§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Brandreth.]
§ 9.5 pm
§ Mr. Matthew Banks (Southport)It is a great pleasure and privilege to initiate this Adjournment debate on the important subject of peace prospects in the middle east. I am conscious of the fact that, although the hour is early, at the end of this short debate the House will be going into a long summer recess, when no doubt you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other right hon. and hon. Members will be able to spend more time with constituents.
Conscious as I am of the fact that, earlier this evening, the House debated the third report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges on the conduct of hon. Members, I am pleased to report that I have no interest to declare, other than an interest in the subject, but it is a sad reflection on public life in the United Kingdom that those of us who have business interests predating our membership of the House and who are able to draw on experiences in business, socially and otherwise, have felt constrained, as I have in the past four years, from speaking in such debates in recent times. On this important subject, however, it is useful perhaps to put down one or two markers, and I hope to play some small part in furthering the peace process.
The middle east is vital to the interests of the industrialised world, because of its strategic location and unparalleled wealth. Today, the region's future is in the balance. The choice is either for its political elites to continue to initiate constructive dialogue with each other and to marginalise the extremists, or to appease the hardliners, whose best interests are served by the continuing mistrust and confrontation of the past and the failures of the peace process.
Even in Israel, enormous discretion is given to its elite to make public policy. Despite such leeway, trust can be squandered if officials are seen as not protecting their country's national security interest. An aide to Prime Minister Rabin once coined a succinct motto for him:
If you want to make drastic concessions on peace, you must show the public you can take drastic measures for security".Prime Minister Rabin declared that Israel would pursue peace as if there were no terrorism, and fight terrorism as if there were no peace process. There is much of such a policy in Israel's new leader. Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu possesses both the credibility with the Israelis and the personal will to make territorial concessions when he is convinced that his state's security is not at stake. Reaching agreement will prove a matter more of timing than anything else.
§ Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)May I thank my hon. Friend for not prejudging the Israeli Prime Minister, as so much of the world press did? Does my hon. Friend agree that the lesson of history is that leaders of the right are often better able to make peace than leaders of the left? After all, it was Prime Minister Begin who signed the Camp David accord, and President Nixon was able to warm up relations with the Soviet Union.
§ Mr. BanksI was pleased to have the opportunity to give way to my hon. Friend, and I agree with the broad thrust of his remarks. I am certainly one of the last people who would wish to make presumptions about the actions of the Prime Minister of Israel in the days and months ahead.
Prime Minister Netanyahu made an eloquent and articulate speech to the United States Congress earlier this month. I believe that that speech will have allayed the scepticism and consternation felt by a number of Arab leaders following the Israeli elections in May. I hope that it will have contributed towards the gradual expansion of the circle of peace.
The clearing of the air has continued with Arab leaders— most recently with President Mubarak in Cairo on 17 July, and with the Israeli Foreign Minister's visit with President Arafat earlier this week. The promise to allow 10,000 Palestinian workers to enter Israel, despite the existent threat from Muslim militant terrorists in the west bank and Gaza strip, is a welcome sign of Israeli intentions.
To the ordinary Palestinian in the territories, the initiation of constructive dialogue and the marginalisation of the extremists means little. Tangible evidence of the fruits of peace must pervade everyday life— hence the importance of economic development and, in Secretary of State Warren Christopher's words
not simply to give peace a chance, but to ensure that it will not fail".Just as the Israeli Government must carry their people with them in the search for peace, so too must the Palestinian authority. Marginalising extremists is made easier by improvements in living standards under a responsible leadership.The United States and Russian co-sponsored international donors conference in Washington in 1993, the Israel-Palestinian Liberation Organisation economic agreement in Paris in 1994, the work of the ad hoc liaison committee on Palestinian assistance and the conference on assistance to the Palestinians convened earlier this year, have all played their part in initiating such an improvement.
All five of the Madrid multilateral working groups have made significant progress via concrete projects that bear significantly on the long-term peace, stability and prosperity of the region, particularly the work of the regional economic development working group, chaired by the European Union, and the refugee working group, chaired by Canada. Their activities are also fostering new bilateral and private sector initiatives throughout the region.
One of the more significant of those involves the middle east/north Africa economic summits that reached agreement in Amman last year on, among other things, the establishment of a bank for economic co-operation and development in the middle east and north Africa, the establishment of the Regional Business Council, and the formal inauguration of the economic summit executive secretariat.
As for ourselves in the United Kingdom, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will reaffirm the Government's commitment to helping the Palestinian territories through the constructive, helpful methods that have been adopted so far, bilaterally, through the United 435 Nations, and via the European Union. I know that this country's aid has reached £ 82 million in the three years up to 1996–97, and the European Union's aid of £ 400 million over five years— our share being one sixth— is welcome.
I am particularly keen on the fostering and encouragement of private enterprise in the territories, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did much to encourage that end during his visit to the Gaza strip last year. If ordinary Palestinians are able to see an improvement in their living standards in trade, public health, sewerage, finance and administration, it spells trouble for the extremists and terrorists and their recruitment teams.
We already co-operate with both Israel and the Palestinian authority on training for the Palestinian police force, with, for example, the help of a team from the Scottish police training college. I hope that we shall continue to provide such obviously practical and beneficial assistance in the future.
Sometimes we talk about the inner circle of states surrounding Israel and about their importance. Some of the most important of those, of course, are Syria, Jordan and the Palestinian territories. Negotiations between Israel and Syria entered a new phase in 1995, although talks have stalled in the aftermath of terrorist incidents in Israel and the election of the new Israeli Government. However, I believe that the will to reach agreement exists on both sides.
Peace with Syria would almost certainly mean that Israel could have peace with, I hope, all Arab countries, barring one or two indefatigable holdouts such as Libya and Iraq. The Israel-Syrian tract is doubly important, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in a radio interview this April, when he said:
We know that Syria has enormous influence in Lebanon … It is quite clear that the two are quite intimately linked.What is Syria to gain in the peace process? I believe that the prospect of getting back Golan is of huge political importance. Possibly Syria could gain Israel's consent to its continued overlordship of Lebanon, and it could reasonably expect to be removed from the United States's list of state-sponsored terrorism. If Syria, with its influence over dissident groups, felt able to sign on the dotted line by joining the multilateral talks, for example, I believe that Arab rulers everywhere in the Gulf and in north Africa would feel that they had nothing to fear from doing the same.Just as the Palestinian deal is the key to a new economic order, so the Syrian deal is the key to a comprehensive peace with the wider Arab world. Corning down from Golan is the key, and— despite the utterances of Prime Minister Rabin and Prime Minister Netanyahu— I believe that the Israeli elite understands that, too, provided that security can be guaranteed.
In the meantime, it is only by marginalising supporters of Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Hezbollah that leaders committed to peace will continue to make progress in the years ahead. International pariahs— such as Libya and, especially, Iran— do most to encourage terrorism, which can, and sometimes does, destabilise other countries in the region. I am particularly concerned about the most recent murderous examples of that fact, in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
436 The recent European Union agreement on a new extradition convention between member states is a very constructive follow-up to the Prime Minister's statements at the middle east summit in March.
I do not believe that we should tolerate the activities of people such as Dr. Al-Masari, who exploit their roles as asylum seekers to diffuse their evil and malignant opinions, to the detriment of the builders of peace everywhere. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised that issue at the summit.
In view of the significant threat posed by a spiralling arms race and by state-sponsored terrorism, it is imperative that the arms control and regional security working group, chaired by the United States and Russia, reaches substantive agreements, such as that on establishing regional security centres. However, given that the arms procurement policies of countries such as Iran and Libya— which by choice are not involved in peace negotiations— have as much bearing on future security as countries that are involved in the negotiations, any hope of achieving arms control is a dim one.
