual recipient of these secrets? Could he or she not alert the Government or say that they will not accept them? Should the journalist be completely absolved of any responsibility for dealing with these leaks?

That second point is just as important. Leaks become public because a newspaper or a public medium takes them seriously and prints them. Does the newspaper editor have absolutely no responsibility? After the leaks have been published, they say that the leaks have damaged the country—but they did so because they were published. Should an editor not have asked themselves that question earlier? I hope that I am not talking as an enemy of liberal freedom; I am simply saying, let us introduce some sense of ethics and personal morality into public life, and ask ourselves what the obligations of a journalist are. If it is a case of whistleblowing, it is fair enough that things might have to be disclosed, but it must be justified. Can a journalist or newspaper justify publishing this in the public interest?

Anti-Semitism

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, I come from a country with no history of anti-Semitism, namely India. In the 11th century, the maharajah of Travancore-Cochin made a declaration to Joseph Rabban, who was leading Jews from Syria into India, offering him all the facilities of a local potentate. He could collect taxes and ride in a palanquin, and his people could follow their own customs. As a result, Jews have flourished in India, and I was taught by a Jew who was a professor of English literature. In business they have flourished too.

There are Jewish characters in the literature, and they are always represented as decent, well-behaved, clean and tidy, good at making money and loyal to the country. These views of what it is to be Jewish spread, and it is also striking that Mahatma Gandhi’s closest friends were Jewish—Polak and Kallenbach. In the 1930s, he even suggested that several Jewish refugees could come to India as, he said, “In a population of 300 million, what is a few hundred thousand?” The British Government said they could not come because they needed work permits. Anyway, this was my brief history, not having been exposed to the history of the Holocaust and systematic Jewish persecution. I heard about that when I came to England about 45 years ago, and I have been very bothered about this whole question.

This systematic persecution of a whole people lasted over 2,000 years, culminating in the Holocaust, when millions were humiliated, despised, made into the objects of stupid experiments and dehumanised. The question that I have asked myself is: why is there anti-Semitism? What are its causes? From where does it spring? Some light was thrown on this in the 1980s, when people said that Indians will have a Jewish future and Afro-Caribbeans will have an Irish future. That set me thinking about whether the Indian experience of being thrown out of four countries—Sri Lanka, Myanmar and all that—can throw some light on what happened to the Jews. In trying to understand this, I will submit a few observations that I have made over the years.

Anti-Semitism springs from a variety of factors. Some are specific to a particular historical period; some are common to all historical periods. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said, the Jews have been accused of killing our Lord—deicide—and this is not assuaged by simply talking about Judeo-Christian tradition, because to talk about Judeo-Christian tradition is to reduce Judaism to a mere precursor to Christianity. It is to assimilate it into Christianity and not to appreciate its autonomy and identity.

There is also the intolerance of difference. Jews, in my view, were the first multicultural people who asked for their laws, dress and other things to be respected. In a society where multiculturalism was resented, obviously, the Jewish community was resented. Then, of course, a highly successful community, in all walks of life, is resented for obvious reasons. There is also a deep sense of guilt about what happened in the Holocaust. Every European nation was involved in this, not just Germany. Other countries also co-operated in rounding up Jews and treating them abominably. There is a sense of guilt—every time they think of the Jews, they think of the Holocaust and they note there is a sense of guilt. Nobody likes to be reminded of a horrendous period in one’s history.

There is another factor that is specific to our age, which is Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, which should not go unmentioned. The relationship between the two is basically that between the lion and the mouse. What are Palestinians? If Israel wanted, it could snuff them out in a few seconds. Here is a country with enormous soft power and enormous strength. It should have the sense of security and self-confidence to say to helpless people, “You send out rockets and do silly things, but we are prepared to be magnanimous and forgiving. Let us open a new chapter in a peaceful relationship”. Such an act of generosity and self-confidence would do a great deal. A community that has suffered so much could easily turn its suffering into a signal of sympathy with suffering elsewhere.

