North Africa and the Middle East

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quite right that democracy is not just the holding of elections. We are all familiar with countries where elections of a kind are held, but we would not call them democracies. Indeed, some of the countries concerned used to hold elections. Democracy does indeed require all those things—an independent judiciary, strong civil institutions, free media, and so on. I have already outlined what we are doing in Tunisia to support their development, and I want to put the argument about what the European Union as a whole can do to encourage them.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary mentioned the position of the Iranian Government. Does he share my absolute disgust at the nauseating, hypocritical remarks of President Ahmadinejad, who has protested about what is happening in Bahrain, but at the same time is suppressing people in his own country? Can the Foreign Secretary say something about the role that Iran might be playing in fomenting difficulties between Shi’a and Sunni communities in the Arab world?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman does not overstate his case. The words that he uses are wholly appropriate to the words and behaviour of the President of Iran. I do not have direct evidence of Iranian interference in, for instance, the affairs of Bahrain—although many would suspect such interference and influence—but with Iran’s links to Hezbollah and Hamas, I do not think that it is currently playing a positive role in bringing about peace in the middle east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

As we look at these events around the world, we must reflect on whether there are historical parallels and past occasions when similar things have happened. At the moment, everyone is talking about the events in central and eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union, in the late 1980s, but there are other parallels, such as what happened in the revolutions of 1848. We could also draw parallels with the student protests of 1968.

The important thing about this revolutionary process is that it has been widely broadcast through new technologies that did not exist in those eras. As a result, as we have clearly seen, the regimes have tried to stop such technology, close down the internet and prevent people inside and outside from accessing messages on Facebook, on Twitter and online. That is another argument for retaining BBC World Service shortwave radio broadcasts at key times, and the Foreign Affairs Committee is engaged in that debate with Ministers.

The other difference from 1989 is that while these events are happening in a multitude of Arab Muslim countries, there is no Gorbachev figure. There is no restraining hand on Erich Honecker. There is no one to persuade and to deal with the situation faced by Jaruzelski in Poland. Of course, we had Ceausescu in 1989, and perhaps the closest parallel with Saif Gaddafi is Nicu Ceausescu. I do not know whether the Ceausescu family’s fate will befall the Gaddafi family, but there is nevertheless a clear parallel: a family regime that uses the state as its own private bank. Unfortunately, the Libyan regime is not the only one for which that is the case. We have heard reports from Tunisia, and there have been accusations about the Mubarak family in Egypt. I read on the web just a few hours ago that there is a “kleptocracy” in Bahrain.

The public can now access information in ways that they could not in the past. The United Nations Arab human development report that was published about a decade ago highlighted the lack of publications and limited number of books per head of population in the Arab world compared with other parts of the world. However, such availability is not as necessary when a generation of young people can access new technologies. There has therefore been an acceleration of change, especially among the young populations of north Africa and Arabia who, in huge numbers, are unemployed. This social and global phenomenon will continue for decades.

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) said that not everything that happens in such revolutionary situations is pleasant. Some very unpleasant things came out from underneath the stones in 1989 and 1990: growing anti-Semitism, racism and nationalism. We may well find that one of the consequences of the removal of military authoritarian regimes will be that people lose not only their fear, but their inhibition about saying things that are difficult and unpleasant.

We have already heard comments about what the Iranian Government might be up to. I worry that those people who want to gain political power by attacking other minorities will do so in ways that lead to tensions and conflicts between Sunni and Shi’a. We have seen the terrible carnage caused by that conflict in Iraq. We were right—I stand by my opinion—about the removal of the Saddam regime, but none of us estimated quite what terrible crimes would be carried out as a consequence of lifting that repression. That problem is still not resolved in Iraq.

Egypt is at the beginning of the process, so what will happen there? There will be a presidential election and a new constitution, and then, as in central and eastern Europe, we will probably see a multitude of small political parties—or individuals and groups calling themselves political parties.

Some 22 years ago, I was working in the Labour party’s international department. My job was to go to central and eastern Europe, where I met people who said, “We are the true new social democratic party.” I met groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia as was, Russia and elsewhere who all said that they were the true inheritors of the social democratic tradition. People from the Conservative party were also involved in a similar way, because the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was in Prague just a few weeks after me in late 1989. We all discovered that most of the people who claimed to represent the new political forces did not do so at all.

The process will take time, and we will need dedicated and well-funded democracy-building exercises throughout the Arab world. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has been mentioned. I chaired its board until 2005. At that time, its total budget from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was £4.1 million, which was peanuts, but since then it has been cut. I understand that it will receive an additional £500,000, which is welcome, but that will still leave its budget below what it was a few years ago.

International democracy foundations need to work together. Our Government, our European partners, the National Democratic Institute in the US, and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung in Germany, for example, need to work in a co-ordinated way because governance, democracy and institution building will take time. It would be useful if people from central and eastern Europe could make a contribution because many of them went through such a process 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

Finally, if, potentially, Gaddafi regains control of Libya, we will face the most immediate, appalling crisis. It will be perceived as a major setback. It will send a clear signal, which may already have been picked up in Bahrain, that regimes can keep power if they are repressive and brutal because the international community will either make grandiose statements, as many Europeans have done—I am not critical of our Government on these matters, as we are doing the right thing and are on the right side—or prevaricate, as unfortunately the Americans have done. Let us hope that the Security Council adopts a robust resolution today and then does the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Ottaway]

In that case it has great force. Joking aside, my hon. Friend makes an important point, but we cannot ignore a resolution of the Arab League. It is indicative of the way things are shifting.

My concern is that we might get a legal basis that is not clear. If we do not get a chapter VII resolution, the fallback situation would be what is known in the UN as a responsibility to protect. It is not clear whether that is a part of international law. It suggests

“collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII”.

It sets as high a hurdle as a chapter VII resolution. We are yet to see how things will develop, but I would be rather surprised if we were to get that through. We would then be left with a legal basis that was not clear. If there is another doctrine, I would very much like to hear it.

Yesterday, the Government added a fourth condition: the national interest. In the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday I asked the Foreign Secretary how he would reply to a request from a country such as Ivory Coast, where genocide was going on, or Burma or Somalia—there are plenty of places with internal conflict. He replied that that has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and that is under the national interest. If we intervene in Libya, will that set a precedent that will be relied on by those countries?

That means, in effect, that we are picking our countries. Let us be clear exactly what that means. It is a reincarnation of the Chicago doctrine introduced by Tony Blair 12 years ago. It is worth reading the speech that he made in April 2009 in Chicago, 10 years after his original speech in Chicago. He said that it

“argued strongly for an active and engaged foreign policy, not a reactive or isolationist one: better to intervene than to leave well alone. Be bold, adventurous even in what we can achieve.”

That is a pretty gung-ho approach. I am not saying that the current Government are being gung-ho, but it is a warning about how we could get carried away unless we sit back, are rational and address the need for a clear legal basis.

We then have the problem of what will happen if another Arab state behaves in the same way as Libya does. We have seen what is going on in Bahrain, with the state of emergency. We all heard reports on the radio this morning of protesters being killed. We cannot intervene in every case. We could end up with a very awkward situation where one Arab country provides aircraft to help police the no-fly zone and then ends up attacking its own people. Then what is our national interest?

I would add a fifth condition. If this does not succeed, we must have a strategy. There has to be a plan B. Where exactly is this leading? My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has great experience of the no-fly zone in Bosnia, and there was a no-fly zone in Iraq. In both cases, we had to put in ground troops to seal the deal and finish the job. A no-fly zone in Libya is most likely to end up with a stalemate in which the rebels cannot lose and Gaddafi cannot win.

[Mike Gapes]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the ground troops did not go into Iraq in 1991 and 1992 and that for 11 or 12 years the no-fly zones, which protected the Shi’a marsh Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the north, were very effective in stopping Saddam using his air force to bomb them?

[Richard Ottaway]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that point before, and the answer to it is that Saddam Hussein remained in Baghdad. My point is that the policy under discussion would end in stalemate, too, with Colonel Gaddafi still in Tripoli, the rebels in Benghazi, a no-fly zone and a completely static situation.

If we want to get rid of Colonel Gaddafi, we will have to use ground troops, so I would like the Minister to answer the question, what is our commitment on ground troops? Would we be prepared to use them to finish the job? What is the Government’s attitude to the use of warships? The war is being conducted along a coastal strip. At the end of the day, if we commit to a no-fly zone, we have to be prepared to finish the job and to put troops in on the ground, otherwise we should not start. That is why I am concerned about where this is all leading. I do not think that we have the troops to put in on the ground, and that is why I come to the difficult conclusion that, without a UN resolution, we should not consider a no-fly zone.

The Prime Minister posed a question to people such as myself, who have their reservations about a no-fly zone, when he said on Monday:

“‘Do we want a situation where a failed pariah state festers on Europe’s southern border, potentially threatening our security, pushing people across the Mediterranean and creating a more dangerous and uncertain world for Britain and for all our allies as well as for the people of Libya?’”—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 27.]

That is a very good question, and it deserves an answer. My answer is, we have had this pariah state for 42 years, and we have lived with it: we have put up with it; we had to bomb it once; we had Lockerbie; and we are still here and it is still there.

I do not want to see us get sucked into a war—a dispute—in the middle east. We need to tighten the noose as hard as we can, with the toughest sanctions possible, and if necessary we need to give all support, short of intervention, to the rebels. But we should not go down the road of arguing, campaigning or pushing for a no-fly zone without a UN resolution on either chapter VII or the responsibility to protect. There are huge risks politically and militarily without one, and I urge the Government to proceed with caution.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), adverted to what took place with regard to the liberation of Kuwait. Kuwait was liberated because Margaret Thatcher, together with the President of the United States, decided that the situation could not be allowed to continue.

[Mike Gapes]

John Major.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

John Major, but Margaret Thatcher was also involved.

In the same way, action not words dealt with the situation in the former Yugoslavia. My hon. Friend is right in his conclusion that, if the situation in north Africa is to be solved in any way acceptably, it will be by action, not by continued talk. The world community should hang its head in shame at the prolonged delay to take practical action on behalf of the people of Libya.

Time is very short, indeed, before it becomes too late, but complacent indifference has long dominated the west’s approach towards Gaddafi’s brutality. Even in recent months, the Home Office has insisted deplorably on sending a Libyan asylum seeker back into Gaddafi’s clutches, just as it insists on sending asylum seekers back to Iran. As usual, the United States, under its present Administration, has been vocal about Libya, but words are easy; action is what counts.

In the case of Israel’s transgressions and brutalities, the Americans have been even more shameful. As is his wont, Obama has been long on self-indulgent, vacuous rhetoric, but absent when it comes to meaningful action. Let us witness the illegal Guantanamo Bay torture camp, remaining open two years after he promised that it would close. “Absent”, though, understates Obama’s pernicious policies. When he sought to wheedle the Israelis into a moratorium on settlement building, he promised that if they paused such building he would veto any Security Council resolutions regarded as critical of Israel. The Israelis ignored him, and still he vetoed the recent, otherwise unanimous, Security Council resolution on settlements.

Yet that United States Administration, if they wished, could bring the Israelis to heel, simply by cutting off the supply of arms and economic aid to that rogue country. Economic sanctions on Israel work, as was demonstrated when President Bush senior forced Yitzhak Shamir to talks in Madrid by suspending loan guarantees.

Certainly, when it comes to rogue regimes, the world is long on denunciations but short on action, and it is important to place on the record those transgressions against international law by a country that has one of the most aggressively right-wing regimes in the world. The Israelis have built an illegal wall through occupied Palestinian territory, in many, many cases cutting Palestinians off from their livelihoods, as I have seen for myself recently. The Israelis’ settlements are, again, a violation of international law, yet they expand them. Again, I recently saw for myself how, in Jerusalem and elsewhere, settlers, with the connivance of the Israeli police, throw Palestinians out of their homes and force them to live in tents. Israel’s hundreds of checkpoints on the west bank make it difficult, and sometimes impossible, for Palestinians to get to workplaces, schools, universities and hospitals. The Jordanian Foreign Minister told me recently how, when he was travelling with the Palestinian President on the west bank in separate cars, he felt obliged to invite the President to travel in his car, because the President’s own car was continually being stopped at checkpoints.