Iran is still viewed by the United Arab Emirates, for example, as the major threat to security in the region, not least because of the clearly expressed ambitions of its leaders to play the dominant role in regional security. The dispute over Gulf islands, such as Abu Musa, symbolises the confrontation. Unsurprisingly, as Iran refuses arbitration, international diplomacy has been blocked in the matter.
Iran has consistently opposed the Arab-Israel peace process, not only diplomatically but by sponsoring terrorism aimed at destabilising the mutual trust carefully nurtured between Israel and several Arab states since 1991. Moreover, western intelligence has documented reports of Iranian meddling, during this decade, in the internal affairs of Lebanon and of Algeria, and it seems clear that that meddling is spreading to other countries as well— even to the extent of attempting to divide the UAE, for example, by practising direct diplomacy with the individual Emirates rather than through the federal authority.
Iran has proved antagonistic to security in the region. Its programme of weapons acquisition— including, as many fear, efforts to procure nuclear weapons— the expansion of chemical and biological weapons capabilities, the acquisition of more sophisticated missiles and the purchase of three modern diesel-powered submarines from Moscow are all further proof of Iran's aspiration to regional hegemony. Iran is currently experiencing high unemployment and inflation, shortages of consumer goods and currency devaluations, but, despite that, it is spending vast sums on modern military technology.
The view in Abu Dhabi towards security in the region has been one of common sense. It has weighed in with third parties to encourage them to desist from supplying weapons of mass destruction, dual-use high technology and new credits to terrorist regimes, including Iran.
The United Kingdom has been the UAE's staunchest ally since independence in 1971. As a frequent visitor and secretary of the Anglo-UAE parliamentary group, it would be remiss of me not to say that I firmly believe in the successful conclusion of a defence co-operation agreement between the United Kingdom and the UAE, especially as a means of providing a framework for future bilateral defence collaboration.
437 Although I appreciate that the content of negotiations is confidential and most certainly very delicate, I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure me and the House that the Government are doing their utmost to build on our long-standing friendship which has existed since 1971.
As for international trade, with a total population of some 359 million, the countries of north Africa and the middle east had a combined gross domestic product of some £ 601 billion in 1993, and imported £ 135 billion-worth of goods. The region remains one of enormous importance for British trade. Many businesses in my constituency export to the middle east, and I know that trade with the region is also important for the constituencies of other hon. Members. It is important to remember that 6 per cent. of exports worldwide are with the region, and that it shows a balance of trade of 2:1 in the UK's favour.
The Gulf also continues to offer enormous prospects in all sectors, and there are also new opportunities in Israel, the territories and Jordan arising from the peace process. Lebanon and Syria may also benefit once there is progress on the Syrian track. In the meantime, reconstruction in Lebanon and the liberalisation of the Syrian economy mean that markets are worthy of attention in their own right. I am pleased to learn that British companies are getting in there and trying to win orders. I trust that they will continue to receive the support of our posts abroad and of Ministers at home, and of Ministers when they travel.
Security in the middle east is still far away. Continuing and regular threats to long-term security are posed by extremism and terrorism throughout the region. I hope that the day will come when all disputes in the middle east can be settled in the peaceful and brotherly manner which I like to think we are seeing in the border dispute between Bahrain and Qatar, which is being brokered by the Saudi Arabians.
It has been well said that it is easier to make war than peace. It will take concerted international leadership and, of course, the will of the people themselves to ensure that peace and its dividends remain the only viable future option. I know that my right hon. Friend is playing his part, on behalf of the Government, in providing our share of that leadership. He has my full support in that task.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) for raising this important topic. He touched on many issues and perhaps I can put some of his remarks into a wider context.
As my hon. Friend said, this is the final debate of the current Session. It is appropriate that an area as important as the middle east should be the subject of that debate. It is also the third Adjournment debate to which I have replied today and I am pleased that this hat trick should be recorded on such a subject.
