Hazara People (Quetta)

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alan Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I have huge respect for the country—I went to Pakistan when I was a Minister—and for the high commissioner, but I believe that that is the key point about the Hazara community: there is no sign of any of the perpetrators being brought to justice, and it is not simply the case that they are being held but the prosecuting authorities are not being successful. That is one of the major issues in this debate and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to it.

The response of the authorities in Balochistan has been to restrict the movement of the Hazaras themselves—to forbid them entering certain districts and to apply travel restrictions—and to treat the murders with a mixture of complacency and complicity. Last September/October almost 50 Hazaras were taken from buses and wagons in separate incidents, lined up and killed. The Chief Minister of Balochistan responded with levity, saying in a television interview that he would send a truckload of tissue paper to the bereaved families. That is the kind of atmosphere in which the Hazaras are living. The authorities know that the Hazaras are a target for terrorist groups and that an al-Qaeda affiliate is seeking to make Pakistan, in their words, Hazaras' graveyard. They state that their mission is to eliminate “this impure sect” and people

“from every city, every village…and corner of Pakistan.”

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. By way of declaration, Mr Deputy Speaker, I worked with Benazir Bhutto from 1999 to 2007. On the point about the Hazara community being affected, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not the only community being affected? The Christian, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu communities are also suffering as a result of Pakistan’s having been a front-line state in the war against Russia and then in the war against al-Qaeda after 9/11. As a result, radicalisation and sectarian violence have spread from Afghanistan to Pakistan, leading to the murders of Benazir Bhutto and Shahbaz Bhatti, the Christian Minister. Of course I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, but everyone has suffered as a result of the sectarian ethnic violence spreading from Afghanistan to Pakistan, not just the Hazara people.

[Alan Johnson]

I do accept that point; indeed, the high commissioner for Pakistan made the same point when he contacted me today about this debate. I shall say some things later about the difficulties that Pakistan is facing, but that must not detract from the fact that these killings are taking place on a daily basis. The authorities seem remarkably complacent about it and not a single perpetrator has been brought to justice.

While the movement of Hazaras is restricted, their pursuers walk freely in the city despite the heavy presence of the police, the army and the frontier corps who all have checkpoints in and around Quetta. The reason for that persecution is not just the Hazaras’ religion—they are predominantly Shi'a Muslims—but their genetic link to the Mongol people, which allows them to be recognised by their physical appearance. Hazaras are also persecuted because have pursued higher education, enrolled in the army and occupied senior positions in government, the civil service and civic society more generally. They are the kind of law-abiding citizen who would play an important role in a free, democratic Afghanistan and a peaceful and prosperous Pakistan. Thus, they are the enemies of a whole range of terrorist groups.

The persecution—some would say genocide—carried out against the Hazaras has been well documented by the United Nations, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and organisations such as the New York-based monitoring body Human Rights Watch. However, there is insufficient awareness nationally and internationally about what the Hazaras are going through, despite the best efforts of the Hazara community and organisations such as the Hazara Organisation for Progress and Equality, or HOPE, which seeks to raise these issues in Parliaments around the world.

The attacks are intensifying. Hazaras are murdered when they stay in Quetta and killed when they try to leave. Fifty five young Hazaras were drowned in the waters of Indonesia on 20 December when trying to escape their perilous existence. The Hazaras believe that the religious militant groups carrying out these killings are state sponsored, and there is evidence for that assertion. The Asian Human Rights Commission reported on 6 January that the Pakistan army had created a militant organisation to kill intellectuals, activists and Hazaras in Balochistan. I have seen a copy of an official letter from the Government of Balochistan informing the military authorities and the police in Quetta about the presence of a man called Sabir Mehsood, whose stated aim was to murder Hazaras, but no action was taken to apprehend him. Thus, more than 80 Hazaras were killed in Quetta by this man and his fellow operatives last year.

