North Africa and the Middle East

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I want to comment on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, but first on north Africa I want to say that I, like everyone who has spoken, welcome the popular uprisings that started in Tunisia. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) gave us the background to it: the suicide of the person involved and what followed in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Bahrain. However, I disagreed with him when he gave the impression that all along Britain has been on the side of those in Arab countries seeking freedom, dignity and respect. That has not been the position—I only wish it had been.

One of the few advantages of age is that one can remember what has happened in the past in one’s own lifetime. Sixty years ago, there was a reforming Iranian Government with Mossadegh as Prime Minister. In no way was he ever accused—it would have been farcical had he been—of being an Islamist or connected with terrorism. The truth was far from it. However, that reforming Government was overthrown by Britain and the United States, and of course a few years later came the sad and tragic Suez episode. We do not have an honourable record, and I only wish that we did.

It came as no surprise to anyone—certainly not to me—that Gaddafi’s murderous regime refused to give way, as happened in Egypt and Tunisia. Gaddafi was determined to stay on with his cronies. What is happening in Libya now is deplorable to say the least, and the International Criminal Court should certainly keep a careful record and prepare the necessary indictment of Gaddafi and those responsible. However, as I have argued in the past fortnight, I am not persuaded that western military intervention in that country would be the right course to pursue, let alone any unilateral action by Britain. It would be interpreted in most parts of the Arab world—if not by the Governments, then by the population—as an attempt once again to control a country because of its oil resources, and would be looked on as a colonial or imperialist intervention. As I said in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary, if we were to intervene in Libya, why not in Bahrain? What would be the argument for intervening militarily in one country, but refusing to do so in Bahrain? There would be absolutely no logic to it.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

May I politely suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the answer depends on the difference between Bahrain and Libya? We cannot adopt a world view that assumes that all those countries are the same; it is the specificities of those countries that are relevant.

[Mr Winnick]

Yes, of course there are differences, and no matter how non-democratic Bahrain is, I am not suggesting that it is on the same level as Gaddafi’s regime, but there has already been a foreign intervention in Bahrain. What I am saying—and I do not see how it could be contradicted—is that if we were to intervene in Libya, there would be no less of an argument for doing so in the case of Bahrain. However, if the United Nations Security Council agreed to a no-fly zone, it should be supported by the international community at large. That would give legitimacy if any intervention was to take place, but without such a resolution, there would be no legitimacy whatever.

One or two hon. Members who have spoken—including the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who spoke a few moments ago—have rightly deplored arms sales to Libya, but there was an arms fair in Libya last November. I am not making a party point now—if my side had been in government, that arms fair would obviously have taken place and we would have participated as a country—but is it not deplorable? We read of France and other countries deploring what is happening, but information published by the Library shows that

“Bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles…other explosives”

were all sold to Libya by France and Germany, including some no doubt sold by us. They are being used now against the Libyan people, so I ask the question: when we sold that ammunition, who did we believe it was going to be used against? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Let me say a few words in the time I have left about the Israel-Palestine dispute. My remarks will be somewhat different in tone from those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). It goes without saying that I deplore the murder of the Fogel family which occurred last week. There could be absolutely no justification, no matter what policies Israel had pursued, for that murder, which was absolutely deplorable. I totally agree with every single word that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside said about anti-Semitism, whether from Hamas or sources in this country. I recently had a letter in a newspaper where I again made it clear that there should be total condemnation of every aspect of anti-Semitism, and I doubt whether anyone here would disagree.

Similarly, what I am about to say should in no way be interpreted as any kind of justification for the murders, but some 1,355 Palestinian children have been killed as a result of Israeli military action in the occupied territories since 2000. There is obviously a difference. However much we deplore the military action, there is a difference between what I have just described and the deliberate murders that took place last weekend, but can anyone imagine what the parents of those Palestinian children must have gone through as they watched their children being killed? A book has been published recently about a Palestinian surgeon whose three daughters were killed. He has no desire for revenge; he wants reconciliation and a settlement. This is all part of the ongoing tragedy of a dispute that continues year after year. At the end of October last year, 256 Palestinian children were in Israeli detention, including 34 between the ages of 12 and 15.

I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, and I respect the way in which she defends Israel at every opportunity, but I did not hear one single word of criticism of Israel in her speech. I have already said that I endorse her condemnation of anti-Semitism. As far as the occupied territories are concerned, however, there seems to be no recognition by Israel that the settlements are completely illegal under international law. Such settlements now occupy 42% of the land area of the west bank. Indeed, that was the figure last June; a large amount of construction has taken place since then. What justification exists for that? It is being done in defiance of international law.

