| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Jun 2009 : Column 251WH—continued
10.20 am
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on his success in securing the debate. I pay tribute to the work that he has done throughout his time in the House of Commons to enhance and improve understanding between Syria and the United Kingdom. Members from all political parties have benefited over the years from his expertise and, indeed, his detailed understanding of the retail opportunities for western visitors to Aleppo and Damascus. He is probably the best guide that a new visitor to Syria could have, because, as he showed in his opening remarks, he understands its history and the important role that it, and Damascus in particular, plays in the religious, cultural and political history of the entire region.
I want to say a few words about economic issues, human rights and regional and foreign policy questions. I want to start, however, by welcoming the steps that the Government have taken over the past 12 months or so, and that the new United States Administration have taken, to engage with the Government of Syria. For quite a long time, my party’s view has been that nothing is to be gained from seeking to isolate the Syrian Government. Although there remain profound differences of interest and attitude between this country and Syria, our national interest has not been served by pursuing a policy of isolating Damascus, and recent history shows that such a policy has, if anything, been counter-productive. I therefore welcome the steps taken by the Foreign Secretary and the US Administration in recent months, and I wish them success.
However, it is also important that we seek engagement not simply for its own sake, but with a view to pursuing our national interests in the broadest sense of the term, and that brings me to economic development. Taking steps to strengthen the economic links between Syria and the UK will bring opportunities for our two countries. During my visit to Damascus in January, more than one senior Syrian leader clearly told me that the UK was allowing other European countries to steal a march on it in terms of involvement in developing the Syrian economy. If there are contracts and jobs going, I would like them to go to the UK, rather than to Germany, France or Italy.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): I apologise for being so late, but I was speaking at a conference, and I have come straight here. I want to follow on from my hon. Friend’s point, because I was in Damascus in April, and Deputy Prime Minister al-Dardari made absolutely the same point. Given this country’s strategic strength in financial services—notwithstanding what is happening in the world at the moment—and Syria’s ambition to make more of Damascus as a financial centre, it is key that we exploit the situation and link with Syria to ensure that our national interest is protected.
Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend puts the point very well. The welcome decision in March to reopen the Damascus securities exchange after half a century of closure was a welcome step. Such moves provide openings for the British financial services industry, and one thing that Syria will need in developing its commerce is capital.
When the Minister responds, I would be interested to hear what the Government’s attitude is towards the EU-Syria association agreement. An updated version of the agreement was initialled in December 2008, but approval awaits a decision by member states. Does Britain regard progress on that updated agreement as conditional on further improvement in political relationships between Europe and Syria, or will it be judged only on economic and commercial criteria?
There are also opportunities for the UK in public administration. Another point that was made to me in Damascus was that Syria recognises the need to improve the quality of her public administration and would be looking to this country and other western partners to help in that project. I hope that we can take advantage of such opportunities, but, again, there is an issue that I want to raise with the Government. In the fairly recent past, there have been exploratory conversations between London and Damascus about giving such assistance, but they fell foul of the theology of the Department for International Development because Syria is not one of the poorest countries in the world. Although improving the capacity of Syria’s public administration would be very much in the UK’s national interest, DFID felt that it was unable to be of assistance, and as the Minister and I know, the Foreign Office budget is not exactly overflowing with gold pieces. There is therefore an issue for the Government to consider. Offering Syria such help may accord with our national interest, but the ways of providing it are being blocked.
On human rights, the evidence of religious toleration within Syria’s overall secular framework is striking. It is at its most striking when one goes to the ancient central mosque in Damascus and sees the Christian shrine to the head of John the Baptist in the centre of the Muslim prayer hall. Although we rightly make, and should continue to make, many criticisms of Syria’s human rights record, we should applaud its record of religious toleration and the freedom that Christian Churches, in particular, have had to thrive at a time when they have been under huge pressure in much of the middle east.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) made a good point when he argued for steps to be taken to strengthen contact between Muslim religious scholars in Syria and their counterparts in the UK. When I met the Syrian Minister for Religious Affairs at the Oxford centre for Islamic studies, during his visit here, it seemed to me that he was interested in pursuing such an objective, and I hope that the Government will support that.
I hope, also, that the Minister will confirm that, while seeking better relations with Syria, the Government will not hold back from frank conversations about human rights. The 2009 Amnesty International report on Syria says that hundreds of people were arrested or detained for political reasons, that torture is still committed with impunity and that the military police in Syria were reported to have killed at least 17 detainees. We should not shrink from frank discussion with the Syrian
Government about those abuses of human rights. In addition to bilateral conversations, if institutions such as the United Nations Human Rights Council are to work, and to be more than window dressing, we must show, along with other European countries, that we are prepared to hold countries around the world, friends and adversaries alike, to account within that forum for their human rights record.
I want to talk finally about foreign and regional policy. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I hope that despite the difficulties of the past six months a way can be found to restart the talks hosted by Turkey that brought Israel and Syria, at least indirectly, into a conversation about a peace settlement and, in particular, the future of the Golan heights. Such a settlement, to which they came desperately close a few years ago, is in their strategic interest. Although anyone who considers Israeli-Syrian relations can understand the legacy of bitterness and mistrust at personal and national levels, such an agreement is in the interest of both countries.
It should be possible to achieve a deal on borders and demilitarisation arrangements, lease-back arrangements for particular peaks, and water, but other issues must be dealt with if there is to be an enduring settlement. Those involve Syria’s relationship with the Palestinians. I hope that the Syrian track will be pursued; I suspect that it will be very difficult to disentangle a Syrian track to peace talks wholly from the Palestinian peace track. Two issues will have to be addressed. The first is Syria’s relationship with Hamas. As we all know, Syria plays host to Khaled Mashal and one of the Hamas factions. I would be interested to know the Government’s assessment of whether Damascus is trying to promote Palestinian unity, because it is difficult to envisage an enduring settlement between Israel and the Palestinians without a measure of Palestinian unity. Nor do I see that such Palestinian unity and a deal, or even a path towards a deal, with Israel, will be attainable without Hamas making concrete progress towards meeting the Quartet conditions.
There have been statements in recent months and years by various Hamas leaders. Sometimes we get a message in articles and interviews in the western press that seems not to be matched by what is said in Arabic language media in Gaza or elsewhere in the Arab world. Certainly I have not yet seen anything that persuades me that Hamas has made concrete progress towards accepting the Quartet conditions. However, it is clear to me that Syria has a significant influence over Hamas. Yet at the time of the Gaza conflict, in the early weeks of this year, we were getting very clear reports that it was Mr. Mashal and his faction in Damascus who were taking the hardest line in opposing efforts to try to broker a ceasefire and truce, to bring at least an immediate end to that bloody conflict, which was costing both lives and livelihoods. We should like a report from the Government on their assessment of Syria’s policy towards Palestinian unity and the role of Hamas; and we should like to know whether the British Government are making their views clear in their conversations with the Syrian authorities.
If there is to be an enduring Israeli-Syrian settlement, the issue of arms supplies to Hezbollah across Syrian territory will have to be addressed. I find it hard to
envisage any Israeli Government of any political tradition being willing to sign up to a peace treaty with Damascus unless the issue of Hezbollah’s arms is addressed. That, in turn, means attending to issues affecting Lebanon, such as the Shebaa farms, and brings into the equation Syria’s relationship with Iran. It is welcome that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said, the Lebanese elections took place peacefully, that the outcome seems to have been accepted by all parties in Lebanon as the fair outcome of the people’s votes, and that there has not been the upsurge of violence or tension that many feared as the elections approached. I hope that that is a good augury for the future.
As to relations between Syria and Iran, I think the Government and Opposition would agree that we want fruitful engagement with Iran, but that the chances of that look, at the moment, sadly slim. Given Iran’s history and population, it is entitled to expect us to take into account legitimate national and regional interests. It is within Iran’s power to be a constructive player in the region, if it should so choose. It is sad that the current leadership seems to be turning its back on that prospect. Syria has access to the top leadership in Tehran—access that no western power enjoys. I simply ask the Minister whether the European Union or other western powers are seeking to use the Syrian channel to communicate messages to the top leadership in Tehran, as we cannot do so directly. Those conversations with Iran are so important, and the possibility of misunderstanding is so great, that even an indirect channel through Damascus is something we should be willing to use whenever possible.
10.39 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing the debate. It is four years since we jousted on what was then called the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill. All I can say is what goes around comes around. I pay tribute to him for his tremendous work over a long time in trying to improve relationships and build awareness of the common interests between the people of Syria and the people of this country. He has played a significant leadership role in that respect.
I look forward to jousting with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in our respective Front-Bench roles. I applaud the consensual tone that he took this morning. I make the same point about the contribution made by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). We are debating important and profound matters, and we should minimise party political differences whenever possible and fulfil our position responsibly and with a responsible tone.
I pay tribute to the work of the British Syrian Society and its aim to strengthen relationships at all levels of British and Syrian society. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) for drawing attention to the society’s contribution.
Today’s debate is particularly timely, given developments in the region, of which Syria is such an important part. We are seeing increasing engagement by the Obama Administration, including, as we heard, a recent visit to Damascus by Senator Mitchell. Recent elections in
Lebanon passed off smoothly, and Israel has a new Government who may be able to push forward a peace deal with Syria. For some time, the British Government have recognised the importance of the relationship between Syria and the United Kingdom, and I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk that Syria has a crucial role in ensuring peace, stability and prosperity in the middle east.
I turn to some of the specific points raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath asked how we can reach out to moderate Muslim voices, how we can encourage much closer contact between moderates in the middle east and in the UK and how we can bring scholars and young people together.
The first thing to put on record in such a debate is that those who preach hate or engage in violence represent a bastardisation of Islam, not a manifestation of it. It is incredibly important that we should say so at every opportunity. When speaking to Muslims, both here and throughout the world, we hear that the mainstream majority want us to make that point time and again.
I turn to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe. We are working closely with Syrian bodies to exchange knowledge and wisdom on the question of scholars. We look forward to continuing exchanges between Syria and the United Kingdom, and the Government will most definitely support them. The British Council has programmes on student exchanges in partnership with Syrian organisations. I and my officials will be happy to brief the hon. Gentleman, so that we can discuss in more detail how those programmes should function.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) raised an important matter. He has a long track record of speaking with great passion and commitment on the middle east, but today he raised the important question of refugees. My hon. Friend will be fully aware of our considerable assistance in Iraq. For example, the Department for International Development spent £16 million last year to support agencies working directly with refugees. The Government will continue to discuss the issue with the Syrian regime and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Future support, of course, will be a matter for DFID, which is my former Department—sadly, I can no longer make spending commitments on its behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned Christians. As we heard, Syria’s is a rich and diverse society. When considering the plight of refugees, we should focus on supporting all refugees appropriately and improving their humanitarian situation.
The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire spoke of Iran, as did the hon. Member for Aylesbury. A number of things need to be said. First, we believe that the will of the people of Iran, as expressed in the recent election, must prevail. That matter must be resolved. Secondly, it was entirely inappropriate for Iran to throw out two British diplomats during the past 48 hours; there was no justification whatever for that. Unfortunately, we have been obliged to summon the Iranian ambassador in London to the Foreign Office on three occasions during the past three days. On the first occasion, the deputy ambassador arrived. On the second two occasions, senior
Foreign Office representatives met the ambassador. At the most recent meetings, we were obliged to ask Iran to remove two of its diplomatic staff from London. That does not assist us in trying to improve the relationship between our two countries.
