Syria: Russian Redeployment and the Peace Process

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

In military terms, certainly. The Russian intervention has prevented the collapse of regime forces, has restored morale among regime forces, has allowed the regime to take ground, consolidate positions, move forces around in a strategically significant way, and has damaged and demoralised opposition groups. There is no doubt at all about that. If there is a genuine withdrawal of Russian air cover, the question is how long that improvement can be sustained, because we know that the Syrian regime forces are fundamentally hollowed out after five years of civil war, and without the Russians there to stiffen their spine it is not clear how long they will be able to maintain the initiative.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Assuming that the Russian withdrawal does take place—I understand there is no certainty in that—will UK and US air forces take over Russian targets against Daesh with the intention of ensuring that there is no reduction in the intensity of action against Daesh as a result of Russian withdrawal?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not think I can comment at the Dispatch Box on what will drive US and UK targeting decisions, but I can say this. The Russian air force operates largely within a part of Syria that is heavily protected by the Syrian integrated air defence system. The Russians can fly there because they are operating in what is for them a permissive environment, not least because Russian technicians control the Syrian air defence system. It would not be the same for US, UK and other coalition partners. I do not think there can be an assumption that western members of the coalition will be able to take over all the targeting activity against Daesh that is currently being carried out by the Russians.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I last discussed those points directly with Michael Link, the director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, at the OSCE ministerial meeting in mid-December. The OSCE is doing a heroic job, with its monitors sometimes under direct personal threat from the continued fighting in the Donbass. It does not yet have access, to which it is entitled, to the whole of the Donbass, and we continue to press the Russians to use their influence over the separatists to allow the OSCE to carry out its mission fully.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in any discussions the Government have with Russia in relation to Syria, Ukraine will not be used as a bargaining chip and our desire to see Russia and its arms out of Ukraine will remain undiminished?

[Mr Lidington]

I can give my hon. Friend an unqualified assurance on that point. We will continue to talk to Russia about Syria and other matters, but we are absolutely clear that there is no trade-off between any agreement over Syria and our resolute support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Ukraine

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I do not underestimate Russian paranoia, as Russia’s fears of encirclement are an historical phenomenon. Living as we do in a free, democratic NATO member state, we all know that NATO represents no offensive threat to anyone. That is not the way NATO works. It would be inconceivable that public opinion in the NATO countries could be persuaded to support any kind of offensive action against a peaceful neighbour. So Russia has nothing to fear from NATO. As for a land corridor, I have to say to my hon. Friend that I do not think it is our business to sit here discussing whether bits of the Ukraine’s sovereign territory should be given away to a foreign power. If the Ukrainians want to negotiate territory with the Russians, it is of course their prerogative to do so, but it is certainly not for us to do.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I personally would support further immediate economic sanctions led by the EU, but, whatever happens there, for how much longer can we in this country allow Russian nationals to have the benefit of secure and fine living here and to enjoy our banking facilities, for example, while their country wages war and terrorises people on our own continent?

[Mr Hammond]

Many Russians living in this country are not exactly friends of the current regime. Indeed, some of them live in pretty much permanent fear of the long arm of the current regime, so I do not think we should tar all Russians with the same brush. We need to be clear that while we have a fundamental disagreement with Mr Putin’s Government, we do not have a fundamental disagreement with the people of Russia. In the medium to long term, we must want to see Russia joining the international community of nations, becoming a normalised economy and the Russian population getting richer, more integrated and freer as the populations of the eastern European countries that lived under the Soviet yoke for so long have now done.

Iran (Nuclear Talks)

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Let us be clear about this: Iranian society, like pretty much every other society, is not homogenous. I would be astonished if there were not people in Iran saying that Iran needs to develop a nuclear bomb. That is not the issue. The issue is the position of the Iranian Government and the Iranian senior leadership.

What we are seeking to do is establish a robust framework within which Iran can develop a civil nuclear programme, while assuring us that it has no intention of developing, and will have no capability to develop, a nuclear weapons capability. It would be unreasonable of me to expect the Iranian Government to vouch for there being not a single individual in Iran who thought that the Government’s stance in engaging with the west in these negotiations was wrong. I am sure there are hard-liners who would prefer these negotiations to break down. Fortunately, that is not the position of the Government of Iran.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I do not think this has been mentioned yet this afternoon, but there are many people who believe that Iran has no intention whatever of getting rid of its nuclear weapons programme and is using negotiations as a delaying tactic. That being the case, if in four or seven months no progress has been made, where do we move to then? Would military action be considered?

