§ Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Kelvin)Britain's relations with the Muslim world are unarguably at a difficult and testing juncture, and in this debate I want to probe the Government's mind on the difficulties and tests that face them in relation to the strategically placed, vast and growing world of Islam, with its more than 1,000 million adherents across many continents—including, of course, perhaps 2 million citizens of our own country.
Inasmuch as my speech, limited as it is to 15 minutes, will be something of a Cook's tour, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will at least heed the general direction of my concerns, some of which are well enough known to him, but not to others.
I want to start at home, with what I believe will be a major headache for the Government in the weeks to come—the trial of a large number of British nationals in Yemen. They are charged with forming an Islamic extremist terror group with intent on creating mayhem in that poor Arab country, which has already suffered much from the near decade-long crisis in the Gulf. Public opinion in the Arab world is simply dumbfounded at the allegation that, rather like selling coals to Newcastle or sand to Arabia, Great Britain may now be exporting such terrorism to Muslim countries.
I do not want to add to the difficulties of the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), but I must tell him that I do not like the look of Finsbury's Park's "ayatollah", Mr. Abu Hamza al-Masri—and I do not, of course, mean his hooks for hands or his glass eye. I do not suppose that I am alone in that opinion, but the difference is that I never liked the look of the rag-bag of obscurantists who constituted the so-called "holy warriors" of the Afghan jihad. But of course these elements, who have now razed Afghanistan to stone age ruins, and who have grievously affected the economic, social and political life of neighbouring Pakistan, were conceived, financed, armed, trained and politically supported, not only by the United States of America, but, it is clear only now, by previous British Administrations. So we and our allies played Dr. Frankenstein in the creation of some of the monsters that we now bemoan.
Of course the individuals on trial in Yemen must be tried fully in accordance with the law in that country. That criterion is an important distinction from the demands being made in some of the commentary on the case. Of course Yemen will be expected to conform to the international norms to which it has signed up, and to the norms of diplomatic practice; but terrorist suspects cannot expect to be dealt with differently in Yemen just because they are British. The irony will not escape the House that the alleged targets of the alleged terrorists included the British embassy, which is now being asked to mount a defence campaign.
I regret to say that our position is not helped by the fiasco that surrounded the release, after serving a fraction of their sentences, of the two British nurses convicted of the murder of their colleague, Yvonne Gilford, in Saudi Arabia. If my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had asked my advice, I would have said that it was exceedingly unwise to intercede with King Fahd to try to secure the early release of those prisoners. The lucrative 888 festival of crude anti-Muslim, anti-Arab racism in which sections of our media wallowed over those two women was entirely predictable and deeply offensive and damaging in itself.
Of course, we shall now be under considerable pressure to make the same type of intervention in Yemen—and already, with their courtroom outbursts about torture and even sexual abuse, the Yemen Eight are clearly not unmindful of the highly successful script first written on behalf of the Saudi Two. If we do not intervene, there are no prizes for guessing what charge will then be levelled against us; or for predicting that the whole affair will give a further twist to the alienation of so many in the Muslim community in our midst which is caused by the perceived racism, Islamophobia, discrimination and perceived double standards in British policy towards Muslim countries.
In the past three years, surveys conducted by the Runnymede Trust and other important surveys have amply demonstrated that anti-Muslim racism is a virulent and increasing issue in this country. It is not the province of bovver-booted skinhead lumpen thugs only. Indeed, it has been said that Islamophobia is the last "acceptable" form of racism, suitable for even the dinner tables of Islington and Hampstead.
Although in this short debate I do not want to over-dwell on the issue that the Minister and I have often debated—the conflict in the Gulf—it clearly cannot be separated from any review of the problems of relationships with the Muslim world.
Till the day I die, I will never understand what possessed the British Government to participate in the bombardment of an Arab capital city during the holy month of Ramadan. With all the centuries of collected wisdom, not least the once almost unique understanding of the Arab world within the British Foreign Office, how could it be that the devastating effects on Britain's standing in the region were not foreseen?
Early last year, with other parliamentary colleagues, I inspected the splendid work being done by the British Council in Damascus. By the end of the year, the premises were ruined, torn apart by the rage of the Syrian people at the outrage of the Ramadan attack. In Morocco, in Jordan, in Egypt, in Palestine and in Algeria, our flag burned with the stars and stripes, and was trampled underfoot in demonstrations that numbered, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of angry citizens.
It is no good pretending to public opinion in this country that we have support in the Arab world for the Anglo-American policy. It is no good for Ministers to state in the United Arab Emirates—where I was just yesterday—that the Government's policy towards Iraq is the same as the UAE's policy, "with slight differences". Well, as President Clinton might say, it depends on what one means by "slight". The UAE is completely against the bombing of Iraq; we are doing the bombing. The UAE is in favour of lifting the sanctions urgently; we are the strongest supporter of that sanctions policy.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)indicated dissent.
§ Mr. GallowayThe Minister shakes his head, but I discussed this matter with the leadership of the UAE at the weekend. For the benefit of the House, let me read 889 the first and second declarations of the final communiqué of the Arab Foreign Ministers' meeting in Cairo last month. The quote is not a footnote, but declaration 1 and 2, which state:
1. The Arab Ministers of Foreign Affairs express their deep objection to employing military force against Iraq which has resulted in many civilian casualties and demand that the use of diplomacy be the means of achieving compliance with UN resolutions …2. They express their full support to the Iraqi people in their plight resulting from the sanctions imposed on it and stresses that every international effort must be made to lift these sanctions as soon as possible.As my right hon. Friend may know, I have the benefit of watching Arabic television and closely following the Arabic media. I saw the interview with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Amr Moussa, immediately following his meeting with my right hon. Friend, and he left the audience—I have the videotape—in no doubt of what he had told my right hon. Friend. The truth is—and my right hon. Friend knows it—that in the Muslim street, in the Arabic media, among the intelligentsia and in virtually every Arab capital, Britain's policy to bring about an end to the confrontation with Iraq is utterly rejected.There is no use attempting to justify the unjustifiable by peddling outlandish propaganda hoaxes, as some have been doing in closed-door meetings of late. The Foreign Secretary twice told Labour audiences that a boy, now aged 16, had been in prison in Iraq since he was five years old, and that his crime had been to throw a stone at a portrait of the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein. That is reminiscent of the product of a less sophisticated age, and harks back to the propaganda against "Kaiser Bill and the Hun" in the first world war.
I have asked the Foreign Secretary, and I ask the Foreign Office again now, publicly, to substantiate that story—to give me the name of the boy, the name of the prison and any other identifying details—and I will personally campaign for his immediate release. I hope that the Foreign Office will provide such substantiation, as it goes to the heart of the veracity of the Government's case.
I know, of course, that the Minister cannot say that he shares my views on many of these matters, but I shall advance some suggestions which, after due reflection, might appeal to my right hon. Friend rather more.
First, the Minister knows, and I know, and I know that he knows, that the bombing of the pharmaceuticals plant in Khartoum was a ghastly, terrible mistake. The plant was making not chemical weapons, but vitally needed medicines for one of the poorest countries in the world and one of our oldest Arab and Muslim friends. It was not a legitimate target for a massive hail of cruise missiles.
That is why the British Foreign Office has remained completely silent about the affair since the day that it happened. Indeed, many in the west have all but banished the memory of that crime from their mind, as though that will make it go away. It will not go away, and remains a cause of deep and abiding resentment in the Muslim world. The Government would do themselves a power of good if they could find a way clearly to dissociate themselves from the attack on Sudan.
Secondly, the Minister knows that I have had sharp political disagreements with the Government of Saudi Arabia and with their ambassador to the United Kingdom, 890 Dr. Ghazi Alghosebi. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government should support the candidature of Dr. Alghosebi for the general secretaryship of UNESCO.
The ambassador is the candidate of all the Arab League countries and will have widespread support throughout the Muslim world. He is an outstanding intellectual, writer and poet, and is personally highly qualified for the post. If Britain used its vote and its influence in the Commonwealth and elsewhere in support of his candidature, again we would be sending an important and welcome message to the Muslims of the world.
Thirdly, the Foreign Office should constitute a working party or an ad hoc committee of the kind frequently spawned in relation to our position in Europe. Such a body should consider ways in which we might improve our position—which stands much imperilled—in the Muslim world.
Recently, I was in Paris, where I visited the Institute du Monde Arabe on the Seine overlooking Notre Dame. For me, it was an Aladdin's cave full of the wonders of the great Arab civilisation, its cultural richness, its food and literature, its films and music. The institute was full of people on a cold, wet Sunday in December. I began to wonder why we do not have an institute of the Arab world in this country, or in our case, an institute of the Muslim world, reflecting our much wider historical relationships.
Such an institute could, like the French one, be part-funded by the Government, by friendly Muslim Governments, by British business and by individual benefactors. It could play an important role in enhancing the British people's understanding of and respect for the Islamic world, and help to combat the alienation felt by the 2 million Muslims in our country.
The institute could be a bridge, linking east and west in trade as much as in education, and in culture as much as in politics. I believe that school and university students, foreign visitors and interested citizens, not least those in the ethnic minority populations, would find it a bridge to greater understanding and the avoidance of prejudice.
We have a longer and deeper history in the east than any other country in the occident. Notwithstanding recent and current events, there is still widespread admiration and affection for the people of this country among the Muslims of the world, but it is trickling away, and no longer slowly. I hate to see the bonds of those centuries burning in enmity. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the arguments that 1 have advanced.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) has raised a wide range of issues, to which I shall try to respond. He paints a vivid picture of the middle east. I was in the region last week, and I can tell my hon. Friend that I do not share that picture; nor was it a picture presented to me by those whom I had the opportunity to meet, both leaders and others. Clearly, we all travel differently and come to different conclusions. I do not share my hon. Friend's conclusion.
I share my hon. Friend's comments about the Saudi ambassador, who is an excellent representative of his country and, as my hon. Friend said, a well known poet and intellectual, who will be a strong candidate for the post of director of UNESCO.
891 My hon. Friend spoke of the attractions of establishing a Muslim institute in the United Kingdom. We are already blessed with one or two excellent bodies. Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting the Centre for Islamic Studies in Oxford, which has a worldwide reputation and attracts many Arab scholars. If we are not too myopic, we will recognise in the United Kingdom what is probably the world's leading institution for Islamic studies.
Yesterday, I had the pleasure—which may not yet have been brought to my hon. Friend's attention—of launching the exhibition, "Mutualities: Britain and Islam", which will run for the next six months as part of the visiting arts programme, and which brings Islamic art to the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend's suggestion has already been acted on. I can tell the House that he did not give me a copy of his speech in advance, and we therefore did not know that he would make the suggestion, but so influential is my hon. Friend at the Foreign Office that we launched the visiting arts Islamic programme a day before the debate.
I shall say a few words about Iraq, Yemen and our relations with United Kingdom Muslims and the Islamic world. On Iraq, there was a view, which I always held to be wrong, and which was expressed after Operation Desert Fox, that it would be impossible to create a new international consensus on Iraq, and that it would be impossible to deal with the disarmament issues because sanctions had to be lifted immediately.
Because of his travels, my hon. Friend may have failed to see the statement issued unanimously from the United Nations Security Council last Saturday, which dealt with all those issues. It shows that the Security Council is back in business, and that there is now a consensus covering the Arab representative on the Security Council, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom and the United States. That consensus also extends to the Arab League statement. My hon. Friend should read the presidential statement, to which all 15 countries signed up.
There is a new consensus, and three panels have been established to deal with disarmament and monitoring, humanitarian issues, and outstanding issues relating to Kuwait. The best way that my hon. Friend could take forward the well-being of the people of Iraq would be to ask Saddam Hussein and those around Saddam Hussein in Baghdad to co-operate with the United Nations. That is what the Arab League Foreign Ministers are asking for. The United Nations—not just Britain, not just the United States, but France, China and Russia—are asking for such co-operation. It is a sine qua non of further progress. My hon. Friend would do the people of Iraq a great service if he sought that co-operation from the regime in Baghdad.
§ Mr. GallowayWill my right hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. FatchettNo, my hon. Friend has had 15 minutes.
My hon. Friend would also be serving the purpose if he pointed out that the way to remove sanctions, which is now accepted by the Arab League and by the Security Council unanimously, is through Iraq's co-operation. The Arab League statement and the Security Council statement said that the body of law that relates to Iraq 892 is from the Security Council resolutions. There must be co-operation. There must be compliance. Sanctions cannot be lifted without that.
§ Mr. GallowayOn that—
§ Mr. FatchettNo, no, I cannot give way in a short debate.
On disarmament, there were those who said that the disarmament phase was finished in Iraq, and that there would be no further role for UNSCOM or for the International Atomic Energy Agency. Again, I suggest that hon. Members read the presidential statement. There is to be a role in the panel for UNSCOM and for the International Atomic Energy Agency.
I congratulate Jeremy Greenstock and his colleagues in the United Nations, and I pay tribute to all the work that has been done by the Foreign Office. That work has enabled us to build a new consensus, with which we are comfortable and which takes forward the issues of Iraq. We must put the onus on Baghdad: if Baghdad co-operates, there will be light at the end of the tunnel. Baghdad must listen not just to the Security Council but to its neighbours who are saying that co-operation is essential.
My hon. Friend criticised my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. It is interesting to note that, in all his comments about Iraq, my hon. Friend did not refer to the missing Kuwaiti prisoners of war. He did not refer to Iraq's systematic human rights violations or to the Kurds who were killed, injured and maimed by exposure to chemical weapons. He did not mention how the Shia people of southern Iraq were the victims of torture and suffered death and injury at the hands of Saddam Hussein.
