| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
International Terrorism
3. Angus Robertson (Moray): What role the United Kingdom Government are promoting for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in the campaign against international terrorism. [8787]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): The OSCE has an important role to play in tackling the social, economic and political conditions in which terrorist groups win support and are able to recruit their followers. The UK is supporting and helping finance an OSCE conference in Kyrgyzstan in December on strengthening comprehensive efforts to counter terrorism.
Angus Robertson: When I met Secretary-General Jan Kubis of the OSCE several weeks ago, he emphasised the importance of the OSCE because it includes the former Soviet republics that border Afghanistan. Is the Minister not concerned by the recent reports of clampdowns on free media, and political arrests, in a number of those republics, which run contrary to the democracy-building efforts undertaken by the OSCE? Will the UK Government press for enhanced democratic standards in the plan of action on terrorism that is set to be agreed at the OSCE ministerial conference in December?
Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman raises important points, which I discussed last week in Bucharest with the Foreign Minister of Romania, currently chairing the
OSCE. It is an advantage that the former Soviet republics are members of the OSCE and it is the Government's position that terrorism should be countered in a way that does not result in a diminution of human democratic rights in those republics.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): Does my hon. Friend's opposition to international terrorism include opposition to terrorism conducted by Iran and Syria in contravention of United Nations resolution 1373? Is he concerned that those countries are supporting and funding terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas? What steps is he taking to oppose that in Europe and elsewhere?
Mr. MacShane: As my hon. Friend is aware, this Government have taken the lead in banning in this country many of the organisations that she lists. The clear position of the Government and the House against international terrorism is well known.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle): May I welcome the implicit assurance already given by the Minister that Her Majesty's Government will not support disreputable, oppressive or even tyrannical Governments, who may seek to use the tragic events of 11 September as an excuse to crush justifiable political dissent?
Mr. MacShane: We on the Treasury Bench are implacably opposed to tyrannical Governments and oppressive parties of any sort, anywhere in the world. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw our attention to the fact that the fight against terrorism must extend and promote democracy, not diminish it.
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East): Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that it is important that any organisation or forum where we have influence concentrates in the coming months and, indeed, years on the need to bring about circumstances in which the laundering of money, either from terrorist organisations or from organised crime, is leant on very heavily indeed, especially as they are often two sides of the same coin?
Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. As the Minister with responsibility for the Balkans and Latin America, in which capacity I visited Colombia two weeks ago, I know that money laundering and the financial flows that help terrorists and drug dealers are one of the keys to solving those scourges. Since 11 September, there has been a new willingness to co-operate, and the Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have taken the lead internationally in putting before banks their responsibility no longer to provide the conduit for money that promotes violence and criminality.
NATO
4. Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): If he will make a statement on the dialogue with Russia about the expansion of NATO. [8788]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): NATO and Russia regularly discuss a wide range of issues, including NATO enlargement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit Moscow tomorrow for talks on the campaign against terrorism and on other issues including co-operation between NATO and Russia.
Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that the relationship with Russia seems to have moved on to a new and better footing recently, but that there is much scope for co-operation, not least in restructuring the Russian armed forces, which is much appreciated by Russia? Does he agree that it is in Russia's interest for its neighbours to be democratic, prosperous and members of NATO, and that the present preoccupation with terrorist concerns should not delay the expansion of NATO, but rather that it should be the basis of a new initiative?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. There has been a sea change in relationships between NATO and Russia since 11 September. Some productive talks have taken place between the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson, and President Putin, and we hope that that will help to ease Russian concerns about NATO enlargement.
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton): Does the Minister agree that the events post-11 September have shown Russia in a positive and encouraging light, particularly in areas such as terrorism and security? On NATO expansion, will he keep in mind the comments that the Russian ambassador made in this Palace last night, when he said that unilateral decisions do not make for long-term security, so the need for co-operation and contact with Russia on such issues is extremely important?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, that is why we are engaging in the dialogue. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Long before 11 September, Russia had suffered from some horrendous examples of terrorism against its own civilians, but Russia should not have a veto over the enlargement of NATO.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Will the Foreign Secretary raise with the Russian Government recent events in Abkhazia? Will he especially point out that, although armed conflicts on the Russian borders, particularly involving Chechens, as such events apparently did, are deeply unwelcome, a repressive response from Russia would be equally unwelcome and might cause a serious conflagration across the Caucasus and trans-Caucasus?
Mr. Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary tells me that he will be happy to raise that matter when he goes to Moscow tomorrow. We are well aware of the problems that Russia has to face in Chechnya. We talk to the Russians at every opportunity about human rights, but we recognise that they have a legitimate right to protect their citizens against a terrorist threat which we know is linked to Osama bin Laden.
Middle East
5. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield): If he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east. [8789]
9. Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): When he next plans to meet his Israeli counterpart to discuss the middle east peace process. [8793]
10. Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): When he last met representatives of the Israeli Government to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [8794]
14. Mr. John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden): What role he plans for the United Kingdom in pursuing the middle east peace process. [8798]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The situation in the middle east is extremely serious and fraught with danger, not only for the parties themselves, but for the wider world. The United Kingdom, like its European partners and the United States, is committed to the path for peace set out in the Mitchell plan. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in repeating my utter condemnation of the murder of Israeli Tourism Minister Ze'evy on 17 October.
We want restraint to be exercised on both sides; effective action by the Palestinian National Authority to detain and hold the extremists implicated in the murder of Minister Ze'evy and of many other Israelis; withdrawal by the Israeli defence force from Palestinian-controlled areas; and an end to extra-judicial killings. In our view, there can be stability only when there is full recognition of the state of Israel and the right of its people to live in peace with security, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
Richard Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware, I think, that in the past 24 hours I returned from the west bank and Gaza, and on Friday was able to get into Bethlehem to see the aftermath of the destruction of homes and shops and of the shelling of the university and a maternity hospital by Israeli forces. I welcome what the international community has done to secure a partial withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian towns, but we need to go further and demand, without pre-conditions, the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Palestinian areas. We must also respond to the requests put to me by the mayors of Beit Jala, Beit Sahur and Bethlehem for an international observer force, so that the world can see what is going on in that part of the world.
Mr. Straw: I understand the strength of feeling on both sides of the issue, which my hon. Friend reflects in part having visited the west bank and Gaza and seen, among the suffering of many other peoples, the suffering of Palestinian people in the occupied territories and elsewhere. I do not think that a huge purpose would be served by making demands without pre-conditions. We must support the parties in getting back on the track of the very clear agenda set out by Tenet and Mitchell in their reports and in the Mitchell plan. Meanwhile, together
with the American Administration, we continue to play our part to try to reduce tension and to get that process back on track. There has long been a case for international observers, and that has been underlined by resolutions of the European Union General Affairs Council.
Mr. Francois: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that both the Palestinians and the Israelis originally accepted the Mitchell plan? Does he acknowledge that the Mitchell plan calls in the first instance for the Palestinians to halt violence in order to facilitate dialogue? Will he urge the Prime Minister to seek assurances once again from Chairman Arafat that he will make every possible effort to halt the current violence so that there is a chance for meaningful talks?
Mr. Straw: We know from the current grave situation that unless there is restraint and understanding on both sides—movement by the Palestinian Authority and President Yasser Arafat to ensure a 100 per cent. effort by them to restrain violence, movement by the Israeli Government to withdraw from areas A, which are exclusively run by the Palestinian Authority, and to end extra-judicial killings and exercise proper respect for human rights, despite the difficulties under which those involved work—the Mitchell plan will not get back on track. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Mitchell was accepted by both sides and remains the best agenda for peace in the middle east.
Mr. Lansley: I have listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary. Does he share with the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), a recognition of the legitimate right of a state to protect its citizens from terrorism? Will he and his colleagues avoid trying to equate exercising that right with terrorism? Will he therefore make it clear to the Israeli authorities that we do not seek to equate their actions with terrorism? Will he also make it clear that we will urge the Palestinian authorities to act against the terrorists, whose activities are the starting point of the Israeli lack of security and, as such, need to be dealt with before Israel can de-escalate violence?
Mr. Straw: Where we can help is to have a balanced approach and avoid being partisan. It is true that a large number of Israelis have lost their lives as a result of action by Palestinian extremists and others in the region, and they were almost entirely innocent civilians. It is also true that an even larger number of Palestinians have lost their lives, almost all of whom were innocent civilians. We need a de-escalation of the conflict.
As for a definition of terrorism, according to international law it does not include acts by states, so it is not relevant to the state of Israel. However, states are capable of acts that are outside international law in other respects, as we well know. We need both sides to exercise restraint, respect international law and get back to the Mitchell process.
Mr. Lyons: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the present escalation of violence, caused by the assassination of Israel's Tourism Minister, to which he referred, and the disproportionate occupation of Palestinian towns and
villages, has again underlined the need for the United Kingdom to be at the forefront of attempts to get the peace talks back on track?
Mr. Straw: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been tireless in his efforts to do that, as have I and many others in this Administration. However, we will get the peace process back on track only if we work closely in concert with our European partners and the United States Administration. The history of the conflict shows that if we work together, it is possible to achieve proper success, but if Europe adopts a different agenda to that of the US, it is extremely unlikely for success to arise.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary began by asserting the right of the people of Israel to live within secure boundaries, which is no more and no less than was given to them by United Nations Security Council resolution 242. Does he agree that the Palestinians see the continued expansion of settlements by the Israeli Government as highly provocative and that it makes the peaceful resolution of the problems very difficult? When Mr. Sharon visits London in a few weeks, will the right hon. Gentleman repeat, as successive Foreign Secretaries have at the Dispatch Box, that it is the opinion of the British Government that the settlements policy is illegal and contrary to international law?
Mr. Straw: I do not think that we need a visit by Prime Minister Sharon to this country for him to appreciate the position of Her Majesty's Government, which is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that the settlements in the occupied territories are illegal according to international law. We have asked as a minimum for them to be frozen and, in time, for them to be reduced as part of an overall settlement.
Mr. Jim Murphy (Eastwood): It is clear that one of the most effective actions by the international coalition against terrorism is to seize terrorist assets and freeze their bank accounts. My right hon. Friend will be aware that as part of the wider tragedy in the middle east, the suicide bombers of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others continue to cause enormous bloodshed. In conversations, meetings and discussions with the Governments of Iran and Syria and elsewhere, will he urge them to stop harbouring those terrorists and terrorist organisations and, instead, to join the international coalition throughout the world in seizing their assets and freezing their bank accounts?
Mr. Straw: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I have already done that. I underlined that message at a press conference that I held with my Iranian counterpart in Teheran during my visit there. The Iranians have publicly thanked me, as a former Home Secretary, for proscribing—banning—the Iranian terrorist organisation Mujaheddin e Khalq. The British embassy in Teheran has received 40,000 letters of thanks for that from members of the Iranian public. At that press conference and in private I pointed out that on the same list I had proscribed—and the House had approved the ban—the military wings of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad,
and that there was therefore an agenda that we could discuss based on our unambiguous determination to eliminate terrorism wherever it arose in the world.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): When Mr. Sharon comes to London, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to tell him that there are many right hon. and hon. Members who count themselves friends of Israel and who are totally committed to the continued existence of an independent state of Israel, but who nevertheless feel that many of Mr. Sharon's actions and words have been distinctly unhelpful? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell him specifically that to compare President Bush with Neville Chamberlain in the aftermath of 11 September was a crass thing to do?
Mr. Straw: I cannot say that I was especially impressed by the comparison either. I am happy to pass on the hon. Gentleman's views.
Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West): While I agree with my right hon. Friend that the way forward is to get both sides around the table, does he agree that it does not help when Opposition Members demand that the Palestinians exercise control over anyone, given that control in the west bank and Gaza is exercised by the only military force in the area—Israeli defence forces? Unless and until security is handed back to the Palestinians, it is daft to ask them to exercise such a role.
Mr. Straw: I am genuinely sorry to depart slightly from what my hon. Friend has said, but I think that it is reasonable of us to expect the Palestinian Authority to exercise effective constraint in the occupied territories. It is not reasonable of the Israeli defence force to mount incursions into areas A. It must be borne in mind that the Palestinian Authority security forces have some 60,000 members. As we have repeatedly told President Arafat and his colleagues, we look to them to exercise 100 per cent. effort to restrain terrorism arising from the Palestinian Authority's areas. We do not and cannot expect—any more than we have in Northern Ireland—such organisations to achieve a 100 per cent. result where the results are wholly outside their control; however, we continue to expect the authority to show 100 per cent. effort.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton): Further to the Foreign Secretary's answer a moment ago, I applaud his initiative in visiting Iran. I know that he faced some criticism afterwards, but I think that his visit was an important milestone and absolutely the right thing to do.
If we are to take the sting out of Muslim opinion both at home and abroad, the Arab-Israeli peace process must be seen to be making progress. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore welcome the recent restraint shown by Israel in the face of some provocation, and its continuing withdrawal from Palestinian territory? Clearly, that is crucial to events elsewhere. To give new momentum to the peace process, should not the inconclusive negotiations at Taba be revisited and the objectives set out there be explored once again as a serious agenda for progress?
Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, which I greatly appreciate. I congratulate him on what I believe is his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as an Opposition spokesman at Foreign Office questions.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one of the effects of the middle east conflict is to undermine support in many parts of the Islamic world for the wider coalition against terrorism—although, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the Welsh Assembly today, that is still holding up. There is no doubt about the linkage in people's minds, and that is one of the reasons why we have to work extremely hard for restraint on both sides and to get people back on to the path to peace.
We welcome the restraint shown this week by the Israeli Government. One of the many tragedies about Minister Ze'evy's assassination was that for 10 days—from 7 to 17 October—before that, there was, I think I am right in saying, no Israeli civilian killed—which given the short and dismal time scales in which people on both sides of the divide live in the middle east, was a relatively long period. We must try to return to that relatively benign path.
As for the agenda at Taba, it is crucial to return the parties to implementing the Mitchell plan, which is then an agenda for a wider peace settlement.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |