Middle East and North Africa

John Howell Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, which I know was under enormous pressure for effectively the last bits of Backbench Business time before the recess. The Committee found time for three hours for the middle east, and I appreciate it. I also appreciate the support of many colleagues who agreed that it was important in the circumstances, with so much happening in the region, to have an opportunity to talk about events there.

I should declare some interests. I travel quite a lot in the region. I am not yet sure of all the etiquette relating to interests, but as I have been flying into the region and have been given hospitality in numerous places that I shall mention, I wanted to draw attention to those interests in the register. Last but definitely not least, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all of us in welcoming the new Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), to his brief. The Department is fortunate to have a new Minister who is aware of the area, has spent time there and knows different parts of it well, and who has always demonstrated a strong interest in foreign and middle eastern affairs while a Back Bencher. We all welcome him as Minister.

Accordingly, I thought that the best thing to do would be to set him up right away with a debate on the middle east and north Africa, which would give him and his hard-working officials a great opportunity to be fully briefed. I am sure we all agree that we do not expect him to answer all the key questions on the middle east, of which most of us have two or three in our back pocket that would stump any Government. This does not seem to be the day to throw them in the new Minister’s direction. I can also see from those who are prepared to take part in this debate that he will have an opportunity to hear from experts in the House who have studied the area and care about it deeply, and who have a lot to say and to listen to. There could not be a more ideal introduction for him than this debate.

It is easy to concentrate on all the negatives in the region, so although I shall be as brief as I can, I shall start with some of the positives before going on to look at the problems. I drew the title of this debate deliberately wide. Rather than finding a contentious motion on which to divide the House, I wanted to provide as wide an opportunity as possible for colleagues with many diverse interests in the region to talk about them, whatever they may be. I am sure we will hear about many different things. I shall concentrate a little on the prosperity issues in the region, and then talk about three or four specific areas. That will mean leaving out an awful lot, as we all know, but I am sure that other speakers will fill those gaps by the end of the afternoon.

One of the successes of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office over the last three or four years has been the attention paid to the prosperity agenda. Prosperity matters. It is not simply a question of pounds and pence or of money in the bank for the United Kingdom; prosperity means that people have jobs and opportunities, and their states have an opportunity to prosper as well. Never has that been more needed in the region we are discussing, according to various estimates. I saw an estimate from Deloitte a year or so ago saying that 40 million new jobs will be needed in the next decade to cope with the growth in population. There is an obvious connection between idle hands and problems, and ensuring that people have enough work to do is key to the region.

Accordingly, I am proud of the role that the United Kingdom has played in the prosperity agenda. We can see it demonstrated across the region. In north Africa, for example, the Lord Mayor of London, Fiona Woolf, concluded a seven-day visit last month to Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. In each country, she met with the Head of State or Government and numerous Cabinet Ministers, including Finance Ministers, and the governors of three central banks. She led informative discussions on the development of the economy in each of the regions, focusing on economic diversification, managing each one’s different and abundant energy resources and developing education, training and qualifications. The north African region, of course, has been the birthplace of the Arab spring, and has been through a series of issues that are far from resolved. Each state is identifiably different from the others, but as part of the future of the region, the prosperity agenda will play a large part, and the United Kingdom can undoubtedly make a contribution.

I shall focus for a second on Tunisia in particular. Although we discuss the difficulties of politics in the region, I have seen far too little in the media recently acknowledging what has happened in Tunisia. Rather than people taking to the streets or political leaders finding reasons for division among themselves, the Tunisians have worked extremely hard to find out how they can come together on a constitution and make new politics work after the overthrow of the Ben Ali dictatorship. We should watch Tunisia carefully and give every encouragement to the development of democracy there.

I pay tribute to the work of the FCO and the British Government through the Arab Partnership to consider what values we hold in common. Instead of telling states, “This is what you should do,” the Arab Partnership has simply offered a menu: “We think these sorts of thing work. Which is right for you in terms of building democracy, a Parliament and a new politics?” I am proud of the work that has been and continues to be done there, including by all the diplomats and officials in the region. I am delighted to mention Tunisia. Its success should counterpoint some of the difficulties in other places.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Why, in my right hon. Friend’s opinion, has the experiment in Tunisia not worked well in other north African countries?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

I think it was pretty clear from my opening remarks that the answer to that is an unequivocal yes, but that gets us no further. It is a statement of fact that Hamas should stop firing rockets, and that if it fires rockets at civilian areas that is a war crime that deserves to be condemned. It has to stop; I say that to Hamas. However, that does not in any way justify a continued occupation. My point is that unless we tackle that issue we will not move towards peace. In plain speaking, settlement building is illegal.

[John Howell]

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is very passionate about this subject; I simply want to approach it from a different aspect. In November 2012 I was in the region, and it was not very pleasant to be there. Should not the starting point be an acknowledgement by the states surrounding Israel of the borders of Israel and of Israel’s right to exist? That covers a number of the issues that he is addressing.

[Richard Burden]

Israel absolutely has a right to exist, and I will speak about that when I wind up.

If we accept that continued settlement building is contrary to UN resolutions, the Geneva convention and international law generally, what do we do about it? I am not suggesting any military action against Israel, but I am suggesting that we uphold international law. That means we should have no contact with illegal and illegitimate settlements. We should not trade with them, and we should insist that if Israel wishes to export goods from the settlements, it separates them from goods produced in Israel. If it does not, I am sorry, but the trade preferences that apply to goods from Israel should not apply to goods from the settlements.

I will conclude by responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). People say that the Palestinians should recognise Israel. I agree. The Palestinian Authority, including Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, recognised Israel years ago. It has said that Hamas should recognise Israel. The Quartet takes the view that not only should it recognise Israel, but it should already have done so, in order to get into talks. That demand has never been made of Israel the other way around. Let us think about it. Continued settlement building removes the practical chance of a two-state solution. In practical terms, Israel does not recognise the right to a Palestinian state; in practical terms, it is removing it before our eyes. That is the reality; is it also the theory?

Last week, Prime Minister Netanyahu gave an interview that was reported in The Times of Israel by David Horovitz. It was given in Hebrew, but it has helpfully been translated by The Times of Israel, which is not a Hamas organ, or even a Palestinian Authority organ. I urge hon. Members to read it because it makes Prime Minister Netanyahu’s view of a Palestinian state pretty clear. It says:

“He”—

Prime Minister Netanyahu—

“made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank.”

That should give us all pause for thought. If we are all in favour of a two-state solution, both sides must abide by that, not as a matter of negotiation, but as a matter of right. If Israel demands, as a matter of right, to be recognised by the Palestinians, it is not wrong and not too much for the international community to say to Israel that as a matter of right it should recognise Palestine. Perhaps we could help that along the way by doing it ourselves.