Richard Spring MP
Member of Parliament for West Suffolk

Jimmy Carter did not leave office with the highest of reputations, but undoubtedly his heart is in the right place when it comes to trying to assist in resolving intractable problems. 

Recently whilst in Damascus he met the political leadership of Hamas. The joint statement afterwards implied at least de facto recognition of Israel. Hamas should, if there is the genuine will, declare a unilateral ceasefire. However it is not clear who exactly has overriding authority in the organisation. 

Additionally, Turkey has been trying to intervene to bring Syria and Israel into a dialogue. Turkey, uniquely, enjoys both excellent relations with Israel and Arab countries. There are hints that Israel may cede the Golden Heights back to Syria, an essential pre-condition to successful talks. They no longer have any strategic value, and are internationally recognised to be Syrian. 

Just perhaps there is a basis for putting some elements of the Middle East jigsaw into place. There have been numerous false dawns, so one cannot be optimistic. 

Now Syria has been accused of developing a nuclear facility, with the help of North Korea. The United States says it has clear proof. If indeed that regrettably is the case, and Syria has attempted to go down that route, is it worth asking why? Have continuous boycotts and isolation worked? 

If Israel believes that Syria is the conduit for Iranian weapons and influence over Hezbollah, then surely it should be a key element of Israeli policy to try to disconnect secular Syria from theocratic Iran. It is unclear what the downside would be of road testing this proposition. 

Israel did not leap for joy at the invasion of Iraq. It does not automatically have to listen to those who, in seeking to protect it, have not given it enduringly the best advice.   

Attention in the Middle East has been focussed on the fighting in Basra and in Afghanistan, with an increasing nervousness about the outcome in both countries.

Arab countries have been making their own judgments on how long the United States will want to remain militarily engaged in the region. With varying degrees of fear and resignation, they look at Iran as the one major regional power emerging out of the invasion of Iraq. Some wish to accommodate Iran , others are more hostile.

At the weekend an Arab summit took place in Damascus. 12 out of the 22 Arab League members sent heads of state to the conference, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt represented by minor officials, and a boycott by Lebanon. Some saw the hand of the United States in these snubs. 

However the Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak at the weekend echoed remarks by the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and called for a dialogue with Syria. At the same time the new UN Panel head investigating the assassination of Rafiq al- Hariri has curiously blamed a ‘crime network,’ whilst many Lebanese blame Syria for the death, as do others in the region. 

If we assume that the judgment of many Arab politicians is correct and that Iran will remain an assertive regional power, then what strategy should be deployed? If Syria is a conduit for arms to Hezbollah, and has influence on Hamas, then surely it should be a key objective to disengage Syria from its relationship with Iran. Boycotts and isolation certainly do not appear successful. Israel knows that the key objective of Syria is the return of the Golan Heights. 

Syria with over 1 million Iraqi refugees, many of whom are Christians, carries a considerable burden arising out of the Iraq invasion. It is a secular society and is violently opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. 

If Iran is the biggest twin challenge in the region, along with the interconnected Israel – Palestine conflict, then reducing its influence should be a priority. To the extent that there is a strategy to do this, it is currently confused and contradictory.  

Ultimately there can be no resolution of the region’s problems without Syria, warts and all. It is time to road test the constant offers by the Syrians of a formal dialogue. For Israel, less secure than ever before, what is the downside?

There is an Egyptian delegation in town, led by the Speaker of their parliament, a significant figure in Egyptian politics. He told me that I looked like a film actor who played the role of a spy. Not James Bond I can safely assume.

Egypt, like Saudi Arabia, is a pivotal player in the Middle East. It is they who will seek to keep President Bush engaged in the peace process, post Annapolis. There will be no resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict without U.S involvement, whatever some Europeans may think.

It is very difficult to understand the mindset of Hamas, who get their armaments smuggled in from Egyptian territory. Is it that Hamas do not want a settlement between Israel and Palestine? By lobbing rockets into Israel, it hardens Israeli public opinion, strengthens the views of those who fear a West Bank from which one day rockets may be launched into Israel. Yet Abu Mazen is clearly a credible figure to the Israelis, in contrast to Yasser Arafat. Are the rocket launches designed to get Israel to invade Gaza, thus stiffening the resolve of the inhabitants in favour of Hamas?

Meanwhile the former Saudi ambassador in London and adviser to King Abdullah, Prince Turki al-Faisal, gave an interview in Germany and said:

“The Arab world, by the Arab peace initiative, has crossed the Rubicon from hostility towards Israel to peace with Israel and has extended the hand of peace to Israel, and we await the Israelis picking up our hand and joining us in what inevitably will be beneficial for Israel and for the Arab world.”

“One can imagine not just economic, political and diplomatic relations between Arabs and Israelis but also issues of education, scientific research, combating mutual threats to the inhabitants of this vast geographic area.”

If indeed some political settlement can be reached, a whole series of investment projects from diverse countries including Turkey and Japan is in prospect on the West Bank.

President Bush has a clear hand in making this happen by keeping up the process, much encouraged by countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. He should respond more positively to the overtures from Syria too.

American influence, and by extension ours, is much diminished in the region. Over many decades the cynics have been right to be both cynical and pessimistic. Something, however, Gaza notwithstanding, seems to be stirring in the undergrowth. We can only hope and pray it is for real this time.

The one country I had never visited in the Middle East is our great friend and ally Jordan, where I have just been. The country has no energy resources, and is carrying the burden of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees. Nevertheless they continue to liberalise their economy and are very bravely about to remove energy subsidies, despite soaring oil prices. 

King Abdullah has worked hard and successfully to have friendly relations with all their neighbours, including Israel, and to formulate a common Arab position on the Israel-Palestine problem. Post Annapolis, President Bush is about to arrive in the region, on his first ever visit there (apart from Iraq) so there is an air of anticipation and hope, tinged with concern at the outcome. 

As a consequence of the Iraq war, Iran gets ever stronger and slowly but surely Arab countries are having to confront the reality of this. It is simply true that the Iraq war has enabled Iran to move towards its historic aspiration of dominance of the region. The naval incident yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz was a timely reminder of Iran’s activities. Yet Jordan, whilst recognising this, overwhemingly wants some sort of resolution of the Palestine issue. That is what the meetings with Mr Bush are primarily all about. 

President Sarkozy was in Jordan too. He continues with vigour to pursue the French national interest in the region. By comparison, British influence, despite our historic connections and understanding, is a pale shadow of the past. A lamentable legacy of this Labour government is the diminution of our respect and authority abroad, our inability to make independent judgements in our national interest. We heard this repeatedly in Jordan. 

It has taken ten years of Labour for us actually now to be punching below our weight. It is not in our interests, or anybody else’s, that this should so palpably be the case.   

The two most exceptional religious leaders I have ever met are the Dalai Lama, and only very fleetingly, when he once came to the Palace of Westminster. His humanity and humility shone through. 

Then there is the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmad Hassoun. When 250,000 Lebanese fled to Syria during the Israel- Hezbollah conflict, he went to greet them at the Sednaya monastery with Catholic and Orthodox bishops. To a unique extent in the Middle East – apart from in Lebanon- there is no hostility towards the country’s Christian minority. Their numbers have been swollen by the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians who have been forced to flee. 

Sheikh Hassoun has asked me twice to speak at Friday prayers in his mosque in Aleppo. I cannot imagine this happening to a Gentile Member of Parliament in virtually any other part of the world. There was no difficulty with the congregation, on the contrary. The Grand Mufti talks of his Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters, of our common link to Abraham. When visiting Britain with the Greek Catholic patriarch, he met representatives of the Jewish community and the Archbishop of Canterbury. He radiates spirituality, a joy of life and a generosity of spirit.

When we view the scenes and attitudes in Khartoum, it is light years away from anything he believes in and stands for. I keep reminding myself   of this. I can just imagine how he, and many others of his co-religionists, must feel over this most astonishing situation in the Sudan.   

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.

Yesterday I was delighted to take part in a lively debate, hosted by the Conservative Friends of Israel, on the sensitive issue of ‘Israel’s relations with the Arab world.’ Also on the panel were Majalli Whbee MK (the Israeli deputy foreign minister), Peter Oborne (journalist, commentator and author) and Ran Gidor (Israeli Embassy).

David Cameron said a few months ago that there is something deep in our Party’s DNA that believes in the stability and security of Israel. This is something I passionately believe in.

However, although facing a delicate and risky situation Israel must be careful that it does not become too self defeatingly inward looking. It should move on from the view that you should not talk to any neighbouring country or group that you distrust or dislike, no matter how unpalatable.

It is most unlikely that Israel and the Palestinians can come to an enduring agreement without the involvement of Hamas. It was a mistake for the Israeli Government or others to refuse to acknowledge the Palestinian election result. Instead, there should have been a pause for reflection before imposing conditions.

Syria has also offered Israel unconditional talks which it has up to now refused. I cannot see any reason as to why the Israeli Government should not road test this offer. There is little to lose and much to gain. It is difficult to see the downside – if Syria is insincere, it will soon become apparent.

We all owe the US an enormous amount of gratitude but their advice has not always been perfect and ultimately to Israel’s advantage. It is now time for Israel to make a new assessment of its relationships with its neighbours and consider taking a fresh approach.

Israelis now feel less secure then they did 10 or 20 years ago. I want to see that cloud of anxiety and concern lifted as best as it can be, in the interests of Israel itself and all in the region.    

In the years since Tony Blair first became Prime Minister there has been no enduring progress in resolving the Israel-Palestine problem. Quite the reverse. Britain’s reputation in the region has suffered greatly, not only because of Iraq. Our ability to sell ourselves as the influential bridge to the United States has been shown to be one of virtually non-existent influence. Everybody, in Israel or the Arab world, knows this to be true.

Tony Blair is no longer a head of government. Without the real will and determination of Washington, nothing will happen. Northern Ireland’s problems were not resolved by charisma, charm or eye-catching initiatives, but by patient hard work over many years. All the members of the Quartet carry baggage in varying degrees. One country which has universal credibility is Turkey, secular yet Islamic, which enjoys excellent relations with Israel and its neighbours. If there is going to be a broker, it should be Turkey, backed by all those who do not want to see civil wars engulfing the region.

I suspect that if any outside influences can be successfully deployed, this route will yield much better results.

Meanwhile, so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, good bye Tony.

It is welcome news that the Iraqi government is convening a meeting of its neighbours (and the UK and USA) to try to help the country reach some level of stability. What is particularly welcome is that the US is finally accepting that you cannot diplomatically isolate one country in the Middle East from another.

The ties of kinship, tribe, culture and religion often transcend political boundaries which were artificially created by outsiders anyway. No progress in tackling regional problems has ever been made by cherrypicking those with whom to do business, let alone talk to at all.

There are fundamentalist forces in Iran who certainly welcome Shiite radicalism and possible Shiite domination in Iraq. However given the wide spectrum of minorities in Iran, there are other Iranians who fear the break up of Iraq. Syria, by contrast, would find a dismemberment of Iraq totally unwelcome. It is constitutionally secular, protects its religious minorities and is vehemently opposed to religious fundamentalism.

So finally, echoing the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations, Syria and Iran will be brought into the loop. After all, the US finally did business with North Korea. Just maybe the change of mind will also lead to a dialogue with Syria over the other key problem of the region, namely Palestine and Israel, and its backwash into Lebanon. Up to this point the US has opposed any such dialogue.

Meanwhile let us be grateful to Jordan for taking up to a million Iraqi refugees and Syria more than a million, many of whom are Christian. It is a tragic by-product of the situation in Iraq, and a huge burden on Jordan and Syria, which we should freely acknowledge.

This blog entry also appeared on the Conservative Home blog at www.conservativehome.com today.

Yesterday afternoon was the first time in nearly two years that the House of Commons had a chance comprehensively to debate the current situation in Iraq and the wider Middle East. Tony Blair, once again, opened up Prime Minister’s Questions with a tribute to the latest casualty of the war in Iraq.

We were told by the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, that hopefully a “turning point” was coming up in relation to the war and that the Prime Minister would make a statement then – William Hague quite rightly pointed out, where would we have been in the Second World War if Churchill had waited until we had a “turning point” to come to the House of Commons?

I sat through the debate and listened to the many wide-ranging and thoughtful speeches on all aspects of Iraq and the Middle East. I spoke in the debate and a copy of my speech can be found on my website, www.richardspringmp.com 

One of the problems is that our skilled diplomats, who understand the region and its complexities, have been sidelined by  grand visions and generalisations which have historically never worked in the Middle East, when patient negotiation, hard work and pragmatism are the keys.

Iraq is likely to be Tony Blair’s lasting legacy and yet, in the twilight of his premiership, he shamefully skulked away to avoid a debate on the war he led us into – where we looked for a display of leadership yesterday from our Prime Minister, we found instead weakness – such a contrast to the  courage showed every day by British soldiers on the ground in Iraq.