Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

We should welcome the resumption of diplomatic relations with Tehran and their normalisation, but is it not necessary to reassure our closest allies in the middle east that there are severe limits for the foreseeable future as to the kind of relationship that we can have with Iran? Will it not in fact be the kind of relationship that the west had with the Soviet Union during the cold war—diplomatic relations, trade and practical co-operation in specific areas?

[Mr Hague]

There are limits, and it will start off with a small diplomatic team and we will seek to build that up in stages as relations develop, so it will be a small embassy to begin with. Of course, many difficult areas of relations will remain, including on the nuclear issue, on regional stability and on human rights in Iran, and we will not shrink from pursuing those issues just as strongly as we always have.

Iraq and Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

In the light of Tony Blair’s protestations to the contrary, I commend the shadow Foreign Secretary for making it clear that he accepts that the crisis in Iraq today has its roots in the chaos that has continued since the ill-judged invasion of that country in 2003.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that long-term stability in Iraq cannot be achieved until the Iraqi Government accept the need to incorporate and absorb the Sunni population in Government at the highest levels, proportionate to their legitimate entitlement, and will he make it clear to the Iraqi Government that serious support from this Government will not be possible until that happens?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I do agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Only yesterday, I made it very clear to the Foreign Minister of Iraq that the support that will be received from the rest of the world will be closely related to progress made on that issue of bringing Shi’a, Sunni and Kurds together. This is essential. As I mentioned in my statement, President Obama has made it clear that support of various kinds from the United States may well be conditional on political action by the Iraqi Government, so that message is very clear.

Ukraine

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Four German observers are involved, which is a matter of great concern to Germany and to us. Chancellor Merkel spoke very clearly about these matters on Friday, saying that we needed to adopt additional sanctions and that G7 and EU measures come with the full support of Germany. She has called for the extension of the EU list of names, for further additions to it and for intensified preparation for the wider economic measures that may prove necessary. The support of Germany is certainly there.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that his very strong condemnation of the continuing aggression of Russia towards Ukraine is an acknowledgement that the rather symbolic sanctions measures taken thus far—despite the annexation of Crimea—have had absolutely no impact on Mr Putin’s thinking or his continuing behaviour? Does my right hon. Friend accept, and will the western community now accept, that the time for wide-ranging trade, economic and financial sanctions has come? Will he confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will undoubtedly support at the very least economic, financial and trade sanctions if a single Russian soldier again crosses the border into its neighbouring state?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard me talk about the intensified preparation of those sanctions. That is going on now; I gave a little detail about it in my statement. I mentioned earlier the debate about the criteria for imposing those sanctions, but a Russian military invasion of eastern Ukraine certainly triggers such sanctions—certainly in the view of the United Kingdom and, I think, of the great majority of European Union nations. We stand ready to take such measures and we will not shy away from them.

Ukraine

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I must make some progress now.

Our national interest depends on a rules-based international system where nations uphold bilateral and global agreements in a whole variety of areas, from trade to security. We have worked with Russia in recent years to uphold agreements such as the non-proliferation treaty. The credibility of the international system rests on there being costs attached to breaking binding commitments and refusing to address disputes through peaceful diplomacy. The door to diplomacy, of course, always remains open, as it has been throughout this crisis. We have in recent days continued our efforts to persuade Russia to enter into direct talks with Ukraine and to take part in an international contact or co-ordination group, but faced with these actions it will be necessary to increase the pressure and our response.

Following the invasion of Crimea, the European Union took action at the Council meeting on 6 March to suspend visa liberalisation talks and talks on a new EU-Russia co-operation agreement. The Council also agreed that unless Russia de-escalated the crisis, we would move to a second stage of sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes against named individuals. Yesterday, the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, which I attended, decided to introduce such measures, including travel restrictions and an asset freeze on 21 individuals, not just in Crimea, but in Russia. These people are responsible for actions that undermine or threaten Ukraine, and the measures have been taken in close co-ordination with the United States and allies such as Canada, Japan and Australia. Preparatory work is under way for a third tier of sanctions, including economic and trade measures. The European Council will consider further measures later this week, in the light of President Putin’s speech today and Russia’s actions in recent days. The British Government are clear that further measures need to be taken and, in the light of President Putin’s speech today, we will argue at the Council for the strongest position and range of measures on which agreement can be obtained in the European Union.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

The most important thing the Foreign Secretary has just said is that the further measures the United Kingdom will be seeking will include economic and trade sanctions against Russia because of its annexation of Crimea. Will he confirm that that is indeed the case, and that the UK will seek financial sanctions and economic sanctions against Russia, and seek to persuade other countries to go down that route?

[Mr Hague]

Let me be precise about what I said. I said that the preparation is under way for a third tier of sanctions. The Prime Minister said after the last European Council that we must be ready to pursue far-reaching measures, including in the economic, trade and financial areas. I have also said today that at the Council, which takes place on Thursday and Friday this week, the Prime Minister will argue for the strongest position and range of measures on which agreement can be obtained. That is the position I have set out.

Syria

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, including for the strong support across the House for our trying to do everything we can to make a success of the start of the Geneva II process. He is of course absolutely right to say that a beneficial early product of that could be measures that stop the fuelling and escalation of the conflict. That is why I have talked, as have Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov at their press conference today, about the great desirability of local ceasefires and improved access for humanitarian aid even before we all get to Geneva next week. These are of course things that could also be beneficial products of the process.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the role of Iran. He said correctly that Iran has done quite a bit to deepen and inflame the crisis, including through much direct support for the Assad regime and its brutal treatment of its people. Our position on Iran depends very much on its readiness to work with the outcome of Geneva I. The invitation letter of the UN Secretary-General is clear about the purpose of our invitation to Montreux and then to Geneva, where we will carry on next week, which is to implement the original Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012. Iran was not present at that conference, but all the other nations are united behind that communiqué. That includes Russia, which was represented there.

That is the basis of Geneva II. It is about bringing about a transitional governing body with full executive authority that is formed by mutual consent. A signal of support for that being our united purpose would be very helpful in getting Iran to Geneva II. There is no problem in principle in any quarter, and certainly not among western nations, with Iran coming, but there is the practical problem of whether it is prepared to play a constructive role if it gets there. We would welcome stronger signals of that from the Iranians.

On the questions about Jordan and Lebanon, a great deal of the help that I have described is humanitarian assistance. In the case of Lebanon, where there has been violence, we use our diplomatic presence in every possible way to help the authorities to calm the situation. We also give direct support to the Lebanese armed forces. We help to finance some of their border posts. I welcome the recently announced support from Saudi Arabia for the Lebanese armed forces. It is providing $3 billion of assistance to build up the Lebanese armed forces. We have assisted Jordan with a good deal of equipment, as well as with the support that I have mentioned.

It is clear that the number of British nationals who have travelled to the region to fight is into the hundreds. We are vigilant about that and all our security agencies are focused on it. It is important to make it clear that we are prepared to act to obstruct people from doing that. The Government have the right and the power to confiscate passports. When people are resident in the UK but are not British nationals, we can cancel their leave to remain in the UK on the basis of such activity. I stress, as I have stressed since April 2011, that we advise against all travel to Syria. We of course advise people against going to fight in Syria, but we advise against all travel to Syria even for those who go there for more laudable motives. We are very limited in what we can do to assist people once they have gone there.

