Westminster Hall
Wednesday 24 June 2009
[Mr. Martin Caton in the Chair]
Middle East
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Lyn Brown.)
9.30 am
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con): It is a pleasure to have you presiding over our proceedings, Mr. Caton. I welcome the Minister to his new role and wish him well in it. I am reminded of Vera Lynn’s “We’ll Meet Again”, because we come together every few years. I look forward to what he has to say on this important subject.
The middle east may not be our near geographical neighbour, but we cannot escape from our involvement in the region. That can be seen throughout history with the magnificent crusader castles across Syria, our support for the Arab revolts against the Ottoman empire, the founding of the state of Israel, and the construction and subsequent loss of the Suez canal. The list could go on.
This is not a moment to discuss the merits of the recent invasion of Iraq. Suffice it to say that it impaired a number of our relationships in the region. Today, violence on the streets of Gaza inflames passions on the streets of our country. Whether we like it or not, we cannot escape from the realities of our past and current involvement. In that, we are blessed with outstanding diplomats, whose knowledge of the middle east is unsurpassed. When their judgments have been ignored, it has led inevitably to difficulties for us.
In the past few weeks, we have seen extraordinarily successful and peaceful elections in Lebanon, an inspiring speech in Cairo by President Obama, post-election turmoil in Iran and Bibi Netanyahu implicitly acknowledging the problems brought by the growth of settlements.
I should like to concentrate on Syria, which has been remarkably stable in the past decade under a new and younger President. At no stage in the long history of the region could Syria sensibly have been ignored. I declare an interest as a director of the British Syrian Society, which seeks at all levels to build up our bilateral relationship. I pay particular tribute to two individuals who dedicated themselves so successfully to that task, Dr. Fawaz Akhras and the late Sir David Gore-Booth, who was a distinguished diplomat.
Having spoken out against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Syria strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In expressing the notion of an axis of evil, the United States took a hostile view of Syria. It was widely believed by Syrians that America would invade them, too. There is no doubt that jihadis crossed from Syria into Iraq across a long border that is difficult to police. It was a source of fury that some of those individuals may have been directly or indirectly responsible for the loss of life among coalition forces.
A second source of criticism of Syria stems from the civil war in Lebanon, after which Syrian military forces were invited to help restore order. In time, their role
became resented by key players in Lebanese political life, who believed that there was inordinate interference in the domestic, political and economic life of the country.
A third source of criticism is the ties between Syria and Iran, which rose initially out of a shared fear and dislike of Saddam Hussein. Although they may have close trading and economic ties, Iran is a theocratic state, whereas Syria is constitutionally secular. Different religious groupings co-exist extremely well in Syria and Islamic fundamentalism is simply not tolerated. A final source of criticism is Syria’s support— shared by Iran—of Hezbollah and Hamas, with their terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens.
The central thesis of my remarks is that those important issues must be put in context or updated to reflect current realities in a continuing process of mutual exploration between our two countries.
A chunk of Syria—the Golan heights—is illegally occupied by Israel. The area holds no strategic value for Israel. In 2000, the late President Hafez Assad came close to a deal with Israel that included the return of the Golan heights and a clear recognition of the state of Israel. Israel continues to have concerns about Iranian and Syrian support for Hezbollah. However, it is noteworthy how acquiescent Hezbollah was when Israel invaded Gaza.
Also noteworthy is that Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah fully accepted the results of the recent Lebanese elections. It has been a fundamental view of Syria that Hezbollah is a political reality in Lebanon and that it should be seen as such. Latterly, it has worked hard to encourage change in the political topography of Lebanon to entrench Hezbollah as part of the democratic political process. Relations between Syria and virtually all Lebanese political leaders have improved dramatically with many ministerial visits and the exchange of ambassadors, which was inconceivable until recently.
Syria was told that its role in the lead-up to the Lebanese elections would be observed carefully. The outcome was beyond everybody’s expectations. I am pleased that our Government, including our ambassador in Beirut, have met with the political arm of Hezbollah, thus recognising its electoral legitimacy.
I have said many times to Israeli friends that a core impetus to Hezbollah’s military activities would be changed if Israel returned the Golan heights to Syria. Without that, there will be no comprehensive and enduring sense of security for Israel on its northern border. The Turkish Government sought to broker talks between the two countries. We wait to see whether Syria’s offer to reopen talks with Israel will be taken up by Mr. Netanyahu. His Foreign Affairs Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has so far explicitly rejected discussion of the Golan heights, but these are early days.
No hon. Member can have failed to be concerned about the recent events in Iran.
Mr. Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): I hear what my hon. Friend says about the importance of bringing peace on Israel’s northern border, particularly with respect to the Golan issue. Does he agree that hon. Members from all parties must encourage the Israeli Government to engage with Syria, whether through a Turkish intermediary or any other intermediary, because talking is better than not talking?
Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done to develop that argument. I am sure that he will agree that although a comprehensive settlement in the region would be desirable, that is presenting huge difficulties, not least because of the seemingly irreconcilable tensions between Fatah and Hamas. It would be a shame if that was a major stumbling block or distraction to a Syrian track, because it is in Israel’s interest to have the security to which he alluded. We should encourage the Israelis to consider the Syrian offer to continue the exploration, brokered by the Turks.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been no ministerial visit to Iran for about six years. Does he agree that now might be the time for the Foreign Secretary to go over there to strengthen our dialogue and engagement with Iran, so that we can stop the worrying escalation? Jaw-jaw is better than the alternative. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a risk worth taking?
Mr. Spring: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the long-term significance of a relationship between Iran and the United Kingdom. However, at a moment when two of our diplomats have just been expelled from Tehran for no reason—apparently, the British Government are behind the protests on the streets of Tehran, which is an interesting take on events—the British Government are absolutely right in the circumstances to react by expelling two diplomats from London. Although we hope that calm will prevail in the long run and that logic will enter into the equation, I do not agree with the timing suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the question of the Golan, which he mentioned earlier? He referred to the Golan heights. We all refer to the area as that, but in so doing, we minimise its importance. It is an 1,800 sq km plateau, where the rainfall is higher than in Damascus. It is of great strategic significance. There are more than 346,000 displaced persons from the Golan, but that is often treated almost as a side issue to achieving a comprehensive middle east peace. The area is about more than that; it is absolutely central—strategically for Syria in terms of natural resources and other things, but also in terms of doing right by those 346,000 displaced persons.
Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the humanitarian aspect. I certainly know individuals whose family origins lie in the Golan heights. Of course, the humanitarian tragedies that abound in the region are what we are seeking to address. That applies on all sides of the equation. Although the Golan heights are occupied, I do not think that even people in the Israel defence forces regard them as strategically significant. However, the matter will sour the relationship between Syria and Israel, which is why some sort of solution to the problem—a solution was nearly arrived at in 2000—could take the whole process forward. I hope that the new Government in Israel will see the matter in those terms because the flow of the issue into the Hezbollah argument, with which the hon. Gentleman will be very familiar, means that it is important to Israel’s own long-term security to address the problem.
As I mentioned, there have been extraordinary events in Iran in the past few weeks, and there are concerns about the views of senior Iranian figures. The truth of the matter is that Iran unreservedly supports Hezbollah and Hamas. As I said, it is in Israel’s vital strategic interest to seek to minimise the impact of Iran’s stated aim to export Islamic revolution in the form expressed. Israel enjoys workable relations with Egypt and Jordan—that should be the role model—and it should seek to develop a pragmatic relationship with its northern neighbours. Syria has made its position clear: a return of the Golan heights is part of a full normalisation of relations. Israel should simply road test that offer without delay. If successful, the prize would be to enhance its own security and stability, although much work would have to be done and, of course, much reassurance needs to be given.
At different times, Syria has had poor relations with other Arab countries. However, that is no longer the case. The Syria-Saudi Arabia relationship is particularly important, and is back on track. There have been a number of welcome ministerial exchanges between Baghdad and Damascus. The criticism of the border crossings, to which I alluded, has substantially evaporated and help has been given to Syria to achieve that. Exploration of greater commercial ties between Syria and Iraq continues to take place.
Two other facets of Syrian life bear examination. Syria has developed a culture that is unique in the region, perhaps because its history has been marked by so many invasions and occupiers—from the Romans and the Persians, to the Umayyads, the Ottomans and the French. More than a century ago, Gertrude Bell wrote about that with amazement in her diaries. The Grand Mufti of Syria radiates a generosity of spirit and understanding, which personifies the attitudes of the Muslim majority to the religious minorities.
I welcome the recent official visit to London by the Syrian Minister of Religious Affairs to discuss Syria’s approach to key sensitive matters, including countering radicalisation. It is worth noting that the aim of what was, from every possible viewpoint, an important visit was to represent the Syrian model of moderate Islam, which combats terrorism and rejects extremism. The visit resulted in an offer to send a group of Muslim scholars to lecture at the Islamic centres in the United Kingdom on moderate Islam as practised in Syria. The visit also drew on Syria’s willingness to train British imams in Syria according to a curriculum approved by the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Religious Affairs in Syria has indicated a willingness to teach British students who want to study Arabic and sharia for four years at the international institute for Arabic and sharia, so that they can become advocates of moderation.
