Richard Spring MP
Member of Parliament for West Suffolk

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. 

Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is currently in Beijing, primarily to discuss Iran. China is of course a member of the UN Security Council, so any further UN action over Iran will come under their gaze.

All of this dramatically confirms the emergence of China on the world stage. Even three years ago the Chinese were declaring that their overwhelming objective was simply economic growth, not international involvement, but that has now changed. They have just published a White Paper on defence, which includes a huge expansion of their navy, at a time when our ships are being mothballed – a telling contrast.

In response to its economic dynamism, the Chinese are moving towards a flat tax rate, harmonising the local and foreign investment tax regime, and encouraging initial public offerings by Chinese companies on their booming Shanghai stock market. Meanwhile they are building relationships across the globe to secure the natural resources they lack.

So they are becoming increasingly involved in our world – they are even trying to agree their mutual history with the Japanese. More and more will we see politicians beating a path to Beijing.

They are not a democracy and they have huge challenges, but as Europe shrinks in world importance, and America reassesses its world role, China’s economic importance is being matched by its political weight and influence. This is at a time when Britain’s reputation abroad is at its lowest ebb for decades. 

As ever in politics, when the wheels begin to come off for a Government, the process only speeds up.

Whilst it is true that events abroad do not normally intrude into the thinking of British voters, the shambles of Tony Blair’s visit to the Middle East are symptomatic of exhaustion and dysfunctionality. The British people have formed a judgment about Iraq and our relationship with the United States which is contributing to their negative view of the Prime Minister. It is the main reason for his departure.

But perhaps more significantly for the future has been the media mood change in respect of Gordon Brown. The days that he can re-hash, re-announce and hide spending figures are now over. He has been universally criticised by  financial and economic commentators including those who have always supported him! Can it really be true that the weight of taxation in this country is about to overtake Germany’s? What a squandered legacy.

For them will it ever be glad confident morning again? If things continue as they are now, I doubt it. 

For me personally, I am taking my family away on holiday. The blog will be up and running again on 8^th January. Thank you to all those who have contacted me about it.

May I wish you a happy Christmas and New Year. 

One of the reasons why our reputation became so rapidly degraded in the Middle East after 1997 was the appointment of Lord Levy as the Prime Minister’s special emissary to the region. He had no power to negotiate and soon the Israelis and the Arab countries alike saw no purpose in seeing him. Everybody knew he had been given the job solely because he was the fund-raiser for the Prime Minister. Despite being given an office in the FCO, Lord Levy had no trained diplomatic skills, and never spoke in the House of Lords.

I flew with him and Robin Cook to the funeral of President Hafez al-Assad in Syria. The passenger list on board indicated the official roles of those present – he had none. I asked him directly why he was on the flight, and what followed was a truly bizarre conversation.

I am afraid that well before the invasion of Iraq, despite the best efforts of our skilled diplomats in the region, our influence was much diminished. Tony Blair’s current visit there is an embarrassment. It will take the talents of David Cameron and William Hague to rebuild our tarnished reputation in the politically most sensitive corner of our planet. 

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.

Shortly after leaving university I travelled to Syria with a friend whose family were steam enthusiasts. On their farm, they have a collection ranging from a steam engine to a steam lorry and a traction engine. In those days, there was a steam train which left the Hejaz railway station in Damascus at 7.30 am for a journey up into the mountains. The driver was called Antoine. We shared the experience of heaving coal into the furnace with him. It is one of my abiding memories.

Syria is something of a closed book as a country and few British people have gone there. However, over the years I have gone back and have come to know the country quite well.

The Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Umayyads, the crusaders, and the Ottomans, were just some of those who forged the identity of Syria, and left behind an extraordinary architectural heritage.  The result is a culture of acceptance of religious and ethnic diversity extraordinary by international standards, let alone the Middle East.

I was for a period the Conservative spokesman for the Middle East which gave me an opportunity to look at the country from a more political viewpoint. I wrote an article about Syria in this morning’s Guardian, and its possible role in resolving some of the festering problems of the Middle East, a region where some radical re-thinking is required.

The article can be found on my website by following the link below:

http://www.richardspringmp.com/