Our work on the destruction of chemical weapons will, of course, continue.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Although I welcome unreservedly the Foreign Secretary’s diplomatic efforts, does he acknowledge that neither he nor his American counterparts have any real clout on the Syrian moderate opposition because of our collective inability to provide them with any of the material help that they need to press home their objectives? Does that not contrast with the Russian Government’s ability to influence the Assad regime, as was demonstrated by their ability to deliver the sacrifice of all the chemical weapons within days, once the Kremlin had decided that it was necessary? If the west cannot give material help to the Syrian moderate opposition, must we not swallow our pride and work with the Russians to find the minimum that is required to bring this ghastly conflict to an end and to enable the international community to help the Syrians get rid of the jihadi terrorists who are threatening the whole of the middle east?

[Mr Hague]

Of course we work with the Russians. We discuss endlessly with the Russians, in any case, if there is any way in which we can together resolve the crisis. On chemical weapons, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, working together, have made the progress that we have described.

I think that my right hon. and learned Friend goes too far in saying that we have no clout with the Syrian opposition. What he says is not true, in that stark form, of the United States and the United Kingdom. I have many extensive discussions with the Syrian opposition. I was with the leadership of the Syrian National Coalition in Paris yesterday and they do listen carefully to what we say. They know, of course, that we have sent them assistance in the past. It is not the lethal assistance that my right hon. and learned Friend has consistently called for, but we have sent a great deal of other assistance to help to deal with chemical attacks and to save lives.

We have had to put on hold the delivery of that assistance because of what happened at the Bab al-Hawa border depot in December. To deliver assistance to the opposition we have to have confidence, and this House would expect us to have confidence, in its destination and in who will have control of it. We can resume and increase such assistance when we are satisfied on that point. That is of value to the opposition, and they are conscious of what the UK can do to provide that support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is for Ukraine to make a decision about this. The advantages of an association agreement and a deep and comprehensive free trade area are self-evident. It is for the people of Ukraine and their Government to make a judgment about that. The door remains open, as I said a moment ago. We will continue to make that point to them, including in all our discussions with Ukrainian Ministers over the next few weeks. I think the rest of the EU will do the same, but in the end it has to be their decision and their judgment.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

May I warmly welcome the fact that the door remains open, particularly in the light of the reaction of the Ukrainian people and the distinct possibility that there might be a change of policy or even a change of the Ukrainian Government themselves? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the alternative would not only dash the hopes and interests of the Ukrainian people, but give a very serious boost to the dangerous ambition of President Putin to try to restore some form of Russian empire?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

T7. While warmly welcoming the interim agreement on Iran, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it will be crucial for Iran to honour both the spirit and the letter of its commitments, and is not one of the most important obligations its promise either to convert back or to dilute that part of the uranium enrichment up to 20%, because there is little or no relevance for a 20% enrichment other than for potential military purposes?

[Mr Hague]

I absolutely agree. My right hon. and learned Friend is right. It is a key part of the interim agreement we have reached with Iran that the whole stock of the uranium enriched to near 20% must be converted or diluted. In the coming weeks we will form a joint commission with Iran that will oversee the implementation of this agreement, and the implementation of it in detail—as well as in spirit, as he rightly says—will be crucial to its success and to our ability to negotiate a comprehensive and final agreement with Iran.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Of course we will take up these issues. Between the Prime Minister and I we will be visiting the north of Sri Lanka to see for ourselves what is happening. We will press the Sri Lankan Government to investigate all human rights abuses, including the shocking allegations of acts of sexual violence committed during and after the conflict. We will urge them to allow free expression and to stop intimidation of journalists, and call on them to bring about reconciliation and political reform. It is important that we give that message to them in person.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

19. It is both unfortunate and disturbing that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is being held in Sri Lanka at this time. While the intention of the Prime Minister to visit northern Sri Lanka, where the Tamils mainly live, is very much to be welcomed, will he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raise at CHOGM the recommendations of the Commonwealth eminent persons group that were discussed at the last Commonwealth conference, in particular the recommendation of a commissioner for the rule of law, democracy and human rights? If such a commissioner had been appointed at the last CHOGM, we would have a much more objective assessment of the true circumstances in Sri Lanka at this moment.

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend played a distinguished role in the eminent persons group report. It is a pity that not every aspect of that report was adopted by the Commonwealth as we debated it over the last couple of years, although the charter for the Commonwealth was agreed, as was a more active role for the Commonwealth ministerial action group. We will continue to raise these issues in the Commonwealth.

Syria

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

I soberly disagree with the shadow Foreign Secretary in his opposition to military support for the Syrian National Coalition. What incentive does President Assad have to use a forthcoming conference to seek a political solution, when he continues to receive weapons of all descriptions from Russia and Iran? I know that my right hon. Friend has slowly and reluctantly come to the view that military support may be necessary. I strongly commend that conclusion and urge him to do what he can—in the cautious manner I know he will adopt—to ensure that the civilian communities in Syria are protected from the merciless onslaught from the present Syrian Government.

[Mr Hague]

As he has done consistently over a long time, my right hon. and learned Friend argues the case from the other perspective. As I said, this would be an important foreign policy decision and moral choice. We certainly need to apply additional pressure on the regime in order to make for a successful negotiation, because without that pressure the regime might well believe that it can sit tight for much longer yet, even with a collapsing society and economy underneath it. I think he puts the case very well.

Syria

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman correctly draws attention, as I have done, to the extent of the human suffering. The fact that the United Nations has launched the largest ever financial appeal for humanitarian assistance underlines the catastrophic scale of that suffering. We must all remember that that is the background to the situation and to deciding what we have to do.

The right hon. Gentleman made some recommendations towards the end of his remarks, some of which we have done, including work to unify the Syrian opposition, which, of course, is what we did for many months. They have been unified, to the extent that it can be practically achieved, in the Syrian National Coalition and we have recognised that group as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. I do not suppose that any opposition or political grouping will be perfect in the eyes of this or any other country, but I do not believe that there will be a better attempt or greater success at unifying the Syrian opposition than the national coalition.

It would be wonderful if some of the right hon. Gentleman’s other recommendations could be achieved, including Russian and Chinese agreement to impose an arms embargo by the whole world on Syria. We would, of course, support that—we will go over this ground in our meetings with the Russians this afternoon and next week—but I have not seen any prospect of Russia agreeing to such an arms embargo. It is a good thing to wish for, but in practical, diplomatic terms there is no possibility at the moment of it being achieved. That is the background to the decisions that we have to make. Many things would be far preferable, such as an immediate agreement on a negotiated political transition in Syria.

The right hon. Gentleman asked, rightly, how seriously we should take the offers to negotiate. Having talked to President al-Khatib of the national coalition last week, I believe not only that his offer is sincere but that he would love it to be taken up and that he really would negotiate with members of the regime without prior insistence on the departure of Assad. However, President Assad’s insistence during his weekend interview that the regime is ready to negotiate is something that we have heard for two years but that has never turned into actual substance. Of course, we will discuss with Mr Brahimi again this afternoon whether those statements can be used to bring both sides closer together. It is part of his job to try to do that. The evidence of the past two years, however, is that, in current circumstances, offers to negotiate by the regime are not sincere, are not followed up and do not lead to the sort of progress that we all want to see.

It is against that background of diplomatic deadlock and political stalemate while tens of thousands die that I argue that we have to do what we can in a very cautious, considered and clearly thought-out way to try to change that situation and to save human lives as best we can, working at all times with our partners and allies, including those in the Arab world. There is a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Arab League today.

We will continue to use every diplomatic effort, but the situation that the right hon. Gentleman and I are describing cannot remain static. He is quite right to say that the international community has been an abject failure collectively. The United Nations Security Council has not shouldered its responsibilities. We have tried many times to put that right, but our resolutions have been vetoed. We have been working in the last month since Mr Brahimi’s last briefing to the Security Council to find a new common way forward for the council—we will discuss that again with the Russians in the coming hours—but that common ground has not emerged in a month of discussions behind the scenes in New York.

Given that situation, we all have to ask ourselves whether we are going to hold our policy completely static or show that we are prepared to change as the situation deteriorates—reluctantly perhaps, and cautiously at all times. I argue that we must be prepared to show an increased level of support for the opposition, and that it has to take a practical form if we are to exert any pressure on the regime—and, indeed, on Russia as well—to successfully negotiate on this matter. The parameters have, I hope, been clearly set out in my statement. They are clearly set out in the amendment to the United Nations arms embargo. It is amended, not lifted. The arms embargo remains in place; these are specific exemptions for non-lethal military equipment and for technical assistance for the protection of civilians. I have just given examples of what that means in practice.

As for the future, the EU sanctions have now been rolled over, with that amendment, for three months. There will therefore be a further discussion in May about the renewal of such sanctions, and the Government—and every Member of this House—will be able to form their views on what we should do, in whatever situation we have arrived at in May, about further amendments to the embargo, if they are necessary. I think the parameters are clear. The policy is clear, and above all I want to make it clear that its direction is clear: we must be prepared to do more in a situation of such slaughter and suffering, and a more static policy would not measure up to the gravity of the situation.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

While I welcome the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s speech and the specific measures that he has announced, I regret to say that I cannot see how any of them will have any serious prospect of reducing the length of the conflict or preventing the massacre of tens of thousands more Syrians. Will he accept that, until such time as the Syrian opposition have the military equipment that will enable them to defeat the Assad regime and thereby bring the conflict to an end earlier than would otherwise be the case, we will continue to see tens of thousands of people being killed and the extremists in the opposition benefiting from that delay? What would the Foreign Secretary have to be persuaded of, in order to accept that giving military support to the opposition in a controlled and responsible way is indeed necessary?

[Mr Hague]

What I—and, I suspect, most of the House—would have to be persuaded of is that there was absolutely no alternative remaining. My right hon. and learned Friend has put the case—for a long time, actually—for going much further than I have proposed today in regard to the arming of the opposition movements in Syria by western countries. The difficulties involved in doing that have partly been set out by the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), but we also have to recognise that that conflict in Syria is already militarised. Opposition groups have access to substantial quantities of weapons, and those weapons are already inside Syria. There is such a flow of weapons. I therefore believe that it is right for the development of our policy to be graduated, for us to show our readiness to deliver increased assistance and for the European countries and the United States to be willing to amend our policy if the situation continues to deteriorate, but in a way that will command general support and that will pose the least danger to the increased militarisation of the conflict. That is why I think this is the right balance to strike, rather than moving to the position that my right hon. and learned Friend has consistently advocated.

Syria

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which illustrate that there remains a strong degree of unity on this terrible crisis across the House. I reiterate that I will continue to provide regular updates to the House; I think this is the seventh statement I have made on Syria recently. If there were to be any change in Government policy, I would, of course, bring that to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to what Mr Brahimi said about the possibility of 100,000 deaths this year. That underlines the worsening nature of this crisis. It is not just a continuing crisis; it is a worsening crisis. We have to look at everything we do in the light of that. We are doing a great deal, as I set out in my statement, but we must always be open to doing more and be open to ideas for doing more. We approach this issue in that spirit.

The right hon. Gentleman asked questions on four general areas. On the diplomatic situation, he asked, a bit pointedly, why, rather than condemning Russia, we do not talk to the Russians quietly. We do a great deal of talking to them quietly—we do that on a pretty much continuous basis—but that does not mean that we do not give our public views about their votes in the UN Security Council from time to time. I last met the Russian Foreign Minister for a substantial discussion about Syria in Dublin on 6 December, and I have invited him to visit London in the near future, so our contact with the Russians on this issue is pretty continuous. There has not been a substantial change in the Russian position, although there is, perhaps, a greater Russian interest in renewed discussions. The trilateral meeting between Mr Brahimi, the US and the Russians this week is further evidence of that. We will absolutely keep discussing the diplomatic way forward, based on the Geneva communiqué, which we did agree with the Russians. What we have never managed to agree with them is how to implement the Geneva communiqué. We see the wholehearted involvement of Russia, preferably in a UN Security Council resolution, as being required to bring that about. Russia has not changed its position on that, but we will keep working on it.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about support for the opposition and the barriers to unity. Opposition groups have grown up almost independently of each other, and have not been able to communicate very well on the ground in Syria, and it is therefore difficult to create a united opposition, particularly when some are inside the country and others are outside the country, but the National Coalition is doing a very good job of that—in my judgment, the best job that can be done. There have been well-known difficulties at many stages in bringing in Kurdish representatives, but that has been agreed. It has been agreed that the Kurds will take up a vice-presidency of the National Coalition, but the Kurds themselves have not yet agreed who will fill that position, which serves to illustrate the difficulties involved. The National Coalition is by far the best attempt we have seen so far to bring together responsible opposition forces in Syria. That is why we have chosen to recognise it and work with it.

In the right hon. Gentleman’s third set of questions he asked for more detail, but given the chaotic situation in Syria, it is not possible to quantify accurately the number of extremist, or al-Qaeda supporting, fighters in Syria. In the opinion of opposition leaders, they represent a small minority of what is perhaps a six-figure number of opposition fighters, but it is simply not possible to quantify the exact number. In light of any presence of extremists, however, it is important that we try to bring this situation to a conclusion as soon as possible and support moderate political forces. That is what much of our efforts are directed at.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the many hazards in supplying arms into a conflict area. I stress that we have made no change to our policy in this regard. We are trying to build flexibility into the EU position. It is also important to note that the arms embargo as it currently stands prohibits the supply to opposition groups of such items as body armour, helmets and certain types of communications equipment, so its definition of “arms” is quite broad. That must be borne in mind in any future flexibility that we might build in.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked, rightly, about what steps we are taking to encourage other countries to provide more humanitarian aid, as we have done. The Secretary of State for International Development and I are very busily engaged on that. I discussed it with the Arab League secretary-general, Nabil el-Araby, on Monday and I am raising it in all my bilateral meetings with European and Arab countries to try to build up, ahead of the Kuwait meeting, a greater degree of donations. I hope that I have given full answers to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has said that the British Government accept a moral obligation to do what we can to save lives in Syria. Against that background, I warmly welcome his statement that the Government are now willing to “seek to amend the EU sanctions so that the possibility of additional assistance is not closed off.” Will he please confirm that that does not exclude the possibility that the Government may, at some stage, be willing to consider providing military equipment that could be used in a defensive way to save lives? He is aware—indeed he referred to the fact—that ballistic missiles had been used by the Syrian Government on several occasions this week against targets in the north. As NATO has agreed to provide and is currently deploying Patriot anti-missile batteries to protect Turkey, would it not be appropriate to consider providing similar support to Syrians, given that these anti-missile batteries cannot kill people—they can only save lives and therefore would be consistent with the objectives of Her Majesty’s Government?

[Mr Hague]

As I have said, we are not taking any options off the table; we are not excluding any option, given the worsening situation and given that no resolution to it is in sight at the moment. I also stress, as I did to the shadow Foreign Secretary, that we have not changed the British Government’s policy on what we will supply, but we are trying to build in the flexibility for the future. The direct answer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s question is therefore that we have not excluded that possibility; indeed, as I was pointing out in my answer to the shadow Foreign Secretary, there are many different categories of military equipment, many of which fall short of being equipment that has a lethal use. Large categories of equipment can be used to save lives and cannot be used offensively. So we have not excluded that possibility and we must keep all options open as the situation develops.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I agree with the main point of the hon. Gentleman’s question, although I assure him that nothing that the my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does is stage-managed. He imparted very clearly indeed the message that I think the whole House would agree with. The main point of the hon. Gentleman’s question is what I have expressed in all our discussions in the House over the past two weeks. Despite all the events of the past week, we have to achieve a return to negotiations and we particularly need the United States to play its necessary role in that. That is the only way in which we will secure a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one urgent priority must be for his Department to do whatever it can to help to end the indiscriminate carnage of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians by their own regime? May I commend him for persuading his European colleagues that reviews of the current arms embargo must be held every three months and not every year, and will he give urgent consideration to persuading his European colleagues—and, indeed, the Government—at least to allow air defence equipment to be made available to those trying to protect civilian communities throughout Syria?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He is right: last week the Government persuaded colleagues in the European Union that rather than roll over all sanctions on Syria for 12 months, including the arms embargo, we should do so for three months to allow ourselves flexibility to respond to a changing situation. As he knows, I do not follow him all the way in saying that we should supply air defence equipment, although opposition groups in Syria are clearly acquiring a variety of anti-aircraft weapons. The Government will be intensifying further not only our humanitarian assistance but our diplomatic efforts—including with Russia—to try to find a way forward on Syria.

Middle East

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, for obvious reasons. For the sake of clarity, I should say that the Government have taken no decision yet on how to vote on the resolution. We are arguing against the holding of such a vote, which would be carried in the UN General Assembly, because of the number of nations in favour of it. As I mentioned earlier, we will consult closely with our EU partners on this matter. There was a time when the right hon. Gentleman used to place great weight on the views of European Union Foreign Ministers, and after yesterday’s discussions, I believe that most of them have the same view as ours. That is the majority view for a reason: there is genuine anxiety about whether it would be possible, in the remaining short window, to restart the middle east peace process negotiations if the motion were carried now. It is therefore a tactical difference. There is a respectable difference of opinion on the matter, but I come down on that side of the judgment.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the emergence of the Syrian national coalition, and this Government’s welcome recognition of it today, removes a major barrier to the supply of defensive military equipment to the Syrian resistance? As the European embargo is due to expire on 1 December, and as President Hollande of France has said that France is now willing to reconsider the supply of defensive military equipment, will the Foreign Secretary look at this matter constructively? Does he recognise that what he rightly described as the barbaric violence of the Syrian regime against the civilian communities will not come to an end unless and until the Syrian resistance is able to defend itself?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend has consistently made the case for the active arming of the Syrian opposition by western countries. In response, I have often pointed out some of the disadvantages of that course of action. There is no automatic change in our policy on that as a result of the recognition of the Syrian opposition. I have discussed the issues with the French Foreign Minister. The arms embargo is due to be rolled over and continued from 1 December, as part of the entire package of Syrian sanctions. Whatever one’s views on the arms embargo, we very much want to maintain all those sanctions, so any changes would rely on a subsequent amendment to the overall sanctions package. There has been no request from France to the EU to change that position at this stage. We will keep all the options under review, but we have made no decision to change our policy on arms supplies, as things stand.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman may wish to familiarise himself with the positions that we have been taking, in common with not only western Governments, but the majority of Governments in the world. Our position was the position of the 133 nations in the UN General Assembly that voted for the resolution of 3 August, with only 12 votes against. That position is to have a transitional Government in Syria, including members of the current Government and the current opposition, based on mutual consent. That is the compromise solution. If he wants us to make a further compromise with forces who have killed indiscriminately and oppressed the people of their country with appalling human rights violations, I can tell him that that we are unable to do.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Although one can welcome his recent announcement of certain modest increases of contacts with the Syrian opposition, does not my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the arms embargo, which Britain supports, creates a hopelessly unbalanced situation, because the Syrian Government have a monopoly of air power, artillery and other forces, and because the embargo is not binding on Russia or Iran, which are not members of the European Union? Does he not acknowledge that this is simply going to mean that this conflict will last for many more months than would have been necessary, with many more thousands of Syrians being killed in the process?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend always makes an eloquent case on this subject. I respect his views and always pay great heed to them, but although I do not exclude any option for the future, I do not agree that it would be right now to lift the EU arms embargo. It has not been our policy in any of the conflicts in the middle east to send arms into a region of conflict. He will know that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to the course that he advocates, because it would be very hard to know what some of those arms would be used for. In the long term, there would be at least as great a risk that they would make the conflict greater as reduce it. We support the opposition in the terms that I set out yesterday in the House. It is clear that Syrian opposition groups are obtaining arms from other sources, but it has not been our policy at any stage to join in with that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any serious concessions by the Iranians should be welcomed, but that for the discussions and negotiations to succeed the Iranians will have to demonstrate, with full verification and transparency, that they no longer seek either nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons capability?

[Mr Hague]

That would be required for the issue to be settled and for the negotiations to succeed. It is important for Iran to announce concrete steps and to put forward concrete proposals. It has put forward some proposals in the talks in Moscow over the past 48 hours. As I have said, the talks remain very tough and frank, and have not met with success so far. In the absence of success, including as my right hon. and learned Friend defines it, the international pressure will only be intensified.

Syria

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is a good point. I do not know what Russia’s private assessment is of that damage, but there is such damage, of course, and not only in the view of leaders in the Arab world, but among the huge populations who now watch the footage of these crimes on satellite TV. Of course, the same people across the whole middle east are familiar with, or were rapidly informed of, the fact that when we had a vote in the UN Human Rights Council 10 days ago, only three countries voted against that resolution: Russia, China and Cuba. That does not help any of those countries’ international standing in the region or, in the wider world, among people who have a passionate concern for human rights. That is one of the factors in their thinking. It may be one of the factors in the increased readiness to look for new solutions in order to bring about the implementation of the Annan plan. As I say, we will continue to work with Russia and try to persuade the Russian leaders on that basis.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Over the weekend the Foreign Secretary made the important comparison between Syria today and Bosnia in the 1990s. Will he accept that we are repeating one of the major mistakes of that period by imposing an arms embargo equally on the Syrian regime and the Syrian insurgents, despite the fact that the regime has an overwhelming preponderance of military equipment already? Taking into account the fact that the embargo is not a Security Council embargo—it is one imposed purely by the European Union, and could therefore be changed and modified, regardless of the views of Russia or China—will my right hon. Friend have urgent talks with his fellow Foreign Ministers in other European Union countries on modifying the arms embargo to the degree required to enable appropriate military assistance to be given to Syrian insurgents, so that they can prevent, or at least seek to prevent, the continuing slaughter of the Syrian people?

