| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
International Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Cawsey.]
2.37 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Margaret Beckett): These are grave and serious days for the international community.
Of all the difficult issues around the world, the situation in the middle east is of the greatest immediate concern. Many civilians have been killed. The crisis threatens all our hopes for wider peace and security in the region. Many thousands of British nationals and dual nationals have been caught up in the midst of this violence. Understandably, many are worried about their safety and anxious to leave, and I will say a little more about that, if I may, later.
I want to begin, however, by reminding us all of the course of recent events, because that context informs our decisions and approach to a situation that has its underlying roots in the events and decisions of past decades. A year or so ago, a period of at least comparative calm—I understand that it is called “tahdia”—was said to exist in Israel and Palestine. Israel withdrew its forces and settlers from Gaza, and although the calm was punctuated by continuing Qassam rocket attacks on Israel, overall levels of violence were significantly down. The new President of Palestine began to establish himself, and almost six months ago the Palestinian people gave a mandate to the representatives of Hamas. That led to demands and pressure from all sides for Hamas to adopt the Quartet’s three principles: to renounce violence, to recognise Israel, and to make a commitment to the road map.
At the beginning of last month, Prime Minister Olmert visited the United States and the United Kingdom. During our discussions and in his public statements, he made it clear that he would be prepared to work for a negotiated settlement with any genuine Palestinian partner for peace. A month ago, on 22 June in Jordan, President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert met for the first time in over a year. President Abbas had also just scheduled a meeting with Hamas Prime Minister Haniya.
Those were tentative but, I think, important signs of progress. However, Palestinian extremists began again to step up rocket attacks on Israel, and the Israelis to respond with artillery fire. Tragically—as the House will probably remember—a family of seven Palestinians was killed on a beach in Gaza. It was in that situation of substantially heightened tensions that Palestinian militants tunnelled into Israel, killed two soldiers and abducted a third. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that that was a deliberate attempt to destroy those first small signs of a move towards dialogue.
This was the deteriorating and already dangerous background against which Hezbollah chose to cross into Israel, kill eight Israeli soldiers and kidnap two more, deliberately pouring petrol on an already burning bonfire. I find it impossible to see that action as anything other than a calculated attempt by extremist forces massively to destabilise the region further, without the slightest regard for the potential impact of their actions on the people of Lebanon.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): I entirely agree with the points that my right hon. Friend has made. There can be no doubt that Hezbollah started the conflict. Does my right hon. Friend not agree, however, that Israel’s response—300 Lebanese civilians dead, 1,000 injured, a third of them children, and half a million people displaced—is utterly disproportionate?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is aware, I know, that from the outset we have urged on all parties that they should act proportionately, and that they should do everything possible to avoid civilian violence. I regret—as, I know, does my hon. Friend, along with, probably, the whole House—the killing and injuring of, in particular, civilians in Lebanon, in Gaza or in Israel itself. Our main objective must be to establish what can be done to ameliorate the situation.
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con): Will the Foreign Secretary answer the question that she has just been asked? Does she believe that the action taken by the Israeli Government in Lebanon, which, initially, was understandable as a response to terrorism, is proportionate or disproportionate?
Margaret Beckett: I can only repeat what I have already said. From the beginning we have urged restraint on Israel, and we continue to do so. From the beginning we have urged Israel—which, of course, argues that it is trying to degrade Hezbollah’s ability to continue to attack it—not only to show restraint, but to take every care to avoid civilian casualties.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): I have no illusions whatever about the Iranian-backed groups that are causing so much damage to Israel at the moment, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the strong possibility that the lack of forceful condemnation from the United States and Britain of what Israel is doing in retaliation—the number of casualties, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock); the children who are being bombed, killed and seriously injured—constitutes an encouragement to Israel to continue what it is doing?
Margaret Beckett: No. I say to my hon. Friend, and to those in all parts of the House who I know share some of his concerns, that no one—no one at all—is encouraging a continuation of the conflict, either on the Palestinian side, in Hezbollah, or in Israel. My hon. Friend may have noticed that the G8 statement called on all parties to try to create the conditions for a ceasefire. The European Union Foreign Ministers’ statement last Monday also called for a cessation of violence.
I can assure my hon. Friend that no one is encouraging a continuation of violence. What everyone is trying to do in their different ways—and people will disagree with some of the ways that are being chosen, whoever is doing it and whatever they are doing—is make an appallingly dangerous situation less dangerous.
Mr.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): That really will not do as
an explanation. Everyone understands that
the United States has sent an implicit signal to Israel that she has a
period in which to try to deal with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Israel’s strategy in trying to do that is as we see it on our
television screens, and as witnessed by the people of
Lebanon.
Margaret Beckett: I do not accept that, although I understand the argument. I hear and I read and I am familiar—from before I became Foreign Secretary—with the fact that people impute all sorts of actions and motives to the Government of the United States, as they do, indeed, to our Government, whether in partnership or complicity with the US or on our own. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that, on the basis of many conversations, I know that everyone wishes to see the violence diminished and ceased. All kinds of ideas are floating around—I shall refer to one or two of them later—and all sorts of initiatives are being taken to find a way out of the situation for the parties engaged in it. However, one of simplest imaginable ideas—it has no complications and the detail does not have to be worked through—is for those who kidnapped the soldiers to release them.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): Everything that my right hon. Friend says makes sense and I would not dissent from her analysis of the origins of the conflict, but is it not just a tiny bit shameful that, although we rightly condemn Hezbollah for what it has done, we can find nothing stronger than the word “regret” to describe the slaughter, misery and mayhem unleashed by Israel on a fragile country such as Lebanon?
Margaret Beckett: I hope that my hon. Friend will have noticed—I think that he will, because he is a fair-minded as well as highly intelligent man—that although I have stringently condemned Hezbollah for wantonly and without the smallest fig leaf of an excuse choosing to make an already bad situation infinitely worse, I have tried to be relatively proportionate in what I have said about all other players.
Several hon. Members rose—
Margaret Beckett: I have already given way four or five times and many Members want to speak. I propose to make further progress with my speech before giving way again. Otherwise, I am mindful that the entire debate will run out of time even before I—let alone anyone else—have finished speaking.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—I know that he will accept my assurance, however much he disagrees with what I am doing or saying—that I am striving in every way I can to act effectively to bring about the position that he desires. I will continue to act in the way that I believe is most likely to be effective, which is not always the way that people would wish me to act.
As the whole
House knows, Hezbollah does not act alone. Behind it and, I am afraid,
lending it support and direction are Syria and Iran. Syria finances
Hezbollah and facilitates the transfer of weapons, including thousands
of missiles that appear to be supplied by Iran. Against that difficult
and dangerous background, the focus of the international community
must surely be on what action can be taken to bring about a durable
ceasefire. First and foremost, while attempts are made to create the
conditions for a ceasefire, the international community must strive to
ease the suffering of civilian populations caught up in the
fighting.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): Recognising that Hezbollah arose out of the consequences of the invasion of Lebanon by the Israelis in 1982, is not my right hon. Friend concerned about what might arise this time, especially if we dilly-dally over a ceasefire and are slow to provide the conditions for Lebanon to get back on its feet?
Margaret Beckett: I can assure my hon. Friend that everyone is aware of the many and varied disasters that could follow from these events. There are all sorts of potential outcomes, hardly any of them good. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South a few moments ago—that the Government are trying to do everything that they can to improve the situation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Margaret Beckett: I am not giving way for the moment, as I have already said that I want to make some progress.
The European Union could play a particularly important role in humanitarian action, and I urged that on my colleagues at the General Affairs Council on Monday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has agreed to provide £2 million in immediate humanitarian assistance to Lebanon. His Department is also arranging for two humanitarian advisers and one reconstruction adviser to be sent to the region as soon as access becomes possible. The EU has also pledged €10 million in humanitarian assistance.
Secondly, we must continue to step up our diplomatic efforts. The UN Secretary- General’s special envoy to the region, Vijay Nambiar, will report back to the UN Security Council today. In addition, the EU’s high representative, Javier Solana, has visited the region twice and we hope that he will continue those efforts. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been in repeated contact with Prime Minister Siniora and with Prime Minister Olmert, and both my right hon. Friend and I have been in contact with many others in the region and across the globe.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): When the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy reports to the UN later today, will the British Government support a call for an immediate ceasefire? People in this country see what is happening on their television screens and they want to see our Government taking a lead in the international community and doing everything that they can to stop the violence on all sides now, immediately and with no qualifications.
Margaret
Beckett: I can assure my hon. Friend not only that we are
taking a lead, but that we are doing
everything we can to try to bring an end to the violence. With regard to
our response to the special envoy’s report, my hon. Friend will
have to forgive me if I wait to hear it before I
respond.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): The Prime Minister, in his statement on the G8 summit, refused to say whether we would recall our ambassador from Damascus for discussions. Given the consensus that the Foreign Secretary clearly has with the Prime Minister that the Syrians are implicated with Hezbollah, why cannot we take that simple step?
Margaret Beckett: We could do that, and I understand and respect the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However, I go back to my acid test, and I do not think that it would help. At present, we would rather have our ambassador in Damascus, able to convey our point of view.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Does my right hon. Friend agree that Hezbollah should be condemned for placing its munitions in densely populated areas, and does she agree that that is the main reason for the high level of civilian casualties as Israel tries to defend its population?
Margaret Beckett: I am well aware of both the assertion that that is part of the problem and the concern that such activities cause on all sides. I take entirely my hon. Friend’s position—
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Many of us recall the admirably balanced statement made by the Minister for the Middle East on Monday when he said that
“we must impress on the Israelis the international rules of conflict. When civilians are killed and the terrible phrase “collateral damage” is used to describe what is seen as a legitimate attack, the impression given across the middle eastand the world is not a good one.”
“We certainly expect Israel to abide by international law and we are totally opposed to collective punishment.”—[ Official Report, 17 June 2006; Vol. 449, c. 28-32.]
Is that still the Government’s position, and, if so, will the Foreign Secretary say so out loud? Otherwise, the great fear is that disproportionate action by Israel will invite exactly the same sort of response in future years by terrorists who wish to promote instability in the region.
Margaret
Beckett: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman paying tribute to
my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, because he did
extremely well on Monday. Of course, the views and concerns he
expressed remain the view of the Government. I will go further and say
to the hon. Gentleman what I have said in several forums, including to
representatives of the Government of Israel, that it seems that, apart
from in very few quarters, there is a really widespread recognition and
acceptance that these particular events—and their scale, with
regard to Lebanon especially—were precipitated by a wanton act
of destruction by Hezbollah. It is a very unusual position for Israel
to be in for almost everybody to say that there was no excuse for
Hezbollah’s action and it made an
already bad situation worse. That offers the Government and the people
of Israel a window of opportunity to make their case about the nature
and scale of the attack and the undermining that they are facing. In
the many conversations that I have had with representatives of that
Government, I have made the point that Israel could close that window
of opportunity, which would be a
pity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Margaret Beckett: If colleagues will forgive me, I had better progress a little further.
We should also take forward the G8 proposal for the United Nations Secretary-General to develop a plan to implement in full Security Council resolution 1559. The core of any such plan would be to enable the Lebanese Government and their armed forces to establish their authority throughout the country, in particular in the south. Such a plan is likely to require a different sort of international military presence from the present UN force, UNIFIL, to give direct support to the Lebanese army and to help with the disarming of militias, including Hezbollah.
So our goals are twofold: the earliest possible end to hostilities, including the release of the kidnapped soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon, and a process that will enable the Lebanese Government and their armed forces to take full control of the country, with international monitors. Long-term stability will be possible only if Syria and Iran end their interference in Lebanese internal affairs in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I am grateful to the Secretary of State; she is giving a measured response in her speech. What offer of hope can she give today to the thousands of British people and their families—and those for whom we are responsible—who are caught up in the war zone and would like to leave immediately? They need a message of hope and reassurance that they will be looked after, even though that is a very big task.
Margaret Beckett: I never suspected the right hon. Gentleman of having psychic powers, but that is exactly the point to which I was about to turn. However, before I do, I shall give way to a few more Members.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I thank the Secretary of State for her comments in respect of what the Government wish to see. Why would they not wish to see a ceasefire without the return of the soldiers?
Margaret Beckett: Everyone wants to see a cessation of violence as soon as possible. Many of the other routes that one could urge—the international community is urging them, and exploring and trying to develop them, and looking at the detail—will take time. It will be complicated and difficult to work them out and to pursue them. Releasing kidnapped soldiers is not difficult at all, and takes no time at all.
Mr.
Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South) (Lab): I am sure that my
right hon. Friend is aware that there is
public concern. Many people do not understand that we have a weak
Lebanese Government that everyone is trying to support, but at the same
time it seems that Israel has gone over the top and is destroying that
Government. Therefore, what is happening could be counterproductive, no
matter how many resolutions we have.
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right that one of the concerns that is felt throughout the international community—in Israel, too, I believe—is that no one wishes the Lebanese Government to be undermined, and everyone recognises the importance of the continuation of a democratic Government in Lebanon, not least in the interests of Israel itself. The Government share the concern that my hon. Friend expresses; it is one of the anxieties in our mind.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab): If we are asking the Lebanese Government to implement UN Security Council resolution 1559 and we expect them to do things that the UN Security Council has asked, should we not make equivalent demands on the Government of Israel, who have ignored Security Council resolutions for years? If we are trying to have a balanced approach to this problem, it is false to equate the actions of an organisation such as Hezbollah with those of a state; one expects completely different standards of behaviour from a state that is a member of the United Nations.
Margaret Beckett: I can only say to my hon. Friend that when I looked at the part of my speech that refers to United Nations resolutions, I knew that someone would get up and mention 20 others that various sides are in breach of. Of course I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed; it is a point of view that I have heard expressed often in this House. However, I say to him, with the greatest respect, that one of the reasons I stated at the outset of my speech that I proposed to try to curtail my remarks to the immediate context of the events we are discussing is that I am aware—I do not say this as any kind of criticism—of how deep-seated is the history of all such events. I know that many angers and anxieties have been expressed, and that various resolutions have and have not been observed. We could go on for weeks considering these issues, but at the moment, there is one of the worst and most dangerous crises in the middle east that we have seen for a very long time. That is why I am trying to concentrate on what might be done to ease that specific facet of what I totally accept is a complex and difficult problem.
Several hon. Members rose—
Margaret Beckett: I am sorry but I must move on.
The right hon.
Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked about British
families and of course, many thousands of British nationals and their
families have been directly affected by the violence in Lebanon.
Embassy and consular staff have been working flat out to organise the
evacuation of those British nationals who want to leave
Lebanon—that, of course, is not all of them—as quickly
and as safely as possible. A Foreign Office rapid deployment team flew
out to Beirut last Saturday, and another is in Cyprus
helping to support British nationals arriving there. There are 73
additional staff on the ground in Cyprus and in Beirut, and that number
will rise to 109 by Thursday. The majority of the staff are from the
Foreign Office, but they also include immigration officers, members of
the Red Cross and medical personnel.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): To give some hope to the thousands of families who are worried, I point out that the Foreign Office has been fantastic in providing information to a constituent of mine—I am pleased to say that he boarded a ship this morning—and his family. The accuracy of that information, which was provided in the most difficult circumstances, was of the highest level. This House should put on the record our thanks to the staff on the ground and to the Ministry of Defence for the work that they have done, which has given real hope to families such as those whom the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) mentioned, who are understandably very concerned about their loved ones.
Margaret Beckett: As my hon. Friend and the whole House will know, we normally hear only from those who feel that public servants have failed them—that is perfectly understandable; I do not point this out as a criticism—so I am genuinely extremely grateful to him for that intervention. I know that what he says is true, and that his comments will be much appreciated by those who have volunteered to engage in this work.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Margaret Beckett: If I may, I shall make a little progress first.
Sixty-three of the most vulnerable British nationals were evacuated on Monday 17 July and a further 175 people were evacuated by HMS Gloucester on Tuesday. Yesterday, a further 863 people left on HMS York and HMS Gloucester, but today we hope to evacuate even larger numbers. HMS Bulwark, which was expected to dock in Beirut this morning, can take up to 2,000 people, and we have other ships standing by. Our teams in Cyprus have arranged for those who wish to continue back to the United Kingdom to fly home, and where necessary we have chartered special aircraftto do that. We are co-ordinating closely across government to support those who arrive back in the United Kingdom.
We are also aware that approximately 100 British nationals and British dual nationals are still in south Lebanon. We are in touch with some of them and are trying to contact others, but at the moment it is too dangerous to travel south to try to get them out. A United Nations ferry has been allowed into Tyre and has picked up many foreign nationals; we are urgently seeking to confirm how many of them are British nationals. Ten British nationals left Sidon yesterday in a bus convoy and should be evacuated to Cyprus today. We are working with our EU partners to get all EU nationals who want to leave out of south Lebanon as quickly and safely as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Margaret Beckett: I give way first to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer).
Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. She will have seen in the recent Intelligence and Security Committee report that one of its priorities is Iranian-backed terrorism. She will have also seen yesterday’s comment by Hezbollah that it is preparing to unleash its forces in America and Europe. What is the Foreign Secretary’s view of Iranian-backed terrorism inside this country?
Margaret Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman says, there are indeed concerns about the scale and nature of terrorism in this country, and about whether some of that is inspired or funded in any way by forces in and around Iran. He will know that that issue has also been a concern for our operations in, for example, Iraq. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that our security services and police are doing everything possible to monitor such flows of information and to ensure that we keep British people as safe as we reasonably can.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab): I remind my right hon. Friend that other people want to go in the other direction. Earlier today, we met a senior Lebanese Member of Parliament who is very active with the Lebanese-British Friendship Society but who cannot return home because the conflict means that there is no airport for him to fly into. His perception is that Israel has been given a free hand to destroy Lebanon. I consider that to be a very serious accusation indeed, and he also described the very bad humanitarian situation that has developed already. Why cannot this House—today and with no preconditions—call for a ceasefire on all sides?
Margaret Beckett: I am very sorry to learn about the concerns that my right hon. Friend has expressed, and entirely take her point that some people are trapped in this country rather than in Lebanon. I take very seriously what she says about the concern expressed by the gentleman to whom she referred, and I completely understand why he should make the observations that she has reported, given his perspective on the situation and what he is seeing and hearing in this country. I can only repeat what I said earlier—that the Government have no wish or desire for the events in Lebanon to continue for a second longer than is necessary, but that the people with the simplest levers in their hands are those who hold the kidnapped soldiers.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): Has there been any discussion with the Israeli authorities about what they can do to give proper guarantees that British nationals, and members of the international community more generally, will not come under Israeli fire during this very difficult withdrawal period?
Margaret
Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to how
we are trying to ensure people’s safety, but there are all sorts
of different problems. One is how safety is affected when the bombs and
bullets are flying, but there are other, more mundane difficulties. For
example, the vessels that we are sending are the
right ones for the job—and it has been a source of great
reassurance for many to be told that the Royal Navy was on its way to
collect them—but by their very nature they are high-sided
vessels. That is just one of the considerations that we must take into
account, but I assure him that the concerns that he raises have for
many days been part of the dialogue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Margaret Beckett: I apologise, but I shall not give way. I have been on my feet for half an hour already and am very mindful that many colleagues wish to speak in the debate.
The evacuation is a massive operation. To remove thousands of civilians by sea from a country that is under naval blockade and subject to aerial bombardment is a difficult and complex task. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) just indicated, the safety of British nationals has been our paramount concern throughout.
It has never been simply a question of asking people to turn up at the docks and wait for a ship. Indeed, it would obviously be irresponsible to move large numbers of people around Beirut if, by so doing so, we put them in greater danger. That is why we have conducted this evacuation in phases, each carefully planned and co-ordinated with countries in the region and with our international partners. The whole House will join me in paying tribute again to staff from my Department, to the armed forces and to all the others who are working so hard to make the operation run smoothly.
I know that the House is likely to concentrate in the debate on the immediate crisis, but I ought to take this opportunity to report on a further difficult issue that engages the Government—Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology.
On 8 May in New York, the E3 plus 3 decided to prepare a full and comprehensive set of proposals that would support Iran’s declared desire for modern civil nuclear power, while also addressing international concerns. We all believed that, in its own interests and those of the wider international community, Iran should heed the repeated calls from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors for a suspension of activities related to uranium enrichment and reprocessing, and come to the negotiating table to find a diplomatic solution.
That extended package of proposals was finalised in Vienna on 1 June and presented by the EU high representative, Javier Solana, in Tehran a few days later. He conveyed the agreed view of the E3 plus 3 that we would endeavour speedily to address any queries or concerns and hoped for an early response.
That was over six weeks ago. Iranian Government members have repeatedly told the news media that there are ambiguities in the proposals or that they raise questions that will need to be answered. A large number of attempts were made to arrange meetings at which any questions and ambiguities could be addressed, but those proposed meetings were rejected, including the cancelling of a proposed meeting on 5 July at the last minute and, apparently, for no good reason.
Finally, a meeting was arranged for 11 July. The Iranian negotiator, Ali Larijani, met Javier Solana and E3 and Russian officials. However, he raised no issues of substance and said that he was unable either to give a response to our proposals or even to indicate when Iran may be able to do so.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |