Kurdish Genocide

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Bob Stewart

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and others for their speeches and their contribution to this whole issue. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for his speech. As he pointed out, he is the first Kurdish Member of the British Parliament. He and I have shared platforms at Kurdish events and I have no doubt that we will do so again in the future. He made a very good case for the recognition of what was a genocide of the Kurdish people in Iraq in 1988 and I absolutely support what he said. Next month will be Newroz, the Kurdish new year, which will be celebrated across a wide range of communities both in this country and all over the region.

One hopes that we will be able to draw attention to what happened in Iraq in 1988. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) pointed out, she and I were both Members of this House at that time and we both frequently raised the issue, including in the British media. Although the lack of knowledge among much of the public is understandable because of how the media failed to report things, we must be honest that it took a long time for most of the media and the political establishment in this country to cotton on to what was happening to the Kurdish people in Iraq. To be honest, a lot of British Government policy was blindsided by their obsession with supporting Iraq against Iran in the dreadful Iran-Iraq war and Britain’s considerable economic interests in Iraq at the time, not least in oil exploration and exploitation and so on. We must have a sense of deep self-criticism about the process. If we do not have that, it does us no favours.

The news finally came out about the use of gas and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) pointed out, how the villages were bombed first to break the glass so that the gas had the maximum effect. That was an evil piece of work in which a large number of wonderful, brilliant people lost their lives. In remembering a genocide, we must work out how it happened, how it came about and how we can prevent it from happening again.

Let me say a few words in general about Kurdistan, the Kurdish people and how we can move on. There is a complicated narrative in world history of equating nations, ethnic communities and languages with nation states, which does not always work. The end of the first world war was a seminal point for the whole region—this is germane to the history of the region. The Kurdish people had been part of and had recognition within the Ottoman empire, and operated with a Kurdish identity and language. They took at face value Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points, as did many people in the region, including Palestinian people and many others, and assumed that they would achieve nationhood as a result. The high point of Kurdish recognition was a sandwich between the treaty of Sèvres and the treaty of Lausanne. Between those treaties there was recognition of a Kurdish state. Modern Turkey was established, the western interests were more interested in a buffer against the Soviet Union and in the mandates that France and Britain achieved further south, and the Kurdish people and their wishes were obliterated. Britain did not have clean hands in this. We took part in the establishment of modern Iraq and the first aerial bombardment of people using chemical weapons was by Britain in northern Iraq in 1922 against Kurdish people. So there is a history of obliteration of the Kurdish people, their language, their culture and identity. What Saddam was doing was the ultimate in oppression of a nation or people, but the treatment of Kurdish people in other countries in the region to this day needs to be examined—in Iran, in Syria and in Turkey.

I have a substantial Kurdish population in my constituency, mainly but not all emanating from Turkey. Indeed, I have visited most parts of Kurdistan over the years. It is sad to report that we still do not have full recognition of Kurdish people in modern Turkey, or mother tongue teaching in all Turkish schools, or indeed in any Turkish schools except those where Kurdish is the first language. It is incumbent on us, if Turkey wants to be a partner in the European Union or anything else, to put a great deal of pressure on it and say, “You have to give greater recognition, linguistic rights, cultural rights and all the other things to the Kurdish people in Turkey.”

It does not particularly help when the mayor of a major city such as Diyarbakir is put on trial for producing information in the Kurdish language, which is the normal language for that part of the country. The break-up of the Ottoman empire led to that situation, and there has been this passion ever since for recognition of the Kurdish. To a huge extent, that has been achieved with the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq. It is not totally correct to call it independent because in international legal terms it is not an independent recognised state, but in reality it is recognised as a representative place of the Kurdish people.

It is more than welcome that over the past few weeks, under pressure following hunger strikes and the dreadful assassinations in Paris a few weeks ago, the Turkish Government have openly admitted that they have to talk to Öcalan as a recognisable leader of the Kurdish people in Turkey. There is a growing sense of unity between Kurdish people within the nation states and a recognition that they have to come together. Does this mean that there is going to be a country called Kurdistan that encompasses parts of the other countries in the future? I do not know. As far as I am aware, none of the Kurdish national movements calls for an independent Kurdistan outwith national borders any longer. They all call for recognition within national borders. We have to understand, welcome and recognise that.

If you oppress people, deny them their language, deny them their cultural rights, drive them into the ground in the way minorities have been treated prior to genocides all over the world, including native Americans, Jewish people and many others in the past 150 years, you end up with the acceptance of the ultimate oppression, which is what happened in that genocide in 1988. So I support the motion that is before us today.

Many have drawn attention to the achievements, such as they are, in modern Iraq with the Kurdish Autonomous Region, and I recognise those. Indeed, I visited the region after the Gulf war in 1991. With colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), I opposed the Iraq war in 2003, not because I was in any sense ever an apologist for Saddam Hussein or what he did, but because I did not believe that the motives for the war were the right ones—I believed they were more to do with American military power and military resources than anything else—and I thought an awful lot of people would die and an awful lot of money would be spent as a result of the war. Although we will never agree completely on that, I think we all agree that successive Iraqi Governments have an abominable record on their treatment of the Kurdish people. One hopes that the Kurdish Autonomous Region will be recognised universally and that it will be a place where Kurdish people can live.

When we talk of genocides and holocausts, the holocaust against Jewish people in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s is paramount in everyone’s thoughts. Attending Holocaust memorial day ceremonies is an important thing, as is young people understanding what the holocaust was about, but it is also important to understand that there have been other genocides around the world. There is no time to go through all of them or define them all now, but the European treatment of native Americans during the colonisation of north America from the 16th century onward, but particularly later on, was to all intents and purposes a genocide against those people; other examples are Cambodia and Rwanda—an abominable and appalling series of events. Taking place closer to the region we are discussing today was the Armenian massacre in 1915.

Whenever one of us tables an early-day motion recognising and associating that massacre in principle with what has happened to the Kurdish people, we attract great criticism from people in Turkey who, frankly, ought to know better, but who say that we have no right to draw attention to that. It is important that we understand the history of the abominable treatment of people because of racist attitudes and approaches, which end in the vilest abuses of human rights being condoned.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Holocaust memorial day. Having been slightly involved in what I consider to have been a holocaust, in Bosnia, whenever I speak at or attend a Holocaust memorial day ceremony, I do not think only of the Jewish holocaust. I certainly think of Armenia, the Kurds and the Cambodians as well. I totally agree with him: when we speak of a holocaust, we must mean more than one particular nation.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, on which we agree.

I am proud to represent a significant number of Kurdish people in my constituency. I am proud of the contribution they make, whether they came to this country or were born here. In a month’s time, when we celebrate Newroz in Finsbury Park, that will be, as ever, a joyous celebration—hopefully this time with the greatest possible unity between Kurdish people from every part of the Kurdish area.

If we recognise a genocide, that is a big step. We are recognising something that is defined in law as an attempt to obliterate a people because of their identity, their race or their ethnicity. In doing that, we recognise that something awful happened, and we have to examine ourselves and what we as a country or one of a group of countries did or did not do at the time. But doing that helps the next generation to understand that not forgetting puts one in a position to try to influence the future and protect minorities, wherever they are in the world. Tragically, the genocides we have been discussing today were not the first, and although I hope they were the last, I am not sure that they were. It is recognition and understanding of peoples, their rights, their identity, their culture and their traditions that bring about a safer and more secure world. Achieving that is not necessarily about wars, bombs and invasions; it is much more about understanding and a recognition of people and their rights, and sharing resources not stealing them.

North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Bob Stewart

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are having this debate. I shall endeavour not to take too long so that time is available for everyone to speak.

We are dealing with an amazing atmosphere, which is of historic proportions, across north Africa and the middle east. It is interesting to reflect that over the past 60 years, the countries of this region have seen the end of the second world war, an independence process being established, an initial Arab spring in the 1950s, the degeneration of many of those then revolutionary Governments into autocratic and authoritarian Governments who relied heavily on secret police and prisons, leading up to the uprisings that have broken out right across the region this year.

I think we should bear it in mind that every single one of the countries across north Africa and the middle east has at least half of its population under the age of 25, with many even younger. There are a great deal of very young, very angry people who have been through school and college, in some cases to university, yet they cannot find jobs. There is a big economic aspect and economic demands underpinning the whole process, which then relates to the political sphere of the unaccountability of government and the power of police forces and the secret police to imprison and control people.

In their search for an accountable Government and for some degree of opportunities in people’s lives, we need to be aware that people do not necessarily view western Europe or north America as a good example. They do not necessarily want to create the kind of societies that we have; they are looking for something that is identifiably theirs and of their region, not aping the previous imperial masters that controlled so much of that region for so long. We need to be a bit more cautious and respectful of the historical process that is going on.

I shall touch briefly on a number of issues. First, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the meetings he had had in Mauritania and Morocco. I intervened on him—and I was grateful to him for giving way—on the question of Western Sahara. Many people have been in refugee camps in Algeria since 1975, when, following the Spanish withdrawal from Western Sahara, Morocco marched in and established a military presence, driving them out of the area.

Under decolonisation statutes, as former Spanish colonial subjects those people have the right of self-determination. They are entitled to decide whether they want to live in an autonomous region or an independent country, for instance. However, they have never been allowed to make that choice. More than 80 countries recognise the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. This country does not recognise it—indeed, no European country does—but all of Africa except Morocco does, as do many other countries, particularly in Latin and central America.

We should spare a thought for the difficulties of a Government who, based in refugee camps and in exile, must lead their people while the majority of them also live in refugee camps, and must explain to them that they do not want to go back to war or launch a terrorist attack. In fact, they want a peaceful resolution and look to the United Nations to provide it, and I hope that this country will do what it can to support their aim. I had a useful meeting with the Minister to discuss the issue, and he showed considerable understanding of the situation. Let me compliment him on the fact that Britain has not supported the renewal of the EU-Moroccan fish agreement on the basis that it has been of no benefit to the people in the occupied territories—although, of course, it should have been—because it is taking resources, fish in this instance, from the waters alongside the western Sahara. I hope that he is aware of the strength of feeling that exists. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Western Sahara, I can assure him that we will continue to pursue the issue.

According to a parliamentary answer given to me last week, the war in Libya has cost £1.8 billion, rather more than the £200 million that we were told it would cost at the start of the conflict. I am not very surprised, because wars cost an awful lot of money. I am not here to defend human rights abuses by anyone. I am here to support the idea of accountable government, an independent form of justice, and adherence to UN basic law on human rights—all the fundamental elements of the UN charter.

I did not support the intervention in Libya for a number of reasons which I gave at the time, and I remain very concerned about the human rights situation in Libya. I am concerned about, for example, the number of African migrant workers who were living and working in Libya and who have been abused or murdered, or whose lives and homes have been destroyed, and the number of others who have faced summary justice in Libya since the transitional national council took over.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) mentioned Saif, Gaddafi’s son, who has been arrested. It is still not clear whether he is in the custody of the transitional national council or in the custody of some other group in the town where he was captured, but I think that he should be put on trial. He probably has a great many interesting things to say about Libya’s economic relationship with this country, France, Italy and many other nations less than a year ago; about the amount of money that Libya spent in this country, France and Italy less than a year ago; and about the arms supplied by all those countries. He deserves to be put on trial, not just because of the abuses of human rights carried out by his father’s regime and the killing of prisoners some time ago, but so that we can understand what those relationships lead to at the end of the day. A lot of truth needs to come out.

I would prefer Saif to be tried by the International Criminal Court, but within the terms of the Rome statute, he does not have to be tried there. The national jurisdiction can put him on trial, although it must follow international standards and allow international observers and international representation.

[Bob Stewart]

I was always under the impression that the basic rule is that if the national jurisdiction decides to try someone, that takes precedence over any International Criminal Court proceedings. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Yes, that is my understanding. That is why I said that Saif does not have to be extradited to The Hague. I would prefer it if he was, but that has to be decided. However, we do have to be confident that there will be an independent judicial system. The murder of his father by a mob is not a very good precedent. We must also look at some of the other abuses of human rights that are now taking place in Libya, and have some very serious concerns.

We should not say, “Ra, ra, we’ve won,” too often, because there is too much pain and too much suffering, and too many people have already died. I read an interesting article by Franklin Lamb from Sirte in Libya called “Bad moon rising over great Sirte bay.” He supported the TNC and the overthrow of Gaddafi, but he describes what he sees as problems for the future. One of them is relations with Algeria, and he also quotes someone saying about NATO:

“‘They destroyed our country and now they want us to pay them to rebuild it. I wish we could rebuild without one NATO country profiting. It’s like that crazy American woman running for President of your country who wants Iraq to pay for the death of US occupation soldiers who were killed.’”

The article goes on to describe the cynicism with which a great deal of the western involvement in Libya is viewed. I therefore think we should be a bit more cautious and circumspect about this matter.

Egyptians are voting in their elections today. We all hope those elections will be properly run and will turn out an accountable Parliament and Government, but above all we must hope that they bring the military under democratic control. There has never been a time in Egyptian history when the primary power of the state, the armed forces, have been under any kind of democratic control. They might have been very popular at various times, and they might have been very unpopular at certain times, but they have never been subject to the kind of parliamentary control that we, along with most other countries in the world, would see as the norm in respect of our armed forces. If that is not achieved, a constitution might be developed in which the Parliament and Government exist, but only as a kind of parallel power structure—as in Chile under Pinochet, in Indonesia and, to some extent, in Turkey before the more recent reforms—with the army being effectively independent of the democratic process, raising its own funds, existing in any way it wants and able to take control of things in the future.

The people who were in Tahrir square over the weekend, and those who were killed last week by the army and police forces, were demanding accountable Government and democracy. The west should be a little cautious in thinking it can do deals with the military to bring about some kind of solution in Egypt.



Egypt has always been the headquarters of the Arab League. Under Nasser it was also very much the centre of the whole Arab uprising and that period of Arab nationalism. There is a competitor on the horizon, however: the Gulf Co-operation Council, which is beginning to assert itself. The GCC started out as a fairly mild union of Gulf states, but it has now, in some respects, become a kind of rival to the Arab League. Strangely, Morocco has now joined the kingdoms of the Gulf region. The last time I looked at the map, Morocco did not appear to be a Gulf country, but perhaps something has changed. The GCC includes US bases in Bahrain, and it has allowed or encouraged or facilitated—we may choose whichever word we want—Saudi Arabia to occupy Bahrain in order to support the kingdom and condone the many human rights abuses that have gone on in Bahrain not only over the last few weeks but the last few years.

Behind that, we must ask some questions about what is happening in Saudi Arabia at the present time. I was given a note about last week’s

“death of four Shia protestors in Qatif…after clashes with security forces. The government accused outside agents as usual but the crisis is more profound. The Shia have been protesting since March over the detention of political prisoners without trial and asking for an end to discrimination and exclusion.”

It goes on to cite:

“The trial of 17 reformers described by Amnesty International as peaceful activists in Jeddah. They were sentenced to 5-30 years in prison. The case demonstrated how the justice system is under the control of the Ministry of Interior.”

Many issues of human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia have to be examined but, again, Britain’s overwhelming commercial relationship with that country, through arms sales and oil imports, seems to dominate what ought to be genuine concerns about human rights there, about the inability of ordinary people there to express themselves and about the denial to women of any basic or fundamental rights that any other country in the world ought to be able to subscribe and aspire to.

What my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said about what is happening in Bahrain is absolutely true. I first met human rights activists from Bahrain at a UN conference in Copenhagen in 1986, when they came to see me to talk about the suspension of the constitution, the weakness of the Parliament, the power of the King, and the degree of discrimination and abuses of human rights. Last week, a very lengthy report was published by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, and I shall quote from a small passage about the establishment of the commission by decree in June 2011:

“The commission found that arbitrary arrests—in many cases pre-dawn raids conducted by armed and masked security…forces—showed the ‘existence of an operational plan’ to terrorize protestors and opposition members. It concluded that the arrests and detentions ‘could not have happened without the knowledge of higher echelons of the command structure’ of the security forces, and that failure to investigate rights abuses could implicate not only low-level personnel, but also higher level officials.”

This country has close relations with Bahrain, we have had close military co-operation with Bahrain and we have sold a great deal of equipment to Bahrain, including surveillance equipment that has been used against highly democratic human rights protestors, so we need to be cautious about our double standards.

The last two points that I wish to make concern ever-present, huge threats that exist in the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) made a brilliant speech about the situation facing Palestinian people. It was the most moving speech that I have heard for a very long time on that issue, and it was made on the basis of a very recent visit. He and I have been to the west bank and Gaza together on a number of occasions, and I hope that we will be able to go there again.

North Africa and the Middle East

Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Bob Stewart

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Gaddafi has unreliable forces, so he needs to use mercenaries, whom he pays in gold.

Gaddafi’s forces are on extended lines of communication and supply, which is a good thing because he is not going as fast as he would want to. The key point is his rate of progress. Assuming the current rate of progress of his forces, it seems that they might take another month to get to Benghazi. There might therefore be a window of opportunity for action—perhaps up to 28 days or even more, but hopefully not a shorter period. However, as more time goes by, our chances of helping drop dramatically, so we must act as soon as we can. We are in a race against time and we must move fast.

Despite speed, however, we still must act morally and within a legal framework. What do we need in place? Many hon. Members have touched on the requirement for a Security Council resolution. The trouble with the Security Council is that it often takes decisions at the speed of a striking slug. Of course, there might also be a problem with one or two of the permanent members. However, as many hon. Members have stressed, it is essential that we have such a resolution because it gives us top cover.

Secondly, we must have Libyan support. By hook or by crook, we must ensure that whatever we do has the support of those people who oppose Gaddafi. At the moment they want a no-fly zone. As Gaddafi’s forces advance—I hope they do not; I hope they are defeated—I bet those people’s wish for more extensive military action in their support will become greater. I would like to see the no-fly zone for which they are calling, but let us be clear that there cannot be a no-fly zone without the United States.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

What happens at the point when the opposition forces in Libya ask for something beyond a no-fly zone—ordnance, troops or whatever?

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the answer is that I do not know. I would like to think that we would have some form of answer. I would also like the Arabs to come forward with assistance for their brothers in arms, which brings me on to my next point. We have good Arab League support although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) stressed, it might not be speaking for its members’ Governments, even though it should be.