19 Oct 2004 : Column 177WH
Westminster Hall
Tuesday 19 October 2004
[Mr. John McWilliam in the Chair]
EU/Iran Relations
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
9.30 am
Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) (Lab): I appreciate my good fortune in obtaining this debate. It was only a year or so ago that we had another debate on Iran. It is quite fair that after eight years of the so-called efforts of constructive engagement by the British Government and the European Union, we should review the situation with regard to the outcome of that constructive engagement.
First, I shall start with a piece of constructive engagement of my own, although it arose out of difficult circumstances. A year ago last April, two members of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, who were in Syria on proper visas, were arrested by the Syrian Government. Their names are Ibrahim Khodabandeh and Jamil Bassam. They were political refugees in Britain, and had been so—in the case of Ibrahim—even before the revolution and the removal of the Shah.
They were illegally handed over to the Iranian Government, who for many weeks did not admit to having them. Eventually they said that they did have them in custody. After they had been in custody for about a year, I was allowed to visit them, as were Ibrahim Khodabandeh's daughter and her family.
I had been told verbally that I would not get a visit, but having made a formal written request I was surprisingly allowed one. When I got there, I could see that the purpose of the visit was not only for me to speak to Ibrahim Khodabandeh and Jamil Bassam—I was able to, not in completely confidential circumstances but in reasonably private circumstances. However, during my visit from 14 to 17 June, on which I was accompanied by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor)—my travelling companion, so to speak, although we were looking at the Iranian Government from different sides of the fence—we had several meetings. For example, we met families who claimed that the People's Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran did not allow them to see relatives who were members of the mujaheddin.
We went to the Workers' House of the trade union movement, where we met people who said that they had been injured, or that their relatives had been injured or killed, in attacks made by the mujaheddin in Iran. We also went to the Museum of Martyrs, where we met a charity that works to provide for those who lost breadwinners in the Iran-Iraq war, and in any activities carried out in Iran by the People's Mujaheddin.
We went to the revolutionary tribunal; of course, in any circumstances, the words "revolutionary court" tend to send a shiver down one's spine. I met the judge considering the case against Ibrahim and Jamil, and was assured that everything in Iran's prisons was fine. I then
19 Oct 2004 : Column 178WH
raised the case of Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian photographer of Iranian family who had been battered to death in Evin prison, and was told that judicial proceedings were going on. Originally, her death was attributed to an accident, but two Iranian Government officials in the prison were then tried. However, after we got back, at the end of June or perhaps the beginning of July, we found out that the Canadian Government were not allowed to have representatives in the courtroom, that the trial was cut short, and that no one was found guilty of anything. That is a comment on Iranian justice.
I also was taken to a demonstration outside the French embassy by those who claimed that they had been hurt in some way by the activities of the PMOI in Iran and who were seeking redress in French courts. So far as I know, nothing has come of that.
I also met Mohsen Mirdamadi, an ex-reformist MP whom the Council of Guardians had prevented from standing in the February elections. He was one of many reformist MPs prevented from standing. Iran's system of democracy is still very much in its infancy if the Council of Guardians can prevent those who had spoken up against certain aspects of the regime from standing for election.
I tried unsuccessfully to meet the deputy head of the judiciary, Mr. Larijani, but I did meet Dr. Araghchi, whom I suppose we would call the Minister for Western European Affairs. I put it to him that the two political prisoners were illegally handed over to the Iranian regime and should be returned to the United Kingdom; if Iran was confident of its case, it could make an application to our courts. After all, the PMOI is on our terrorist list; if we thought that a case had been made, we could return them to Iran in a proper judicial manner. I am still awaiting the outcome of that request.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet) (Con): The hon. Gentleman is talking about constituents of mine and of the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis). I applaud the hon. Gentleman's efforts—indeed, we are both very grateful for what he has done—but would he not agree that the real test will be whether those two prisoners are returned to this country? If they are not, there should be no question—I for one certainly will not be doing so—of trying to co-operate in any way with the Iranian regime.
Mr. Griffiths : That is important because the case, or the individual cases, could test the whole idea of constructive engagement, and of whether the Iranian Government are really determined to introduce equality before the law, and justice for their citizens. Yes, it is a good test of whether that can happen, and I certainly hope that it does.
My visit was incredibly badly reported on various websites, and I spent quite a lot of time issuing rebuttals to things that had been said. To give one example, it was said that the National Council of Resistance of Iran had tried to prevent me from going. Not only did the council not prevent me, but it was positive and helpful in providing information and so on for my visit. That is the sort of thing that I have had to contend with since my return.
One important element relating to what has just been said is that a senior member of the prison service, Mr Haj Mortezr, was present at one of our meetings.
19 Oct 2004 : Column 179WH
We had three meal-time meetings—two with one prisoner and one with both. An official statement was read out, mainly for my ears rather than for the benefit of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, although he was listening carefully, saying that amnesty would be granted to any member of the PMOI who returned to Iran. I explained that that was fine and that it had been spoken of before, but that given the 20 years of hostility, deep distress and broken promises, it would not merely be a matter of people returning to Iran. There would have to be a properly negotiated settlement and a properly monitored return. Before such things could happen, the prisoners Ibrahim and Jamil would have to be returned to the UK, to show that the Iranian regime was making a positive effort to turn things around.
I am very grateful to the Iranian Government for having allowed me to go. That was part of the process that has been going on for eight years—we are given some hope, then we are sat on pretty firmly, and it is a struggle to find a way to secure a positive outcome. I am still doing that with regard to Ibrahim and Jamil. When I returned, I had a meeting for about an hour and a half with the Iranian ambassador. I then wrote to him to take up the issue of the amnesty, and how we should proceed with the return of the two prisoners to the UK so that their case could be tested in our courts. All that is still going on, and the PMOI is still on our terrorist list and that of the EU. Events have moved on since July, and we should think about removing it from those lists. I shall return to that later.
I now want to discuss the outcome of the eight years of constructive engagement.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): To avoid misunderstanding, would the hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear that the NCRI is the political wing of the Mojahedin-e Khalq—or MKO—which has been classified by Britain, America and Europe as a terrorist organisation on the basis of the most appalling terrorist incidents, of which we have details? I can supply many more—it is all clarified in a book that I have here, and of which I think the hon. Gentleman has a copy.
