Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-208)
DR. KIM
HOWELLS MP, SIMON
MCDONALD
CMG AND DR.
PETER GOODERHAM
14 MARCH 2007
Q200 Chairman: You are talking about
Islam in the round. One point that I would make is that we have
Shi'a Islam, and extremist groups within it such as Hezbollah,
and linked to them the Iranians and the Sunni extremist groups
that are killing Shi'as in Iraq and would do so elsewhere, as
well as the power struggle between different Shi'a groups that
we face in Basra. Is it not an oversimplification and therefore
unhelpful to use generalist concepts like "arcs of extremism"?
Dr. Howells: Yes; I think it is
unhelpful. It neither defines the problem nor does it help us
come up with solutions. I have all kinds of meetings in this country
and elsewhere as part of our Muslim outreach programme, and there
is a great deal of resentment about the generalisations that we
tend to indulge in. People want the respect of it being recognised
that they have a vision of the world and a set of values that
should not be smeared with the activities of fanatics and murderers.
Q201 Chairman: The Prime Minister
said recently that he wanted to create an alliance of moderation
against the arc of extremism. I am interested to know which countries
you think are part of that alliance of moderation. For example,
would it include Saudi Arabia? As your human rights report states,
it has an appalling human rights record, but do you regard it
as a moderate country?
Dr. Howells: I can only answer
that by saying that what I understand the Prime Minister to mean
when he talks of moderation includes stability. If you are asking
me whether I think that that mode of Government or that set of
beliefs is the right one, I would probably say that I do not,
because I am a heart and soul democrat—and a first past
the post man at that.
Q202 Andrew Mackinlay: And a member
of the Flat Earth Society.
Dr. Howells: I have to have it
proved to me that the world is round—I am certainly a sceptic.
What I am saying is that one of the earlier
questions was about Egypt and its worries about what the Muslim
Brotherhood might do, for example. It was a real shock to me when
I came into this job and went to Algeria for the first time. I
could not understand the coolness and reluctance of the Algerians
to embrace every idea that we had. Stupidly, I had not read about
what had happened to Algeria since 1989. I had not realised that
160,000 Algerians had died at the hands of terrorists as a consequence
of the Algerian Government's refusal to recognise the outcome
of a democratic election and was not aware of the tactics that
were used by some reprehensible people and some pretty awful groups.
Those lessons are not lost on the Middle East.
They look at those examples very carefully and might say, "Give
us the stability that we have now rather than move on." However,
that cannot be accepted as a static position that will last for
ever, because sometimes those countries are run by appalling fascist
dictatorships like Saddam Hussein and his gangsters.
Q203 Richard Younger-Ross: I am pleased
that you disagreed with the Prime Minister's use of the phrase
"arc of extremism" on the BBC.
Dr. Howells: Did I disagree with
it? Surely not.
Andrew Mackinlay: Only a few more weeks
to go.
Dr. Howells: This man is a cynic.
Andrew Mackinlay: I am getting ready
for office.
Q204 Richard Younger-Ross: Dr. Anoush
Ehteshami told the Committee that a regional forum between all
the countries in the Middle East, similar to that of the Helsinki
process, could help to reduce regional tensions. Is that something
you would agree with, and if so, is it something that has been
discussed with your European colleagues? If it has not yet been
discussed with your European colleagues, is it something that
you might discuss with them?
Dr. Howells: I am going to bring
Peter in on this in a minute, but I would like to tell you that
the bane of diplomatic life is the proliferation of conferences
and groupings.
Q205 Richard Younger-Ross: Tell us
about it.
Dr. Howells: It is absolutely
true. It has come to a point where one organisation has only to
have the notion of an idea that a conference would be good, and
suddenly you have a new grouping. I groan sometimes at that because
it is a kind of fog that rises and gets in the way of addressing
some of the most basic and simple questions. If you do not address
those questions, you tend to stumble around diplomatically and
internationally.
There are groupings in the Middle East at the
moment—the Gulf Co-operation Council is the most obvious
one, and the UN—that I would like to see play a much stronger
role in all of this. We had to look to the UN where Lebanon was
concerned. There was no one else around, really. There was talk
of NATO doing a job, but we looked to the UN to provide the lighthouse
for everyone. I tend to suspect that there are enough organisations
there.
I am glad to see that the Arab League is becoming
more involved and that it seems to have reconciled its differences
with some countries in the Middle East, and that Saudi Arabia
has decided that it is a great force and should be a force for
good in the area—diplomatically as well as in maintaining
stability. Things are changing in the Middle East and I am encouraged
by the fact that it is Middle Eastern countries themselves—Gulf
countries—that are saying, "Look, this instability
has gone on for long enough, as have the fears and worries that
we have about sectarian divides and the influence they might have
on our societies and economies". Such opinions have generated
some positive action in the region, which is a good sign. Perhaps
Peter could say something about the notion of a much wider body.
Dr. Gooderham: I think that is
an idea that has been out there for quite a while and there are
obviously parallels with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation
in Europe, but there are also big differences in terms of those
two regions. I agree with the Minister that there are existing
organisations that we hope are already starting to play a significant
role and we hope will go on to play a more significant role in
their respective areas of responsibility. To go from where we
are today to the creation of the kind of organisation that would
cover a whole region is quite ambitious and we would need to take
some steps before we get to that. However, as a long-term vision
that could help to stabilise the region, an arrangement of that
nature would clearly be beneficial.
Q206 Richard Younger-Ross: Dr. Anoush
told the Committee that such an idea rang a bell in the sense
that we are being told that the EU and Britain in particular could
play a positive role. When I visited Jerusalem and Bethlehem,
I recollect meeting an elderly Palestinian lady who said, "I'm
glad that the British are here, because they created this mess."
There is a will among some people to engage with us.
Dr. Howells: Iraq was created
in one weekend in Cairo in 1921 by Winston Churchill.
Chairman: Before we go too far, I wish
to get Eric Illsley in to ask a question that he should have asked
but did not. It relates to Iraq.
Q207 Mr. Illsley: Are you in a position
to tell us anything about the security conference that took place
in Baghdad recently? Did any prospects arise from those talks—perhaps
a future dialogue between the United States and Iran?
Simon McDonald: I attended the
Iraq neighbours meeting on Saturday 10 March in Baghdad with Dominic
Asquith, the ambassador. The meeting was an achievement for Foreign
Minister Zebari, who has been trying to get Iraq's neighbours
to come to Baghdad to discuss the range of issues that Iraq has
had with them for some time. He finally succeeded last Saturday
and got not only the neighbours but key international organisations
to attend, such as the Arab league, the UN, the Organisation of
the Islamic Conference and the P5 of the UN.
There was a good discussion and all the neighbours
said the right things about the importance of security and stability
for Iraq and their role in that. They agreed to set up three working
groups: one to focus on security, one on refugees and one on fuel
imports. Membership will be confined to the neighbours group,
but advice will be drawn in from others, including the United
Nations. There is a real programme of work there. They also agreed
that there should be meetings at a higher level, and we expect
a meeting at ministerial level perhaps as early as next month.
As you have said, Mr. Illsley, there has been
a lot of interest in the media about what was happening in the
margins. At the end of the conference, the US ambassador, who
was leading the US delegations, said that he had had businesslike,
constructive and positive working relations with the Iranian and
Syrian delegates across the conference table. He did not actually
make direct contact with them, but the basis for that was laid.
They were working in the same room, and in the margins of the
margins there was more progress with the Syrians than with the
Iranians. The Syrians indicated that they would be happy to talk
and for the Americans to go to Damascus. They would prefer talks
to be the whole agenda, but they would understand if the focus
was specifically on Iraq in the first place.
Q208 Sir John Stanley: Some of the
Committee were in Turkey in January, and we found real nervousness
and anxiety among the Turkish Government about the degree of autonomy
being sought by the Kurds in Iraq. Do you think that it will be
possible to satisfy the Kurdish community in Iraq as to the amount
of autonomy they have from the Iraqi Government, while avoiding
serious destabilisation of the Kurdish areas of southern Turkey
and perhaps triggering some very unwelcome responses by the Turkish
Government?
Dr. Howells: That is an important
question. When I was in Irbil, in Kurdish-administered Iraq, I
noticed that the Kurdish Administration were very careful always
to describe themselves first as Iraqi and then as Kurds. The best
proof of their intention to remain part of Iraq is the way in
which they have melded the very good hydrocarbon law that they
drafted in the Kurdish area with the hydrocarbon law that is being
worked on in Baghdad for the whole of Iraq. Those involved have
come together pretty well on that, which I take as an encouraging
sign.
Interestingly, as we were trying to leave Irbil,
members of the Administration were waiting for a delegation from
Basra. I had been in the oilfields in Basra, talking to the people
who worked in them, and they were very frustrated with the Baghdad
Administration's inability to get investment into the oilfields
of southern Iraq. I heard an exact echo in the Kurdish area, where
there was frustration at the inability of the Government in Baghdad
to understand and act on the requirements and aspirations of southern
Iraq and the Kurdish area. However, I never heard anybody in either
area talk about the break-up of Iraq. I found that encouraging.
Everybody seemed to recognise that it is vital that the integrity
of the borders remains and that Iraq continues as a country, rather
than becoming two, three or four countries.
So I can understand your point. This has long
been a problem for Turkey—I believe that it goes back to
1921 as well.
Simon McDonald: The Mosul agreement
of 1926.
Dr. Howells: This is why the Foreign
Office is the best in the world. I am much more confident about
the country staying together than I am concerned about its breaking
up, and that is good news for Turkey and indeed Iran and Syria,
which have substantial Kurdish populations. However, that means
the Baghdad Government must be inclusive. That is why everybody—Peter,
Simon and everybody else—has been working so hard to convince
Prime Minister al-Maliki that his prime task must be to have an
inclusive Government, not a Government who in any way encourage
sectarianism.
Chairman: On that note, I thank you,
Minister, Dr. Gooderham and Mr. McDonald. This has been an extremely
valuable session, and we have covered a lot of ground. As usual,
we have had some frank and revealing answers, and we are very
grateful.
| 
