| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.8 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): I do not want to dwell on the points that have been made more than adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and others. I simply want to focus on Britain's historic obligation, which is keenly felt in the Arab world. In a sense, it has remained unchanged since the Balfour declaration in 1917, which included these words:
- "it being understood that nothing be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
- "The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up permanent residence in Palestine."
- "as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine."
Mr. David Faber (Westbury): We have had an all too short but interesting and well-informed debate. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex
(Mr. Soames) on securing it at such an opportune moment, and on the typically robust and eloquent manner in which he introduced it.
As was pointed out by every hon. Member who spoke, we are at a critical moment in the middle east peace process, when, sadly, the wider region faces possible further conflict. Britain has a long and deep involvement in the middle east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) just said. We are inextricably bound with the region through history, responsibility and a shared interest in trade and, of course, security in the region.
The previous Government always made it clear that our aim was a lasting peace, accepted by all and founded on the principle of respect for international law, peace with security for Israel, and prosperity, justice and self-determination for the Palestinians. Therefore, we on the Conservative Benches warmly welcome the Government's stated continuing commitment to those principles and to the means by which the ultimate goal of a lasting peace can be achieved.
In May 1996, the former Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, said:
The recent visits to Washington by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mr. Arafat were at best disappointing and at worst retrograde, given that the Israeli Cabinet chose the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to issue their communique listing eight new areas of the west bank whose retention they now consider vital for their national interest.
Subsequently, Mrs. Albright, in her recent visit to the region, was rebuffed in her request for a "certificate of good progress" from the Palestinians--a document which presumably she hoped would provide helpful supporting evidence during her tour of the Gulf seeking support for action against Iraq. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex rightly referred to the detrimental effect that the lack of progress in the middle east peace process has had on Arab opinion with regard to action against Iraq.
On 17 December last year, the Minister told me in a written answer:
I echo my hon. Friend's disappointment that the Foreign Secretary--some nine months after becoming Foreign Secretary--having twice cancelled a visit to the region, has still not managed to get there himself. It would have been better had he visited before the start of the presidency. He would have had an opportunity to see and to hear from people on the ground. We look forward to his anticipated visit in the spring, and to the ministerial meeting that will be held in London in April.
At a time when the United States has failed to inject further momentum into the process, there is clearly a crucial role for Britain to play during our presidency.
We must recognise that expectations in the region concerning our own involvement are high. We have a well-earned reputation for even-handedness, and the quality of our contacts in the region are second to none. The period of our presidency is thus an ideal time to throw our weight behind the process, and to encourage the EU to do likewise.
Will the Minister tell us just a little about the so-called Marin memorandum, which we heard about this morning, which clearly calls for a far more active EU role throughout all levels of the process? His noble Friend has described it as "an internal working document". What is its current status? While we hold the presidency of the EU, do we support the memorandum's proposals? How is it suggested that they should be put into effect?
In 1996, the previous Government warmly welcomed the decision of the Palestinian National Council to amend the Palestinian covenant, which honoured a commitment made in the Oslo letters of recognition, and was welcomed at the time by both the United States Government and Mr. Perez. Will the Minister therefore tell us a little more about the letter, of which we heard this morning, thatMr. Arafat sent last month to the Prime Minister, and which was subsequently passed on to President Clinton? The Israeli Government consider the move to be "insufficient", but it would be helpful to have the Minister's views of its significance in the overall peace process.
In the written answer to which I referred, the Minister also said:
At Oslo, the Palestinians accepted that Jerusalem and the settlements, representing some 9 per cent. of land, would be left to final status talks, but that still leaves some 91 per cent. of land in the west bank to come under Palestinian control during the interim period. Under the Hebron agreement, there were to be three instalments of further withdrawals: the first by 7 March last year, the second by 7 September, and the third by the middle of this year, but, as the House well knows, none of those further withdrawals has taken place.
On 7 March last year, the Israeli Government made a renewed offer, which was turned down by the Palestinians, and we have heard this morning that the current Israeli proposal is for a single redeployment of some 6 to 8 per cent. to make up for the two that have been missed, prior to an immediate jump to final status talks.
The United States has now made a further suggestion that some 10 to 14 per cent. be moved from zone C to zone B, and a further 10 per cent. from zone B to zone A. However, even that proposal is still subject to renegotiation and would be phased over three to five instalments. The so-called Sharon map to which my hon. Friend referred, which now appears to be the Israeli
Government's blueprint, allows for an absolute maximum of 35 per cent. of the west bank to have been redeployed, even after final status talks.
The Minister's recent visit of the region sadly coincided with the Israeli Cabinet's declaration that large sections of the west bank were vital to Israel's national interest.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett):
That was not my fault.
Mr. Faber:
It was not the Minister's fault, as he rightly says. What discussions did he have about the announcement at the time? Did he seek or receive assurances on future redeployment during his visit?
The Israeli Cabinet's declaration effectively adds large sections of the west bank to the growing list of issues that the Israeli Government claim are not open to renegotiation, even in final status talks, and all the time, as we heard this morning, the stalemate over redeployment and other issues continues to be exacerbated and soured by the current status of, and future plans for, Israeli settlements.
Israel's unrelenting programme of enlarging its settlements proceeds unabated, in spite of worldwide criticism and condemnation. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned the Israeli Housing Ministry's confirmation that it plans to double the current settler population by 2020 by building 30,000 new homes, half of them in the vicinity of Jerusalem.
As the House will know, the Conservative Government always regarded the settlements as illegal, and therefore we naturally welcome the strong words of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and, indeed, the Minister himself in condemning settlement building. What progress, if any, has he made in talks with the Israeli Government on this matter?
Among other priorities that the Minister highlighted was
We all recognise why Israel is so preoccupied with security. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) quite rightly told us of the problems, and the appalling scenes that we saw on television last year serve as a reminder that the battle against terrorism is far from won.
Peace can flourish only in a climate of trust and confidence. We need to strike a balance. The closure policy has caused widespread resentment and economic suffering. It has come to be perceived as a collective punishment against 2 million Palestinians living in the west bank and Gaza, and has had an appalling effect on the Palestinian way of life. A report on 1996 by the United Nations special co-ordinator's office noted as direct results of the policy a 57.8 per cent. increase in unemployment in the west bank and Gaza; a 23 per cent. drop in aggregate income; and a fall in real wages of 20 per cent. since 1995. Most worrying of all, it highlighted an increase in child labour in the region.
"Britain has no blueprint for how a durable peace should be established. We are fighting no-one's corner. We are proud to call ourselves friends of all the people of the region."
That realisation and that commitment hold good today just as they did then, but we must be realistic and look at the situation that confronts us. As we heard today from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the process is in crisis and is in desperate need of impetus.
"Seeking to re-inject momentum into the Middle East peace process will be a high priority during our Presidency."
We welcome that commitment and his recent visit to the region.
"We are anxious to see existing agreements implemented in full."
The House will know that, under the Oslo accords and the subsequent Hebron agreement, the territory of the west bank is, as my hon. Friend described, divided into three zones. Zone A, under complete Palestinian civilian and military control, currently represents just 3 per cent. of the territory--the urban centres. Zone B, under Palestinian civilian control but Israeli security control, now accounts for 27 per cent. The remaining 70 per cent., zone C, remains under full Israeli civilian and military control.
"a mechanism to institutionalise security co-operation and handle crises . . . and engaging Israel in a dialogue on ways of removing obstacles to Palestinian economic development."--[Official Report, 17 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 182.]
What progress has he made in those regards?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |