Yemen

George Kerevan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are very concerned about the blockades by both sides and the inability to get humanitarian aid into the country. I know that other right hon. and hon. Members will, along with me, want to draw attention to the problem of access.

According to a recent YouGov poll, less than half the UK’s population even knows that there is a war in Yemen, a former British colony. It is the forgotten war, which is why the motion has only one objective: to secure an all-important, long-lasting ceasefire. I hope that in this debate we can show solidarity and unity in support of the people of Yemen. Members may of course wish to raise many issues, and rightly so, but the motion is clear, and its focus is on bringing peace to Yemen.

How did we arrive at this point? In the Arab spring of 2011, Yemen and Tunisia stood apart in the region as the sites of the only peaceful transitions to democracy. Particular praise for that goes to the current Minister for Europe and the Americas, who became the Prime Minister’s envoy to Yemen. The UK has maintained stronger links with Yemen than any other western country. Three Members of this House were born there: myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth South. Members such as the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is the vice-chair of the all-party group, have visited the country, and Members including the hon. Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) have served there in the armed forces.

The past two years have chipped away at the Yemeni people’s historical good will for the United Kingdom. Last Friday, I met members of the Yemeni diaspora in Sheffield, with another officer of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss). At that meeting, the community’s message was one of disbelief that the United Kingdom had not acted more strongly to end the fighting. We continue to be one of the largest bilateral aid donors to Yemen, and the Department for International Development is contributing £100 million to the country. I commend the efforts of the Secretary of State for International Development, who has made additional funds available to Yemen as a priority for her Department and taken the lead on Yemen internationally. That work was begun under her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is in his place and has recently returned from Sana’a. He has described the “appalling scale” of the crisis there. I hope he will be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

So far, we have had three failed opportunities for a sustainable end to the fighting: negotiations in April 2016 ended in failure; a UN-sponsored round of talks in Kuwait ended in failure in August 2016; and John Kerry’s initiative last November led to the Saudi-led coalition and Houthis agreeing to the UN special envoy’s terms, but the agreement collapsed when President Hadi refused to sign the deal. The intervention of the Foreign Secretary secured a three-day ceasefire in October, which allowed vital aid to reach the most desperate parts of the country, but that was just a drop in an ocean of despair. The political process has now ended. Talks have not been revived. Will the Minister confirm whether a new round of talks has been planned and what ongoing discussions he has had with the key players in the conflict? Many are now part of a very complicated game of thrones that is the crisis in Yemen, including the Hadi Government, the Houthis, former President Saleh, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Iran, the UK, and the USA. The only winners are Daesh and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Oman has now been invited into the “Quad” of nations seeking to resolve the crisis.

I travelled to Oman in February to meet the Foreign Minister, Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah. I thanked the Omani Government for the assistance that they gave me locally. The Minister told me that there is hope. He said that the road map of the UN special envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, was firmly on the table. He was also clear that the political road map can and should begin immediately, implementing a ceasefire while the economic and security issues are resolved. When the Minister replies, can he inform us whether, subject to the immediate obstacles being overcome, he believes the political road map can now be implemented?

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

On the urgency of the need for a ceasefire, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a report in yesterday’s Washington Post that the United States Administration are now getting back into a Saudi project to invade and capture Hudaydah port?

[Keith Vaz]

I am not aware of that report. That would be extremely damaging to the process that I am talking about today, which is the need for all parties, including the United States, to support a ceasefire. I will certainly look at that report. Perhaps the Minister who has heard what the hon. Gentleman said will have an opportunity to reply.

When I was in Oman, I also had the opportunity to speak to President Hadi. The President, speaking to me from Aden, was focused on addressing the humanitarian crisis, but he was no closer to agreeing to the UN special envoy’s proposal. If President Hadi signs up to this agreement, he has an opportunity to be remembered as the man who brought peace to Yemen, and who stopped the suffering of his people. He should take it. I am grateful to him for accepting an invitation to address the all-party group in June. Can the Minister confirm whether President Hadi is any closer to agreeing to the terms of the special envoy’s road map?

The UK can and must be the honest broker. That means putting pressure on all parties, including those who receive British support. Can the Minister tell us whether the UK is prepared to sanction the Yemeni and Saudi Governments, if they allow the next round of negotiations to fail?

Tomorrow may be one of the most critical days in the history of Yemen. At 10am in New York, the United Nations Security Council will hold a full session on the conflict in Yemen, where they will hear directly from the special envoy. It will be chaired by our excellent ambassador, Matthew Rycroft. The United Kingdom is the current President of the Security Council, as we are, of course, the “pen holder” on Yemen at the United Nations, which means that we lead on all issues relating to Yemen. This is a unique opportunity to make a case to the Security Council, and to secure a new resolution that would enable a ceasefire.

Stephen O’Brien, the outstanding UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, and a former Member of this House, made a stunning announcement this month that the world faces its worst humanitarian crisis since 1945. He focused on Yemen. The French Government, who previously took a backseat on Yemen, announced last week the need for an immediate ceasefire. I have met both the Chinese and Egyptian ambassadors to London. On behalf of their Governments, they told me that the first priority was the cessation of hostilities. Most importantly, it is very clear that nobody is winning the war on the ground, and that nobody will ever win by military means. The only solution will come from the negotiating table. That point was forcefully made by the UN panel of experts.

I spoke to Matthew Rycroft yesterday, and he explained that the political process needs to begin moving in the right direction. It is clear to me, and I hope that it will be clear to the House, that a resolution adopted tomorrow would commit all sides to guarantee the ceasefire. Will the Minister ensure that the United Kingdom proposes such a resolution at tomorrow’s session? That will really help the peace process. If it is not to be tabled tomorrow, what is the timetable for putting forward that motion? Quite simply, these efforts cannot wait.

While we push for peace, Yemen continues to face myriad challenges. Organisations such as Save the Children, Islamic Relief, Oxfam, Médecins sans Frontières, UNICEF, CARE, Christian Aid and the Red Cross are performing wonders on the ground, but there are still chronic humanitarian access issues. Despite the generous contributions to the UN appeal, which is only 50% filled, serious damage to the port of Hudaydah has, as we have heard, created a monumental blockage for aid delivery into Yemen. If Hudaydah cannot function, we cannot stop famine in Yemen. Has the Minister considered proposals by the Yemen Safe Passage Group, led by a former British ambassador to Yemen, that the UN takes over the running of the port to allow aid to flow into the country? I am sure that other officers of the all-party group will speak further on the humanitarian crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I extend my thanks to my co-sponsors from the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen—the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond)—both of whom are a great credit to the country of their birth.

Along with many emails from my constituents in Glasgow who follow the situation closely, I have received many briefings from organisations for this debate. There are too many to name, but I am extremely grateful for those briefings outlining the desperate situation on the ground. I also recently met the Norwegian Refugee Council, and the APPG had a valuable session with Yemen-based non-governmental organisations. Yemeni constituents of mine have also shared their experiences of the situation in Yemen.

There has been a lot of talk about Yemen being on the brink of famine, with the International Committee of the Red Cross saying that there are only three to fourth months left to save Yemen from starvation. Jamie McGoldrick, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator for Yemen, concurs, saying that there is only about three months’ supply of food left in the country.

As I understand it, part of the issue with declaring famine is that there are not enough independent people on the ground to do so. People are starving, though—of that there is no doubt. The aid agencies know what they are seeing and they are all begging the UK Government to help to get food into the country as a matter of the utmost urgency.

Blockades at Yemen’s ports by the Saudi-led coalition have contributed to the situation. Hudaydah is strategically important. It used to handle 70% of food imports, as well as humanitarian aid. It has been under sustained attack, leading to the destruction of infrastructure and rendering inoperable the cranes that used to unload the cargo ships. Unloading must now be done by hand, which is an impossible task.

The frustrating thing is that the port could be operating at the moment. The World Food Programme has bought and paid for cranes to replace those destroyed by the air strikes. They are currently sitting in a port in the UAE, after being refused access by the Saudi-led coalition. That is utterly unacceptable.

[George Kerevan]

Is my hon. Friend also aware that one of the offshoots of the blockade is that the boats carrying refugees from Somalia to Yemen are being attacked and sunk by Saudi Apache helicopters?

[Alison Thewliss]

Yes, and that incident was absolutely appalling and shocking. Nobody can fail to be upset by the pictures of those Somali people, who have suffered enough without being bombed.

Ministers must make sure that the cranes, which have been bought and paid for, are installed in Hudaydah. That would turn on the taps: it would get aid and commercial operations flowing again, and get things moving.

Hudaydah’s strategic importance is recognised by both the Houthis and the Saudis. Aid agencies, including the UN, fear that the conflict in and around Hudaydah is ramping up, which must be prevented at all costs. Half a million people would be displaced and it would make aid efforts all but impossible. Yemen’s primary port cannot be a frontline in this conflict, and I seek the assurance of Ministers that they will pursue the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Let me put it to the Minister—for whom esteem has never been higher in the House after last week—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear”]—that tomorrow will be the United Kingdom’s last chance to influence materially the course of events in Yemen. There seems to be a great deal of building up to ensuring that the conflict and the bombing will worsen rather than lessening.

Since the arrival of the Trump regime, the United States has changed its stance significantly. The level of US bombing in Yemen has increased, and is higher than it has been in the last two years. The Trump regime has changed the Obama regime’s position on supplying precision weapons to the Saudi air force, which had almost run out of such weapons. It is feared that the Saudis will now use the resupply to intensify the bombing. Yesterday, the Washington Post contained a very reputable report that Defence Secretary Mattis was asking permission from the White House to change the rules of conduct to enable United States forces to intervene more strategically, with the Saudi-led coalition, in order to occupy the port of Hudaydah. The Saudis and the Emirates do not have the matériel to undertake such an invasion; that would have to come from the US Marine carriers in the Gulf. That will only end up with a situation where, far from reducing the conflict, it will increase, and therefore the humanitarian crisis will get even worse.

It has not so far been mentioned in the debate that, despite this conflict, more than 250,000 African refugees have poured into Yemen in the last two years, and over 100,000 in the last year, fleeing famine in Africa. That is making the situation on the ground in Yemen even worse.

What discussions have the Government had with the Trump regime on the intensification of the American military involvement in Yemen, and what steps are the UK Government going to take to intervene now, when they have the chance, in the UN, to try to get a ceasefire before the conflict becomes even more bloody and the humanitarian crisis becomes even worse?

Yemen

George Kerevan Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

As the hon. Gentleman indicates, there are serious armaments in the area, which causes concern to all sides. That is a reason why the coalition is there, and I maintain that it is in the United Kingdom’s interest to continue supporting the coalition, to continue supporting the partners in the coalition and to recognise what is being challenged in Yemen—it is not only the loss of the democratically supported Government of President Hadi but, as has already been mentioned, the degree of Iranian influence. The Iranians have said publicly that they see Sana’a as yet another capital that they hold, and the risk and danger of that is that Iran is a regime with a clear intent to destabilise the region, to use terrorism to do so and to threaten stability in other areas. The consequence of that, not only in an unstable region but for those outside, is that the degree of risk to the United Kingdom and others has increased. Accordingly, it is not in the United Kingdom’s interests if the outcome of the conflict is that the Iranians are successful and terrorism is successful.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) mentioned the fewer than 20 Scud strikes, which should be deplored, but coalition air forces are engaging in 150 air strikes, and more, a day. There is a disproportionality here that everyone in this House should recognise.

[Alistair Burt]

It is very easy for us on these comfortable Benches here in Westminster to talk about disproportionality in a conflict far away. My point is that the United Kingdom has focused on the activities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia without truly understanding why it is engaged, why the coalition is there and why the United Kingdom has an interest. I simply want to put that on the record. That is not, in any way, to minimise the reason and need for humanitarian law to be respected and for the activities of those who engage in warfare to conduct it according to the rules, but it does raise the rarely made argument about why on earth we are engaged in this and why the outcome matters to the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Kennedy]

I just need to finish this point before I lose my train of thought.

We need to allow those countries to do that, with the guidance that one would expect from an ally and a friend. Having our personnel there explaining compliance with international humanitarian law and explaining targeting is very important. I do not really like saying what my Labour neighbour, the hon. Member for Hyndburn, is saying, but if we are not in there, who do we really think will be there doing these things? This relationship is fundamental in terms of trade, security and the intelligence and co-operation we get.

[George Kerevan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Seema Kennedy]

I am not going to speak for longer, because there are more expert voices in this House. I thank the hon. Members who are here today to speak in the debate, but all of us must really think about what we are talking about and whether it will actually protect Yemenis in the long run.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

There is a hidden element running through this debate. This House and the UK Government can hope to influence the conduct of Saudi Arabia and the other states of the Gulf Co-operation Council. We have less hope and opportunity of influencing the Houthi and the various elements active in Yemen, including Iran. No Opposition Member who wishes to be critical of Saudi is blind to the crimes committed against humanity, against their own people, by the Houthi leadership and other elements of the coalition Government. So if we are talking with emphasis about Saudi, it is not because we ignore the other side and its crimes, but if we are to move the debate on, all we can do—as a major ally, weapons supplier and market—is to influence Saudi. That is why we are doing it. Some Members have tried to present the discussion in terms of some people being anti-Saudi or forgetting about the Houthis, but that is not where we are going. We can influence Saudi. The argument from Opposition Members is that Her Majesty’s Government have been niggardly in how they have tried to influence Saudi. I will provide some evidence.

On 13 December, the United States Government vetoed the sale of 16,000 guidance systems for munitions that were going to be sold by US companies to Saudi Arabia. That tells me a couple of things. Why does Saudi need 16,000 guidance systems for bombs? It is something to do with the disproportionality of the air offensive that Saudi and several other air forces in the Arab world have been conducting. That disproportionality is getting in the way of a settlement. What began as a civil war—yes, there were some implications around the Saudi border—has been turned into a humanitarian disaster by the sheer scale of the action the Saudis have undertaken.

The fact that the Saudis are continuing after there is very little left to bomb suggests an unwillingness by the Saudi regime to come to a compromise before it is able to impose the political settlement it wants. It is therefore incumbent upon the UK to try to put pressure on the Saudis to reduce the scale of the bombing and say that they have to do something else. If the United States can do it, so can we. The US spokesman, when announcing the veto of the weapons sales in December, said, “We will not give a blank cheque to the Saudi regime.” My criticism of HM Government is precisely that they are trying to give a blank cheque to the Saudi Government.

[Edward Agar]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well, but does he recall that the Secretary of State for Defence, in a statement to this House on 19 December, made it clear that the United States Government had suspended a particular licence but had continued to supply military jets, helicopters and other ammunition to Saudi Arabia? It was not a blank cheque.

[George Kerevan]

I am well aware of that. Politics is politics in the western world, so while the US was banning the guidance systems, it was simultaneously agreeing a major contract to supply battle tanks to Saudi Arabia, but that just makes my point. If we presume, as HM Government do, that Saudi Arabia is an ally, the way we should deal with it is not to give it a blank cheque but to give it a choice. It is carrot and stick. The British Government have not done that. They spent a long time pretending or arguing that British cluster weapons had not been used. Once that was definitively proved, they moved back to saying that Saudi should conduct its own inquiries.

We have been training the Saudi air force. For the past 40 years, we have been helping to set up the command and control system for the Saudi air force. If it is not getting it right now, it is for political reasons, not because of any defectiveness in its command and control system. Waiting on the Saudis to investigate is a subterfuge. We have to put political pressure on the Saudis to come to the negotiating table to reduce the scale of the bombing and move towards some kind of ceasefire, and to do it properly. If we do not do that, we let them off the hook. As long as the British Government are being so soft—I use the word advisedly—on the Saudis in this context, we will never to get the international inquiry, which is the start of the process.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) crystallised the debate right at the very beginning by asking at what point do the British Government move on from demanding the Saudis investigate the failures in the bombing war to having an independent inquiry. That is the simplest thing. It is an even more modest request of HM Government than suspending arms sales temporarily, yet they will not even do that. That is the issue.

My final point is that as long as the British Government continue to underwrite the excessive Saudi bombing offensive, it becomes more and more likely that British personnel, in the military and in the Government, could be culpable legally.

[Graham Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Saudis can purchase arms from abroad from whoever by selling petrol to nations like the United Kingdom? Perhaps he has been to a local petrol station near him and filled his car up with Saudi Arabian petrol. Did he ask at the petrol station whether it was ethical petrol or whether it was funding arms purchased by Saudi Arabia?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

Fortunately, I can safely say that I do not possess and have never possessed a driving licence. I make the point again that I am not trying to identify Saudi as the only culprit in this difficult situation. I am saying that the only people we can influence is the Saudi regime. That is why I am trying to get the British Government to underwrite and support an independent inquiry.

My final point relates to the possible legal culpability of British service personnel, whom I greatly applaud. The Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010 makes it clear that it is an offence to “assist, encourage or induce” other persons to make use of cluster bombs. That is a pretty wide definition. As long as the British Government go on underwriting the Saudi air offensive, the more it becomes a possibility that British personnel could fall under that heading.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about legal culpability, but does he agree that that relates not just to cluster munitions but to the wider sales and compliance with the arms trade treaty? I do not know whether he has had the chance to look at the freedom of information request, but officials in the Foreign Office were clearly very exercised. They say that, owing to the high-profile nature of this subject and the attention it is getting from Parliament, the media and the courts, they have been advised that they have to correct answers. They are clearly worried about their legal position. Is that why we are seeing such obfuscation from them?

[George Kerevan]

I totally accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In his contribution, he made the wider legal case very well.

My worry is for British personnel if a legal case begins to develop. The Minister alluded to section 9 of the 2010 Act, which gives a defence for British personnel involved in an international conflict with allies who might not be party to the UN cluster convention, but the problem is that it is only a technical, theoretical defence. I do not think that section 9 could be interpreted beyond a point where we know a non-compliant state is deliberately using British cluster weapons over a long time, causing great civilian casualties. The position under the 2010 Act then becomes more opaque. Will the Minister comment on what legal advice the British Government have taken on those grounds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) for securing this debate and pay tribute, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), each and every minute of whose speech was a valuable contribution to this debate.

The primary purpose of this debate is to end the killing and suffering, to secure a ceasefire and to stop the humanitarian crisis. It is not just the primary purpose; it is pretty much the sole purpose. There are some other ancillary issues, but that is what we are here to do. This is a humanitarian crisis and a forgotten war—it has been under-reported and under-considered. I therefore welcome this debate. We must elevate it not only for those living in Yemen but for others in the region who will suffer and perhaps also for the people of western Europe, given some of the extreme Islamist elements within Yemen.

The country has a history of problems. To the members of the Labour club in Accrington, I say, “The problem is we have this despotic leader, Saleh, who has now returned. He was once fought by the Houthis, but now he’s joined them. He milked the nation, and after robbing it and leaving impoverished, he is now involved in a war.” This is a very simple view, but it is the view that the United Nations takes in UN Security Council resolution 2216: that there has been—dare I use the word?—a coup. A coup has been carried out by some very terrible people, including Houthis and the Saleh alliance, and the resistance on the other side has become involved in committing some atrocious acts. A vacuum has been created by the former President, who is now causing trouble again.

If we do not stop the conflict in 2017—if we do not resolve the situation and bring about a ceasefire—there is a risk that the situation will become intractable. It will not be in the interests of Iran or Saudi Arabia to achieve a peaceful settlement, and they will continue the middle east proxy war. We must not allow the conflict to reach that stage, which is one of the reasons why resolution 2216 refers to an arms embargo, a blockade, and the need to stop the transfer of assets that is bringing illegal weapons such as guns and munitions into Yemen and exacerbating the situation.

Let us consider the scale of what is happening. The United Nations has reported that children aged between six and eight are carrying Kalashnikovs, and are being killed. This is the war that we face.

[George Kerevan]

I fully accept what my hon. Friend is saying about the use of child soldiers by the Houthis. Does he not recall, however, that the United Nations found Saudi Arabia to be culpable of being the biggest killer of children in the war in Yemen through its bombing, and that the Saudi regime forced the UN to take Saudi Arabia off its list of states with the worst records of dealing badly with children?

[Graham Jones]

That is a valid point. The United Nations has had trouble, and no one the in Chamber thinks that either side of the conflict is right. Both sides are killing people. That is what needs to end, and that is we need to focus on rather than blaming individual nations.

Let me set the record straight. I come to this debate frustrated, because 2016 was the year of false truth, false fact and fake news. It was a terrible year for Britain and for the world, in which moderate people in a democracy lost arguments to extremists—Breitbart on one side and The Canary on the other, or the alt-right versus the hard left of the Labour party. Yemen is being used as the next vehicle for the advocating of some lunacy, rather than the principled position of those who ask, “How can we help these people?” It is about time that moderate Britain fought back against some of those who pursue such extremist views.

We must not allow this to become an Iran versus Saudi conflict, because if we do, the situation will indeed become intractable. I accept, however, that all the reports show that there is a mass of complications on the ground. It is not simply Iran versus Saudi, because we have not reached that stage yet, but we ought to be exceedingly mindful of the possibility. We have Saleh, the guy who robbed Yemen. According to the UN, when he was President and also an arms dealer, he was buying bullets for 50 cents as an arms dealer and selling them to himself as President at a dollar a time. He was buying Kalashnikovs and other guns for $150 as an arms dealer, and selling them to himself as President for $600. The UN describes this man as creaming off the whole Yemeni state. At one depot, there were 1,500 troops; he had an invoice for 80,000. There are nine teachers for every child in Yemen, if we believe ex-President Saleh. Of course, he wants his old position back, and he wants to use all the money and assets that the United Nations is trying to freeze to fund a war in which ordinary people are being mercilessly killed.

Let us face some truths. The biggest donors to Yemen over the years, which have, in the past, prevented the humanitarian crisis from being what it is today, have been the Gulf Co-operation Council and Saudi Arabia. Because of the Houthis, the aid tap has been turned off. Worse than that, however, because the Houthis want to fight Saudi Arabia on the border, foreign workers from Yemen can no longer work in Saudi Arabia, which is logical, so all the remittances have dried up. No wonder the country is in poverty—and we are allowing these people to get away with it. It is obvious why Security Council resolution 2216 pins it all on the Houthis, the people who started this in an alliance with the person whom they were formerly fighting, President Saleh. Therein lies the problem, and the reason for resolution 2216.

We must try to deal with the situation, but that will mean building bridges. According to the UN reports, the GCC has tried—twice in Geneva, and also through the Muscat principles—to bring the two parties together for a peaceful settlement. Which party is resisting the peace talks? It is the Houthis, who will not allow a peace delegation to fly to Geneva, and will not allow the UN panel of experts to go in and observe the situation on the ground. This is a group of people who to my mind—I say this to the people in the Labour club in Accrington—are just trying to rob the state. They are not interested in a peaceful settlement, and that makes things very difficult, but we should never abandon the principle of trying to build bridges, and that includes trying not to upset or destabilise the GCC or the Arab League.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

George Kerevan Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) for initiating what I am sure will be a year of these discussions.

I have the honour to represent East Lothian, which, of course, was the seat that Arthur Balfour represented in this House. His name is still very much alive in East Lothian. I visited Whittingehame, where he lived and where—I think—there were Cabinet meetings occasionally in the long recess. Whittingehame also became the home to around half of the Kindertransport children who came to the UK in 1939. They were sent to Whittingehame because the Balfour family had turned it into a farming school and during world war two the children there learned farming skills. Many of them then went to Palestine in the late 1940s and were involved in the kibbutz movement. I therefore have an affinity with this subject.

It is right that we should mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration, but I use the word “mark” very carefully, rather than “celebrate”. It is an important historical moment in time but it is—and this is my basic point—unfinished business. The declaration foresaw not only one homeland for the Jewish people but that the rights of other people and other growing nationalities in the region would be protected. Clearly, that has not happened. So the underlying message, and the thing that we can give to history and the peoples of the middle east in the next 12 months, is to reanimate the peace process, so that we end up with two states.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I am just back from a week in the middle east as part of the first Scottish National party delegation to Israel and Palestine, and I have returned with a number of thoughts. Above all else, as my hon. Friend said, it is absolutely vital that we do everything we can to support progress towards a sustainable two-state solution for these two peoples. Does he agree?

[George Kerevan]

I do indeed. Given the time, however, I will not take further interventions. Please do not think that I am being disrespectful to other Members.

I will comment very briefly on the two-state solution. The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) made the point in his speech that sometimes the two-state rhetoric hides other agendas. On behalf of the SNP, I will be very plain: we are genuinely supportive of a two-state solution. In fact, finding that solution is the key to Israel’s security.

For good or ill, Israel has decided in recent decades that its security is basically based on force of arms. As the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), said, time is running out for that approach. I had the great opportunity to have conversations with Ariel Sharon while he was still Prime Minister about the whole issue of Israel’s security. As an old general, he tended to look at things in military terms and his explanation to me was that the extension of the west bank settlements and the maintenance of an Israeli security zone within the west bank was necessary, as he put it, to protect the tank avenues through which tank thrusts from Syria or Iraq would come into Israel and cut it off very quickly. That is because, as we know, the narrow waist of Israel is tiny and it is possible to get a tank thrust through there very quickly.

Does anyone in this Chamber really think that Syria or Iraq, or any of the other major states in the middle east, are in any sense capable, as we speak, of taking on Israel militarily, or even politically? Of course they are not. Therefore, Israel has a security window where it can produce a two-state solution. That is where we have to go. My question to the Minister is this: how will the British Government use this 12 months to ensure that that happens, because Britain has a responsibility?

The Balfour declaration is not quite as it has been presented today. It is a studiously ambivalent document and quite deliberately so, because Britain and France had decided to exclude the Ottoman empire from the Wilson principles, expressed at Versailles, of self-determination. The middle east was not given self-determination; it was carved up by the British and French for their own political and economic ends.

That remained the case all through the time of the British mandate. It is very strange—I say this because I want to try to find as much common ground here as possible—that in all the speeches we have had this morning, nobody has strayed into the territory of what happened during the time of the British mandate, when both the Jewish people and the Arab people rose in revolt against the way that Britain had handled its mandate. In fact, in 1948—sadly, in my view—Britain walked away from the mandate, leaving a mess. That was because the British mandate was not seen as a way of bringing two peoples to self-determination; it was a way of securing Britain’s military presence in the canal zone and in the middle east as oil production developed.

The Balfour declaration is nowhere near as selfless as it has been presented here today. It was part of a chain of diplomatic initiatives that Britain had, which broke up the old Ottoman empire. Anybody who sensibly looks at the state of the middle east now would say that those interventions made things worse rather than better. If we recognise that, we will be in a position morally—I say this to the Minister—to begin to come back and to say how we can provide some redress for the political and economic disaster that we caused in the middle east. We have a debt of honour, because of the Balfour declaration. If the declaration means anything to anybody, it means unfinished business.

That is as far as I think we should go in history. If we start picking over every single piece of “who did what?” over the last hundred years, we will not get anywhere; I say that humbly to Government Members. A lot has been made in a number of speeches about 1948, when it is absolutely clear that the UN declared a mandate for two nations within a particular map. That project foundered in the first Arab-Israeli war. However, if we mention that war and if we say that the Arab states were wrong to intervene in 1948 and should have respected the UN mandate, we are duty-bound—I put this to the hon. Member for Eastbourne—to accept all the other UN mandates and security resolutions. Those are the 12 UN Security Council resolutions that condemned the illegal settlements on the west bank.

I have also met the current Prime Minister of Israel; I talked to him and I understand his position of wanting talks without preconditions, which is a fair point to make. However, if Israel, while it is waiting for negotiations without preconditions with the Palestinians to begin, is expanding the illegal settlements—I use the word “illegal” because they have been condemned as illegal by the British Government and the UN Security Council—its good faith is called into question, and we need good faith somewhere in this debate.

I will finish by saying, “Let’s mark the Balfour declaration”, but the only way of marking it is to finish the process that it started, which will end in two states and the recognition of a Palestinian state.

Yemen

George Kerevan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I will give way in a moment.

President Hadi had formally requested military action to restore his Government, while the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council had both called for

“all means and measures to protect Yemen and deter Houthi aggression”.

Their fears have plainly been borne out: mortar bombs and rockets have frequently been fired over the frontier and into Saudi territory. Only two weeks ago, the Houthis launched a Scud missile which flew 300 miles into Saudi Arabia, exploding outside Taif, a city the size of Birmingham that has a population of 1.2 million and lies close to Mecca. The last time Saudi Arabia came under bombardment from Scud missiles, the weapons were fired by Saddam Hussein.

As the House will readily appreciate, this conflict has wider regional and global ramifications. Yemen sits beside the Bab el-Mandeb straits, running between the Red sea and the Indian ocean. On the same day as the Scud was fired at Saudi Arabia, the Houthis launched two other missiles at an American destroyer passing through the Bab el-Mandeb. On earlier occasions, they had fired missiles at civilian vessels plying this vital shipping lane. Every trading nation in the world, including this one—particularly this one—has a vital interest in safe passage through those straits.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is laying out his case in a forensic manner. Does he recognise that the argument from these Benches is not that there was not a legitimate political and strategic security crisis in Yemen, but that the reaction of Saudi Arabia and the coalition forces is out of all proportion to the crisis with which they were trying to deal?

[Boris Johnson]

It was absolutely right to support President Hadi and to recognise the scale of the crisis that Yemen faces. As I have been explaining to the House—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I am laying out the case in a forensic manner—Britain has important interests at stake. By the way, it is right that we should be discussing this subject this afternoon. Furthermore, I can assure the House that, over the past few months, this country has been leading the way in a sustained diplomatic effort to try to settle that conflict.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) accused the SNP of grandstanding and of denying Saudi Arabia the right to self-defence. Our argument is rather that the Saudi intervention in Yemen is disproportionate; that is the key. Several legitimate and well-respected human rights organisations have used open source material to try to count the number of airstrikes in Yemen since March of last year, when the Saudi coalition began the bombing. There have been at least 8,600 airstrikes, and that is disproportionate. There are not enough targets for the Saudi coalition to go on bombing as they have done. One of the findings from that open source material is that at least one third of the airstrikes have resulted in civilian casualties. That is the issue.

[Dr Cameron]

Does my hon. Friend agree that funding what appears to be indiscriminate bombing is undermining the excellent work that the Department for International Development is doing in humanitarian aid?

[George Kerevan]

I would not only accept that, but go further and say that it is undermining the Saudi case for trying to create a stable Government and a stable political position in Yemen.

The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) introduced a new doctrine: the doctrine of intent. He said that we should look at the intent of the Saudis and, since they say they are doing good things and they want peace and security, we should consider that to be enough. Let us look at the intent of the Saudi Government. They have not signed up to the international convention on cluster weapons. If they do not want to use them, I would have expected them to sign up to it. In fact, as we all know, they have been using them—air-launched and ground-launched cluster weapons. I know that the Houthis on the other side are using them as well, but we are talking about a massive, western-funded, western-armed coalition versus a small group of rebels. That is disproportionate.

If we look at which cluster weapons have been found by human rights organisations across Yemen, we can see that they are not just the BL755 cluster weapons manufactured in Britain, but the CBU-105s, CBU-87s and CBU-58s manufactured in the United States. They have been found to have been used in at least five provinces in Yemen. Here is the thing: the American cluster weapons were sold to Saudi Arabia 20-odd years ago. I do not know how they got there or who used them, but it is surprising that all the types of cluster bomb weapons supplied to the Saudis about 20 years ago—in the 1980s and 1990s—have been found to have been used comprehensively and across the whole of Yemen. That deserves an investigation, which is what our amendment asks for.

The test of what Saudi Arabia is doing is not intent, but whether there is on balance a risk that humanitarian law has been broken. I put it to the House that there is ample evidence of that. How do we get the attention of the Saudi regime? That is at the core of the proposal in the SNP amendment, which has not been selected, to call for an immediate withdrawal of current sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia.

To respond to the hon. Members for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) and for Fylde (Mark Menzies), our proposal is not to stop all arms sales in perpetuity. We are trying to get the attention of the Saudi regime, which cannot put its own ground troops into Yemen. The real secret is that the regime cannot trust to using its own ground troops—it keeps them at home to protect the regime, which has no democratic legitimacy—so it uses its air force, which has very close links to the royal family, in a consistently indiscriminate way.

Hon. Members have repeatedly mentioned the bombing of the funeral. It was the funeral of a leading Houthi Minister and a lot of Houthi Ministers were expected to be at it, so one suspects that it was not quite the accident that it has been made out to be. There have been repeated cases of civilians being killed in missile and bomb attacks in places where Houthi leaders were expected. My point is that calling for an investigation and for a halt to arms sales in the short term is a way of getting the attention of the Saudi regime to ensure a ceasefire and a permanent solution to this crisis.

Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

George Kerevan Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Yemen is a relatively new country by any stretch of the imagination. In Ottoman times, we controlled one part of it as a protectorate. The glue that holds it together is not strong. It is very tribal based—there are about four or five major tribes—and underneath these super tribes there are sub-communities of loyalties. Each is not necessarily committed to one side or another, but is waiting to see which way the wind blows.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

If the evidence in the UN report is upheld in due course—evidence that the Saudis have been using cluster weapons dropped by British aircraft on civilian populations, which can only exacerbate the political crisis in Yemen—will the Minister undertake to ban weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, or will he just give it a limp slap on the wrist?

[Mr Ellwood]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman can imagine, I will not go into hypotheticals. I have committed to taking the report and speaking with the Saudi Arabians to see what we can do to move forward and to confirm what the recommendations in the report actually say.

Renegotiation of EU Membership (Devolved Administrations)

George Kerevan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing his first Westminster Hall debate. As he said, it is timely that it has occurred on the same day as a ministerial statement on renegotiation and, indeed, on the same day as the Minister was able to have a phone call with his counterpart in the Scottish Government. It would have been very disappointing to come to Westminster Hall to find that there had been no consultation or discussion with the Scottish Government or other devolved Administrations.

The Prime Minister has been at pains to demonstrate how determined and wide ranging his renegotiation strategy has been. He has been jet-setting across Europe to meet almost anyone who will listen to him, forging interesting alliances in the process, but there has been scant evidence of communication, let alone negotiation, with his most important European allies of all—the constituent nations of the UK.

The Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk that was published today states:

“I want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals.”

Well, Ms Dorries, Scotland has a Parliament, and Wales and Northern Ireland have Assemblies. Surely they should be working with the UK Parliament and Government to protect and enhance our position in the European Union. During the referendum in Scotland, as my hon. Friend said, Westminster politicians, led by the Prime Minister, were falling over themselves to tell us that we should lead the UK, not leave the UK, and that Scotland’s only hope of remaining in the European Union was to remain in the United Kingdom. Now it seems that both those propositions were without foundation. Scotland’s membership of the European Union is now at far greater risk, and its opportunity to minimise that risk by being an equal partner in the renegotiation process is also threatened by the lack of consultation with the UK Government to date.

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the range of questions raised by my hon. Friend, especially with regard to a formal process. In June, the First Minister called for a distinctive forum in which the views of the devolved Assemblies could be heard in the renegotiation process, so I hope that the Minister will tell us about progress on that.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister has now held talks with every single constituent member of the EU, but that nine of those member states have smaller populations than that of Scotland?

[Patrick Grady]

It does not surprise me at all to hear that. I look forward to seeing the photographs of the Prime Minister. He met the Scottish First Minister to negotiate the Edinburgh agreement in advance of the independence referendum, so I hope that he will sit down with his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to—

Draft Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2015

George Kerevan Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 General Committees

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

There is much merit in the project, as others have said, and in the UK having an early involvement in it. In order for the project to fulfil its potential, however, we have to recognise some conflicts of interest, or at least potential ones. The Minister, in his reply to the hon. Member for Harrow West, was not clear enough about his or the Government’s response to that.

The Asian Development Bank, which has been in existence since the 1960s and of which we are a significant member, is funded or capitalised largely from Japan and, in its heyday, was seen mainly as a vehicle for Japan to invest across wider Asia in a positive way. However, it is at least conceivable that in setting up the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank the Chinese Government are setting up a rival to the Asian Development Bank, which might get the new bank caught up in the manifest tensions between the Governments of China and Japan in recent years. There is room for more than one bank and China investing some $50 billion to capitalise the project is positive, but it must not become a political football. We need assurances from the Minister that the British Government will use their good offices, even behind the scenes, to ensure that that happens.

The Chinese Government’s explanation for why they are setting up the new bank ties very much to President Xi’s project of a new silk road to strengthen the infrastructure and transport links between Asia and Europe. That is an excellent idea, but those links must not simply end in Germany; they must also reach the UK. What strategy or vision do the Government have to ensure that the bank plays its part in extending the new silk road to the UK?

I do not make my final point tongue in cheek, but the Minister perhaps ought to have words with the Treasury, because it is of course trying to sell off our own Green Investment Bank on the ground that capitalising it will limit the Government’s ability to reduce the deficit. In the same breath as selling a successful green bank which has achieved infrastructure investment in the UK in just the areas we have been discussing, however, the Treasury is providing virtually the same kind of money to be the British contribution to the AIIB. My constituents might find such priorities a little odd—we are closing down the green bank, which has its headquarters in Edinburgh, on cost and deficit grounds, but we can find the money to invest in an infrastructure bank in Asia. Possibly we can do both—that would be my preference—but I want the Minister to reassure me that the Treasury will not come back next week and decide to pull out of the AIIB on cost grounds.

Srebrenica Genocide (20th Anniversary)

George Kerevan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

No, it is important.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much.

I want to mention Burma, where ethnic cleansing is happening and many are being killed. I am sorry that the international community has not been doing much about it. Perhaps we need to move on that.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to my gallant friend, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), for organising the debate. “Gallant” is an important word, because it is a truism—true in this case—that the people who hate war and its aftermath most are former soldiers who have experienced it. We should remember that.

I will briefly explain why this debate is of significance to me. I was born at the end of the 1940s and am of the generation brought up in the shadow of the Nazi holocaust. It was axiomatic to us that such mass, clinical, industrial murder could never take place again in Europe—but it did. I was shocked when it happened in Srebrenica. I had thought that it could never happen again, but it will always happen again if each generation does not learn the lessons and if we do not preach the lessons to the young of our country. We have to go on doing that; it will happen again unless we go on preaching the dangers.

I also want to speak because I have a Bosnian Muslim constituent. Campaigning in the general election, I knocked on a door in Haddington, a country town in Scotland, in East Lothian. A happy family from an immigrant community answered the door and it turned out that they were from Bosnia; they had come over as refugees in the aftermath of the war. I did not know that a number of refugees at that time had been relocated to Haddington to keep them together and to form a local community. It is now 20 years on, however, so I happily asked, “Are any other Bosnian families still here?” The people in the door laughed and pointed next door and up the street and I discovered that quite a significant community had made its home in Haddington. They were talking with broad Scottish accents, as is the way if someone lives there for a while. We have made them welcome, but they have joined us and entered our community despite all their traumas, so I thank them.

In my past life I was a documentary filmmaker, and I have been so moved by this issue over the years. We made a documentary film about the survivors of the massacre with Samir Mehanovic, an old Bosnian Muslim friend of mine who suffered and lost family in the crisis, but now lives here. It will be shown in an edited form on BBC World and we are premiering it in Sarajevo at the weekend. The film is designed for the cinema; we wanted people to see things on the big screen, in the dark, to achieve immediacy, rather than having it go on in a living room on the small screen, which does not have the same impact.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) mentioned some of the footage taken by the Serbian irregulars and the Serbian army of the cruel things they were doing. I could only watch some of the scenes once. I actually argued with my friend Samir in favour of taking the footage out of our film, but he would not have it—it traumatises him to watch it, but he wants people to see.

The message of our film is the one I wanted to bring to the Chamber, however briefly: we should not only honour and remember the dead, but remember the living. There are many survivors—most are now in Tuzla—but they have found it difficult to find work, their memories are still in their heads and they still need help, support and solidarity. We must remember that fact, which I commend to the Minister. There is still work to be done for the living as well as the dead.

My final point involves Milorad Dodik, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, who in the past few weeks has been doing his usual thing of denying the massacre. He has even been to the massacre site and denied that it ever took place. There have been contacts between the Bosnian Serbs and the Moscow regime; pressure is put on Moscow to continue to operate at the United Nations in an attempt to stop proper UN recognition and continuing investigation of the massacre. I commend that fact to the Minister.

There is still work to be done at the UN to ensure that we go on remembering Srebrenica, seeking justice for the victims and remembering those who are still alive.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Stephen Gethins for a maximum of five minutes.