[Mr Hague]

While not fundamentally disagreeing in all circumstances that might arise with my right hon. and learned Friend, I am not at the same point in the argument. As he well knows, there are serious disadvantages to sending arms to opposition groups, as well as the case that he might make. It is difficult to know in the current situation what those arms would be used for, and whether they could also be used to commit atrocities that we would find appalling. They could contribute to the cycle of violence that is building up and create a further reaction on the other side. We can see some of that now, as there clearly is an increased availability of arms, from whatever source, to opposition groups, and the cycle of violence is increasing. I think it is far preferable to any of the other options—options which may be on the table for the future, but it is far preferable now to put all our effort and to put our diplomatic effort entirely, even at this stage, into trying to secure the Annan plan, because that or something very similar to it is the only hope of a peaceful transition. Until all such efforts have been entirely exhausted, I think it is best to continue to aim for that peaceful solution and not to contribute in any way to the violence in Syria.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The UK is one of the strongest advocates of the sanctions being applied by the EU, including the ban on EU imports of Iranian oil from 1 July. The House should be clear about that, but discussion is continuing within the EU about protection and indemnity insurance and when a ban on it would be applied—on 1 July or at a later date. We are discussing that separately because of concerns expressed by countries outside the EU about the impact on their trade. We are assessing that, working with France in particular, to try to understand how serious the impact would be. We are clearly applying sharply increased pressure on Iran, but we also have to bear in mind the wider consequences for oil prices and the world economy, and balance those concerns.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that even if the Iranians make constructive proposals in Baghdad next week, which would be very welcome, it would be premature to consider any suspension of sanctions, except in the unlikely event that the Iranians propose to suspend, as of that date, their further enrichment of uranium?

[Mr Hague]

We will have to see what, if any, proposals Iran makes in Baghdad on 23 May, but if my right hon. and learned Friend is saying that we should be cautious about making large-scale concessions, of course I agree—we will be cautious. It would, in any case, require agreement across the E3 plus 3. We will see what the Iranians say. If they propose and start to implement concrete steps, of course there would be ways in which we would want to respond, but very serious and significant steps would have to be taken for us to change, in any way, our approach to, for example, the imposition of the oil sanctions that I just described.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Is it not clear that the Assad regime had no intention of respecting the ceasefire and withdrawing its tanks and heavy artillery from towns and cities? As the international community accepts a responsibility to protect, will the British Government initiate urgent discussions with the Arab League, Turkey, the United States and other European countries, with a view to encouraging Arab states to close their land borders and their airspace to any traffic destined for Syria? If that were combined with a naval blockade of the Syrian coast, would it not, at the very least, prevent any further arms from being delivered to the Syrian regime?

[Mr Hague]

As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, we have very tough sanctions in place, imposed through the European Union, and the Arab League has sanctions of its own. But as he will also know, some Arab League countries do not implement, or do not fully implement, those sanctions, particularly countries that are close to Syria, such as Iraq. For that reason, it is extremely difficult to impose the general blockade that my right hon. and learned Friend talks about, and arms shipments continue to reach Syria from Russia as well. Cutting off all such arms supplies without the co-operation of the countries I have mentioned is not possible. What we now have to do is try to ensure that the terms of the UN Security Council resolution are met, and clearly warn the Assad regime that if they are not met, we will be able to return to the Security Council for further measures.

Syria

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

They are very serious crimes, and that is a wholly legitimate question. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that when a country is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court—as Syria is not—the United Nations Security Council must put forward a reference to the prosecutor of the ICC. Given the difficulties of passing the moderate and sensible plan put forward by the Arab League, it will be even more difficult—indeed, currently impossible—to pass a resolution seeking a reference to the court. That is why I explained in my statement that we will make strong representations at the meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council, where we will press for the appointment of a special rapporteur and the establishment of special investigations into the human rights situation in Syria, as an alternative track.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary consider speaking to the Russian Foreign Minister before Mr Lavrov goes to Damascus tomorrow, and reminding him of the serious damage that Russia is doing to its own long-term interests in the middle east? If he does speak to him, will he draw to his attention the statement that has been put out by the opposition Syrian National Council today, in which it accuses Russia and China of being

“responsible for the escalating acts of killing”?

It goes on to say that their use of the veto in the Security Council was

“tantamount to a licence to kill with impunity”.

Will not Russia bear a heavy responsibility if Syria now descends into a bloody and protracted civil war?

[Mr Hague]

I think that that is true; I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. This is why I have used strong language of my own, at the weekend and in my statement today. I believe that the vetoes are a betrayal of the Syrian people: they make Russia and China increasingly responsible for the situation in Syria and for some of the slaughter that is taking place there. They must consider—on the basis of their own national interest, apart from anything else—whether it is a sensible policy to carry on in this way. They are turning their backs on the Arab world, which will reduce their influence in the middle east. It is my belief that they are backing a regime that is, as I have said, doomed in any case. As I said to the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Russians were left in no doubt of our well-expressed views after I had spoken to Mr Lavrov. They will also be conscious of the views being expressed in the House this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We are seriously concerned about recent reports that young monks and nuns in Tibetan areas of Szechuan province have immolated themselves. As I said, we have taken that up with the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, and with the Chinese embassy in London. We encourage, of course, the resolution of grievances that have led to that situation. We will continue to encourage the Chinese Government to take that constructive approach.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

As the Chinese Government have been able to recognise and respect the autonomy of both Hong Kong and Macau in the People’s Republic, should they not allow autonomy for Tibet, to ensure that, within the People’s Republic, its unique culture and identity are properly respected and recognised, and will the Government try to encourage it to do so?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very fair point indeed. As he knows, we recognise Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China, but we call for meaningful dialogue between the representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities in the interests of autonomy in future. Of course, we always call for respect for human rights.

North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend invites me neatly on to my next paragraph. As he rightly says, last week voters also went to the polls in Morocco to choose a new Government, following the constitution passed in a referendum in July. That is an important part of Morocco’s progress towards greater democratic accountability. We urge Morocco and Tunisia to turn these democratic gains into real reform that meets the long-term aspirations of their people. That is the answer to my hon. Friend’s question; we have advocated democracy in these countries, and where they have turned to democracy and are holding free, fair and respected elections, we must respect the outcome of democratic votes and not try to second-guess the electorates of those countries. The test for us is not their domestic programmes—that is up to these countries—but whether they are able to continue choosing Governments in the future, having further elections and having alternating Governments in the future. Many African countries, for example, Zambia, have recently set a good example in that regard. That is the test. I do not think that we should couple our support for democracy with regular or constant criticism of parties that engage in the democratic process in these countries.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Is it not worth taking into account that although the Moroccan Islamist party may be the largest single party, it obtained only just over a quarter of the vote and, as in Tunisia, non-Islamist parties in both these elections have emerged with a large majority of the popular vote? That indicates that public opinion is not necessarily going to be dominated by the Islamist point of view.

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point and what he has described has indeed been the pattern so far in Tunisia and Morocco. In addition, we must not prejudge how these parties will develop. Understandably, there is some anxiety about that, but they will find in many countries that they are under pressure increasingly to secularise their policies in order to deal with the practical concerns of their people. We will see over time—but only over time—how they develop.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady will have to be disappointed with the position of all European countries, because we have all withheld a decision on the question of Palestinian recognition and membership of the UN. It is vital to remember that the way to a secure Israel and a viable, prosperous Palestinian state is through negotiations between the two. She is right to be frustrated or exasperated by the time that the negotiations have taken. Nevertheless, there is no way to lasting peace in the middle east other than through those negotiations.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary impress upon the Israeli Government in a friendly but firm way that the only manner by which they can avoid an overwhelming vote in favour of a Palestinian state at the General Assembly is if the Israeli Prime Minister gives an unequivocal commitment in support of a two-state solution, as proposed by President Obama, and a commitment to enter into early and meaningful negotiations to that end?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I agree with that. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that it is important for Israel to show a readiness to negotiate in the light of President Obama’s speech and what could happen at the United Nations in September. Indeed, one advantage of the United Kingdom and other EU nations considering our position on this matter over the next few months is that it will maximise the pressure on both Israelis and Palestinians to enter such negotiations.

Middle East and North Africa

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. Other Ministers and I went to the NATO meeting in Berlin to ask for an increased tempo in the military operations, as well as increased support from other countries for military operations, some of which we have secured. He will have heard us talking about Italy earlier. However, when he says that the situation needs to be brought to a conclusion more rapidly, he is really calling for a military effort that is very different in its scale and in its nature. I would say to him that that would not be in accordance with UN resolution 1973. The large-scale use of ground troops, for instance, would not be in accordance with the resolution. Whatever we do, it is vital to keep the legal, moral and international authority that comes from working within the United Nations resolutions. I must therefore resist his demands for a more rapid or overwhelming military solution to the situation. We have to continue to intensify the pressure on Gaddafi through diplomatic, economic and military channels, but we must stay within what is legal and internationally supported.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Government’s twin fundamental aims of protecting civilians and requiring the departure of Gaddafi cannot be achieved by coalition air power alone—or, indeed, by diplomatic and economic pressure—and that the achievement of those aims will require giving military support to the insurgents? I welcome the fact that instructors have been sent to Benghazi, but does the Foreign Secretary not agree that much more military support could be given that would be consistent with the UN resolution, which allows all necessary measures for the protection of civilians throughout Libya?

[Mr Hague]

The first point to make to my right hon. and learned Friend is that these are not instructors. I would not refer to them as instructors. It is a military liaison team; it is working on headquarters organisation. I stress that these officers are not involved in arming or training the forces of the opposition side in Libya. Our position—my right hon. and learned Friend has brought it up before—is that we will help with non-lethal equipment. The British Government have taken no decision to arm or equip the opposition forces with lethal equipment. I have expressed our view of the legality of that before, which is that the arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya, but that it is legal under the UN resolution to supply equipment to protect civilian life in certain circumstances. Other nations may wish to do that or to interpret the resolution in a different way. We interpret it in that way and believe that the best way for us to help is to supply the non-lethal equipment that I have mentioned.

Libya (London Conference)

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for continuing the wide support for the idea of a contact group. It received unanimous support at the conference yesterday, which is why it was so easy to proceed with it and, indeed, with recognising the role of the UN Secretary-General in offering to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the attendance or otherwise of the Arab League and the African Union. The Arab League was well represented at yesterday’s meeting. The Secretary-General, Amr Moussa, was not able to come and he explained to me why he could not, but he sent his chef de cabinet, an ambassador, who made a powerful speech at the conference on the Arab League’s strong support for implementing the UN Security Council’s resolutions and for the action taken so far. No one should be in any doubt about the position of the Arab League. It is true, of course, that the African Union did not attend; there were divisions within in it over whether it should. We are in constant touch with the African Union and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in almost daily touch with its chairman. I have had several conversations about this issue with President Museveni of Uganda. Clearly, the African Union does not have a united position, but we will invite it to engage with the contact group that we are establishing and we will keep our regular communication going.

On the question of arming the rebels, the Prime Minister made the position clear at Prime Minister’s questions. We have said that everything we do must comply with the Security Council resolutions, which also relates to the right hon. Gentleman’s last point. It is a point I make constantly—that everything we do must be consistent with those resolutions. It is acting strictly in accordance with UN resolutions that gives a legal, moral and international authority to our deeds, which has not, of course, always been there before. As I have already told the House, and as the Prime Minister said in the debate a couple of weeks ago, the legal position is that the arms embargo applies to the whole territory of Libya. At the same time, our legal advice is that resolution 1973 allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas and that this would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances. Clearly, there are differing views internationally about the legal position, but I have explained what is the view of the British Government. As the Prime Minister told the House, we do not rule it out, but we have not taken any decision to provide that assistance.

In response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the Prime Minister also indicated at Prime Minister’s questions that the Government would indeed proceed with caution on this subject, as the shadow Foreign Secretary asked us to do. Questions of advisability, as the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, are different from questions of legality. We will always be very conscious of that. Of course, if we changed our policy, we would certainly want to inform the House, but we are not currently engaged in any arming of the opposition or rebel forces.

Of course we want to know about any links with al-Qaeda, as we do about links with any organisations anywhere in the world, but given what we have seen of the interim transitional national council in Libya, I think it would be right to put the emphasis on the positive side, as the Prime Minister did earlier. From everything we saw from our meetings with members of the council yesterday and from telephone conversations I have had with other members, I believe it is sincere in its commitment to a pluralistic, open Libya. The council published yesterday what is in effect its manifesto, which states its commitment to freedom of expression and freedom of the media, to the development of political parties and civil society and so forth. I think we should welcome that and I think there is a genuine and strong desire in Libya among the opposition groups to bring those things about. It would give the wrong impression of those groups, from everything we have seen and everything that our diplomat, Christopher Prentice, saw in Benghazi, to accentuate any allegations of links with other groups outside Libya rather than to accentuate those intentions that they clearly hold dear to their hearts.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the International Criminal Court. I mentioned in my statement how strictly we uphold its work. The United Kingdom has always done so under successive Governments and it will continue to do so. That does not mean that we can control what happens to Colonel Gaddafi, but we are not proposing to grant him any exemption from the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. That was something that we proposed should be part of UN resolution 1970.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the conditions set by President Obama on behalf of the coalition when the military operations began. Yes, those conditions still apply—the conditions of a real ceasefire, not just a pretend ceasefire. It does not mean the regime sitting in the middle of a town like Misrata and still being engaged at close quarters with the civilian population it is trying to kill. Clearly, a credible ceasefire involves disengaging from those areas. Events have moved on since President Obama made his statement, which was about not advancing on Benghazi. Since then, that has become less relevant, although we do not know whether it will become relevant again. We understand and interpret the requirement for a ceasefire and an end to violence in terms of those general conditions, which involve disengagement in order to fulfil the UN resolution. That reinforces our continuing rigid approach to enforcing the UN resolution and to staying within the UN resolution. We must also keep the international unity and moral authority that our conduct of affairs so far has given us on this issue.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

May I strongly disagree with the shadow Foreign Secretary and welcome the statement by the American and British Governments that military supplies to the insurgents would be permissible under the UN resolution if that were appropriate to protect civilian-populated areas? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the physical safety of the people of Tripoli and other parts of Libya will be ensured only if there is a speedy end to this civil war leading to the departure of Gaddafi, and that that cannot be achieved by coalition air power alone, but only if the insurgents—they are no longer rebels, as there is no longer any legitimacy for the Government in Tripoli—are properly assisted to bring this war to an end as soon as possible so that a no-fly zone is no longer required?

[Mr Hague]

I can go so far with my right hon. and learned Friend. He is quite right about the utter absence of legitimacy for the Gaddafi regime now, and I accept his welcome for the statement of the legal position on the supply of arms that we have set out; the United States Government also provided their version of that position. Nevertheless, I underline what I said to the shadow Foreign Secretary—that questions of advisability and policy would have to be examined in this regard, not just questions of legality. One can make the argument that my right hon. and learned Friend makes, but one can also make the argument that introducing new weapons into a conflict can have unforeseeable and unknown consequences both for the immediate future and for the longer term. Such considerations would have to be very carefully weighed before the Government changed their policy on this matter.

North Africa and the Middle East

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to remember that, thanks to the commendable organisation, immense bravery and skill of the Royal Air Force and the special forces, people such as his constituent were lifted out of the desert in Libya and brought safely home. That is something of which we in the House should be proud, rather than trying to find fault with the way in which the exercise was carried out. I am sure that people who are rescued in those circumstances will be grateful for what the United Kingdom did for them. Certainly the people of 43 other nationalities in whose evacuation from Libya we assisted are very grateful for our assistance.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

I will give way, for the last time, to my right hon. and learned Friend the former Foreign Secretary.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

My right hon. Friend told us that a new Security Council resolution might be in the process of being tabled. If I understood him correctly, he said that part of the thinking behind it related to evidence that Colonel Gaddafi might be seeking to breach the arms embargo restrictions. Does he agree that it would be intolerable for the Gaddafi regime—which is already very heavily armed—to be able to continue to obtain additional armaments while the insurgents who are fighting it are being denied access to any military equipment because of legal advice that the arms embargo has been drafted so tightly that it extends beyond the Gaddafi regime to other elements in Libya? If there is to be a new Security Council resolution, will my right hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that it clarifies the fact that the embargo is directed against the Gaddafi regime, and does not prevent the provision of help for those who are fighting it?

[Mr Hague]

The situation described by my right hon. and learned Friend would indeed be intolerable. That is why the proper enforcement and policing of the arms embargo is an important and legitimate subject for the resolution. However, I do not want to leave my right hon. and learned Friend in any doubt about what the Security Council intended by the arms embargo in resolution 1970. It was clearly intended to apply to the whole of Libya. Any change would have to be embodied in a further resolution: that is the legal position, as understood by the Security Council and all its permanent members. The solution, or attempt at a solution, that is most likely to be agreed by the Security Council is a thorough and full enforcement and policing of the arms embargo, rather than amendments to an embargo that was agreed nearly three weeks ago.

Libya and the Middle East

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for much of what he said. He pays tribute to the bravery of the troops involved in extracting people from the oilfields two weekends ago, and he is absolutely right to do so. I welcome his welcome for the upgrading of the status of the Palestinian delegation. It is good that that is supported across the House.

There is clearly a good deal of agreement too on the overall outlines of western policy in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman stated, as we have, that all options should remain on the table. He underlined the importance of working closely with the Arab League, which should be continued in many different forms. I do not know whether that will be possible at the European Council this week, but we are in close touch with many of those Arab nations about all the options that may be necessary over the coming weeks and months. Close consultation and co-ordination with those nations will need to continue.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the multilateral aspects of humanitarian aid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in continuous close touch with Baroness Amos and all the organisations and people the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, including the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and others. We will keep up that work, including on co-ordinating our humanitarian and logistical assistance with France—we have co-ordinated it to a degree—which has also worked well.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about matters that were raised in the House last Monday, so I will not go over all of them again, except to say this on his question about whether there has been a variation in policy on the no-fly zone and whether our policy is out of step with that of other nations: the policy is exactly as stated by the Prime Minister here at the Dispatch Box last Monday, which is that contingency planning should be done for a no-fly zone. It is exactly the same position as that expressed by Secretary Clinton last week, and exactly the same as that expressed by the French Government, as the French Foreign Minister and I made clear at our press conference last week. I think from what the right hon. Gentleman says that it also enjoys the support of the Opposition in this House, so I think we are aligned on this policy.

On the deployment in Benghazi, the factual points the right hon. Gentleman stated in his question are correct. On consultation with officials and who decided what and so on, we should be clear that when our staff go into a potentially dangerous situation, a level of protection is provided for them, based on professional and military advice. We do that in many places around the world, and it was, of course, important to do so in this situation. As I explained, I authorised such a mission to be made to put a diplomatic team into eastern Libya with protection. Of course, the timing and details of that are operational matters decided by the professionals, but Ministers must have confidence in their judgments, as I do, and must take full ministerial responsibility for all their actions and judgments, as, of course, I do. The Prime Minister and other Ministers were of course aware that we would attempt to put a diplomatic team into eastern Libya.

On the overall impact of British foreign policy on the Gaddafi regime and others, they are aware, as is much of the world, that we have led the way at the United Nations Security Council and drafted the resolution that was passed last weekend, that we led the way at the UN Human Rights Council, gathering the signatures that led to the suspension of Libya, and that we are at the forefront both of implementing the assets freeze and other measures that are putting pressure on the regime and of getting the message through in Libya that reference has been made to the International Criminal Court. The impact of British foreign policy on this situation and on the Gaddafi regime is extremely powerful, and that is how it will remain.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Having as Defence Secretary helped to enforce the no-fly zone on Iraq to protect the Shia and the Kurds, I am well aware of the important benefits this can produce in the right circumstances, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that to take forward proposals for a no-fly zone in Libya two fundamental conditions must be satisfied: first, the United Nations Security Council must give explicit endorsement for such an operation; and, secondly, there must be unambiguous evidence that the Libyan revolutionary council representing the insurgents actually wants the very substantial degree of western military involvement that a no-fly zone would represent, because there is clear indication that many of them believe that Libyans should liberate their own country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this proposal is unlikely to go anywhere until and unless these two conditions are satisfied?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend is correct that all the contacts we have had with opposition forces in Libya suggest that they believe Libyans should be responsible for liberating their country. However, it is also only fair to point out that in those conversations they have already explicitly asked for a no-fly zone, and they do not see a contradiction between those two points.

My right hon. and learned Friend is right that many conditions should be attached to trying to implement a no-fly zone. The way I would state them at this moment is: there should be a demonstrable need that the whole world can see; there must be a clear legal basis for such a no-fly zone; and there must be clear support from the region—from the middle east and north African region—as well as from the people of Libya themselves, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. Those are the necessary conditions for such a no-fly zone to be created.

Middle East

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a wide range of questions, and I shall try to go through them. I thank him for his words about the staff of the Foreign Office, and about what they have done and continue to do in Yemen, as well as in Egypt. I know that it will mean a lot to them to be appreciated in all parts of the House.

I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for what I have said about the middle east peace process. As I understood it, he supports the intensification of our measures on Iran, which I talked about in my statement. These are conscious changes in policy. It is a conscious change in policy for not only us, but the United States to say that a settlement in the middle east should be based on 1967 borders. It is a conscious change in policy to say that now, on top of the measures agreed in the European Union last year, the peaceful pressure on Iran must be intensified. To be joined by the Opposition in those changes of policy gives strength to them, and it always counts for a great deal in foreign policy for this House to speak in a united way.

I might have to take the right hon. Gentleman’s questions in reverse order, but I will try to get through them all. This leads us naturally to a discussion of the peace process, which I have discussed with my Israeli counterpart. Foreign Minister Lieberman visited London on 24 January, and we have also had more recent discussions with the Israeli Government. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) was there over the weekend, underlining the point that the events in the region strengthen the case for making a success of negotiations on a two-state solution. I hope that recent events will be a jolt to many among the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, showing them that, in the next few years, the opportunity to find a two-state solution will slip away unless there is a renewed readiness to engage in the process.

I am concerned about instability on the Palestinian side of the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the reported offer by the Palestinian chief negotiator to resign. There is also the prospect of elections among the Palestinians. This instability also underlines the importance of finding a way of getting the direct talks going again soon. The United Kingdom is very active diplomatically in trying to do that, and we will continue to be so.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the prospects for the E3 plus 3 negotiations with Iran. There will be prospects for those negotiations only if Iran approaches them entirely differently from the way in which its negotiators approached the meeting in Istanbul on 21 and 22 January. The preconditions that Iran set for that meeting were entirely unrealistic, as Iran knew. It is important that it should be prepared to discuss its whole nuclear programme with the E3 plus 3 if such negotiations are to succeed. The door remains open to negotiations with Iran, but, so far, it has not proved willing to enter it.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Yemen. There is of course a serious threat to our national security from the operations of al-Qaeda in Yemen. The recently well-reported cargo bomb plot was evidence of that. We are active in Yemen. The right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the fact that the Department for International Development is very active there, with £50 million of support in the current year helping to provide more schools, to increase the number of doctors and to help with microfinance projects. That is valuable work, but we could do a lot more if we had the agreed framework of working with Yemen that we are calling for through the Friends of Yemen process, including the detailed development and poverty reduction plan. We received details of that plan just as I arrived in Yemen, and we are now examining it. I regard our work on the affairs and stability of Yemen in the coming months to be of great importance in the conduct of our foreign policy.

We certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s points about the future of Egypt. I think I mentioned in my statement that we want detainees to be freed. We also want to see a clear timetable for elections. There is an expectation that they will take place in six months, but not yet a categorical commitment. It would be wise to meet that expectation. As he and I have both said, however, democracy is more than about holding elections. What matters even more than the date is that the process between now and then should allow new political parties and civil society in general to grow and prosper. That is why it is important that emergency laws should be lifted, and that we and other nations—not only European nations but democratic Muslim nations such as Turkey and Indonesia—should join in the building up of civil society in Egypt. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that space between the National Democratic party and the Muslim Brotherhood has not been filled before. The Opposition parties in Egypt are small and weak.

We retain, as the previous Government did, certain contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood—in particular with those who were elected Members of Parliament in the 2005 elections. There has been normal contact with them, and that contact continues. Those people have clearly taken part in recent events in Egypt, although they are insistent that they will not be contesting the presidency of the country. We will maintain our contact with them, and judge them by their behaviour.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the seizure of assets. Yes, the requests made by the Tunisian Government are being acted on. The freeze has been implemented, investigations are taking place, and the ways in which our authorities should co-operate with that are being followed up.

The specific request from Egypt was received this morning. That is why there is a difference between what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said on the radio yesterday, when that request had not been received—and had certainly not been seen by Ministers—and the information put out this morning, which is that such a request has been received and will be acted on.

To clarify an issue for the right hon. Gentleman, it is not the Serious Fraud Office, but the Serious Organised Crime Agency that is involved in the investigation of assets acquired through corruption. We, of course, have to abide by the law on this matter. That means that we will act on requests from foreign countries, but that Ministers can direct an investigation or a seizure and freezing of assets only if they are in possession of evidence of criminal activity or of a threat to our national security. We are under certain constraints if no request is received. Nevertheless, the European Union is able to implement an assets freeze for wider purposes, which is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is discussing with his colleagues in the EU tonight. We are acting on this expeditiously, and I thoroughly agree with the general sentiment that the right hon. Gentleman expressed about this issue.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

In unreservedly welcoming the Egyptian revolution and similar uprisings elsewhere in the middle east, may I commend the Foreign Secretary, his predecessor and, indeed, the United States Government for insisting on having good working relationships even with autocratic regimes in the middle east which, regardless of their internal affairs which we deplore, have pursued moderate and constructive policies, seeking dialogue with Israel and working in a peaceful way towards a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any other approach would never have served the best interests of that region?

[Mr Hague]

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. That is the policy he pursued when he held my office. It is important to do that in any practical approach to foreign policy. In fact, I would go a little further than my right hon. and learned Friend, as it is also important to have some kind of dialogue with autocratic regimes even when they have not always pursued moderate and sensible policies. As I mentioned, I visited Syria just over two weeks ago, where, of course, we disagreed. I disagreed in our meetings with President Assad about Syria’s relationship with Iran, about the country’s human rights record and the about the situation in Lebanon. Even with such countries, however, it is important to have dialogue. Diplomacy in foreign policy is not just about talking to people with whom we agree.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I do not think that the NATO summit showed irrational optimism; I think that it showed realism about the situation in Afghanistan. Bringing together all 48 troop-contributing nations of the international security assistance force in one of the sessions at the NATO summit in Lisbon underlined the fact that there are now more countries engaged in what we are doing in Afghanistan than at any stage before. We in no way minimise the fact that there are enormous challenges ahead of us on Afghanistan. Today I have laid before the House a written ministerial statement that updates hon. Members on where we think we are in Afghanistan. Many of those challenges, including in development, remain.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

The Lisbon statement said nothing on the future of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. As the Foreign Secretary will be aware, the United Kingdom gave up its tactical nuclear weapons in the 1990s, as militarily useless and politically irrelevant. Will the British Government now support multilateral negotiations between NATO and Russia, so that tactical nuclear weapons can be removed from Europe as a whole?

[Mr Hague]

As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, we said at Lisbon that NATO would remain a nuclear alliance to meet current and future threats, which does not directly address his point. The statement at Lisbon recognised the role that the alliance can play in supporting wider disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. We agreed at the summit to reviewing how NATO implements those principles. It will discuss all the strategic threats facing the alliance, and the capabilities that we need to meet them, including nuclear deterrence and missile defence. The argument that my right hon. and learned Friend presents will be part of that review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman’s question encapsulates why it is in Israel’s long-term interests to seek agreement on a two-state solution. He is quite right to say that there is a danger to the talks, and therefore to any subsequent talks, and it is vital that all the parties involved are able to get through the end of September with the talks alive. We therefore look to the Government of Israel to take all the steps necessary to renew the settlement moratorium; we have made that quite clear to them. If they were able to do that, it would no doubt contribute enormously to the talks being able to proceed further.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the recent statement by the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States that the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran would constitute such a threat to the security of all the states of the middle east that all options—including, if necessary, military options—must be considered if it became necessary to prevent such a situation from arising?

[Mr Hague]

I have always argued that all options should be kept on the table, and that the option of military action should not be withdrawn from the table. I have also always stressed that we are not calling for that or advocating it. We do not want to relieve any of the pressure that is currently on Iran, but I must emphasise that I am not advocating military action.

Foreign Affairs and Defence

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hague of Richmond

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am merely saying that there are a range of issues for the Government to address. I explained earlier how our concentration in our collective discussions on international affairs has been very much on Afghanistan. The three meetings of the National Security Council that we have had so far have concentrated overwhelmingly on Afghanistan. We have not yet determined the exact action that we will take on universal jurisdiction. However, that is after two weeks in office. As I said, the former Government had a good deal longer to try to deal with these things.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Although most of the comment so far has concerned Tzipi Livni and visitors from Israel, the Foreign Secretary knows as well as I do that these powers could be used against any visitor from many other countries around the world, including the United States. If there are any difficulties in reaching an early decision, I hope that those who are cautious about making such a change will bear in mind that this is not simply about Israel but about the United Kingdom being able to welcome visitors from many countries and not being prevented from doing so by some technical aberration.