The international community cannot allow this persecution to continue. There are significant Hazara populations in countries around the world, particularly in Australia, and these countries should co-ordinate and intensify their efforts. I know that the Minister is fully engaged in trying to pressurise the Pakistani authorities to protect the Hazara community in Quetta, and I know that the Foreign Secretary is equally committed.

Pakistan is an old, valued and trusted ally of the United Kingdom and is seeking to renew its democratic credentials after years of military rule. It is a country beset by problems, and its citizens have suffered at the hands of terrorists more than any other country in the world, as the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) pointed out. However, the Pakistani Government must do more to root out state-supported terrorism wherever it exists. It undoubtedly exists in Quetta city, and the Hazaras are its principal victims. It is a good place to begin this process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

I am happy to endorse that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North has already met a delegation from the community and the Minister. They are deeply concerned, as the hon. Lady implied, about the plight of their relatives and the broader community in Pakistan, amid what are daily reports of killings and persecution.

As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, there are concerns that these attacks are not being dealt with appropriately by the authorities in Pakistan. I join him in imploring the Minister to do all he can to influence the situation. Just a few weeks ago, we all commemorated world holocaust memorial day. The campaign this year was, “Speak up, Speak out”, and was aimed at challenging persecution and hatred wherever it existed in the world. This we must do for the Hazara people. I look forward to hearing what steps the Government are taking to address the situation.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Iain Stewart]

I was about to finish, but I will certainly give way.

[Rehman Chishti]

Linked to the Hazara community, the other community that has suffered a lot as a result of radicalisation is the Christian community in Pakistan. We must do everything that we can to ensure that it gets its full rights as well. Will he join me in paying tribute to Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, who is from Pakistan and has done a lot on community cohesion and dialogue between all faiths?

[Iain Stewart]

I am happy to do that. I was at the end of my comments, so on that note, I shall conclude.

Syria

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the fact that India voted for the resolution. It is true that several countries on the Security Council wanted a resolution that did not go beyond the draft resolution as it was put to the vote on Saturday. Certainly, India is one country that would not have wanted a stronger resolution with the authorisation of sanctions or other measures. I stress that the prime negotiations in the Security Council were always with Russia. The objections raised and amendments put forward came from Russia primarily, rather than from India, South Africa or Pakistan.

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

I welcome the statement by the Foreign Secretary. He will know that there are more than 30 opposition parties in Syria, including the National Council, the National Co-ordination Committee, the Justice party and the Kurdish party. The work to unite them has been going on for a long time. How close are we to uniting them? Unless the opposition are united, the future for Syria looks bleak.

[Mr Hague]

The answer is that many of those groups have come together under the umbrella of the Syrian National Council. It is in their own interests for all the major groupings to come together under that umbrella. This is a national emergency. As I have put it to them, in this country, which is a thriving democracy, when we face an existential threat, all the parties come together, as with the coalition during the second world war. Syria faces one of the direst emergencies in its history, so they should all be able to come together for this period. We will continue to give that advice, but they have not all managed it yet.

Foreign Policy (Soft Power)

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Bone? I declare an interest as secretary of the all-party group on the British Council and as a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

The purpose of calling this debate is to focus on the role of soft power in British foreign policy and how it is to be used in defining country strategies. Over the past decade, Governments have become increasingly aware of the importance of soft power. I define that as the power to attract and co-opt alongside the hard power of traditional military and economic means of achieving foreign policy objectives. There is a growing acceptance that soft power is an important component of foreign policy and should be seen as a complement to rather than a substitute for hard power.

I want to talk about how there can be better integration between the different elements of hard and soft power. My impression is that, although different institutions work effectively on their own, they could deliver a lot more if they actively collaborated on a systematic basis in all countries where they operate.

I want to share some examples of Britain’s soft power assets, and then examine the need for the development of a co-ordinated vision for our foreign policy by addressing some of the practical realities and questions that surround putting that into practice. It is important to recognise at the outset that, compared with many countries, Britain has an immensely rich set of soft power institutions, resources and tools. In 2010, we were ranked joint first in the Institution for Government soft power index. In 2011, we were placed second, behind the USA. Soft power institutions, such as the British Council, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, Voluntary Service Overseas, the Commonwealth Foundation and the BBC World Service perform a valuable role in developing trusting relationships with overseas countries.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On soft policy and achieving our foreign policy objectives, does he agree that a fundamental part of winning over people’s hearts and minds, as we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and Libya, has been the work of the BBC World Service in communicating that we have a lot more that unites us than divides us?

[John Glen]

Absolutely. I will come on to speak about the World Service in a moment. All those assets deploy so much of what is great about this country: the English language, arts, education, and the values of civil society and democracy.

I pay tribute to the work—since, I think, 1934—of the British Council. It now works on the ground in more than 100 countries, particularly in strategic areas such as the middle east, north Africa and in emerging economies. It may be helpful to know that last year it provided more than 1.3 million hours of English language teaching, supporting 5 million English teachers across the world. It now uses digital broadcasting to reach 100 million students. In addition, it provides exams and qualifications, and links UK primary and secondary schools, universities and arts bodies with overseas institutions in long-term beneficial partnerships. Despite taking a 26% budget cut in this comprehensive spending review period, it has a clear resolve to continue its core work by continuing to win competitive education and development contracts.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, the BBC World Service also makes a massive and effective contribution to the development of the UK’s relationships abroad. It reaches 166 million people every week—through radio, television and the internet—in 27 languages, as well as English. Unlike the state-sponsored media of many of the countries in which it operates, its editorial independence ensures impartiality and objectivity. It is that professionalism and impartiality that generate trust and credibility overseas. The audience of BBC Arabic TV increased by more than 80% in recent months, including an increase in the online audience of 300% during the height of the Egyptian protests—clearly, it is a very powerful tool. Recent changes in funding streams and organisation will allow the World Service to work more closely with the domestic BBC, benefiting both the UK and other countries.

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy engages with political parties across the world. That work involves—I have done some of it—training party officials to develop their capacity to create policy, to campaign and to fulfil effectively their function as Government or Opposition parties in emerging democracies. That work builds up democratic institutions and understanding. It also generates long-term trusting relationships between those countries and the UK, and the individuals in those Governments and the UK. All these institutions leave a legacy and impact on the individuals who encounter them and inevitably lead many to develop a natural empathy, respect and affinity for our country.

As I suggested at the outset, given all that these institutions do, there is a need better to co-ordinate their work into an holistic vision for our foreign policy. We have to recognise—this is my experience of being a member of the Defence Committee and working for WFD—that different Departments and institutions naturally have varying perspectives on foreign policy and the status of our relationships with countries across the world. That includes the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, as well as soft power institutions such as the British Council and the BBC World Service. For example, the primary objective of DFID focuses on poverty and long-term development goals, but that might not always align with the immediate demands of a military intervention to secure a strategic objective for British foreign policy.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend talks about the work of DFID, one aspect of which is education and its link to our foreign policy. We gave Pakistan £650 million for education to provide people with opportunity, aspiration and a life away from sectarian violence. That has implications for our own security—the training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan were linked to the terrorist attacks in London in 2005. DFID’s work on soft power foreign policy—giving people hope, opportunity and aspiration through education—provides a diversion from sectarian, ethnic terrorist tendencies.

[John Glen]

I am not in any way seeking to criticise any individual player; my core argument this afternoon is about the co-ordination between those contrasting perspectives. When I went to Islamabad last autumn, DFID’s massive contribution was very clear.

Any one of these perspectives—development, diplomacy, military or culture—need not displace the others. Rather than picking one, or one being the lead, the challenge is skilfully to harmonise and develop a single, shared vision for our foreign policy. My experience in Afghanistan—in the DFID compound and then talking to people from the FCO and various military leaders—was that they all had a different perspective. What seemed to be lacking sometimes was a desire to integrate fully different views. If one had a clear development goal, it was very easy to find that goal in conflict with a military objective. Rather than seeing those different views as a barrier, the Government need to work systematically to synthesise those complementary perspectives and refine overall policy definition.

There are some excellent examples of where that already works in practice. The stabilisation unit, which is owned jointly by DFID, the FCO and the MOD, brings together expertise from those Departments with police and military personnel. It despatches task forces to conflict-stricken areas—for example, Afghanistan—to develop political processes, reduce conflict and violence, and provide a basis for future development. It remains unclear why the unit should be taken out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014.

The challenge to achieve the systematic co-ordination of different departmental perspectives on a large scale is compelling. We must identify different perspectives where they exist across Government. That will mean undertaking the difficult task of recognising where a departmental mindset is preventing co-ordination and collaboration with another Department’s activities, perhaps between the FCO and DFID. No doubt some Departments and organisations will need to make compromises to agree a comprehensive strategy for the greater good of diplomatic and long-term relations in a region or country.

It is also desirable to aim for a closer working relationship between soft power organisations and the Ministry of Defence. As the ongoing work of the British Council in Libya has shown, soft power institutions can build relationships of trust ahead of and after military intervention in a country. If that approach can be developed in respect of future military interventions, it could ease the work of the armed forces, particularly when working alongside civilians. Working with soft power institutions and making use of diverse expertise could aid the MOD in defining viable exit strategies, rather than just asserting that those will exist. The institutions that I have mentioned have a more nuanced understanding of cultural barriers and attitudes of populations on the ground and can probably more reliably estimate what will be achievable by military means.

We need to recognise that Foreign Office diplomats, wonderful though they are, are not the only actors in British diplomacy. Although diplomats achieve much for British trade and political understanding, arm’s length bodies, such as the WFD, working to build civil society and government infrastructures and developing strong relationships with emerging political parties, do much to develop trust and credibility where Britain’s historic ties are less strong or apparent.

Our diplomacy must allow soft power institutions to play a more significant role in maintaining mutually beneficial, positive relationships throughout the world. As I have emphasised, the key challenge is overcoming ingrained departmental mindsets and historic positions to harness the complementary perspectives and resources of an increasing range of diverse institutions, especially arm’s length soft power organisations.

We must put in place effective leadership, accountability and co-ordinating procedures throughout our institutions to enable what I am arguing for to work properly, and to define a sophisticated foreign policy strategy that serves the interests of the UK optimally across the globe. That will mean determined effort from Ministers and senior civil servants to put vested interests aside, and the instincts of the budget holder being left at the door as each Department recognises that others have something meaningful to contribute. It will also mean having difficult but vital discussions about our vision and objectives with individuals who may have a different starting point at the outset.

It is only through a determined approach of that type that the UK can maintain its unique standing in the world and make best use of these enormously powerful resources and assets that our great country possesses.

EU Sanctions (Iran)

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend can gather that it is indeed a red line issue; that is why we are addressing it in this way. The Prime Minister, along with other European leaders—Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy—has said that we will not permit the development of a nuclear capability by Iran. That is why we are adopting this policy.

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

To counter the threat from Iran, what steps are we taking to strengthen our strategic relationship with key regional powers such as Saudi Arabia? By way of a declaration, let me say that I am vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Saudi Arabia.

[Mr Hague]

We have strong relations with the Gulf states, many of which we have intensified over the past year, particularly our relationship with the United Arab Emirates, although we enjoy excellent relations with all those states. My hon. Friend will know about our long and historic relationship with Oman, and about the many difficulties faced in Bahrain, including by the people of Bahrain over the past year. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Saudi Arabia earlier this month. Saudi Arabia is an important ally and an important force for stability and peace in the region, so I salute my hon. Friend’s work with the all-party group.