I say to the Minister that at a time when relationships are very fractious and we have seen a most disagreeable increase in Islamophobia and, indeed, anti-Semitism in our country, it is precisely through such moderation and contact that Syria can play a valuable role. I know the Minister will welcome that visit and the return visit that took place to Syria by British Muslims to discuss messages of peace from Islam. That collective generosity of spirit has enabled about 1 million Iraqis, a significant number of whom are Christians, to find sanctuary in Syria, which is a huge burden on a country of some 20 million.
Refugee children go to school free up to the 12th grade and medical care is available on the same basis as it is to the local population. This year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees launched an appeal for $150 million. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how Britain is assisting in what the UNHCR has described to me as—this is well known to be the case—an internationally under-recognised refugee crisis, which, of course, arises directly out of our invasion of Iraq.
It is gratifying that, after a long period, relations between Syria and Britain have improved considerably. I hope that the Minister will go there soon, as his predecessor and the Foreign Secretary have done. Of course, Opposition parties—including my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—initiated a dialogue some time before. Many European politicians have now visited Damascus.
There continue to be attempts to liberalise and modernise the Syrian economy through banking and investment code reforms and the establishment of a fledgling stock exchange. Since 2005, the EU-Syria association agreement has been frozen. It is hoped that, finally, the agreement will be signed this year, which will encourage trade flows between Europe and Syria and the lowering of any tariff barriers. That will compel and encourage the Syrian Government to bring forward further reforms, especially at a time of diminishing oil reserves.
There is now open discussion about the transfer of gas via Syria and Turkey from some of the main gas producers to the east and Qatar. There is concern throughout Europe about increasing dependence on Russian gas supplies. An opportunity is presenting itself to diversify supply to the Mediterranean, and the strategic significance of that is obvious. In the end, real movement in the region will be brought about by focused US involvement. The Obama Administration seem to have made a concerted effort to follow a fresh approach to the region in particular and the Islamic world in general. Numerous visits to Damascus by US Government representatives signal that engagement, and the involvement of George Mitchell, who played such a significant role in Northern Ireland, is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the US currently has no ambassador in Damascus, and a wholly counter-productive boycott is still in place. Of course, concerns remain about human rights violations in a number of Arab countries, and controversy surrounds the access of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Syria.
I shall conclude by coming back to where I started. Many of the criticisms of Syria during the past decade now appear to be out of date. In the right circumstances, Syria could help to unlock a whole series of huge challenges—whether in relation to the security of Israel, the actions of Hezbollah or Hamas, or through its long-standing relationship with Iran. The terms “dialogue” and “road test” once again spring to mind. Our bilateral relationship is far from perfect, but we can play a part in trying to make continuing progress. In so doing, we would fulfil our historic engagement in the region, which, regrettably, has become so lamentably absent, greatly to our country’s cost.
9.49 am
Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe) (Con): I shall be extremely brief, Mr. Caton.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on obtaining this extremely important debate. He concentrated necessarily on Syria and Britain’s strategic interests abroad. He also touched on Britain’s security interests at home, and it is that point that I would like briefly to amplify.
It is undeniable that the main threat to our domestic security at present comes from those who mistakenly claim and exercise violent extremism in the name of Islam. As the House has repeatedly heard, I have a particular interest in this issue as the Conservative Member with the largest number and proportion of Muslim constituents.
It is important to appreciate that Syria is, in strictly religious terms, an extremely moderate place, as my hon. Friend said—he has great experience of the country—and, on the Islamic map worldwide, it is important as the heartland of traditional classical Islam.
Syria is important for three reasons. First, as my hon. Friend said, it contains Damascus, which is an important historical site and the home of the Umayyad dynasty. Secondly, it is the home of many well-known ulema and scholars such as Ahmad Hassoun, the Grand Mufti, whom my hon. Friend referred to, Dr. Mohammed al-Buti, Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi and others. Those names may not be well known to us, but they are well known to British Muslims who have an abiding interest in what scholars and ulema in the Arab world have to say. Thirdly, Syria is a centre of a classical Islamic world view that is fundamentally at odds with the modern conception of a sharia state, particularly one that is brought into being by violence.
Given all that, and despite political difficulty, I have three quick questions for the Minister. In essence, they follow up what my hon. Friend said. First, given how seriously many British Muslims take the scholarship and expertise of Syrian ulema and scholars, will there be opportunities to bring some of those scholars here, perhaps as part of a radical middle-way programme or something like it? Secondly, in reverse, will there be opportunities in the future to take British imams and scholars to Syria? I understand—my hon. Friend referred briefly to this—that the Quilliam Foundation and others recently went to Syria for theological and political discussions that I gather were very lively.
Finally, what opportunities does the Minister see for British students to go to Syria to study the traditional classical Islam that is so much at odds with the violent extremism that is a threat to our security and to the security of other countries, too?
9.53 am
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): I had not intended to speak other than to intervene in the debate, Mr. Caton, but perhaps I could ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on just a couple of points.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |