---

Global Security (Middle East)

It is not for us to prescribe to the people of any country the political system they should adopt. However, experience shows—for example, the situation in Iran that resulted from the Shah's repression—that if a country does not have political reform, when change happens it can be more extreme, more violent and have more serious consequences than a transition regime, which progresses in a managed and gradual way towards democratisation. There are real dilemmas. I do not believe that we should be on a crusade to democratise the Arab and Muslim world. However, we ought to promote democratic standards and values, and the careful, pragmatic and effective Westminster Foundation for Democracy is an example of how best to do that. I have touched on Lebanon, and I suspect that some of my colleagues may say more about it. The political situation there is extremely difficult; there is no agreement yet on the new President and there is a question about the stability of the political system. The system is unusual; it is not democratic in the sense we understand, but the outcome of a vicious civil war and the kind of conflicts that, sadly, we have seen in many parts of the world. In such circumstances, sometimes, political systems are required that are based on entrenched accommodations between different factions or groups. The problem in Lebanon is that the system is under great stress. Hezbollah is strong and growing in importance. The fact that it recently started firing rockets into Israel, after a long period of not doing so, is an indication of the possibility that the conflict could resume—a conflict to which our report refers in great detail. Committee members saw its consequences when they visited southern Lebanon and were shown the cluster munitions. The report refers to the malign influence of Hezbollah and Iran. We highlighted the fact that some countries outside Israel, Palestine and Lebanon have foreign policy objectives to work against any agreement that might result from the Annapolis process. Syria was present at Annapolis, which is important, but Iran was not—our Committee is carrying out an inquiry into Iran and will produce a detailed report in a few weeks. However, we need to be aware that there are players outside the region who are neither Arab nor Israeli but who have an interest in the outcome and could have a malign influence through arming or financing rejectionist groups that do not want the process taken further. The Committee commented in passing on the situation in Iraq, about which we were probably unduly pessimistic. We concluded that the surge in Iraq did not look as though it would succeed. However, from the outside, judging by certain criteria—the number of casualties has fallen sharply—there seems to have been a significant improvement in the living standards of a large number of people in at least parts of Baghdad. If that is so, we must recognise it. None the less, difficulties remain in the political process, some of which we touch on in the report. Although it has been agreed that former Ba'athists can return to jobs in the Government, there has been no resolution on the hydrocarbons law and on the sharing of oil and gas receipts. Furthermore, political problems remain over the ongoing power struggle between different groups and factions, particularly within the Shi'a community in Basra and the south, where a reduced but important British military presence remains.