North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). It was certainly fascinating to hear his powerful personal testimony of the military courts in Israel and Palestine. I had the opportunity to see the courts earlier this year, and one of the most disturbing things is that although, in a sense, it is a testimony to the openness of Israeli society that he and I could see them in practice, the same crimes committed in the same places by Israeli youngsters were tried in civilian courts with all the rights and protections that that implied. He is right to praise Israeli and Palestinian voices that have been raised in opposition to that system.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s broad opening remarks. They provided an informative tour of parts of three continents and numerous societies and conflicts. I do not know whether it is fair to say that some of these parliamentary debates are getting a little broad in their scope. This one encompasses, among many other things, the enormously hopeful transition to democracy in many countries following the Arab spring, the intractable problems of the Arab-Israeli dispute, the dislocation and war in the horn of Africa and the troubling situation in Iran.

Common themes are emerging, however. The first theme that I would identify is a hopeful one: the increasing role of regional organisations in many of these conflicts and policy areas. There was the recent positive initiative by the Gulf Co-operation Council in Yemen leading to what we hope will be the beginning of a resolution of the problems there; there is the very positive role being played in Somalia by the African Union; and there is the historic new-found confidence of the Arab League in tackling human rights issues first in Libya and now in Syria. Some of the Foreign Secretary’s Conservative colleagues might be sceptical of, and worry about, these regional groupings taking on a political role rather than a purely economic one, but I think that some of these disputes are proving the value of regional co-operation and regional groupings.

Rather surprisingly, a second theme appears to be the role of monarchy, which was eloquently expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and then put slightly more eccentrically—I hope that he will forgive me for saying that while he is not in his place—by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). I would say to him that the history of monarchy—even restored monarchies—in places such as France and Greece has not been entirely trouble free, and that the history of middle eastern monarchy is not entirely safe and reliable either. He could look to Iran and Libya for examples of where the path of monarchy did not run entirely smoothly. European history shows that it is common for populations to have considerable respect for the magic of monarchy for quite a long time and always to blame the advisers and Governments, but eventually many monarchs run out of bad advisers to blame and sometimes lose their heads in subsequent phases of popular discontent.

The third common theme, rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, is the potential for a new, democratic and peaceful brand of political Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood is a complicated network of organisations operating in different countries but it has been overwhelmingly peaceful in most parts of the middle east. If it looks to countries such as Turkey and Indonesia for examples of how political Islam can play its part in a completely democratic process—and one that is tolerant of other political traditions in the same society—it will find a very different vision of political Islam from that of violent Salafism or the Iranian-inspired political extremism that we see at work in the region. It would be a terrible mistake to lump those together and to be too afraid of the role of political Islam in these regions.

It is a positive sign that the first democratic elections in Egypt commenced today, although even the operation of those elections has exposed the tensions between the continuing role of the military in Egyptian society and the instincts of the democratic activists in Tahrir square and throughout Egyptian society. Although it is a positive thing that those elections are taking place, we must make it clear to the Egyptian Governments who follow the elections that in due course those tensions must be resolved in favour of democracy, and that the military must learn, as they have done in many parts of Europe and the world, that to be truly patriotic they have to step back from political power and cannot expect immunity for past crimes.

The Amnesty International report from 22 November reinforces the fears of some of the protesters. It talks about military courts still trying protesters, about crackdowns on peaceful protest and about the remit of Mubarak’s emergency law being, if anything, extended in recent months. Those are very worrying tendencies, and I know that the Government are expressing their concerns and fears to the Egyptian Government. It is a positive thing that the military council has apologised and that there has been talk of investigations, amnesties and compensation—that is all welcome—but the fundamental necessity is for a clear shift towards a transparently civilian authority in Egypt.

[Bob Stewart]

I totally accept the hon. Gentleman’s point but my simple worry is that if the military were not there—I am not trying to support them—we might have a much worse situation. We have to be careful. The Egyptians have to decide exactly what they want, and we cannot say to them, “This is what should happen.” It is their business, not ours.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but certain fundamental principles ought to inform transitions to democratic government if they are to succeed, and two of those must be that the military step back from the exercise of political power and that they should not expect immunity from investigation of past involvement in human rights abuses. Successful transitions to democracy have always had those characteristics, and the Egyptians must learn from that. I welcome the Foreign Secretary and the Government’s strong line in that respect.

Libya presents different challenges. We must be grateful for the role that British and international armed forces played in that conflict but equally we must welcome the move to a post-military phase and congratulate the Government on reopening the British embassy on 17 October. As hon. Members have pointed out, the treatment of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi will be a test case: his capture provides the opportunity for the new Libyan regime to illustrate its respect for the rule of law and the rights even of despised opponents in a way that was not apparent in the treatment of Gaddafi senior.

