Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Malcolm Rifkind (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 24 January 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Iraq and the wider Middle East.


Iraq and the wider Middle East

I accept my right hon. Friend’s comment. The quid pro quo has to be two things from Iran: an effective and verifiable renunciation of its nuclear aspirations, and renunciation of support for terrorism. In exchange for that, it should be offered not only dialogue but a full normalisation of relations—far more than the Americans are currently offering. The advantage is that either the Iranians would accept the offer—we must remember that many in Iran, unlike those in North Korea, do not want isolation but wish their country to be a normal respected member of the international community, so there is a serious prospect of such an offer being perceived as attractive—or they could reject it. If that happened, the United States would be in an infinitely stronger position to say to Russia and China, ““We need effective sanctions and pressure on Iran to make it reconsider the position.”” That is the best way forward. Like all hon. Members, if I wanted to go to Baghdad I would not start from here. Although the situation shows odd glimmers of encouragement, it is more desperate than any of us could have anticipated. One important fact, which is not good and has not been mentioned so far, is that no less than 2 million Iraqis have fled their country since its invasion. They did not flee in disapproval of the invasion or because they disliked western policy, but because they were in danger of losing their lives. The 2 million are those who could afford to go—they are overwhelmingly the middle classes of Iraq, potentially the people who could build the new country. They cannot now do that. The withdrawal of troops is an issue not of principle—the Iraqi Government want troops to be withdrawn—but of timing and extent. We do not require a fixed date but a gradual withdrawal, in co-operation and dialogue with the Iraqi Government. In the speech that I mentioned a few moments ago, the Prime Minister concluded:"““The post cold war threat is now clear. The world has changed…I have set out the choice I believe we should make. I look forward to the debate.””" It is rather sad and pathetic that we are holding the debate this afternoon and the Prime Minister is not taking part in it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c1474 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Armed forces Armed conflict Casualties Civilians Women Human rights Iraq Economic situation Foreign policy Nuclear weapons Peacekeeping operations Politics and government Violence USA UN resolutions Israel Palestine Iran Syria Middle East Reconstruction Peace negotiations Iraq conflict Lebanon Occupied territories Ceasefires
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk