---

Lebanon and the Middle East

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate. I am a co-chairman of CAABU along with the hon. Members for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and I am delighted that CAABU facilitated the visit of the hon. Member for Edmonton. I went to Lebanon slightly earlier, with the Conservative Middle East Council, and I disagree with almost none of the analysis that the hon. Gentleman has presented. I have to say, however, that it was rather easier going there as a member of the Conservative Middle East Council than as a supporter of the Government. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Prime Minister has an enormous amount of ground to make up in Lebanon, where he is seen as significantly responsible for the extension of the Israeli assault on the country. Like the hon. Gentleman, however, I see some grounds for hope, despite all the awful stories coming out of Lebanon and Gaza and despite the seeming paralysis of the Syrian position. My instinct tells me that the Prime Minister is now investing considerable effort in the issue. Following the disasters of the recent few months, the situation is now potentially much more fluid than it has been for some time, although it could, of course, get much worse, rather than better. I invite the Minister to comment on two things. One, about which I was concerned during my visit to Lebanon, is the role of UNIFIL. It seems to have a chapter 6½ mandate for its deployment, and it is not clear quite how that will play out in its relations with Hezbollah. More serious, perhaps, is the prediction made to us by Robert Fisk—it comes with all the knowledge and authority that he brings to such matters, although he is not always right—that one potential threat to UNIFIL comes not from Hezbollah, but from Sunni militants. He said that we could expect UNIFIL to be attacked by Sunni militants in Lebanon. UNIFIL, I think, does not have a very clear mandate and that is a particular challenge for it; I should be grateful for the Minister’s view about how he sees things developing. What is clear, however, is that both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine are now necessary players if we are to extricate ourselves in a positive fashion from the challenges faced by the region. Will the Minister ensure that channels are available and open to Hamas and Hezbollah to encourage them to take a statesmanlike and constructive role? There are some good signs coming out of Gaza. The ceasefire in Gaza is very much to be welcomed. I particularly welcome the attitude of the Israeli Government in making certain allowance for the fact that there will be Palestinian rejectionists, determined, as Israeli rejectionists are, to avoid the possibility of a final settlement in the west bank and Gaza; those people exist in both communities. There appears to be some give by the Olmert Government, and a recognition of the reality that the Palestinian Authority are not in a position to bring all Palestinian violence against Israelis to a complete conclusion or full stop, with no violation of the ceasefire. If the ceasefire is agreed by Hamas, Fatah and the other major elements of Palestinian representatives, it will not enjoy 100 per cent. support among the Palestinian population. We need to understand how radicalised that population has become. There will continue to be people around who take a fundamentalist position of total rejection of the existence of the state of Israel. When those people turn to violence, they will have to be policed by every responsible representative. The challenge is to police and control them; to expect 100 per cent. control is unreasonable and puts the whole peace process in the hands of rejectionists on both sides. That is not a position that Palestinian or Israeli representatives should be in if they are trying to pursue the interests of their entire communities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on Syria. I see the Syrian Government, or regime, or however one wants to describe them, as stuck in a historical position as a nominally secular, socialist party—the Ba’ath party regime. They have faced down Islamic movements in the past 20 or 30 years, sometimes with extreme severity. There is potential, if we can find a way forward for the Government in Syria, for them to play a constructive role in finding a wider solution in the middle east and a way forward in the new politics of the middle east—perhaps as an ally—with liberal, secular, European values on the one hand, against fundamentalist Islamic values on the other. Somehow we need to find a way to extricate the Syrian Government from the necessity of using authoritarian measures to sustain themselves in office, and enable them to find a way of establishing institutions in Syria that will allow the people of Syria to become sovereign and make a choice about their future Governments. That is extremely difficult, because in all likelihood if there were a popularly chosen Government in Syria, the first one would be formed by the Muslim Brotherhood and would be likely to be an Islamic Government. We must find a way to develop political processes—in Syria, in particular, but it applies to other Arab states as well—without arriving at the situation that came about in Iran, where there was an Islamic revolution that established a position in which people could not be candidates for office unless they supported an Islamic Government. That is not my idea of democracy. We must find a way to enable Syria to have institutions that will allow a change of Government to happen without its being the last election that ever takes place there.