North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I will move on to Iran shortly, but I absolutely feel that it plays a negative role in the process and has assisted the Syrian authorities in various ways to try to repress the Syrian population. It would certainly not be surprising if Iran was using its influence on some Arab countries to reduce the impact of any sanctions on Syria. Nevertheless, we should recognise that what the Arab League is doing is unprecedented. The vast majority of its members not only voted for it, but are now preparing to implement meaningful sanctions on a fellow member and colleague. That shows how seriously the Arab world takes the situation in Syria, which will have an impact on the Assad regime. Our Government’s goal is to give maximum support to Arab League efforts to persuade the President of Syria to end the violence while using every lever at our disposal to bring economic and diplomatic pressure to bear. We have supported successive rounds of EU sanctions that have banned the import of Syrian oil and targeted individuals responsible for the violence with asset freezes and travel bans. We are pressing ahead with plans for further sanctions on Syria at the EU Foreign Affairs Council later this week.

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

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

[Mr Hague]

I had better stop giving way so many times, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti]

The Foreign Secretary will be aware of recent reports in Turkish national newspapers that the Turkish Government are looking at creating a buffer zone within Syria for the protection of civilians. Is that something the United Kingdom will support?

[Mr Hague]

As my hon. Friend can imagine, during the state visit of the President of Turkey last week the Turkish Foreign Minister and I had extensive discussions about Syria. I do not believe that there is any imminent plan to create such a zone or take action within Syrian territory, which would obviously be a major step for any country. I think that the way forward is to intensify international pressure and support the Arab League. We co-sponsored last week’s UN General Assembly resolution condemning Syria’s human rights record, which was passed by a large majority. We will continue to approach the matter in this way.

I have also held talks with representatives of a number of Syria’s opposition groups, including the chairman of the largest body, the Syrian national council. My intention in doing so was to gain further insights into the situation on the ground and to impress upon them how important it is that they unite around a common platform, as called for by the Arab League. At a time of crisis for their country, they should put aside their differences and show the people of Syria that there is a clear alternative to the current regime.

The current lack of a united opposition is one of the many differences between the situation in Syria and that which we faced in Libya. The obstacles to democratic transition are different in each country, and our support for Arab League efforts is the best way forward, but President Assad should not for an instant consider that there is a way back for him and his regime, which has utterly discredited itself in the eyes of most of its people and the vast majority of the world. We will not relent in our efforts to support the right of the Syrian people to choose a different future.

We have long advised against all travel to Syria, and we advise British nationals in Syria to leave by commercial means while such means are still available. Those who choose to remain in Syria or to visit against our advice should be aware that it is highly unlikely that the British embassy would be able to provide a normal consular service in the event of a further breakdown in law and order. Evacuation options would be limited or non-existent, because of likely communication and travel restrictions.

We are also intensifying our efforts to respond to the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear programme. Following the unequivocal report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on 18 November, which pointed to the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor instructed the UK financial sector on 21 November to sever all links with Iranian banks. The United States and Canada have taken similar steps. In the coming days, European Union partners will expand sanctions against the nuclear programme. We want Iran to return to the negotiating table, and in the meantime it should be left in no doubt about the resolve of the international community.

Members will be aware that yesterday the Iranian Parliament voted to downgrade relations with the United Kingdom. That is regrettable and unwarranted. It will do nothing to repair Iran’s international reputation, and to respond in that manner to pressure from the international community to engage is entirely counter-productive and yet another sign of Iran’s continued unwillingness to enter into dialogue. If the Iranian Government confirm their intention to act on that vote, we shall respond robustly in consultation with our international partners.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

There have been some fascinating contributions to the debate, not least the eloquent and expert contribution by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).

I start by doing what many others have done in the Chamber many times, but is still worth doing—paying tribute to our armed forces and, in particular, to those who have lost their lives. I would like to make special mention of Colour Serjeant Kevin Fortuna, who went to school in my constituency and who lost his life not that long ago in Afghanistan. I do not think that he died in vain. The presence of Colour Serjeant Fortuna and many others helps to achieve the central aim of our presence in Afghanistan, which is to protect the security of this country, but has also increased the chances of Afghanistan being a more stable and peaceful country at some stage in the future. If it is not a perfect democracy, that was never one of the core aims of our intervention.

That is why I am slightly puzzled by some elements of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report. It makes a couple of highly controversial claims. It states that the core justification of the UK presence, which was the threat posed to national security by al-Qaeda in particular, was removed some time ago, but somewhat contradictorily, it suggests that the security situation is still precarious. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington made exactly the right answer to that, which was that even if that was true, and even if al-Qaeda has been massively damaged in its capacity to regain control of Afghanistan, we still have to find a way of extricating ourselves from the position we are in now in a way that maximises the Afghan Government and society’s chances of stability and peace. We cannot simply walk out.

The report also suggests that there were wider secondary aims that have now proved unachievable, one of which was the defeat of the Taliban. Again, I am not sure that that was ever one of the core aims. The idea was to increase the capacity of the Afghan national security forces to contain and manage the security situation themselves. That is still an important aim as we proceed through withdrawal.

Rather paradoxically, the report goes on to query the 2015 deadline for withdrawal, but accepts that it has concentrated minds. That is an important function of deadlines, but in some ways the debate has moved on, especially after the Prime Minister’s announcement earlier today of further troop reductions. Quite a few hon. Members have pointed out the hard-headed realism that is needed, and the fact that we are not in a leadership position in Afghanistan—a role that effectively falls to the Americans, as we have only one 10th the number of forces that they have there. That leadership will inevitably pass at some stage to the Afghan Government and the people themselves. Therefore, the troop reductions that the Prime Minister announced today are not only right but inevitable.

Political reconciliation ought to be part of the process that we encourage as the withdrawal takes place, which is something that liberals and democrats might find difficult to accept. Would we have wanted political reconciliation with our enemies in previous wars? Has political reconciliation worked everywhere else it has been tried—in Zimbabwe, for example? If we support democracy, should we not defend it at all costs and recognise that there are non-Pashtun political leaders in Afghanistan who really do not want reconciliation with the Taliban at this stage?

I think that there is a role for political reconciliation if some of the points made in the report and elsewhere are acknowledged, including the importance of recognising the regional context and finding a solution that takes into account not only Pakistan and Iran, but India and Russia, and approaches the region on a wider scale. It should also encourage a political solution that recognises the complexity and diversity of Afghan society, its highly tribal structure and perhaps the need for less control from Kabul and a more decentralised approach. In that situation, such an approach to political reconciliation might be, as the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) described it, distasteful but worthwhile. It might not be successful, but in a regional context and with an attention to complexity and diversity, it might become more likely.

The UK’s role must be to support development, and preferably not just in militarily volatile areas, to support the institutions of government and society—such support ought to be, if anything, increasing—and to do whatever we can to embed universal human rights in Afghan politics and society, especially the rights of women, while accepting that ultimately that will not be our job, and that those responsibilities will have to pass to the Afghans themselves.

We have to encourage the same thing in the border areas of Pakistan. I commend to the Minister an extraordinary report that recently landed on my desk, produced by an organisation called the Community Appraisal and Motivation Programme, which I am happy to say is funded by the British high commission. That extremely revealing report explores in great detail opinions in the federally administered frontier tribal areas of Pakistan. It shows that there is, unfortunately, a high degree of hostility to British and American policy, but far from universal support for extremist or Salafist militancy. Of the respondents, 42% identified terrorist attacks as the main threat to life, 57% said suicide bombing was never justified, and there was support for military operations by the Pakistani army. The BBC World Service was rated highly as a source of information, and the same kind of attention was given to issues such as education and schools as we would expect to find among people all over the world.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

I cannot, because of the time and because I am drawing my remarks to a close.

We must have a realistic approach, but in some senses a more optimistic one, that accepts that the whole debate on Afghanistan is moving into a different phase, but in which we are still determined to support the stability and peace of Afghan society.

Africa and the Middle East

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I do not sense that that is the general view in the House. Our military mission in Libya continues to be defined by the UN resolutions. If we were not undertaking any and all of the military actions that we are, Colonel Gaddafi would be able to intensify his campaign of killing and harassing the population of Libya. It is entirely in accordance with the vote of this House in March and with UN Security Council resolution 1973 that we are doing what we are doing in Libya. I do not therefore consider that it requires a fresh vote in the House.

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

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. In light of the thousands of lives that have been lost in Syria, the French Foreign Minister has stated that President Assad’s position has become illegitimate. How far are we from reaching the same decision?

[Mr Hague]

President Assad must reform or step aside. If we are to maintain international unity of pressure on Syria, we must be careful in how we phrase such things. That is the right position for the United Kingdom to take, particularly as a Security Council resolution is still on the table, which we would like to push forward if the situation in Syria continues to be so dire. I am confident that we have taken the right position.

Middle East and North Africa

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I do not think that that is a major factor in this. As has been pointed out by hon. Members earlier, Russia, which was not an enthusiast for the Security Council resolution on Libya, has conceded at the G8 that Gaddafi has lost legitimacy and must go. When it comes to the resolution on Syria there are other factors at work. Syria has stronger relationships with various countries around the Arab world and with Russia than Libya has had in recent years. There are more powerful factors at work in making countries reluctant to condemn the Syrian Government, but if these events continue as they are, it must be acknowledged across capitals all over the world that the Syrian Government’s behaviour is unacceptable and we will make a renewed push at the United Nations on that basis.

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

The Foreign Secretary will know that the United States previously appointed Jerry Bremer as the Governor and administrator in Iraq to oversee the transition to democracy. Will the United Kingdom appoint someone to a similar position to oversee the transition to democracy in the post-Gaddafi regime?

[Mr Hague]

I doubt it because we are not intending to be an occupying power in Libya, where I hope that the situation when Gaddafi goes will be radically different from the situation in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. It will not be a situation in which armies have come from outside to remove the system and to try to construct something completely new; it will be about the success of people inside Libya who have fought for their freedom and are able to build a structure in accordance with their own culture and society. I am not anticipating there being anyone from Britain to oversee that.

Treatment of Christians

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Browne]

There were a number of points in that intervention. I pay tribute to all the British people who were extremely generous in their contributions to the victims of the natural disaster in Pakistan. Many of them were Christians or were involved with Christian groups that co-ordinated and led that charitable activity. I share the hon. Gentleman’s deep alarm—perhaps the word “alarm” is not strong enough—and profound anxiety about the circumstances of some Christians in Pakistan, and the fact that they cannot worship as freely as they would wish. I will certainly convey to the Minister with geographical responsibility for Pakistan, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. As I was explaining to the Chamber, my hon. Friend is extremely committed, on a personal basis, to the issue of religious freedom of practice for Christians and others. I know that he will, with great sincerity, want to take forward the exact agenda advised by the hon. Member for Strangford.

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

Also in Pakistan, Governor Salman Taseer was shot dead for raising the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian caught up in these draconian laws. Will the Minister urge the Government of Pakistan to release Asia Bibi and all the others imprisoned under those laws, so that they can practise their faith?

[Mr Browne]

I cannot give my hon. Friend that commitment, not because I necessarily disapprove of the view that he expressed, but because that is not a commitment that I am in a position to give this afternoon. All I can undertake to do is ensure that his views are heard clearly in the Foreign Office, and that they are taken seriously by those who are in a position to make the relevant decision.

Other countries have been brought to our attention this afternoon. Nigeria continues to experience significant inter-communal violence, particularly following the presidential elections last month. Both Christian and Muslim communities have suffered terrible loss of life in recent years as a result of violence driven by underlying social, political, economic and religious factors. We have made it clear to the Nigerian Government at ministerial level that the perpetrators of those crimes must be brought to justice. The Minister with responsibility for sub-Saharan Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), has raised this issue directly with the vice-president. Our high commissioner has raised it and related subjects on several occasions.

Iran has come up as a subject, rightly and understandably. There is significant cause for concern about the treatment of Christians and other minority religious groups in Iran. That continues to be a country of high concern to the Foreign Office. We express that view whenever and wherever we can.

Briefly, before I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I was asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby to talk about the Foreign Secretary’s advisory group on human rights, which identified religious freedom as a key human rights issue at its first meeting in December. Following on from that, a programme of work based on freedom of religion has been agreed, including a Wilton Park conference in July, to discuss promoting religious freedom around the world. That will be attended by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, along with a range of senior religious leaders. The conference will identify how the international community can strengthen its ability to protect religious freedom. It will also seek to build new partnerships between Governments, NGOs and faith groups.

BBC World Service

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I support the motion. The Foreign Affairs Committee has produced a good report. The Chairman’s arguments were right and were pitched extremely well. It is clear from all the information produced, especially the written documentation the Committee received, that many people hold the World Service in very high esteem, and I therefore think we would be foolish hastily to proceed in the direction in which we seem to be going. Even if we accept that there might be a degree of bleeding stumps in some of the worst case scenarios, it is time for the Government to reconsider this issue before any lasting damage is done.

Consideration of the comprehensive spending review and the licence fee negotiations were concluded fairly quickly and without a vast amount of consultation, yet the implications for the World Service are very substantial indeed. Therefore, if there is a right time to pause so that we can carefully consider how to proceed, that time is now.

The issue of soft power and the flow of information around the world has already been mentioned, and it is of great importance for this country’s influence globally. Any of us who travel abroad appreciate that there is a great appetite for information from the BBC, as well as enthusiasm for British Council centres, and even British newspapers and the rest of our media. It is important that information flows, but the specialised analysis of that information by British journalists and foreign journalists working for the World Service is also important. We have witnessed upheaval, revolution and the fog of war, and reference has been made to the Facebook revolution. Often the analysis of experienced journalists is needed to decipher what is actually happening and to impart an accurate view to the world.

I heard a discussion on, I think, Radio 4 between two history professors, one of whom said, “If we look back into history and substitute the word “crowd” for “mob”, we can totally change the way in which people view events.” Journalists who work for the World Service must be allowed to get on with the job and give their best analysis of what is happening so that people who do not share our privilege of living in a free society can receive that information.

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

My hon. Friend rightly talks about the importance of such experienced journalists, and another advantage of the World Service is its independence and impartiality, which is crucial for empowering people to seek democracy in highly regulated states.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for introducing the debate, and for doing so in a characteristically courteous and thoughtful fashion; and I pay tribute to all members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for a comprehensive report on what all Members, whether in government or not, agree is a matter of great public significance and of significance to how we advance the interests of the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said frequently in opposition and in government that he sees the World Service as, to use the words of my hon. Friend, a key element of British soft power. My right hon. Friend has also underlined frequently the central importance of the World Service and the British Council in giving this country an unrivalled platform from which to project our culture and to share our values.

The Government and, in particular, my right hon. Friend will clearly want to reflect carefully on what has been said during this debate, but I make it clear that there cannot be any avoidance of difficult financial decisions and hard choices for the Foreign Office or for the World Service, as for any part of the public sector. I hope that when I have concluded my speech hon. Members will recognise that the Government are committed to finding ways—within the terms of the existing settlement announced in October last year, and in discussions about possible additional sources of World Service revenue—in which the current and potential resources available to the World Service can be used to the greatest possible advantage. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), in particular, listed a number ways in which that might be possible.

[Rehman Chishti]

Can the Minister confirm that in 2010 the chief executive of the BBC World Service earned £215,000 and five of his colleagues earned more than £200,000? Does he agree that chief executives and other senior officials should have had their salaries frozen or taken a reduction instead of cutting front-line services?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not somebody who usually harps on about high salaries for people who hold important positions of responsibility, but it is fair to acknowledge that the BBC World Service board is responsible for a significantly smaller operation with a smaller budget than the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and yet the World Service’s board is more numerous and significantly more expensive than the board that runs the FCO. I do not want to make too much of that, but my hon. Friend makes an emblematic point that I will come to later.

I am not trying to deny that hard choices are having to be made, but there is a need to say to the World Service, as to every other part of the public sector, that it needs to look rigorously at how to make finite budgets go further and try to reduce all unnecessary costs.