Commonwealth Summit 2018

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on securing this debate and introducing it with such charm and erudition. Anything that is done to improve the role and functioning of the Commonwealth is to be greatly welcomed, especially if it brings it closer to the people who live within it. We have learned this lesson particularly painfully in the case of the European Union, which has become increasingly detached from the people and therefore no longer commands—as it should—the loyalties, sentiments and affections of its people. The Commonwealth, however, is increasingly setting up people’s forums and parliamentary forums, which are intended to draw people into its own working and give them a certain stake in and emotional commitment to it. I greatly welcome this and I very much hope—as the Question set out—that the final programme of the summit will include a people’s forum and parliamentary forum.

These forums do two things. First, they provide networks across countries and, therefore, make the Commonwealth a genuine reality. Secondly, they bring people into direct contact with policymakers and the people in power, so that the people in power are able to listen to those who would suffer from the consequences of their actions.

I welcome all this, but I want to say something briefly about why the Commonwealth is so important. It has to be dusted and taken off the shelf where it has been lying ever since we joined the European Union, and I want to say something about the consequences of having neglected it for so long and now having to dust it down. It is a most valuable organisation with 52 members and 2.4 billion people, half of whom are under 25, so the future belongs to them. Rwanda and Mozambique are already members, although they were not part of the British Empire. There will be trade within the Commonwealth worth £1 trillion by 2020. The UK exports £60 billion-worth of goods to various Commonwealth countries and the combined GDP of the Commonwealth is no less than $10 trillion. That is the organisation we are talking about. This organisation somehow fits in with the British character and is naturally close to Britain: first, because it is an association of nation states and has no intention of seeking ever-increasing union; secondly, because it is an association left behind by Britain as part of its legacy, and therefore Britain can take a kind of parental pride in it without hammering that home too often; and, thirdly, because Britain has the largest economy of the Commonwealth and therefore is able not only to command respect but to feel a certain sense of pride and superiority. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Commonwealth remains an organisation close to Britain’s history and traditions.

I want to explore why many of the opportunities that the Commonwealth offers have not been fully tapped and mention three or four in passing. It would be a wonderful idea to have a Commonwealth university. Just as there is in India, for example, Nalanda University, which includes people who were part of the Buddhist empire, a Commonwealth university would include students and faculties drawn from within the Commonwealth. Those students would be able to study together and get to know each other. Likewise, just as the European Union has its own newspaper, I cannot see why there cannot be a Commonwealth newspaper and TV channel, whose job it would be to get each country interested in the affairs of the others.

As Britain is short of doctors, there is no reason why a delegation from here could not go to India, advertise, recruit, say, 100 doctors and bring them here for two years. That would meet Britain’s need and that of the Indian doctors as they would be given two years of training before they have to go back to India. There is no reason why in our times of need we cannot draw upon Commonwealth countries in this way.

Likewise, I think exporting democracy is a silly idea but we could export concepts such as the rule of law or human rights, which can easily be grasped. That kind of concept can easily be cultivated, and Britain has an important role to play in that regard.

While saying all this, I want to alert us to the dangers that we face if we are not careful about how we conduct our relations with the Commonwealth. There is a fear in Commonwealth countries of being used after Brexit. Some of our Ministers have talked about using the Commonwealth for this or that purpose, as if it is an instrument to be used. I do not think that is a particularly good idea or particularly useful rhetoric.

I share a thought that I picked up when I was talking to an Indian diplomat. There is a certain degree of unease at Britain’s claim to be the sole spokesman of the Commonwealth at the European Union or other places, as if Britain is saying, “Look, if you want to know the Commonwealth, we are the conduit through which it speaks”. I do not think that is a good idea, certainly not as regards countries such as India, Canada and Australia, which have their independence and pride.

Likewise, I think that readjusting trade will not be easy because trade, like any kind of business, requires decades to settle in. Therefore, if Britain expects to pick up trade in India or elsewhere, it should not expect that to be easy. Britain’s obsession with reducing immigration at any cost will also stand in the way. It will not be easy to rejuvenate the Commonwealth when people start coming in and we say, “No, there are too many of you. You can’t come in”. So some difficulties arise from Britain’s attitude as well as the context in which we are likely to rejuvenate the Commonwealth. It is dangerous to expect a smooth sailing.