I am very pleased indeed that the British Government supported the resolution deploring such settlements, although the resolution was unfortunately vetoed by the United States. I am not in the habit of congratulating this Government, but I am also very pleased that the Palestinian delegation here has now been upgraded to a mission. That is the right course of action, and I am sure that it is fully supported by those on my Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

This debate is, of course, an extraordinary phenomenon. We have been stuck in intervention for the past 20 years. We have spent $3 trillion, we have had 100,000 lives lost and we have had more than 1 million soldiers pass through Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we do not seem to have a clear answer on what we do in Libya. The lessons that we are taking from history are very dubious. People are referring to Bosnia, but they are forgetting that Bosnia was a sovereign, independent state when it asked for assistance—the entire debate in the Security Council was completely different. We fail also to understand ourselves. As hon. Members from all parts of the House have mentioned, we fail to understand our own tendency to be unable to do something with passionate moderation. We shift quickly from dipping our toe in the water to being submerged up to our neck—we go from a no-fly zone into a troop deployment.

The final thing that we misunderstand—this is the reason why we need to lift our eyes from Libya—is the way in which we are increasingly perceived in the middle east after our interactions with Iraq and Afghanistan. If we were discussing this immediately after the events in Kosovo, the whole debate would be completely different. If those events had just happened, we would be able to stand up and say, “We don’t care that the Russians are blocking us in the Security Council. We have done a good job in Kosovo and we are going to do the same thing in Libya.” But the intervening 10 years have made that option impossible, which is why the Government’s position is the correct one.

If I understand it correctly, the Government’s position is to push strongly for a no-fly zone, but a no-fly zone only with strong international backing. Many people on both sides of the House have suggested that that is a paradox and that it is somehow impossible. They say, “Either you push for a no-fly zone or you don’t. Your rhetoric has to be matched with your action. If you think you have a humanitarian right and an obligation, you should do it regardless of the international politics.” That no longer makes sense. It is perfectly consistent to say that we have a moral right and a moral duty to impose a no-fly zone but will not do so without the support of the United Nations. One of the most important things to remember in that context is not Russia but Brazil, India and South Africa—the emerging powers who are not, at the moment, on our side. If we try to lurch into this thing without bringing with us what will probably be the majority of the countries in the world, it will be extremely unwise and very dangerous. Does that mean that we should do nothing? No. It means that we need to lift our eyes above Libya. We need to see the incredible potential in this region, if we are patient, over the next 20 to 30 years.

We tend, I think, to get caught up in exactly what happens when a helicopter lands near Benghazi, rather than keeping our eyes on Egypt and Tunisia and on what the middle east and north Africa mean to us. They mean so much to us. It is not just that they are on the other side of the Mediterranean. It is not just that they have this incredible young, unemployed population who are both a potential source of prosperity for their own nations and for us and a potential threat to us. We also have much greater leverage on those countries than on the nations that are much further away, such as Afghanistan.

The relationships between France and Morocco and between Italy and Libya—indeed, around the whole Mediterranean littoral—are so close that that region is definitely within Europe’s sphere of influence. If we can move from panicking about exactly what is happening in Libya to considering how to invest over the next 10 to 30 years and how to put ourselves in a position where all the talk about what we do to make this our 1989 and to make the middle east and north Africa another example, along with central and eastern Europe, of how we can move countries to a more prosperous, democratic future, it will obviously be good for us and for them.

We need to be cautious. A lot of nonsense is talked about democratisation and it is very easy for us to imagine that we can somehow go into someone else’s society and create civil society and good governance and eliminate corruption when those are not things that we have proved very able to do in Kenya, Nepal or Afghanistan. That does not mean, however, that we can do nothing.

The lesson from the experience of central and eastern Europe is that progress is possible, but the kind of progress we should make is exactly the kind of progress that we have been speaking about. I applaud what the Government have said about access—to markets and to people—but the lesson from eastern Europe is that that needs to be adjusted. What was very smart about what we did in eastern Europe was that our policy, for example, towards Slovakia was different from our policy towards the Czech Republic—we were more open towards the Czech Republic, and people in Slovakia saw that and moved. Too often, our policy towards north Africa has been a one-size-fits-all policy. We now need a policy that not only no longer says that Tunisia is simply within France’s sphere of influence—that we will not do anything about Tunisia because that is a French affair—but says that Tunisia might deserve different treatment from countries such as Libya, and that Egypt might deserve different treatment from countries such as Morocco.

[Mr MacShane]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating speech. Frankly, the comparisons with 1989 are wrong, because this is more like the crushing of what happened in Hungary or Prague than a gentle transition to democracy. We should never forget that Mrs Thatcher did not support German unification at that time. In 1980, when Solidarnosc was suppressed, many countries were quite happy to see stability restored and caution was the watchword of the day.

On the hon. Gentleman’s narrow point about how we treat Tunisia, when I was Europe Minister I tried to get Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria switched to the European department of the Foreign Office, but the Africanists put their little feet down and said, “No, they belong permanently to Africa.” Will he talk to his colleagues at the Foreign Office and get those countries treated as part of the broader south Mediterranean and European hinterland rather than African ex-colonies?

[Rory Stewart]

I disagree very strongly and I think that in 10 to 20 years’ time, the right hon. Gentleman will have been proved wrong. I think the situation is equivalent to 1989 and that is the direction in which those countries are heading. It is patronising and mistaken of him to believe that this is simply a repeat of the 1950s and 1960s.

Let us look at Libya specifically. Gaddafi is going to be a very peculiar, eccentric and isolated figure even within his own country. Everything is shifting against that man. When he came to power, the population was rural and there was an anti-colonial movement. He now faces a situation in which 80% of Libyans live in cities in which he is perceived as a colonial oppressor. He has gone from the bloodless revolution that brought him to power four decades ago to a bloody attack on his own people. What we are hearing in Egypt and Tunisia is not some accidental, sporadic pop-up that will be constrained by inevitable forces of tyranny or Arabic culture. It is probably something closer to what we have seen in central and eastern Europe and in Latin America in the past 20 to 30 years. Furthermore, it is in our political and moral interests to support it. Even if I am wrong and it is not an inevitability but only a probability that things are going in that direction, it is the direction in which we should be pushing. This is Britain’s opportunity and Europe’s moment, and that is the direction we need to go in.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

I take absolutely no issue with the hon. Gentleman’s comment that it is our political and moral duty to do that. However, at the risk of rehearsing European history, the 10 countries that joined the European Union in 2004 were democracies before the iron curtain fell, so we were restoring democracy and we did it within the framework of membership of the European Union. It is different.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for those comments. The last thing that I, or any of us, want is to be starry-eyed about this. The differences that she has raised are incredibly important and have to be considered in relation to how we speak to the middle east. The whole movement in central and eastern Europe and the ability to speak about democracy, liberty and joining NATO and the European Union was driven by the history of the 1930s and by the cold war. The language on the streets in the middle east today is very different. I am afraid that George Bush has done a great disservice to words such as liberty, equality and democracy—words that were on the lips of Vaclav Havel—which do not sit so easily today when we talk to those countries. We need new words and I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) talk instead about dignity and justice. We need a whole new language and it needs to be driven by them, not us. Freedom is not something that is given but something that is taken.

All those words of caution need to be considered, but we can, nevertheless, have a constructive role over the next 20 to 30 years in helping the middle east and north Africa be more stable, more prosperous and more humane than today. That is our mission. That is what we have to put our weight behind and is where we need to invest, which means a number of things for our foreign policy. Rhetorically and financially we have been stuck in Asia. Financially, if we include debts and veterans’ costs, we are spending more than £7 billion a year in Afghanistan. Rhetorically, we have been in China and Brazil for good reasons—they are big emerging countries—but this is a wake-up call about what is going on at the other end of the Mediterranean, which, in demographic, energy, religious and security terms will prove to be more important to our institutions and future than we have acknowledged in the past five to 10 years. We therefore need to invest in institutions.

I absolutely celebrate what the Foreign Office is doing in recruiting more Arabists. We need people who can focus on Azeri and people who speak different languages. There are not enough British ambassadors in the middle east who speak fluent Arabic. We need to make sure that Tunisia is no longer seen as some French extension and we also need to take into account the lessons from European enlargement. We need to look at the way in which the Commission approached Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and we need to give the prestige and investment to our energies in north Africa and the middle east that was given to those countries.

If we get those things right and we keep to the principles on Libya that the Government have put in play—first, clarity; secondly, a coalition; thirdly, a recognition that we can set strategic direction without having to rush in with our troops; and finally, institutional investment over the next 10 to 20 years in our relationships with these countries—I think we will find that although we can do much less than we pretend, we can do much more than we fear.