Mr. Griffiths : I was not given a copy of that book; I do not know why the hon. Gentleman received one and I did not, but he will know that in Iran I was challenged on many occasions to explain why I support the PMOI. I frankly told my hosts that their Government had been responsible for killing many, perhaps over 100,000, members of the People's Mujaheddin, and that in 1988 there had been a particularly savage murder, the slaughter of about 30,000 political prisoners. A religious fatwa was issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, part of which stated:
"It is decreed that those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for the [mujaheddin] are waging war on God and must be executed."
More people were killed in that series of executions in 1988 than are listed in the book that the hon. Gentleman has in front of him. Yes, I am mindful of the fact that this violent military argument has been going on for a long time. Such arguments and disputes have gone on in
19 Oct 2004 : Column 180WH
many parts of the world where there have been hatred and bloodletting. However, there have been agreements in the end. Think of South Africa, where the African National Congress had a military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, and Nelson Mandela stayed in prison for 27 years because he would not give up the concept of the armed struggle.
In this country, there have been negotiations to try to bring to an end the long, bloody conflict in Northern Ireland. All that I have said about constructive engagement is in the context of trying to find real change in the relationships between the European Union and Iran, and between the NCRI and its members, of which the PMOI is the largest—there are four or five others. We need to find a way to bring the current violent period to an end.
The issue of human rights has dogged the post-Shah period from the very beginning.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Before the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) gives way, I ask Members who use acronyms to use them in full the first time to give the Hansard transcribers a chance.
Mr. Drew : I shall try not to use an acronym, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend makes a powerful case. Would he also accept that the measure of the quality of a democracy is how it treats its minorities? Iran's treatment of its Christian minority is utterly disgraceful. Would he care to comment on that as well?
Mr. Griffiths : As in so many cases, there are always two aspects. The Iranian Government point to churches in Tehran where Christians are allowed to worship; on the other hand, I know of cases of Christians and other minorities being persecuted.
In that context I would like to mention the persecution of followers of Baha'i. Our Government have been strong in trying to change the Iranian Government's attitude to Baha'i, but there has been a long history of persecution, which has intensified markedly this year, since the removal of virtually all the reformists from the Iranian Parliament. For example, followers of Baha'i are denied access to higher education. About 800 of those who took the exam for university this year and were accepted found that when they received their acceptance notices they had been listed as Muslims. They said, "Sorry, we're not Muslims, we're Baha'i," but were told, "Well in that case you can't go to university." Progress on the treatment of followers of Baha'i ought to be a litmus test of how the Iranian Government intend to commit themselves to improving human rights—indeed, it could even be a test of the success of the EU-Iran dialogue on human rights.
The Canadian Government do not have the PMOI on a terrorist list—not all Governments in the world do. This year they are sponsoring a resolution on Iran at the UN General Assembly session—I cannot remember whether it is the 55th or the 59th—to raise many issues relating to human rights and the treatment of the Baha'i faith. In years past, but not in the past few, the EU has
19 Oct 2004 : Column 181WH
supported resolutions on Iran, but again last year it did not. I hope that there will be total EU support this year for a resolution on Iran, as a way of raising the prospect of the Iranian Government responding positively on such issues.
When we consider the events of the past year in Iran, we can only say that, unfortunately, the human rights situation appears to be deteriorating. Since March this year, the regime has announced more than 100 executions—the figure is taken from official, Government papers—many of which have been carried out in public. One or two cases have been highly publicised. For example, on 15 August, a 16-year-old girl was hanged in public. She was charged with acts incompatible with chastity. In another town called Marivan in western Iran, a 13-year-old girl was sentenced to execution by stoning because she was allegedly made pregnant through an incestuous relationship. She was stoned, but it seems that the person who committed the misdeed was not brought before the courts.
I mentioned Zahara Kazemi and the fact that the trial of the two people who allegedly caused her death in prison was brought to an end without any public viewing. It seems that she was battered to death, but that the Iranian Government accept that she was killed by falling down and hitting her head on a stone floor, even though her recorded injuries were more than would have been caused simply by falling down.The human rights situation is not good.
The UN rapporteur of the working group on arbitrary detention, Louis Joinet, was in Iran in 2003. On his return, he said:
"There were probably more members of the mujaheddin being held in ward 209 of Evin Prison whom we were unable to see. We believe that the treatment of those held in this ward is inhumane and contrary to human rights."
While I was there, on 14 and 15 June, the EU-Iran dialogue was going on in Tehran. On 11 October, the General Affairs and External Relations Council adopted a resolution on the conclusions drawn following the dialogue. It stated:
"The Council remains deeply concerned that despite this commitment, serious violations of human rights are continuing to occur in Iran"
"little overall progress has been achieved since the start of the dialogue in December 2002."
"little progress has been made on implementing the recommendations arising from"
the visits of UN special rapporteurs.
"The Council noted that the situation with regard to the exercise of key civil rights and political freedoms, such as freedom of expression, has deteriorated since the Parliamentary elections of February this year. The Council . . . expressed its concern about the recently increased number of reports about execution being carried out in apparent absence of respect for internationally recognised safeguards, and about the executions of juvenile offenders. It regretted that . . . discriminatory practices continue against women as well as against persons belonging to religious minorities, both recognised and not recognised by Iran."
"The Council further reaffirmed its position of principle that the dialogue remains without prejudice to the tabling of a resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights or at the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly. It agreed that at the 59th session of the UN General Assembly, the EU will convey its deep concern at the serious violations of human rights in Iran."
After eight years, there has been little, if any, progress.
I now come to the nuclear issue, which is one of concern and which has received much publicity recently. This ongoing debate was not much of an issue until the NCRI announced that the Iranians have a secret nuclear programme, and that there was a possibility of them enriching uranium and plutonium to make weapons-grade materials. Then, of course, the Americans, with their satellite technology, focused on the places mentioned, and it was all confirmed. Since then, the Iranians have revealed some things, but not everything, and it is only as a result of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency that more has come to light.
The so-called EU three thought that they were on the verge of getting the Iranians to accept that they should give up their enrichment programme, and although the Americans were trying to take an even stronger line, the EU thought that it had achieved a workable compromise. However, we now read in the Iranian press that Iran intends to carry on with its uranium-enrichment activities. Hossein Mousavian said:
"Iran is not prepared for cessation—any package including a cessation of fuel cycle work would be rejected".