Some of the rhetoric deployed by Iran against the United Kingdom over the past few days is clearly and unequivocally unacceptable and undesirable, and it does nothing to help Iran’s relationship with the UK or with the rest of the international community. Indeed, during the past 24 hours, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that Iran has a choice: it can either be a part of the international community in every way—politically and economically, and from a security point of view, it is part of the solution—or it can stand aside. The consequences of the latter will clearly not be desirable to the people of Iran.
I also thank the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire and for Aylesbury for being supportive of the Government’s position and the way in which we are interacting with Iran at this difficult time.
Mr. Lidington: On behalf of the Opposition, I endorse the Minister’s remarks completely. I invite him to agree that, although it must be for Iranians to decide how Iran should be governed, it is the demands of ordinary Iranians, not foreigners, to which the Iranian Government should respond.
Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. For a Government to have legitimacy, credibility and authority, they must reflect the will of the people—otherwise, in whatever context they choose to identify themselves, theirs cannot claim to be a democratic country. That is clearly so, which is why the House must today repeat that message loudly and clearly and in a unified way.
The hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) raised the question of economic ties. I shall deal specifically with the European Union’s relationship with Syria. We welcome the steps that have been taken towards finalising the EU-Syria association agreement. For as long as Syria continues with its recent positive political developments, we are content to move forward with the association agreement.
It is clear that EU-Syria relations cannot be conducted without reference to the wider political context, particularly Syria’s commitment to the Arab peace initiative. Matters to do with democracy and, more specifically, human rights will affect Syria’s ability to trade properly or fully to take advantage of its economic opportunities and the economic challenges that the world faces. In the real world, questions of democracy and human rights cannot be separated from questions of trade and economic co-operation.
Richard Burden: My hon. Friend makes an important point about human rights affecting the ability to trade. I presume that he takes the same view of all countries in the middle east, particularly Israel. As I understand it, Government policy on the EU-Israel association agreement is that it provides a framework for encouraging progress on human rights. If that is the case for Israel, it should also be the case for Syria.
Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Further progress on the EU-Israel association agreement depends on progress in the middle east peace process, as has been made clear in the dialogue within the EU and between it and the state of Israel. The hon. Member for Aylesbury raised a point about the UK’s ability to help Syria with governance and administration issues. We shall consider any requests for such help sympathetically. Our embassy currently has a small number of civil society projects in which we work in co-operation with the Syrian Government, and I am happy to provide him with further information about those projects if that would be useful.
I think that I have dealt, more or less, with hon. Members’ specific contributions, and I now want to talk in more detail about the UK’s relationship with Syria and how we envisage the latter playing a crucial role in the middle east more generally. Our dialogue with the Syrian Government has focused on engaging with Syria, using our diplomatic tools to encourage progress in certain areas and urging a change of policy in others. However, we are realistic about the issues in our so-called critical dialogue with Syria. Our eyes are wide open and—to mix my metaphors—there is no danger of the wool being pulled over them.
That is part of a wider process. As the Foreign Secretary noted, in his recent speech on Islam in Oxford, Britain has embassies in 38 Muslim-majority countries and maintains diplomatic engagement with countries with which we have disagreements. The key point is that we seek to influence through engagement and dialogue. As part of that, last year, the Foreign Secretary visited Syria—the first British Cabinet Minister to do so since 2001—and my ministerial predecessor, who is now the Minister for the Armed Forces, visited Syria in April as part of our ongoing efforts to engage with it. I hope to visit the region over the next few months. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Suffolk would like to be my guide—that was not a totally serious offer, but we shall see.
As I have noted, we discuss a number of important issues with the Syrians—issues in which we have shared and mutual interests and in which Syria, as a significant power in the region, has an important role to play. What are those issues? We welcome past movement towards dialogue between Israel and Syria—crucially on both sides. It is obvious that talks between these two countries have the potential to provide a significant contribution towards a lasting and comprehensive middle east peace process. We want talks to continue on the basis of land for peace—full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan heights in exchange for peace and security for Israel with fully normalised bilateral relations. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath and the hon. Member for Aylesbury made that point.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |