Tag: 2000

The speech made by Peter Hain, the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, on 6 July 2000.

I was born in Africa, and grew up in Pretoria where my parents were first jailed, then banned, then forced into exile in London where I continued their struggle as a leader of the British Anti-Apartheid movement.

And now my job as British Minister for Africa gives me again the chance to make a difference. I am determined to do so. Our goal is a proud, safe, democratic, prosperous Africa. A self-confident Africa in which the views and aspirations of all Africans can be clearly heard, and fully taken into account.

I have been to Angola before, in 1995. As now, it was strangled by war. Images of Huambo stay in my mind: Limbless, starving people. Every shop, office, and house gutted. Hopelessness and despair on peoples’ faces. The misery of the displaced. Thirty-five years of fighting fuelled first by the Cold War ideological clash between communism and capitalism, then by the pure greed of oil versus diamonds.

During that visit I met the Government in Luanda. Then I flew deep into the bush to Bailundo, to meet Jonas Savimbi. He promised he would honour the United Nations peace agreement he had signed in Lusaka. But at the same time as he lied to me, he was re-arming, and the war started all over again. And still there is no end: the Angolan people deserve so much better.

I am particularly pleased that so many members of Angola’s civil society are here. We usually hear talk only of the Government, of UNITA, of the United Nations. But civil society as a whole – press, NGOs, the churches, trade unions – all have a vital, perhaps a central, role to play in Angola’s future.

Angola has suffered from slavery, from colonisation, from the geo political rivalries of the Cold War. But the past cannot continue to be used as an excuse. Angolans cannot allow themselves to be trapped by their history. Angolans must take responsibility for their future.

In the past, foreign interests in the USA, South Africa and Europe supported UNITA and Savimbi to prolong the war for their own interests. Today I can assure you that this is not true for Britain. I hope it is no longer true for any other country. Some foreign individuals do profit from war in Angola by buying blood diamonds from Savimbi and selling arms and fuel. But there is no reason why Angolans should allow these evil people to control your destiny. If Angolans can find a just peace, no outsider should come between them and a secure and prosperous future. Your economy could develop. Your roads and hospitals could be rebuilt. Your children could be educated. You could travel freely throughout your beautiful country.

The rest of us would benefit too. Britain would spend less on humanitarian aid and save money on the UN. British businesses would have new opportunities for investment and trade. Angola would become a dynamic force for stability and progress in Southern Africa, instead of a dark threat to the peace and prosperity of its neighbours.

SANCTIONS

But for this vision to become a reality, the war has to end. What can you do? What can we do to bring peace closer? The British Government’s view is that there are two major issues to be addressed. I will describe them here:

First, Savimbi’s power to wage war has to be blocked by sanctions, vigorously enforced. We want to stop him selling his diamonds and block his supplies of fuel and munitions, until he is forced to lay down his arms as he promised in the Lusaka Protocol in 1994.

I have been in the forefront of the international efforts to make sanctions effective. For as long as the fighting continues the British Government will seek to tighten the sanctions against UNITA, to cut off the outward flow of diamonds and inward flow of arms and fuel that sustains the misery of the Angolan people. And we will continue to expose those involved, however high or low: from African Presidents, to European arms and diamond dealers, to African based air companies – whatever their nationality. Their dirty trade deserves international condemnation. It is also illegal, so each of these individuals should be tracked down, publicly exposed and prosecuted. The diamond dealer in Belgium receiving UNITA’s blood diamonds helps to landmine children. The arms company in Bulgaria or Ukraine helps Savimbi to kill and maim. The European or South African pilot is just as culpable. Without these guilty people, the war would be over.

Savimbi has repeatedly broken the United Nations peace agreements he has signed. So how can we trust his word again? Could he change? Could he contribute to the search for peace? I very much doubt it. Attacking convoys taking food and shelter to the displaced, planting mines to maim those who try to raise a crop, mutilating and killing unarmed villagers – these are not the actions of a leader with a cause who wants a better Angola for his people. They are the actions of a bloodthirsty tyrant who wants personal power at all costs.

But UNITA needs to be part of a political debate about the future of Angola. It needs to have a new policy for peace. It must lay down its arms and play an active part in a dialogue about Angola’s future. Britain is willing to help achieve this. Too much is at stake. UNITA represents an important constituency in the country, politically, rurally and ethnically. Its voice deserves to be heard – but through ballot box not through the barrel of a gun.

The world will not tolerate any more of Savimbi’s lies and obstructions. UNITA must be part of a political process and it must naturally honour any commitments it makes. To end such a long and bitter war everyone has to compromise. It will take courage on all sides. Agreements must be honoured in full. And I promise this: Britain along with other European Union countries will back such an agreement. We will support the Angolan people in their right to peace, to live a decent life, to begin farming properly again, to begin rebuilding their shattered country.

GOOD GOVERNANCE, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The second issue is good governance, democracy and human rights. These have to be made a reality for all Angolans so that they can peacefully share in Angola’s prosperity.

There must be space for the exchange of ideas, which is fundamental to democracy. Having different ideas about the best way forward does not mean disloyalty to the state. But the debate is not just between the MPLA and UNITA. There are other political parties. As important, there is civil society.

A strong, independent civil society is very important to sustain a healthy democracy. In every society there are groups of people who come together because of their profession, their beliefs, their interests, their ideals.

These formal and informal groups – churches, trades unions, humanitarian societies, human rights groups and many more – are each entitled to have their voices heard when they argue for what their members believe in. The more they are seen to live up to their own ideals, the more likely they are to gain the support of their fellow citizens. Although political parties are vital in a healthy democracy, civil society groups help connect government to the people. Open debate is good for our democracies.

Of course, those of us in Government do not enjoy being criticised. As a Minister I know only too well what it feels like to see my name in the press or hear it on the television followed by critical or ill-informed comment. But that criticism is one of the guarantors of our democracy. I urge the Government to be bold in recognising the same in Angola. In any democracy there will be protest marches. (I used to organise marches myself years ago against apartheid!). And it is a rare journalist who thinks that the Government has got it absolutely right. Open discussion in an open society: that is the way forward to success.

I have condemned the broken promises and murderous activities of Jonas Savimbi. But I have also felt able to speak honestly to President dos Santos and his Ministers and advisers about the evils of corruption. Angola is rich country made poor by corruption and dishonesty. Her wealth must benefit all her people not just a few. The money from oil and diamonds must go to new hospitals, schools, universities and technical institutes. It must build new roads, bridges and railways. It must be used to lift ordinary Angolans out of poverty, fear and dependency. And used to ensure that they can develop both themselves and their country to their full potential.

In five years time oil export revenues could be as much as eight billion US dollars (depending on oil prices) per annum. This compares with government expenditure in 1999 equivalent to around three billion US dollars.

Ending corruption and making government accountable will boost international business confidence and create greater prosperity and jobs.

Angola’s huge resources – its natural wealth and its people – must not be squandered on War. The Government’s recent offensive against UNITA has been more successful than many expected. But I do not believe that there is a purely military solution to this war. Angola has become a war economy. Huge riches from oil and diamonds are just being wasted away as lives are lost or brutalised and the country devastated almost beyond belief. We have to make a fresh start. And Britain is ready to help.

Ending the war is not enough. We must rule out the chance of future wars. Angolans deserve open and transparent administration. No bribes. No favours. Just good, clean government. Angolans deserve to see their economy being transformed into an open market functioning within the rule of law and delivering benefits to all.

I welcomed the news that the Government has agreed to an IMF Staff Monitored Programme. A vital first step. You need the IMF, we need the IMF. We all live in an interconnected world. I urge the Government to publish the programme soon so that civil society can play an active part in achieving its targets. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to working for economic reform. They can be justly proud of that. Let’s make it happen through open discussion and open policy making. That is the way to win popular support from the people. That is the way to increasing investor confidence and economic advancement for all.

In the anti-apartheid struggle I remember campaigning alongside MPLA comrades during the 1960s and 1970s. In Government the MPLA made sacrifices to support the struggle of the African National Congress for freedom in South Africa. The MPLA has an honourable history as a liberation movement. It faced almost impossible odds when it took over a country ruined first by colonialists, and later by UNITA’s foreign-backed subversion, invasion and brutal war. Despite this the MPLA government managed to implement new and bold health and education policies from which so many Angolans benefited. But somewhere along the way, something went badly wrong.

We must build a new future. And look at what the result could be. Not a country bled dry by war and poverty and corruption. But one of the great African states. You have the oil, the diamonds. You have the agricultural potential. Luanda could be as big in the international trading market as Pretoria, Lagos or Nairobi. It is long past time that you took your place with them.

CONCLUSION

I speak today as a friend of Angola. And it is the duty of a true friend to speak honestly. I am determined to make a difference. I care about Angola because when I see the future of peace, I see a country, which could be the breadbasket of Southern Africa, feeding not just its own people but many millions of others. I see a country of great beauty with a people of great ability and potential. I see a country of enormous wealth that could be a powerhouse in Africa. An African Lion that could help make Africa roar with success. Instead of an Angola of war and poverty and corruption, I have a vision of an Angola in which human rights, social justice, democracy and prosperity for all flourish.

Let us pledge ourselves to realise that vision.

Let us all join together – you, I, your African brothers and sisters, the international community – in a rising chorus demanding peace and a new beginning.

The speech made by Peter Hain, the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, at the Royal Institute of International Affairs on 10 July 2000.

Can I begin by congratulating Transparency International on its role as a scourge of corruption and bad governance, and for organising this important conference.

Corruption is of course not unique to Southern Africa: it happens the world over and always has done. But the African continent has a particularly bad dose of it. And whereas in the past this was accepted as a fact of life – one of the legacies of colonialism and economic exploitation from which Africa has suffered so badly – today it can no longer be tolerated.

This is not simply a moral imperative. The new factor is globalisation. Modern communications mean it is less easy to cover up. And whereas foreign investors have happily colluded with corrupt governments or public officials through the ages, today’s global investors have less interest to do so. Modern capital is so mobile it prefers to invest where corruption does not take a slice of profits. It is also much more at risk of exposure in today’s transparent and highly competitive environment.

In Southern Africa today destabilising civil conflicts such as in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo have hit the region as a whole. HIV/AIDS threatens to wipe out large swathes of Southern Africa’s productive population. Drought – and more recently flooding in Mozambique and neighbouring countries – has devastated the agricultural output of the region and diverted scarce resources away from productive activities to rebuilding infrastructure and rural communities.

These serious problems have been hugely debilitating and contributed equally hugely to Africa’s main problem: poverty. But, resolving conflicts, and eradicating poverty is badly hampered by corruption. Sustained poverty in Southern Africa is partly due to failure of governments and corruption is a central feature of this failure.

REDUCING POVERTY THROUGH INVESTMENT

The British government is committed to halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. But ultimately poverty reduction requires sustained economic growth and a key element in this is attracting foreign investment. Foreign investment delivers clear benefits: the transfer of capital and resources (including skills and know-how), new jobs, and a boost to the rest of the economy. Some African countries, such as South Africa, Botswana and Mauritius have been relatively successful in attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).

Yet Sub-Saharan Africa receives only 0.4 per cent of global FDI. And that figure is falling. Greater investment flows will only be possible if the investment climate improves, raising business confidence.

The reasons given by businesses for not investing in Africa vary, but corruption is almost always on the list. It is difficult to quantify, although in Eastern Europe this is an extra 10 per cent tax on business according to the World Bank and EBRD. Just as important as the financial cost is that doing business is much more complex and confusing in a corrupt country. Many foreign investors will simply walk away if the environment is too difficult. Globalisation gives them plenty of alternatives.

THE IMPACT OF CORRUPTION

Corruption is the abuse of a position for private gain. We can draw a distinction between petty corruption and what George Moody Stuart calls ‘grand corruption’. Clearly it is right to start tackling the problem at the top with the big fish. But ultimately the aim must be to change cultures where petty corruption is viewed as normal. The causes of corruption are complex. Certain economic policies can inadvertently promote corruption. Foreign exchange or import controls often encourage corruption. There are obvious risks attached to uncontrolled deregulation as well. Too much economic power in the hands of political elites is undesirable. Africa’s leaders must shoulder some of the responsibility; Western Governments must hold their hands up and accept their share of the blame too.

The consequences are widespread. When the law is for sale, why obey it? If your political leaders are only interested in enriching themselves, why respect them? If an official demands a bribe to perform the simplest service, why bother? The insidious result is a society whose members do not trust its institutions or even each other. Individuals and groups therefore act regardless of the consequences for others. The rule of law and with it any sense of a coherent society breaks down.

If government decisions can be influenced by illegal or improper means, they are unlikely to be good ones. Hospitals or roads may be built in the wrong place; incompetent contractors may be given contracts which they never complete; friends and family members end up running businesses into the ground. In brief, corrupt governments do not do their job as well as honest ones.

In the last few years – pushed and prodded by organisations such as Transparency International – we have all come to realise that corruption (and good governance in general) is not an optional extra. Without tackling corruption, the task of encouraging sustainable economic growth in Southern Africa is impossible. So what can be done?

COMBATING CORRUPTION

All Southern African countries should develop their own national strategies to promote good governance and eradicate corruption. Only if there is an internal drive led from the top is an anti-corruption initiative likely to be successful. Without it, no amount of help from outside experts will secure the demonstrable change necessary. There is no one model. But any strategy should include all the key players in society, public and private sectors, NGOs, civil society, political parties, foreign investors, religious leaders and financial institutions.

Some African countries have taken the first step towards such a strategy by agreeing the Global Coalition for Africa’s Anti-Corruption Principles. I hope that other African countries sign up to these and that they can form the basis for a coherent set of national strategies. Excellent work is being done by the World Bank Institute in seven African countries to develop national anti-corruption strategies. The Institute’s approach of trying to work with a wide range of interests in each country is commendable and I understand that our Department for International Development is looking at ways to build on this work.

Signing up to the international instruments is, while a welcome first step, is not enough. A corruption free environment must be supported by the enforcement of national laws against corruption. Those laws need to have real teeth. There will be genuine public support if serious and high level corruption is tackled vigorously.

It is by no means an easy task, but real progress is possible, as a number of African countries have shown, for example Kenya.

In July 1999, after years of criticism from both inside and outside the country, and a steadily declining economy, President Moi announced an Economic Recovery Strategy designed to root out corruption and inefficiency in the civil service. The Strategy included the establishment of a Change Team headed by Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, Richard Leakey. The Team has implemented wide-ranging economic management and governance reforms. These have included:

• the establishment of an autonomous Kenya anti-corruption authority (KACA). It is now fully operational, with 50 staff and has received 800 complaints to date;
• dismissals and prosecution of corrupt officials, including one serving and one past Permanent Secretary;
• key public agencies have been reorganised and management changed in response to complaints and investigation about corruption e.g. a Nairobi City Council oversight Board has been established. Top officials in the Ministry of Land have been replaced and past decisions on land disposal are being reviewed. Top managers of the ports, Kenya Coffee Board, Kenya Tea development Authority and Central Tender Board have been replaced;
• there has been high profile naming of alleged corrupt officials in the Parliamentary Select Committee report on Anti-Corruption;
• Cabinet approval has been given to a new public service code of conduct and declaration of assets bill;
• There is a commitment to introduce a new Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Bill which substantially enhances the prosecution and investigation powers of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Authority, strengthens its preventive and advisory functions and establishes a corruption court and a Parliamentary Ethics and Integrity Committee. The statute of limitations (currently 3 years) will be abolished for serious fraud, embezzlement and corruption;
• civil service reform (rightsizing, pay reform, improved management and performance appraisal);
• procurement reform: restructuring of the tendering and procurement system and revamping of the Central Tender Board including the establishment of an appeals board and quarterly reporting of activities including bids received and acted upon. Development of new legislation to amend current procurement regulations and the establishment of a new independent Public Procurement Agency.

These tough measures have already brought benefits to Kenya. As a direct result, the IMF/World Bank have resumed negotiations with the Government of Kenya for a Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) – the previous ESAF having lapsed in 1997 because of governance concerns.

Although there is a long way to go, and there is obstruction by vested interests, including some Kenyan Ministers, the country has made a start and President Moi and his team deserve to be both congratulated and supported for this.

BRITIAN’S ROLE IN FIGHTING INTERNATIONAL CORRUPTION

Meanwhile we are looking at ourselves. Britain is in the process of reviewing the UK’s laws on corruption, and last month, the Home Office issued a discussion paper. Partly this is to ensure we meet the highest international standards, but primarily it is to ensure that we are effective in deterring British citizens from involvement in corrupt practices wherever they take place.

We are playing a leading role internationally to promote greater efforts by all countries to stamp out corrupt practices. We strongly support the OECD’s Convention on Combating Bribery and urge all countries to sign up to it. We are also exploring with our G8 partners what else we might do to drive this work forward. Corruption will be one of the subjects discussed at the G8 Summit in Okinawa next week.

Our Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, has made quite clear that tackling corruption is a very high priority for UK development assistance. Practical help for tackling corruption is now a major part of her Department’s (DFID’s) strategy in Africa and elsewhere, as indicated by their support for this event.

Britain is a leading player within the G8 and the EU in tackling corruption and illegal diamond trade that is fuelling Angolan War. I have just returned from Angola where I pressed the Government of Angola to encourage more transparency and accountability within its budgetary process. We are also working with them to ensure that the proceeds of the legal diamond trade and oil exports are not diverted elsewhere and are channelled directly to benefit the Angolan people, not just individuals within the country. And of course, we are working with the Government of Sierra Leone to try to stop the proceeds of diamond sales financing the rebel military campaign.

I should say that African diamonds are not synonymous with conflict. Just look at what Botswana, the world’s leading diamond producer, has achieved in using its diamond wealth to promote development. With growth of 9 per cent, it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. What is the secret of Botswana’s success? Good governance, transparency and an uncompromising approach to corruption.

A GLOBAL ISSUE

Corruption is a global issue. Corruption in Southern Africa often involves participation by foreign entities, including major corporations and individuals seeking contracts and business opportunities. The UK accepts its responsibility for trying to ensure that UK nationals are discouraged from corrupt practices and we will change our legislation to be more effective in doing so. Most of our European and OECD partners do the same. All should.

The UK is working with its partners in the IMF, World Bank and other multilateral and bilateral aid agencies to encourage them to use their influence to promote anti-corruption systems in the countries where they are working, particularly in Southern Africa. It is important that clear guidelines for promoting good governance, such as those developed by the IMF in 1998, are replicated by all organisations, including NGOs, procurement agents and other service delivery participants. Country assistance programmes and strategies should take into account and promote anti-corruption strategies at the national level. Particular attention should be paid to the level of transparency and accountability in government decision-making. There are a number of international initiatives to tackle corruption. Apart from the OECD’s Bribery Convention, there are also the Council of Europe’s Criminal and Civil Law Conventions on Corruption covering active and passive bribery of domestic and foreign public and private sector officials, including judges and members of public assemblies. I hope that Southern African countries will consider introducing similar provisions in their own legislation which explicitly criminalise corruption. Britain is willing to help.

The Commonwealth Framework sets out some clear principles to address governance and corruption in member countries. Commonwealth Heads of Government signed up to the Framework at the Durban Summit last year. A proposed ‘code of conduct’, which could apply equally to government ministers and civil servants as well as parastatal companies and their employees, is particularly worthy of implementation. The code of conduct needs to be legally enforceable, with appropriate and robust sanctions for breaches of the code.

The profits from corruption can be huge. But if they are to be safe, they need to be laundered and then hidden away out of reach of the domestic authorities. A key element in fighting corruption is therefore to be able to trace and seize the proceeds both to reimburse the country and to reduce the financial incentive.

Britain has played a leading role in international efforts to tackle large-scale money laundering, whether linked to corruption or other crimes. We are supporting the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group (ESAAMLG), established last year to strengthen legislation and regional cooperation to tackle money laundering.

CONCLUSION

The key role of corruption has been ignored for too long. For those of us who love Africa, it is painful to imagine what might have been achieved over the last thirty years without corruption. Honest governments working for the benefit of their people could have brought great prosperity to that continent. Instead, corrupt, selfish regimes have blocked their people from finding their way out of poverty and misery.

But Africa can still turn itself around. If it can tackle the central problems of governance, then globalisation offers unlimited scope for attracting investment and beginning the process of catching up with the Asian Tiger economies and establishing its own successful Lion economies. The global growth in information and communication technologies will force governments to become more transparent, helping cut out corruption. As we have seen in the last two months in Zimbabwe, growing use of the internet by the Opposition MDC has helped lead to a more open, inclusive society, with stronger institutions, and a greater voice for civil society. IT can improve information flows to foreign investors. New technology (for example mobile telephones and solar panels) may provide ways round traditional obstacles to growth. African governments must look to these new ways of doing business if their development plans are to succeed.

For, while the rest of the world has been getting richer, Africa has got poorer. We must build a new partnership between African Governments, bilateral partners and international financial institutions to find solutions for Africa’s economic problems and give the people of Africa the chance for success.

The speech made by Peter Hain, the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in Antwerp on 17 July 2000.

To anyone expecting me to ‘name and shame’ those responsible for using illicit diamonds to fuel wars in Africa, I am sorry to disappoint you. Today I come not to ‘name and shame’ but to ‘name and praise’. To praise the International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA) for the leadership it is giving to the industry to tackle the problem. To praise De Beers for the steps it has already taken to block diamonds from conflict zones.

To praise Antwerp’s leading diamond banks: ABN-AMRO, the Antwerp Diamond bank and Artesia Bank for deciding to terminate relations with any client dealing in ‘conflict diamonds’. Other banks may have made similar moves: all should do so. To praise recent moves taken by the Belgian, Indian and Israeli trade associations to clamp down on the small minority of rogue traders in conflict diamonds who discredit the vast majority.

I hope we can all join together to find workable solutions and agree concrete ways forward. Because this will make all the difference in reassuring increasingly worried consumers. Everyone wants to be sure that that diamond ring for the finger of their loved one has helped create prosperity not war.

It is vital that we take urgent action to stop this. Vital because that will help block the money that finances brutal rebellions in those countries. Vital because we must safeguard the prosperity and jobs of tens of thousands of people world wide dependent upon the legitimate diamond trade.

BREAKING THE WAR-DIAMONDS LINK

We can – and we must – work together to break the link between war and diamonds in Africa and deny these ‘conflict diamonds’ access to world markets.

We have all been shocked by the brutality of the RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. They, like the UNITA rebels in Angola, finance their murder and mayhem with diamonds. Angola is the worst place in the world to be a child, yet it has the mineral and agricultural wealth to be the most prosperous place in Africa. We have a moral obligation to act. We also have a commercial obligation to protect the reputation of the industry.

Because there is no necessary link between diamonds and war in Africa. Diamonds can, and should, mean prosperity for Africa. Botswana – with one of the highest growth rates in the world last year – is a shining example of the benefits that diamond wealth can bring.

I was born in Africa and was involved in the anti-apartheid struggle. As Britain’s Minister of State for Africa I am determined that the resolution of the ‘conflict diamonds’ problem must in no way harm post-apartheid South Africa and Namibia.

What we all want are prosperity diamonds: for Africa’s people to experience the prosperity that diamonds can bring. But to do so, we must first bloc the ‘conflict diamonds’ which fuel the suffering of people whose lives are being decimated by war in Angola, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I know that many of you feel it is unfair that politicians like me, and NGOs, have been vocal on the issue of ‘conflict diamonds’. And unfair in getting a strong media spotlight on ‘conflict diamonds’. After all it is not the diamonds that cause the wars, but the men who start them; who illicitly mine and trade diamonds in order to buy arms.

And you are right that it would be unfair, if we focused solely on diamonds. But we are not. The British Government is actively supporting the United Nations in stopping those who break sanctions on the supply of weapons and fuel. And we are very actively involved in international efforts to stop the proliferation of small arms and leverage up standards on arms export controls. We would like the international community to go further and stop the supply of weapons to non-state actors.

But this issue just cannot be wished away. The African producer countries had the wisdom to see that by launching the Kimberley process, in which Britain is an active member.

The British Government has done the right thing in galvanising action on ‘conflict diamonds’. With the Americans, we have got the issue high on the agenda of the G8 countries, which represent the bulk of your market.

We have engaged with the leading producers: Russia, Botswana, South Africa, Namibia, Canada and the war-afflicted states. We have supported the unprecedented activism of Canada’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Robert Fowler, in making sanctions against UNITA bite.

A few weeks ago we convened a meeting of the importing countries in the British Foreign Office. I was able to welcome representatives of the trade from Antwerp, Tel Aviv, Bombay, Russia, the USA and Canada to discuss how to move forward together. Most recently we have led the way in the UN Security Council to get a ban on all uncertified diamonds from Sierra Leone, with the adoption of Resolution 1306 on July 5.

The proactive stance which IDMA, and others in the industry, are now taking can only work to the long-term benefit of the legitimate trade. And I wish to pay tribute to the leadership of individuals in this room who have acted as the catalysts for change.

I am struck by how the mood now contrasts to nine months ago. Then, I was told by some in the industry that the there was little prospect of a new approach, of promoting greater transparency and accountability, of starving the illicit diamond trade of its pickings. But look where we are today.

The newly agreed UN Security Council resolution 1306 on Sierra Leone requires both governments and the industry world wide to enforce the ban on all uncertified diamonds. I am very keen to explore with representatives of the national associations and companies here how we best work together to enact this.

How can we learn from the experience of imposing sanctions on UNITA diamonds? What can we do better this time and do more quickly to help deprive the Sierra Leone rebel RUF of the means to wage war?

What can we do together to address the wider problem of ‘conflict diamonds’? I very much agree with your President, Sean Cohen, that it’s unrealistic to expect your members – the manufacturers down the supply chain – to resolve the problem by themselves. It is clear that you can not. You need action ‘upstream’ and you need governments to be prepared to introduce the necessary controls. I think you are right that we need to strengthen the ‘front line’ of the problem by tackling the trade in ‘roughs’.

DIAMOND CERTIFICATION

That is why my government is actively backing attempts to introduce a certification scheme for rough diamonds. I hope the G8 Heads of Government will endorse work on this at their summit later this week.

We are active in the Kimberley process, where industry, governments of producing and importing states and representatives of civil society are developing proposals to stop the import of all uncertified roughs.

I am delighted to learn that leaders of the IDMA have formulated their own proposals that closely follow our thinking on the need for controls on the import and export of roughs from the producer countries. I am impressed by what you propose and I hope we can work together to achieve workable and pragmatic controls. And avoid unnecessary bureaucracies, or loading unnecessary burdens on producing countries and industry. Let’s make it simple and effective and get it in place urgently.

You are right to challenge governments to go beyond stating their concerns to taking action. Just as we are right to say that governments cannot crack this one alone. We need the industry. You need governments. Together we can work to get the best blend of government controls and industry self-regulation.

Our thinking on how best to take forward a certification scheme is that:

• Producer countries would agree not to export rough diamonds without a proper certificate of origin;
• Importing countries would only agree to import roughs with such a document
• A credible monitoring system – simple, effective, but not overly bureaucratic.

I believe this is achievable and will ensure consumer confidence in the diamond industry. But we need to move fast. Building on the work done in the Kimberley Working group, we need to get agreement to an inter-governmental process to work out what such a scheme might look like and whether we are all willing to commit to it.

I can assure that the British Government will be active in putting its best efforts into making this happen. Working with other key actors – IDMA, the African producers (led by South Africa), fellow G8 members: Canada, Russia and the USA and Belgium and other EU partners.

I am delighted that IDMA is also pointing the way forward on what more the industry itself can do. The proposal that every diamond organisation adopts a binding code of conduct on conflict diamonds, labour practices and good business practices is excellent. Especially the proposal that the codes be given teeth, through the expulsion of any member who fails to comply.

I very much hope that the diamond bourses are thinking along similar lines and that the World Federation of Diamond Bourses will act in concert with IDMA this week. To make this week’s Antwerp World Diamond Congress an even bigger success story for the diamond industry.

A CREDIBLE AND EFFECTIVE CODE OF CONDUCT

Might I suggest some pre-requisites for a credible and effective code of conduct, to build on what has been proposed in the industry?

Firstly, expulsion from a manufacturing association, or diamond bourse, has little meaning if you can carry on trading regardless. I think the industry needs to decide that only licensed manufacturers and dealers can trade. In that way the threat of expulsion can be given meaning.

I suggest you also need to benchmark clear minimum standards and encourage best practice. On the latter, I am encouraged by the move of companies, such as De Beers, to make affirmative statements on all sales invoices that they are not dealing in ‘conflict diamonds’. If we can get meaningful controls in place to allow only certified roughs into the leading and bona fide diamond trading centres which you represent, consumers will surely demand that the trade gives them confidence through a voluntary ‘chain of warranties’. I would welcome discussion on how this might best be taken forward, with the onus on the seller to make an affirmative statement to the buyer.

It makes no sense to disrupt the normal pattern of the trade and the way that companies add value by mixing and selling on between the different marketing centres and traders. So we must go for workable ways forward.

But the 21st century consumer increasingly demands the right to know. The voice of civil society cannot be ignored. If NGOs are demanding greater transparency and accountability, we should all welcome their wake up call. And, like IDMA, not act defensively, but engage to get the best outcome for the industry and the consumer.

I believe that NGOs like Global Witness have earned their place at the table. Because they have been prepared to listen and learn. And because they have networked effectively and helped bring the different actors together. The Foreign Office has been happy to contribute funding to their research into identification and certification. But that does not mean we agree with all their conclusions. We do not.

So, I welcome forward-looking thinking in the IDMA suggesting that if an international diamond council is to be considered, it should be a tripartite body with industry, government and civil society representation. But let us avoid heavy bureaucracies, inter-governmental procrastination and look instead to light and effective models of industry self-regulation backed by both full transparency and the support of government legislation.

I am pleased to have been able to join you at what I’m sure will prove to be a successful conference for IDMA. I hope it will be an important milestone in our efforts to give a clean bill of health to the industry by eradicating the minority of war diamonds which discredit the overwhelming preponderance of prosperity diamonds.

The speech made by Peter Hain, the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, to the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding on 17 July 2000.

I am grateful to you, Mr Chairman (John Austin), and to Sir Cyril Townsend, for this opportunity to address the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, and the many members of the Arab community in London represented here.

You have invited me to speak on Britain’s policy on the Middle East. I hope, though, you will permit me to range a little further, covering – like CAABU – the whole of the Arab world.

The Middle East and North Africa remain central to British Foreign Policy. The region is our neighbour, our trading partner, and a strategic priority. We are in regular contact with Ministers and parliamentarians in every country. In the last year I have been to Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, and Qatar. The Foreign Secretary has visited the region. The Prime Minister has seen President Arafat, Prime Minister Barak, King Abdullah, Prince Salman of Saudi Arabia, and the Amirs of Bahrain and Qatar. Lord Levy, too, has been extremely active on our behalf.

PEACE

The key to the Middle East’s development is peace.

Over the past year we have seen Syria and Israel come desperately close to peace. We have seen Israel withdraw from Lebanon. And we have seen the Palestinians and Israelis edge closer.

I wanted to let you know how the Israelis and Palestinians were getting on at Camp David, but the Americans took away their mobile phones. So let me leave that until later, and start with Lebanon.

The end of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon was a major step towards peace. I hope that the Government of Lebanon will now take rapid steps to assert its effective authority in southern Lebanon, including by deploying the Lebanese Armed Forces.

There were many who refused to believe that Israel would ever withdraw. They were wrong. Israel under Ehud Barak has worked hard to comply with the requirements of the United Nations to achieve full implementation of Resolution 425. Of course, it was high time.

I look forward to the next step, also long overdue: implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, in Syria, and in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Syria will emerge this week from its 40 day period of mourning for Hafez al-Asad. The transition to President Bashar Al-Asad, completed today, has been very smooth, and I welcome the emergence of another leader of the new generation in the Middle East. I believe that, over the past year, Britain and Syria have laid the foundations for a new relationship between our countries. I welcome President Asad’s commitment to social and economic reform, and to the strategic choice of peace. Britain will, as an old friend, seek to help Syria in both.

As I speak, Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak and their teams are meeting in Camp David. They both face enormous challenges. Britain recognises the pressures on both sides. President Arafat in particular bears the burden of many expectations, in the Islamic world and beyond. But I am very hopeful of a positive result, even if a full permanent status agreement is not achieved in the next few days. I look forward to the negotiations leading to the creation of a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state. It has often been said that the consequences of failure – for both sides – are too great to contemplate. The prizes of success are also too great to be discarded.

Our efforts towards peace extend well beyond the Middle East Peace Process. You will all be aware of the terrible suffering in Sudan caused by civil war – a war that has lasted 16 years in its current phase alone. You will also be aware of Britain’s long and close association with the Sudan. That link remains strong, as I see from my mail-bag each week.

Only a negotiated settlement can bring sustainable peace to the Sudan. That is why we have been trying to bring the parties – indeed all stakeholders – to talks. We have provided political and financial support for a permanent negotiating secretariat in Nairobi and we are in regular contact with all the parties, pressing the case for talks and explaining the benefits that peace would bring to the civilian population.

Tomorrow I shall be meeting the Sudanese Foreign Minister, Mustafa Osman, who I gather will be visiting you at CAABU later this week. We have seen a number of positive developments in Khartoum recently, and I look forward to discussing with him the prospects for peace, and how we and the international community can help.

Nor will we forget the Western Sahara, sometimes called the ‘forgotten war’. We have supported the UN mission in the Western Sahara consistently and unswervingly, providing civilian administrators and peace-keeping contingents, and substantial funds to underpin them. We continue to believe that a just solution to the problem depends on the people of the western Sahara having the right to express their will at the ballot box.

A solution also requires all parties to be constructive, flexible and committed to peaceful means. We have been happy to support James Baker, the UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy, providing facilities for him to hold talks in London in recent months. We urge all sides to respond positively to what he has to say. I have carried the same message to Morocco and Algeria.

As you can see, much of our diplomatic and aid effort in the Middle East and North Africa is dedicated to promoting peace and understanding between communities. Another priority is promoting the observance of human rights.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights are fundamental and universal. They are one of the foundations of the international community, which is why all members of the United Nations accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How a state treats its citizens is a matter of legitimate concern to all states and all citizens, not just the West.

So I am wholly unapologetic about our desire to promote human rights, in the Middle East and North Africa, and right across the world.

There is real progress. The establishment of consultative councils in the Gulf, the elections in Iran earlier this year, and the formation of a human rights committee in Bahrain, all reflect changing attitudes. The increasing rights of women in a number of countries, and the development of the Arab media in the region, in particular Al Jazeera in Qatar, also reflect a more liberal and modern approach.

We shall continue to promote progress, through political channels, and by financing programmes – the Palestinian rights programme, for example, was the largest UK-funded human rights programme in the world last year. And we shall continue to consult Non-Governmental Organisations before visits to the region, and to raise individual and collective cases when we meet leaders from the Middle East and North Africa.

Increasingly we work on human rights in close cooperation with the countries of the region. We look forward to working with those recently elected to the UN Commission on Human Rights, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Algeria and Libya; and with Qatar, which continues on the Commission. Together we can improve the human rights situation throughout the world.

PROSPERITY

In working together to achieve peace and secure human rights, we shall also increase prosperity. Because respect for individual freedoms and good governance permit the talents of individuals to flourish, and provide the secure environment needed for investment.

I am convinced that the Euro-mediterranean partnership, in particular the Free Trade Area, offers the best prospects for economic development. It is the agreed objective of the EU and nearly all our Mediterranean partners. I look forward to Libya joining us soon.

With the EU, the Mediterranean partners, and the countries which have applied to join the EU, the Free Trade Area will include more than 700 million people. That is more than one in ten of the world’s population, and a much higher proportion of its wealth – an incredible and diverse community and market which will benefit us all, and the Gulf as well.

The building blocks are gradually falling into place. Of course, much turns on progress in the Middle East Peace Process. At present flows of state money to the region are large. But following peace I am confident that investment from the private sector will dwarf aid from states. We have seen the pattern – starting from a much lower base – in Central and Eastern Europe. If the investment environment is stable and attractive, international capital quickly follows. The companies that invest bring know-how and create jobs. And it is better for the countries of the Middle East and North Africa that investment should come from a wide range of private investors, rather than as aid from a few states.

Britain’s bilateral trade relations with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa remain very healthy. Just a few weeks ago I was privileged to address the ‘Investing in Saudi Arabia’ conference, in the presence of Prince Abdullah bin Faisal bin Turki. The two pillars of British Trade International, Trade Partners UK and Invest UK, continue their efforts to promote investment in both directions.

Last year, no doubt partly because of the strength of the pound, and partly because of the low oil price, UK exports to the region fell, while our imports from it increased. I am pleased to say that our exports to the region are now rising again, and in January to March of this year were 4% higher than in the equivalent period of last year. Imports were a remarkable 34% higher.

The economic links between Britain and the Arab world are increasing steadily, a welcome trend which I am confident will continue.

IRAQ

Iraq is an issue of great concern to many of you, as it is to us. That is why we, the UK and the UN, intensified our efforts to look creatively at the situation, resulting in the Security Council’s adoption of the ground-breaking Resolution 1284.

This resolution for the first time provides for the suspension of sanctions in return for progress by Iraq short of full compliance.

It offers Iraq an unprecedented opportunity to make quick progress on sanctions – an opportunity we must all encourage Iraq to take. This does not mean the international community is going soft on Saddam’s aggression. 1284 makes clear that Iraq must allow the new monitoring organisation, UNMOVIC, full access to sites still of concern. That is an exacting requirement. But it is also necessary, if we are to prevent Saddam from once again threatening his people and Iraq’s neighbours.

As the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Kuwait approaches, none here will need reminding of the deadly results of those threats in the past. But we need to be looking forward. Resolution 1284 clearly maps out the way to the lifting of sanctions, and is the only way of doing that. I urge the Iraqi government to accept it.

The Iraqi government are fond of claiming that they have given up their weapons of mass destruction and that they have nothing to hide. If that is so, then they have everything to gain by seizing the opportunity offered by 1284.

In the meantime we strive to help those suffering in Iraq. Resolution 1284 contains a raft of humanitarian measures, providing a bigger and better humanitarian programme – none of it conditional on Iraq’s behaviour on weapons of mass destruction.

There has, for example, been no ceiling on the amount of oil which Iraq can export under the ‘oil for food’ programme since December 1999. That means that more than $10 billion should be available for humanitarian relief this year alone. This will make a real difference on the ground, prompting the UN Secretary General to underline recently that the Government of Iraq is in a position to improve the health status of the Iraqi people. 1284 has also streamlined the approvals procedures for exporting ‘oil for food’ goods to Iraq. More essential goods are arriving more quickly.

We are doing all that we can to help the Iraqi people. We urge Saddam Hussein to do the same.

Much too has been made of claims of a UK/US bombing campaign against Iraq. Let me say here categorically: there is no bombing campaign. Nor do current UK and US patrols in the No Fly Zones represent the continuation of Operation Desert Fox. That was a limited operation to diminish Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction capability. It ended on 19 December 1998. Our aircraft now patrol the NFZs, as they have for nearly nine years, to protect the Kurds, the Shias and others from Saddam’s attacks. The patrols are not without serious risk. Iraqi forces have attacked our aircraft on more than 820 occasions. Our aircraft only respond when they are attacked. If Iraq stops its aggression, we shall stop responding. But we continue the patrols because, as a visiting Kurdish delegation told us just last week, it is only these patrols which deter Saddam from repeating his past attacks on the Kurds.

The states in the region know the reality. We are grateful for the support of so many of our oldest friends in the Gulf. We have acted to provide a path to achieve improvement. Saddam must decide to go down it.

CONCLUSION

I want to end on a positive note.

The Middle East stands on the brink of a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. We all hope that Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak can find the strength to take the last leap to achieve it. We hope that President Bashar Al-Asad will soon be able to achieve the peace that eluded his father. And we look forward to the gains from Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon being consolidated through a Lebanese-Israeli peace agreement.

Increasingly the importance of trade, human rights and good governance in increasing prosperity is understood.

I look forward to closer cooperation between Britain and all our friends in the states of the Middle East and North Africa, in a world where, increasingly, the international interest, the national interest and the citizen’s interest are the same.