I shall relate for my hon. Friend a stark personal experience that I had last year. I regularly meet displaced Iraqis and, 12 months ago, I met at the Foreign Office a young Kurd who was the victim of chemical weapons. He told me privately that his health was so bad that he probably had only a short time to live. That was because, during his teenage years, he had been exposed to chemical weapons. That young man may not be alive today. When talking about Iraq, I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget that young man and the many tens of thousands of young men just like him.
There is a strong moral argument for acting, as we and the international community have sought to do over the years, to disarm Iraq and make it less of a threat to regional security and to its own people. I am confident that we have taken the right decisions and the moral ones. The best possible course of action for us all—whatever we might think about the short-term tactical issues—is to ensure that Iraq is given the green light to co-operate because, without co-operation, there can be no progress.
My hon. Friend mentioned Yemen and, characteristically, seems to have reached his own conclusions although the legal process has hardly begun. That is not—and cannot be—the position of the British Foreign Office. We will always—in Yemen or in any other circumstances—treat equally all those with British citizenship. We have a consular responsibility, which we will carry out. If my hon. Friend puts down a written parliamentary question on the subject, I shall set out the chronology of events in relation to the five men in Yemen and the action that the Foreign Office has taken. We have 893 sought to meet our responsibilities to those five individuals: we have tried to ensure that they have a fair trial and access to lawyers and consular staff. That is the action that we would normally take in similar circumstances.
While I serve as a Foreign Office Minister, I shall ensure that the consular service of the British Foreign Office works equally for every British citizen, regardless of colour, religion or background. That is what has occurred in this case, and I give a clear commitment that it will continue. We will not make judgments about people's guilt: people deserve a fair trial. We will not make judgments about any British citizens who are involved in a legal process. That is not our task; neither is it our task to represent British citizens in court. However, we must ensure that each and every British citizen has the same rights.
I take very seriously the issues to which my hon. Friend referred. I am the first Foreign Office Minister to initiate regular meetings with representatives of the United Kingdom Muslim community. I met them yesterday and heard a wide range of Muslim opinion. We meet once every two or three months, and the meetings are developing in an interesting direction. I am delighted that we can meet and that I can hear about the foreign affairs interests of the Muslim community. Yesterday we talked about Kosovo—in which the Muslim community has a real and genuine interest—Yemen and a little about Iraq. However, Kosovo and Yemen were the main issues of discussion during our two-hour meeting.
I seek openness and something more than that: I want the British Foreign Office to reflect Britain; recruitment to the Foreign Office must reflect a modern Britain. Members of the Muslim faith must have every opportunity of being recruited to the Foreign Office and of progressing their careers within that Department. I look forward to the day when someone of the Muslim faith emerges, on merit, from the staff of the Foreign Office who is capable of representing Britain as an ambassador overseas. We have opened the door to the Muslim community, and we look forward to those changes.
It is known widely in the middle east that I am determined to avoid giving any credence to the argument that there will be an inevitable clash of civilisations: a 894 challenge between Christianity and Islam. I have always regarded that as dangerous and incredibly sloppy thinking, which fails to recognise the great divisions within Christianity and Islam. It is immensely dangerous to believe that Christianity versus Islam must replace the great cold war crusade of capitalism versus communism. We must avoid that trap. That is why, in my discussions in the middle east, I have told leaders that we must open a dialogue about Christian and Islamic values that recognises the interaction between civilisations and is sensitive to each set of beliefs and values.
We can do much more in that regard. That is one of the reasons why, during our European Union presidency, we called for regular meetings between the EU and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Such meetings might be governed by a very formal agenda, but it is one way of bringing together people of different faiths from different backgrounds who may have different agendas. We are keen to advance that process. However, I give a clear commitment to my hon. Friend that, when it comes to the standing and the status of Islam in the world, I shall always be on the side of those who seek to ensure that those beliefs are granted true legitimacy. We simply do not subscribe to the notion that Islam is a force for evil.
Furthermore, I wholly object to the labelling and stereotyping with regard to Islam that is often the product of lazy journalism. The British media often refer to "Muslim terrorists" but do not apply the same sort of labels to terrorists from other faiths. That sort of labelling must be stopped. We need to look at people in the round, taking account of their values and faiths.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has provided this positive opportunity to talk about the activities of the Foreign Office and the way in which it is working with the Muslim world. My hon. Friend did not mention one possible forthcoming event of significance to the Muslim world. I hope that this year Indonesia will become a democracy comprising 200 million people, mostly of the Muslim faith. That will be a tremendous change and advance in the world.
My hon. Friend always paints a vivid picture—his school of art and his school of rhetoric are very close. Although I often admire his brushwork, I think that his concern with detail is not as good as his broader strokes. I do not recognise the picture that he painted of Britain's relations with the Arab world.