I would like the Minister to comment on a security matter that the Foreign Secretary did not really mention: the reports that large amounts of military matériel are going missing in Libya. It is rumoured that some of it is finding its way into the hands of violent Islamic extremists, whether those with Salafist tendencies or even al-Qaeda members. I would be interested to hear whether the Government consider these accounts credible and, if so, whether they are taking action to counteract the problem.

In Syria, we have a different situation again. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington rightly said, we have to give the greatest credit to the Syrian people themselves for maintaining the uprising for eight months against the most brutal repression. It is an example of extraordinary courage and determination that should inspire people all over the world to rise up against tyranny. However, credit is also due to the Arab League, the regional grouping, first for expressing strong diplomatic disapproval and exerting pressure, then for suspending Syria from membership and, finally, for now imposing sanctions. Such a determined response by the Arab League and neighbouring Governments such as Turkey is a positive development in the history of the Arab League, which has not always been the most robust of organisations on such issues. However, it is now taking a proactive and positive role in the region, and towards Syria in particular.

I think that those in the Arab League see—I hope we see it too—that those developments may avoid the necessity for foreign intervention, which is not something that I have heard anyone in the Syrian opposition call for. Although we might see continued violent conflict in Syria—I think we will, in fact, see it—if a robust approach is taken, we might also see a resolution that does not involve even worse complications, arising from foreign intervention, because there are unfortunate precedents. In terms of geography and political, ethnic and tribal tensions, Syria is rather more like Iraq than Libya, which, in a way, was a rather simple country to intervene in. Libya is reasonably homogenous, its population basically live on one coastal strip and it is close to lots of NATO countries. Intervention in Syria would be a much more complicated and messy affair. We should try to avoid that possibility at all costs.

However, it is rather disappointing that some other international voices have not really joined us in trying to support the Syrian people. It is interesting to note the movement by China, but Russia’s position is completely indefensible. The opportunity for Russia to use its influence with the Assad regime for good is being completely lost. The recent comment by a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman—that what was needed was

“not sanctions, not pressure, but internal Syrian dialogue”—

was, frankly, completely incredibly. That approach risks Russia’s credibility, not just in Europe and the international arena, but specifically in the middle east. I hope that Russia will see that its position is neither credible nor in Russia’s long-term interests, and will instead join the growing international movement for effective international pressure.

The situation in Iran, not far from Syria, is rather more worrying—like other hon. Members, I deeply regret the expulsion of the UK ambassador. Again, this is an area where international co-operation could have proved effective. After all, the International Atomic Energy Agency includes China and Russia, so in a sense they are taking part in the pressure being exerted on the Iranian regime. The IAEA has clearly and unambiguously exposed credible evidence of the Iranian regime’s military ambitions when it comes to nuclear weapons. It is possible to understand Israel’s anxiety in that respect. To Israel, this development poses a real and present threat to its national security. However, I hope that we will join other members of the international community in expressing to Israel the clear belief that military intervention would inflame the entire region and critically undermine the chances of liberal opposition or a popular uprising in Iran, solidifying support for the regime. The role of the international community must be to provide robust and effective pressure—I welcome the increased sanctions regime at the end of this month. However, we must try to pursue that as a means of avoiding the possibility that any country in the region feels it is necessary to intervene militarily.

We have to accept that the Israeli people’s anxieties are quite real. It is not just the Iranian situation that seems to pose a threat to many people in Israel, but in some respects the Arab spring too. However, I nevertheless welcome the Government’s position, which is that Palestine now largely fulfils the criteria for UN membership, including statehood. I rather regret that this has not translated into a promise of a positive vote in favour of Palestinian statehood and membership of the United Nations; nevertheless, the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks and those of Ministers has been absolutely right in that respect. It is right to call on Israel to realise that the only way to avoid unilateral initiatives is multilateral negotiation without preconditions. Israel needs to do that, not least to strengthen the hand of moderate, peaceful Palestinian political opinion, because the path of conflict and confrontation will only reinforce the position of the more extreme factions, if that diplomatic and peaceful process seems completely hopeless to ordinary Palestinians.

Moving around the world, let me turn to Somalia, where there are some quite positive things to highlight. I look forward to the London conference in February. The Foreign Secretary was right to highlight the need for more effective international strategies and pressure. Nevertheless, there is already some positive development to report. The courage of African Union troops and the positive role that the African Union is playing in the country are quite important. The fact that the Secretary of State for International Development was able to visit Mogadishu this summer is quite an extraordinary development. It was a very positive statement for him to make. It might not quite compare with the courage of African Union and Somali troops in trying to promote democracy or national security in that country, but it was a courageous act by a western politician, and we ought to pay him credit for that. There is a fear among Somali civil society that rather more money comes in from foreign countries in the form of ransoms than in the form of development aid. It is therefore positive that the British Government have made a visible commitment to work in Somali society and in Somali civil society, in particular, to promote development.

