|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I met UN Special Envoy Razali yesterday to discuss the grave situation in Burma. The UK has repeatedly called on the Burmese military regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi immediately, as well as other National League for Democracy members who have been detained since 30 May. The Burmese military regime's response to events so far has been utterly unacceptable. The EU strengthened sanctions against the Burmese leadership on 16 June. We will ensure that pressure is put on the Burmese military regime to move towards democracy and respect for human rights.
Mr. Simmonds : I thank the Minister for that answer. In the context of the Prime Minister's comments that trade with Burma is not appropriate, and Colin Powell's remarks that the time has come to turn up the pressure, exactly what further pressure are the UK Government applying, both to the EU and to the UN, to place economic strain and targeted sanctions on the military
Mr. O'Brien: There is considerable discussion, not only with the EU but with the United States and other international partners, including the Chinese, to find out whether we can put more pressure on the regime. In particular, we need to focus on the Association of South East Asian NationsBurma's neighboursas it obviously has very close relationships with Burma. We need to ensure that it sends clear messagesI am pleased to say that it has done so recentlyto the Burmese regime that it must change its behaviour.
The EU has a role to play, and it has clearly taken action itself, with bans on all defence links, high-level bilateral visits, non-humanitarian aid, supplying equipment that might be used for internal repression, an asset freeze, and a visa ban on the 153 members of the regime, their families and business associates. All that is being done, but the EU also has contacts with the various neighbours, and we need to ensure that those contacts are also used to put pressure on the Burmese regime. It is an unacceptable regime, and its unacceptability must be ended. We must move towards a process of reform as quickly as possible.
Jane Griffiths (Reading, East): Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the firm stance taken by Japan at the ASEAN meeting vis-à-vis Burma? What encouragement and support can be given to the Government of Japan, who have not always, it must be said, taken such a firm and principled stance in respect of the Burmese regime?
Mr. O'Brien: We have made clear our welcome for the stance taken by Japan and also by a number of other countries in that part of the world. It is traditional in south-east Asia that countries do not criticise each other. Often, therefore, human rights issues do not get raised in the way that we would hope. However, Japan and all the other countries in south-east Asia are making it increasingly clear to the Burmese regime that Aung San Suu Kyi, who is a Nobel peace prize winner, needs to be negotiated with in a serious way, and that progress towards democracy is essential. Currently, the Burmese regime says that it is detaining Aung San Suu Kyi for her own protectionit is detaining Aung San Suu Kyi for its protection and to protect its corrupt regime, and we must ensure that that is exposed.
Mr. O'Brien: I will be going to Bali later this month, and I shall certainly press the issue of Burma and the urgent need to release Aung San Suu Kyi. We are seeking to end all British investment in Burma. In particular, I have had a meeting with the chairman of British American Tobacco and have made it clear that our view is that BAT now needs to withdraw its investment in Burma. He has said that he will consider that request, and I hope to have his response in the near future.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Implementation of phase 1 of the road map is now taking place. That includes the ceasefire by Palestinian factions and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and Bethlehem, continuing Palestinian reforms and Israeli action to dismantle settlement posts. All of those are positive first steps. Plainly, however, much more will have to be done.
Helen Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's reports that the Palestinian Authority in Gaza are cleaning anti-Israeli graffiti and murals off the walls in that area? Does not that contrast with the continuing construction of a security wall, much of it on Palestinian land, by the Israelis? On walls in general, what is the Quartet's view as to a permanent wall playing any part in the long-term solution? What is his view on walls in that area?
Mr. Straw: I have raised, as Her Majesty's ambassador in Tel Aviv has raised, with my interlocutor Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, our widespread concerns in the House and in the country about the building of this security fence, particularly as it unlawfully takes in Palestinian land and cuts the Palestinians off from access to facilities that are theirs. We shall continue to press that issue. The Quartet, as far as I know, has not reached a formal position in respect of the security fence. What the Quartet is actively doing is monitoring, adjudicating and pushing the parties towards a continuous implementation of the road map. All that I would say is that given where we were even two months ago, and the terrible killings on both sides and among both communities, the progress that has been made, and the relationship built up, particularly between Abu Mazen and Prime Minister Sharon, is remarkable. We must do everything that we can to support the process.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Given that we can all take pleasure in the fact that there is at least some progress and cautious optimism that America is at last fully engaged and genuinely determined to push forward the process, does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bedrock of any solution must be security? To that end, will he determine what further efforts the British Government may make to assist the Palestinians, whose security arrangementsin many respects through no fault of their ownare not nearly good enough? Will he
Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): Is not the truth of the matter that the structure is not a fence or a wall but an obstacle to peace, especially because it cuts so deeply into Palestinian areas? If the fence were to be built, would it not be better if it were built on the 1967 border, in which case the Israeli Labour party, all Palestinians and the whole of Europe would probably help to build the thing?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The issue is not so much the fence itselfthe Israeli Labour party has also proposed thatbut the site of the fence and the obstacle that it puts in the way of the ordinary lives of ordinary Palestinians.
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): Having last week visited Israel and the west bank with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), may I confirm the positive, if necessarily cautious, change of attitude to the road map on both sides? The realisation that the United States means business has opened the window to progress but, nevertheless, the road map requires difficult actions from both sides. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore join me in congratulating both Ariel Sharon and Abu Mazen on their inspiring joint press conference in Jerusalem last week and on restoring the eight ministerial joint commissions to promote agreement on local issues? Will he persuade his European colleagues to be even-handed in giving support to both sides and wholehearted in backing President Bush's bold effort to achieve a secure Israel and a viable Palestine?
Mr. Straw: Of course, and as I have already done, I congratulate both leaders on really impressive statesmanship, especially when one takes account of the severe opposition that each has faced from within their own territories. The establishment of the eight ministerial commissions is important because there must be daily intercourse among Palestinians and Israelis if they are ever to live side by side in peace and security. I also tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the European Union has repeatedly and consistently welcomed and backed the position of the United States. It is working closely with the United States, in addition to the United Nations and the Russian Federation in the Quartet.
Mr. Ancram: It was clear from my meeting with Abu Mazen a week ago that his biggest problem when controlling terrorism stems from Iranian-sponsored and directly funded support for terrorist activity in both the west bank and Israel itself. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Iran, with its stated aim of trying to destroy Israel, poses a very real threat to the peace process, and
Mr. Straw: I did indeed raise the matter with my interlocutors when I was in Iran last week, and I pointed out that the situation is unacceptable not only because of disruption to progress toward the implementation of the road map, but because it is counterproductive for Iran. For example, progress on the trade and co-operation agreement that Iran wants with the European Union will partly be judged on whether it continues to support unacceptable rejectionist terrorist groups in Israel and the occupied territories. We continue to press, and to apply pressure on, the Iranians.