Palestine and Israel

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I would rather not. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to speak later. I wish to make some progress.

The former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the current Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), who is not in his place, told the House that the two-state solution might become impossible if a settlement were not reached within a year. That was in 2012—two years ago. I am pleased to see that the Minister is listening attentively, as I expect him to stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us that we support a two-state solution and that we encourage all parties to return to negotiations. I advise him to keep hold of his speech, because he will soon have another opportunity to use it given the failure of so many similar initiatives.

It is now more than 20 years since the Oslo accords, and we are further away from peace than ever before. An entire generation of young Palestinians—the Oslo generation—has grown up to witness a worsening situation on the ground. We have seen a significant expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, heightened security threats to both sides, punitive restrictions on Palestinian movement, economic decline, a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions in Gaza and the construction of an illegal annexation wall through Palestinian land.

It is clear that both Israel-Palestine relations and our foreign policy are at an impasse, which must be broken. We hear a great deal of talk about the two-state solution. Today, through validating both states, Members will have the opportunity to translate all that principled talk into action, but we should be under no illusions—today might be a symbolically important step, but it will not change the facts on the ground. The continuous blockade of the Gaza strip will not relent and the day-to-day reality of life under occupation will not change for the ordinary Palestinians. Opponents of the motion will use the well-worn argument that statehood should come through negotiations and not unilateral action.

Let us make no mistake about this: to make our recognition of Palestine dependent on Israel’s agreement would be to grant Israel a veto over Palestinian self-determination.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Let me finish this point, and then I will give way for the last time. We have had a huge debate on giving up sovereignty to the EU. British people may or may not disagree with that argument, but they and their representatives here in this House would feel that it was completely wrong in practice and in principle if another sovereign state, be it Israel or any other country, determined our foreign policy.

[Mr Djanogly]

Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan involved bilateral negotiations and agreement on both sides. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that it would work now unilaterally?

[Grahame M. Morris]

The evidence of history is why. Twenty years of negotiations have failed, so we need to move things on. I firmly believe that we can all rally around this effort, and that that would achieve the desired results.

Middle East and North Africa

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy]

Indeed, and I am sorry to hear about that. There are many good people who support the Palestinian cause for just reasons, but we must be honest and say that some use the cause for more sinister ends. We have heard examples of those, and they are truly shocking. I have no doubt that everybody here, whatever their view on the conflict, would condemn such actions entirely.

I want to say a little about the Israeli response. It has saddened me that some have bandied about phrases regarding collective punishment and the proportionality of the response. It is incredibly sad that people have died on any side of the conflict, but we cannot conclude, because of the way Hamas acts and the fact that it puts more of its civilians in harm’s way, that Israel’s response must be disproportionate simply because more people have sadly died. Let us be honest about what is going on. Israel does not fire rockets from its civilian population. While we have been debating, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has confirmed that one of its schools in Gaza has been used as a hiding place for rockets, and the agency is due to make a statement on that shortly. That tells us all we need to know about why there are such large numbers of civilian casualties.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point. The charge has been raised against Israel that it is committing a crime by firing on families. My hon. Friend’s point is an important one; there is a difference between firing on families because they are families, and because they are being used as a shield to hide army and control centre operations. As far as I have seen, where families have been fired on, Israel has agreed to investigate it, admitting that it is not the right thing to do and quite a different thing from firing on control centres.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are getting a bit long. Can we cut them down, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend has made that point many times. Israel withdrew its unwelcome settlements in 2005, as she points out, but it maintained border control and surveillance. It is not just that there has been bombing recently; there has been regular bombing by Israeli jets of targets along the Gaza strip. I make my point again: no one should live in an open-air prison, facing such horror and continued destruction.

[Mr Djanogly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

No, I will not give way again, because of the time.

Jocelyn Hurndall is a brave woman whose son Tom was shot in Rafa by Israeli troops while he was trying to defend children whose homes were being demolished by Israeli defence forces. In response to an interview given in The Independent by Daniel Taub, she wrote:

“Mr Taub, there is only one Gaza, currently being bombed to pieces by the might and sophistication of Israel’s military”.

She went on to say, in respect of the Israeli victims of any rockets that are sent:

“Fortunately, Israel has the infrastructure, funds and basic materials to build bomb shelters for its people. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank continue to suffer: an internationally recognised, illegal military occupation, extreme provocation brought about by settlement-building on Palestinian land in spite of international condemnation, the utter thwarting of prosperity due to closed borders and blocked coast, grossly disproportionate civilian deaths and injuries, the destruction of thousands of homes, and a lack of food, water and medical supplies.”

She describes the situation for people in Gaza.

When there are protests in the west bank, Gaza and, indeed, all over the world about Israel’s actions, surely it is time for the rest of the world to recognise that what is being done by Israel is illegal—it is collective punishment. Settlement building all across the west bank is illegal. It is very hard to see how the much vaunted two-state solution could even be dreamed to be possible given the level of settlements. I will use the word that others get very upset about: a sense of apartheid that has developed in the west bank, where there are settler-only roads, settler-only water supplies and there is settler-only occupation of land. That is the reality of life there.

Yes, there is opposition by Palestinians. Ever since there was an attempt to bring about a unity Government that involved Hamas as well as Fatah, Israel has upped the ante no end on a military basis. However, it is not true to say that everyone in Israel is supportive of Netanyahu or some of the extremists in his Government, or of the far extremists who want to see Israel occupying a large but so far unspecifically identified area. A week ago in Israel, there was a large demonstration of both Palestinians and Jewish people against the policies of the Israeli Government. Indeed, I draw Members’ attention to the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website, which lists eight very interesting points on how peace could come about, including by mutual recognition, by the ending of illegal settlements, and by the rest of the world ensuring that international law is carried out so that Israel is forced to accept that law just as it thinks everyone else should.

We are not going to solve this problem today, but the reaction of the British Government, and of all Governments, to incidents of illegal activity around the world has been rather strange and disproportionate. We have placed sanctions on Russia because of the activities in Ukraine and Crimea; Israel is in breach of a large number of UN resolutions, and it is clearly in breach of international law on both collective punishment and the settlement policy, but no sanctions whatever have been proposed.

In looking for a long-term peace, I urge that we look also at our own historical involvement in the region and the surrounding area. After the first world war, the area was divided up in the interests of the west. The forerunner of that action, the Sykes-Picot agreement, was done in secret and only revealed some years later through files kept in Moscow, and that was followed by the mandate system and the division of the whole region. Israel was established in 1948, and the 1967 war expanded its territory no end. Netanyahu’s policies seem to put no limit on Israeli expansion.

We need to be very serious with Israel about its breach of international law, its expansion policy and its treatment of people. I am critical of anyone who wants to bomb anyone else—I do not see that as a solution—but if a people are kept imprisoned and denied work, hope and opportunity, then consequences follow. Those consequences are great bitterness, great conflict and horrible loss of life. In the past few weeks, 200 Palestinians have died in Gaza, and sadly one Israeli has been killed as the result of one rocket landing. This is wholly disproportionate. It is a horrible way forward, and the demonstrations around the world show just how isolated Israel is and just how isolated are those Governments who think that they can keep on and on apologising for Israel’s behaviour rather than pressure it to do something different. Such Governments are becoming out of touch with the feelings of an awful lot of ordinary people all over the world. Today’s debate gives us the opportunity to say that, at least.

Ukraine

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Other allies are involved. The United States and United Kingdom have most quickly provided assets, but other nations will be involved in some of the other actions of assurance. Rather than giving my hon. Friend an off-the-cuff selection of countries, I will write to him with the up-to-date list.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Russia’s power derives from its ability to charge different countries different prices for its gas and thereby divide and rule, so why does the EU not create a single buying entity for Russian gas?

[Mr Hague]

There would be implications for national competence and sovereignty in deciding to take that measure, but we can have co-ordinated plans to make sure that Europe is able to diversify its energy supplies. One of the most valuable things that could be done in Europe is the creation of a true single market in energy, with the necessary infrastructure and pricing. That would do more to reduce both prices and, ultimately, dependence on Russia than having a single buying agency.

Ukraine

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

This is a source of profound anxiety to people in the Baltic states and other states of the former Soviet Union. Russia should take note that there has been very little, if any, diplomatic support for its position from central Asian states, who perhaps have some of the same anxieties.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Is it not the case that Ukraine was one of the largest owners of nuclear weapons in the world and it gave up those nuclear weapons on the basis of peace and security, yet it has now been railroaded by Russia? What kind of example does this set for the world going forward?

[Mr Hague]

That is a very powerful point. When the Budapest memorandum was signed and the commitment was made not to use armed force against Ukraine, that was in exchange for its giving up of nuclear weapons. It sends a terrible signal to other nations that may be seeking nuclear weapons for Russia to behave in this way. This all means that if we do not stand up to such a profound breach of international agreements and the use of force to change borders in Europe in the 21st century, the credibility of the international order will be at stake and we will face more such crises in the future. Russia and others could conclude that it can intervene with impunity in other countries where there are either Russian compatriots or Orthodox populations. Indeed, it has been a Russian policy over a number of years to encourage such links and dependencies, through the issuing of millions of Russian passports in Ukraine and other countries bordering Russia. Events in Crimea form part of a pattern of Russian behaviour, including in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The solidarity and unity in this debate have been heartening.

Too many people in this country and among our allies have been wandering aimlessly towards the teeth of the Russian bear, either as direct economic appeasers or because they do not want to think about nasty things going on in the extremities of our continent. However, the invasion of sovereign territory and the deprivation of human rights, including through the closing down of media, mob rule, bullying and the ignoring of minority concerns, are happening in Europe. We in the west need to wake up from our post-cold war dream of so-called peace dividends, our tiredness of conflict, our yearning for an end to austerity and other such pleasant thoughts, and face up to the new reality.

The reality of Putin’s Russia is not a pretty one. It is a regime that has no respect for international rules and conventions. It is a regime that has no morality in the western sense and that feeds on a diet of brute political strength and money—much of it stolen, in one way or another, from its own people. We apply our morality to Russian intransigence, and Putin and his henchmen laugh at us and just see weakness. They see a split Europe that is afraid to rock the economic boat and a US President who will do anything he can to avoid foreign policy distractions.

In Russia itself, human rights are little more than an afterthought. I hear now that extreme web and blog restrictions are being put in place. History has shown time and again that brutal dictators cannot be appeased. I recently spoke to a former Latvian Minister, and I hear from other countries surrounding Russia of their fear of what might happen as they count the numbers of ethnic Russians within their own borders.

I recently reread Winston Churchill’s speech in this place after the Munich conference, on 5 October 1938, and I commend it to hon. Members. The similarities between Crimea and the Sudetenland—a brutal power marching into a neighbour on the pretence of saving its own ethnic peoples—are chilling. At that time, Churchill remarked:

“I have always held the view that the maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor, coupled with a sincere effort to redress grievances.”—[Official Report, 5 October 1938; Vol. 339, c. 362.]

How apposite are those words now, and how well we would do to heed them.

The difference then was in the remedy. Churchill called for immediate rearmament, and although NATO will clearly need to reassure its ex-eastern bloc members of our article 5 obligations, it is not war that we now face immediately, although it would be remiss of the Government not to review alternatives, including reactive military ones. The current situation is more about affecting Russia where it cares most, and that is money. Yes, Putin has reignited Russian nationalism, but his political base, and that of his kleptocratic regime, is all governed by money, and mainly oil money at that. Thieves need access to their ill-gotten gains, and in the case of Russia, that means properties in Chelsea and the south of France, children in English schools, boats in the Med and wives in Bond street and rue Saint-Honoré. My feeling is that the kleptocracy will implode quicker if we stop that access than if we send in 50 divisions or move new nuclear weapons to the Polish border.

Yesterday’s EU travel ban and asset freeze on 21 officials from Russia and Ukraine is a weak and half-hearted negation of responsibility by the EU of which we should be ashamed. We should head the list of those sanctioned with Putin and his acolytes and work downwards to include all Russians. Even if the intention is to ratchet up sanctions, we should have been clearer about the implications of Russia annexing Crimea. We should remove Russia from the G8 and the Council of Europe. If it wants to behave as a 19th-century bully, why should it be allowed to G8 meetings? Tough sanctions should be put in place, along the lines of those on Iran, and Russian banks should be excluded from our financial system. Some seem to be saying that we have too much to lose if Russia retaliates. That is nonsense; I disagree.

Commonwealth Day

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Bayley. I was pleased that this debate was selected and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on organising it, recognising his deep knowledge and participation in Commonwealth matters.

I was pleased just the other day to be asked by Huntingdonshire district council to speak to local residents at a flag-raising ceremony in my constituency on the meaning of the Commonwealth. Being in my constituency, my thoughts focused on what the Commonwealth might mean to my constituents. First, we need to appreciate that, as my right hon. Friend intimated, memories of the British empire are very distant for most people in the UK—if people have any knowledge of it at all. I would therefore contend that most young people—anyone under the age of 60 for this purpose—may have little idea of empire or its end. So why, I contended with my constituents, should the Commonwealth have any relevance to our lives today? With 54 independent countries and 2 billion people—a third of the world’s population—the scale of the Commonwealth is significant, but size in itself does not bring its relevance to life.

The principles of the Commonwealth, offering through its charter mutual support for more inclusive and equitable social progress for member states, are also to be applauded. In themselves, however, they sound somewhat abstract. The objectives of upholding democracy, human rights, peace and security, respect and understanding, freedom of expression, separation of powers, the rule of law, good governance and so on are ideals that we should all aim for. Again, however, that sounds like motherhood and apple pie when read out as a long list, such that some might consider the Commonwealth to be more of a talking shop than a body for action.

It must be said that the measures of successful membership are not being upheld consistently—or in some cases at all—by certain members. The royal family has done a magnificent job in unifying the institution, but their future leadership will be at the members’ discretion. Many member states would, until recently, have struggled to describe themselves as capitalist economies, but, with the fall of communism, that is no longer the case. An understanding of the need for vibrant, and let me also say uncorrupt, market economies generally exists.

Trade between member countries is increasing for the benefit of all. One may have thought that that would be a key area of engagement for the UK, but even here the situation is more complicated and there is little evidence in many Commonwealth member states that our membership gives us a significant trading advantage. Indeed, despite some 250 years of trading with India, I was surprised to hear that Switzerland, for instance, does more trade with India than the UK does. Having said that, I acknowledge the strenuous efforts being made to increase our trade with India and the significant investment by the Foreign Office and UK Trade & Investment to that end.

I wanted to learn more about the Commonwealth, so, about a year ago, I was pleased to be invited on my first visit with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK branch to India. I subsequently visited Sri Lanka. I went to India with an open mind, keen to play my very small part in encouraging good relations and trade between our two nations, but, for the reasons I have given, I was not wholly convinced at that time of the value of the Commonwealth per se. However, I can now say that I have changed my mind. I now believe that the Commonwealth is not a talking shop but a real and vibrant platform for upholding good governance, improving democratic institutions, respecting human rights and extending trade opportunities.

[Mr Henry Bellingham]

My hon. Friend and I both have a passion for the export of UK legal services. We agree that one of the stumbling blocks for the export drive has been the attitude of both the Indian Government and the regional governments in India. On his visit, did he detect any discernible movement away from that attitude, which was previously quite negative?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I did indeed bring that up on our visit to India. I am sorry to say that, when we were there, there was little movement in that direction. However, I recognise the significant efforts since made by the Foreign Secretary, and indeed the Lord Chancellor, with India. They are not giving up the ghost on this; they are working hard to reverse that position. India is currently undergoing a difficult time, thinking about elections rather than policy, but, hopefully after the elections it will look more carefully at this issue and change its mind. That would be, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, for the benefit of India and Britain.

Many Commonwealth countries have political institutions whose administrations and standing orders are not as efficient as they could be. We can—and do—do much to assist them. By engaging with member countries, we also create ties and good will in different areas that provide much greater depth to our international relationships than fleeting ministerial visits—as important as those are, I say with respect to the Minister.

I saw the value of engagement again when I joined a CPA UK delegation to Sri Lanka to review post-conflict reconciliation and human rights issues. Sitting in a very hot hut, which Tamil MPs used as a headquarters, we heard their grievances, which included alleged human rights complaints. They appreciated our making the effort to go to the north of the country, which still shows clear signs of the terrible war. We also met with army, police and other national representatives who explained their security concerns. Everyone seemed pleased to see us and keen to put forward their cases. That certainly gave me the impression that everyone wanted reconciliation even if, unfortunately, not at the same pace.

Importantly, we engaged with Sri Lankans from the north and south, and those of different religions and races, not as the old imperial power coming to dictate but as equals; as friends and colleagues with a shared history, and with a will to share the benefit of our experience and learn from each other. We also met with shared expectations of maintaining shared values—in effect, the values contained in the Commonwealth charter, which, at that point, came alive to me as a living and relevant document. More than that, being a member of the Commonwealth meant that I felt that I could be open and frank in setting out, for instance to the Sri Lankan human rights commission or Ministers, where we felt that improvements to conduct were required.

Let me add that the discussions were not one way. For instance, a number of our hosts raised complicated questions arising from the colonisation of their countries. The fact that they wished to discuss such issues on an open and friendly basis was, for me, proof of the worth of connecting through membership. I agree, therefore, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden about the importance of the CPA.

The further question, therefore, as I think my right hon. Friend said, is: how do we explain the benefits of our membership to the wider population? As well as feeding into the youth parliament concept, greater engagement by schools would be a good idea. Many areas of British engagement in environmental, social, empowerment of women and other civil projects across the Commonwealth would be fascinating for children to learn about. Given what I have seen and the value I now attach to the Commonwealth, I do see the benefit of having a Commonwealth day in order to provide a focus for the explanation of its relevance to our constituents and their children at school.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I passionately support the Commonwealth as I was born in Pakistan in 1978. On my hon. Friend’s point about focusing on the Commonwealth’s values and principles, does he agree that more work needs to be done on basic human rights across all members of the Commonwealth? I was in Pakistan in 2012, where I met members of the Christian community who, along with many other minority communities, felt persecuted by the blasphemy laws. We need to work here and in other Parliaments with Pakistan to get them to reform those laws so that people can aspire to the basic freedoms of faith and belief.

[Mr Djanogly]

I very much support my hon. Friend’s comments. The Commonwealth provides a platform for that to be done; the question is the extent to which we use that platform. He makes the important point that we should use that platform. I have said what I wanted to say. We should all support Commonwealth day and I am happy to support the motion.

Arms to Syria

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House believes no lethal support should be provided to anti-government forces in Syria without the explicit prior consent of Parliament.

I should like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to support the motion and to thank other colleagues across the House for supporting it. Matters of war and peace are extremely serious, whether we are talking about direct intervention, the provision of lethal support or, in this case, the narrower matter of arming the Syrian rebels. They therefore involve serious decisions for the Prime Minister—or for any Prime Minister. Lives are at risk, and while we accept that no decisions have been made on this matter to date, it is appropriate that such decisions should have the support of Parliament.

In many ways, the debate on this matter has already been a success. When we first discovered that the Government were seeking to lift the EU arms embargo, there was no statement from the Government; we discovered it for ourselves. Initially, there was some confusion. There was certainly no clarity as to whether Parliament should vote to authorise any arming of the rebels. At first, there was talk of consulting, and there were hints and indications. These were confirmed in media exchanges only three or four weeks ago, when colleagues on both sides of the House who support arming the rebels advocated that Parliament would not be bound by any such vote and that no such vote was required before a policy to arm the rebels was decided upon and executed.

Through the efforts of parliamentarians on both sides, and through the general debate on the matter, we have achieved greater clarity. The Government have firmed up on their promises over the past couple of weeks, culminating in the Foreign Secretary’s unambiguous statement to the House yesterday that any such decision would be subject to a vote in this place before such a policy was executed. That is definitely a positive move, and we now have greater clarity than when we first started this journey. That is very welcome.

I want to make a further point about parliamentary oversight. Having opposed the interventions in Iraq and Libya, and observed the morphing of the mission in Afghanistan into a nation-building programme, I sympathise to a large extent with the view that Parliament sometimes comes late to these decisions. We debated and voted on the question of Iraq as the troops were on the start line. When the mission in Afghanistan morphed into one of nation building, it was suggested—although not promised—that we would be in and out without firing a shot, but 440 lives later we are still counting the cost. The vote on Libya took place almost as the jets were leaving the airfields, so there are lessons that need to be learned on the parliamentary scrutiny of these important decisions.

Many Members believe that this debate is of paramount importance, because we fear the consequences of arming the rebels. There are no easy answers in regard to the bitter and bloody civil war in Syria—atrocities are being committed by both sides—but I and others would caution against the UK getting more closely involved from a military point of view. If humanitarian concerns are uppermost in people’s minds, which I do not doubt for a moment, it beggars belief that anyone could suggest that pouring more arms into the conflict would not add to the violence and suffering. The United Nations Secretary-General was absolutely right to say that there could be no military solution to the conflict. That is why putting more arms into the conflict would not be helpful.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Could we be sure, if we were to arm the rebels against Assad and Hezbollah, that we would not be supporting al-Qaeda or creating a Shi’a-Sunni cross-border conflict, and that we would not be supporting a proxy war between Russia and the west? Is it worth the risk?

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. One of the problems with this conflict is that there are extremists on both sides. On the rebel side, for example, we know that al-Nusra has close links with jihadist and extremist groups including al-Qaeda. The Government have not been able to answer the question about how they would track and trace weapons to ensure that they did not fall into the wrong hands. We need to remember that in that part of the world weapons are tradable assets. Very little escapes the bazaar. Given that the situation on the ground is fast moving and fluid, it would be nigh-on impossible to ensure that such arms did not fall into the wrong hands.