---

Debate on the Address

My Lords, I have counted the foreign affairs paragraphs in the gracious Speech—there are six in 38. That is hardly surprising, because in legislation a Government can normally deliver on the domestic side, whereas on the foreign affairs side there is the need to persuade, the need to find compromises and the need to respond to the unexpected and the unforeseen. But in the current debate we have to understand the crossover between the domestic and the foreign; we have to understand that virtually all the domestic matters with which we deal have a greater foreign content. We should think of migration, drugs—Afghanistan has been mentioned—and terrorism. These key issues all have a foreign dimension. At a deeper level, we have to understand our national strengths and the way in which our proud history has given us a unique membership of key international institutions, and we have to understand ourselves—what we can do independently. We speak on virtually the 25th anniversary of the Falklands invasion, probably the last independent military operation of its kind that this country will be capable of undertaking. We have pre-eminence in a number of institutions and many centres of excellence, and the world context is changing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, mentioned the China dimension and the first $1 trillion company, PetroChina. Of the 10 most valuable companies in the world, five are supplied by China and three by the United States. That is the substructure on which the political superstructure will be built. In this debate, we have to look at how we in the UK, with our advantages, can make the most serious contribution. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Howell. He always speaks with great thought, but it puzzles me why the Conservative Front Bench—both in this House and in the other place—cannot bring itself to say one word in favour of the European Union. It cannot be as bad as that; there must be something good and worthy about it, even if there are many blemishes on which it is worth dwelling. Surely our relationship with the European Union will dominate parliamentary debates for at least the first six months of next year. Is our future in the new Europe of the amending treaty? Should the European Union of 27 members be given the institutional structure to enable it to function in our common interests? Is isolation, however dressed up, a serious option? The immediate debate will be on our response to the amending treaty, but the subtext is much deeper. Have we accepted that our future lies not in unilateral initiatives—nor in some ad hoc groupings, as though we were a sheriff seeking to find a different posse for each of the diverse challenges that we face—but rather in working as a team with our EU partners? The point was well made by a former European Union commissioner, Peter Sutherland, in a rather despairing article in the Financial Times of 17 October entitled ““Does Britain want to be in or out?””. Many who attack the proposed amending treaty do not want to be part of the Union at all, preferring the illusions of either independent isolation or some mythical intergovernmental and limited grouping that is not on the agenda. Another unrealistic diversion lies in calls for a strengthened Commonwealth as an alternative grouping to the European Union. I speak as someone who has been on the executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for well nigh 25 years, and knows many senior Commonwealth leaders. I know that the proposition is not on the Commonwealth agenda and that it was comprehensively destroyed—rubbished, indeed—by Don McKinnon, the outgoing Commonwealth Secretary-General, in a recent lecture. Will those opposed to the treaty play to a populist Eurosceptic negativism or seek to make a constructive contribution to the debate? Both horses cannot be ridden. Surely we must now recognise that the European Union is the main influence on our foreign policy, for good or ill. Large sections of our foreign relationships are already wholly within EU competence—for example, trade policy, and aid and development is more and more part of European Union policy. A key outcome of the October European Council is that the CFSP will remain intergovernmental; there was a clear declaration to that effect. Coherence in the CFSP is in our interest, is necessary and can be achieved only by the institutional change of double-hatting one individual to chair the Council and be responsible for external relations in the Commission. It is also clear that the main crises in the world cannot be tackled by this country acting on its own or as part of some ad hoc posse, as I mentioned. They can be tackled only as part of an EU enterprise. The reality is also that our foreign policy is already the product of intense regular discussions at all levels with our European partners in seeking greater convergence. Let us look at some of those world crises, to show that we are working closely with our European partners, as we should do. We had a recent debate on the Middle East so I shall not dwell on it, but the recent EU Sub-Committee C report argued for an enhanced EU role in the Middle East. Of course, the EU is already part of the quartet on Israel/Palestine. Already the EU3 work together in respect of Iran, while the United States is hobbled because of its agenda of regime change. Only intensified diplomacy can deliver on the nuclear threat, and that should include security guarantees to Iran. However, if Iran persists along its present road and continues to be a spoiler in the region—yes, with Lebanon; yes, with Hamas—the European Union must ensure with the rest of the international community that it pays a high price. Sub-Committee C will again look at Russia. I do not anticipate our report but it is surely imperative for the European Union, so far as possible, to co-ordinate our response to a newly assertive Russia. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that there are divergent national interests. It is surely in our interests to converge so far as possible. We think of the coming Africa-EU conference in Lisbon. In Darfur and other areas of conflict it is with the European Union, not some independent and illusory foreign policy, that we are embarked. Finally, I shall dwell a little on the Balkans, because a crisis is looming in Kosovo after 10 December. I do not share my noble friend’s confidence that there is but a minor gap between those who want independence and those who want substantial autonomy, which can be bridged by the international community. A resolution needs most skilful management. The European Union has the necessary range of tools, civil and military, to smooth that transition. Some talk of a grand bargain with Russia. More realistically, the likely scenario is as follows. On 17 November, there will be legislative elections in Kosovo with all participating parties pressing for independence. That will almost certainly be boycotted by almost all the Serbs. On 10 December, the troika—the European Union again, Russia and the United States—will declare its failure to the United Nations Security Council, in spite of the valiant efforts of Ambassador Ischinger. The Security Council will fail to agree on a resolution and ask the European Union to assume control of the province, which will be agreed. Finally, it is very likely that Kosovo will declare independence in the second half of January; that the majority of the European Union will recognise that; and that gradually the international community will adjust, step by step, to the new reality. However, that is the best scenario—it could all go tragically wrong, with Serbia and Russia playing rough and possibly encouraging not only the breakaway of a part of Kosovo, but the joining to Serbia of the Republika Srpska from Bosnia. The jingoistic Prime Minister Kostunica has already threatened that. His coffers are full and his country is used to sanctions. He is probably not bluffing with his recent threats. Obviously, to reduce the chances of such turbulence, we must try to understand and respond to the sensitivities of Serbia. First, the international community must be tough with Kosovo on human rights and minorities. It has many potential levers—not just financial sanctions for non-compliance, but in the very last resort the threat of the redrawing of frontiers. Remember that two municipalities north of the Ibar were moved to Kosovo only by Tito in 1950 for administrative reasons. De facto, Belgrade already rules north of the Ibar. Secondly, Serbia must be assisted financially in respect of the 250,000 refugees on its territory who are dumped in villages and hated by the local Serbs. The prospect of European Union entry must be opened more widely. It is vital for us and the EU that we do not have on our doorstep in Europe a failed state acting as a conduit for drugs, migration and even possibly terrorism. The EU has a key and unique role here and elsewhere in the crises of this world. Finally, for us, the EU should be not a problem but an opportunity. Today the EU provides a far more benign context for us because of changes in the leadership of France and Germany and the policies of the new countries in central and east Europe. History is not dead but leads to international crises. It is absolutely clear that our interests broadly coincide with those of our EU partners and need to be harmonised with them, which was the theme of the inaugural lecture of the director of Chatham House. Some in our country are blind to those recent changes; others rush into false cul-de-sacs. Let the current debate on our relations with the European Union be serious, but let it be honest, with opponents of the treaty ready to expose their real agenda. Let us recognise that the international context has changed and that our interests demand that we play a full role, not as an independent national entity—the Churchill illusion—but as a full member of the European Union.