Middle East Peace Process/Syria and Iran

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for these initiatives. As I have said, the issues of justice and accountability, and of the gathering of evidence, remain vital. We have used British funds to train human rights journalists and others to document the crimes that have been committed, so that the evidence is there in the future, and we will continue to support that kind of work. I believe that the demand in Syria for justice and accountability will be overwhelming as the evidence from this conflict emerges over the coming months and years, and we need to be ready to support that across the whole world.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

On the “Today” programme this morning, Lord Dannatt said that the diversion of interest into Iraq had allowed the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan. What implications does the Foreign Secretary draw from that for any future UK military intervention in Syria?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are not proposing a UK military intervention in Syria. We are talking about three strands of British policy. One is to implement the UN resolution on chemical weapons, in which we are participating. The second is to continue to lead the world in alleviating human suffering. The third is to bring together a peace conference in Geneva. Those are the things that we are working on, rather than a military intervention.

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Members were almost hissing us for sitting still, but I am glad and proud that I never rose to my feet to clap that warmonger.

The Iraq war is, of course, associated with Tony Blair, and always will be. It is his legacy. He might as well have had it tattooed on his head, such is his association with that illegal war. Conflicts tend to become associated with prominent figures and leaders: we have had Thatcher and the Falklands war, Churchill and world war two—and Iraq and Blair.

What was it all for? What was achieved? More than 100,000 dead, a region destabilised, a country divided along sectarian lines, and international diplomacy discredited as never before. We may never retrieve our credibility in the international community following Iraq, and that is a sad, sad indictment of what happened here. I will not even bother to go into the details of the millions of people who have been displaced. But another dreadful thing happened, and it is the thing that we will most regret: we have alienated a generation of people living in the Muslim world. Furthermore, we have dangerously radicalised a proportion of them, and that is what we are having to deal with now. That is another legacy of the Iraq war with which we have continued to contend, and we will live to regret it.

By any standard, Iraq has been an absolute and utter disaster. That illegal war was one of the most regrettable and damaging foreign policy adventures ever undertaken in our name. Some Members have gone on about Suez, but the mighty Suez is nothing but a little stream compared with the foreign policy damage that has been created by Iraq. Those responsible must be held to account. History will eventually judge them, but I should like to think that it will be done now, while I am still a Member of Parliament. I should like to think that some justice will be delivered. So far, the only people who have lost their jobs because of Iraq are people who worked for the BBC. One person lost his job because he said that the dossier was “sexed up”. That dossier was more sexed up than some teenage starlet in her latest pop video.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

What is even more regrettable is that after the war, those on what was then the Government Front Bench continued to assert that there were weapons of mass destruction, and that, as a matter of faith, they would be found. Eventually, of course, they had to concede, but it was a matter of belief and not of fact.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister has been asked today whether there were weapons of mass destruction, but even now—10 years on, and with a different Government —they cannot concede that there were no such weapons. If the Minister were to rise in order to say, “Yes, we concede that now,” I would give way to him, but so far no UK Government have conceded that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and I think that until a Government do that, we will not have political closure.

We have had five useless reports on Iraq. That is the only thing we can call them: useless. They might as well have been made out of whitewash, given their validity when it comes to trying to discover and understand what actually went on. Now worrying issues are starting to emerge in relation to our best hope of ensuring that those responsible are held to account through the Chilcot report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd referred to some of the current difficulties with Chilcot.

I mentioned to the Minister David Owen’s view that there is collusion between Tony Blair and No. 10 to ensure that the private correspondence between George Bush and Tony Blair is not revealed. We must see that correspondence, because it will probably tell us more than anything else about the reasons for going to war. We will be able to see how the plan was shaped and designed between the two of them, and to see the commitment that was made by Tony Blair to George Bush.

The Chilcot inquiry started four years ago, and with every year that passes, the Iraq war recedes and the Chilcot conclusions lose their potency. I say this, however, to the current Government and those who were in the last Labour Government: we will not forget. We will not forget this, and we will continue to hold this Government to account for what they do.

History will judge these people. At some point, what actually happened will have to come out. If Chilcot does not do that, it will come out later. I am not confident that we will get the truth about Iraq before the end of this decade, however. I think it will take another generation before the true story of Iraq is told, because there are too many big reputations at stake, and too many pillars would come down if it were actually revealed. The Foreign Office and the foreign policy of the United Kingdom would probably be totally discredited if the truth about Iraq came out.

That is why I am not confident that we will find out the true story about Iraq before the end of this decade, and I will be out of here by then. I do not want to be part of a country that does this. It is appalling to be part of a nation that indulges in illegal wars. I am from Scotland. Scotland is the nation that defines me, and I want my country to make a peaceful contribution to the world and not get involved in these illegal wars, so I am glad we will have an opportunity next year to ensure that we are no longer part of a nation that is prepared to indulge in such things.

It was not a Tory Government who took us into this illegal war; it was a Labour Government, for goodness’ sake—the last type of Government we would expect to take us into an illegal war. It is not all about the evil Tories, therefore. It was a Labour Government who did that, and I am glad that next year my nation will get the opportunity to vote for independence and ensure we will never be part of illegal wars again.

I think the case for independence is overwhelming, but this issue really helps it. The issue has politicised so many people. We have heard about the Stop the War coalition, which did so much great work on it, and Stop the War lost one of its greatest advocates in the last few days: the iconic author Iain Banks. I remember when he came down here and participated in the activities of Stop the War. He was an author without peer, an iconic Scot and a great, great guy. He was heavily politicised by the Iraq war. In fact, he tore up his passport and sent it to Tony Blair, such was his disgust at the war.

I want to pay tribute to Iain Banks in my final remarks by quoting some words not from his great works, “The Crow Road” or “The Wasp Factory”, but from him to Tony Blair. He said that

“it was Blair who bowed to Bush in the first place, and Blair who convinced the Labour party and parliament of the need to go to war with a dossier that was so close to lying that it makes no difference.”

Indeed!

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is an honour to follow such a passionate and well-informed speech from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). I think that we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing the debate, and I apologise to her for not arriving in time to hear her speech—I was opening a job show in my constituency first thing this morning—which by all accounts was a powerful introduction to the debate.

Although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, I am very proud that the Liberal Democrats played such a strong role in opposing the war. I am particularly proud of the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), who was leader of the Liberal Democrats at the time, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about the breadth of the coalition that opposed the war and said that it was not just made up of predictable left wingers. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife is far from being a raging pacifist leftie. He is a thoughtful and distinguished advocate and is now, as he was then, a distinguished spokesman on international affairs. That voices such as his were ignored at the time is a measure of just how dogmatic certain people in the Labour Government were.

I have found this debate very humbling, not only because of the first-hand accounts of intelligence, diplomacy and military experience that we have heard from people who were connected to the war in different respects, but because of the emotion shown by those who were, in effect, forced to vote against their own colleagues in their own party. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made a very powerful speech about that. We have heard about the bitter regret felt by those who feel that they were misled into voting for the wrong thing. We should also remember the members of the Government who honourably resigned over this issue—Robin Cook, John Denham and others who gave up their ministerial careers. The emotions are clearly almost as strong now as they were then.

We have heard powerful descriptions of what felt like the inevitable momentum towards war. That was certainly felt outside Parliament as well. Those of us who were watching from the outside might not have picked up on all the details of the parliamentary debates, but every day we saw the pictures of the troops gathering in Saudi Arabia and had the sense that it was something that simply could not be stopped, no matter how many people marched, no matter what arguments were deployed and no matter what intelligence was presented to counter what was in the dodgy dossier.

If the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) is right, that momentum had started long before. He mentioned the Crawford summit in April 2002, when Tony Blair stood shoulder to shoulder with George Bush. That was reinforced at subsequent summits between the two of them. Although I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), it is not really credible to say that the leaders did not know the detail or had not had time to read it. I am sure that the detail of the intelligence on the military situation and the situation inside Iraq was all gone into in enormous detail, as was the legal advice. As everybody has said, the Chilcot report is long overdue, and we need to start to hear about the detail of the decision-making process. Some of the documents that are still not public need to be made public. It looks from the outside as though there was a deliberate collaboration in creating that momentum towards war in order to make it inevitable.

We have to allow that some aspects of that political mission had, in a sense, some honour to them. Saddam’s was a despicable regime. Thousands died in the chemical attacks in Halabja in 1988. There was also the massacre and destruction of the entire lifestyle of the Marsh Arabs in 1991 following the first Gulf war. There might have been a psychological element for George Bush in the sense that, according to the conservative psychology, his father had left the job half done in allowing the massacre of the Marsh Arabs to take place, because they had risen up in the expectation that they would be supported by the allied forces, but they were not.

We should remember that since 1991 there had been a safe haven in Iraq for the Kurds, reinforced from 1992 by the no-fly zone described on the basis of first-hand experience by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney). Perhaps George Bush felt that he did not want to repeat his father’s error of betraying people in Iraq who were opposed to the regime. Perhaps the psychology of 9/11 also made people feel the need to do something to give some substance to the supposed war on terror, which, to me, has always had a slightly Orwellian ring to it.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman will perhaps recall the light-hearted quip at the time that for the US and UK to invade Iraq would be as though after Pearl Harbour the United States had invaded Mexico—it would have been as peculiar and as odd as that.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

There was the emotional declaration of the war on terror but then a feeling that it did not have much substance. I think that those in the conservative right in the United States were searching for something to give it more edge and substance, and perhaps that was part of the psychology that led them to towards war. The psychology of the British Prime Minister involved is something that I will not go near.

I am not one of those who now hope that the decision will be proved wrong by the failure of Iraqi democracy. I hope that Iraqi democracy will succeed and that a stable, federal state will emerge from the continuing conflict. I do not want to paint everything that is happening in Iraq as being as bad as or worse than it was under Saddam. Nevertheless, I think that those hon. Members who voted against the war made the right decision and I am very proud that Liberal Democrats did so. There are three central reasons why I think they were right to oppose the war.

First, there really was no case: there were no weapons of mass destruction. A few years later, after I had become an MP, I remember Hans Blix telling a meeting in Parliament that he had wanted and had pleaded for more time and that, had they been given it, the weapons inspectors could have established the facts of the case, but of course they were evacuated to make way for the invasion. It was not Iraq that stopped the weapons inspections; it was the United States and the UK. As the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton has said, the intelligence on which that action was based was old and out of date.

There was no immediate humanitarian crisis. In Syria and Libya, and even in Bosnia, people were dying or being threatened with blood baths, but that was not the case in Iraq. There was no immediate humanitarian justification for intervention. If there was a secondary reason—this was sometimes mentioned—it was the idea that Saddam might be in cahoots with al-Qaeda, but that also turned out to be completely imaginary. In fact, the precise opposite, if anything, was true. Subsequently, of course, we have seen the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq as a substantial force of Sunni jihadists, and it is now spilling over into Syria, where a direct offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Jabhat al-Nusra, is making that conflict worse. The repercussions of the intervention are extraordinary, but there was no fundamental case for it, as we were told there was.

Secondly, our party’s view is that the war was illegal. We have still not seen the then Attorney-General’s advice to the Government. UN resolution 1441 is cited, but as other Members have said, it did not provide a legal justification for invasion. Actually, its central concern was with the weapons inspection regime, which, as I have said, was brought to an end by the invasion. The weapons inspectors were evacuated because of the invasion. They were not prevented from continuing their work by Iraq.

Hon. Members’ speeches and the recent excellent BBC documentary have highlighted how the real political objective was clearly regime change and that other arguments and cases were deployed tactically to try to support it. Perhaps regime change was a laudable objective—Saddam was a terrible dictator—but the only complication is that regime change is illegal under international law; we therefore participated in an illegal invasion.

The third crucial reason why it was wrong to go to war was the political and diplomatic effort behind it. It was not a united international effort. In the end, the troops were from, I think, the United States, Britain, Australia and Poland. Others might want to correct me. Perhaps Spain was involved as well. NATO was disunited, the French were in opposition and the region was disunited. The United Nations was certainly disunited and the Secretary-General warned that the invasion would be in contravention of the UN charter if it went ahead. This was cowboy diplomacy. It was almost the kind of unilateral interventionism of which the world needs to be very fearful. The decision to invade posed a danger not just to the people of Iraq—although it certainly did—but to the whole world, because it could be used as justification for anybody’s decision to intervene without international sanction, regional support or a proper legal case.

I think that the coalition Government have learned those lessons. The recent intervention in Libya stands in stark contrast to the invasion of Iraq. There were no allied boots on the ground. It was a limited intervention, even though militarily it was a simpler prospect than Iraq. There was clear sanction from a UN resolution and an immediate humanitarian case. There was also united regional support in the Arab world. We can say collectively—those who are in the Government in particular—that we have learned the lessons of what went on in Iraq.

We now have the strange situation in which we are still waiting for the final chapter: the Chilcot report. We have been waiting for four years. That is almost as long as Britain’s military intervention in Iraq. If it carries on for much longer, it will outlast the war itself. That report will raise deep and serious questions that we still want answers to. For the former Prime Minister, it will raise some threatening legal issues and some deep questions about his role in taking us to war. The irony of ironies is that in the meantime, he has been made a peace envoy to the middle east, which I find extraordinary. All credit to him for the role that he has played subsequently in trying to bring peace to the region. However, we still need to ask how and why he took us to war. We need the Chilcot report and we need it soon.

Palestinian Resolution (United Nations)

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will do that. I have referred many times today and on previous occasions to the vital importance of this issue over the coming months and to its urgency. That will be fully reflected in the way that we conduct our foreign policy over the coming weeks and months.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

May I first express the regret of my right hon. and hon. Friends who sit on this Bench in respect of the conditions set out by the Foreign Secretary? May I ask him a genuine question? What assessment has he made of any change for good or ill in the stance of the Israeli Government with the forthcoming election and with the departure of Ehud Barak?

[Mr Hague]

This is a matter for the Israeli people. I will not intervene in their politics. We have always had close and good relations with Mr Barak. Indeed, he is one of the Israeli leaders I speak to most frequently, so in that sense we will regret his departure. But it is up to the Israelis who they choose to lead them in their elections in January. Whoever that is, we will make the case powerfully to them about the urgency of the issue and about the importance of it being in their own long-term strategic interests to tackle it decisively over the coming year. So we will not be shy of doing that, just as we are not shy of saying to Palestinians what we need from them.

Rohingya Communities

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) on securing the debate about this ongoing tragedy. As he said, we are here today to speak about an issue that many people in Britain may be unaware of but that deserves our attention—the treatment of the Rohingya communities in Burma and Bangladesh. It affects many thousands of people and it goes to the heart of our belief in ourselves in Britain as strong advocates of respect for human rights, who speak up for those who do not have a voice and support those in need.

Britain has a long history of being an advocate for change in Burma and, as colleagues have said, we have seen substantial progress in Burma in the past few years. Pro-democracy candidates such as Aung San Suu Kyi have been elected to Parliament. That is progress, even if there are still serious concerns about the validity of elections in which a quarter of seats are reserved for the military. As hon. Members know, hundreds of political prisoners have been released, media restrictions have been eased and the process of political reconciliation with many ethnic minorities has begun.

Those reforms have encouraged the international community, including our own country, to strengthen its ties with a country that was previously one of the most isolated in the world. That process has included the suspension of sanctions. However, the continuing suspension of sanctions must be conditional on how much progress is made in respect of human rights and the transition to democracy, which has been slow and difficult.

From a development perspective, Burma remains one of the poorest countries in Asia, with widespread poverty and a vulnerability to shocks or crises. Much of the population lack the means to meet their basic needs and deal with their major health problems. In addition, there remain concerns about the extent of the power that the military still exerts. Hundreds of political prisoners remain in prison and, of course, there is the continuing conflict with some ethnic minority communities.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South and the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) have already pointed out, civilians in provinces such as Kachin and Arakan talk about systematic human rights abuses, including forced labour and displacement, torture and extra-judicial killings. There are approximately 800,000 to 1 million Rohingya living in the province of Arakan, where many of them have lived for generations. However, they have faced a long history of marginalisation and discrimination. As my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman also said, that marginalisation and discrimination was made concrete in law in the form of the 1982 citizenship law, which rendered Rohingya in Burma non-citizens and virtually stateless.

When violence erupted between the Rohingya Muslim community and the Buddhist Rakhine community in June, both sides committed atrocious acts of violence and abuse. The Burmese Government interceded, but they did not simply put an end to the violence; instead, they helped perpetuate a cycle of sectarian and state-sponsored violence against the Rohingya.

As has been said, there are serious allegations against the Burmese Government forces—of killings, torture, rape, mass arrests and forced displacement—from both local people and human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The UN special rapporteur on human rights visited the province of Arakan in August and reported seeing burned villages, which meant that many people had been left without homes or shelter. Estimates place the number of people who were displaced at around 100,000, the majority of whom were Rohingya. The conflict has left many people without homes to return to, or made them too scared even to return home.

According to some of the few aid agencies that have managed to see those people, those who have been displaced or have fled have often been forced into camps that are little better than prisons. The camps are in squalid places with little or no access to basic services such as health care, sanitation, food and education. However, instead of seeking peace and reconciliation, the Burmese Government have asked the UN for assistance in trying to remove all Rohingya from Burma and place them in third countries. If they are serious about reform, they should instead eliminate the discriminatory laws that validate that kind of violence.

The violence and persecution by the Burmese Government has forced many aid workers to flee and has made it difficult to deliver aid. Tens of thousands of people are in need of support, but getting to them is still difficult. So that the disaster does not worsen, the Burmese Government need to allow immediate and unimpeded humanitarian access, not just to the camps, but to all areas of Arakan state, where the violence has impacted on everyone’s lives, whether they be Muslim or Buddhist, Rohingya or Rakhine.

Alongside immediate access, there needs to be a truly independent and impartial inquiry—as has already been mentioned—to look closely at the human rights abuses, and punishment must be applied to the perpetrators. It must be an inquiry that can establish the truth and start the process of reconciliation, hopefully to avoid this happening again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South mentioned, the British Government should continue to use all the public and private levers they have to ensure that that happens, and encourage our international partners to do the same. As we continue to strengthen our relationship with the Burmese Government, including through the suspension of sanctions, we must expect progress on reform, particularly regarding such human rights abuses and state-sponsored violence.

I want to turn to the situation in Bangladesh. Violence has been an all-too-common feature in the life of Rohingya communities in Burma, and in the ’80s and ’90s it forced hundreds of thousands to flee to Bangladesh. Many ended up along Bangladesh’s border with Burma, where they have been stuck in camps for a long time. Since 1992, however, Bangladesh has refused to allow them to be registered as refugees, leaving them yet again without rights and support. All but 30,000 are denied refugee status, leaving 200,000 without access to refugee rights, or help such as food rations from the World Food Programme or health care and education provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Alongside that, the Government of Bangladesh have a policy of reducing the so-called attractiveness of the camps, refusing help to improve the squalid and overcrowded conditions. That is likely to cause a further humanitarian disaster, and it is in direct contravention of international law, which requires the Government to recognise the human rights of everyone within their borders. At the very least, that must mean allowing organisations such as the UN to provide basic humanitarian support. As the situation worsens, with reports that at least 1,300 Rohingya, including children, trying to flee the violence were turned back at the border, with many international organisations estimating that the numbers could be higher, we need to act immediately.

In early 2011, during the visit of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh to the UK, my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party and I raised directly with her the plight of Rohingya refugees in her country. It is incredibly disappointing that the position of the Government of Bangladesh has not changed. Bangladesh benefited from the generosity of its neighbours during the 1971 war of independence, when hundreds of thousands of people—potentially more—were made refugees. I call on the Government of Bangladesh to reconsider the issue, and I hope that the Minister will put pressure on them to act humanely and step up to their responsibilities.

The international community should follow the lead of the US Government in shining a light on the decisions that the Government of Bangladesh make and pushing for them to live up to their moral and legal responsibilities. As the largest bilateral donor to Bangladesh, it is crucial that the UK Government apply further pressure on the Government of Bangladesh to fulfil their responsibilities to the Rohingya communities that have sought refuge in that country.

The level of violence in Arakan state has fallen, but there remains a serious humanitarian crisis that needs urgent attention if we are to stem the cycle of violence and killing. We have a chance right now, while there are opportunities in Burma, to help encourage the kinds of changes that are needed to see the process of reform and reconciliation in Burma flourish. That is essential if we are to ensure the protection not just of the Rohingya community in Burma, but of the many other communities that still face oppression and discrimination. The UK is building strong links with the Government of Burma, but we must use those links to put pressure on the Government to respect human rights and to ensure that they are serious about the issues, particularly when lives are being lost and violence is being perpetrated, and that the state genuinely is not taking sides but acting as a neutral, honest broker. The British Government must publicly hold the Government of Burma to account for how they relate to the sanctions, and we must work with our international partners to exert pressure in requiring, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South said, an independent inquiry into what has happened in Arakan state.

This is an important time for Burma to show the world that it is serious about human rights and democracy. The situation in Arakan state, and the plight of the Rohingya Muslims in particular, highlights that there is much further to go. As a country that cares about continued developments and wants to see progress in Burma, it is vital that we act as a critical friend who will support the Government to make that transition but will be firm about the need to respect the rights of minorities and those who continue to suffer at the hands of perpetrators of violence and hate. We will hold the Government to account, and I call on the Minister to exert pressure on the Government to act now.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Order. Six Members are seeking to catch my eye. I hope to start the winding-up speeches at 10.30 am, so I ask Members to keep their remarks to the point so that all voices can be heard.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) on securing the debate. I will confine my remarks to just three areas, because previous speakers have covered the ground so thoroughly.

Violent conflict between communities, such as we have seen in Arakan state, is a disaster for all concerned, and especially so when the communities include some of the poorest people, who have no means of recovering from the loss of property or livelihood, let alone the harm to, and loss of life in, their families. However, it is particularly hard to bear circumstances in which Government authorities are seen to be either indifferent to the suffering, or to be making it worse, as in this case. Whatever else a Government do or do not do for their people, they must treat them fairly and without discrimination. There are clear reports of arbitrary violence, including rape, looting and torture, by police and security forces. It is also clear that Rohingya who have been displaced are, as a result of their ethnicity, not receiving assistance. That has to stop, and the Burmese Government must allow full access to humanitarian agencies and independent observers.

We are not trying to excuse anyone—everyone who commits violence is at fault here—but behind the conflict lies the pernicious effect of the 1982 citizenship law, under which the Rohingya, who are Muslim, are denied citizenship, even though the land has been their home for generations. Not only that but, as previous speakers have said, the President recently asked the UN for help in resettling the Rohingya in other countries, which is in clear contradiction of the universal declaration on human rights.

In the 21st century, it cannot be the case that a country refuses to recognise as citizens people who have lived there for generations. I urge the UK Government and the European Union to continue making it clear to the Burmese Government that reviewing, reforming or repealing the law is essential to ensuring that there is no discrimination.

Bangladesh, too, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) made clear, needs to provide under international law a safe sanctuary to people who flee persecution and violence in Burma. Indeed, the international community needs to support Bangladesh in doing so and to support all who are displaced. I welcome the work of the Department for International Development on that.

Finally, it is not only the Rohingya in Burma who are suffering as a result of their ethnicity and religion, although, perhaps because of the citizenship law, they have suffered the most. The Christian Chin minority and others have also been under great pressure for decades. State-supported persecution because of people’s religious views, lack of religious views or ethnicity must be confronted wherever it occurs. As a country, we must speak out whenever that happens, whether in a state that is predominantly Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or of no religion.

I applaud the UK Government’s strong stance, the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the United Kingdom’s effort at the United Nations. I welcome DFID’s constant work in Burma over many years, both under the previous Government and the current Government. Working with the poorest people is especially important, whether they suffered the cyclone in 2010, displacement today or, in the east of the country, the real threat that malaria resistant to artemisinin, which is the only effective treatment, could spread unless it is countered on the Burmese-Thai border. That is why DFID’s work in Burma is so important, irrespective of the current policies of the Burmese Government. DFID is there to help the world’s poorest people.

How much pressure should the UK Government place on Burma? The Prime Minister has invited the President of Burma to the UK. As the previous Minister of State, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), wrote in a letter to a colleague of mine in the European Parliament on 10 August, a visit will be

“a valuable opportunity to continue the Prime Minister’s dialogue with the President and to stress the need to resolve the many issues outstanding.”

There have been calls for the invitation to be withdrawn, which I understand, but I believe that, perhaps with the conditions that have already been mentioned, a visit would provide an opportunity to raise very publicly and very strongly the plight of the Rohingya and others in Burma.

As the hon. Member for Leicester South so eloquently put it, this year should have been a year of hope for Burma. Indeed, there have been many welcome moves towards democracy. Above all, given the UK’s history in Burma, we should support those moves, but we cannot simply stand by and ignore what is happening. I urge the Minister to make it clear in the strongest possible terms that the UK Government expect the Burmese Government to take action to protect the Rohingya and other communities in Burma whom they are currently failing to protect.

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

I have been informed that we may start the winding-up speeches at 10.40 am, so there is slightly more time, but I appeal to hon. Members to be to the point.

Syria

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is a difficult explanation; certainly, they have tried to explain. They support a great deal of what we say, and the analysis and what should be done and the need for a peaceful transition in Syria, but they stop just short of supporting a chapter 7 resolution that would embody that in a UN resolution. I think the reasons are similar to the ones that I just gave to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) about Russia.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

What can the Foreign Secretary tell the House about worrying reports today of clashes between the Turkish army and Kurdish forces on or near the Syrian border? Does he agree that, whatever happens in Syria, this does not constitute political cover for the Turkish Government to attack over their border or further to oppress the Kurdish people?

[Mr Hague]

I absolutely agree that this does not provide political cover for that, and I have not heard any suggestion from the Foreign Minister of Turkey that it would do so. I am concerned about a series of clashes on the Turkish border involving serious loss of life, including among the Turkish armed forces, in a number of recent incidents. I have expressed our condolences to Turkey on those incidents, and this underlines the need to tackle the situation in all the ways that I have described.

Human Rights (Colombia)

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Order. The wind-ups will start at 10 past 12, and several hon. Members hope to catch my eye, so I appeal to them to be brief.

Middle East and North Africa

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quoting me back at myself in what I have said about the strengths of our intervention in Libya. I have said that any necessary intervention is greatly strengthened by such things and that they are, and remain, criteria for us. Clearly, we are not advocating military action; we are advocating an increase in peaceful, legitimate pressure, as well as the continued offer of negotiations.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the Foreign Secretary call on the Turkish Government to end their criminalisation of legitimate democratic Kurdish organisations and, in particular, will he condemn the arrest of the Assembly Member, Büsra Ersanli, the veteran writer and publisher, Ragip Zarakolu, and many others on clearly politically inspired charges?

[Mr Hague]

We do raise human rights cases with Turkey and I will certainly consider the cases that the hon. Gentleman has described. We will have many detailed discussions with Turkey because of the state visit of the President of Turkey in two weeks’ time. I will look at those cases ahead of that visit.

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend is right. That is changing the dynamics and it is important for all to understand that this increases the urgency of the middle east peace process, rather than meaning that it can be put off. The remaining opportunity to breathe new life into it must now be taken. I shall say more about that in a moment.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to encourage Turkey to take a democratic lead in the region, which would also include ending the persecution of legitimately and democratically elected Kurdish politicians? That would give great succour to Kurdish people in Syria, who are the subject of murderous repression by their own Government.

[Mr Hague]

Turkey is taking a lead in the region, in particular in trying to persuade the Syrian authorities to go down the route of reform, rather than the route of repression. We very much welcome the highly active role—not yet a successful role, but a highly active role —played by the Turkish Government in that regard. Of course, we look to Turkey, particularly as an aspirant nation for membership of the European Union, always to set a strong example itself.

While condemning so many things that have happened in some countries, we should welcome the fact that in some other countries of the Arab world Governments are setting out plans for reform. In March, the King of Morocco announced a package of reforms, including putting the national human rights body on an independent footing and constitutional changes that will be put to a referendum. Jordan has announced committees on national dialogue and constitutional and economic reform, and we look forward to those reforms being agreed and implemented.

In Yemen, the economic, security and humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate. More protesters were killed only last week by Government forces, in violence that the whole House will deplore. The United Kingdom supports the Gulf Co-operation Council’s initiative to resolve the deadlock, which requires the President to step aside and a new Government to be formed who include members of the Opposition. We are in close contact with the GCC about the progress of negotiations, we have supported those negotiations, and we are in close contact with the United States and our partners in Europe about our wider approach to the country.

Instability in Yemen has serious implications for the terrorist threat from that country, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has demonstrated the intent and capability to attack western targets inside and outside Yemen. Britain and our allies are working around the clock to counter this threat and we will continue to do so. The arguments about the need for reform and dialogue apply to all countries in the region. Although each country is different, we will make the case to all that steps to reverse freedoms and curtail human rights are wrong and counter-productive.

We welcome the announcement in Bahrain that the state of national emergency will be lifted on 1 June and look forward to this commitment being met. We remain very concerned by the restrictions on freedom of speech and the reports of human rights abuses, including the widespread arrest of political activists and the severe charges brought against a number of doctors and nurses by a Bahraini tribunal. The Government of Bahrain must meet their human rights obligations and uphold political freedom, dialogue, equal access to justice and the rule of law. We also call on opposition groups in Bahrain to be prepared to enter into genuine dialogue.

Middle East

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My purpose in visiting Bahrain was to discuss the situation in the region with Bahrain’s leaders, which I did with his Majesty the King, his Royal Highness the Crown Prince, the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister, so I had extensive discussions—[Interruption.] No, I did not have time for any leisure, despite the aspersions of those on the Opposition Front Bench. I also visited the British maritime component of the military command there, which conducts counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, and saw some of the valuable work that our Navy is doing, based in Bahrain. I also met human rights activists there, because the British Government have given a great deal of support to their activity, recognising that many reforms have taken place in Bahrain in recent years, but also that improvements could be made in its human rights record.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Egypt is often seen as the cultural powerhouse in the Arab world, not least because of the production of films and books in Alexandria. What steps can the Government take to promote those valuable cultural activities and so indirectly shine a light on other closed societies in the middle east?

[Mr Hague]

That is a valuable point. I hope that we can do more in the cultural area as we work with that country in the coming months. I hope that we can do more in promoting not only civil society and the building blocks of democracy, but educational and cultural co-operation. That is part of our programme for elevating relationships throughout the middle east, so we will attend to that in this case as well.

European Union Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

I must make progress, because other Members will want to speak in this debate.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr David]

No, I have made my decision.

I have referred to the significance provision but, as if that were not enough, the Bill also contains the exemption condition. If the significance provision is the smoke, the exemption condition is surely the mirrors. With a striking lack of clarity, clause 4(4) refers to “the codification of practice”—one hon. Member mentioned that earlier. That could lead to a significant extension of competences by European Union institutions, yet the Bill does not provide for a referendum on such matters.

Clause 4(4) then stipulates that changes that apply

“to member States other than the United Kingdom”

should not attract a referendum. That may appear reasonable but, given that this country is an integral part of a single European market, it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty that anything happening in the rest of the European Union would not have an important impact on this country.

In addition to all that is the most amazing exemption. In a Bill that claims to be about giving the electorate the ability to make decisions on important changes affecting this country, the

“accession of a new member State”

is expressly excluded in that regard; accession will not trigger a referendum. Where is the logic in saying that we can have a referendum on whether or not a voting system should be changed for the appointment of judges, but not on whether Turkey joins the European Union? Does the Minister seriously suggest that Turkey joining the European Union would be of no consequence? Does he seriously believe that the membership of Turkey, a country of more than 70 million people, will not affect the United Kingdom’s vote in the Council of Ministers? The Minister is a nice chap, but surely he cannot honestly believe that Turkey’s membership will not have a significant impact on Britain’s role in the European Union?