| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.23 pm
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
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 Marshall:
In 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. Hanley:
My 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
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 Iraq--the 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.
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.
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |