Not everything in the Middle East is bleak

You might have heard of the old tale: Two Jews, Shlomo and Joseph are sitting on a park Bench in 1930s Germany.  One is reading the Berlin Jewish Chronicle, the other Der Sturmer, the Nazi paper.  Shlomo says to Joseph “How can you read that Nazi propaganda?”.  Joseph replies:  “when I look at the the Berlin Jewish News, I read about misery: concentration camps, ghettos, poverty and starvation.  When I peruse Der Sturmer, I learn that Jews are supermensch,  run the world, own loads of gold and control all the banks. I feel quite good afterwards!”

I thought of this story, on a recent three day visit to Israel, earlier in the year for Tory Parliamentarians, hosted by Conservative Friends of Israel.  Can one be a pessimist or an optimist, about Israel and the Middle East?  Travelling around Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Sderot, the Gaza Border, and having discussions with academics, politicians and military officials, it can be quite easy to fall into melancholy.

Whilst Prime Minister Netanyahu warns of the existential threat to Israel from Iran, some academics suggest that it is virtually impossible for peace to be made with the Palestinians.  The argument goes that the Palestinians don’t really want a return to the 1967 border but the replacement of the whole of Israel with a ‘Palestinian’ state.  In other words, not 1967, but 1948. 

Moreover, the increase in birth rate amongst Arabs compared to Jews, means that in the near future, Israel won't be a Jewish state anymore.  Therefore, the only way for Israel to deal with this is to withdraw unilaterally from the West Bank (a la Gaza), and militarily pound the Palestinians in the event of missile attacks - just as happened against Hamas in 2009.  The same argument runs onto the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, noting that far from bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, regimes that had a ‘cold peace’ towards Israel, will be replaced by Islamists, in some cases backed by Iran, in others backed by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.

All the above may be true, but.... I am reminded of the famous remark from Golda Meir, that: “pessimism is a luxury that no Jew can allow himself.”  I like this quote as, just like the Jew reading Der Sturmer, it is sometimes better to look at the brighter side of life.

First; the Arab spring.  Of course the Middle East is going through a post-French Revolutionary phase of future bloodshed and terror, but history shows us that enlightenment triumphs in the long run.  There are examples - the Kurdistan Autonomous Region in Iraq.  KRG has emerged from the Saddam Hussein bloodbath, as a beacon of democracy, rule of law and religious tolerance.  A progressive Muslim nation at its best.  The collapse of the Arab Dictators, whilst not without significant difficulties, could lead to a more enlightened Middle East in the long run.  If President Assad of Syria goes then this will severely weaken Iranian influence.  Finance and weaponry assistance to Hamas and Hezbollah, will not be easy to come by.  It is no accident that Hamas has removed itself from her Damascus HQ.  

Second; the Palestinians. Whilst the world’s media talk about checkpoints and blockades (sometimes even mentioning the missile attacks on Israel), another Palestine is beginning to emerge. It was William Cobbett, who observed “I defy you to agitate a man with a full stomach”.  In the West Bank, poverty has fallen by 23% since 2004, and economic growth rates are 9%.  Visiting Ramallah we saw a boom - brand new buildings everywhere and bustling shops and businesses.  We visited the state of the art Palestinian City of Rahabi, providing 8,000-10,000 Palestinians with jobs. Built literally out of the rock, this new City will be a source of aspiration and opportunity to Palestinians.  One young female Palestinian engineer I spoke to, suggested that her generation were fed up with war, and were more interested in making money for themselves and their families.  If the capitalist society really reaches the Palestinian Authority, it is unlikely that they will want to turn backwards - either to Arab nationalism or fundamentalist Islam.  What this means, is that peace might be possible with a new generation of Palestinians, who prefer fighting for better standard of  living than the bullet or the bomb.

Back in Israel, in the Northern Negev, where every citizen is just 15 seconds away from a shelter to protect themselves from missile attacks, there is the amazing Sepir Higher Education College - for Jews and Arabs - providing a source of skills, expertise and regeneration for Sderot and the surrounding area.  On the outskirts of Tel Aviv, going to A Better Place, the company that is likely - without exaggeration - to transform the world in terms of replacing cars dependent on oil, with automobiles run entirely by electricity, with batteries that last.   Even the surveillance technology behind the controversial fence, which has stopped suicide bombings by 95% is being used around the world, apparently including Buckingham Palace.

Why say all these things?  I accept that if there is one thing worse than pessimism, it is naive or foolish optimism.  Having worked for CFI before I was an MP, and visited Israel often, I have no illusions about the difficulties that she faces, or the internal and external realities.  But I firmly believe that not everything is as bad as it seems, and that there are some incredible things happening on the ground.  In Israel, democracy and innovation flourishes, in parts of the West Bank (and even in Gaza, where economic growth is 40%), capitalism is beginning its birth and in much of the Middle East, the populace has had enough of Dictatorships - even if they don’t get its replacement right in the short term.  This is all something to shout about, rather than be despondent and despairing.

VIDEO: Iran is at crisis point

Yesterday, there was a major debate in Parliament, on Iran's nuclear weapons programme. As I wrote on PoliticsHome, Iran is at crisis-point.

You can read the text of my speech below:

Robert Halfon (Harlow): I congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate. Although I disagree with everything that he has said, I am grateful to him for challenging my views and those of others who oppose his motion.

 I have three fundamental points to make. First, my hon. Friend said that there is no smoking gun, but I shall argue that there is a big smoking gun and that Iran is building a nuclear bomb; secondly, the nuclear programme is not a response to sanctions, as it was happening already; and, thirdly, we cannot be sure that if Iran had a bomb it would not use one either directly or through one of the many terrorist organisations that it supports. It is worth examining those points in turn.

1) First, is Iran building a nuclear bomb? The International Atomic Energy Agency report of November 2011 states clearly that Iran has acquired the knowledge, technology and resources to create a nuclear bomb within months. Its main findings, to quote section G, paragraph 43, are that Iran has procured “nuclear related…equipment and materials”; acquired “nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network”; and worked “on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components”.

 Putting that aside for one minute, what do Arab nations in the region say? They are in no doubt about what the Iranians are planning. As far back as 2008, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia urged the United States to “cut off the head of the snake” by halting Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Last week, I was in Kurdistan in northern Iraq. The Kurds know all too well what a nuclear Iran would be like and are incredibly concerned about the implications. That is what is at stake in the region.

2) Second, nuclear ambition was not a response to sanctions; Iran already had it. We cannot appease Iran or hope for moderates to emerge within the regime. The United Nations sanctions began in 2006 in response to Iran’s refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. As far back as 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed Iran’s secret nuclear programme, much of which was later admitted to by the Iranian leadership on state television.

Iran has repeatedly dismissed calls to negotiate. President Ahmadinejad now insists that his nuclear programme is unstoppable. The only time when Iran suspended uranium enrichment, co-operated with the UN and signed the full non-proliferation treaty was in October 2003. Why did it do that at that time? Because a quarter of a million western troops had just toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq and were close to Iran’s western border. As soon as that threat diminished, Iran returned to its nuclear programme, which has led us to the point that we are at today.

3) Thirdly, we cannot be sure that Iran would not use a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders have made numerous statements calling for the destruction of the state of Israel and the Jewish people. Just last week, the Iranian website Alef published an article by Khamenei’s strategy chief, Alireza Forghani, detailing plans for the extermination of Israel. As British newspapers have reported, the dossier even pinpoints the housing estates with the highest concentration of Jewish people. That piece, which is now being run on most state-owned sites in Iran, states that because of the United States’ presidential election, the time for Iran to strike is now.

 Last week, Iran’s Ministry of Defence announced that it had tested a two-stage ballistic missile that could deliver a nuclear bomb. Earlier this month, the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel said that he had intelligence showing that that missile has a range of 6,200 km—enough to hit the United States and the United Kingdom.

I have described Iran before in this House as the new Soviet Union of the middle east: it represses its people at home and has expansionist aims abroad. It is widely recognised as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It provides support to insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that have attacked and killed British troops. A nuclear Iran does not just mean a nuclear Iran; it means a nuclear Hezbollah, a nuclear Hamas and so forth. As the former Iranian President, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, said, the “application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel”.

But the extremists in charge of Iran see their conflict as not just with their neighbours, but also with the west. That is why they threatened to bomb Turkey last year. In 2006, Hassan Abbasi, the head of the Iranian doctrinal centre for strategic studies, said: “Britain’s demise is on our agenda”. He added: “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization…we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles.”

In conclusion, the Foreign Secretary has described the Iranian nuclear threat as the "new cold war". The situation may be worse than that because in the past, nuclear deterrents worked because of mutually assured destruction—MAD—and the clear lines of communication. However, for MAD to work, one has to be sane and the Iranian regime has shown itself not to be with its constant human rights abuses, its attack on the British embassy and its support for terrorism. Let that be a lesson for the free world.

 As I have mentioned, I was in Kurdistan last week near the Iranian border. I met Iranian Kurds who are persecuted by the Iranian regime. They knew the reality of a nuclear Iran, and they said that the only way that things would change was if there was regime change there. They asked: Why the west had not done more to support democratic and opposition movements, which would have made some difference and perhaps helped to facilitate regime change?

Finally, I wish to quote Niall Ferguson, who wrote recently in Newsweek:

“War is an evil. But sometimes a preventative war can be a lesser evil than a policy of appeasement. The people who don’t yet know that are the ones still in denial about what a nuclear-armed Iran would end up costing us all.”

by Robert Halfon - Working Hard for Harlow.

Intervention in Syria

There is an important article by Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian today.  In essence, his article makes the argument that (i); Syria is not Iraq and (ii); intervention doesn't have to mean sending armies or planes.

Just because the Iraq intervention has always been controversial, it does not mean that there should never be any intervention anywhere.  Without intervention in Libya, Gadaffi would still be ruling and many thousands of Libyans would have been massacred.  Whilst pro-active military intervention in Syria may be difficult, it doesn't follow that Nato et al, could not supply the opposition movement with logistical support, weaponry, intelligence and humanitarian aid.  We should also not hesitate to expel the Syrian Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

The Assad regime is most probably nearing the end of its reign in terms of brutality - to avoid further suffering and genocide - and to help a stable post-Assad Syria, the West has a moral duty to intervene.

This was the Question I asked William Hague, earlier in the week (6 February), during the short Statement on Syria:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done thus far, but, just as we were right to intervene in Libya and to support with weapons and logistics those opposition movements that faced massacre, can he do more to work with other countries to give logistics, weapons and humanitarian aid to the opposition groups in Syria? Further, when will the stage be reached at which we need to expel the Syrian ambassador from the United Kingdom?

Mr Hague: I hope that I have covered those points. We are not engaged, and are not planning to engage, in arming the opposition forces in Syria, although we will help with advice and some logistics and practical support in order to ensure their ability to operate. It would not be in their interests in any case to be seen as an arm of western Governments, so there is a limit to what we can do in that regard.

On the question of the embassy, we will work with our partners throughout the world on that, but there are advantages in keeping an embassy, as well as in making the strong diplomatic statement of withdrawing an embassy. It improves our understanding of the situation on the ground to have an embassy there.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

VIDEO: Urgent Question on Iran

Today I asked an urgent question in Parliament, about the military build-up in the Strait of Hormuz.

As I said to the Foreign Secretary, Iran is at crisis-point. It is the new Soviet Union of the Middle East. It supports terrorism, undermines democracy, and is trying to stop the Arab Spring in Syria.

But now we are threatened by an Iranian nuclear bomb, which risks the security of the Gulf States, Israel, and the whole region. Two weeks ago, Iran admitted it has begun enriching high-grade uranium.

The regime now threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz - which represents more than 20 per cent of internationally traded oil.

The UK Government could not have done more to try to contain this problem - with unprecedented action to isolate Iran’s financial sector, and the extra EU sanctions imposed this week by the Foreign Secretary. But the question must now be asked - are we facing the prospect of a nuclear dictatorship in the Middle East?

Today I asked the Foreign Secretary: "Will my Right Honourable Friend set out to the House what military action Britain is planning in the Strait? Will he explain what will happen, if these latest economic sanctions don’t work? And what more is being done to bring Russia and China to the UN table?"

Most would accept that Britain has shouldered its fair burden in tackling dictators. But it seems clear that the free world must send a message to Iran, that if they continue with their nuclear plans it will lead to military action.

No one wants war. But tragically, it is looking increasingly possible.

As The Times said today: “One of the greatest civilisations in history has been superseded for a generation by an extremist regime perpetrating repression at home and aggression beyond its borders.”

To see the Foreign Secretary's reply, watch the VIDEO above.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Saif Gadaffi and his British PhD

Regular readers will know that I have campaigned for many months on the issue of Colonel Gadaffi's funding of some British universities, and the fact that his son Saif Gadaffi (above) was awarded a PhD in Britain.

I raised this again recently in Parliament HERE, and the Press Association have reported it HERE.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Iran: the new Soviet Union of the Middle East

Yesterday in Parliament, there was an urgent debate, about the serious threat of Iran building a secret nuclear weapon.

This is deeply worrying: not only for the Iranian people, who are denied their basic democratic rights and freedoms, but for the entire world.

I made a short speech about this, which follows below:

Robert Halfon (Harlow): I welcome this debate because, contrary to what has just been said, I believe that Iran is in essence the new Soviet Union of the middle east. It supports terrorism. We know well its strong backing of Hezbollah in Lebanon. It supplies Hezbollah with the missiles and the finance that it needs to destabilise the region and to fire attack missiles on Israel. Iran also supports Hamas, and we know what Hamas has done in Gaza, overthrowing the more moderate Palestinian Authority, running a totalitarian mini-state known as Hamastan in Gaza, stopping moves towards peace and regularly firing missiles on Israel.

Iran has also undermined democratic states. Not long ago it fired missiles on to the Kurdish regional Government. It is supporting the Syrian Government of President Assad and his crackdown on the recent anti-Government protests. It has provided the Syrian authorities with equipment, advice and technical know-how to help curtail and monitor internal communications. It has provided material assistance in the form of riot and crowd dispersal material, as well as military training for Syrian troops. Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria are in essence proxies for Iran. We well know that Iran has sent suicide bombers into Iraq and attacked our troops.

All this would be bad enough were it not for Iran’s nuclear programme. As has been said, the development of the nuclear bomb in Iran is incredibly concerning. The IAEA report has been highlighted and clearly shows that Iran has been covertly developing the technology needed to weaponise nuclear material. If we think the current Iranian regime is extreme, its so-called more moderate predecessor said that it would be okay to use a nuclear bomb in the middle east against Israel, because if a few million are killed in the process, it does not matter for the wider good.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned nuclear weapons. Does he not have concerns that Israel has 200 nuclear warheads and is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Does he not think a nuclear weapons convention including Israel would be a helpful step forward in the region?

Robert Halfon: I am happy for any nuclear convention to reduce nuclear weapons in the middle east, but the crucial point that the hon. Gentleman misses is that Israel is a democracy and Iran is a dictatorship.

Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green): I agree with my hon. Friend. May I point out that it is not Israel which has threatened to wipe its neighbour off the face of the earth? Is that not the key point in this?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend, who is a strong supporter of Israel, is exactly right.

The one difference between Iran and the Soviet Union is that, when the Soviet Union and the west had nuclear weapons, we lived under the doctrine known as MAD, mutually assured destruction, and for MAD to work one had to be sane, but the sad fact is that Iran does not have that level of sanity, given that, as my hon. Friend says, the President often says that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. We know how the regime behaves from its recent treatment and trashing of the UK embassy, from its taking of American hostages and from its many other human rights abuses.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned the abuse of trade unionists and the imprisonment of women, an issue that The Times has highlighted so well, so I strongly welcome the fact that the Government have brought in the tough measures before us. This is the first time the UK has used such powers to cut off an entire country’s banking sector from our financial sector, and that is hugely important not just because of the hoped-for effect of stopping the Iranian nuclear regime, but because of the message that it sends to other tyrannical regimes throughout the world—that Britain will not be weak, but be strong and do everything it can to stop the actions of such dictators.

Although I strongly welcome these tough sanctions and praise the Treasury for having the courage to introduce them, I note that we may be too late. Iran is not far off acquiring a nuclear bomb, and we—perhaps not this country itself, but NATO—may need to take further military action to rid the world of that bomb, to put pressure on the country’s evil regime and to bring about a true democracy, with the rule of law, freedom and everything that the Iranian people deserve.


by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Gilad Shalit returns to Israel

After over five years in captivity - since being kidnapped by Hamas in 2006 - Gilad Shalit was finally released today.


During his imprisonment, the soldier was allowed no visitors, no correspondence or contact with the outside world or even visitation from the Red Cross. In 2009, I visited the UK Red Cross, with Alistair Burt MP, who was then an officer of Conservative Friends of Israel.  We asked the RC to do all they could to use all the channels available, to allow some access to Corporal Shalit.  Sadly, nothing improved and Shalit continued to be kept in solitary confinement.


In order to secure his release, Israel agreed to release over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom were involved in terrorist atrocities - such as the bombing of a Jewish Passover dinner in Netanya in March 2002.  As I said in the Commons last week, the fact that Israel was prepared to release so many terrorists, in return for just one, not only showed her commitment to the lives of her soldiers, but also her commitment to bringing about peace.


My question in the Commons went like this:
13 Oct 2011 : Column 507

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I commend my right hon. Friend and, particularly, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon.  Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on their work over many years to secure the release of Gilad Shalit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Israel has released more then 1,000 prisoners, many of whom were involved in horrific terrorist atrocities, shows that it is willing to negotiate and to make some moves towards peace?
Mr Hague: Yes, I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, as does the Under-Secretary; we are grateful for that. The release does show such willingness, but it is now important to replicate it in other negotiations.  In this case, Israel has made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) suggests, a decisive offer to bring about the release of Gilad Shalit; we now need Israel to make decisive offers on a much grander scale in order to bring about a two-state solution. That is what we urge it to do in the coming weeks. It will be necessary for Israel to do so if we are to arrive at that two-state solution, because without that solution Israel will be in a steadily more isolated and dangerous international situation.

Conservative Friends of Israel have put the following announcement:

The Prime Minister made the following statement:

“I know that people across Britain will share in the joy and relief felt by Gilad Shalit and his family today. I can only imagine the heartache of the last five years, and I am full of admiration for the courage and fortitude which Sergeant Shalit and his family have shown through his long cruel and unjustified captivity. I congratulate Prime Minister Netanyahu and everyone involved for bringing him home safely, and hope this prisoner exchange will bring peace a step closer.

“Britain will continue to stand by Israel in defeating terrorism. We remain strongly committed to the cause of peace in the Middle East – with Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side in security. We will continue to work for direct negotiations to achieve that end.”

Parliamentary Chairman of CFI, Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP said:

“Captured in a cross border attack from inside Israel and imprisoned for over 1000 days the release of Sergeant Gilad Shalit has been a very long time coming. It is impossible to imagine the hardship and suffering that has been endured, but throughout, Gilad and the Shalit family have shown resilience, strength and astonishing determination. I congratulate Prime Minister Netanyahu. Like every good Prime Minister he listened to what the people wanted and he made the tough decisions. He did the right thing.  We must however not confuse this victory for humanity as a victory for Hamas. As Israel and the Palestinians continue to work towards peace and two states for two peoples it remains as clear as ever that Hamas cannot play a part in this process with their ideology intact. The UK must continue to ensure that the Quartet Principles are upheld and re-enforced.”

P.S. James Arbuthnot has written an article for Conservative Home which explains why Israel puts such a high price on the lives of its soldiers and emphasises the importance of maintaining pressure on Hamas. You can read the article on the link HERE.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Democracy in the Middle East

 

On Monday, during the Conservative Conference, I gave a speech to a fringe meeting, chaired by Nick Soames MP and organised by the Kurdistan Regional Government.  My remarks are summarised below:

After the Iraq war, it was often argued that the Middle East wasn’t “ready for democracy”. The Guardian for example implied this about Iraq in 2003.

But this is a nonsensical argument, as it seems to suggest that some people because of their background are not entitled to democracy, and the example of Kurdistan shows all too clearly how wrong this is.

The removal of Saddam Hussein not only saved the Kurds from being destroyed by genocide, but also brought about an independent, democratic and free nation in the shape of Kurdistan.

As Vice-Chair of the All-Party Group for Kurdistan, I have visited twice, and have seen firsthand the evidence of genocide. Despite regional instability, autonomous Kurdistan was established in 2003. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) makes its own laws, controls its own army, and decides its own pace of economic development.  In contrast to most other parts of Iraq, KRG is relatively terrorist-free.

Ultimately, a democracy can be judged by its respect for property rights, religious tolerance, the rule of law, equality towards women, equal access to education, a free press, and a vigorous political opposition.

It’s  worth looking at how far Kurdistan fulfills some of these criteria:

PROPERTY RIGHTS

The draft Kurdistan constitution (it's still a draft) includes several articles concerning the protection of minority, political and property rights. In Ankawa, the main Christian town in Erbil governorate, there is even special heritage protection for the property owned by the local community.

RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE

The Kurdish regional parliament has now officially recognised the rights of other minorities such Turkmen, and Assyrians, and these are reflected in the electoral system.In fact, Kurdistan is one of the only safe-havens for Christians and Jews in the region.

Whilst Christians are being murdered and persecuted across Iraq and Iran, in Kurdistan they are welcomed.  The Kurdish President has even invited Christian refugees to take up safe haven in his region.

THE RULE OF LAW

Crime is very low compared to neighbouring Iraq, and the UK has helped the Kurdish Police authorities to build forensic skills, rather than relying the traditional “confession-based” policing. The Kurdish judiciary are independent, and have defended the right of free assembly during the Arab Spring.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS

On women’s rights, the Kurdistan Parliament has recently passed tough laws against domestic violence. This made female genital mutilation, forced marriage, and child labour all criminal offences for the first time.

FREE ACCESS TO EDUCATION

As the Kurdish economy is booming, universities too are flourishing, and despite some set-backs there is a real focus on improving education. Illiteracy has fallen from thirty-seven to  to just sixteen percent since 2003, and is now at about the same level as London in 2011.

Kurdistan is a country that has learnt from the past, rather than living in it. Had Saddam stayed in power, it is likely that at some point, the rest of Kurdistan would have been covered with nerve gas - were it not for the first Iraq war and the creation of the Kurdish Safe Havens in 1991-2. (Saddam’s henchmen pledged to “bury them with bulldozers”.)

Some perpetrators of the genocide are even thought to be living in Europe, possibly even in England, having claimed asylum. Inexplicably, the genocide of the Kurds is not recognised as a genocide by the International Community, most notably  the United Nations.

For justice to be done, the UN must fully recognise the murder of the Kurds for the genocide that it was.

The Arab Spring shows that the Middle East is ready for democracy. Of course, it doesn’t mean that it will happen all at once, and there will  bemany upsets along the way. But the people of the Middle East are no different to anyone else. They want bread, but they want freedom also.

You can also see this article HERE.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

We Must Not Negotiate With Terrorists

Yesterday at Party Conference, I spoke about terrorism and extremism in the UK.

The key points that I made were:

- The story of Islamist extremism in the UK is one of Danegeld, and King Canute. Danegeld, because for too long we have thought that if we appease extremists, this will stop the violence. As the Prime Minister said in his Munich speech: “When a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them. The failure of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage is a case in point.” We see this manifested in our universities, our approach to extremists in the UK, and in battles within Government about who should be banned from Britain. As with all Dane-geld, the policy has failed.

- Second, I want to mention King Canute, because I am not a pessimist. I believe we can turn back the tide. By the end of the Labour Government, Ministers like Hazel Blears and Tony Blair himself had started to take the right approach – although too often they had to fight the status quo, the prevailing logic of the Establishment, which said that Britain’s only hope was to appease the problem. But thanks to the work of many people here, the new Prevent Strategy and the David Cameron’s Munich speech have changed the rules of the game. This Government accepts that appeasement doesn’t work.

- Even Muslim nations think we have let extremism go too far. One story crystalises the problem for me. On a visit to Kurdistan, the Kurdish Prime Minister told me he had been to England, visiting a mosque in the north. He said if he had seen that kind of mosque in Kurdistan he would have shut it down overnight, because of its radicalism and aggression. When a Muslim leader, of a progressive Muslim nation, says that he is uncomfortable with the extremism of some British mosques – Surely, there can be no better description of the problem we face.

ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROBLEM
- There is evidence of radicalisation around us. One of the biggest challenges in this debate, is the inertia of many people who are blind to what is happening, because it has not directly affected their lives. We need to show them that this is not a new problem. In 2006, the Education Secretary set out in Celsius 7/7 how the West had failed to stand up for its liberal values, saying: “The British State does not have the courage to face down the advocates of political Islam. Islamists in Britain scent weakness.” Sadly, evidence of radicalisation on University campuses is old news: in 1997 the Committee of Vice Chancellors warned us about it; in 2006 Anthony Glees warned us again; and last year, MI5 identified more than 39 university campuses as “vulnerable to violent extremism” (according to research by Student Rights and the Henry Jackson Society). For nearly 15 years, the problem has been getting worse.

- This is not just a battle against terrorism. It is a battle of ideas. On one side there is freedom, democracy, religious tolerance, equality for women, property rights, a free press, and the rule of law. And on the other side there is holy jihad, the subjugation of women and minorities, and the aim of re-establishing a Caliphate regime. This is what we have to recognise, that there is a fifth column in our midst.

WHERE THE UK HAS APPEASED EXTREMISM
- Some of our universities have become ‘outposts’ for Middle Eastern dictators. For too long, we have done deals with barbaric regimes, like Saudi Arabia and Libya, for the sake of so-called security and commercial interests. This has slowly crept into a tolerance not just of them, but of their values and ideas: it has become a vicious circle. Student Rights has set out much of the evidence HERE. As the Guardian has said: in 2009, Durham signed a ‘memorandum of understanding’ with Iran, and Dr. Colin Turner, a member of Durham’s Iranian Studies Centre, later admitted to the Guardian: “Iranian money comes with strings attached, as we have found to our chagrin.” 

- This is classic Entryist tactics. We have to ask: what is in this deal for them? Is it to promote their extremist ideology? What kind of legitimacy are they buying? The amounts of money may be small in comparison with British GDP, or the Defence Budget, but so much of this is about symbolism.

- One of the results is that the UK now exports terrorism, as the new Prevent Strategy notes. Since 1989, terrorism has become one of our most infamous exports, and around 70 British students have been involved in terrorist attacks. Waheed Zahman and Umar Farok Abdulmutalab were both Presidents of Islamic Societies at London Universities. The suicide bomber in Sweden last year was a British university graduate. Prevent paragraph 10.61 says that ONE THIRD of people jailed for Al Qa’ida crimes in the UK have been university graduates. In paragraph 10.66 it goes on to say: “Hizb-ut-Tahrir target specific universities and colleges with the objective of radicalising and recruiting those students.”

- Inevitably some of the old Prevent strategy was hijacked by well-intentioned but ineffective groups. Now, moving on to the extremist groups that surround our universities, I accept that Tony Blair and others had begun to get a real understanding of the problem. But it was wrong to give them taxpayers’ money. In fact, much of the Prevent money was simply wasted: in the Wall Street Journal, Douglas Murray noted how a multicultural food-festival in Oxfordshire received Prevent funds, “as though the residents of Banbury were but one Balti away from detonation”.

- We have allowed extremist groups, or their front organisations, to operate too freely. I welcome the Government proscribing many of the 50 groups on the Home Office list – although there is the problem of hydra’s head, where they change names and pop up again. Too many of these groups are apologists for terrorism: part of the conveyor belt that is not serious about opposing extremism, alongside radical groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

- Whitehall Officials have sometimes been too willing to side with hate-preachers. A year ago, in September 2010, the Daily Telegraph reported that Charles Farr, Director-General for Security and Counter-Terrorism, pledged support for Zakir Naik to enter Britain. This was against the judgement of the Home Secretary (who has taken a firm line), and Mr Farr was suspended following a row in the media.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE
- I welcome the revised Prevent strategy, for two reasons. First, it makes a much clearer distinction between counter-terrorist work, and cultural integration, which is right. Second, it stops the taxpayer funding of extremists. Public money will NO LONGER be provided to extremist groups that do not support the values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and tolerance.

- If I have one concern, it is that there must be no excuses for inaction. There is a famous saying, that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Sometimes there is a criticism, that the Prevent strategy can read like one of Sir Humphrey’s committees: page after page of debates, discussions, forums, learning seminars, general education, conferences, training... Yes, it is important to consult people. But this must not become an excuse for inaction.

- We now need zero tolerance. No more appeasement. If Prevent is to mean anything, we need no more invitations to hate preacher Raed Salah, to speak in Parliament. No more “indefinite leave to remain” for Mohammed Sawalha, who the BBC say is currently in London, fundraising for Hamas, although I understand that he has denied this. To those who oppose zero tolerance, I say two things: First, we cannot stop burglary, but we still chase thieves. Crime is crime. We must not appease it. Second, symbols are important. If we are determined, extremists will get the message. For example, it is incredible that Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority are now cracking down on Hizb ut-Tahrir (according to their own website) but we still allow it to flourish here in the UK. 

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

What are the Lessons to be Learned from the Demise of Gadaffi?

First: the free world must stop appeasing dictators. It may work in the short term but never in the long. The last government, some of our universities and businesses, lost their moral compass when it came to dealing with the Libyan regime. Whilst senior new Labour Government figures hob-nobbed with Gadaffi and his family, our academic institutions accepted millions in blood money, whilst companies rushed to Libya to sign commercial deals. The release of Lockerbie murderer Al Megrahi marked the high point (or low point) of this appeasement by the establishment.

Let's undo this wrong by ensuring Al Megrahi returns to the UK to prison or spend the rest of his life rotting in a Libyan jail. Similarly there should be no 'exile' for Gadaffi and his family: only the international criminal court.

Sadly the appeasement of Gadaffi isn't isolated: the West did the same with Saddam - for a while - and with the Assad family in Syria. The results are always the same: bloodshed.
Second: the yearning for freedom is deep in every human breast and should be nurtured and supported. The realist school of Foreign Policy has argued for years that the 'Middle East' is not ready for democracy... that you can't drop democracy from a B52 bomber'. Actually you can, (the Nato planes showed that - as they provided cover as the rebels advanced on Tripoli) - though that is not the only way to do it.

Liberty is a human right. Sometimes it requires military intervention, other times it requires hearts and minds. Rather than appeasement, our foreign policy should be directed at supporting resistance groups to dictators, funding radio, TV stations, and the internet, in the same way the CIA did in the Cold War to undermine Communism. Where is the Middle East equivalent to Radio Free Europe?

Third: just because you have got rid of a tyrant, does not mean you have got rid of tyranny. The experience of Iraq shows that the first steps after dictatorship are the most important. Nato and Western Governments need to continue to nurture genuinely democratic forces in post-Gadaffi Libya and help to rebuild the country. Any prospect of extreme Islamists/Al Qaeda et al must be ruthlessly crushed. To those who say it may take a few years, they may be right. But so did democracy in Japan and Germany after the Second World War.

Fourth: this relates to the first lesson about appeasement. For months now the Syrian regime has been murdering its way through the country. Just as with the Libyan tragedy, there has barely been a peep from the A List celebs, politicians who so readily criticise Israel for the slightest infringement. No demonstrations. No Trafalgar Square rallies against Assad and Gadaffi bloodshed. No call for UN resolutions. Zilch. Nothing. But, there was of course a rally for Hezbollah over the weekend.

In the past few days there have been terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens, and a barrage of missiles fired on to Israeli towns. Israel reacts and there is already outrage from usual suspects. The message here is get a sense of proportion, regain our moral compass and actually support those countries in the Middle East that are genuinely democratic and are fighting the battle against terrorism and dictatorship on a daily basis.

Finally, let those who love freedom enjoy this special moment of the demise of a dictator and the celebration of the now free people of Libya. It is a tribute to David Cameron, that he had the courage to see this through, even when the armchair generals were urging retreat when the going got tough.

Britain shouldered a huge burden in dealing with Gadaffi - righting the wrongs of the past.

As I wrote before on Conservative Home: My father and Grandfather came from Libya. I hope now I will be able to go to Tripoli and retrace their footsteps.




by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

SOAS and the Middle East

Following my Freedom of Information request, today I had a Commons Motion published about the alleged links between the London School of Oriental and African Studies and the Saudis. The University allegedly has a number of other questionable relations with some individuals of some controversy. I have written to the Vice Chancellor for an explanation.

More details are below from the hard-hitting Student Rights organisation:
***
(You can download the full report HERE)

Student Rights Press Release:

Our latest report uncovers the links with the Saudi Arabian Regime which has resulted in SOAS directly receiving £755,000 from the Saudi Arabian Royal family. Further scandals are also uncovered by this report.
The briefing unveils the fact that SOAS provided Mutassim Gaddafi, the National Security Advisor to the Murderous Gaddafi regime, with private English tutoring and that an agreement between SOAS and Al-Fateh University in Tripoli was signed just months before the uprisings began in Libya.

Perhaps the most shocking revelation is that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a cleric who is banned from the UK and US for endorsing suicide bombings and the killing of pregnant women, is on the editorial board of the SOAS journal of Quranic Studies. Al-Qaradawi has in addition been condemned by over 2,500 Muslim scholars worldwide.

An article on our report has been written by The Jewish Chronicle and the brief is also the subject of a new Early Day Motion proposed by Robert Halfon MP.
***
This is the response from SOAS:
On the issue of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi's membership of the editorial board of a journal hosted by SOAS, it said:

"Professor Yusuf al-Qaradawi and some other editorial advisers from the Middle East only advise on the Arabic section of the Journal, and not on the English section. His academic peers and Muslim scholars in the UK and across the globe consider him to be one of the most outstanding scholars of the Quran in the Arabic and Islamic world. No political or other consideration was involved in asking him to be on the board."

P.S. You can read and see more at the Harry's Place website HERE.

Back to Kurdistan

Some of you will remember that over the New Year Holiday, I visited Kurdistan Region in Northern Iraq.

Well, I am back there for just three days as part of a delegation of MPs. As you know, I am very supportive of the Kurds. They are a progressive Muslim people, who suffered terribly under Saddam Hussein (tortured and murdered in the hundreds of thousands), yet have emerged to build an independent, prosperous nation, with a free market, religious tolerance and the rule of law.

Yet, as with every new nation, there are birth pangs and occasional setbacks to democratic development. One academic we met today, described Kurdistan in Leninist terminology: taking 'two steps forward and one step back'.

For this reason, on this visit, we are meeting with Opposition Parties and spending time in the Kurdish Parliament.

This afternoon, we talked with senior US Reconstruction Diplomats. What came out from the discussion, was that the ruling parties needed to be more tolerant of Opposition foibles and that the Opposition needed to learn how to be more thoughtful and responsible.

We were also made aware of the growing influence of Iran. Whilst the Kurds have much in common with the Persians - both culturally and with language - there is little support for the Iranian fundamentalist regime of President Ahmadinejad. However, Iran is apparently supporting terrorist groups in Iraq and encouraging Islamists in Kurdistan. It is thought that Iran doesn't like Kurdistan's new found independence and strength and is seeking to control it - in one way or another.

P.S. The two pictures are of Erbil (the capital city) in the sunset and of a memorial dedicated to service men who lost their lives through 'friendly fire', during the first Iraq War.

Is it time for a United Nations Resolution on Syria?

Is it time for a United Nation resolution on Syria?  Whilst world attention has invariably been focused on Libya, the Assad Baathist Regime has been busy murdering its own citizens all around the country. In March, security forces fired on protesters, including at a funeral in Dara.

A few days ago, in the City of Homa, thousands of demonstrators were attacked by armed forces.  So far, human rights groups suggest that up to 200 people have been killed by the Regime, with hundreds more imprisoned.

This reaction to demonstrators is not new. The Assads have ruthlessly crushed any challenge to their rule.  President Assad's predecessor, (his father), Hafez al-Assad, carried out the most horrendous genocide in 1982, when (according to the Syrian Human rights committee), up to 40,000 Sunni Muslims were killed in the city of Hama, in order to crush a rebellion against the Assad family.  One commentator described the events at Hama:

"as among the single deadliest acts by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East".

Syria remains a totalitarian state.  Its Baathist regime mirrors that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its emphasis on Arab nationalism, expansionism and dictatorship.  Dissenters are routinely imprisoned, tortured and sometimes executed.

The regime has funded and sent weapons to terrorist groups around the world  - as well as hosted some of the most extreme Palestinian terrorists.  Abu Daoud for example, the mastermind behind the massacre of the Israeli Athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, spent his final years in the country.

Bashir Assad has also formed a close strategic alliance with Iran (Iranian advisers are thought to be in Syria at present, advising the leadership on dealing with the opposition movement).

Like Gadaffi, President Assad will stop at nothing to protect his regime and all it stands for.  The desire from thousands of Syrians for liberation from the Baathists - is regarded as treason against the State.

Whilst the Syrian Government have pledged to end the 48 year old 'emergency law' (a kind of Assad-Baathist Magna Carta), the reality is that it has been used to deal with protesters - even in recent days.

The United Nations acted at ten minutes to midnight on Libya. It now needs to take action to ensure that the Assad regime knows that murdering their way out of this crisis is not an option.

This blog also appeared on the Conservative Home website today HERE.

Interview on Libya with the Jeremy Vine Show (BBC Radio 2)

Today I talked to the Jeremy Vine Show (BBC Radio 2), and argued that we must do more to support the Freedom Fighters in Libya, in their struggle against Colonel Gaddafi.

The NATO operation needs to support the civilians of East Libya, to stop a humanitarian tragedy.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Helping the Resistance in Libya

Last night in Parliament, I argued that we must help the resistance fighers in Libya.

My full speech is HERE, or below:

Robert Halfon (Harlow): I welcome the debate and want to make three points, given the time available. I want to consider why we got here today; the resolution, and the role of the United Nations.

I accept that it is not only the past 10 years of policy on Libya that has caused the current problems. Indeed, we can go back to the 1950s, when the British first installed King Idris on the throne.

Although he was liked and popular, he was weak. Gaddafi emerged on the scene in the late 1950s. I mentioned last week in the middle east debate that my father shook Gaddafi's hand as he walked down the streets of Tripoli as a popular colonel.

The coup against King Idris was bloodless; he was in Turkey at the time.

Astonishingly, there was an American air base near Tripoli, but the Americans did nothing to stop the coup.

The west has therefore been getting it wrong about Colonel Gaddafi for many years, and in the past few years, it got it even more wrong.

I welcome the United Nations resolution and the Prime Minister's leadership. The no-fly zone was essential to stop a massacre of the citizens of Benghazi in particular.

However, we need to go further because there is a strong likelihood, which I mentioned earlier, that Gaddafi may use mustard gas. The policy to try to contain his weapons of mass destruction went wrong. If it happens, we do not want another Halabja, which I visited not long ago, on our hands.

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that we must supply weapons to the resistance fighters. We cannot just leave them to Gaddafi's troops, albeit under a no-fly zone. We must also ensure that all kinds of humanitarian aid reaches the citizens of Tripoli and Benghazi and the surrounding areas.

The Leader of the Opposition said earlier that he was unsure whether this is a watershed moment in our international affairs, but I think it is. The UN has so often failed us and not intervened when it should have done, but the Libyan situation is an example of the UN behaving differently and acting in an almost united way. That is why it is a watershed moment-it marks an important moment in our international affairs.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) said that I believe in intervention everywhere, and she is not wrong. I believe in muscular enlightenment, and that it is our duty to promote freedom around the world. That need not always happen militarily; we can also use soft power - hearts and minds.

However, it must be our role in the world to promote freedom, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance and women's equality wherever we can.


by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com