Richard Spring MP
Member of Parliament for West Suffolk

How much influence in the world does Britain under Labour have? In the Middle East? In the European Union? In the United States?

The question is almost rhetorical. It is just embarrassing and morale is now low in our Foreign Office. As with everything else, there is precious little fresh thinking.

Yesterday I spoke about the Middle East in particular in a debate in the Commons. Earlier this year I was in Iran, Israel and Syria. There is nothing like seeing places for oneself….

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con): We have touched on the fact that a lot of time has been spent talking about the European treaty, and I want to make this basic observation. The whole issue of a constitution or a non-constitution arose from the Laeken declaration, put together by the European Council in December 2001. It is worth reminding ourselves of the remit inherent in that declaration. It called for the clarifying, adjusting and simplifying of the division of competencies between the EU and member states and the addressing of the democratic deficit to make the EU more democratic, transparent and efficient. It also called for the EU to be brought closer to its citizens. On the four treaties, the declaration states that

“If we are to have greater transparency, simplification is essential”.

What a long road we have travelled since that remit. The declaration asked exactly the right questions for the long-term viability of the European Union, but one can see that the EU is very far removed from them. The idea that the treaty is bringing the peoples of Europe closer to the structures now being proposed is preposterous.

Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): Before my hon. Friend moves on from the Laeken declaration, I remind him and the House that only in June this year the European Council, continuing what was said at Laeken, called for the

“crucial importance of reinforcing communication with the European citizens…and involving them in a permanent dialogue. This will be particularly important during the upcoming IGC and ratification process”.

So that urge to have democracy came not only at Laeken, but in the ensuing years. Unfortunately, it will not be fulfilled.

Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and I absolutely agree with him.

In the next fortnight, Mohamed el-Baradei will report on the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear developments. The vote on a possible third UN Security Council resolution for sanctions will be called if the IAEA and Javier Solana conclude that Iran has failed to make progress on the work programme agreement of last summer. When I was Iran recently, I was told that it would be fully compliant. However, since then—and we are at a critical juncture—President Ahmadinejad has hinted that Iran is now capable of producing 3,000 centrifuges, which would be an important step in the process of enriching uranium and would lead to the possibility of a nuclear bomb. Iran has indicated that it will expand that capability considerably.

If we go down the route that I have mentioned, there will be huge problems for us and the region. Let us consider, for example, the reactions of two of Iran’s neighbours, which are concerned for different reasons. Saudi Arabia has unveiled a Gulf states initiative for all users of enriched uranium to ensure security of supply for civilian nuclear power programmes and to prevent the diversion of uranium into nuclear weapons programmes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) mentioned, Russia has proposed to be a guarantor of the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, with the possibility of some exchange resulting from America’s proposal on ballistic missile defences. However, even before the imminent IAEA report, the United States has announced a series of sanctions against the Iranian revolutionary corps as a proliferator of nuclear weapons, and against the al-Quds force division as a terrorist organisation. We therefore have in prospect a freezing of assets, as well as the ban on US citizens doing business with three Iranian banks. However disagreeable it may be to us, the problem is that that sort of action bolsters the reputation of President Ahmadinejad, whose supporters did badly in the local elections nearly a year ago, and who got into office in the first place promising higher employment and prosperity, which has unfortunately completely failed to materialise. There is petrol rationing, amid other signs of a truly sclerotic economy. However, the country is insulated by oil at $100 a barrel, as it has one of the highest reserves in the world. It has become fashionable in Iran to blame Britain, in particular, for its difficulties; that is because of our rather chequered historical relationship with the country.

If Iran does take the alarming route to a nuclear capability, not only its neighbours have reason to be concerned. President Ahmadinejad’s recent comments on Israel and his repulsive observations about the holocaust make Israel understandably anxious. The United States has indicated that Iranian weaponry is being used against soldiers in Iraq. We do not know what the exact provenance of that weaponry might be, but it is undoubtedly being used, and the United States may use that as an opportunity for some sort of attack on Iran in due course. Before that ever happened, we would do well to consider the consequences. Iran has sophisticated weaponry and is most unlikely to fail to react. What could it do? It could close the Strait of Hormuz, which is only 34 miles wide and through which 20 per cent. of the world’s oil travels each day, or even attack some of the Gulf oilfields. A substantial reduction in oil supplies to the world would have dire economic consequences. We must also ask ourselves whether surgical strikes could be effective. Would the Iranians manage to retaliate further afield? If there was no UN mandate because of objections from Russia and China, how would parts of the Islamic world react in such an eventuality? If there was a UN resolution, how would enforcement be viewed when non-compliance is accepted elsewhere in the region? There are huge dangers, but they have to be balanced against the consequences of Iran acquiring a nuclear device.

If there is to be a successful dialogue, the United States will be the key player, as always in this region. Iran has been branded part of the “axis of evil” and has had conditions imposed on it by the United States that make it difficult for any such dialogue to proceed—namely, the cessation of any kind of nuclear enrichment and ceasing to sponsor state terrorism. The simple reality is that no Iranian politician, however moderate, would accept such conditions, so any dialogue that is to work must be based on a different sort of premise. The grim reality is that we have very little insight into the different elements of the country’s ruling group. We have no real intelligence on the ground and can make judgments based on assumptions but not hard evidence. Nevertheless, we must try to identify those in Iran who are more moderate and can persuade the more aggressive to get into some sort of dialogue with us. If we fail, the consequences for Iran, the region and the rest of the world will be very serious. The next few weeks will be crucial. No option should be dismissed in these alarming circumstances, but whatever course we pursue to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear device, we must do so in a tough but calculated and measured way, because we need to assess very clearly what the consequences would be.

The importance of the security and stability of Israel, as a homeland for the Jewish people, is universally accepted in this House, and so it should be. However, we are entitled to ask whether Israel is more secure today than it was, say, 10 years ago; I fear that the answer is no. I welcome the fact that Mr. Olmert and President Abbas appear to be moving towards an understanding. There are many contentious issues to be addressed, and the question is whether either of them can really deliver. I fear that there will be no viable two-state solution and no ultimate security for Israel unless—this is a very disagreeable proposition—Hamas is ultimately part of any deal agreed between Mr. Olmert and President Abbas, because any such agreement will have to be acceptable to the majority of Palestinians; indeed, President Abbas has talked about having a referendum to resolve the situation. As a long-term objective, the inclusion of Hamas in any talks will have to be entertained.

Mention has been made of the Annapolis conference. We must applaud that initiative. There are dangers in terms of whether it will be successful and expectations that may be too high, but it is good to know that Turkey is constructively involved. Yesterday, President Shimon Peres arrived in Ankara—President Abbas arrives today—for what the Turkish press describe as a mini-Annapolis. I hope and believe that Annapolis must succeed, but it should do so by being the first stage in a process of negotiation encompassing not only the Israelis and Palestinians but the broader region. If Annapolis fails, the pessimists will feel vindicated. The Palestinians naturally want a freeze on settlement construction, prisoner release and fewer roadblocks, while Israel understandably wants guaranteed security. All those aspects are hugely difficult. It may be wise to suggest that Annapolis is not some kind of finality but part of a process on the long road towards a resolution of the problem.

Looking beyond the direct Israel-Palestine relationship, there is a wider picture to consider. Israel has good working relationships with its neighbours, Jordan and Egypt, but there is a lively debate in Israel about its relationship with Syria. The Golan Heights, which are legally Syrian, are occupied by Israel. They have no strategic value any more, but for Syria this is a crucial matter. Seven years ago, a deal was nearly struck between the then Syrian President and the Israelis. Syria has offered normalisation and an exchange of ambassadors, and the Israelis should road-test that. I understand the difficulties, given the relationship between Syria and Hezbollah, but the prize would be a normalisation that would enhance the possibility of Israel’s security. Syria is a secular country where religious minorities are protected; indeed, it currently has many refugees from Iraq.

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said, the middle east is of pivotal importance, not only for the region itself but for the world at large. Unfortunately, our reputation has been considerably degraded in the past decade. Our longstanding and firm friendship with the United States has not been successfully deployed. Annapolis beckons, and we all hope that it will work. It is vital that we should assist in this process in any way that we can. The peoples of the middle east—the crucible of our civilisation—whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian, do not deserve to continue in an atmosphere of such fear and insecurity.

The latest polls put the Conservatives clearly in the lead. It is hardly surprising. As I have seen for myself, once a Government gets into trouble, the problems  usually begin to accelerate – the Ruth Kelly saga seems to underline this point……….and it is Governments that lose elections. It is Oppositions that make that process even faster, particularly when the Leader of the Opposition is doing so well.

This morning two members of the House of Lords joined UKIP, just at a time when a Conservative government looks an increasing possibility. What is new in European affairs is that public opinion across the EU is becoming more hostile, whether to the EU itself or the Euro. The utterances of some European politicians reflect such an absurdly outdated and narrow view of the world that their views are increasingly irrelevant. So we can foresee fresh opportunities to build relationships amongst European countries, not frozen in the 1950s and 1960s mindset in which the EU has evolved.

There is a real opportunity now for a British Government to fill this intellectual and functional void, and forge something different. It will require leadership that has been wholly lacking by the Labour Government.

Do you remember, in amongst banalities like Cool Britannia, a young country, and for the many not the few, was the launch in 1997 of Labour’s co-called ethical foreign policy? The inference was that Foreign Secretaries like Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind and others had somehow pursued an un-ethical foreign policy. This was to be a new beginning. Well, please make your own judgment………

Truly one of the most disgraceful acts of betrayal was this Government trying to smuggle in joint sovereignty (with Spain) of the 30,000 residents of Gibraltar. This was done entirely to gain the approval of the then Spanish Government, to enable Britain to exert greater influence in the EU. It was truly a monstrously unethical exercise, which happily failed miserably.

Relations between Gibraltar and Spain have improved considerably since then. The Gibraltarians have just voted to give the colony greater autonomy, including an independent judiciary. Had Robin Cook and Jack Straw had their way, the story would shamefully have been quite different. 

Some believe it is the European Union that has kept the peace in Europe, others believe it is NATO. Of course there is a considerable overlap between the two in respect of members.

What surely is undisputable is that the European Union collectively suffers from much diminished authority in the world because many of its members will not spend money on defence. The NATO-led force in Afghanistan has brought this into sharp relief, where member states basically decline to put their troops into areas of high danger: Canadian, American and British troops are most at risk.

A number of European politicians who argue most passionately for a common European foreign and defence policy will not argue for additional defence expenditure in their own countries. The ambitious plans of some for a common defence policy have in practice cooled somewhat, but the rhetoric is still well ahead of the reality.

The one institution in our national life which remains so cherished and admired, and which is really so professional, is our armed forces. I make no broader point except to say that we have every right to keep our distance from the pan – European military dream machine when we see how pathetically some of our neighbours have been conducting themselves in Afghanistan. Let us take due note. 

With the political crisis in Lebanon, the deteriorating situation in Gaza and the huge security and political problems in Iraq, Richard has written the following article which also appeared on the Conservative Home blog today.

Ahead of Tony Blair’s speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, there was much spinning about getting Iran and Syria involved in helping to resolve the situation in Iraq – a very tall order indeed.  Syria, for all its ambiguities, has no interest in radicalised Islamic rivalry and mayhem in Iraq – it is a secular society where even membership of the Moslem Brotherhood is illegal.

Fundamentalist Iran, by contrast, is openly supplying weapons and materiel to fellow Shiite Iraqis with all the terrible consequences.  The frequent bracketing of Syria and Iran together is a complete misjudgement.  Their relationship of over 25 years arose out of their shared fear of Saddam Hussein.   Their latter day support for Hizbollah arises out of entirely different interests – even if the consequences are regrettably the same.

The pre-speech spinning proved to be wrong.  Tony Blair quite correctly called for a “whole Middle East” strategy.  But at least he recognised the distinction between Iran and Syria – it should be a key policy objective to try to separate the two, and have two actively different approaches.  He was quite right to return to the core issue of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Britain’s role in the region is now so diminished, so for us to orchestrate a “whole Middle East” strategy would be impossible. Equally, there is no Western country, singly or collectively, that in current circumstances can now front such a strategy.  However, there is now real urgency. The daily catalogue of murder and destruction in Iraq needs no elaboration.

The breakdown of relationships in Lebanon between Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah of Hizbollah and Prime Minister Sinoria is now threatening the very stability of the country.  There are even rumours of a possible coup. Equally, the situation in Gaza has become explosive.

The first step to breaking through this terrible impasse is to open a dialogue with Syria.   There is a debate about this in Israel, but in the very difficult post-conflict atmosphere there, it would now be very difficult for Mr Olmert to be engaged directly in such a dialogue.  The main sticking point is Syria’s claim to the Golan Heights, which ultimately has to be resolved.  Syria has called for talks without pre-conditions, but the calls have been quite muted. So proper preparatory work needs to be done.

Any way forward lies with the moderate Arab countries.  King Abdullah of Jordan recently spoke in London very passionately about the appalling consequences of the situation in the region continuing to deteriorate so fast.  He in particular, but with countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, should be encouraged to lead an urgent exercise to bring the players together.  They should be supported by ourselves and the Americans, and other Europeans. 

Syria is an essential part of this.  At least this is now recognised in London, and by some in Washington and Jerusalem.

We simply have to try.  The consequences of failure in the region are unimaginable, and we too will pay a heavy price. 

Yesterday in the Robing room of the House of Lords under murals extolling courtesy, mercy, religion, generosity and hospitality (such old fashioned virtues, so admirably non-New Labour) King Abdullah of Jordan spoke.

When his late father King Hussein wanted to marry an English woman, my late father-in-law, as British Ambassador in Amman, was worried about this.   He was a great admirer of King Hussein and was concerned about the future of the monarchy there.   The King, however, ignored these concerns…… and the result of the marriage is the admirable King Abdullah.   When I told this story to the previous Jordanian Ambassador in London, he commented “we are all very grateful that the King declined to take your father-in-law’s advice.”   Amen to that.

In the most moderate and considered times, the King warned that we now face three civil wars in the region – in Iraq, Lebanon and in Palestine.   He pleaded for movement on resolving, as a priority, the Israel-Palestine conflict.   He reminded us of British historic connections to the area, now so diminished under this Government.

If Tony Blair does attempt once again to play a role, at least this time he will not be sending his emissary Lord Levy, who has other things on his mind at present, for which we can all be grateful.

Whatever the outcome of the elections this week in the United States, spare a thought for President Bush as he surveys the lack of steadfastness of some of his neo-conservative supporters. Probably the most unfortunate speech made by this President – the axis of evil peroration – was written by David Frum. It got huge headlines and is certainly memorable: the resulting damage was incalculable. The neo-cons took hold of a wholly legitimate desire to enhance democracy and human rights and invested it with a zeal to control and re-organise humanity that a disciple of Karl Marx would have recognised.

We need the United States as a force for good in the world, with all its generous impulses. The failure of the neo-cons, now so busily rushing for the door, must not be allowed to push Americans away from engaging with the world we live in, warts and all. America’s true friends should not be slavish, as we have appeared to be under Tony Blair.

We may be approaching a moment, however, when the United States will need to be reassured of the friendship and admiration of so many around the world. 

The death of the former South African president F W Botha reminds us of what an astonishing transition the country has made. Nobody could have imagined that it could have been so successful; the ANC Government has overseen rapid economic growth and racial friction has been minimal.

Let us hope this is just an aberration but there is a bit of flakiness at the edges now. The ANC Chief Whip was imprisoned for corruption, wholly unapologetically, a Government minister throws a passenger off a full plane to get a seat, another flies her family to Dubai for some retail therapy. There is a risk that this is what begins to happen when your political position is unassailable, with two-thirds of the vote.

Every democracy needs an opposition to hold government to account and to highlight any possible signs of corruption and arrogance. This role has fallen to Tony Leon, leader of the Opposition, who is currently in London. He is clever and funny and works hugely hard in difficult circumstances.

Some say he can be acerbic, but his role is crucial. My own view is that anybody who wants South Africa to be a success story — a beacon to the rest of Africa – should applaud him. He deserves it. 

It was supposedly said by Lady Eden, of the 1956 Suez crisis, that she felt as if the Suez Canal ran through Downing Street.  I wonder what Cherie thinks about Iraq today.

Yesterday said it all.  So febrile and lacking in confidence is the Government becoming, that Tony Blair was not to be seen in the chamber of the House of Commons at all during the debate on Iraq.   We are always told that what happens abroad does not impact voters domestically, yet the Iraq debacle crystallises the terrible triumph of spin over substance that marks the Blair era.

It was Suez that cost Sir Anthony Eden his job.  It is the tragic situation in the Middle East which will cause Blair to leave office with such a diminished reputation.

There is a lively argument about how we, in liberal and tolerant Western societies, interact with more conservative Islamic societies. However, what perhaps many people do not realise is that there are big differences between Islamic countries themselves. 

In the summer, I went to Kazakhstan, a Central Asian, former Soviet republic, which is the size of Europe, with a population of only 18 million. It is a constitutionally secular Islamic society with a substantial Russian minority. The population as a whole, both Russians and Kazakhs, wear their religions lightly. 

Kazakhstan is now becoming hugely rich because of its enormous energy assets. It is very keen to make its mark on the world. Next month, the President, Mr Nazarbaev, will be visiting London. Important Kazakh companies have listed on the London Stock Exchange and are keen to be friendly with us. 

Many people feel that if secular Islamic societies can succeed with full human and democratic rights, they could be a role model in the region. 

Today, the lively Kazakhstan Ambassador in London, Mr Erlan Idrissov, is visiting my constituency. He will be meeting school pupils in Haverhill and seeing something of the racing industry in Newmarket – there is a long tradition of horsemanship in Kazakhstan. 

He can be assured of a very warm welcome in Suffolk.