Proceeding contribution from Andrew Love (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 November 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Lebanon and the Middle East.
Lebanon and the Middle East
First, I should affirm that we are talking about reconstruction, rather than the aid process. The answer depends on whom one speaks to. The local elected officials, who are mainly sympathetic to Hezbollah, blame the Government; they say that Prime Minister Siniora is responsible because he has delayed the money that is going to southern towns and villages. When we spoke to those in the Government, they said that there was an internal dispute between Hezbollah and Amal over who got the political glory for delivering the international resources. However, one thing is absolutely clear: the resources are not getting through. Although I understand that the international community wants to set up mechanisms to monitor the funding and introduce a transparent process, it is becoming critical that we deliver some of the funds and get the reconstruction process under way. Currently, the only group that is helping in the south is Hezbollah, which is using its funding from Iran, and that cannot be good in the longer term. What next? What do we need to do? First, we need to kick-start the regional dialogue. There is no point trying solve Lebanon’s problems in Lebanon; they can be solved only through wider dialogue. I welcome the Prime Minister’s first visit to Lebanon, although it perhaps did not go according to plan. I hope that he will be able to return to the region before the end of the year, because we need a concerted effort to draw Syria and, I hope, Iran into a dialogue, although I understand from recent statements that the Americans continue to resist that. Without such a dialogue, we will be unable to find a way forward in dealing with the wider conflict in the region. Secondly, I deprecate all the accusations of foreign plots to overthrow the Government of Lebanon and of Syrian complicity in assassinations, which are made without any evidence. We have set up the UN tribunal, so we should let it do its work. We should wait for some evidence before suggesting that the assassination of Minister Gemayel, which was carried out in a Christian area and in an entirely different fashion from previous assassinations, must somehow automatically be Syria’s responsibility. Let us wait and see. The process is sound, and we need to look to the UN tribunal to answer our questions.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 453 c77-8WH
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Armed conflict Security UN resolutions Israel Palestine Syria Middle East Hezbollah Peace negotiations Lebanon Ceasefires
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-04 11:51:53 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362443
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362443
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_362443