Palestine and the United Nations

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Our position on Hamas is well known and we have no contact with it. However, as we know, there are difficulties on all sides, and each side has reasons why it has not wanted to proceed to negotiations or why it might rebuff others. Equally, each side knows that if it really wants a settlement, it is in its power to try to overcome those difficulties, seek confidence and assurances from each other and move on. What is different now—this may come through next week—is the urgency of the situation, as conveyed by the whole international community. We need to make progress and that requires all sides to be prepared to take the steps to help that happen, difficult though they may be.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

For many decades the Palestinian people have sought justice, peace and recognition. The vote in the UN is the culmination of a very good campaign that has been supported by a wide range of Palestinian opinion. Does the Minister recognise that not to support it—to vote against it—will put the whole cause back a long way and reduce the chances of any kind of long-term peace and settlement in the whole region? He must be more positive than he has been so far today.

[Alistair Burt]

I am positive about our wanting a situation next week that leads to proper negotiations to see the settlement of the dispute, because of the frustrations that the hon. Gentleman articulates. I cannot be more positive about that than I have been, but there is no resolution yet and I would take issue with the sense that this is the culmination of a campaign. My sense is that the United Nations procedure next week is an important event, but there will be a day after and facts on the ground will not be different the day after. What the UN has to lead to is something that makes the situation on the ground capable of the solution and compromise through negotiations that we need. That will be to the benefit of both the Palestinians and the Israelis alike.

Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I commend the Backbench Business Committee for choosing this topic for debate. I am delighted that we have discussed mainly Kashmir and Sri Lanka. I do not want to detract from what anyone said about those subjects, and I agree with the thrust of the arguments that have been presented. I want to raise a rather different issue.

There are 260 million people worldwide who suffer from massive human rights abuses. Such abuses have continued for centuries, indeed millennia, often unacknowledged and unchallenged. It was only with great difficulty that the issue of caste discrimination, or discrimination based on caste and descent, was raised at the Durban millennium summit, but it massively affects the people of south Asia, particularly India.

I am the chair of the trustees of the Dalit Solidarity Network, and also an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for Dalits. The hierarchical division of a society, ascribing inherent privileges to birth, runs contrary to the United Nations’ universal declaration of human rights, article 1 of which states:

“All human beings are… free and equal in dignity and rights.”

The caste discrimination system divides people on the basis of their background, parents and work, and results in the greatest degree of poverty and discrimination in the case of India. The sadness is that the Indian constitution specifically outlaws caste discrimination, and, moreover, was written by the great Dr Ambedkar, who was himself a Dalit person. He tried to prevent the discrimination, and indeed every law in India prevents it from taking place, but it does still take place. Dalits represent one third of the world’s poor. Caste discrimination affects jobs, education, medical care and international aid, and also results in the violent subjugation of communities. Dalits have little access to public health or sanitation facilities.

According to official Indian statistics, 13 Dalits are murdered every week, five Dalit homes or possessions are burnt every week, three Dalit women are raped every day, and a crime is committed against a Dalit person every 18 minutes. Dalits, who were formerly known as “untouchables”, are forced to do the most disgusting, dirty, dangerous, menial jobs, such as carrying human waste around in wicker baskets on their heads, picking up human faeces from the streets and railway lines, and cleaning out sewers—all the dirty jobs that no one else wants to do. When we walk around the glittering town centres of modern India, beneath them the most vile discrimination is taking place against the very poorest people, and the chances of those people’s children escaping from the system are very low indeed. They are discriminated against because of their background and their place within the identifiable Hindu caste system.

It is right to raise this issue in Parliament, and we must encourage the British Government to ensure that their aid system recognises this discrimination and the need to address it. At present there are protected jobs in the public sector for Dalit peoples, but that does not extend to the private sector, and this arrangement has only served to fossilise the levels of unemployment in the Dalit communities. The Department for International Development has recognised this discrimination and, so far as I am aware, ensures that no aid projects perpetuate it.

I want to draw the House’s attention to six key issues. The first two are that a significant proportion of Dalit women face verbal abuse, physical assault, sexual harassment and assault, domestic violence and rape, and that bonded labour is normal, even among Dalit children. The remaining issues are that there is forced prostitution, manual scavenging, limited political participation and non-implementation of relevant legislation.

Our job is to speak up for the UN declaration of human rights and to draw attention to this disgraceful discrimination against so many people.

Palestinian State (UN Membership)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden]

No, I do not agree. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about the fact that having extremists in government should be an impediment to recognition of the state that that Government represents, he could perhaps look at some members of the Israeli Government, particularly the Foreign Minister.

As I have said, the Quartet has even suggested that some parties should be excluded from peace talks unless they sign up in advance to recognition of Israel, but if recognition is so fundamental in respect of Israel, what is the problem with recognising Palestine as a state, as requested by the Palestinian people, and accepting it as a full member of the same United Nations, with precisely the same borders as those that are recognised for Israel—in other words, the green line?

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not recognise that a big problem is that Israel is occupying large parts of Palestine and, more importantly, that Israel refuses to recognise what its own borders are?

[Richard Burden]

Israel does appear to have the problem of not being able to decide exactly where its own borders are, but the international community is very clear about where they are, as are successive United Nations resolutions: the green line.

What the early-day motion simply says, and what I and the Palestinians are saying, is that the same border should apply on both sides, for a Palestinian state and an Israeli state. When the Minister responds, will he give the UK Government’s view on that? Does he see recognition of a Palestinian state as an obstacle to a negotiated settlement, and if so, what impediments has he identified, and why does he believe that they would hinder such a settlement? Why, if they are impediments to the recognition of Palestine, are they not seen to be impediments to the recognition of Israel that we all accept? If the Minister does not agree that recognition is an obstacle, does he agree that recognising Palestine at the United Nations would not prevent the future negotiations, which we all agree are needed to reach a lasting settlement, from taking place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but we also have to accept the political reality that various acts have taken place in the past few years that have made it difficult to keep negotiations going. Direct negotiations of a serious character are not now taking place. In the absence of such negotiations, I think that there is simply going to be greater bitterness, greater difficulty and the narrowing still further of that window of opportunity for the successful creation of a two-state solution. I think that the emphasis for the United Kingdom and the international community should be on trying to get those negotiations back on track.

My fourth and final point about why this matters to Britain is that, of course, the dispute deeply affects the politics of the broader region, and the fluid dynamic resulting from the Arab spring makes the prize of stability that would come from an Israel-Palestine agreement even more significant.

We want to see a return to negotiations on the basis agreed by the Prime Minister and President Obama. The United Kingdom Government want to see borders based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, security for Israel, and the right for Palestinians to govern themselves in a sovereign and contiguous state. We see Jerusalem as being a shared city which will be the capital of both countries, and we also of course accept that there needs to be an agreed and just solution for Palestinian refugees.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous with his time. Can he cast any light on the Government’s views on the plight of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan in particular, and what would happen to their status in respect of recognition of a Palestinian state?

[Mr Lidington]

The detail of that is something that will have to be worked out in negotiations. I think it is fair to say that the negotiations that took place between President Abbas and former Prime Minister Olmert began to address the issue of refugees, even though no final agreement could be reached before Mr Olmert left office. Our view on the humanitarian treatment of those people, particularly in Lebanon where there are some serious problems concerning the treatment of Palestinian refugees, is that we urge the host Governments to treat those Palestinian refugees fairly, humanely and equally.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I was not present on the Committee, but I saw the sitting on the Parliament channel and was profoundly unimpressed by the evidence given. However, I do not want to dwell on this issue; I want to give other people a chance to speak—I have the advantage of speaking early. I believe that at some point an investigation has to be conducted into why we went into Helmand. Of course it cannot be done now, while we are still there, but I believe that the story revealed will be one of military incompetence and political weakness. We are in the position now—the hopeful time—of talking to the Taliban. I do not know why the Prime Minister does not emphasise this more, but for the first time we are in the position of taking practical steps to build peace that would result in bringing our troops home.

The alternative is that we are currently in a period like that the Americans found themselves in in 1970 and 1971, when they knew that the war was coming to an end in Vietnam. We know that there is no happy ending in Afghanistan, and we should not build up the prospect of an Afghanistan that will somehow be like a Scandinavian democracy or anything of the sort. The ending will be messy.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for missing the first part of his speech. Does he not think that after 10 years in Afghanistan, the fact that the Prime Minister now says that there has to be negotiations, including with the Taliban—something that has been patently obvious for a long time—is an indication of just what a military and political disaster this whole thing has been?

[Paul Flynn]

I am sure that that will be the judgment of history. I am afraid that we in this House will be seen as not having taken the decisions that we should either. We have not challenged our continuing presence in Afghanistan or the continual sacrifice of the lives of our brave soldiers. This has been a bad episode in our history. Tragically, just as we saw one rotten Government in Afghanistan brought down in 2001—they were not as rotten as the one before, who included the Mujahedeen—the current Government might well be replaced in five years by another rotten Government, and we will ask ourselves, “What was the sacrifice for?” We are now in the position that General Kerry, now Senator Kerry, described in ’71 when he asked himself the agonising question, “Who will be the last soldier I will order to die for a politician’s mistake?”

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), as we have similar views on this issue.

As those Committee colleagues who are here will know, I voted against this report. It will come as no surprise to the majority of Members present that I come to this afternoon’s debate as a sceptic about our mission generally. Having cautioned against our deployment in Afghanistan and voted against the Government’s continued policy—in the one opportunity that we had to debate and vote on the issue, last year—I remain deeply worried about our progress generally. To reflect briefly on the past, our intervention defied all the lessons of history. We fundamentally underestimated the task and we under-resourced it accordingly. We have been playing catch-up every since. Having served as a platoon commander in South Armagh during the 1980s, I have no doubt that the mission suffered in particular from low troop density levels. We have suffered as a result.

My criticism is not levelled at the troops. We all know that they have done everything that could have been asked of them. They and we can be proud of what they have achieved. Rather, my criticism is levelled at the US and UK Governments, who have failed because they have not recognised two fundamental distinctions, which even at this late stage could salvage something positive from this otherwise sorry affair. First, we have failed to distinguish between the key objective of keeping al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and the four main goals on which that objective is said to depend. Those goals include the achievement of a stable and secure Afghanistan. In fact, the key objective and the attainment of those goals have become confused to the extent that the goals have become ends in themselves. This has given rise to mission creep and loss of focus. The talk of nation building, women’s rights and human rights are but three examples. In effect, we have become missionaries instead of focusing on the mission.

In my view, this confusion permeates the report. For example, the report assesses progress against each of the so-called goals instead of focusing on the key objective. We go into great detail in the report about what we are doing on women’s rights and human rights, for example. The goals are a means to an end, however, not the end in itself. Our main mission in Afghanistan is not to build a better country but to defeat al-Qaeda, and our losing sight of that fact has cost us dearly. That is why I voted against the report, having tried unsuccessfully to make a series of amendments. We are not in Afghanistan to build a better country; we are there to defeat al-Qaeda.

This confusion of purpose has gone to the top of Government. When the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister, he claimed that our troops were in Afghanistan to protect the citizens of London from terrorism, yet in almost the same sentence he threatened President Karzai with troop withdrawal if he did not end the corruption in his Government. That clearly illustrated the confusion, and I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman in Prime Minister’s questions back in 2008 that those two statements did not fit well together.

Last year, the coalition Government gave a deadline of 2015 for troop withdrawal. Again, that is inconsistent. If our commitment is conditions-based—in other words, if it is to defeat al-Qaeda—one cannot logically place a deadline on it. Yet the Government have made it clear that all combat troops will be withdrawn by the due date, regardless of the situation on the ground. It is therefore little wonder that Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have admitted that their communications strategy needs to be reviewed, as it appears that Joe Public has still not got the message. Someone should perhaps ask why, after 10 years, the message is somewhat confused. Could it be that the mission itself is incoherent? If that is the case, there is little point in shooting the messenger.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any evidence whatever that the streets of London have been made safer by our presence in Afghanistan? Or does he believe that our involvement has caused radicalisation and perhaps made London a more dangerous place, and that we need to look to our foreign policy if we want to make ourselves secure?

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. I certainly think that our recent aggressive interventions have radicalised parts of the Muslim world against us—a fact that I think was confirmed by a former head of MI5 in giving evidence. I certainly do not think that our involvement has helped our situation, and I see no concrete evidence that the situation has improved in regard to the threat on the streets of London. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that the Minister will correct me.

The bottom line is that there is confusion of purpose, and the first distinction that we are failing to make is that between achieving the objective and the four main goals.

The second distinction that the Government are failing to explore rigorously is that between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The relationship is complex and not well understood. There is no shortage of evidence—some was submitted to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee—to suggest that the Taliban would not necessarily allow al-Qaeda back into the country if the Taliban were to regain control of certain regions. They know that, ultimately, al-Qaeda led to their downfall. Indeed, US intelligence sources suggest that fewer than 100 al-Qaeda fighters and certainly no al-Qaeda bases are left in the country. To all intents and purposes, we have achieved our mission some time ago—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made well. We all know that the Taliban are not a homogeneous group, but there are fundamental differences between the Taliban and al-Qaeda—yet the threats from al-Qaeda and the Taliban have become conflated and almost synonymous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

I am glad to hear it, but frankly—I do not want to quote Bismarck and the Balkans and Pomeranian grenadiers—I weep every Wednesday when the poor Prime Minister has to come to the Dispatch Box and yet again read out the name, or perhaps names, of a dead British soldier, and for what? I cannot find an answer to that question.

To give the Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), and his colleagues their due, they admit that, because one of their report’s key conclusions, on page 83, is that

“at a strategic level, we seriously question whether the efforts expended…have a direct connection to the UK’s core objective, namely the national security of the UK”.

That is absolutely right; the Select Committee Chairman has summed it up there—it is written down. It is a Foreign Affairs Committee conclusion, and it should be at the forefront of all of our discussions on Afghanistan. There is no longer any connection between UK national security and our men going out on patrol and being shot dead by the Taliban.

The Select Committee’s excellent and thorough report contains an account of a fine passage of questioning, which resulted in a most extraordinary confession by the Foreign Secretary. Committee members were trying to find out who is actually taking decisions on Afghanistan, and specifically in this instance the announcement to withdraw—or retreat—by 2015. Please can we avoid the absurd new euphemism of “draw-down”? It is a retreat and a withdrawal; that is what it is, so let us revert to plain English. The Foreign Secretary said that that decision was taken collectively in the National Security Council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) asked whether the Defence Secretary had been consulted, and the Foreign Secretary replied:

“I am sure the Defence Secretary was consulted, but I cannot tell you when everybody was consulted. You would have to ask the Prime Minister.”

The Committee Chairman asked whether the Foreign Secretary could confirm

“that the decision wasn’t actually made in the Council.”

The Foreign Secretary said:

“It wasn’t a formal item in the National Security Council.”

This gives a fascinating insight into the mechanism of government. Where was the decision taken—by whom and how? We know it was no longer taken on a sofa, but we are none the wiser—[Interruption.] I have not been invited to No. 10 so I cannot check whether the sofa has gone. We do not know who took the decision and on what terms.

I would argue that we should be getting out a lot faster. Canada is out, the Netherlands is out, and Belgium is pulling out half of its men. The presence of international security assistance force-NATO allies in Afghanistan is now getting thinner and thinner, and, yes, it will be a withdrawal. No general wants to be the one who folds up the flag, climbs the ladder to the top of the embassy building and climbs in a helicopter and leaves, but stopping a war is, perhaps, as great a military art as starting one.

It would be fascinating to look at the official record of the Russian Duma for the 1980s, when the Russians were convinced that they were bringing a civilising mission to Afghanistan, to see whether debates such as this one were taking place. Then, of course, they faced the external foe of the Mujaheddin paid for by President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. There has been little reference to the fact that the Mujaheddin of the 1980s was a product of western foreign policy. We have heard in the past couple of days that Mr Reagan won the cold war, and part of that winning presumably included the driving of the Soviet Union and its troops out of Afghanistan. If that was the case, every Russian would wish that Mr Reagan had won it a lot earlier; they perhaps believe that the red army should never have gone into Afghanistan. However, the money sent by the west to create the Mujaheddin sowed dragons’ teeth that turned into dragons on 9/11 and 7/7, and it would be good if the people examining the history of that era had the honesty to say so.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that after Soviet forces went into Afghanistan there was a considerable number of unreported demonstrations by the families of soldiers who had died there, and that there is a huge memorial movement within Russia today on behalf of those who are still not recognised for the sacrifices they made?

[Mr MacShane]

Yes, indeed. That conflict contributed to the undermining of the Soviet Union, but in the very worst sense, in that it required the senseless sacrifice of a lot of young Russian men finally to persuade Mr Gorbachev and his new Soviet leaders that the action in Afghanistan had to come to an end. In some ways, I wish that we had been able to defeat communism in Vietnam, because the period after the retreat of the United States was a horribly cruel one in Vietnam—we saw what happened with the boat people, the re-education camps and the killings and tortures. But there was no question of our remaining longer in the vain hope that we could have created a more stable, orderly or democratic regime.

The Select Committee’s report stated:

“We welcome the Government’s attempt to engage more pro-actively”—

I never know what that adverb means—

“with parliamentarians on Afghanistan.”

That might interest the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I understand that a new poem is doing the rounds there. It goes as follows, “From Kandahar to Kabul, the whispers grow and grow, stand by Pashtuns and Tajiks, here comes Mr Speaker Bercow.” We will see whether our Speaker is going to be the magic solution and whether he will be sent down there to spread lightness and parliamentary tolerance among the peoples of Afghanistan. I do not think that anybody can move an immediate amendment and call a Division on that subject—[Interruption.] Perhaps one of his deputies would be more appropriate.

When I talk about “the west” I mean the broad family of democracies—north America, Europe, and our friends in Canada, Australia, Japan and South Korea. As long as the west is mired in Afghanistan, we will not be able to promote our core interest now, which is to recover economic strength and to recover confidence in the need to have an adequate security profile against the rise of authoritarian powers, which are arming fast, which might, at some stage, threaten our interests and which, because we are lost in the wildernesses of west Asia, we are unable to see coming over the horizon.

In the few years after America withdrew from Vietnam things were unclear, but for the 20 years after 1980 America led the world in many ways. It did so economically, in inventing new forms of technology and in expanding many human freedoms to do with personal liberty and respect for multicultural and multi-ethnic cohabitation. Right now, America is bogged down in this wretched war. The UK is a minor ally of America and the sooner we are out of this war, the better. I sincerely say to those on the Treasury Bench that if they look at history, they will find that it has very often been the Conservative party that has had a greater sense of geopolitical reality than some of the opposing parties and has known when enough was enough. I would like us out before 2015.

Finally, the title of the report we are debating is “The UK’s foreign policy approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan”. It is very detailed on Afghanistan, and I congratulate the Committee on that, but it does not in any way address foreign policy towards Pakistan. Pakistan hardly gets a mention and is seen only in relation to Afghanistan. That might be the way in which the title of the report was chosen—I am not criticising the members of the Committee—but we need a policy on Pakistan and part of that must involve telling the truth to our great friends in India. As long as they have 500,000 people in an oppressive occupation of part of the region—I am choosing my words carefully—called Kashmir, there will be no possibility that the people or the Government and military of Pakistan, however constituted, will not see that as a direct threat to their identity and national interest. If 500,000 armed soldiers are camped on a country’s western border, that is where that country will have to put its troops.

Until we ask India to take a new approach to Kashmir and to take it off one of the world’s fault lines, we will not be in any position to ask Pakistan to take a new and more helpful approach on Afghanistan or on other issues. The western world, if I might use that term—the Euro-Atlantic world, let us say—has spent too long in majority Muslim countries creating giant armies. Whatever the motives for sending those armies originally, they are making matters worse. It is time to get out. I want to spare the Prime Minister, with his many problems, from ever again having to stand at that Dispatch Box to lament the loss of a British soldier’s life in a conflict of which we should no longer be part.

Africa and the Middle East

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to Hamas, which remains a proscribed organisation. I take this opportunity to call again for the release of Gilad Shalit, which, if it were to happen, would certainly advance the interests of peace in the region. We are not calling on Israel to negotiate with Hamas, but we look to the new Palestinian Authority, which is still being constructed after the new agreement between Fatah and Hamas, to negotiate for a two-state solution, to believe in a peaceful negotiated settlement and to recognise the previous agreements entered into by the Palestine Liberation Organisation. If the Palestinian Authority does that, Israel should be prepared to negotiate with them.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary rightly talked about the need for participation by all sides to bring about a resolution of the conflict between Palestine and Israel. In that context, does he think it important to meet representatives of Palestinian opinion who live within the post-1948 borders of Israel, including Raed Salah? Why has Raed Salah been banned from this country, having been here for four days already and being due to speak at a meeting this evening in the House of Commons to help the process of dialogue between Palestinians and others to bring about a peaceful solution?

Conflict Prevention

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All the best evidence is that grass-roots initiatives that are long term, engage the village—and the tribes in a tribal community—and are led by local people rather than external agencies, with the support of the international community, are far more likely to be successful.

I want to put the matter in another context. There are various authoritative indicators of conflict around the world, including the International Crisis Group and the “Global Peace Index”, and they tell us something which, if we paused for a second, we would realise for ourselves: after a very welcome decline in the number of conflicts in the past few years there has been a recent increase in violence in the world. The point that I made at the beginning of my speech when I quoted from the article on the World Bank is that inter-state conflict is now not nearly as frequent as it was. The bigger problem is internal conflict, which is likely to increase because many places are afflicted by not just political and economic crises but environmental ones such as water shortages, and other effects of climate change.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have taken an interest in many countries where there has been internal conflict and civil war, and as long as there is increased pressure on food, water and housing supplies—the normal needs of a community for economic prosperity—it is more likely that tribal and racial tensions will grow. We therefore urgently need to see those environmental problems as a priority if we are to prevent conflict in many of the poorest parts of the world, because they are often the most likely to be afflicted.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. There are two examples of environmental or food-based conflict, one of which is Darfur. Although the situation there is complicated, many people have arrived in the area as environmental refugees as a result of desertification. In Kenya, and to some extent in Tanzania, many people are being pushed off their land because very wealthy western countries and corporations buy land for their own food production, thus impoverishing the poorest people in those countries who then end up in slums around Nairobi and the other major cities. That is a huge source of misery, poverty and conflict.

[Simon Hughes]

It is, and two other things strike me. For example, west Africa is very rich in natural resources, but the benefit of those resources has historically not gone to the local communities for community development because the resources, particularly the oil, have been taken out by international corporations and there has been abuse, with flaring and so on. In other parts of the world, there is enforced privatisation of natural resources—water, for example—as part of a World Bank or International Monetary Fund programme that has actually reduced the capacity of the community to develop in its own way.

I want to make just two other general points and then end with some questions. I do not want to set out the Government’s stall because the Minister is quite capable of doing that, and there is a good story to tell, but I want to push them to go further. The UK has been working very hard to bring its operations together across Departments, and we have the capacity to be one of the world leaders in conflict prevention. I encourage the Government, through the Minister, to go that extra mile and pick up some of my ideas. It has been put to me that we have 21st-century conflicts but 20th-century institutions. The best example of a case that I have been closely involved with in recent years is that of the Sri Lankan civil war, as it came to its end. In theory, the United Nations had the power to intervene, under the responsibility to protect, but it was completely paralysed and did absolutely nothing. The conflict went all the way, with all the implications that we now know. I sense that internationally, through the UN, and nationally we sometimes intervene too late, because we do not have the international levers that we can pull early.

Since the beginning of the current situation in Libya the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has been raising the point that it is comparatively easy to intervene militarily. It is not so difficult to scramble together a military intervention, and it should be as easy to scramble together a conflict prevention mechanism, but it is not. We need to think about how we get the balance of decision making and priorities right, in our Government and in others. The people on the ground, especially in countries where there is repeated, periodic or cyclical conflict, know that it is jobs, justice and domestic security that are likely to give them the most secure future. An illustration that helps us easily to picture these things is that it is often better to respond to an illness by dealing with the early signs of infection than to wait for the epidemic. In the past, we have often responded to the epidemic rather than taking preventive action.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

That is what comes from reading it and hearing it. I was trying to work out what 14P stands for. I have read all the briefing documents and could not understand it. I thank my right hon. Friend for that—I am very grateful.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

This is an education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I will be brief to allow the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench spokesman sufficient time to respond to this debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on securing it. It is crucial, and I am sorry that more Members are not here to take part in it. I recognise that we have an annual debate in this Chamber on human rights, when the Foreign Office usually responds to the report on human rights from the Foreign Affairs Committee. That is an important debate, and this one is equally important. Perhaps we should think in terms of an annual three-hour debate on this subject. I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others, and the suggestion of a seminar arranged through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on conflict prevention and how we go about it.

The debate coincides with refugee week. Many of us have been at events in our constituencies and communities commemorating or celebrating refugee week. Indeed, I was at an enormous event in Islington town hall yesterday with hundreds of people from all sorts of communities who have made their home in this country and made an enormous contribution to our society. We should also reflect on the tens of thousands—nay, millions—of refugees throughout the world whose lives have been wasted away in refugee camps and whose brilliance and opportunity are denied to them and to the rest of us by a lifetime in such camps. Conflicts may end with a deal or treaty, but the consequences continue for a long time. People have been in Palestinian refugee camps for 60 years, and in other camps for a very long time. It is a massive waste of human resources.

I want to make three essential points about the major causes of conflict. One is poverty. Poverty, inequality and injustice are fundamental to many of the present conflicts. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, many regimes in north Africa and the middle east were seen as stable, efficient and effective, but they were often presiding over a police state with massive youth poverty and unemployment. The resentment eventually boiled up to the Arab spring, which has not yet been played out. It could go in all sorts of directions, and some will not be nice or pretty. That is the effect of the pressure cooker of denying millions of young people the opportunity to develop themselves and their lives.

The second cause of conflict is natural resources. The United States made itself wealthy from exploitation of its natural resources, in exactly the same way as in the 18th and 19th centuries European powers, particularly Britain, France and Germany, made themselves powerful from exploitation of their natural resources. Those natural resources were quickly exploited, and worked out, and thus came empire to obtain resources from elsewhere. In many ways, that is what led to the first world war. There was competition between France and Britain with Germany and other powers.

The issue of resources has not gone away. The massive interest in Africa—it is not always a benign interest—by every industrial power at the moment is largely about its enormous untapped natural resources. Indeed, the interest in Afghanistan is far from benign, with China, Russia, the United States and Europe all eyeing up its massive mineral resources.

The third cause of conflict that has a massive effect on people’s lives is the lack of effective democratic government and institutions in so many societies, where there is no opportunity for poorer people to obtain justice and self-expression, and no independent and effective legal system that can redress high levels of human rights abuse. Support for the building of governmental, institutional and educational capacity is important.

As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark pointed out, it is tempting to talk about every conflict in the world. I shall not do that; I will just mention a couple. The first conflict is that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Congo gained its independence in 1961, having been the most abused colonial territory ever in history, I think. I am talking about the way in which Leopold and later the Belgian Government administered the Congo, with slavery, decapitation, humiliation, torture—just about everything appalling possible. “King Leopold’s Ghost” is a book that everyone should read.

As I said, the Congo gained its independence in 1961. Its institutions were always weak. The skilled classes, the Belgians, left immediately. The power of the Government to administer the country was very limited. It quickly became a conflict between mineral companies and the military as to who would control the Congo. That still goes on. The institutions are still very weak. Militia, working on behalf of or in concert with mining interests, are killing people. Tens of thousands of raped and abused women survive in refugee camps in the east of the country. Kinshasa is beset by homeless victims of the war, mainly young boys and girls, who are trying to survive. It is a disastrous history. Although it is potentially very wealthy, we all have a responsibility for what has happened in the Congo and we all have an interest in ensuring that there is justice and peace in the future in the Congo; otherwise, the misery and waste of resources will go on and the lives of so many people will be blighted.

The second conflict—a long way away—is that involving central America and Guatemala. It came out of injustice, poverty and the civil wars of the 1980s, often inspired by outside interests, particularly oligarchs who wanted to hang on to power, and the United States, which wanted to hang on to the military interests in that country. The most abused people were the indigenous non Spanish-speaking people. That resulted in the civil wars. There was a peace resolution move in the 1990s. Welcome as it was, it did not result necessarily in peace. It resulted in an end to the conflict in a sense between actors on behalf of the state or of other forces. It has now morphed into systematic criminal violence and abuse of people’s rights, particularly abuse of indigenous people’s rights, which means that there are many people living in desperate poverty who are, in effect, refugees from their own homes in a conflict zone. Again, the lack of justice, democracy and sufficient capacity has left the country in that situation.

What do we do about this? We must recognise that our economic policies—the economic policies of grabbing resources and the economic policies of western countries buying up large amounts of land, particularly in east Africa, to grow food for themselves while denying food to the local people—will be a cause of future conflict.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One of the concerns that certainly I and perhaps many other hon. Members have relates to the insatiable demand of China for the world’s resources. Today’s press underlines again the fact that China’s demand is outstripping supply. Does the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) agree that China’s emergence as a world power causes great concern for Africa in particular, but also for other parts of the world?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I absolutely agree. In a sense, the way in which Africa is suffering from Chinese attention at the moment is little different from what the European powers were doing in the 19th and 20th centuries—I am thinking of the grab of resources. China’s economy is unsustainable in the sense that it is growing far too fast and taking far too many resources from elsewhere in the world. That is fuelling an environmental disaster as well as a supply disaster in relation to so many other things. There has to be a coming together of world economic powers to control these things.

This debate is important. The proposals made by Saferworld on conflict resolution and capacity building and the work that it has done are very welcome. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government’s policy on this is developing and particularly whether he is prepared to organise a seminar so that we can start to build the idea that we remove ourselves from armed conflict and instead bring about capacity building.

I will finish on this point. This morning, the Ministry of Defence is saying that it can no longer afford the conflict in Libya. We cannot afford conflicts. We cannot afford the level of arms expenditure that we are spending. What we can afford in this world is justice and peace. That means sharing. It means a slightly different approach to the world’s issues from the one that we are adopting at present.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend sums up the situation very well. All those are indeed increasing pressures on the regime. The high-level defectors included a number of generals and the head of the state-owned National Oil Corporation, and we have reason to believe that many others would defect if they could do so safely, or if their families would not be under threat if they did so. Certainly the morale of the regime is much lower than it was some weeks or months ago, and, as I saw myself, the morale and organisation of the national transitional council have improved considerably.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm once and for all that the purpose of Britain’s military, economic and political involvement in Libya is regime change? Will he also confirm that, for that reason, it has been impossible for any traction to be applied by the European Union, NATO or Britain to bring about an urgently needed political solution and a ceasefire to prevent any more lives from being lost, before the war gets worse?

[Mr Hague]

Our military role is defined by United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, and it is our implementation of that resolution that has saved thousands of lives. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an opponent of the resolution, but if we had not had it, far, far more people would have died than have done thus far in the situation in Libya. It is, additionally, true that we believe Colonel Gaddafi should go, but that is the belief of the vast majority of nations in the world—even many around Africa now, and even Russia at the G8 summit—and, judging from what I saw in Benghazi, it is the belief of a vast number of Libyans as well.

Middle East and North Africa

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My answer to my hon. Friend is in line with my answer to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). The area on the other side of the boundary fence is under the control of the Syrian Government, and people are able to draw their own conclusions from that.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Can the Foreign Secretary credibly continue to say that Britain is not militarily involved in a war for regime change in Libya? While there are enormous concerns about violations of human rights by the Gaddafi regime and its forces, there are also reports of human rights violations by the forces opposing Gaddafi. Did the Foreign Secretary raise those with the transitional council during his visit? Is he at all concerned about the role that Saudi Arabia is playing across the region, and about its own human rights abuses? He did not mention Saudi Arabia once in his statement.

[Mr Hague]

Let me answer some of those questions. We did raise with the members of the national transitional council the need to uphold the very highest standards in their own behaviour and treatment of prisoners, for instance. The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred said that the council was upholding the Geneva conventions, unlike the Gaddafi regime.

Can we still credibly argue—to put the hon. Gentleman’s question another way—that military action is within the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolutions? Yes, we can. If we were not taking the action we are taking, there is no doubt that the regime forces would move back into the harassment, threatening and killing of the civilian population of Libya.

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Of course it is open to Colonel Gaddafi to comply with resolution 1973, to end violence against civilians and to have a genuine ceasefire. President Obama and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear at the beginning what he would need to do in order to do that; he would need to disengage from battles in places such as Misrata, to cease using his forces against civilians who try to protest in Tripoli, and so on. So it is open to him to do this. It would certainly not bring to an end the enforcement of a no-fly zone, the arms embargo and so many parts of the UN resolution, but in that situation the position—the need to protect civilians from attack—would be different. However, Colonel Gaddafi does not do this, presumably because if he did he would no longer be able to maintain himself in power, as he relies entirely on force to keep himself in power. That is why the question of his being there and remaining in power is, in practical terms, intimately bound up with resolving the conflict.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Any innocent person listening to the Foreign Secretary’s speech would assume that the whole policy that has been conducted by NATO, with the support of the UK, is one of regime change, and that they are just hiding under this fig leaf of its not being regime change. When does this become regime change in fact? Would he do the same in Bahrain, Syria or any other country? Clearly, that is the direction of travel at the moment.

[Mr Hague]

Those countries are all in different situations. I wish to discuss those different countries later, but Libya’s is the one case where we are dealing with a clear call from the Arab League and a United Nations Security Council resolution, and that makes it very different from all the other situations that we are dealing with. The hon. Gentleman should support the fact that Britain is acting on that basis, with that international authority. The purposes of our military action are exactly as set out in the resolution but, for the reasons that I have just been explaining, it is hard to see us achieving those objectives, or any peaceful solution being arrived at among the people of Libya, while Colonel Gaddafi remains in power. We have to recognise that, and it is why most of the world, including people across north Africa and in the Arab world, want him to go.

This House and our country should be confident that time is not on the side of Gaddafi; it is on our side, provided that we continue to intensify the diplomatic, economic and military pressure on his regime. The tempo of military operations, which some of my hon. Friends have been asking about, has increased significantly in recent weeks, and we are now targeting not just deployed military assets, but the fixed military command and control facilities which the regime uses to threaten the civilian population. That action is within the constraints of the Security Council resolutions, and we are increasing the regime’s diplomatic and economic isolation at the same time.

At the contact group meeting in Rome on 5 May, which I attended, all members agreed to reject diplomatic emissaries from Tripoli unless the regime shows serious willingness to implement a real ceasefire. We also agreed to explore action to prevent the regime from exporting crude oil and importing refined products for non-humanitarian use, and to clamp down on states and entities supplying arms and mercenaries to the regime. We are also working with our partners to stop satellite or state support for the broadcasting of Libyan state television, and the whole House will welcome the Arab League’s decision yesterday to request a ban on Libyan state-owned TV from broadcasting on the Arabsat satellites. We also welcome the mediation role of the UN special envoy, as I have said.

In parallel with that pressure, we are increasing our support for the Libyan national transitional council, which we regard at this moment as the legitimate representative of the people of Libya. In Rome, the contact group agreed terms of reference for a temporary financial mechanism that will aid the provision of basic services in eastern Libya, as well as efforts to stabilise its economy. The first meeting of the steering board for the mechanism is due to take place today in Doha, and up to $180 million has already been pledged by the Gulf states.

The British Government were also one of the first to provide humanitarian support to Libya, including medical supplies for 30,000 people and basic necessities for more than 100,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will want to expand on this subject when he winds up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I was saying. I fully agree that the de-Ba’athification programme and the disbanding of the Iraqi army contributed substantially to many of Iraq’s problems. I am turning that point around and saying that I do not want the established networks of the old corrupt parties or the well-organised networks of the Islamist groups, in particular the Muslim Brotherhood, to have a free field.

What I am talking about is not taking such people out of the structure but ensuring that emerging democratic forces, which by definition have been underground but are not organised in a Leninist fashion, can develop the capacity to compete on an equal playing field. They will then be able to play a proper role and not be outgunned—literally, sometimes, but certainly in finance and capacity —by other parties, which would have a detrimental effect. I am talking about building alternative capacity rather than moving along the route that the hon. Gentleman describes. That is the best prospect for the future of democracy in the countries in question.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Tunisia, there is serious concern about the resurrection of many of the security forces that existed under the Ben Ali regime, which are treating protests and demonstrations with great brutality and great force? They are breaking them up and seem to be trying to suppress the very voices of dissent that brought about the huge changes in February in the first place.

[Mr Spellar]

We certainly ought to be concerned about that; my hon. Friend highlights another significant concern. Because of the vast array of countries across a wide and diverse region, our debates focus on certain countries. Inevitably, today’s debate will be focused primarily on Afghanistan and Libya, along with maybe one or two other countries. I am concerned that some of the countries that have been making some progress might start to slip off the radar, and it is important that we do not allow that to happen.

We must not allow our level of interest in the countries that are making progress to fall. Development there must be sustained, because there will not just be a steady path towards a democratic society. There will be pitfalls along the way. To make a comparison with eastern Europe again, the involvement of the secret police networks can be a considerable factor in the development of those countries, as I described earlier. We ought to be alert to that problem, but we should also take the positive way and build the capacity of democratic parties so that they can take the best advantage of democratic elections when they come.

I hope that Members of all parties will consider the role that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other such bodies can play in building capacity for democratic parties. The Foreign Secretary has announced substantial cuts in the Foreign Office programme—the sum will go down from something like £139 million to £100 million. We did not get details, but we need to know whether the cuts will have an impact on those organisations and their programmes.

In the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, he talked about increasing our presence in a number of missions across the world. Interestingly enough, only one of those, Pakistan, is in the area that we are discussing today. There was, understandably, mention of a reduction in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in none of the other countries concerned did it seem there would be an increase in our local involvement despite the considerable interest that we need to be taking in them. On the face of it, that seems a slightly strange decision, and it would be helpful to have some explanation.

We have to recognise that not all of the liberation of eastern Europe went smoothly. Ethnic tensions rose to the surface, and in one case, Czechoslovakia, were resolved by a—fortunately peaceful—division of the state. Catastrophically, however, in Yugoslavia they led to vicious civil wars, appalling violence and the necessity for NATO intervention. Some states in north Africa and the middle east are fairly homogenous, but others are riven by ethnic differences and, in some cases, considerable and long-standing ethnic feuds. The international community must use all its endeavours to ensure that the outcome of the Arab spring is more like Poland than Yugoslavia. In that context, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about Tunisia and hope, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), that we will not focus only on countries where there is conflict. We must also provide assistance to those that are making a more orderly transition.

I shall move on briefly to the middle east and the Israel-Palestine issue. I am sure that everyone in the House and internationally is frustrated by the failure to get engagement in substantive talks leading to the creation of a new Palestinian state, living peacefully side by side with Israel. We echo the Foreign Secretary’s statement yesterday, which he repeated today, when he expressed Britain’s concern about the violence on the border and the loss of life, and called on all parties to exercise restraint. We should be persuaders for peace, to ensure that Palestinian aspirations can be realised alongside Israel’s equally legitimate desire for a peaceful existence within secure and recognised borders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I agree that that is very important. I asked the Prime Minister a month or so ago whether he was concerned that when the President of the Palestinian Authority called for elections, Hamas immediately rejected that—Hamas having been a democratically elected organisation that renounced democracy once its mandate had expired. I agree, however, that the notion of bringing democracy back to Hamas would be a welcome change.

Unfortunately, I think there is a risk that in the British Foreign Office the view is that this is a matter of shades of grey as opposed to black and white. For Israel it is not a matter of shades of grey. Israel has been struggling to secure itself and just to exist. When it comes to murdering schoolchildren, which Hamas went in for, that cannot be regarded as shades of grey.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that things such as the killing of 13 people at Qalandiya crossing yesterday by Israeli forces, the continued expansion of settlements and the taking over of Silwan in East Jerusalem need to change in Israel if there is to be any hope of some longer-term peace agreement?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I agree about the settlements, and I have said so in a speech in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman heard me say that in the last speech I made about Israel. As for what happened at the crossing, I think the Government are right to call for restraint on all sides. There seems to me to be something very convenient about Israel moving in to the headlines as soon as there were clashes on the border of Syria and Lebanon. I am profoundly suspicious about what was behind those clashes.

At a time when the Arab spring is showing that the Arab people are desperate for freedoms, now is not the time for the United Kingdom or the international community to abandon the Quartet’s principles. They must demand that Hamas should renounce violence, recognise the state of Israel and honour the previous agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s debate and the commitment from the Foreign Secretary that there will be regular reports to the House on the situation in Afghanistan and Libya.

The uprisings across the whole Arab world are momentous in historical terms and in many ways are a continuation of the uprisings of the 1950s, which were eventually mired in corruption and autocracy in almost every country. What we see now on the streets of so many Arab countries is a thirst for accountable government, economic sustainability and, above all, political freedoms. These developments are to be wholly welcomed, but they are not without their problems. The forces of the state that have sustained dictators in power for a very long time are hitting back in a real and quick way.

I pointed out in an intervention what was happening in Tunisia, where protesters are being fairly brutally prevented from making their views known. In the same way, progress in Egypt is up and down. Elements of the old regime constantly pop up and try to prevent industrial action by legitimate trade unions and to control society, just as the Mubarak regime did for a very long time. There should be understanding and solidarity.

While visiting Tunisia earlier this year, I recall talking to a group of young people in the central square in Tunis. It was when the protests were beginning in Libya, and I asked them whether they wanted any outside help. They said no, they did not. Historically, they had had quite enough of French colonialism, and they felt that people in the neighbouring countries had had quite enough of Italian and British colonialism. They wanted to do it themselves.

Proposing the intervention in Libya and support for the UN resolution, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that that was humanitarian; that it would create a no-fly zone; that it was designed to protect lives; and that it would be within the terms of international law. Listen to his speech today, follow the mood music, follow the statements made by NATO and all the others, and it is clear that the whole intervention is about regime change and occupation. The rush to provide facilities and support for the transitional council, which has renamed itself after its members were called “rebels” for a long time, suggests to me that we are in fact involved in a civil war.

I am not here, any more than my Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is, to defend the human rights abuses of the Gaddafi regime. I just feel that we have involved ourselves in a civil war, that there are ulterior motives relating to oil and future markets, and that a macabre demonstration is taking place to show the power of various defence systems and strike aircraft.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend had the wisdom to vote against this ill-fated intervention. Does he agree that it is concerning that we are sending so-called advisers to the region? In other interventions of this kind, where advisers go, troops cannot be far behind.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The parallel is Vietnam 1963, when several thousand CIA advisers descended on that country. That eventually turned out to be 500,000 US troops, 100,000 of whom died there. A million Vietnamese also died in that conflict. We should be slightly more careful, more sanguine and less gung-ho about the process.

Turkey has tried to bring about a peace process, as has the African Union, but what hope is there for a peace process and a diplomatic settlement if the language coming from NATO and others is, “We are going to win this conflict”? That is the subtext.

[Paul Flynn]

It is an extremely rare event when I disagree with my hon. Friend on this subject, but does he understand the predicament of many of us in the House when that vote was taken on whether we should intervene? If we did not intervene, we were leaving the people of Benghazi defenceless against the bloodthirsty threats of Gaddafi.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have no doubt that the forces of the Gaddafi regime were being very brutal to people in Benghazi, just as the forces in Tunisia and Egypt were brutal to people in those countries. If the west was serious about bringing about a diplomatic solution in Libya, the Secretary-General of the UN and Heads of State would have gone there and there would have been a real effort, but the subtext the whole time, by Sarkozy particularly, was that they wanted military intervention and a no-fly zone. I voted against it because I do not believe that the intervention was as high-minded as my hon. Friend suggests it may have been, and many Members who voted for the motion on that day are having some doubts about what went on on that occasion.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will not give way any more as I have had my allotted injury time, if the House understands what I mean.

I want to mention two other topics. I believe that there are double standards at work. The west has intervened in Libya, where there are large amounts of oil and where, under Tony Blair, a deal was done with the Government and arms were sold. They were being sold right up to the point when NATO was preparing to go in there. Interestingly, the arms sales there and in every other country in the region are, yes, planes, missiles and radar systems, but in every case they include anti-personnel equipment for crowd control, to deal with civil disorder and control populations.

That is what is now happening in Bahrain, with the support of Saudi Arabia. Other Members have drawn attention to what is going on there. I was with the Bahraini opposition groups in London last week. I first met Bahraini opposition groups at a UN human rights conference in Copenhagen in 1986, when they were complaining about British support for the regime, the suspension of the constitution and the lack of democracy in Bahrain. That has not stopped this country doing a lot of business with Bahrain. It has not stopped arms exports and oil imports from Bahrain. I would like condemnation of the violence of the Bahrain and the Saudi regimes equal to the condemnation of the Libyan regime and, rightly, of the Syrian regime for what it is doing.

My last point concerns Palestine. Yesterday, on the anniversary of Nakba, the day on which the Palestinian people were driven out of what is now the state of Israel to become that vast diaspora, was the occasion for demonstrations outside the Kalandia crossing. Thirteen Palestinians were shot dead. Last year or the year before, Operation Cast Lead over Gaza brought about the deaths of nearly 1,500 people in that bombardment. Routine operations by Israeli forces over Gaza result in deaths. Rocket attacks and suicide attacks also result in deaths.

However, there seems almost to be an approval of Israel and its perceptions of its own security needs to the exclusion of all understanding of just how brutal the regime has been towards Palestinians. If someone tries to travel through the west bank and sees the settlements, the settler-only roads, the checkpoints and the abuse that Palestinians receive every day from Israeli border guards, they will understand why people feel so angry. They will see the walls being built, the wells being taken away and the opportunity for economic life being removed. The people in Gaza are living in an open prison and young people are growing up living their lives vicariously through TV and computer screens because they cannot work and they cannot travel—they cannot do anything. They get very angry. There must be a recognition of the rights and needs of Palestinian people.

Likewise, the huge Palestinian diaspora, largely living in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, but also all over the world, feels very angry. On a visit to Lebanon earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who led the delegation, and I met an old man living in Shatila refugee camp—hon. Members will remember the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982. A man in his mid-80s could remember with absolute precision every tree, house and well of his Palestinian village, which he was driven out of when the state of Israel was established. Is he determined to go back? Yes. Does he think he has a right to go back? Absolutely. Do the people in that camp think they have a right to return? They absolutely do. This anger among Palestinian people is a cause that will go on for a very long time.

The result of 1948 might have been seen as a reasonable diplomatic solution to the massive and awful experience that Jewish people experienced before and during the second world war, but the residue of the ill-treatment of the Palestinian people lives on. The state of Palestine needs to be supported and the Palestinian people need to be recognised. If we do not do so, the cause will go on for a very long time. We cannot just sell arms to Israel and pretend that what is happening to the Palestinians is nothing to do with us.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I want to take this opportunity to make some observations about the situation in Libya and Syria, and to address the wider issue of British foreign policy in that rapidly changing part of the world. Our foreign policy is perhaps seen as one of intervening when we can, but not always where we should. There is a perception that the moral component of our motivation or justification for intervention does not always seem to apply everywhere with the same degree of seriousness. When it comes to that part of the world, I do not see an appetite in either this House or the country at large to seek out theatres of war. However, I seek to discern some consistency, even if the consistent application of principles will not mean that the same action is taken in every country.

Back on 21 March, I supported the implementation of the no-fly zone, which seemed entirely appropriate, not simply from the perspective of seeking to prevent mass slaughter in Benghazi, but on the understanding that all diplomatic efforts and avenues had been exhausted. Walking away when an evil tyrant was about to murder his own people would have been an abdication of responsibility by the international community. At the same time, however, I listened to the many excellent speeches in the Chamber, and the many warnings, especially from some of those hon. Members who are present this evening, who feared that the solution would not be quick and easy. Sure enough, it has proved not to be.

I am slightly concerned about the way in which the debate has unfolded over the past eight weeks. Nowhere in the UN Security Council resolution does it prescribe a time frame. There was a great expectation that the operation would all be over immediately and that everything would be fine, but that was never my expectation when I voted for the no-fly zone on 21 March. Across the House, however, there seems to be a great need to bring the operation to a close, as though the international community’s other weapons—diplomacy, economic sanctions and exerting our influence over what other countries in the region do—will have no effect. I was never tempted to assume that Gaddafi would quickly emigrate to Venezuela, or that his iron grip on his media would somehow dissipate overnight. It is true that he enjoys widespread support in Tripoli today, but there are horrendous things happening in Misrata. This is a moving situation, despite the notion that the world somehow stopped on 21 March.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. All wars have to end with some kind of political settlement and some kind of deal. Does he think that it might not be the west that brings about such a settlement, and that an effective diplomatic intervention from the African Union, the Arab League, the Turkish Government or someone else would be more likely to stop the bloodshed and bring about some form of peace?

[John Glen]

Quite possibly; that is my point. Given recent events, I believe that the notion that we can bring the situation in Libya to a neat, precise conclusion by the extension of targets will prove erroneous.

These operations have significant implications for our armed forces. Last week, the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, interviewed the heads of the three services. It was quite clear, when we read between the half-answers and the attempts not to address the issue directly, that all the services are under massive strain. It will be an abdication of responsibility if the Government do not address that point and allocate appropriate resources. I was very concerned to hear that there is to be a review of defence expenditure over the next three months, as we try to squeeze out more resources. Concern was expressed following the strategic defence and security review about putting off decisions on expenditure until future years.

We need to deal with the reality, and a number of scenarios could evolve. We could find ourselves in a perpetual stalemate. Alternatively, we could have a little more humility about the way in which this awful situation could be resolved, and realise that it will not happen very quickly. We must realise that a change in regime achieved by the rising up of internal forces against Gaddafi is hardly likely to happen in just a few weeks or months, given the grip that he has had on his country over so many years. It is necessary for us to maintain the current posture and continue to develop diplomatic pressure and the role of the regional players. Yes, it is messy and uncomfortable, but it is right to hold the line and to continue to strengthen and broaden the base of support. We must continue to show resolve and to provide as much support as possible. It is also clear that going down the route of putting boots on the ground is never going to be acceptable in the current environment. We acted on the basis of stopping an evil man murdering his people. We may find the process since then rather uncomfortable, but it is not one from which we can pull away.

Some parallels have been drawn with Syria. There, we have seen numerous efforts taken to impose travel bans, to freeze assets, to provide medical supplies and so forth. There, too, the answer is diplomacy and securing concessions one by one rather than necessarily threatening military action. The reality is that each country in the region is different, which means we cannot have a one-size-fits-all policy; we need the slow, sober, determined, persistent and measured policy that this Government are undertaking. We need to recognise that we do not have the right or the means to solve this problem overnight.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

This has been an important, timely and wide-ranging debate—a huge mouthful of a debate with a number of very fine speeches, not least from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who speaks for the Opposition. I will address the issue of Libya at the end of my remarks and I will write to hon. Members if I do not cover the issues that they raised.

Let me start with a view of the discussion on the middle east. The transition sweeping the middle east is an historic opportunity for the region, as many hon. Members have pointed out. The Government are working to ensure that the international community rises to the challenge in its support for countries that embark on change. It is in our interests to ensure that those transitions succeed, but significant challenges must be addressed before lasting stability can be achieved. In particular, there must be the political and economic reforms that will support sustainable growth and facilitate the transition to a freer, fairer and more inclusive society. Britain is pushing the international institutions to play a leading role in galvanising support for that process, including by meeting the significant financial needs. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), said, the role of the European Union is critical. We are pressing for the restructuring of European neighbourhood funding for the region to ensure that it backs strong commitments to political and economic reform and to make it easier for countries in the region to trade with Europe. We also plan to fund a “know-how” facility to provide immediate access to expertise on economic reform. The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) raised that issue. The facility will be closely linked to the efforts and expertise of the international financial institutions.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, the European Union has a huge and critical role to play. The right hon. Member for Warley mentioned my right hon. Friend’s announcement of the expansion of the Foreign Office footprint, but said that it was not expanding in the middle east. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we are already represented in all the countries that we are discussing today, and more widely. The mission to Benghazi is an example of the expansion of the Foreign Office in a timely and sensible way.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) spoke with his usual expertise about Tunisia. He spoke wisely about elections and in particular about the importance of opening up markets. The difficult but important subject of the international arms trade was raised by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). I emphasise that there are high British standards for this trade, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out in an excellent intervention. In the end the answer is for the international community to accept the need for an international arms trade treaty.

On the occupied Palestinian territories, the wave of democratic movements that we are witnessing represents a unique opportunity to take forward the middle east peace process. The violence over the weekend at Israel’s borders underlines the urgency of making progress. With British support, the Palestinian Authority has developed its institutions to the point where the International Monetary Fund, the UN and the World Bank have recognised them as technically ready for statehood. To achieve a two-state solution it is important that this work continues. The recent announcement of a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is a step in the right direction if it leads to a Government who reject violence and pursue a negotiated peace—a point set out eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot).

We heard disparate but firmly held views across the Chamber this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was characteristically forthright, and I thank him for his kind comments about my Department. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), on whose civil partnership the whole House will wish to congratulate him, from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who entered the House on the same day as I did and whose views have not changed one jot in the past 24 years, from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) in a fine speech, and from the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who touched on Israel in a wide-ranging speech. Everyone was united in the absolute requirement to make progress and to take advantage of the changed circumstances, which were eloquently described.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Mr Mitchell]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for a moment, I turn now to Yemen. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) warned of the continuing crisis. I will consider carefully some of his wider comments. With reference to Yemen, I am concerned that alongside the current political impasse, we are seeing an escalating economic crisis. In particular we are seeing increasing reports of fuel shortages and rises in food prices. Any further deterioration in the economy could prompt a much broader humanitarian crisis, not least because without fuel, much of Yemen cannot be provided with water.

The British Government are working with aid agencies to ensure that they can respond to humanitarian needs in Yemen, and I can announce today that we will be committing additional support to UNICEF and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs under the United Nations humanitarian response plan for Yemen. Through this support we will prevent 11,000 children under five from dying of malnutrition, vaccinate 54,000 children against measles, saving lives and preventing blindness, deafness and brain damage in over 2,000 children, and ensure that agencies have rapid access to funds if Yemen tips into a humanitarian crisis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I do not believe that it would be right to disclose evidence regarding each separate military operation, for obvious operational and security reasons. It would make those operations more difficult to conduct, if we felt we had to disclose evidence about them.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, as it now appears to the whole world, the alliance has given up on a diplomatic solution, and is now involved in regime change and targeting individuals within the Libyan Government? Does he not think that at some point there will have to be a political solution led by the Arab League and the African Union? Does he not think it time to apply pressure in that direction, rather than continue the bombing of civilian targets?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the bombing of civilian targets, but NATO and its allies have saved probably thousands of civilian lives from the intentions of regime forces that indiscriminately attack civilian targets. If we followed the course he recommended, civilian casualties would be immense indeed, because of what the Gaddafi regime would do to people across Libya. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the international coalition is very strong on, and supportive of, the actions we have taken. As I said, more countries have moved their aircraft into strike activity. Of course, however, there must be a political settlement, but Colonel Gaddafi can open the way to that by departing from power.