Jo Swinson

Conflict Prevention - Westminster Hall Debate

I congratulate my hon. Friend Simon Hughes on securing this debate. The time spent by the House debating conflict prevention pales in comparison with the time that we spend discussing conflicts that have not been prevented. Perhaps that balance needs to be adjusted. I wholeheartedly support the idea put forward by my hon. Friend that there should be an annual debate on the subject rather than relying on the random nature of the ballot to secure debates in Westminster Hall.

It was excellent for the quality of debate that so many contributed, including the co-chairmen of the all-party parliamentary group on conflict issues and those involved in other groups that deal with specific parts of the world. Also welcome, of course, is the great consensus that exists across the Chamber on the question of conflict prevention. I particularly liked the idea expressed by John McDonnell that the matter should be removed from the political knockabout in the run-up to the general election. The all-party group would have done a great piece of work if it could get all parties to agree on some key priorities after the election, whatever the result may be, so that we have a long-term strategy and continuity.

It almost goes without saying that conflict prevention is essential. It has a clear and obvious humanitarian objective. Another factor that came out clearly in today's debate was the economic imperative, which is important given that we are in a recession. I was staggered by some of the figures; $64 billion is the average cost of each conflict, and when multiplied it gives a total of $175 trillion. The figures are mind-boggling. Indeed, for every dollar spent on conflict prevention, $2,000 is spent on military defence. Saving money in future by spending more on conflict prevention would seem to be wise.

I want to touch on a few key elements of conflict prevention as it affects foreign policy. They include the support given to other states, particularly to fragile states; the peace-building process and how it relates to preventing future conflict; the role of women in conflict prevention; and the future strategic threats that were mentioned by various Members, particularly climate change and access to resources.

Mr. Greenway was right to say that we often ignore the warning signs that there is about to be a massive problem in another corner of the world, and that if we take action it is not taken swiftly enough. The responsibility to protect was supposed to make things a little easier, but the world still sits back far too often when conflicts arise.

I have listed the various parts of the world mentioned today where conflict is likely or could occur, and it is a long list. There are all the countries in the middle east, and Yemen has come very much to our attention. There are the ongoing problems in Cyprus and the Balkans. There is the Caucasus; and there are a range of issues in Africa, south America and Asia. Such a list brings home the scale of the problem.

Resourcing is important. My hon. Friend asked a good range of questions, and I look forward to the Minister's response. There is genuine concern about the cuts that have been made to the United Kingdom's civilian contribution to peacekeeping, and about the recent scaling back of this year's Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget-for example, for counter-terrorism in Pakistan-as a result of the change in the exchange rate.

The FCO is facing budgetary difficulties because of the Treasury ruling that when the exchange rate changes the FCO has to find the funds from within its budget. That difficulty, of course, is caused by the strength of the pound. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's response on such matters. It seems sensible to spend in order to prevent future conflict and future expense on that front. Even in a recession, we should not make such cuts. It would be a false economy.

Peacebuilding is usually seen as an aspect of bringing conflict to an end. However, getting it right is essential to prevent conflict from starting up again. We have seen intervention in far too many places, with sticking-plaster solutions, where once the resources are removed the conflict revives because the underlying issues have not been resolved.

One cannot overestimate the importance of taking a proactive stance on building peace rather than taking the UN's traditional peacekeeping role. It is about involving not only regional partners in the country or area in question but stakeholders within communities. In that way, a peace can be built that reflects the needs of local people-not, dare I say it, an idea from many thousands of miles away of how it should be done. The UN recognised that when it set up the peacebuilding commission in 2005. With fellow MPs, I was fortunate to meet representatives of the commission on a visit to the UN sponsored by the FCO in 2008. We look forward to the UN review of the commission's work so that we can learn what is successful.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the role of women, particularly in communities. It is most important when building structures for peace. Last year, the UN passed Security Council resolution 1889, which reaffirmed the principles laid out almost a decade ago in Security Council resolution 1325. Among other things, it recognised the important role that women need to play in conflict prevention. Despite making up more than half of the world's population, women are often absent from negotiating tables and decision-making circles.

I recommend Gender Action for Peace and Security, a network of NGOs. It recently produced a short parliamentarian's guide to women, peace and security, which is most instructive. One statistic sticks out for me. Over the past 25 years, only one in 40 peace agreement signatories have been women. That shows their lack of involvement at that crucial stage, which I believe has an impact on whether conflicts recur. The UK is one of only 14 countries with a national action plan for implementing Security Council resolution 1325. I am glad about that. The plan is under review, and it will be released next month.

It is important that we take matters forward. In October, someone from the FCO told the all-party group on women, peace and security that the Department was finding it difficult to involve women in senior positions in conflict prevention resolution, including in the UK. I would welcome it if the Minister were to update us on progress on that front.

Finally, I touch on the question of climate change-again, something mentioned by various Members. We need to look ahead to the likely drivers of future conflicts. They will include access to energy, to water and to land that can be used for crop production. The changes likely to happen to all aspects as a result of climate change make it a priority to consider them in connection with conflict prevention.

The Oxford Research Group report "Sustainable Security for the 21st Century" states:

"This has long-term security implications for all countries which are far more serious, lasting and destructive than those of international terrorism."

That puts the scale of the threat in stark terms. It should go hand in glove with the Government's policies on assisting with adaptation to climate change and preventing further dangerous climate change through mitigation. I hope that the FCO is working closely with the Department of Energy and Climate Change on those issues; I know that climate change is another of the Department's strategic priorities.

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss such important issues. I welcome the constructive spirit of the debate, and I look forward to the Minister's response.