§ Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) must divide their time between them—they have 29 minutes each.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)I accept that Britain has diplomatic relations with several dictatorships with deplorable human rights records. I am aware of the criteria by which recognition is given and which successive Governments have followed. There are instances, however, when outrages against British interests or nationals lead to the conclusion that we should break off diplomatic relations in peace time. Hence, at present, Britain does not have relations with the authorities in power in Libya, Iran and Syria. I think that I am right in saying that that has the approval of the whole House.
The Government have told us that, despite recent events in Iraq affecting Britain, they intend to continue diplomatic relations with that country. No doubt the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will reply to the debate, will reaffirm that position today. Leaving aside the matter of diplomatic relations, the House should take an interest in events in Iraq. That country was the subject of statements and private notice questions recently over the long detention and then execution of Farzad Bazoft. The case turned the spotlight on the nature of the dictatorship in Iraq. Mr. Bazoft was there by invitation of the authorities and was with a group of other journalists. We should remind ourselves that he had previously visited that country, again by invitation, on five occasions. Mr. Bazoft was stateless, but he travelled on British travel documents.
The regime seemed to take a sheer delight in Mr. Bazoft's execution. In Britain, the reaction was one of widespread dismay and anger. As the Minister will probably remind us, two other British citizens—Daphne Parish and Ian Richter—are still being held in Iraq. We all want to see their return to Britain as quickly as possible. No doubt those two cases will be the subject of continuing questions to Foreign Office Ministers.
What about the dictatorship itself? What sort of a country is Iraq? How has it been led in the past 10 or 15 years? Such questions are important and relevant to the United Kingdom and should be taken into account by the Government in their relations with the regime. Many British people believe that the Government's mild reaction to the execution of Mr. Bazoft was not appropriate. The contempt that the regime showed for British protests and representations demonstrated again that when one is dealing with totalitarian regimes, mild protests or appeasement of any kind simply do not work.
As I said yesterday during Foreign Office questions, terrorist dictatorships work on the basis that democracies are unlikely to act tough and will find all kinds of excuses for not doing so. The reaction of totalitarian regimes is simply to show contempt for what they see as weakness. That was the lesson of the 1930s and the continued criticism of the Opposition towards the dealings of the British regime with Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. 1349 I have referred to Iraq as a terrorist regime. I certainly believe that that is an accurate description. It is one of the most notorious and bloodstained dictatorships in existence. That is saying a great deal when one thinks of the other dictatorships in various parts of the globe. In Iraq there is constant spying on and intimidation of its citizens, mass arrests, prolonged and savage tortures, show trials and large-scale executions, including public hangings. Those are all part of the way in which Saddam Hussein has ruled Iraq in recent years.
One of the worst crimes of the regime, and there have been many, was the use of chemical weapons in March 1987 against Kurds in a town in northern Iraq. Thousands died from the effects of the poison gas used. The regime denied that chemical weapons were used, but does anyone in the House or outside believe a word of what it says? The recent comments of the regime about a possible attack using chemical weapons against Israel give us even more reason to disbelieve it. By any standards, the attack using chemical weapons was a crime against humanity.
All the abuses in Iraq have been well documented in reports by Amnesty International. In 1989 that organisation referred to other crimes carried out by the terrorist regime. It dealt with the hundreds of executions of those considered to be opponents of the Government and army deserters. It said that routine torture and ill-treatment of prisoners continues to occur and that many are tortured to force them to sign confessions or to renounce their political affiliations. It said that political prisoners are reported to have been beaten, whipped, sexually abused, subjected to electric shocks and deprived of food. It also mentioned the cruel and sadistic tortures that have been inflicted on women prisoners. That is all part of the regime ruled over by Saddam Hussein in that unhappy country, as it has been for so many years.
Another report from Amnesty International devoted entirely to the detention of children documents the brutal treatment of young people, many of them very young, held in Iraqi prisons. Some of those children are executed once they have reached 16 or 17. Children in Iraq are frequently arrested and held as hostages in lieu of their parents or other relatives.
Some hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members—I emphasise that they are not present now—may say that what goes on in other countries is not our concern, that we should not worry unduly about that and that we should mind our own business. Twenty-two years ago, I had an Easter Adjournment debate on the military regime in Greece. A year had passed since the colonels had taken over and I protested strongly about the dictatorship and the brutalities occurring there. I quoted then from Amnesty International reports. On that occasion I was sitting on the Government Benches and I did not receive much support, if any, from Conservative Members.
§ Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)I place on record my concern, and that of many Conservative Members, that Iraq may, in the near future, have nuclear weapons which could have a destabilising effect on the middle east.
§ Mr. WinnickI shall come to that point in a moment.
The House of Commons should always be concerned with brutality and torture in other countries. If we as a House refuse to show such interest, we shall lose one of our 1350 important roles and one of our most honourable traditions. That is my view and I am not likely to change my mind.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the possible manufacture of nuclear weapons by Iraq, and the events of last week at Heathrow airport were a timely reminder of the determination of Iraq's criminal regime to manufacture nuclear weapons. I know that the argument of British domestic policy is that we should have nuclear weapons because other countries have them. I shall not go into that controversy today. No doubt Saddam Hussein would use the same type of argument. But that undoubtedly shows the immense dangers to humanity of nuclear weapons of any sort being in the hands of a criminal regime with a bloodstained record such as I have been describing. I hope that the possible manufacture of nuclear weapons by Iraq will be the subject of much interest not only in Britain and the western world, but among Arab countries, too.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)Would not that also be relevant to our attitude towards the protection of the state of Israel, because what happens in Iraq must be of direct concern to the democratically elected members of a state which is at risk?
§ Mr. WinnickYes. I am critical of the policies pursued by Israel, certainly in the occupied territories—the Minister knows my view—but I agree with my hon. Friend.
I strongly urge that the banning of all export high-level technology to Iraq should be given the highest priority and that every effort should be made urgently to seek co-operation on that, certainly from the countries of western Europe, but also, as I pointed out yesterday, from the Soviet Union and other countries of eastern Europe. One of the most significant things about the renewal or the beginning of the democratic process in eastern Europe and, I hope, in the Soviet Union, is that those countries will no longer wish in any way, directly or indirectly, to support terrorists or criminal regimes.
The sanctions that I have just been urging should be applied against Iraq as soon as possible. Trade credits to the regime should also be ended. I know all the arguments about the benefits to Britain of such trade, but the more that we can isolate such a regime the better it will be, not only for our well-being in Britain, but for humanity as a whole.
We also need the support of Arab states in spotlighting the dangers to their countries. That is not directly a matter for the British Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned Israel, and that is clearly a matter which will deeply concern the Israeli Government. But Arab countries in the region—Muslim countries—will recognise the dangers of Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons and, in particular, the territorial ambitions of Saddam Hussein. I hope that such dangers will be recognised by countries such as Egypt.
When we raise such matters, it is sometimes argued that we are being critical of Muslim countries. It should not be forgotten that the large majority of victims of the regime that I have been describing have been Muslims. In the main, the Kurds are Muslim. One should also remember that Iraq started the Gulf war. Perhaps at that time it was in western interests to see Iran defeated, but it should not be forgotten who started the war. The millions of casualties which resulted from those two ruthless 1351 dictatorships fighting for years were all Muslims. That was a needless and senseless war and I am only too pleased that it has finally come to an end. The leaders of Iraq may welcome a new war to divert attention from domestic problems. I have already referred to the territorial ambitions of Saddam Hussein.
I have chosen this subject because, following recent events, including what happened at Heathrow, it is necessary to spotlight what has been happening. I hope that this subject will continue to interest the House when we return after the recess. I hope that every opportunity will be taken by the Government to pursue the line that I have urged—not appeasement and not a show of weakness, but a recognition of all the dangers involved in the criminal regime in Iraq, to try to isolate it in every way possible and to seek the utmost international co-operation in pursuing that course.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for giving the House another opportunity to express, as I am sure it will wish to, its horror at the execution of Farzad Bazoft, and I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about that case. I shall make one or two comments on the wider issues of our relations with countries whose regime we abhor and whose human rights records we know to be dreadful. Both those things, I am sad to say, are true of Iraq at the present time. We have made that clear in recent years.
I am responsible, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for relations with the middle east, Africa, eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. With the wonderful exception of events in eastern Europe, there are —with one or two honourable exceptions—few countries among those for which I am responsible whose human rights record or commitment to democracy would meet the approval of this House. If this country's diplomatic relations, let alone trading relations, were to be dictated as our hearts would like to dictate them, and if we were to maintain relations only with countries of which we approved, our relationships around the world would be few.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North is justified in saying that Iraq is among the nations having the worst record of human rights—although I could put others in that dismal competition.
§ Mrs. DunwoodyDoes the Minister accept that few other countries have taken action against someone travelling on a British passport, or at least with British travel documents, in the way that Iraq did recently?
§ Mr. WaldegraveMr. Bazoft was not travelling on a British passport, but, like many displaced people, used travel documents issued by the country in which he was staying.
The list of executions that have taken place in the countries for which I am responsible is very long, and there are many competitors—alongside the catalogue of those who have been tortured and wrongly imprisoned.
It is the duty of all countries which are signatories to the United Nations convention, and certainly the duty of this House, to protest whenever possible. When a case comes close to us, such as that of Farzad Bazoft, who was 1352 working for a British employer at the time of his arrest and travelling on British travel documents, it is right that the House should do what it can. My Government made major efforts to save Mr. Bazoft, aligning a huge international protest. Tragically, that effort failed, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Walsall, North acknowledges that Britain did all that it could to save Mr. Bazoft. Those of us working in the Foreign Office were as distressed as anyone by the terrible outcome of that affair.
Farzad Bazoft's confession, which was about the only document put before the court, is a pathetic document, because it clearly tells the truth about a number of rather low-level contacts that Mr. Bazoft had with special branch officers in this country when he was trying—as journalists do—to swap information with the police about Iranian dissidents and about demonstrations in London some years ago. Whether deliberately or in ignorance, that admission was taken by the Iraqis as evidence that Mr. Bazoft was in touch with the British secret services, and so on. The horror is complete because, from what I have read of his confession, Mr. Bazoft told the truth. By telling that truth, which was entirely innocent, he was taken as condemning himself.
As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North concerning chemical weapons, at the chemical weaponry conference in Paris last year, Britain was the only country, not only in Europe but the world, to name Iraq as having breached its 1925 obligation. We were in the forefront of protests about that breach and welcomed the commitment given by Iraq at the conference that it would not recur—a commitment that we hope will be honoured.
As the hon. Member for Walsall, North rightly said, we were deeply involved in the desperate attempt to stop the export of nuclear weaponry technology not only to Iraq but to other countries, as was our duty under the non-proliferation treaty and the missile technology control regime. I join the hon. Gentleman in emphasising that one of the most hopeful developments is the new, genuine adherence to those measures by the Soviet Union, which is making it known that, although it is not willing at present to join the missile technology control regime, it will act as though it has done so and in parallel with its requirements. That is a most helpful and hopeful development.
Another hopeful development in the whole area of terrorism is that a number of former safe havens in eastern Europe have gone for ever. The countries that formerly served as safe havens are now taking steps to join those of us who act against terrorists, which is most beneficial.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)Is it true, as reported in The Independent on Sunday, that the same capacitors as were allegedly brought into the United Kingdom are available in university laboratories in London? Are efforts being made in the United States to monitor the production of the capacitors to ensure that they do not enter the export chain?
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The success of our extremely succesful joint investigation with the Americans over several months answers the hon. Gentleman's second question.
I have little argument with the hon. Member for Walsall, North about our horror at many practices of the Iraqi regime and of many others. He asked us to consider taking further steps against them. However, I genuinely 1353 believe that it would be wrong for us to break diplomatic relations with all those countries whose human rights records fall short of what we desire.
§ Mr. WinnickI agree.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe hon. Gentleman concurs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that we broke off relations with a number of countries that took steps against our citizens either from their diplomatic premises in Britain—as in the Libyan or Syrian cases—or in their own country, as in Iran. We maintain diplomatic relations with a range of other countries whose practices, I am sorry to say, we deplore.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that if we were to withdraw from Iraq, where there are 2,000 British business men and British prisoners—the hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the cases of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Richter, on whose behalf we continue to work hard—we would leave British citizens without such help as our diplomats can provide. We would be left with a swathe of countries, from the Khyber pass in Afghanistan, across to the Mediterranean and Syria, without any British diplomatic representation. We must avoid that if we can.
The trade argument is one point on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North. It suggests that we are granting the countries concerned a privilege by allowing them to buy things from us. However, it is worth remembering when horrible cases arise that we ask our business men to earn this country's living by going to some of the most unappealing places in the world, and by living often in constrained and unpleasant circumstances, to help keep people employed in our country. A Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, once remarked, "Exporting is fun." I am not sure to what extent that sentiment would be echoed by business men who have to operate in some of the countries that I have mentioned, to win orders to keep their factories running at home.
It is argued that Britain should cut off trade credits. Nothing would please Treasury Ministers more, for they are always against lending money to anyone. However, if British business men are to be sent in to bat against the Germans, Japanese and Italians without even the minimal support of trade credits, one might as well not send them at all. We are not granting Iraq a privilege but are competing against all the industrial countries in earning our living as a trading nation.
There is no question of isolating Iraq. The Arab League unanimously supports Iraq on the Bazoft case. A number of our friends in the Arab world asked for clemency beforehand, but the Arab League afterwards passed a motion supporting Iraq, and a further motion supporting Iraq against the media campaign on nuclear matters which it alleges has subsequently taken place.
Therefore, I fear that it is being hopeful to have the idea that cutting off British trade credits and trying to prevent British business men from going to that market—we could legally do it—would isolate Iraq. That could create satisfaction among our industrial competitors and it would lose us jobs and orders in Britain. It would have no other effect.
1354 Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I would have much preferred to stand at the Dispatch Box in the times of Lord Palmerston or perhaps even of Mr. Anthony Eden—although I doubt whether the hon. Lady would have supported his exercise of power in the middle east. However, those days are not with us now and it is no good pretending that they are.
§ Mr. WinnickAlthough I was around at the time, but not in this place, no one could have been more opposed to that criminal Suez adventure than I was.
As I tried to emphasise in my remarks, is there not a need for co-ordinated action, or is the Minister of State telling us that other democracies are so short-sighted that they do not recognise that to take advantage of any actions we take would not be in their interests?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI pay tribute to the European Community, which protested strongly, and to those countries in the Arab world which asked for clemency on our behalf—as a good many did, including King Hussein.
If the hon. Member for Walsall, North thinks that it is possible to arrange a trade boycott of Iraq because of these events, he is whistling in the wind. It is completely impossible. I fear that those are the facts. We have to live with them and to recognise the limits of our power.
However, that does not mean that we should not protest—we should. It does not mean that we should not conduct relations with a country that behaves in such a way, although it will obviously be in a different style than with those countries with which we are friendly.
§ Mrs. Dunwoodyrose—
§ Mr. WaldegraveI have only one more minute.
It is not sensible to pretend to our people that we have powers that we do not have. Nor is it sensible to pretend that we have the luxury of living as a self-contained island that does not have to trade with, potentially, hundreds of regimes round the world which do not meet the human rights standards that we seek to defend in the House. That is the truth of the matter.
The tensions and dangers in the middle east ultimately derive from the unsolved problems of the region. If the Iran-Iraq war was not still suspended, those countries would not be seeking to arm themselves with terrible weapons. If the Arab-Israel dispute was following the course of a peace process—which the hon. Member for Walsall, North and I would both like—tensions would diminish.
As diplomats, that is where we should put our primary effort—to trying to remove the underlying conditions that give comfort to and produce those dreadful regimes, because it is the tensions within that region that help the maintenance and growth of the dictatorial regimes about which the hon. Gentleman so rightly protests. That is where our principal effort should be directed and that is where the Government's diplomatic efforts are still directed in the Iran-Iraq and Arab-Israel conflicts. If we can help to get those on their way to a solution, we shall have done something, in the longer term, to dissolve the conditions that produce the regimes against which we have to protest all too often.