Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech on the G8 Summit in Canada
The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 1 July 2002.
May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for giving me early sight of his statement? Kananaskis was the first G8 gathering since 11 September, and we welcome the practical steps agreed there to fight international terrorism, and to prevent the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. In particular, Kananaskis marked another step in Russia’s re-emergence on the world stage, and I believe it right that the G8 should help to reduce her nuclear stockpiles, and very fitting that Russia will assume presidency of the G8 in 2006.
We also welcome the G8’s renewed commitment to supporting universal primary education in developing countries, and to assisting those countries in tackling the scourge of diseases such as AIDS, TB, malaria and polio. The progress made on international debt relief is also welcome, although we note that the sums involved barely make up for the fall in world commodity prices that has recently so affected developing economies. The Prime Minister is right to herald the G8’s meeting with African presidents and the UN Secretary-General to discuss the New Partnership for Africa’s Development as a step in the right direction. However, only last October the Prime Minister told his party conference that a partnership for Africa meant
“no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr. Mugabe’s henchmen in Zimbabwe.”
I agreed with him. Does he still stand by that clear statement, and if so, does he not think that the G8 missed an opportunity to send a stark signal to dictators by using the example of Robert Mugabe to show that there will be no meaningful partnership for development with countries that do not respect political freedom and the rule of law?
The G8 summit could have demanded fresh presidential elections in Zimbabwe; it could have co-ordinated sanctions between the EU and north America; and it could have shown that we mean what we say about good governance in the African continent. Did the Prime Minister argue for those things at the conference, and if so, does he not agree that it is deeply disappointing that Zimbabwe did not merit a mention in the communiqué? or in his statement?
The G8 pledged itself
“to work for peace in the Middle East, based on our vision of two states living side by side within secure and recognised borders”.
It also talked of
“the agreement on the urgency of reform of Palestinian institutions and its economy, and of free and fair elections”.
Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said that, in his view, Yasser Arafat has
“an attitude towards terrorism which has been inconsistent with the notion of Israel’s security.”
Does the Prime Minister believe that a Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat can ever be consistent with the notion of Israel’s security, or does he agree with Secretary Powell, who said yesterday that if the Palestinians
“don’t bring in new leaders, then we shouldn’t expect…approaches”
that may be new or otherwise? Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement or the previous one?
Today, we learn that the United States is threatening to veto the extension of UN peacekeeping operations in Bosnia unless American troops are granted immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Did the Prime Minister discuss that with President Bush and other G8 leaders during the summit? Ten days ago, the Defence Secretary told the House,
“On the ICC, the Government negotiated an effective immunity”.—[Official Report, 20 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 413.]
Last week, however, he told a Select Committee that
“immunity is not quite the right word”.
Which is it? Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us what our position is.
Was the Prime Minister not aware of grave misgivings, which we share, that the court could be used maliciously to put our soldiers in the dock merely for carrying out their duties—[Interruption.] Labour Members may complain, but the French have been able to negotiate immunity for their troops for the next seven years as a condition of signing up to the ICC. When we sought in the course of debate to introduce similar protection, that was rejected, even though it was for British troops. Will the Prime Minister tell us once and for all what protection, if any, our troops will have, apart from the judgment of the ICC—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. Please let the Leader of the Opposition speak.
Mr. Duncan Smith
They hate it when they get difficult questions as they never hear the answer—[Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister agree with the criticism of the United States launched by the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday in the media and the newspapers? If Kananaskis is to be remembered, it will be judged by what it achieves for southern Africa, especially the 13 million people starving in that region. This is an opportunity to strike up a genuine partnership with Africa that will endure beyond the following day’s headlines. It is a two-way street, however, offering long-term assistance delivered to an agreed timetable from the developed world in return for a genuine commitment by developing countries to improve the governance of their people. But it takes action, not just words. If, with all the might at its disposal, and with the Prime Minister at the conference, the G8 cannot even bring itself to demand change in Zimbabwe, what hope is there for the rest of Africa?
The Prime Minister
If I may say so, I thought that that was an extraordinary demonstration of the right hon. Gentleman’s priorities. I make no apology whatever for using the vast majority of the statement to deal with Africa. It was extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman had more to say about the International Criminal Court than the state of Africa. I shall deal with the issue of Zimbabwe, but first I shall deal with the International Criminal Court, which the Conservatives supported when it was debated in the House. At the time, a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said:
“It is a great shame that in the negotiations at Rome, where our team and others bent over backwards to try and assuage the fears of the USA…the USA ultimately felt that it could not join the countries that signed up”.