When we are dealing with piracy, it is quite important that such development should take place, because it is important—if I may misquote Tony Blair—not just to tackle piracy, but to tackle the causes of piracy. We do not just need police actions against ships and aggressive actions in the sea; we need to tackle, for instance, illegal fishing and the dumping of toxic waste, which are ruining traditional livelihoods and are also among the factors that sometimes drive people to seek such extreme forms of raising money. Wherever possible, we need to invest in infrastructure, such as fishing facilities and so on, to try and start the long, hard process of normalisation in that country. We need to involve Somali civil society in that, and not just in what is technically Somalia, but in those regions that are, in effect, proving autonomous, such as Somaliland and Puntland.

I commend to Ministers the experience of Saferworld and the role that it has played in DFID-funded projects both in Somalia proper and in Somaliland and Puntland. Its experience of trying to put together a positive framework for development in those parts of the world is extremely welcome. Indeed, it is also in line with the Government’s stated policy in BSOS—“Building Stability Overseas Strategy”—which talks about upstream prevention of conflict. In the case of Somalia, it is not so much upstream prevention as an upstream solution while the river is in full flood. We should not take the analogy too far—[Interruption.] Yes, we do not want anybody drowned in the process, but clearly we need to tackle the root causes of conflict, as well as the symptoms.

We see a regrettable deterioration of the situation in Sudan. Briefly, let me say that the Foreign Secretary’s instincts are exactly right in that respect too. We need to watch the situation extremely carefully and urge all parties, in both Governments—the Sudanese Government and the new South Sudan Government—to recognise the importance of trying to resolve their differences peacefully, if at all possible, and to allow the maximum amount of international support in so doing.

In Yemen we see more positive developments. We have the President’s signature on 23 November and the appointment of an opposition politician, Mohammed Basindawa, to the role of Prime Minister, which are encouraging developments. Clearly we are not out of the woods yet in Yemen, but what has happened is a positive step.

Last but not least, I would like to deal briefly with the situation in Bahrain, and I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the country. I listened with interest to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has long been an independent and forthright commentator on international affairs regardless of who happens to be in government at the time. In a way, however, I think she got the tone slightly wrong on the independent committee of inquiry whose report has just been published in Bahrain. She rightly said that it demonstrates comprehensive evidence of widespread and serious abuse of human rights, certainly implicating the security forces, and that this is part of a deep-seated process in the state of Bahrain. The fact that the report has been published at all, however, is a very positive development that we must try to hold on to. The fact that it was robust and that it did not pull any punches is quite a testament to the potential for openness and accountability in Bahrain.

We know from our own experience in this country that it took us decades to accept the role of our military in even very limited and isolated examples of the abuse of military power in Northern Ireland and later in Iraq, for example. These were not systematic, but very isolated cases of discreditable actions—not typical of the British armed forces as a whole—yet these were painful incidents for us to talk about and admit. Bahrain, however, has moved very quickly to a position in which it is openly discussing comprehensive and systematic human rights abuse by its own security forces, which is something to be praised.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

I believe that the timely publication and the ability for people to see the transparency will be important steps in the reconciliation between the Sunni and the Shi’a in Bahrain. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Martin Horwood]

Yes, I certainly agree with that. What the report has highlighted about the Shi’a is particularly important. It showed that the idea that Iran was stirring up trouble and was behind the Shi’a elements in the protests was not backed up by any real evidence. That was another honest and important conclusion from the report.

The test is, of course, what happens next. As Amnesty International has said, it is the “speed, extent and seriousness” of the Government’s response that is the real test in this case. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley rightly highlighted the case of medical workers who are still in custody of one kind or another, which is simply not acceptable. The Bahraini Government should tackle that issue as a matter of absolute priority.

I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government will enthusiastically support that kind of robust response to the report by the Bahraini Government, and I think they should also seek to reassure any nervous neighbours of Bahrain that as the “Building Stability Overseas Strategy” rightly points out, we are now looking at a new philosophy of security for countries such as Bahrain and others around the world, whereby security does not come from repression and control, but ultimately and in the long term from societies that are capable of peaceful change, in which human rights and the rule of law are respected. From Somalia to Syria, from Mauritania to Iran, that commitment to peaceful change, human rights and the rule of law ought to be—and, I hope, will be—the hallmarks of British foreign policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I understand that Israel fervently wishes to maintain its peace treaty with Egypt. However, it is concerned about statements that have been made by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which suggest that it would like to review or, indeed, drop the treaty. Israel wishes to maintain it, and I hope that that can be achieved.

Israel has withdrawn from territories that it has occupied as a result of attacks on it, and the consequence of that withdrawal has not been peace. In 2000, Israel correctly withdrew completely from south Lebanon. The consequence of that was the occupation of the area by the Iran-backed Hezbollah, followed by attacks on Israeli citizens. Although it was a correct withdrawal from occupied territory, it did not lead to peace.

More recently, in 2005, the Israelis correctly withdraw all their 8,000 settlers and military personnel from Gaza. As we all know only too well, the result of that was not peace but the election of Hamas—refusing to recognise Israel’s existence—and the firing of thousands of rockets and other missiles on Israeli civilians in Sderot, Be’er Sheva, Ashkelon and Ashdod. The withdrawal of the Israelis from Gaza, which I fully support, did not lead to peace.

People talk as though withdrawal and the end of occupation inevitably lead to peace. I stress again that I am against occupation, but in those two instances at least, when Israel has withdrawn from lands that it has occupied as a result of attacks on it, peace has not been automatic. Moreover, when people advocate the withdrawal of Israelis from occupied lands, it is not always clear exactly which occupied lands they are talking about. Are they talking about 1967 or about 1948? Here in London a few months ago, on al-Quds day, it was evident what was meant by many of the campaigners against Israel’s policies and against Israel itself. One illustration of that was a big placard held up by a young child, bearing the unfortunate words “For world peace, Israel must be destroyed”. That is hardly conducive to efforts to find a solution.

I also note that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s logo features a map that does not depict Israel as existing at all. When I hear calls from that organisation for Israel to end its occupation, I question what it really means. Is it talking about a negotiated solution to the problem of land that is occupied as a result of attacks on Israel in 1967, or is it talking about there being no Israel at all? We must know what people mean, in what context they are speaking and where they are coming from if we are to assess the validity of the criticisms that they are making at any given time.

[Martin Horwood]

I understand the genuine anxieties that the hon. Lady is voicing. However, she must accept that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have made it clear that they are talking about negotiation more or less on the 1967 borders, and that anything beyond the 1967 borders of Palestine must therefore be Israel. That is an implicit, if not explicit, recognition of Israel’s absolute right to exist. By responding so aggressively to the peaceful and diplomatic approach to the United Nations made by the Fatah administration—by responding with extended settlements and threats to the economic and financial viability of the Palestinian Authority—Israel is surely playing into the hands of the very extremists, bomb-makers and rocket-makers to whom the hon. Lady is referring.

[Mrs Ellman]

I acknowledge that the Palestinian Authority has played a constructive role in the attempt to make progress. That is clear from the way in which it has worked with the Quartet and others on the west bank, the dramatic increase in prosperity there, and the way in which—again, working with the Quartet—it has developed its security forces and the civil administration. That could easily and quickly make Palestine into a viable and successful country, if only the political negotiations could make progress. I also think it important for the Palestinian Authority to recognise that the solution lies in urgent negotiations rather than declarations at the United Nations which, in practice, will not solve any of the practical and difficult problems that need to be addressed. The Palestinian Authority should be urged to return to those negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

It would be highly desirable for Hamas to change its position. Indeed, it is essential that it does so in order to enable proper negotiations to proceed on the basis of there being two states.

[Martin Horwood]

Is there not an instructive example from our own country, however, in the way in which we drew Sinn Fein and the IRA into the process of negotiation and eventually a settlement even while there was still some violence going on, and even while those organisations were still committed to the abolition of the Province of Northern Ireland and to its incorporation into the Irish state? That political issue was resolved only at the very end of the negotiations, with the signing of the Good Friday agreement. Does the hon. Lady not agree that we should be trying to draw Hamas into the democratic process and the negotiating process, and not setting preconditions that even we ourselves did not set in our own peace process?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Sinn Fein only became part of the peace process—indeed, it did not become part of it directly—when it changed its position in respect of recognition, and I also do not recall that it had a theological basis of hatred for the British state.

[Martin Horwood]

I am sure the hon. Lady will remember that the mantra during the Northern Ireland peace process was that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. The final commitments only came right at the end of the process.

[Mrs Ellman]

The whole process brought about changes, but there was acceptance only when Sinn Fein changed its position, and I repeat that I am not aware of its having had a theological determination to eliminate the existence of the British state. Hamas not only has a theological determination to eliminate the state of Israel, but is acting on that by sending its rockets over.