---

Middle East and North Africa

My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, because not for the first time in recent weeks and months I find myself in so much agreement with what he has been saying. In congratulating him, I also warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. He and I have known each other for more than 45 years in politics, across the divide. What has frequently been heartening to me is the degree to which we find ourselves agreeing in analysis of foreign policy matters. If we must have this Conservative-led coalition, I for one am very glad that his wisdom is at the disposal of the Government and I hope that they always listen. But he must take very seriously the challenge in the concluding passages of a particularly effective—characteristically effective but particularly effective—speech by my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. If he is to win the ends he really must ensure the resources. Some of the things that the Government have been doing of late, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has underlined with regard to the BBC World Service, are quite extraordinary. These are the very times when these kind of activities become more important than ever. In a lifetime of international work, some of it in the most turbulent and insecure parts of the world, I have perhaps injudiciously reached some pretty firm conclusions about human affairs. I declare an interest as a continuing trustee of Saferworld. One of my conclusions—I have no doubts about this—is that the origins of extremism and terrorism lie in the sphere of alienation, cynicism, exclusion, disempowerment and poverty. Looked at in a global context, one of the things that sooner or later we all have to recognise is that the world is full of people, many of them very well educated and articulate, who are absolutely fed up with being managed by the traditional powers and being pawns in the traditional powers’ play game. They want responsibility and power for themselves as well as a say in their own future and in how the world is organised. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right to point out—I almost leapt to my feet and cheered, as I cannot say how strongly I agree—that peace and security cannot be imposed; lasting, enduring security has to be built ““brick by brick””. That phrase is one that I have often used myself—I hope that he will not mind my saying so—and is one that I totally endorse. What are these bricks? Of course, they are in the realm of hearts and minds. I wish that we would not talk about ““winning hearts and minds””, as the point is that the solution lies in hearts and minds. That includes security sector reform, the removal of the counterproductivity that is over and over again a real thorn in the flesh of progress, accountable government, justice, and of course human rights. We are still, I am afraid, inclined to see these principles as a sort of optional extra in a decent society rather than as the absolutely central pillars of stability and peace. What are the processes for moving forward? Well, if I have learnt anything, it is that the processes must be as inclusive as they possibly can be, but the other principle that I have come to endorse completely is that there should be as few preconditions as possible. Preconditions can make progress very difficult indeed. The objectives spelt out in preconditions are things that you build by common ownership in the process of negotiation and talks. Getting this point accepted is crucial. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, for whom I have infinite respect, said very indignantly that there has to be an acceptance of the state of Israel. Few of us would disagree with that, but my noble friend and others must also look at the issue from the point of view of the Palestinians. Where is the absolute acceptance of the principle of a state of Palestine? Where is there a real, demonstrable commitment to finding ways not of delaying but of speeding up the creation of that state? Another issue of which we hear a good deal—this argument has also been used in the case of Egypt—is that, where it is very difficult to see where the new leaders are, one is left with the perhaps unacceptable reality that one simply has to deal with the existing leaders. Of course, if there has been tyranny, oppression and a denial of freedom and debate, it is hardly surprising that new leaders are not always obvious. Leaders will emerge in the context of debate, of freedom and of peacebuilding. We have to be open to the leaders who will create the future rather than always harking back to the leaders who have made such a mess of the past. Perhaps I could refer for a moment to one or two specific dimensions of what I have been saying. In the case of Egypt, the points that I have been making are fairly obvious. Like others, I cannot put on record too strongly my admiration—my unlimited admiration—for the courage and dignity of the Egyptian people. What a lesson and challenge they have been to the people of the world. In that situation, however, we have been inclined to talk about the role of the army. I just make the point that any future for Egypt that depends on the role of the army is not the kind of peace and stability for which we are looking. The army may have an interim role to play, but we must not become dependent upon it; that is not a democracy or what a well founded society is about. The other thing to recognise is that there is acute poverty in Egypt. There is a lot of social disempowerment as well as political disempowerment. The suffering has been made worse because of the amount of resources that the outside world has put into supporting the tyranny of the army and the rest, so this is a complicated issue. I think that there has been a certain amount of oversimplification in the journalistic response to the role of the army in the situation. On Israel, a great deal has already been said in this debate, so let me just underline a couple of points. First, I am delighted to find that, like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I was in Israel in the middle of the 1967 war. I can remember sitting in the basement of a hotel—the air raid siren had sounded—and talking to some of my Israeli friends. As we listened to the radio, when some particularly militant Zionist comment came into that situation, my friends became exasperated and said, ““It’s all right for these people, but we have got to build a future for this country, and that future depends upon our relationships with the people surrounding us. This kind of simplistic propaganda is actually making all that more difficult””. If I have a criticism of how we in the outside world have responded to Israel, it is that we have repeatedly let down the voices of moderation and reason within Israel—courageous people who have refused to participate in military activities that they find totally unjustifiable; and where has been our strong support for those people in Israel? My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis referred to Israel as a democracy, but why is it that we always seem to end up on the side of authoritarian Israel instead of on the side of the intellectual—let us not be afraid of the word—and thinking Israeli people who are really looking for the constructive way forward?