Middle East

Seema Kennedy Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

I agree, and I will come in a moment to what I think we should be doing.

In addition to the lack of tactical and strategic bases, my third test is that the permanent defeat of Daesh in Syria requires the end of conflict, which is what allows it to thrive. Any short-term retrenchment will likely benefit the Assad regime, which is itself responsible for seven times as many civilian deaths as Daesh this year. That may mean a shift in the balance of forces, but it will bring us no nearer to resolution.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I will not.

I want Britain to engage in a concerted diplomatic effort to wean Russia and Iran away from their support for Assad, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia away from giving comfort, if not actual support, to Islamist extremism. I want a peace process that allows non-extremist opposition to talk to the acceptable parts of the Syrian Arab Army and Kurdish forces, and a concerted attempt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has just said, to cut off the funds to, and other international support for, Daesh. That is a very difficult, perhaps impossible, agenda, but to engage in bombing missions on the basis of, “Something must be done”, or even on the basis of solidarity, and without clear objectives, does not show sound judgment.

There are other arguments for and against intervention, including that our contribution would be small, especially given the lack of military targets without the risk of civilian casualties; that we should support allies, whether they be the Iraqi or French Governments; and that we remain at risk from Daesh attacks on the UK, whether we take further military action against them or not. However, the three points I have mentioned are my red lines. They are also, I am pleased to say, reflected by a ratio of 100:1 in the letters and emails I have received from my constituents in the past few days and weeks. I will, of course, review my decision in the light of changing events, but given the UK’s poor record of intervention in the middle east over the past decade, I think that further military incursion should be approved only if a high burden of proof can be established.

Having dealt with that matter, may I turn, albeit necessarily briefly, to two other issues in the middle east? The first is the current situation in Israel-Palestine. I am sorry that a few moments ago we listened to a speech that gave a very one-sided view of that situation, which is at its most serious for many years. The issues are not new—we are familiar with them, including the growth of Israeli settlements, which now account for almost 600,000 people in the occupied territories; settler violence; a shoot-to-kill policy and increased use of live fire; increased use of home demolitions; child detention and administrative detention; pass laws, checkpoints and barriers; and restrictions of access to the Noble Sanctuary and other holy places. None of those things is new, but the intensification of their use by the occupying power is much more significant, and that is going on partly because of the extremism of the Israeli Government and partly because tragic events elsewhere in the middle east, including in Syria, give cover for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I, too, will not take up my allotted time. Nevertheless, thank you for your generosity, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who began the debate, set an excellent tone, which has continued, and I hope will continue further when we come to deal with the substantive issue of Syria in the coming days. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) gave an excellent analysis, which went to the heart of the issue and was pertinent and incisive.

There are 12 million displaced people, and 250,000 people have died in the nation of Syria—possibly more. That is the context of our debate. We must take the issue deeply seriously, and we must respect everyone’s views. I have had a great deal of contact with people in my constituency and beyond who have expressed their views about the situation in Syria in general and the question of military intervention in particular. I therefore want to set out my position, having written to people in my constituency on the matter. It is the responsibility of every Member of Parliament to have their say and express their view in this important debate.

First, I acknowledge—and no doubt many will—that this matter is remarkably complex. In that regard, any decision made, whether to intervene militarily or not, must be made on the basis of as much relevant and pertinent information and evidence as possible. Moreover, it must stand up to scrutiny in the forum that will ultimately make the decision to authorise the bombing of ISIS—or ISIL, or Daesh; whatever it is called—which is here in the House. No one person or group reaching any decision on this sensitive issue has the right to claim the moral high ground or unassailable certainty. I definitely do not, especially in the context of the suffering inflicted on the innocent in Syria.

Secondly, in his recent statement to Parliament, the Prime Minister very reasonably and articulately set out his “four pillars” strategy in relation to the Syrian crisis: the counter-extremism strategy; the diplomatic and political process; military action to degrade and destroy ISIS; and immediate humanitarian aid and longer-term stabilisation.

Thirdly, I acknowledge that that is a reasonable framework for the debate and for making a decision. However, that must be done on the basis of four pillars with a comprehensive strategy, not by putting into effect just one or two pillars in isolation with the intention of the other pillars being constructed at some unspecified date. In effect, the current position and proposed action do not, in my view, constitute the required comprehensive approach. It is a partial approach, which is a real concern.

Fourthly, in my estimation the key pillar set out by the Prime Minister is the political and diplomatic process. However, it is not so much the aim itself that concerns me—who could disagree with that aim—as its practical implementation and outcomes. What would that entail? What is the timetable for implementation of any agreements arising from the process? What is the likely success of the process, given the multitude of interested and competing—and in certain cases, diametrically opposed—parties in what is widely recognised as a volatile mix? For example, at present there is no clear plan at all as to who will end up governing Syria, nor how we are going to involve neighbouring Arab states and countries.

[Seema Kennedy]

The hon. Gentleman said that there is no plan on who will govern Syria after any intervention. Surely, with a political settlement, that is in the hands of the Syrian people.

[Peter Dowd]

That is a fair point. At the end of the day, that is where we are. We have absolutely no idea: there is no road map whatsoever. Yes, it seems like jam tomorrow—eventually, we will get there—but now we have to set out the path in earnest. I accept the point that the hon. Lady is making, but we have to try to focus on the issue a bit more.

My concern is not about practical implementation. As I said, it is about what that would entail, the timetable, and the success issues.

Fifthly, I fear that other pillars of the strategy, while genuinely laudable—for example, the humanitarian aid and stabilisation plan—are unclear in their aims, extent and, crucially, the mechanisms for their delivery. In addition, it goes without saying that a systematic counter-extremism approach is crucial in any strategy, but that prompts the question of whether or not such a strategy depends on military intervention per se. The two things are not, so to speak, symbiotically linked or mutually dependent.

Sixthly, taking all those factors into account, to activate just one pillar—military action, evidently in the form of bombing—is inappropriate at this point, notwithstanding the interventions being undertaken by other nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this timely and important debate and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) for securing it. The middle east is the crucible in which were forged three of the world’s great religions—Christianity, Islam and Judaism—and it can credibly claim to be the cradle of ancient civilisations and empires, such as those of Babylon or Sasanian Persia, which rose and fell while our own country was still in its infancy. I say that because, as the Minister has already suggested, although it is a region whose past and present have been scarred by war and strife, we should never forget that proud and complex history when we reflect on today’s middle east.

After the collapse of the Ottoman empire, crystallised in the treaty of Sèvres, the UK and other powers played a role in the creation of the modern middle east, but they did so in a way that sought to create nation states on the Westphalian model, which paid too little heed to tribal, religious and historical realities on the ground. Similarly, during the cold war, as geopolitical power play was played out in the region, the overriding desire was for stable nation states, which often took the form of government by nationalist, military strongmen, who governed and maintained their hold on power by seeing all diversity or civil society as dissent and by seeking to crush it. That has all meant the non-development, or at least the very slow development, in many countries of the institutions required for the functioning of a pluralistic and democratic state.

The middle east is a region I know well, having spent time in Yemen, Oman, Syria, Lebanon and Israel and Palestine, and for which I have a great deal of affection, both for the land and for its people. Although I hope to cover the UK’s relationship with Yemen and Oman, I feel that I must touch on Syria, albeit briefly, as so many hon. Members have spoken about it so eloquently and at length, mostly recently my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax).

I fully appreciate and understand the concerns expressed by hon. Members and by our constituents, and I respect what are clearly sincerely held views. The evident care evinced by many of them for the people of Syria resonates with me. My knowledge of and affection for that country and its people makes it all the more saddening to see what has become of it through a brutal civil war and the evil that is ISIL—or Daesh, as it is perhaps more properly termed. The case for using that term has been compellingly made in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti).

What is clear to me is that to do nothing in the face of the threat to ordinary Syrians, to the wider region and to our own country posed by Daesh is the wrong approach. We must of course ensure that any action taken is proportionate and focused, as the Prime Minister has intimated it would be. I support extending the bombing of Daesh from Iraq to Syria and will vote in favour of that when the vote comes forward. The Iraq-Syria border in the desert is not respected by these terrorists, who move freely across it, so it makes no practical sense for us to be able to act to degrade their capability on one side of the border but not when they cross over to the other.

Such action should not stand alone. It requires a parallel, comprehensive strategy to tackle Daesh, and the setting out of a broader, long-term vision and plan to stabilise and bring peace to Syria and the wider region. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment on this. Of course, alongside that there must be care and consideration for the humanitarian needs of the country, and moves to choke off Daesh’s resources and funding.

A key part of that wider context is the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, which has long been a running sore, with its origins in the days of more direct British involvement in the region. While I have huge respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), with whom I agree on many things, I cannot agree with him that this is but a sideshow. For too long, the leaders of both sides have let down their people by not making greater progress in delivering peace, and it is the ordinary people on both sides who have suffered. It is more important than ever that we join with others who desire peace to work to achieve a long-term solution to the conflict, however distant that may appear at times.

[Seema Kennedy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the main external actor in the Israel-Palestine situation is the United States, and that Britain can play a very important role in assisting the United States in understanding the regional dispute in Israel-Palestine and, we hope, bringing it to the two-state solution that we all desire?

[Edward Argar]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The United Kingdom, with its historical links and understanding of the region, has the potential to play a positive role in helping to move us towards peace not only between Israel and Palestine but in the wider region more generally.

The basic ingredient of a long-term settlement must include an Israel secure within her borders, recognised fully by her neighbours, freed from all acts of aggression and threats of terrorism, and living peacefully alongside a viable, independent Palestine. Alongside these key elements, sharing Jerusalem must be part of any agreement, as would be compromise from the Palestinians on their claim to a right of return and the recognition by Israel that settlements on Palestinian land are illegal and wrong and must be given up. Too often in this debate, people say that they are pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I believe that in order to be pro-peace, one must be pro-both. While the urgency of finding a solution can at times appear to be lesser, the importance of doing so has never been greater, and we must play our role in restarting stalled peace talks.

Reassuringly, I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), but on this occasion I did when he referred to Yemen’s as the unseen or hidden war: the “forgotten war”, in his words. He is absolutely right. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has spoken similarly eloquently about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) for securing this important debate, and by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to take place.

We meet a time when Britain’s role in the middle east is on the front pages for the reason of war, but the same could be said of almost any day in the last 100 years. If we want to have an effective role in the middle east, which I believe we can have, we need to learn from the past, consider the present and look to the future.

The majority of right hon. and hon. Members have understandably touched on Syria and our role in the coming days and months, but I would like to consider a broader theme. I want to speak directly to those in this place and outside it who say that we should insulate ourselves, turn away and “leave them to it.” To them, I would say quite simply that the links between Britain—or, as it then was, England and Scotland—did not begin with the invasion of Iraq, with Sykes-Picot or the crusades. The Judaeo-Christian underpinnings of our nation were born between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and the fact that Indo-European languages are spoken as far east as Afghanistan shows our common and shared history. That is something we cannot ignore.

The debate is often framed in terms of trade, and how we can benefit from it, and war, but the links are deeper and more complex, to do with culture, religion and family. I am not the only Member of this place, or indeed of the other House, to have family links with the region.

Britain has centuries of diplomatic and scholarly understanding of the middle east. It needs to use that understanding to support stability, with the aim of eventually building a region in which democracy will thrive, and to help our most important ally, the United States, to understand the whole area. I would caution, however, that this will not be the work of one Parliament or of two. It will be the work of centuries.

The immediate threat, which is on all our minds this week, comes from the sadistic cult known as ISIL/Daesh. The origins of ISIL, al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab are complex, but I believe that one reason for the fact that they have survived and thrived is the existence of dysfunctional economies in most of the middle east. Where there is corruption, where there are monopolies and raging youth unemployment, there is an ideal recruiting ground for jihadi fighters. I want to elaborate on that a little, particularly in relation to Iran, which is the country in the region that I know best.

After the war, the Ba’athist, socialist command economies of Syria and Iraq, much of the Levant, and north Africa were unable to compete with the far east, which had much nimbler markets, and growth and per capita income declined in relative terms. The petroleum-rich nations of the region are only now reaching the conclusion that they must diversify their economies in order to become more resilient, and to build a wider base for employment.

People often forget that the 1979 revolution in Iran was as much socialist as it was Islamic. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) referred to central control by the conservative leadership, and, indeed, many of the cronies of the conservative leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps now hold much of the country’s economic power. In 1979, there were 105 rials to the dollar. Now there are 30,000. In 1976, Iran’s growth rate was 16.9%, but, according to the International Monetary Fund, it is likely to fall to 0.6%. I am not suggesting that the picture was uniformly rosy under the Shah, because by the end he had definitely become too dependent on oil revenues, but at least there was a thriving private sector.

During the revolution, 80% of all industry was nationalised, including the spinning mill that my father built from scratch and ran between 1971 and 1980. During that period, 380 men worked at the mill, and every day they produced 14.5 tonnes of top-quality yarn. It was sequestered by the Islamic regime in 1980, after which it employed twice as many people and produced half as much yarn, which was of such low quality that it could not be sold on the domestic market, let alone exported. The mill closed in 1992, and every single job was lost.

As we know, unemployment in Iran and, indeed, all over the region is sky-high, particularly among young people. Ahmadinejad propped up the companies of his cronies with $26 billion of cheap debts, which will never be paid off because they were given to flabby, uncompetitive firms. It was the youth of Iran who took to the streets in 1999 and 2009. Rouhani was elected on a mandate of providing sound finances, but the IMF estimates that it will take $10 billion of investment to achieve the 10% growth that is needed to lower the country’s chronic unemployment.

I think that we may be betting a little bit too much on the success of the nuclear deal, and on its inevitably improving the economy. The picture is not so simple. Countries throughout the middle east need fundamental internal economic reform.

[Chris Green]

We often hear about modernisation in Iran. Does my hon. Friend believe that it is making good progress in that regard, or does she think that that is more of a front, and that the Supreme Leader is not quite the moderniser that people would hope?

[Seema Kennedy]

I do not think anyone would say that the Supreme Leader was a moderniser. The President is, but the problem is that, under the constitution of Iran, there are different pools of influence and they are pulling at each other all the time.

The role for Britain is to nurture these nations and to encourage them to build competitive economies in which pluralism can thrive and in which Islamism will naturally fade away. We need to look at our own history, in which the free market and, eventually, freedom and democracy prospered. The primary building block in this edifice is property rights. Nations prosper when private property rights are well defined and enforced. Britain has an important role to play through its international aid budget, and I am glad to see the renewed focus on supporting fragile states to build strong property institutions.

Touching briefly on our interaction with the US—I have made this point in interventions—we need to use our knowledge to influence the date and to push it forward. Our role is to support our ally and to foster in the middle east the evolution that has led to freedom and democracy in the UK. It is a job of work that will continue into the lives of our children and grandchildren, but it is a job of work that is worth doing.

[Several hon. Members rose—]