The Iranian press—not only the Government press, but what could be regarded as the reformist press—has made it clear that the Iranians should stand firm.
Again, this is a major issue, and I hope that the UK Government will consider it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has expressed concerns, and in an interview on Radio 4 on 4 July, he talked about us taking
"two steps forward and it's sometimes two back as well".
He also expressed some optimism. Like him, I am an optimist, and I hope that there will be some positive outcomes from these revelations about a programme that could have resulted in the Iranians getting nuclear weapons.
There are some worrying signs given the situation in Iran. From reports in the press, it is clear that the Government of Iran have used the chaos following our invasion of Iraq to send in a lot of their people. Thousands of armed operatives have gone into Iraq, and there is an extensive clandestine intelligence network in the country. It has been suggested that Iran has moved into the best position for decades to influence the political shape of Iraq. Indeed, on 20 July, Iraq's Defence Minister himself, Hazem Shaalan, said:
"Iranian intrusion has been vast and unprecedented since the establishment of the Iraqi state. Generally speaking, Iranians have penetrated the country's sensitive centres and set up many intelligence and security centres in Iraq."
That is the position, and it is a cause of great concern. The matter must be pursued at diplomatic level to see whether we can get to the bottom of it and remove that Iranian influence.
19 Oct 2004 : Column 183WH
I return to the terrorist tag on the PMOI. Even though it did not participate in any of the fighting, it was bombed in the war. Since then, the Americans have taken over its camp at Ashraf and have interviewed thousands of its members there. The Americans' conclusion, which was published on 27 July in The New York Times, stated:
"A-16 month review by the United States has found no basis to charge members of an Iranian opposition group in Iraq with violation of American law."
The newspaper also quoted senior American officials as saying that
"extensive interviews by officials of the State Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had not come up with any basis to bring charges against any members of the group."
The group—the PMOI—has now been granted protected status under the United Nations convention. A proclamation dated 2 July
"by the Commander, Multi-National Forces—Iraq, on the Signing of the 'Agreement for the Individuals of the People's Mujahedin of Iran . . . ' at Ashraf"
"To the residents of Ashraf
The United States has confirmed your status as 'protected persons' under the Fourth Geneva Convention".
The interesting thing in relation to the terrorist tag is that as part of the agreement the people at Camp Ashraf have rejected participation in or support for terrorism; they have given up all their military equipment and weapons; they have rejected violence and will not unlawfully take up arms or engage in any hostile act.
I have a copy of the document that those people are signing, probably at this very moment. There is a very strong case for the European Union to remove the terrorist tag, because they have been accepted as protected persons, and have said that they will not engage in or support terrorism or violence; they have also given up their arms. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister will announce that positive steps will be taken on that point, and that there will be renewed efforts to make constructive engagement work or to find another way of peacefully allowing democracy to continue.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): Am I correct in assuming that the piece of paper to which my hon. Friend referred—the certificate from a United States general—has been given on behalf of the coalition? This may be a matter of joined-up government. It appears that the coalition, of which we are a part, and which the Minister represents this morning, has given the relevant people in Iraq a clean bill of health with respect to terrorism. Perhaps the Minister and my hon. Friend will pick up on that point.
Mr. Griffiths : I confirm that the proclamation is made by
"the Commander, Multi-National Forces—Iraq"
on the signing of the agreement. It is on behalf of the multinational forces. Just as, in the case of Ibrahim Khodabandeh and Jamil Bassam, I am looking for a gesture from the Iranian Government to allow them
19 Oct 2004 : Column 184WH
back to Britain so that judicial and democratic processes can work properly, signalling a new departure by the Government of Iran, I hope that our Government and the EU will begin to play a more positive part.
I appreciate that there are tremendous difficulties. I have suffered and faced them myself during my visit and in things that have transpired since. However, I certainly hope for new and positive measures, perhaps to enable the people of Iran to take part in a referendum on democracy, and to engage in open debate about the type of democracy that they want.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have no power to impose any time limits, but, as hon. Members can see, there are many who want to take part in the debate. Brevity may allow everyone to be included.
10.3 am
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): I shall be as brief as possible. First, I have the highest regard for the integrity of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). He is one of the few Labour Members for whom I would vote, because I know that he is a man of principle, although I disagree fundamentally with his views on Iran. I have had the highest regard for him in many years in the House.
I have three brief points to make. First, we have an obligation to Iran. When we were engaged in discussions about the Iraq invasion I checked quite a bit of material about the war of 1980 to 1988 and the invasion of Iran by Iraq. The plain fact is that the western powers were, at that time, giving full support in every way to Saddam Hussein. I have a list of all the appalling weapons of mass destruction, including anthrax, with which the United States Government provided Saddam Hussein. I mentioned them in our debate on Iraq last March. We have an obligation to appreciate that we are not innocent parties on this issue.
My second point, which I hope the Minister will at least discuss and perhaps study, even if he does nothing about it, relates to today's motion on the European Union. I hope that the Minister will make a special point of carefully considering the Funding for Peace Coalition paper, which I am sure he will have read, on the vast amounts of money that the EU gives to the Palestinian Authority that go straight into funding terrorism.
The publication is not simply one of those argumentative pieces, but a pamphlet that goes into great detail. It mentions names, amounts, and how, because of the sheer inefficiency of the EU in managing its funds, a vast amount of money goes towards the purpose that I mentioned. It says, for example, that 60 per cent. of the PA budget was supported by overseas donations, and that, last year, the EU gave £112 million to the PA. It mentions in particular how the funding goes in various ways to al-Aqsa Martyrs and to other terrorist organisations.
Of the many members of the PA-funded militias involved in acts of terror against civilians, including Europeans, the most notable is Marwan Barghouti, the leader of Fatah-Tanzim, who was convicted on charges of murder and yet is still, unbelievably, drawing a salary from the European-supported PA budget. It is all there
19 Oct 2004 : Column 185WH
in great detail in the paper, which I hope the Minister will study. If he has not seen it, I will be glad to give him a copy.
My third point relates to Iran and to the MKO—or MEK—and other terrorist organisations. Here, again, the EU has a responsibility, because the headquarters of those organisations were in France for a time until the EU recognised that they were nasty, serious terrorist organisations, and they left as a result. They went to Iraq, which, as we know, has had an obsession with Iran for many years. First, are they innocent, decent and respectable people? The groups' worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorism. In the 1970s, the MKO/MEK killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defence projects in Tehran. It also supported the 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran.
In 1981, the MKO/MEK placed bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republican party and the Premier's office that killed some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials.
Mr. Griffiths : Unfortunately, there are different truths on either side of the fence in all these activities—let us call them wars. The People's Mujahedin of Iran, or the followers of Mr Rajavi, were not accused of the particular incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers until some time afterwards. In fact, the Iranian Government originally accused other elements of that attack. They focused on the supporters of Mr Rajavi only later, for, I believe, political purposes.
Sir Teddy Taylor : I fully appreciate that there are different views. That is why I do not go in for propaganda on these issues. I do not listen to what organisations say, but take different quotations provided by the Library's research department. All I can say is that I have the full details of all the activities provided by the Library, which is excellent when one is trying to find out the truth, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I will be only too glad to give him all this information if he so wishes.
On the question of the MKO/MEK and its activities in Iran, I have the paper that I mentioned. I urge anyone to read it before they take a firm line on the matter, as it details the people involved in terrorism. The hon. Gentleman and I took out for a meal a gentleman who was sentenced to, I believe, 33 years' imprisonment for killing two children in one of these activities. Sadly, the paper details a huge number of the organisation's activities that involve terrorism. That is frightening, and we should not ignore it.
Time is short, so I shall make only two more points. First, does the Minister accept that by and large Iran has a good reputation in many areas? I was impressed—this might surprise people—to find out that while some Arab countries have terrible problems in religious matters, in Iran we saw a synagogue—there are five. There is a large Jewish community, which has freedom to worship, and there are many Christian churches. I met the people coming out of one of them and asked whether they had any problems. They replied, "Absolutely none."
19 Oct 2004 : Column 186WH
My second point is about the nuclear issue. I accept that it is always difficult to arrive at the truth in such matters. However, the only way in which we can make progress is to treat countries with respect. Could the Government not suggest that there might be merit in calling a conference to promote the middle east as an atomic-free zone? That would involve Israel and others in getting rid of atomic weapons, but it would be a way of making progress, which will not happen if things continue as they are.
Finally, is there not a case for the Government to make it abundantly clear that the terrorist organisation MKO has little support in Iran? The impression I gained—I am in no sense an expert—was that public opinion, which used to be supportive to an extent, turned against it because, unfortunately, the MEK and the MKO supported Iraq at the time of the invasion of Iran. There is no question—there are detailed allegations in a House of Commons paper—but that they not only gave it support but were involved in the armed conflict. What is the Minister's assessment of the support of the people of Iran for that organisation? My impression is that it is meaningless.
My final point is about universities. We had the pleasure of visiting some. I was impressed to find out that university education is a big factor in Iran. Many people attend, and receive free education—unlike those in the United Kingdom, who have to pay a great deal. Remarkably, more than half the students were women. Speaking to the students, I got the impression that the universities, far from being extreme organisations putting forward extremist views, are highly motivated educational institutions.
I hope that the Government will take a positive attitude towards Iran. It has a form of democracy. Although it is not total, there is an elected parliament and an elected president, and public opinion counts for a great deal. After the cases in which people were prevented from standing—we met one of them—we were told that it was thought that that would never happen again because of the public response.
My final point—I recognise that I have made a final point three times—is that one gets an impression of a country by walking around its streets. There are some deplorable countries in the middle east, where I feel terrified to walk, but in Iran my general impression was of a civilised society with high standards. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that we will not co-operate in any way with terrorist organisations, and that we respect Iran for the many positive developments there.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask hon. Members to be as brief as they can. The object of these debates is to allow adequate time for the hon. Member initiating them to receive a reply from the Minister.
10.14 am
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I shall try to be brief. I shall concentrate on Iran's nuclear capacity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) touched upon. There is no doubt that Iran will move to the top of the political agenda, and that that will almost certainly occur after the presidential election in the United States. It will be driven there by the preoccupation in Washington—on all sides—that the nuclear issue has to be dealt with.
19 Oct 2004 : Column 187WH
It is in our interests and those of the European Union that the EU should engage with the issue at the moment. We should have the sort of debate on the handling of Iran—if that is the right expression—that we failed to have in the case of Iraq; we learned a lesson there.
In recent years, the United States and the European Union have approached Iran in different ways. Essentially, the European Union has handled Iran in a much more intelligent fashion than has the United States, partly because the United States has varied in what it has sought to achieve, and how it has gone about it. Sometimes it has engaged in intense co-operation, as, for example, over Afghanistan; at other times it has been very distant. However, the EU, the United States and, indeed, countries such as Russia, must deal collectively with the nuclear situation in Iran.
The evidence is that Iran is at least in a position to move towards obtaining nuclear weapons, which, given its strategic situation, ought to be unthinkable. That would almost certainly lead to a nuclear arms race in the region, with countries such as Turkey, possibly Saudi Arabia and even the Syrians looking to obtain a similar capacity. That would be massively destabilising in a region that is already unstable, and the response of Israel would of course be difficult to predict.
Is military action an option, as in Iraq? Of course, all things are possible, but experience in Iraq should warn us of the enormous dangers. That said, Iran is not Iraq. It has a millenniums-old tradition and it is cohesive; indeed, it was prepared to accept up to 1 million casualties in the Iran-Iraq war in fighting for its national integrity. So, at this stage at least, most of us would say that the direction that the United States and others will want to take if Iran is not prepared to move forward would be the worst possible option, although we would not reject it in all circumstances.
If the European Union can begin serious dialogue with the United States and places such as Moscow, and, most importantly, maintain its serious dialogue with Tehran, we could set out something like a road map, making it clear to the Iranians what they would get from moving in a positive direction. We would have to take account, for example, of the fact that Iran would look for security guarantees in its own region, and the United States would obviously have to play a fundamental role in implementing such guarantees, particularly given its extraordinary influence over Israel. However, Iran is entitled to security in its own region, and it is also entitled to recognition and access in economic and social terms. In that respect, there is a lesson for the Americans, because the EU has already offered the possibility of progress on such issues.
In response, however, Iran must attend to the agenda that has been discussed this morning, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend. It will be fundamental to any dialogue that Iran move forward and clearly disavow its nuclear programme, and that means that it must be much more ready to accept proper inspection regimes. It would also have to move significantly on the human rights issues to which my hon. Friend referred; that, too, will be fundamental to any dialogue.
19 Oct 2004 : Column 188WH
I have tried to be brief so that other hon. Members can speak. I simply conclude as I began by saying that Iran will be at the top of all our agendas within six months, almost irrespective of what happens in the American election. If Europeans do not begin to take Iran seriously now, we will have lost influence by the time the debate begins in the United States. If we are to take a cohesive approach at the global level, the time to do so is now.
10.18 am
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet) (Con): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for raising the important issue of the European Union's relationship with and policies towards Iran. The human rights situation there has been deteriorating for the past three years, and probably longer, which was confirmed by the outgoing EU Commissioner, Chris Patten, who is deeply concerned about reverses in human rights in Iran.
I also want to put on record the statement by the Iraqi Defence Minister—not the coalition forces—that there has been a vast intrusion into Iraq by Iranians since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Given all the information that I have garnered, including from the research facilities of our excellent Library, I have every reason to believe that Iran can produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb within a year. I merely say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor)—whom I greatly respect—that Iran has spurned repeated attempts by the European Union to find a diplomatic solution to that nuclear crisis.
I have every reason to believe that Iran, or people from Iran, have taken control of many Palestinian terrorist cells. The hon. Member for Bridgend mentioned some abuses of human rights; I need not repeat them, except to mention that at least 120 people have been publicly executed since March. It is on record that about 120,000 members of the People's Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran have been executed in the past 20 years. One has only to study the articles in Iran's penal code to see how far that country disrespects human rights.
The acquisition, development and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction have been a central policy of the Iranian regime. To say the least, their Government have been forked tongued over the issue. They have spurned attempts at a diplomatic solution, and denied and hidden evidence on the one hand and then, on the other, proudly boasted that they have two nuclear weapons programme sites.
I want to stress my gratitude to the hon. Member for Bridgend for all that he has done to try to secure the release of one my constituents, Mr. Khodabandeh.
I have one other thing to say, and that is about religious tolerance. I cannot think of any religious organisation that contains so many peace-loving, kindly and gentle people as the Baha'i faith, although I like to think that they all do. The Baha'i faith has 6 million adherents in 235 countries; some, I am sure, in all our
19 Oct 2004 : Column 189WH
constituencies. There are up to 350,000 in Iran, which is the birthplace of the Baha'i faith.
The Baha'is—and maybe other groups—have consistently been denied access to higher education. Early last August, the Baha'i community in Iran learned that the Iranian authorities have now ordered the Baha'is to suspend all educational activities and to close the Baha'i Institute for Higher Education. It has been the policy of the European Union, and the United Kingdom, to engage with the Iranian regime to seek trade and to try to release the tensions between the west and that great country. I believe that that policy was wrong and ill considered.
I hope that the EU and the UK Government will change their tune on Iran, given the dreadful persecutions and violations of human rights that have consistently taken place in that country over a long time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. If the hon. Gentleman promises to take no more than three minutes, he may speak.
10.24 am
Dr. Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green) (Lab): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing this vital debate. I thank him profoundly for informing me over the years of the politics of this rich country, Iran, where most of the people are desperately poor. He has raised many aspects of the inhumanity of the present regime in Iran, and to my mind the central aspect of his contributions is his analysis of why the People's Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran should be removed from the British, EU and United States terror lists. That would be in the interests of the PMOI and of all the democracies in the world, and would send shockwaves through the oppressive regime of the mullahs in Iran. They would no longer be able to hide behind the smokescreen that allows them to argue that the EU and the USA agree with their regime. As my hon. Friend said, by labelling Iran's principal opposition as terrorists, the EU and the USA have distanced themselves from the Iranian people.
The Iranian people share the objectives of the president-elect in waiting, Mrs Maryam Rajavi, and support her policies, central to which are democracy, equality, human rights and accountability. One aspect is also worth stressing. The Government in waiting, with their headquarters near Paris, would recognise the state of Israel and would strive for a two-state solution, which is to say, a safe state of Israel and a safe, viable and democratic state for Palestine. Such an outcome, which seems so distant at present, would be of enormous benefit for the entire middle east region and beyond. It would also be a major blow for all the terrorist groups in the middle east and beyond that are financially supported by the mullahs.
I repeat what I see as the main contribution of today's debate: the request to the USA, the EU and the UK to remove the PMOI from the list of international terrorists. That would be a major achievement towards peace in the world and something in which the UK, the EU and the USA should be most interested.
19 Oct 2004 : Column 190WH
10.27 am
Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): This has been an important debate and, like others, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing it and introducing it in truly comprehensive style. The valuable insight that he and the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) drew from their trip to Iran has enhanced the quality of the debate enormously.
Iran's significance is lost on none of us. To take a short-term perspective, Iran has been at the centre of many key events in the past century: western involvement in regime change, then Islamic revolution and, more recently, the Iran-Iraq war. Taking a wider sweep of history, we see that Iran has always made a striking contribution, not least to the development of learning and culture across the world. Iran is of huge strategic significance to its region and the globe. To put the matter simply, Iran, with its oil and gas reserves and central location in one of the most sensitive areas of the world, has an influence way beyond its borders. Sadly, Iran also finds itself at a key junction on the international drugs routes.
In its recent report, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs described Iran as
"half in and half out of the international community."
For all our past and current difficulties, constructive engagement is important for the UK, the European Union and the broader international community, so that Iran can be fully engaged internationally.
A number of hon. Members have focused their comments on nuclear weapons, which must be our most pressing concern. Despite its huge oil and gas reserves, Iran is known to have been developing a nuclear capability for some time. The regime has always protested that the programme is peaceful and civil, and consistent with its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency's visit in February 2003 cast serious doubts on that claim and its work since has reinforced our legitimate anxieties about Iran's capability and intentions. Recent reports of Iran's ability to build and fire missiles have added to those concerns.
Inside Iran, of course, many arguments are made in favour of developing nuclear weapons. To the east, neighbouring Pakistan and nearby India are known to have nuclear weapons. To the west, Israel has had a nuclear programme for a generation or more. Around the region, the United States and its coalition partners have a strategic presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that border Iran.
Compelling as those issues may appear, none can override Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Nor can they justify the massive escalation in the arms race that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would represent for the region and the world. For those reasons, the international community has spent much of the past 18 months urgently attempting to persuade Iran to comply with international law. It was right to do so.
History suggests that engagement with Iran is best done through careful diplomacy. Efforts by the United Kingdom, France and Germany have been extremely important in that regard, and I applaud the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for their work.
19 Oct 2004 : Column 191WH
The EU three have made significant progress in brokering a deal with Iran to suspend its nuclear programme and to allow greater access to IAEA inspectors. The signing of the additional protocols to the safeguards agreement was a key development. The deal offered the prospect of Iran ending its uranium enrichment activities in return for guarantees that it could import all the nuclear fuel required for a civil nuclear programme. However, throughout 2004 the Iranians have been resiling on the agreement, which its Parliament has never ratified.
Critical reports were made by the IAEA in March and June; they were followed by an announcement in July that Iran would resume manufacture of centrifuges, which are critical to the enrichment process. Further criticism was made in the IAEA's September report, which set the scene for an important decision by its council when it meets in November.
Throughout the past few months, the EU's position has appeared to unravel, and it seems to be without a plan B. There is increasing American pressure for Iran to be referred to the United Nations Security Council, with threats in the background of what that might lead to. So far the EU has properly resisted that pressure, but it seems that the EU has been offering only carrots and the US only sticks. We need hard-edged constructive engagement from now on. We can offer improved trade and investment, and ultimately perhaps an EU trade and co-operation agreement, but we must also set out penalties, with the prospect of sanctions if Iran fails to comply with its obligations. Iran already has a high value of trade with the EU, which allows that prospect; it seems anxious at present to avoid such sanctions.
The Iranians are rightly concerned about the middle east peace process and the ongoing conflict in Iraq. It behoves the west—the European Union and the United States—to make serious progress in the middle east. We must demonstrate that we will tackle issues there even-handedly. Perhaps next year's conference review of the non-proliferation treaty will offer us an opportunity to confront the undoubted double standards that now exist.
Others have mentioned human rights issues; I echo what they said. To put it mildly, the elections in February were a disappointment. In political terms, Iran seems to have been going backwards since then. Many eloquent testimonies have been given about the infringement of personal freedoms, and the worrying increase in executions throughout the country. We must ask Iran to address these serious issues.
We have reached a critical moment. Human rights is a key issue between the EU and Iran. There are also concerns about drug trafficking and links to terrorism. Most frightening of all, however, is the possibility—even the prospect—of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The EU must continue to engage peacefully with Iran as we tackle that threat. The engagement must be hard edged: on one hand, there must be clear opportunities for civil and nuclear developments supported by the prospects of greater trade and investment; on the other, there must be a serious intent to use sanctions.
19 Oct 2004 : Column 192WH
Iran is a serious country and we must take it seriously, but all parties must also know that we will act seriously as well.
10.35 am
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): This short but useful debate has amply illustrated the complexity of relations with Iran and the sensitivity of the challenges that we face. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing it.
Iran will, undoubtedly, be one of the greatest foreign policy challenges of the next Parliament and, indeed, of the next presidential term in the United States. If we get our policy towards Iran wrong, the result will be more conflict, more instability in the middle east and the added threat of nuclear weapons. If we get it right, however, there is the prize of an open and democratic Iran, a force for stability in the wider region and a country with which we can trade and co-operate freely. The stakes are therefore high.
I want to make it clear that I do not doubt the Iranian people's will for peace. It is also very clear that Iran sees the benefits of reaching a trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union. To date, however, too many members of the Iranian Government have found confrontation easier than engagement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) spoke of the positive aspects of Iran and the importance of positive engagement. The Opposition supported the Foreign Secretary on his visit to Iran last year with his French and German counterparts. That act of engagement was a brave act that held out the prospect of a new relationship with Iran and an end to its military nuclear programme.
We must, however, now recognise that that strategy of engagement has nearly run into the sand. Iran has reneged on its commitments to the international community and to the International Atomic Energy Agency by continuing to pursue nuclear technology that would enable it to become a nuclear power. Iran enriches uranium far above levels needed for a purely peaceful nuclear programme. The heavy water reactor in Arak is a cause for concern, and the scale of the centrifuge plant at Natanz is suspicious. Iran also continues to enhance its ballistic missile capability. This is all cause for the most serious concern. It is rumoured that the Iranian Government have ordered that the first nuclear bomb should be ready by the middle of next year. Does the Minister believe that to be accurate and, if so, is Iran on course to achieve that threat?
Our anxiety must not be limited to Iraq's weapons programmes. As several hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown, the human rights situation appears to be deteriorating again, particularly since the beginning of this year. That was exemplified recently by the execution of the young girl to whom the hon. Member for Bridgend referred in his opening address.
Worsening human rights appear to be matched by the declining strength of reformist forces in Iran and the reassertion by radical hardliners of control over the Iranian Government. Press freedom has been further constrained in recent years. The daily newspaper Bahar, for example, was closed in 2003. The Tehran public
19 Oct 2004 : Column 193WH
court claimed that the newspaper had "insulted the authorities." On the same day, the special court of the clergy closed another journal and arrested two members of the editorial board whose whereabouts, so far as I am aware, remain unknown. The Minister might have more up-to-date information on that.
There have been difficulties in our bilateral relationship, too, not least of which was the seizure of eight British servicemen and their equipment earlier this year. Everyone was delighted that the servicemen were returned safely, albeit after their public humiliation. Their equipment, however, was not returned. The Government have been very quiet about that, and I hope the Minister will update us about their efforts to see our equipment returned.
The situation is difficult, but at least we know what we want to achieve. I believe that there is very little difference between Members on both sides of the House about what our goals should be: friendly relations with an Iran that is nuclear weapons free, stable, respectful of human rights and on the road to true democracy. That goal is also shared by our partners in the EU and more widely across the Atlantic. We can achieve it only by working with our European partners and the United States.
In the past couple of years, a worrying state of affairs has developed in Iran's relations with the wider world. An impression appears to have developed that Iran has nothing to lose by snubbing the Europeans and nothing to gain by engaging with the US. While that impression persists, we may be doomed to unproductive confrontation.
In that context, will the Minister elaborate on the current Russian diplomatic initiative and its implications? The Russian Foreign Minister has visited Iran during the past fortnight, paving the way for a visit by President Putin next month. What assessment have the Government made of the prospects for success in persuading the Iranians to end their nuclear enrichment programme and submit to IAEA inspection? If the Russians reach such a deal, will the trade-off be the retention of a civil nuclear programme in the shape of the existing, although inactive, power plant and a second nuclear reactor using Russian technology? If that is the case, what steps can the Minister promise to ensure that the civil nuclear programme will not be used to allow the development of nuclear weapons to resume in future?
Bearing in mind the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgend about close involvement of Iranian nationals in Iraq, I ask the Minister whether there is evidence of personnel or equipment from Iraq's nuclear programme having found their way to Iran, either directly or through a third country. Is there evidence to support recent press comment that Iraqi nuclear weapons technology would be sold to Iran by Syria?
As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said, we are approaching a crossroads in our dealings with Iran. Our relations are likely either to improve or to get markedly worse. I hope that it will be understood on both sides of the Atlantic that crude military measures are likely not simply to be unproductive, but perhaps to be counter-productive. They might delay Iran's nuclear programme but they
19 Oct 2004 : Column 194WH
would not stop it. They would also unite the Iranian people's passionate national pride with hard-liners' hostility to the outside world.
Are the British Government making the case against military action to any who might be tempted to pursue it? Equally, we must make it clear to the Iranian Government—this, too, was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale—that there will be negative consequences if Iran continues to develop a nuclear weapons programme illicitly. Likewise, our dialogue on human rights must be robust, so we need to back up our position with some credible threats of consequences for the Iranian regime.
We and our European partners have expended political capital in obtaining US agreement for talks on improved economic and political ties if Iran suspends its nuclear fuel enrichment programme. I hope that the Minister will tell us how fully behind the talks he believes the American Government to be. If Iran perceived that the US Government were ready to commit to better relations, the chances for the latest round of dialogue would be greatly increased. If agreement were reached, what mechanisms would be put in place to reassure the west that Iran was keeping its side of the agreement?
If agreement is not reached, there must be consequences. Does the Minister believe that, in that case, Iran's nuclear weapons programme should be an urgent matter for discussion by the Security Council, as has already been requested by the US? What measures might the Government recommend if Iran failed to suspend its fuel enrichment programme? Do the Government agree that Iran's further integration in the world economy would certainly have to be halted in those circumstances?
There must, on the other hand, be real incentives for Iran to accept the need to suspend its programme and improve its human rights record. Acceptance of a purely peaceful nuclear programme and improved trade relations with the EU could be enticing parts of such an offer. Such incentives, however, would be enormously more attractive if the Iranian Government believed that they could lead to a constructive relationship with the United States as well. How prepared does the Minister believe the US might be to enter into such a relationship?
We firmly support the Government's readiness to engage with the Iranian Government and we wish them well in one of the most challenging foreign policy arenas, but I hope that they will be prepared to take robust, peaceful action in the event of failure.
10.43 am
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for initiating the debate, because it allows me to set out the Government's view of the difficult problem of our relationship—and that of our partners in Europe and other democratic partners—with Iran.
Hon. Members have made constructive speeches. My hon. Friend went to Iran with the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), but from listening to their speeches it is apparent that they came back with dissimilar analyses of the situation there. That shows us the complexity of what we are dealing with.
19 Oct 2004 : Column 195WH
I shall deal with the specific points that hon. Members made as my speech develops. Some important questions were raised. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, invited us to get much closer to our European partners. The Foreign Minister of Germany is to meet me and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in exactly an hour. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Iran is top of the agenda.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), speaking for the Conservative party, seemed to suggest that we should be much closer to the United States. I do not dissent; it is the job of Government to find a way of bringing our European partners and our allies and partners in the United States closer together, not to choose to park ourselves in one camp in opposition to the other.
It was good of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend to start by mentioning the individual cases of Ibrahim Khodabandeh and Jamil Bassam. We should never forget that we are talking about citizens of Iran who have elected to be in exile in this country and who now find themselves in prison in Iran. They are not British citizens and we have no legal or consular oversight of them. However, I share the view that there are too many people in prison in Iran for making political statements, and too many executions have taken place, including the awful one of the 16-year-old girl. Such things are not worthy of a democratic, civilised nation and everybody in the European Union would object to them. There was also the death of Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian photographer beaten to death in Iranian police custody last year. That was of great concern to us all, especially to me, as a former president of the National Union of Journalists, to our allies and friends in the Canadian Government and to journalists throughout the world.
It is right that we should put individual cases on record. However, as has been pointed out, Iran is a great country with rather more than a millennium's worth of history and culture. In the region around Iran, we find some of the most important challenges that we face: first, how to make the world safer from global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; secondly, how to fight the drugs trade, illegal migration and other international crime; thirdly, how to bring about reform and sustainable development in societies undergoing rapid change; and fourthly, but not least, how to support the establishment of stable democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran's choices about its future and its relations with neighbouring countries can affect the security and prosperity of peoples well beyond the middle east. If, as I hope, Turkey gets a start date for negotiations and joins the European Union, the EU will, in due course, have a frontier with Iran. That is why the British Government and the EU have sought engagement. I do not put an adjective in front of that noun but, as the Prime Minister said in Crawford three years ago, we believe that engagement is the right way forward.
We welcome President Khatami's vision of a democratic Islamic civil society, based on the rule of law, and support those in Iran who wish to bring in
19 Oct 2004 : Column 196WH
reform. We co-operate successfully with Iran in a number of respects—the fact that hon. Members are able to go to the country, to visit its prisons and to have a range of political discussions in Iran is a small sign of that; it was not possible in the past. We can all think of countries that do not correspond to our democratic norms and where such things are still not possible.
We share the view of our EU partners that any development of relations with Iran, which we want to see, must be on the basis of Iranian willingness to address issues of political concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) was right to say that we need a united European approach. We also need unity with the United States. I hope that, should problems with Iran develop in a way that we hope they will not, we will not experience again the divisions between the US and Europe that have occurred over Iraq. The two great regions of democracy in the world must march together.
