|
G8
Summit
(18/07/06)
The Prime Minister
(Mr. Tony Blair)
rose—
Hon. Members:
Yo! [ Laughter.]
The Prime Minister:
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a statement about the G8
summit, which took place between 15 and 17 July in St. Petersburg. I pay
tribute to President Putin’s chairmanship and the Russian Government’s
handling of the summit.
The whole summit was understandably
overshadowed by the tragic and terrible events in Israel, Palestine and
Lebanon. For days, we have seen the innocent killed by terrorism as a
deliberate act by Hezbollah; civilians killed in the course of military
retaliation by Israel; and the disintegration of our hopes for stability
in this, the most fraught area of dispute in the world.
More than 1,600 rockets and mortars have
fallen on northern Israel in an arc from Haifa to Tiberias, deliberately
targeting civilians. In Lebanon, more than 230 people have been killed,
the vast majority ofthem civilians. Houses, roads, essential
infrastructure, factories and Lebanese army facilities have been damaged.
Once again, we urge that account is taken of the humanitarian situation
and that military action by Israel is proportionate. We grieve for the
innocent Israelis and innocent Lebanese civilians who are dead, for their
families that mourn and for their countries that are caught up in the
spiral of escalating confrontation.
There are more than 10,000 registered British
nationals in Lebanon, and there are probably many more, including a
significant number of dual Lebanese-British nationals. We are working as
hard and as quickly as we can to ensure that we can evacuate all those who
want to leave. Teams of consular, military and medical officials have been
deployed to Beirut, Cyprus and Damascus. We evacuated 63 of the most
vulnerable British nationals from Beirut by air yesterday, but the safest
way to evacuate large numbers of civilians is by sea. We have six ships in
the region or heading for the region—the York and the Gloucester are now
offshore, and the Illustrious, Bulwark,St. Albans and RFA Victoria Fort
are heading there. The first evacuation by ship is taking place today, and
further evacuations will follow. The advice to British nationals is to
stay put and remain in contact with the British embassy.
We should be in no doubt about the immediate
cause of this situation. It started with the kidnap of an Israeli soldier
in Gaza and then action by Israel targeting Hamas on the Palestinian side.
Then, without provocation, Hezbollah crossed the blue line established by
United Nations resolutions, killed eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped
two more. Israel then again retaliated with air strikes against targets in
Beirut. This situation therefore began with acts of extremism by militant
groups that were, as the G8 said unanimously, without any justification
and were, of course, designed to provoke the very response that followed.
In the communiqué issued by the G8, we refer
to and condemn the activities of the extremist groups and, more
elliptically, as we say, “those that support them”. For most of us at the
G8, we can be less elliptical. Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria:
by the former in weapons, which incidentally are very similar, if not
identical, to those used against British troops in Basra; by the latter,
in many different ways; and by both of them financially.
What is at stake therefore could not be more
stark. On the one side, there is Lebanon, a remarkable democratic
achievement from the days when Lebanon was a by-word for instability and
conflict. I have once again given Prime Minister Siniora my solidarity and
support in the immense difficulties he now faces. There are also of course
those in Israel and in Palestine desperate to see progress towards the
only solution that will ever work there, namely, two states—Israel and
Palestine, both democratic, both independent and both at peace. But on the
other side are those who want no compromise and who cannot see that
terrorism is not the route to a solution, but a malign, fundamental
obstacle to it. They persist in terrorism, knowing that its impact there
is the same the world over—to divide, to create hatred and to drive out
negotiation. That is the purpose of it.
So what can be done? I know that many wanted
the G8 to call for an immediate ceasefire by Israel. Of course, we all
want all violence to stop, and to stop immediately, but we recognise that
the only realistic way to achieve such a ceasefire is to address the
underlying reasons why this violence has broken out.
In respect of Lebanon, the G8 proposed rapid
work on inserting an international security presence in southern Lebanon
to stabilise the situation, to ensure that the terrorism from the Lebanese
side ends and, most importantly, to provide conditions in which the
Lebanese armed forces can take control and assist them in doing so.
Meanwhile, the United Nations Secretary-General’s special envoys are in
the region and will report to the Security Council later this week. We
welcome these and other efforts to calm the situation.
We also encouraged dialogue between the
Lebanese and Israeli Governments, and we pledged at the G8 further
economic support to Lebanon. And, of course, we demanded the return of the
kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Only in that way can United Nations Security
resolutions 1559 and 1680 in respect of Lebanon be implemented.
On Gaza, we made it clear that our goal was an
immediate end to the violence, and again we put forward the measures
necessary—release of the Israeli soldiers and of the Palestinian Ministers
and parliamentarians; an end to attacks on Israel; resumption of security
co-operation between Israel and Palestine; restarting political contacts
between Israeli and Palestinian officials; and an end to Israeli military
operations and the withdrawal of Israeli forces.
However, let us be plain. We can and must
stabilise the existing situation in Lebanon and in Gaza. We must then use
such stabilisation to help Lebanon rebuild and eventually to re-begin
negotiations between Israeland Palestine. But at root, we need to
recognise the fundamental nature of the struggle in this region, which has
far-reaching consequence—consequences far beyond that region and
consequences even in countries such as our own. All over the middle east,
there are those who want to modernise their nations and who believe, as we
do, in democracy and liberty and tolerance, but ranged against them are
extremists who believe the opposite—who believe in fundamentalist states
and are at war not against Israel’s actions, but against its existence. In
virtually every country of the region, including on the streets of
Baghdad, such a struggle is being played out. When this current crisis
abates, that is the issue to which we must return, in the way that the G8
outlined two years ago but has not so far put fully into effect.
Let me turn to the other issues that were
raised at the G8. On Africa, we made modest but important progress in
taking forward the commitments of last year, including: scaling up action
on HIV/AIDS through replenishing the global fund in 2006 and 2007; new
initiatives on vaccines for malaria and pneumococcus; and fully funding
the education fast-track initiative. We agreed to review progress on
Africa again at the G8 summit in 2007. I have asked the International
Development Secretary to set out the key milestones for the coming 12
months in his next report to Parliament. Those will include, for us,
supporting10 African countries, developing long-term education plans and
getting the debts cancelled for five more African countries. Kofi Annan
will also convene the Africa progress panel to monitor progress on the
commitments given.
I also discussed Sudan with several G8 leaders
and Kofi Annan. We agreed that the situation in Darfur continues to be
unacceptable and that we need a quick deployment of the UN force.
On trade, at the final session it was at last
agreed by all to empower their negotiators to go further. The cost of the
failure of that trade round for the world’s poor, global growth and
multilateralism would be high. Presidents Bush, Barroso, Lula and Mbeki,
Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Singh of India all agreedto show
flexibility. Pascal Lamy has been tasked immediately with convening trade
negotiators to turn that clear commitment into action, which must deliver
real cuts in agricultural tariffs and subsidies and progress on
non-agricultural market access. I do not minimise the substantial
obstacles that remain, but at least the renewed commitment from the United
States, the European Union and the G20 countries was immensely welcome. We
also agreed a strong package for poor countries, including $4 billion a
year aid for trade and action on rules of origin. We remain fully
committed to ensuring that, in any event, it would be utterly wrong for
there to be no agreement in this round on a full development package for
the poorest nations.
There was also a fascinating debate on
energy—of direct relevance to this country—at the summit. There was
virtual consensus, in fact, on the following matters: first, energy prices
will continue to rise, with a predicted increase of about 50 per cent. in
energy demand by 2030. Secondly, climate change is now universally
accepted, as happening, including by the United States, and there is
therefore an urgent necessity to make future economic growth sustainable.
Thirdly, countries will need to have balanced energy policies, in which
clean coal technology, carbon sequestration, renewables and nuclear power
have to play a part. Our energy review was therefore absolutely in line
with that consensus.
On nuclear, it was interesting to note the
statement by China that it intends to develop nuclear power, by India that
it regarded it as indispensable, and by many of the main oil producers,
including Kazakhstan, that they would balance their reliance on their oil
and gas with nuclear. That was also the conclusion of the J8—the young
people from around the world who debated the issue.
The G8 also agreed on the need to accelerate
discussions on an inclusive dialogue for a post-2012 climate change
framework and, importantly, that that framework should include the United
States, China and India. The G8 supported the need for a goalto stabilise
greenhouse gas concentrations. The Gleneagles dialogue meeting in Mexico
will be the next step in taking that work forward. Finally, we agreed
several other texts, which have been placed in the Library.
The summit was held in circumstances that none
of us could have foreseen. It was obviously dominated by the middle east.
However, its conclusions on Africa, trade and energy will, I hope, stand
the test of time. I commend the conclusions to the House.
Mr. David Cameron
(Witney) (Con):
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. It is a deeply troubling
time. The citizens of Israel and Lebanon are suffering, many British
citizens are caught up in the conflict and there is a real danger that the
conflict will escalate. Everyone has been watching as the world’s most
powerful leaders met in St. Petersburg while a vital region descended into
war. They want and expect concerted action.
The Prime Minister spoke in his statement
about creating the conditions for implementing a ceasefire. He is right
that they must include the release of Israeli hostages, the end of rocket
attacks on Israel and a future for Lebanon without armed militias. Is not
it the case that we will achieve lasting peace only by addressing the
underlying causes of the crisis? I have some questions about the immediate
crisis and the longer-term issues, and wider questions about progress on
the Gleneagles agenda.
The Prime Minister spoke about the differing
emphasis in the G8 and the varying degrees of ellipticality, if I may put
it like that. Despite that, will there be an intense, co-ordinated and
powerful effort to bring about a resolution to the crisis in the coming
days? We know that the Prime Minister is considering visiting the middle
east. What part will he play in the process and how will it fit in with
the role of other countries? He mentioned a UN force to act as a security
presence. Can he tell us what its mandate would be, which countries have,
so far, shown willingness to contribute and, given John Bolton’s remarks,
does it have the full support of the United States?
Stability requires the Lebanese Government to
exercise full control over their country and to disband the militias. Does
not that mean that United Nations Security Council resolution 1559 needs
to be implemented in full? As the Prime Minister said, it is now clear for
all to see that the involvement of Iran and Syria in Hamas and Hezbollah
is deeply destructive and needs to be addressed.
The whole House will be concerned about the
safety of British citizens in the middle east. The Minister for the Middle
East, the hon. Member for Pontypridd(Dr. Howells), said yesterday that
this was potentially the biggest British evacuation since Dunkirk. What
clear advice is being given to British citizens? Will the Prime Minister
tell us what arrangements have been put in place to ensure that the
Ministry of Defenceand the Foreign Office work together as one in a
co-ordinated way? The Prime Minister mentioned the warships that have been
sent to the eastern Mediterranean. Is he confident that there is
sufficient capacity to evacuate everyone for whom we are responsible and
to accommodate them in Cyprus?
Tackling the long-term causes will involve
restarting the road map, tackling Iran’s nuclear ambitions and ending
Syrian involvement in Lebanon. The US has offered to have direct talks
with Iran, should enrichment activity be fully suspended. Does the Prime
Minister agree that there is no longer any excuse for Iranian
intransigence? With these significant developments in this strategically
vital part of the world, and with so many British citizens—constituents of
ours—caught up in the crisis, does the Prime Minister agree that we need a
full-scale foreign affairs debate before Parliament rises for the summer
recess?
On Gleneagles, I welcome what the Prime
Minister said about the progress that has been made over the past year. On
the target for HIV treatments by 2010, it is vital that interim targets be
set, as we suggested. Were those targets backed specifically by the G8? A
successful trade round will do more than anything to alleviate poverty.
The Prime Minister said that, at the end of the G8, leaders were empowered
to show flexibility. Should we be concerned that the list of leaders that
he read out did not include President Chirac of France?
Time is running out. Is not this one of those
moments that represents a genuine test for the G8, for the short and long
term? There is a vital need for a trade deal, and today, as hundreds of
innocent civilians are dying in Israel and Lebanon and thousands of
British citizens remain trapped in the conflict, is there not an urgent
need for concerted action to deal with the crisis?
The Prime Minister:
I agree in essence with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Let me
just respond to some of the points that he raised. First, there will of
course be an intense effort at Thursday’s meeting of the United Nations
Security Council to talk about this issue. The question of a stabilisation
force or a security presence will be debated there. That proposal was
supported by all the G8 countries. Of course, it will take time to build
up such a force, and we will need the circumstances to be conducive to its
going into southern Lebanon. I have said constantly over the past few days
that even if we manage to stabilise the existing situation and to calm it
down, there will still be a risk of a recrudescence of what has happened
recently unless a force is put in there. If we are able to stabilise the
situation, it will be important that we put in place mechanisms that will
allow Lebanon to take more control of its own future.
That leads me to the important point that the
United Nations Security Council resolution 1559 in respect of Lebanon was
passed 20 months ago. People sometimes forget that. It called for the
disbanding of all the militias in southern Lebanon and for an end to
allthe support being given to them. It also called for the Lebanese forces
to be able to take control of the whole country. So it is not as though we
have never been able to predict the possibility of such circumstances
arising. It is therefore important to recognise that we will have to
ensure that that resolution is implemented. It will be very difficult to
do that, however, given the state ofthe Lebanese Government and the
Lebanese nation at the present time.
That leads me on to the next point, which has
todo with Iran and Syria as they effectively support Hezbollah,
financially and with weapons. That is why we will of course keep up the
diplomatic pressure on Iran to comply with its international obligations,
and we urge Syria to take the action that it could take in relation to
Hezbollah if it wanted to do so.
We believe that by the end of the week, as the
Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence said, we can evacuate about
5,000 British citizens and dual nationals. The first ship is docking
today; another ship will take even more people tomorrow, and we are making
progress on that as rapidly as possible.
We did agree again with the G8 targets on
Africa and, yes, I did choose reasonably carefully those people I listed
as being in favour of flexibility at the World Trade Organisation. It is
important to recognise that each of the main actors has to determine their
position by reference to somebody else: President Bush makes reference to
Congress; the G20 nations meet as a collective; Brazil and India cannot
simply take the decision on their own; and, of course, the European Union
has its own procedures and has to agree a position. What was good was the
virtually unanimous view around the table that we need to make progress at
the WTO, and a very strong statement from the UN Secretary-General to that
effect. It was very much as a result of what was said by us and other
countries that Pascal Lamy was able to attend the summit. I hope that the
talks will make progress. If they do not, it will be a very great failure,
and the right hon. Gentleman is right to imply that such a failure is the
last thing we need at this moment. We need to show multilateral
institutions succeeding, and it is for that reason, among many others,
that I hope that the WTO talks succeed…
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd
(Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC):
…The Prime Minister very fairly said that progress on Africa was modest.
With regard to the G8 sanctioning initiatives to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa,
when shall we have practical decisions and not just declarations on the
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the urgently
needed programmes to bring education to the 100 million poor children in
Africa?
The Prime Minister:
Actually, substantial sums of money have been pledged to the global health
fund—hundreds of millions, if not several billion dollars. In respect of
malaria, a plan is in place and the funding is being built up for it.
Education is an important part of the discussion and this country has
pledged £8.5 billion over the next 10 years for education in the poorest
parts of the world in Africa. Although there is a lot more to do on
education, there was a very strong recommitment to the funding and the
principles of action that were set out at Gleneagles last year.
|