Middle East: Recent Developments

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his periodic attempts to update this House on developments in the Middle East. It is a matter of concern across the House, and this debate on these issues is welcome. I will speak principally about Iran and Israel, and will touch on Syria—the potential flashpoints for even greater conflict in the Middle East. I am speaking today, in part, with reflection on my role as co-chairman of the Liberal Democrats’ foreign affairs committee.

First, on the vexed issue of Iran’s attempts to become a nuclear-weapon state, I share my noble friend’s disappointment that our P5+5 talks in Istanbul last week did not make the progress that we would have hoped for. We need to be clear that diplomacy and negotiation is our preferred option in all circumstances. It follows from this uncontroversial position that when the country in question—Iran—continues to assert that its nuclear programme is for peaceful means, and its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has regularly asserted that weapons of mass destruction are deemed to go against Islamic principles of proportionality in warfare, that we need to take care to assure it that international peace and stability are our motives, not belligerent action.

It is on these grounds that we in the Liberal Democrats have always supported a mix of measures to demonstrate our seriousness that there are consequences for Iran if it does not comply with its obligations as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Negotiations, IAEA inspection, verification and economic sanctions all have to play a part in the international community’s response to Iran. When we uphold international law and work through the United Nations, it demonstrates to other countries that the international community expects that they too should be bound by their obligations under the NPT and that there will be consequences for Iran if it does not.

We know that the escalation of sanctions is having an effect on the ground. The Iranian rial has devalued by some 45%, food prices and all basic commodities have increased significantly—unfortunately hurting some of the poorest and most vulnerable Iranians. Iran, too, has difficulties selling its oil. Economic sanctions are a blunt instrument in their impact across the whole population, rather than just the Iranian leadership but, given the apparent lack of responsiveness to international pressure, it is the ordinary people of Iran who have the most power to tell their leadership that they need a change of course. We hope that this change of course will come about in 2013 when presidential elections are held, but hoping for a change of leadership through elections is not the same as pursuing regime change through the use of force. I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to reassure Iran that we have no interest in bringing about regime change through force, although we would of right champion the cause of greater democracy and human rights in that country.

Let me turn to the position of our partners in Israel and the United States and speculation about their use of force against Iran to prevent it attaining nuclear weapons. We have seen today extraordinary revelations in the Telegraph that Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, has spoken publically of the role of MI6 assets in alleged assassinations or the use of cyber-warfare against Iran. He is described as having talked up MI6’s role in dealing with the threat. Given that the United Kingdom Government have previously denied any involvement in illegal actions against Iran, I hope that my noble friend will tell the House whether this speech was cleared by the Foreign Secretary, and whether this signals a change in the United Kingdom Government’s stance on publically declaring where their intelligence assets have been active. If these reports are true, they will do little to reassure the public that we are likely to comply with international law. In fact, the effect will be to signal to the public that we are happy to engage in unlawful and belligerent action—something we should have learnt the lesson about, given our unhappy history over Iraq.

Sir John’s comments could almost be construed as bragging. He is reported to have said:

“I take great pride in the fact that, in the last ten years, over a number of jobs, I’ve been involved in an issue of global concern, and I feel that I as an individual [have made] an impact in the outcome of events”.

His follow-up remarks indicate that we have not made a positive impact on the outcome of events if we are now so concerned about Iran’s capability to acquire nuclear weapons by 2014 as he warns. In my view, it would be best for the veneer of silence to descend on the Secret Intelligence Service once again. There is such a thing as “too much information”, and today we have seen an illustration of that. The fact that this speech took place under the heading of an “unclassified chat” and is extensively reported in a journal known as Civil Service World demonstrates a clear lack of judgment on the part of a senior official. It would behove our senior civil servants to express a clearer concern about the UK engaging in unlawful activities rather than indulging in “unclassified chats” which give a contrary impression.

This is not the TV programme “Spooks”. This matter engages UK interests and security directly. There are serious issues about accountability to Parliament as well. I am sorry that the two noble Lords who are members of the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, are not hear today to share their views on the accountability of the services with us.

It is undoubtedly the view of the Liberal Democrats that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a significant threat to international peace and security within the definition of the United Nations Charter Chapter VII wording. The public comments of the Iranian leadership are also contradictory, on the one hand wishing to see the destruction of Israel and on the other hand declaring that it does not consider the use of weapons of mass destruction to be in conformity with Islam. I share the views of Israelis that they must do all they can to prevent Iran from carrying out its threats against them. However much one might appreciate Israel’s dilemma, I would put it to the Israeli establishment that it is not in their interest to carry out unilateral military strikes in the absence of UN authorisation. This is not an issue of legal niceties, either: it is fairly clear that there is no current build-up of military forces against Israel, nor a state of mobilisation against it which might, against a backdrop of hostilities, lead one to conclude that a clear and imminent threat exists, thereby justifying pre-emptive military strikes. The action would therefore be illegal and would destabilise the entire Middle East to a greater extent than ever before.

Lest there be any ambiguity regarding the use of pre-emptive strikes or, to use the more formal expression, anticipatory self-defence, I refer noble Lords to the seventh report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place of June 2004, which had a chapter on international law and the use of force. In the evidence submitted to the committee by Professor Philippe Sands QC, another legal expert, it is clear that self-defence encompasses a right to use force in anticipation of an actual armed attack where there is an imminent threat. You do not need to be an international lawyer to see that the situation has not yet arrived, nor is it likely to for some time, even by Sir John Sawers’s estimation.

We know, too, that wise heads in Israel are themselves unconvinced of the use of strikes. Not only have we heard from Yuval Diskin, the former head of Shin Beit, who criticised the idea of an attack in Iran as recently as April 2012, but we also know that Lieutenant General Benny Gantz, the head of the Israeli Defence Force, has stated that in his view Iran has not decided yet to build nuclear weapons.

There is also the issue of whether the strikes would be successful. Even if Israel were to carry out these strikes unilaterally, which it has indicated it has the capacity to do, they would not be surgical in the sense that the June 1981 attack on Osirak was, which destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction south-east of Baghdad. My understanding is that, with numerous nuclear installations spread across Iran, we would potentially be looking at several weeks of a sustained airborne campaign. This would be not a pre-emptive strike but plain military aggression—a war, in ordinary English.

It is undoubtedly true that in this eventuality United Kingdom interests would be engaged beyond our responsibilities as a member of the United Nations Security Council. There is the question of asymmetric retaliation by Iran. We have forces in Afghanistan, more than 100,000 Britons are resident in the Gulf states, we have naval operations hosted by Bahrain and we have an obligation to keep international shipping lanes open. There is also the question, if the United States decided to support Israel, of the use of Diego Garcia. Will my noble friend give the House a reassurance that in the case of Diego Garcia, which is sovereign UK territory, the United States cannot use it for logistical support without express consent from the United Kingdom Government? It follows, therefore—and I ask my noble friend to confirm this, too—that if such a request was outside international law, permission would not be forthcoming.

My time has run out. I look forward to my noble friend’s response in his concluding statement.