Another Conservative spokesman said:
“I urge the Government to introduce legislation to allow us to ratify the statute in order to realise their intention that we should be among the first 60 states to do so”.—[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 934–36.]
There is therefore a tinge of opportunism in the Conservatives’ stance today. We have taken our position because we were advised that as a result of the safeguards in place—in particular the issue of complementarity, which means that provided that a nation state is capable of trying people for any crimes, the ICC does not have jurisdiction—it is inconceivable that our peacekeepers would be brought before the court in that way. The best test of whether that is correct or not is what has happened with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which has been running for seven years and has far more intrusive powers than the ICC. In those seven years, not one peacekeeper has been up before the court. The ICC is designed to deal with people committing war crimes or genocide, and I believe that that is right. I entirely understand the concerns of the United States of America, which are perfectly legitimate. Our view, however, is that they are met by the principles that I set out and the constraints on the international court’s development.
On Zimbabwe, let me make it clear that it will not benefit in any way from the African plan, precisely because of the outrageous conduct of the Zimbabwean Government. That is why it is so important that the plan makes it clear that only the countries that engage in good governance will qualify for the extra aid and assistance. As for what we should do about Zimbabwe, at every level—in the European Union and elsewhere, in the negotiations with the United States—of course we raise the matter.
I looked very carefully at the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary when he was lambasting the Government for our position on Zimbabwe. I could not find a single sensible, constructive suggestion from him to deal with the matter. This is a classic instance of the Conservatives seizing on an issue, running with it hard, and having nothing but sheer vacuous nonsense to say about it.
On HIPC, the right hon. Gentleman speaks about the sum barely making up the difference. Let us be clear. When the Government came to office, we had nothing like the help in place for Africa on debt relief or anything else. What we have done through the additional aid means that billions of dollars of debt relief will be saved for those countries, so that the money can be put into education. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. [HON. MEMBERS: “We did.”] Well, I suppose that it was a welcome of sorts. It is one of the features of the Conservatives that although in general they are against spending any money, in particular they are always in favour of spending more.
On the middle east, in relation to Chairman Arafat, let me repeat what I said last week. I believe that if the middle east is to have a chance of getting the peace process that it needs, we need serious people to negotiate with. I have said why I believe that Chairman Arafat has let down the Palestinian people, in particular by rejecting the deal that was offered by Prime Minister Barak: he did a huge disservice to the process of peace in the middle east.
It is for the Palestinians, of course, to decide whom they elect. We are not in a position to decide that for them, but the point that we must make and that the Americans are making is that if they end up electing leadership that is not serious about partnering the peace process, it will be difficult to make the changes that we want. That is the reality, and it is why we and the Americans have both been saying it. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the vast majority of countries agree.
In particular, leaving aside for a moment the issue of Chairman Arafat, the key thing that the Bush speech did, and the reason why I think that it should be strongly supported, is that it set out the following principles, which are vital for progress: security for the Palestinian people, and a proper security infrastructure rebuilt; political reform of the Palestinian institutions—that is vital—en route to a viable Palestinian state, living side by side with a secure of Israel. As a result, if there are those changes on the Palestinian side, there must be from Israel in return the commitment to an end to settlements, withdrawal from the occupied territories, and a resolution of the issue on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
That is what is important. I believe that we have the basis of a forward plan for the middle east that can work. I believe that it will work, but only if we make sure that those principles are properly implemented. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that the attempt to make differences between ourselves and the Americans may suit the Opposition, but it does not suit the peace process at all.
Finally, let me deal with the point that the right hon. Gentleman made, in so far as he dealt with Africa at all. He said that this announcement is a deal. Yes, it is, and it gives us an important chance to make a way forward for Africa, but let us not believe that the whole of Africa is encapsulated in Zimbabwe. It is not. I am pleased to say that, increasingly, Zimbabwe is the exception in Africa, not the rule. At the same time as we take the possible action—not the impossible action—against Zimbabwe, let us congratulate those African leaders on their boldness in coming forward with the initiative, let us support it, and let us make sure that the Africa plan, which initiates the process, is carried through with the determination and vigour that has given rise to it.
