Treatment of Christians

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[David Simpson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right. Again, I shall deal with that later.

Although the Orthodox Church in Iran faces discrimination, Protestant Churches face severe persecution and are regarded as enemies of the state. Throughout 2010 and 2011, dozens of Protestant believers were prosecuted for no reason other than practising their faith. Protestant groups in Iran are often formed of converts, who actively seek to make more converts. That has brought down upon them a particular form of state opposition; they are targeted and tried under political charges, and are treated as politically subversive.

Since the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime, more than half of Iraq’s Christian population has, as a result of violent suppression, been forced to flee their homes or else flee the country altogether. In 1991, the professing Christian population totalled some 850,000. By 2003, that had fallen to just over 500,000. Today it is reckoned to have fallen to fewer than 250,000 individuals. That should surprise no one, given that there have been beheadings and even crucifixions. In the old Soviet bloc countries—from Russia itself through to Belarus—violence, prosecution and imprisonment are common.

I now turn to restrictions on, or the denial of, civil and religious liberties for Christians. Again, we can see this in many parts of the world. I shall cite a few examples, for I know that others want to contribute to the debate. Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws are used deliberately to settle personal disputes or disputes over land, or to carry out personal vendettas. However, they are also used to ensnare Christians into expressing any kind of criticism of Mohammed or the Koran, and thus to enable the bringing of charges. In the middle east, religious liberty is limited. In places like Kuwait, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, evangelism is prohibited and conversion is not allowed. In Saudi Arabia, expatriate Christians are supposed to be allowed to worship privately, but many are still prosecuted for doing so.

On the wider question of the denial of religious freedom, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom identifies a number of countries of particular concern. They are Burma, China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Vietnam and a number of others. It also lists what it calls watch list countries. These include Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Laos, Turkey, Venezuela and Russia.

We must also acknowledge the inherent dangers that accompany what has come to be called the Arab spring. Right across the countries affected, groups are emerging that seek to exploit recent developments in order to establish a purist society in which the plight of other religious groups will be made worse. Indeed, Members will doubtless have read reports this week of the concerns expressed by pro-democracy elements in Tunisia and Egypt—that if the G8 fails to give financial assistance to strengthen the democratic cause in those countries, it could sound the death knell for democratic hopes in the region, thereby strengthening repressive regimes and providing a boost for radical movements that would seek to legislate away whatever minimal freedoms remain.

Although the current situation for Christians in many middle east countries is difficult, it could become increasingly dangerous in the coming months and years. What I have outlined represents a record of blood, a trail of suffering and a denial of basic humanity to many tens of thousands of people. We, as a Parliament and a nation, should not be like the priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan and simply pass by on the other side. Many of these nations are important trading partners. Some are in receipt of aid. Still others are members of the Commonwealth.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has outlined the extent of persecution, and I understand that three quarters of all persecution across the world is directed at Christians. We must condemn that, and seek to do something about it, but what about the modern-day form of persecution? He mentioned a number of countries, particularly Pakistan. Does he agree that it is the rise of Islamist threats there, and the Islamist Governments of other countries, that are causing or contributing to that persecution? Indeed, we have particular concerns about education in Pakistan—that hate education fomented by Islamist opinion is causing many of these problems. The Government should be held to account for the financial aid that they provide for education, given where it is actually going.

[David Simpson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The rise of Islam is strong in those areas, which is a particular problem. Indeed, as I outlined earlier, in years to come we will see more persecution of Christians in those countries. We may not even have to go to other countries to see Christian persecution, but simply look to our own back door.

I diverge slightly, but the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter. In the United Kingdom, the policy seems to be that people can do whatever they like against Christianity—criticise it or blaspheme the name of Christ—as long as they do not insult Islam. It is sad because this country is based on civil and religious liberty for all. When Queen Victoria was on the throne, the secret behind England’s greatness was its open scriptures and open bible. Today, that policy is being hammered into the ground, and that concerns me greatly for the years and months that lie ahead.

As a Parliament and as a nation, I do not believe that we should be like the Levite and pass by on the other side. There is no doubt that many of these nations are important trading partners. Some are in receipt of aid, and others are members of the Commonwealth. It is clear that silence should not be our response. I am not advocating that we intervene directly in such countries, but we can and should apply diplomatic and political pressure on Pakistan and other countries, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) suggested. We should use as much influence as possible and apply pressure either individually or through organisations such as NATO, the EU and the United Nations. We could be far more proactive in the whole of this regard than we have been thus far. I am not saying that we have done nothing to help out, but we could do a lot more.

Recently, the MEP Peter van Dalen urged the EU to make more rights for the Egyptian Coptic community a policy priority and to develop a strategy for religious freedom. Mr van Dalen pointed out that more concrete European action is needed as the position of Christians worsens across the world. He correctly pointed out the “new big threat” towards Christians in the middle east, drawing attention to a structural neglect of, and discrimination against, Christians in several countries.

In conclusion, I urge the Government not simply to chase the financial bottom line in our dealings with neighbours and partners. As one of the great economies of the world and one of the beacons of democratic freedom, we have a duty to use all of our influence to help those who suffer injustice around the world. There is a rising tide of affliction that is swelling around Christians across the world. This nation and this Parliament should be more to the fore in the campaign against that and for civil and religious liberty. I urge the Government and all hon. Members to rise to that challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is an honour to take part in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). Although we are on opposite sides of the Chamber, I agreed with much of what he said on numerous policy areas. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is an outstanding representative of the Church in the House of Commons and who has been of enormous help to me in my constituency over a Church issue. Equally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his excellent speech.

Wherever there is tyranny and oppression in the world, the persecution of religious groups is never far behind. That is why this debate is important. We are always focused on persecution, but because Christianity is a mainstream western religion, its members do not always get the same attention as other minorities, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann highlighted. Outside the western world, however, Christians face a constant barrage of murder, imprisonment and persecution.

I have heard the Secretary of State for Education say that we can judge a country by how it treats its Jews, and the more democratic a country, the more equally the Jewish people are treated. The same goes for Christians in the developing world. I am here, not as a Christian, but as a Jewish person. However, because of what happened to many members of the Jewish people, it is my duty as a politician to help other peoples who suffer genocide and persecution. It gives me enormous pleasure to be standing next to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who is a former school friend. He attended many Friday nights at my house, just as I attended many Church services with him and learned about Christianity as we grew up.

We have talked a little about China. Six weeks ago, 100 peaceful members of the Shouwang Catholic church were arrested by the People’s Republic just for holding an outdoor service. In Uzbekistan, armed officers from the Government’s national security service raided the home of a Christian pastor and confiscated 250 Bibles. A few days later, he was convicted of illegally owning Bibles, organising Christian worship and preaching the gospel. He was fined more than 80 times the minimum monthly wage. We have also heard about Nigeria, where a church was burned to the ground. I could mention other nations, such as Sri Lanka, which has a particularly evil Government; indeed, I attended a memorial service for the Tamils last week in Trafalgar square. Sri Lanka has a tough anti-conversion law, and people there are not allowed to convert others to Christianity.

The tragedy of such stories is not how isolated they are, but how common they are. Nowhere is that truer than in the middle east. I am a senior officer of the all-party group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq. Earlier in the year, I went to Kurdistan, and I am going back there for three days next week. The all-party group’s latest report on Kurdistan, which I helped to publish in March, states:

“Iraq’s Christians once numbered about 1.5 million. There are now just 850,000. Many families have fled to Kurdistan from Baghdad, Mosul and other areas, according to the United Nations refugee agency. The Kurds know much themselves about being a persecuted minority and have opened Kurdistan to Christians fleeing from the rest of Iraq. For example, their universities have offered free places to Christians fleeing Mosul.”

I met many Christians in Kurdistan. It has become a progressive Muslim nation that has provided sanctuary for Christians in Iraq who are being treated brutally. That was confirmed to me by the Archbishop of Erbil and the other Christians I met, and I hope to meet some more next week.

Kurdistan is one of the beacons of hope in a troubled region, but it is doing what it can with limited resources. I urge the Government to do more to support Kurdistan because of how it has offered sanctuary to Christians from Iraq.

[Mr Burrowes]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s contribution to this important debate. Is it not a tragedy that Christians are fleeing for sanctuary from an area where they have historically had a presence? They do not simply want an enclave to practise their religion, but want to express it freely, which has historically involved being part of a community, for example, in Pakistan where Christian schools have Jewish, Hindu and Muslim pupils. There are shafts of light, for example, in Baghdad, where fantastic vicars such as Andrew White do what they can to open their church to all communities and to support them, despite war, repression and fear.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is right. Why should Christians have to flee from one part of Iraq to another for safe haven, when they should be able to practise their religion wherever they are?

In Gaza, there were lots of reports of Christians disappearing or being shot dead if they were caught trying to preach the gospel. Although Hamas officially condemns the attacks, it very rarely makes arrests. During the elections a few years ago, Hamas forces were linked with an attack on the Catholic Rosary Sisters’ school and church, which were assaulted with rocket-propelled grenades and then burnt down. The ancient seafront of Gaza once had a thriving Christian community, but that community has now shrunk to 2,500 people.

Britain has a stake not only in the economic wealth of our neighbours, but in their freedom and self-determination. The question before us is, what role will Britain play before this story unfolds? Psalm 102 encourages us to

“hear the groaning of the prisoner, and set free those who are condemned to death.”

I am sure that hon. Members present will not mind me quoting the Old Testament as opposed to the New. I accept that the Prime Minister confronted human rights issues with the Chinese authorities during the trade mission to China last year and I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has continued to uphold the export restrictions that prevent lethal weapons being sold to China, but the problem is not just about selling guns. Britain and its NATO allies have an array of soft powers that they could use to bargain with states that are dependent on western imports. One key factor in the fall of Soviet communism was not the atom bomb or the space race, but the fact that Ronald Reagan refused to export wheat to Russia. That is a lesson for us today, as we confront the persecution of Christians and religious minorities around the world.

Intolerance towards religious minorities does not happen by itself, but is propagated by vested interests and evil regimes. In the middle east, the worst examples of that are Iran and Saudi Arabia. In the face of rising commodity prices and recession, many despotic Governments have tried to deflect their country’s grievances. That lies behind much of the extremist propaganda against the Christian west and the antagonism towards Israel in Arab League countries, but we have an opportunity to demand change. Saudi Arabia is apparently our ally and it depends on western imports, but it is also a despotism in which honour killing is legal, homosexuality is punishable by death and Wahhabist textbooks in state schools preach hatred of Christians, Jews and other religious minorities. As was recently reported in the papers, women are not even allowed to drive cars.

From Ethiopia to Indonesia, Saudi Arabia’s oil money is fuelling the persecution of Christians and other minorities, and the destruction of their property. Only last Wednesday, Christians protested outside the US Saudi embassy, demanding that Saudi Arabia stop financing radical Islamists, including the Salafis, who have been largely responsible for attacks on Christians in Egypt. Surely we can do more to ask the Saudis to give their people the freedom and security for which they are crying out? In the 1970s, Saudi Arabia produced more than 4 megatonnes of wheat a year—more than enough to be self-sufficient—but now it has exhausted its water supply and by 2016 it could produce no wheat at all. Nearly 50% of all Saudi Arabia’s imports—primarily, machines, cars, textiles, chemicals and foodstuffs—now come from the US, the EU and close allies, such as Japan and South Korea. In short, it cannot live without us.

If we believe that ethics is as important as economics, we must demand a higher price for trade with the western world, and that price must be free speech, democratic reforms, property rights, freedom of association, freedom of movement, respect for women and, most importantly, religious tolerance. Those are the foundations of a free society on which our hopes for peace in the middle east depend.

In conclusion, intervention—and I am an interventionist—does not have to mean war. I accept that military action is sometimes unavoidable, but I urge the Government towards a policy of fair trade. If a regime kills its citizens for their faith, Britain should not do business with it. We already refuse to sell most of those countries guns, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, but we should not sell those countries butter either. If a state imprisons minority groups without charge or trial, it should become a pariah state and be excluded from the world economy.

In the middle east, 10,000 children are born every single day. Unless the Arab spring leads to lasting economic and social reforms and protection for minority groups—including minority Muslim groups, such as those in Kurdistan—then the 10,000 children born today are more likely than ever to grow up in a barren region, which has no jobs, no bread and no security. We have to act now with fair trade to pressure those countries into change. That would transform the treatment of Christians and religious minorities around the world and it would be in our national interest as well.

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We certainly expect and will demand fair trials, and I have discussed that situation with Bahrain’s Foreign Minister in recent weeks, so it is very clear where the UK stands. We will send observers as necessary. Our embassy in Bahrain has been highly active for years in raising human rights concerns there, before the recent trouble, and in maintaining contact with opposition groups and good relations with the Government. We will keep that going.

Serious challenges also remain in Iraq. The formation of a national unity Government between Iraq’s major political blocs remains incomplete, the security situation is fragile and political tensions have risen. In recent months there have been a number of high-profile attacks and targeted assassinations by al-Qaeda and insurgent groups, but we judge the Iraqi security forces to have the necessary capabilities to prevent a wholesale return to violence. With its young democracy, oil reserves and economic potential, Iraq can become an important stabilising influence in the region and a key contributor to global energy security. Compromises must be made to end the stalemate and tackle the many grave problems the country faces.

The Arab spring remains in its early stages, in my view, and has caused uncertainty as well as optimism, but the middle east peace process must not be allowed to become a victim of that uncertainty. Delay leaves a vacuum of leadership which can be exploited by extremists or lead to increased violence. We are deeply concerned by emerging reports that up to 17 people were killed and many more injured over the weekend in violence in Israel and the occupied territories. We call on all parties to exercise restraint and protect civilian life.

The House will join me in paying tribute to the efforts of the UN special envoy, Senator Mitchell, who will step down from that position this week after two years of tireless efforts to restart talks. We believe that the parties must return to direct negotiations as soon as possible, on the basis of clear parameters for a two-state solution. We hope that the announcement of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas will lead to a Government who reject violence and pursue a negotiated peace. President Abbas has reaffirmed his commitment to a negotiated two-state solution based on 1967 borders. A new Government have yet to be formed, but when that happens we will judge them by their actions and their readiness to work for peace.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Today, when hon. Members from both sides of the House have joined in celebrating the 63rd anniversary of the independence of Israel, will the Foreign Secretary offer an assurance that the Government will not provide any support for organisations such as Hamas, which threatens not only Israel’s independence, but its very existence?

[Mr Hague]

We have not changed in any way our policy on Hamas. That is why I am making this statement about judging a future Palestinian Administration by their actions and readiness to act for peace.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

A meeting of the Quartet is planned for this weekend. I hope that it will be possible for the Quartet or the United States to set out the parameters within which everyone should now be working on the middle east peace process. I cannot guarantee that that will happen, but the British Government would certainly like it to happen. We think there should be a real urgency to the middle east process, with a way back into the direct talks, and we are doing our utmost to assist in that. Over the past two weeks, I have held conversations about this with President Abbas, with the Israeli Foreign Minister and, of course, with Secretary Clinton. It is time, yes, to set out parameters, including basing a settlement on the 1967 borders.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Following the latest meeting of the Secretary-General with both Cypriot leaders, will the Secretary of State reaffirm, not least as a guarantor power, this country’s commitment to seeing a solution to the problem of Cyprus, whose division has scarred both the island and Europe for far too long?

Cyprus

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Jim Sheridan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One cannot overestimate the distress caused to the loved ones of the missing Cypriot people. All that they ask of the Turkish people and the Turkish Government is to understand the severity of their feelings. It should be a crucial part of the discussions to bring some conclusion to that problem.

The destruction of Cyprus’s cultural heritage is equally unacceptable. In 1965, Turkey ratified the Hague convention of 1954 on the protection of cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict. Nevertheless, since Turkey’s intervention and subsequent occupation of Cyprus in 1974, it has been responsible for the devastation, vandalism and looting of the island’s cultural heritage on a scale unworthy of any civilised nation, let alone a prospective EU member. According to the Church of Cyprus, more than 500 churches and monasteries in the northern part of Cyprus have been destroyed, and some 15,000 small relics have been looted. Some colleagues and I recently visited the annual Morphou rally and saw for ourselves the graveyards and cemeteries that have been devastated. I am more than happy to pass the photographs to the Minister if he should require to see them.

Colleagues will also be aware of the indefensible isolation of Famagusta, or Varosha as it is known in Cyprus. The city has been left to rot while the rest of the world has moved on. Many Cypriots can only look on with horror and dismay while their properties are occupied by strangers. Turkey’s invasion of 1974 left 200,000 refugees homeless, many of whom fled their homes with few or no belongings. There is no doubt that if Turkey wished and had the political will to find a satisfactory conclusion to the problem, we could find a way to restore the properties to their rightful owners.

Turkey has effectively created a so-called state in northern Cyprus, to the detriment not only of the Greek Cypriots whose property was confiscated by the self-styled Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus but of the Turkish Cypriots who have suffered under Turkish rule by becoming a minority in the northern part of Cyprus. According to the Turkish Cypriot press, Turkey has transferred 180,000 settlers into northern Cyprus, with the consequence that Turkey has imposed its ideology there. More mosques than schools have been built in northern Cyprus—181 mosques to 162 schools—and the crime rate has soared due to uncontrolled immigration from Turkey. Education and health services are becoming overburdened. The Turkish Cypriot media also report that in order to enshrine the ideological shift further, Turkey is now demanding that settlers account for more than 50% of new appointments in the civil service, police, education and health services.

That is the backdrop to the relentless efforts by Turkey and those who blindly champion its membership of the European Union to push for outcomes that legitimise all the grave consequences of Turkey’s illegal invasion and 36-year military occupation of the northern part of the island.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important and timely debate as we look to the UN meeting on Thursday. Does he acknowledge that Cyprus itself supports Turkey’s accession to Europe? Obviously, that cannot happen unless the Cyprus problem is resolved, but he mentioned blindly supporting accession. The Cyprus Government are willing to go down that path as long as the Cyprus issue is settled.

[Jim Sheridan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That will be a crucial part of the discussions, and the Turkish authorities must take it seriously. I certainly hope that they will.

I wish the UN negotiations every success. There is no doubt that they are complex, but they must be solved in order to draw a line under the Cyprus problem. However, the key to a solution is in the hands of the Turkish Government and authorities in occupied northern Cyprus. A solution that reunites the island for the benefit of all Cypriots and leads to the withdrawal of the Turkish occupation army from the island will boost Turkey’s chances of joining the EU more than any other single factor, but that will require Turkey to change its bullying behaviour and give the Cypriot people a chance to live in peace in their own free and united country.

I remind my colleagues of Cyprus’s long-standing and mutually beneficial relationship with the United Kingdom. The Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities constitute a strong and vibrant part of British society, predominantly in London, the midlands and Manchester. Equally, Cyprus welcomes more than 1.7 million British tourists to its shores every year. In addition to that mutually beneficial relationship, we have a special responsibility as a guarantor power of Cyprus’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. Therefore, we must be an honest friend of Cyprus and help the two communities reach a solution for Cypriots and by Cypriots that safeguards the whole island’s territorial integrity and unity. After all, any proposed solution must be put to a referendum. The last effort to solve the Cyprus problem, in 2004, demonstrated what can happen when an imbalanced solution proposed by third parties lacks the support of the people.

Some people argue that the Cyprus problem has had its day, that its shelf life is over and that only elderly people in Cyprus pay attention to it. I have a letter from Alexis Stavrou, president of NEPOMAK, the world organisation for young overseas Cypriots in the UK. It is an extensive, emotional and fact-finding letter, and I am more than happy to share it with any colleagues who wish to see it. I wish for a satisfactory solution to the Cyprus problem in the near future.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

This is an important and timely debate, and I welcome the opportunity to speak as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Cyprus. I see colleagues here who are officers and members of that group, and recognise that the spirit of the debate is an all-party one. We want to make a consensus point to the Minister that it is important that we take extremely seriously this country’s responsibilities as a guarantor power and do not simply sit on the sidelines. We need to make it clear that the Cyprus problem must be solved and the island reunited.

There was a debate on the subject last year and the Library prepared a standard note dated 4 November 2009, which states:

“many commentators have suggested that the current window of opportunity may well be closed if the presidential elections in the north in April 2010 bring in a nationalist president. The current prospects for a settlement have been put at about two in five.”

I am not sure what people would say the prospects are now. In the north, a nationalist politician has been elected. Nevertheless—as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) said—despite the campaign during that election for a two-state solution, talks have continued. We must recognise that engagement has continued on the basis of the United Nations framework, which clearly refers to a federal bi-zonal, bi-communal solution. That is the framework everyone will be discussing as they approach the United Nations meeting.

The debate is timely given that, as was mentioned in an intervention, reference has been made to the subject in the media by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who raised the spectre of partition. I want to refer to that article—indeed, I have given notice to the right hon. Gentleman that I wish to do so. We have had such debates before; indeed, many colleagues here have also been involved in those discussions. At least 70 talks have taken place, and there may be fatigue in relation to the issue. When we discuss concerns about overseas disasters, colleagues will deplore—as I do—references to compassion fatigue. That becomes imbued when people do not react as they should do to what is happening, and simply accept and tolerate a situation because it goes on and on. My constituency has perhaps the most Cypriots of any—both Greek and Turkish Cypriots—and during my time as a Member of Parliament, I have seen a degree of “Cyprus fatigue” occurring, if one may put it that way. The question is whether Parliament itself has been guilty of that as the years have gone by—or, indeed, whether the British Government have been guilty of it.

My constituents will not allow that to happen. They remind me—if not daily, then weekly—of how, at these times, such a situation is not acceptable. Both Greek and Turkish Cypriots in my constituency want a settlement and a reunited Cyprus. Many of them are refugees and, as has been said, they miss their loved ones. They do not know the truth of what happened, and they cannot even begin the process of reconciliation without that information. I defy anyone attending the rallies held in July by those who are still missing loved ones to go out on to College Green and be fatigued from hearing the protest and seeing the pictures of those loved ones. I encourage everyone to attend such rallies, when we get to that point in July. When we are reminded of the fact that fundamental human rights have been breached, property has been lost and the right to return to villages has been lost—as colleagues have said—we cannot in any way be fatigued.

In my constituency during the election campaign, Cyprus was inevitably an issue. I was given a book about Cyprus and, on the inside cover, the author has written:

“Why do you as the mother of parliamentary democracy allow Turkish troops to continue to occupy our island?”

That is a very simple but profound question that continues to be asked, and that we cannot simply ignore and become fatigued about through the passage of time. Parliament must stand up for Cyprus, which is why it is so welcome that hon. Members from all parties are doing that today. Through the all-party parliamentary group on Cyprus, we want to encourage more parliamentary colleagues to become involved in the issue and join the group.

Also, we as Parliament must take more seriously our guarantor powers and responsibilities—indeed, the Government must also do so. We cannot sit on the sidelines as a spectator. It is fundamentally enshrined that we, as a guarantor power, must ensure the independence of Cyprus and the sovereignty of the whole island. That must be fully respected. If, in any way beyond that, one were to be fatigued about the Cyprus problem, one would only have to read the article written by the right hon. Member for Blackburn in The Times on 8 November to be energised.

The right hon. Gentleman’s influence is now confined to the Back Benches and the media, and I am confident he has no influence on the Government in this regard. I do not know whether his article was deliberately provocative, but it has certainly served the useful purpose of galvanising support for reunification—not for partition. It is worth analysing the argument that has been made in the media—I do not want to pay too much attention to the article because I do not think it should be given more credibility than it is worth—to allow the Minister to respond and to contrast such opinions with the Government’s approach. Doing so would benefit the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and the community at large.

When one considers the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, it is—to coin a phrase—based on straw. He says that if talks fail, the Government should formally consider partition. First, that is not legal. The United Kingdom’s obligations in the 1960s treaties relate to a commitment not to support

“any moves towards the partition of the island or the recognition or upgrading of any separate political entity.”

I would welcome the Minister’s making it clear that partition is not an option for Britain. It is not an option for the United Nations and, fundamentally, it is not an option for the European Union, which cannot accept a divided member state. Secondly, it is not ethical. The right hon. Gentleman’s article referred to the numerical advantage of Turkey over Cyprus in terms of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. However, one cannot say—certainly we in the House cannot say—that law and justice do not matter if someone is big and strong. I do not want to make this a partisan issue—that certainly has not been the nature of the debate—but the previous Government talked about having an ethical foreign policy. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of that Government, and I wonder how his opinions sit with that argument.

Thirdly, such an argument is wrong on the basis of fact. Reference was made to the Annan plan. From being involved in this subject, we all know that, regarding the argument, we can often go back into history and be left there. However, we need to be accurate about history. The Annan plan did not fail as a result of the late President Papadopoulos ratting—as the right hon. Gentleman said—on the deal. The Annan plan failed because it was imposed—this is a lesson to be learned by the United Nations—by the Secretary-General and others, who sought to impose a deal through their own time limits on the Greek Cypriots. The plan came very late in the day; indeed, it was seen at only five minutes to midnight by some people before they had to start making a decision on it. As the Prime Minister states in a letter to me that has been published, we need to recognise that

“The ethos of the current process, by Cypriots and for Cypriots, and without the imposition of deadlines distinguishes it clearly from previous processes, such as the Annan Plan.”

Reference has also been made to the accession process, to suggestions that Cyprus alone is standing in the way and that the matter of Cyprus is a convenient excuse for other countries to object to Turkey’s accession. I support Turkey’s accession and realise that it has great advantages. I welcome the Government’s commitment to Turkey’s accession and do not see it as being at odds with what we want to do; indeed, I consider it to be an important part of ensuring that we receive justice for Cyprus. Let us not forget that Germany, Austria and France have deep objections to Turkey’s accession, but they do not simply rely on the matter of Cyprus as a convenient excuse.

[Mr Love]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. On Turkey’s accession to the EU, does he agree that it will be important for there to be continuing support from both Cyprus and Greece? The questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) will go a long way to undermining that continuing support, on which Turkey’s membership will crucially be dependent.

[Mr Burrowes]

That is quite right. The argument has been taken into terrain that is neither practical nor lawful. We must properly recognise the parties whose support is needed to move towards accession.

We must also recognise the facts. The reality is that the European Commission’s report published on Tuesday 9 November admonished Turkey for not moving faster to settle border disputes and normalise relations with Cyprus. That involves the Ankara protocol, which deals with proper access to ports for Cypriot shipping. Cyprus has been a member of the European Union since 2004, which is important. The Prime Minister made that point clearly in his letter:

“part of Turkey’s accession criteria also requires full, non-discriminatory implementation of the Additional Ankara Protocol, including allowing access to its ports for Cypriot shipping. We continue to press Turkey to do this.”

[Mike Freer]

I ask my hon. Friend to be slightly firmer on those requirements, and perhaps the Minister might also like to comment on them. Turkey must do more than just allow access to the ports through the general Ankara requirements. We must accept that it cannot become a member of the EU while it has armed forces occupying part of Cyprus. It is not just about access to ports; all Turkish troops must be withdrawn from the island before we can proceed.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. It is not simply the case that Cyprus is standing in the way of EU membership; it is up to Turkey to recognise that it must remove the army and that the island needs to be reunified. Turkey must take those steps before it can move towards EU accession. The European Commission’s report also noted the Commission’s assessment that freedom of expression needs to be strengthened in Turkey, both in law and in practice. It highlighted the fact that shortcomings remain in the free exercise of religion, and reference was made to disputes with neighbours, including Armenia. Those are other factors that go beyond Cyprus. It is important to get the facts right when making the argument about the accession process.

I believe that talk about partition is loose talk. Where would the property rights of my constituents and others stand in a partitioned land? Where would the villagers whom I met on Saturday evening stand? They are desperate to return and to have free movement, so that they can take up their proper rights to their villages. Where would villagers from Eptakomi, which I have visited, stand if they want to return, or those from Famagusta, which has been mentioned, and from other places? What about the enclaved people in Rizokarpaso, whom I visited some years ago? They are few in number, but there are huge human rights concerns. Where would they stand in a partitioned land?

There is talk of two peoples and two states, but that does not fit with the reality, the ethics, the law or the practice. One example is the Maronite community, whom I have mentioned in previous debates, who have not had free access to three of their four villages. On 17 July, the army allowed Maronite inhabitants to attend a church service in one of those villages, Ayia Marina, for the first time as a one-off. That is progress, but it was just a one-off. The Maronite community would like to know why they cannot have continued freedom of access and the basic freedom to worship. They have that freedom in Kormakitis, but why not in Asomatos and Karpasha?

There has been some progress. Crossings have been opened in the north-west of the island, progress has been made in relation to missing persons, with the remains of 690 Cypriots being exhumed, and some better access has been granted, but I encourage the Minister to press Turkey for better access to restricted areas for investigations.

In conclusion, it is important that we build a consensus. Indeed, the Prime Minister made that point in his letter:

“The UK’s politicians also have an important role to play in supporting the efforts to build consensus”.

That is what we want to achieve. It is a consensus on the reunification of the island of Cyprus as one country. It is a single international personality, with a single Cypriot citizenship, on a single united island.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I would not rule out a meeting of the guarantor powers at some stage, if that would be helpful. The hon. Gentleman reminds me that in his speech he called for vigorous diplomacy on the part of the British Government. I do not dissent from what he said, except that I would add two words of caution. First, by virtue of our history and status as a guarantor power and our possession of the sovereign base areas, we of course have a particular interest in Cyprus and the search for a settlement there; but sometimes, precisely because of our history, we are not necessarily the most welcome source of advice, particularly public advice. Sometimes it is better if others—in this case, the United Nations envoy, Mr Downer—take the lead. It is very important that the negotiations are seen to be, in the end, in the ownership of the Cypriots themselves, because unless there is buy-in from both communities in Cyprus, a settlement will not endure.

Secondly, although the search for a settlement in Cyprus is seen by the Government as an important political priority, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in the conduct of foreign affairs, just as in the conduct of domestic politics sometimes, it is best to talk candidly to friends, allies and partners behind closed doors, rather than through a megaphone. We have to suit the technique to the occasion.

[Mr Burrowes]

May I press the Minister further on the details of the relationship with Turkey? The hand of friendship has gone out from the Prime Minister to Turkey. Will the Minister be able to draw attention to the role that we play in terms of pressing the case for Cyprus?

[Mr Lidington]

I will come to that very point in a moment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of it. Before I do so, I want to deal with a point that the hon. Member for Caerphilly raised by saying that the coalition Government have maintained the offer made by the previous Labour Government to cede nearly half the sovereign base area territories in the event of an agreed, negotiated solution in Cyprus.

I shall now respond to what my hon. Friend just said. We welcome the support that Turkey has given the settlement process. Prime Minister Erdogan has publicly stated his full support for the Cyprus settlement process on a number of occasions, including in March this year, when he confirmed—this is an important point—Turkey’s acceptance of the UN principles under which the process takes place. We regularly discuss all aspects of the Cyprus issue with Turkey. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green said in an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did so publicly as well as privately when he visited Turkey earlier this year. Most recently, we raised the subject of Cyprus during President Gül’s visit to London last week, and I did so with Turkish Ministers when I attended the Bosphorus conference in Istanbul in October.

Turkey has an important role to play in encouraging the Turkish Cypriots to grasp the opportunity of a settlement and to ensure that the negotiations succeed. A settlement will deliver economic benefits to Turkish Cypriots and end their sense of isolation once and for all, which is a key Turkish objective. A settlement in Cyprus will, we believe, be of great benefit to Turkey as a whole and her ambition eventually to join the European Union.

A number of hon. Members talked about particular aspects of the tragedy that has afflicted Cyprus for more than 30 years. Some referred to the damage done to cultural sites and places of worship. There is no doubt that that damage took place, particularly during 1974 and in the immediate aftermath. I have made note of the points that were made particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North about the alleged desecration of cemeteries and church graveyards. I will take advice on how we might raise that issue.

UK Policy on the Middle East

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

I also welcome you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to your new position and wish you the best of luck.

The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) spoke with great passion about the situation in Gaza and, based on my experience of visiting there, I completely concur with his analysis. I, too, will concentrate on the situation in Israel and the occupied territories.

Just over a week ago in the town of Ayr, I joined other local people in seeking signatures to a petition about the attack on the flotilla taking aid to Gaza and the resulting loss of life. I was joined by local people from Amnesty International and various other groups, including Sheena Boyle, who is involved in a Scottish charity, Children of Amal. She spends half her year in Nablus, where she provides therapeutic support and training to children who have been traumatised by violence. She also trains psychologists and social workers to provide group therapy through music as an art.

I was taken aback by what I witnessed in Ayr. The people who had volunteered have a long-standing commitment to seeking peace in the middle east, but I do not think those who were lining up to support the petition follow events in the middle east particularly closely. I was struck by the level of anger at what had happened.

All Members must take note that there is widespread concern in our constituencies about the entire situation and the continuing disproportionate actions of the Israeli Government. All too often, the Israeli Government act in an affronted and defensive manner when their actions are questioned and there are calls for independent reports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) referred to the Goldstone report and the fact that the Israelis’ response was to blame the messenger.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said, we should welcome an inquiry and input from independent people, including the Houses of Parliament. I understand that Turkey is not happy with the set-up and what is being proposed, and as it is the country that has been most affected by the action, we have to take note of that. In particular, we must make sure that there is transparency in the inquiry.

Over the years, there have been many false dawns interspersed with violence from both sides, although not in equal measure. My hon. Friend was very optimistic, based on his experience of various different situations in his lifetime where peace has been achieved. I am not so optimistic, as I am aware from trying to put myself in the shoes of the Palestinians—and, indeed, the Israeli people—that it is very hard to see any likelihood of progress.

We have heard plenty of words, but they have been interspersed with violence. There have been conferences, accords, mutual recognitions, declarations of principles, assassinations, memorandums, elections, permanent status negotiations, unilateral withdrawals, intifadas, reports, ceasefires, peace initiatives, curfews, a so-called “security barrier” that separates families from their livelihoods and nomadic people from their land, rocket attacks, road maps, air strikes, incursions, prisoner exchanges—we have seen all that and more since 1991. We have heard many words, but we have seen many negative consequences and very little positive impact. UN resolutions have been ineffective and Israel has not been held accountable to international standards of conduct and law.

In the previous Parliament, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs visited Gaza following Operation Cast Lead, whose impact was a humanitarian and counter-productive disaster. We could see the resentment being fed by that operation and we could see that it was shoring up the position of Hamas. This Government and the previous one are against holding talks with Hamas, because to do so would apparently make it seem more legitimate. However, we must consider the suffering of the people in Gaza, who live in one big prison, subjected to collective punishment and deprived, as the hon. Member for Bristol West said, of everyday necessities and the means to rebuild their infrastructure and economy. That has made people turn to Hamas in the face of an ongoing failure to find a peaceful solution.

The Committee also visited Sderot and a local college, which are often subjected to rocket attacks. The people there, too, want peace, because they are in the same spiral of despair and distrust as the Palestinian people. The longer the blockade continues, the lower expectations become. Recently, it seems that the US even reached the stage of outlining its own plan, with a view to imposing it on both sides—such is the frustration at the ongoing situation, which does not appear to have a real solution.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady visit Egypt in order to understand from the Egyptians why they have not fully opened the Rafah crossing? Does she understand why they have been conspicuous in their absence from the chorus of disapproval for the flotilla? Does it not have something to do with the fact that they are very much aware of the danger of having Hamas right on their border?

[Sandra Osborne]

I do not underestimate the danger of Hamas, but the reality is that Hamas is part of the equation, whether we like it or not. Hamas was elected by the people of Palestine and will not go away simply because we ignore it. Some of the actions, far from advancing the cause of the Palestinian Authority, actually undermine it.

I would welcome news today of a breakthrough in the easing of the blockade, whereby fewer goods will be restricted, and commercial goods and civilians will be allowed entry and exit. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South, I would also welcome the involvement of the European Union, because that would encourage greater transparency and would leave no excuse for the smuggling of goods through the illegal tunnels. However, that is not a substitute for the lifting of the blockade. It will not achieve a two-state solution. We have heard plenty of words, but turning them into action is what will bring credibility to the Palestinian Authority.

The previous UK Government played their part in the Quartet and some benefits are being reaped from that involvement. I get the impression from the Minister that the new Government will follow a similar policy, and we hope that they will do so with similar determination. The main thing is to ensure that the US does not lose impetus in promoting a peaceful solution, as has happened so often in the past. A two-state solution in the middle east involving the occupied territories and Israel is long overdue, because what is happening in the meantime is a disgrace to humanity.

Foreign Affairs and Defence

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend is completely right. That was why I referred a moment ago to the barring of Israeli politicians among others. That is absolutely the correct point. We will set out the way forward quite soon; it is important to get it right and to ensure that we deal with an unsatisfactory situation without weakening our commitment to holding accountable those guilty of war crimes. That bears at least a little examination by an incoming Government before we make our statement about the way forward.

I hope that there will also be wide agreement in the House on the need to support the democratic process in Iraq and I look forward to the early formation of a representative and inclusive Government.

We will renew our efforts to foster stability in Lebanon and maintain constructive dialogue with Damascus on the need for a positive Syrian role in the region, without being starry-eyed about the obstacles and real concerns about some of Syria’s actions. We will continue to support regional efforts to promote reform and long-term stability in Yemen, as well as co-operating closely with the US and other partners on countering the terrorist threat from the region.

The middle east is a region of great opportunity and promise where we have many friends and potential allies. It should not be viewed through the prism of threats and security challenges alone. We have long called for the elevation of British links with many of the countries of the middle east, north Africa and the Gulf, not only diplomatically but in matters of culture, education, commerce and security, for the reasons I set out earlier. We will now take forward the work of developing that long-term initiative, which I hope will have cross-party support, through the Foreign Office and National Security Council and we will keep the House informed of progress.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend. On this day, when direct talks have resumed between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders, will he reaffirm the Conservative manifesto commitment to support a just, balanced and lasting settlement to reunite Cyprus at long last?

[Mr Hague]

That is a manifesto commitment I can easily reiterate, and my hon. Friend has just done it for me.