It is vital to fundamental British interests that there should be peace and tranquillity in the middle east, not merely because, as a permanent member of the Security Council, our aim is to promote stability throughout the world. In the middle east that concern is also linked to 438 some long-standing friendships. Our profound economic and commercial interests and the safety of tens of thousands of British expatriates are forefront in our minds. So my honourable Friend should not be surprised if we accord a high priority to our interest in regional security. We showed in the Gulf war how far we were prepared to go in opposing threats to that interest and attacks on our friends.
The middle east peace process is a linchpin of our regional security policy. Many recent statements have confirmed our strong interest in the search for a comprehensive regional peace settlement. They include my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech to the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians on 23 May and, more recently, the G7 declaration at Lyons and the European Union's Florence declaration. It is now most important that the agreements that have been made are implemented by all parties. For the Israelis, that means in the first instance the commitment to deploy from Hebron.
The other immediate imperatives are relaxations of the closures of the West Bank and Gaza and the resumption of high-level contacts between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I welcome the meeting that has taken place between Foreign Minister Levy and President Arafat. I have every confidence that Israel— with its new Government— and the Arab world will work for peace. That is vital to us all. As my hon. Friend said, the new Israeli Government must be given time to formulate their policies.
We recognise that security is a vital priority for Israel. We are working hard— in counter-terrorism, for example— to ensure that security and the peace process are seen as inter-related. Ultimately, the only answer to the problem of security is a comprehensive and lasting settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbours, based on the principle of land for peace, which respects the rights of all.
The principle of land for peace was put forward in United Nations Security Council resolution 242, back in 1967. It was the basis for the Madrid process, which began in 1991, and for the Oslo talks which resulted in the declaration of principles between Israel and the PLO, signed in 1993. Britain gave consistent and full support to both of those declarations. The declaration of principles has led to the signing of the Gaza-Jericho agreement in 1994, and most recently in September last year of the interim agreement.
Not only has Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the PLO, renounced violence, but he has been instrumental in the important decision of the Palestine National Council of 24 April 1996 to amend the Palestinian Covenant so that it no longer denies the right of Israel to exist.
We shall have a major role to play in helping to maintain the momentum of the peace process. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 15 July to the General Affairs Council in Brussels, we must not allow the peace process to slip between the fingers of the world, like sand, and be lost. As I have said already, that cannot be allowed to happen.
An important main part of our support for the peace process is our economic assistance to the Palestinian people.
§ Mr. John MarshallIn the 62 minutes available to my right hon. Friend, will he talk briefly about the fate of the missing in action Israeli soldiers and airmen such as Ron Arad and Zachary Baumel? He will know that the remains of two Israeli MIAs were returned recently. May we have an assurance that the British Government will continue to press at every opportunity in an attempt to ensure that the fate of the other MIAs is determined very quickly?
§ Mr. HanleyMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can give him that assurance. When I was in Israel in January, I raised the subject of the six persons missing in action not only, of course, with Israelis but with President Arafat himself. We discussed the issues in great depth and I believe that Yasser Arafat wants a resolution of the matter as much as anyone. I will continue to raise the subject. In fact, I have in my briefcase a dog tag with the six names of those who are missing. That two of those have been returned dead is no satisfaction. The fact that their fate is now known is in a way a relief to the loved ones, but it is quite terrible that the fate of those who are still missing is unknown. It is possible that Ron Arad is still alive. We will need to address the matter and constantly raise it with all those who might have influence.
In the context of the middle east, I might also add that the situation of any people who are missing in action must be resolved and information given. I think of course of the 600 Kuwaitis who are still missing in Iraq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for raising a humanitarian issue that needs to be resolved.
As I said, the Palestinian people require our economic assistance. I was proud to attend the Palestinian donors conference in Paris earlier this year. We are giving £ 87 million between 1994 and 1997.I believe that it is money well spent. Even the Israelis agree that a prosperous Palestine is a more peaceful Palestine.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated at the Sharm el-Sheikh conference in March, such aid can draw away support from extremism fuelled by poverty. Much of it has helped to build up the Palestinian civil police. While that approach focuses on human rights concerns and good policing tactics, it helps to increase confidence among the Palestinian public in their Administration and contributes to the formation of a stable and forward-looking Palestinian democracy.
I would also like to speak briefly about Syria, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport raised. I recently visited Damascus. We greatly hope that the talks between Syria and Israel, which were suspended earlier this year, can be taken forward at an early opportunity. Syria remains central to the ultimate success of the middle east peace process and we welcome the fact that Mr. Netanyahu has said that he wants to resume those negotiations. Syria has made great progress away from confrontation with Israel and the west towards the search for a peaceful solution.
We also support the strengthening of Syria's links with Europe and welcomed its participation in the Barcelona conference last year. We hope that it will be possible to negotiate an association agreement between the European Community and Syria at an early opportunity, further developing trade and economic links. Very recently, we had a most successful day at the CBI discussing trade relations with Syria. Syria's greater integration into the 440 region and internationally is very important for the long-term stability of the middle east. It would be in no one's interest for Syria to be isolated.
Iraq continues to pose a serious threat to regional security. Saddam Hussein has shown quite clearly that he retains ambitions to dominate the area. We must ensure that he can never do so again and maintain pressure on Iraq to comply fully with all relevant United Nations resolutions, including, as I mentioned, by accounting for all Kuwaiti and other prisoners of war. Until that happens, sanctions must stay in place.
It is particularly alarming that Iraq continues to obstruct the work of the UN Special Commission on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The commission's last report to the Security Council in April made clear that major gaps in its knowledge of Iraq's weapons programmes remain. Iraq's repeated obstruction, despite tough warnings from the Security Council, strongly suggests that Iraq is still trying to protect its weapons of mass destruction capability. Saddam's refusal to implement the relevant United Nations resolutions has cruelly prolonged the plight of the Iraqi people. To alleviate their suffering Britain co-sponsored Security Council resolution 986 which allows Iraq to sell £ 1 billion worth of oil every 90 days to purchase humanitarian goods. The resolution was adopted in April 1995; but, sadly, Saddam refused to implement it until May this year. We hope the Iraqi people will see the benefits very shortly.
We remain deeply concerned about Iranian ambitions in the middle east. We believe that its weapons of mass destruction programmes and ambitions are a major threat to regional security. We are not reassured by the Iranians' history of interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Their hostility to the middle east peace process, anti-Israeli rhetoric and support for Hezbollah is also deeply concerning.
Our friends in the Gulf recognise the threat posed by Iran. The recent arrests in Bahrain and elsewhere in the region of members of Hezbollah's small cells linked to Iran has served to highlight this problem yet again. Our Gulf friends will continue to have our full support.
Our own relations with Iran are conducted within the framework of the European Union's critical dialogue, established by the European Council in 1992 to engage Iran on key areas of concern: in particular its hostility to the middle east peace process, support for terrorism, weapons programmes, appalling human rights record and the continuing threat to Salman Rushdie's life. Our objective is to bring about an improvement in Iranian behaviour through sustained, concerted pressure. The council made it clear that progress in these areas would be important in determining the extent to which closer relations with Iran could be developed.
Some commentators underestimate the contribution made by the Gulf nations themselves to securing regional stability. As owners of nearly half the known oil reserves and situated in a volatile region— neighbouring Iran and Gulf states have delivered stability and a high level of development and prosperity to their citizens. These are no mean achievements. It is easy for people to scoff and say that oil wealth made such progress inevitable: I do not believe that to be true. We recognise that the amazing transformation which has been wrought in the Gulf on the back of oil wealth is a tribute to the Governments concerned.
441 Infrastructure has been created where none existed before: roads, hospitals, schools, water, power— the list goes on. There has also been investment in diversification, to prepare for the time when oil revenues decline. There has been a substantial record of achievement.
The Gulf states have also made a considerable contribution to regional security. The Gulf Co-operation Council is a symbol of their determination to maintain their independence in the face of any threats. Its military development, including the establishment of a common defensive force, the peninsula shield, continues to make progress. This Government strongly support the GCC, which has played, and continues to play, a vital part in maintaining regional peace and stability.
The GCC has also exercised a constructive influence through its foreign policy. Whether in terms of the middle east peace process, Iran or Iraq, the GCC has consistently sought to advance the cause of peace and stability. We may not agree on every last detail, although our policies are broadly similar. But we are in no doubt that the GCC should be commended for its responsible approach.
We have major trading interests in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia is our largest market in the middle east and one of our largest outside the OECD. Our exports amounted to £ 1.6 billion in 1995 and continue to increase. Our trade with the United Arab Emirates is not far behind, at £ 1.2 billion in 1995. The remaining Gulf states also represent very significant markets. In total, 12 per cent. of the UK's exports outside the EU go to the Gulf. Tens of thousands of British jobs and hundreds of British businesses depend on this trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport dealt in particular with the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is one of our closest allies in the Gulf and we enjoy excellent relations. Following our withdrawal from the area formerly known as the Trucial states in 1971, we concluded a bilateral treaty of friendship which has remained the cornerstone of our co-operation to date.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the amazing transformation that has occurred in the UAE since 1971, largely due to the wise leadership of the Emirates sheiks, and in particular to President Zayed. There were some siren voices in 1971 who predicted that the UAE could never prosper as a cohesive entity, and that it would not be able to support itself. But those voices were silenced by the steady transformation of the small desert territories into modern oases of industry and commerce. The UAE now enjoys an enviable economic situation, with a GDP of around $18,000 per capita per annum, and a burgeoning infrastructure to support its population.
442 The UAE's success story goes beyond economics. Twenty-five years after its foundation, the federation now enjoys a permanent constitution, an active federal national council and intra-Emirate co-operation in a whole range of matters. Anyone who has visited the UAE— as I did last November— can appreciate the co-operation which binds the Emirates together while respecting their different traditions. As they approach the 25th anniversary of the founding of the federation, the UAE's leaders can be justifiably proud of their achievements to date.
Our bilateral links go far beyond trade— important as that is. The United Kingdom remains a favourite destination for Emiratis whom we welcome each year for business, leisure or health care. Around 30,000 Britons live and work in the UAE— including my stepbrother. This day-to-day co-operation rarely makes the headlines, but it is indicative of the health of our relations.
We also co-operate closely in defence matters. We understand the UAE's security concerns— notably the threat of aggression from Iran. We are concerned by the on-going dispute between the UAE and Iran over Abu Musa and the Tunbs islands, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport referred. As British Ministers have made clear before, we support the UAE's proposal to refer the issue to the International Court of Justice. We call on Iran to engage in constructive dialogue over the future of the islands, and to refrain from any actions which might alter the delicate status quo. Recent history in the Gulf has demonstrated that aggression finds no rewards and Iran would do well to listen to the message of history.
As with our other Gulf allies, we are co-operating with the UAE in the development of its military capability. We provide the UAE with loan service personnel working directly with the UAE armed forces. We are negotiating a defence co-operation agreement that would provide a framework for our existing defence co-operation. Although we have agreed on the majority of the text, we are working to finalise a number of points. As we work towards conclusion of the defence arrangement, our friends in the UAE can be in no doubt about our commitment to their security and that of the Gulf region.
Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to say a word to those who speak loosely of the threat from Islam against the west. This is nonsense. Islam has its extremists, as we do in the west. The Al-Khobar bombing was a salutary reminder of their existence. We must work together with our Islamic friends against this menace. Regional peace and tranquillity can only be preserved by a close partnership, and we have much in common.
§ Question put and agreed to
§ Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Ten o'clock till Monday 14 October, pursuant to Resolution [22 July].