Let me address one of the most pressing issues, which many hon. Members mentioned—Iran's nuclear programme. We do not question the right of any country to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, provided—this is the essential condition—that it complies fully with its obligations. Under the non-proliferation treaty, it is unacceptable for non-nuclear weapons states to seek to acquire nuclear weapons. In the middle east, such efforts could seriously destabilise international peace and security. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East asked about a nuclear weapons-free middle east, and the United Kingdom Government have always supported UN resolutions calling for such an arrangement.
In the past two years, the International Atomic Energy Agency has documented serious failures by Iran over 18 years to meet its safeguards obligations and be fully transparent with the agency. That has led to widespread concern about whether the ambitions of Iran's nuclear programme are, as the Iranian authorities claim, entirely peaceful. That is not simply a British, German, French or American concern; it is shared by the entire international community, as we have clearly seen from the actions of the IAEA board of governors, whose last six resolutions on Iran have all been adopted by consensus.
The United Kingdom, France and Germany—the so-called EU three—have played a leading role in encouraging Iran to co-operate with the IAEA. Our efforts have been aimed at giving Iran an opportunity to reassure the international community that its nuclear intentions are indeed peaceful. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Tehran with his German and French counterparts last October, the Iranian authorities made a solemn commitment that they would take the necessary steps. They promised to be fully transparent with the IAEA and to co-operate in resolving the outstanding issues identified in the director general's reports. They also promised to sign, implement and ratify an additional protocol to the safeguard agreement, which would allow short-notice access by IAEA inspectors to a wider variety of nuclear sites.
Furthermore, Iran promised solemnly to suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. This last point is crucial. Confidence cannot—I repeat, cannot—be restored unless Iran agrees to suspend its
19 Oct 2004 : Column 197WH
fuel cycle activities, including all centrifuge work and uranium conversion. Such activities are not necessary for a civil nuclear power generation programme, but they would give Iran technologies to help it towards a military nuclear capability.
I should emphasise that the suspension request is specific to Iran because of its past lack of co-operation with the IAEA and the very real doubt that that has created about the real intentions behind its nuclear programme. We do not ask other countries to suspend their enrichment-related activities if there is no reason to doubt their peaceful intentions.
The commitments made by Iran last October were a step in the right direction, but as we said at the time, what matters is not declarations of Iran's willingness, but seeing those declarations turned into reality. Since last year, Iran has supplied the agency with further details of past nuclear activity. It has also signed, but made no attempt to ratify, the additional protocol. We accept that those are significant moves, but as successive IAEA resolutions have made clear, there is much further to go. Important questions remain unresolved, such as the extent of Iran's work on advanced centrifuges and the purposes of its work on plutonium separation.
Tony Lloyd : My hon. Friend is right to say that Iran has committed itself to fulfilling certain obligations, but does he accept that there would be a real logic to offering it security guarantees, which would allow it to escape the logic of its nuclear programme?
Mr. MacShane : I understand my hon. Friend's point, but Iran must live up to its specific legal obligations under the different treaties. In other words, it must decide and show the world whether all its work is exclusively for peaceful purposes. That is the question that the entire world wants answered, including President Putin of Russia, who, in a meeting with President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder a few weeks ago at the Sochi resort on the Black sea, said that Russia was determined that Iran should not become a nuclear weapons state.
However, Iran has never suspended fuel cycle activities in a way acceptable to the board. Instead it has quibbled constantly about the scope of suspension and, in June, partially stepped back from its commitments. That is why the international community is more worried than ever. As the Foreign Secretary said in Brussels on 13 September:
"What Iran has to understand is that it cannot turn the issue of confidence on and off like a tap".
Last month, the board reconsidered Iran's nuclear programme. It would be damaging if the IAEA board, having set out its requirements in successive resolutions, were now to accept less than full compliance. With our encouragement, it decided to give Iran a final chance. Iran now faces a clear choice: live up to its commitments and comply in full with the board's resolutions, including to put in place a full and lasting suspension, and thus reap the benefits of the international confidence that this would create, or spurn this chance to reassure the international community. If that happens, the board will need to discuss additional
19 Oct 2004 : Column 198WH
measures, which will probably include referral to the UN Security Council, at its next meeting. Iran now needs to act decisively before the board meets again on 25 November. Naturally, the Government will keep the House fully informed as those efforts proceed.
The nuclear issue is not the only security question on which we are engaging with Iran. As the EU has made clear, action by Iran against terrorism is also a high priority. We particularly want Iran to play a full role—
Mr. Brady : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane : I must get some of these points on record.
We want Iran to play a full role in the international fight against al-Qaeda by sharing information on al-Qaeda members whom it is detaining. We continue to urge the Iranian authorities to ensure that groups engaged in terrorism and violence in Iraq, the Israel/Palestine region and elsewhere do not draw material or political support from inside Iran.
I am dismayed by, and I refute, the inaccurate allegations made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East about EU help to Palestine. It does not help his case to make such inaccurate remarks. I will write to him, and will make a copy of my letter available to the House.
We recognise that Iran has legitimate interests in the future of Iraq and Afghanistan. It has played host to more than 2.5 million refugees from those countries. In Afghanistan, we have welcomed Iran's co-operation regarding the recent election and efforts to combat the drugs trade. Iran has played a part in restoring Iraq's economic and religious life, but its leaders have done little in public or private to support the Iraqi Interim Government and their efforts to provide security for the Iraqi people. We are deeply concerned by reports of links between the Iranian regime and armed groups that undermine the rule of law in Iraq.
Iran must also address its human rights record. Like every elected Member of this House, I was deeply disappointed that many candidates, including a quarter of the sitting Deputies, were disqualified from standing in February's parliamentary elections, and was surprised to hear that little attention was paid to that. If some outside body announced that a quarter of the MPs standing for re-election in the House of Commons could not stand, there might be a row involving even the deeply conservative and religious authorities in this country.
We believe in the dialogue between the EU and Iran, but in recent months there have been disturbing new trends in areas such as freedom of expression, the behaviour of the courts and religious freedom. We cannot support the delisting of terrorist organisations outside Iran that have committed atrocities that are crimes against humanity.
I hope that the whole House will send a message of solidarity to people of the Baha'i faith. It is a great, noble, tolerant and peace-loving religion, and its treatment at the hands of the Iranian authorities is an insult to human values anywhere in the world.
19 Oct 2004 : Column 199WH
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |