§ 2.52 p.m.
§ Lord Archer of Sandwellasked Her Majesty s Government:
Whether they have initiated discussions with a view to clarifying the limits of legitimate intervention in the territory of states harbouring terrorists.
§ The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)My Lords, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter makes it clear that governments have a right to take action in self-defence. Military action against terrorists is very much a last resort, but the Government are prepared to take military action in self-defence, fully in accordance with international law, when necessary. In various multilateral fora, the Government have discussed the problems posed by terrorism. Those discussions addressed the problem of terrorists operating in areas in which a state either cannot establish law and order or knowingly harbours and protects terrorists.
§ Lord Archer of SandwellMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that thoughtful response. Does she agree that there is a consensus that national sovereignty cannot provide a licence to commit mass murder? Does she also agree that international law enforcement is at a stage akin to the sheriff raising a posse of those whom he could persuade to join him? The problem is exacerbated because we do not have a sheriff; we have nation states—however well intentioned—who place themselves at the head of coalitions. Is there not an urgent need for an internationally recognised authority to bring to bear objective judgment and legitimise appropriate interventions? Can the Government work on that?
§ Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I agree that national sovereignty is never a licence to commit what my noble friend calls mass murder. However, he should consider the fact that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is enormously important because it gives the right to take action in self-defence. That action must, of course, be proportionate and lawful.
My noble friend asks what else we can do to achieve international consensus. As your Lordships will know, there was discussion in the United Nations—particularly after the terrible events of 11th September—where we addressed issues such as the financing of and recruitment to terrorist organisations and how those activities could be stopped. In the Commonwealth, we have addressed legal and judicial issues, and, in the EU, we have considered plans of action to combat terrorism. Several fora are addressing those issues. Although we are only starting, we are making useful progress.
§ Lord Howell of GuildfordMy Lords, does the Minister agree that objective judgments about the harbouring of terrorists are, sadly, difficult to achieve? When one examines the detail of UN resolutions—not only 51 but 56, 1368, 1373 and 1378—one sees that they just about justify all forms of self-defence, individual and collective, in hunting down terrorists. That leads us to conclude that the real problems do not lie in the legalities but in the practicalities. No nation can hunt out terrorists alone; the operation requires 680 the most intimate intelligence collaboration. Even a great nation such as the United States cannot do it alone.
§ Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, I agree with almost every word the noble Lord said. His remarks reflect debates in your Lordships' House on this difficult issue on which many different points of view have been brought to bear. Objective international judgments as to what is a terrorist in the first place are, of course, enormously difficult to arrive at, as we have discussed. I have sat round tables in the past few months and have heard the Provisional IRA described as freedom fighters. Others around those tables made remarks that were equally difficult for people from other countries to defend.
The issue is how to get some sort of international consensus about what can be done practically. We are addressing that through the fora to which I referred. When an act of terrorism is perpetrated, there should be a proper international response.
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a safeguard in Article 51? A state that crosses an international frontier in the exercise of self-defence must notify the Security Council, and, if it is doing its job properly, the Security Council ought to debate such notifications. If a state crosses an international frontier without complying with that obligation, the Security Council should take note of that and censure the state concerned.
§ Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, that is entirely right. I remind the noble Lord that UK participation in, for example, the military action in Afghanistan accords with international law. The action was taken in self-defence, to prevent further terrorist attacks, and we did, indeed, notify the president of the Security Council.
§ Lord Wallace of SaltaireMy Lords, it is, perhaps, time to revisit Article 2 sub-paragraph 7 of the UN Charter, as we have gone a long way beyond the old idea of state sovereignty in this and many other matters. Will Her Majesty's Government introduce a broader debate within the UN about how far all states—including the most powerful—must accept that state sovereignty is no longer something to which they can cling in order to exclude external criticism and intervention in domestic matters?
§ Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, the problem with the noble Lord's thesis is how we get some sort of consensus in the abstract on the issues. That is why we have supported the more pragmatic approach of the UN counter-terrorism committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Jeremy Greenstock. It seeks to respond to all member states by giving a critique of the domestic policies of those states. That is the practical approach. So far, over 50 letters have been sent, and Sir Jeremy's committee plays an invaluable role in driving forward the international implementation of UNSCR 1373. That is the sensible, 681 practical way forward, as opposed to trying to address issues on which we will not get consensus, particularly at such a time of heightened international tension.