§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)My credentials for initiating what I gather is the first debate in the House on relations with Iran for many years are that, in October, I spent 17 days on holiday with my wife on a bus tour of Iran, organised by the British Museum Travel Company. The tour leader, Raphael Marinello—who expertly led the visit—and Dr. Sheila Candy, the deputy director of the western Asiatic department of the British museum, would agree on the kindness and warmth shown towards us by the Iranian people. It was in no way an official visit, but I did get the impression that there was a good case now for dialogue. The demonising of Iran should be something of the past, and the fatwa and the difficult case of Salman Rushdie should not cut out negotiations with the new political leadership in Teheran. The more locked in we are to commercial relations, the harder it will be for the hardliners to wreck relations.
Against that background, I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State two questions of which I have given notice to the Foreign Office. What initiative to develop relations with Iran can we expect during the British presidency of the EU? Is a presidency visit to Teheran—for example, at political director level—contemplated? As regards the fatwa, have the Government recently invoked the help of any Muslim leader—for example, President Assad of Syria—at least to downplay that difficult issue?
I referred to my visit in October, and one of the things that would strike any visitor from the west was the war memorials in Tabriz, Hamadan, Kashan, Rashd, Isfahan, Shiraz and Yazd. Those war memorials are of first world war proportions, as 1 million Iranians were lost in that terrible Iran-Iraq war. No one has greater cause than the Iranians to loathe the regime of Saddam Hussein, yet they do not support the American-British military action that was proposed in certain circumstances.
The latest edition of Persia Updatereported:
The Leader said the US pursues a purely American agenda in its confrontation with the Iraqi government, and added that the US bears the responsibility for civilian victims of any military attack on Iraq.I am glad to say that the Iranian attitude to the Americans seems to be softening—perhaps, after the football World cup, it will soften a good deal more, because, as we know, the two nations have been thrown together. We are at a moment in history when the traditional friendships between the British and Persian peoples might well be restored.I come briefly to the question of the Shi'ites. I quote from the most recent edition of Dialogue, which is published by the Public Affairs Committee for Shi'a Muslims. It says:
However, bombing Iraq—still a likely option despite widespread international revulsion"—that is what it thinks; it is not what I think—would be both wicked and futile. It would be unlikely to achieve its goals, whatever they are, but it would dangerously destabilise the region. Healthy Iraqis and a self-confident Iraq are far more likely to bring down the regime. A regime as isolated and psychotic as Saddam's would find it difficult to cope with normal relations with the world.1263 I ask, against that background, what progress is being made in New York in discussions with Iraqi authorities on the new British-inspired Security Council resolution to increase the sale of oil for food. If the Iraqi Government prove slow to accept the resolution, should we not aim to improve the conditions of the Iraqi people, as well as readmitting more Iraqi oil to world markets? Should not a European Union delegation go to Baghdad, to show the Iraqi people that the Security Council wants to help them?In an article in The House Magazineof 9 March, my hon. Friend the Minister wrote:
Meanwhile, we are looking at what we can do for the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein's obstinacy in refusing to accept the Security Council demands, or implement properly the oil-for-food programme, has caused the Iraqi people untold misery. Following the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council on 30 January recommending the oil-for-food programme should be expanded, we again took the lead at the UN in drafting and negotiating a Resolution (SCR 1153), which more than doubles the amount of oil Iraq is allowed to sell to purchase humanitarian goods. The new figure is US $5.2 billion every six months. The programme has safeguards in place to ensure the benefits go to the Iraqi people and not the regime.I suggest to my hon. Friend that, if we do not help specifically with the pumping equipment, the resolution will look like a false gesture. All those who have personal experience of Iraq will testify to the breakdown of vital equipment. I think that Ministers should hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) says when he returns from Iraq—he will have first-hand knowledge.I refer to a question that I asked the Prime Minister on 16 March:
pursuant to the oral answer of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of 10 March 1998, Official Report, columns 307–8, what criteria he will use to determine the extent of Iraq's compliance with the recent agreement between Iraq and the UN to allow inspections to take place; and if he will submit these criteria to the scrutiny of the French, Russian and Chinese authorities as members of the Security Council.The Prime Minister replied:Security Council Resolution 1154 was adopted unanimously by the Security Council. All members agreed that further violations of Iraq's obligations under the relevant Security Council Resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding signed in Baghdad would be followed by the severest consequences.The question of Iraqi compliance will be dealt with in reports to the Security Council from the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency."—[Official Report, 16 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 450.]We should be clear about whether the British think that, with the Americans, they have the right, in difficult circumstances, to launch a military attack without going back to the Security Council. The Chinese ambassador to the United Nations and others have made definite statements that three members of the Security Council take the view that no military action should be taken without a clear, unambiguous decision having again been taken by the Security Council. In the light of what Marc Webber and other international lawyers have said, are Britain and the United States entitled under international law to let loose traumatic air bombardment without having returned to the Security Council?The last time that I had an Adjournment debate to which my hon. Friend the Minister replied, I slightly overran, so I make only one further point. Like many colleagues, I sat through the Budget speech of my right 1264 hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it was, rightly and justifiably, proposed as a green Budget. I listened to everything that he said about carbon emissions and pollution, and I welcome the anti-pollution measures, including those on vehicles. However, compared with what could be done in western Asia to help the world's atmosphere, anything that we do in western Europe is entirely marginal.
One of the most striking aspects of my visits both to Iran in October 1997 and to Iraq in 1994 was the extent of the pollution and broken-down equipment. In Iran, oil refineries had had to be moved quickly from the Iraqi border to the area between—heaven help us—Shiraz and Isfahan, which created pollution in Pasagandai and Persepolis. Even if we do not take into account the ancient monuments, that is sad—the pollution in that part of the world is terrible.
If we are serious, as I believe we are, about saving the planet, it really is high time that we established fruitful relations even with regimes that we may consider rather less than perfect. I hope that, after Kofi Annan's visit and all that has happened, the tone of the dialogue between west and east becomes somewhat more dignified and that our approach to the Muslim world becomes friendlier. I end with the reflection that there are many, many moderate Muslims in this country who desperately want improved relations.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)I want to pick up on the concluding comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about our relationship with the Muslim community in the United Kingdom and with the religion of Islam. We should avoid at all costs demonising any one religion in the world.
One of the tasks that I have set myself is to ensure that, whatever representations I make, I never fall into the trap of viewing the world as divided between religions. A small but, to my mind, significant event during the recent Iraq crisis was that, for the first time, we had a meeting in the Foreign Office with leaders of the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. I am determined that those meetings should continue and should take place not only during a crisis but as regular events that will give us an opportunity to understand each other much better.
Whenever I have visited the middle east and other parts of the Islamic world, I have taken the opportunity to stress the need for multi-faith co-operation. I had the pleasure of visiting the Sheik of Al-Azhar at Al-Azhar university, which was an important opportunity to make it clear that when we define issues in the United Kingdom, we never differentiate by religion but consider the basic values.
My hon. Friend spoke movingly about the war memorials in Iran and said that the 1 million dead constituted a tragedy on the scale of the first world war. That was a painful but apposite reminder of the scale of the Iran-Iraq war and of the number of lives that were lost—indeed, wasted—in those years.
Iran and other countries in the region have every reason to be fearful of an Iraq with Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. The Iranians, along with the Kurds, have experienced Saddam's use of chemical weapons. The war memorials graphically underline and emphasise 1265 the importance of the Security Council resolutions and the world's commitment to ridding Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction.
My hon. Friend has been vigilant on the matter, and I congratulate him. It is an important parliamentary function to ensure that there is proper questioning and debate on such issues. He has always made the point that he was opposed to the threat of military action in our dealings with Iraq. I want to put it on the record that I have never had any doubt that he is as opposed to chemical and biological weapons as anyone else. We differ not on objectives but on means.
My hon. Friend must consider how the Kofi Annan memorandum of understanding could have been achieved without the threat of force by the United Nations and the international community. That is the key question. We would all love the world to be able to take rational decisions.
If leadership were always rational, we would not have to deal with crises such as arose with Iraq, but the fact is that we were dealing with a leader who had invaded one of his Arab neighbours; who had used chemical weapons against his own people and the people of Iran; and whose violations of human rights and of traditional processes of international relations were well known to us.
Both in Baghdad and on his return to New York, Kofi Annan said that diplomacy can go a long way, but that diplomacy backed by resolution and force goes a lot further. That is surely a vindication of the position that we took, and poses starkly and dramatically to my hon. Friend the question of what would have happened had the threat of force not been available to Kofi Annan in his negotiations.
On his return to New York, Kofi Annan said that the British Prime Minister was a true peacemaker and peacekeeper for the United Nations. That shows what can be achieved by the intertwining of diplomacy with the threat of force. In international relations, force is sometimes a representation of our failure to achieve our objectives through diplomacy, but sometimes it has to be used or threatened.
We welcome the memorandum of understanding and hope that Saddam Hussein will adhere to the agreements and commitments that he has made, but Saddam's record of keeping his word does not suggest that my hon. Friend could bet on it with any confidence. On each and every occasion in the past, Saddam Hussein has broken the commitments that he has given to the international community. It is in the interests of the people of Iraq and of the wider region that he should keep his word on this occasion, and we in the international community have said that, if he does not, he will face the severest consequences.
There is no doubt about what that means. It is understood in Baghdad. To find excuses for any further breach would be beyond the imagination and wit of any defender of Saddam Hussein. This recidivist has been given so many opportunities that, if he breaks the current agreement, the international community's patience will well and truly have run out.
Last week, I visited Kuwait: a country and a people who know Saddam Hussein very well. People there know what happened when Saddam invaded their country seven 1266 years or more ago, and they are still extremely cautious, with good reason. They are also extremely grateful for the position taken by the international community and supportive of the position taken by the United Kingdom Government.
I saw our troops in Kuwait last week and took the opportunity to thank them for their contribution. They are living in trying and difficult circumstances, but nobody can doubt their commitment and professionalism. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I congratulate them, and thank them for the work that they have done in their role as peacemakers and peacekeepers.
My hon. Friend raised some important points about the oil-for-food regime and the need to deal with humanitarian concerns about the ordinary people of Iraq. The fact that we are talking about the way in which Saddam Hussein has been able to pervert the oil-for-food humanitarian regime for his own purposes, rather than using it to feed his own people, is one of the most damning indictments of his regime.
We are determined that the ordinary people of Iraq should not be punished for the decisions taken by their leadership. They are not responsible for those decisions. Indeed, if they were to exercise what we would consider a basic human right and criticise the regime, their lives would be short. We know the regime's record. It is difficult for the people to criticise the regime or to contemplate a change of regime, because the risks are so great. They are clearly not responsible for the decisions of a totally irresponsible and out-of-control leadership, and it is our task to help them if we can. We are determined to do so.
My hon. Friend referred, kindly, to resolution 1153, which the United Kingdom, with consensus, steered through the Security Council. It more than doubles the amount of money available from the sale of oil and oil revenues for humanitarian purposes. We certainly welcome that, and will continue to encourage the process.
In addition, we have announced a European Union conference to look into ways in which we can get additional humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made an announcement last week about additional aid from the United Kingdom to the people of Iraq. The conference is still in the planning stage and is an important initiative and innovation by our Government. However, whatever the European Union does, it is important that it supports Security Council resolutions and in no way contravenes them. Our role is to be supportive, not in competition or contravention.
§ Mr. DalyellWill the Government consider the critical question of pumping equipment, without which it might be impossible to implement resolution 1153?
§ Mr. FatchettMy hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I understand. I have regular meetings with representatives of the Iraqi Opposition, and that is one of the points that they have made about the nature of the infrastructure in Iraq. We shall certainly take their points and that made by my hon. Friend into account.
This is a double-headed debate, so I shall now refer to Iran. I probably ought to congratulate my hon. Friend on his technique of opening up two issues in one debate, which shows great parliamentary skill and diligence. 1267 He made some important points about our relations with Iran and asked a number of detailed questions, which I shall come to.
First, we welcome the changes that appear to be taking place in Iran and the election of President Khatami. We hear the noises and see the potential warming of relationships. We hope that those changes will develop constructively in the region and more generally. There are some positive signs, and we are watching them. We welcome Iran's decision to ratify the chemical weapons convention. It is important, and we certainly applaud it. We also welcome Iran's condemnation of terrorism and the terrorist attacks in Algeria and Egypt. Again, those are extremely positive signs. We hope that Iran will continue to move in that direction. As we have said on many occasions, we are prepared to judge the new regime not by the rhetoric of the past, but by its record and what it achieves and sets out to do in future.
All students of Iran—my hon. Friend probably stands equal to all of us in that respect—will be fascinated by the internal political processes there. Clearly, a struggle for dominance, in terms of values and ideology, is taking place, and we shall watch that struggle and encourage those who want a more open Iran that will engage with the international community.
My hon. Friend asked about the European Union and the United Kingdom presidency; progress has already been made. Our tactics have to be double-headed. We have to ensure that we encourage positive developments within Iran, while being cautious about other developments and characteristics of the regime there, to ensure that we get the balance right between the two.
My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that at the General Affairs Council in February, under the British presidency, European Union Foreign Ministers decided to increase the level of political contact with Iran, by lifting the ban on bilateral ministerial visits imposed after the Mykonos verdict last year. Therefore, the European Union is sending a first, encouraging sign to the regime in Iran that we certainly want to encourage a warmer relationship, but some caution still runs alongside that. We are also discussing how and at what level political contacts with Iran should be enhanced. My hon. Friend questioned the level of those contacts—that matter is under discussion within the European Union. In principle, the issue is how we enhance discussion and not necessarily whether we should do so. Clearly, there is no veto on developing those contacts.
We are prepared to welcome the positive signs, but we want more concrete and positive indications from the Iranian Government in certain areas. We shall be considering the following areas of caution. First, we have to be sure that the Iranian Government are not involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction. If they intend to come back more closely into the international community, they could make it abundantly clear that no programme for weapons of mass destruction is being carried out there. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares that objective. It will be an important element in the development of relationships.
Secondly, we have to be clear that the Iranian regime is not continuing to sponsor terrorist activity on its own initiative. That has happened, and it is crucial that it should not in future. Much of that terrorism has been designed to subvert the middle east peace process. Again, 1268 we must ensure that the Iranian Government are not sponsoring terrorism with that purpose. My plea on that issue is: yes, we shall be cautious, but we want progress from the Iranians and a clear indication that they are not the sponsors of terrorism within the region or elsewhere in the world.
My hon. Friend mentioned Salman Rushdie and asked whether we could refer to another Islamic country to intervene in the case. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie remains a significant impediment to better relations between Iran, the United Kingdom and the European Union. It is totally alien to our values for one state to declare what is in effect a death sentence against a citizen of another state. It is wholly alien for us to negotiate in any way or conciliate about our own basic values. Salman Rushdie's right to publish and his freedom of speech are crucial elements in our political democracy, and we therefore should not allow those basic rights and principles to be negotiable. Therefore, we await a positive response from the Iranian regime on the issue. We know what the regime has said in the past, and it has not gone far enough.
My hon. Friend's suggestion was constructive—that we should look for a third country—but I do not think that it is the way to make progress with Iran. The best way to make progress on the fatwa and other issues is through direct contact between Iran, the European Union and the United Kingdom. The fatwa and Salman Rushdie will be key elements in the development of the relationship, and they must be tackled by the Iranians in discussions with the United Kingdom and our European Union partners.
It has been a pleasure to respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend, who is a keen observer of the middle east and has a good knowledge of the countries and the region. We are determined to show that we are even-handed in our approach to the region, and have clearly set out our position and our values in relation to Iraq. As my hon. Friend said, we look forward to the day when Iraq will again assume its position in the middle east commensurate with its history, its potential for the future and the abilities and expertise of its people. There could be no better middle east than one in which Iraq was free, democratic and pluralistic and had the ability to play that full role in the region, and one in which Iran was readmitted to the international community and felt part of it, reflecting its values.
On Iran, the signs are encouraging. We are cautious, but we are opening up the relationship. We need to be confident that the Iranians will move in the right direction and make it possible for us to remove that caution.
§ Mr. FatchettDoes my hon. Friend want to intervene?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI shall wait and see.
§ Mr. FatchettAll right.
Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow on introducing the subject. In the 20 or so minutes that I have been speaking, I hope that I have been able to set out clearly the Government's position. I shall probably have disappointed my hon. Friend yet again in some of my remarks. One thing about our relationship is that at least I consistently disappoint him, so he will 1269 probably have known exactly what I was going to say on one issue, but perhaps I have managed to say something new and fresh on the other, and he will be pleased with that.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)The hon. Gentleman ought not to intervene after the Minister has completed his speech in a debate of this sort.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that under the procedures I was able to do so.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerNo, this is not that sort of debate.
§ Mr. DalyellMy hon. Friend had my permission.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerEven so, the Minister had completed his speech and summed up. However, if the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wants to make a brief contribution, he may do so.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have now lost my half a minute and my opportunity to speak, and I strongly object.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe occupant of the Chair ruled last week on a similar position, and I have made the position clear. This is a half-hour debate for one Back Bencher to put his point to the Minister and for him to respond.
§ It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.