Jo Swinson

Middle East - Westminster Hall Debate

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): I congratulate Mr. Spring on securing this debate and on the way in which he introduced it. He clearly has great expertise, and the way in which he outlined the historical context and more recent developments set the tone for an interesting and productive debate. I welcome the Minister to his position. I am sure that this will be the first of many interesting and enjoyable debates on a wide variety of foreign policy issues.

This is a good time to debate Syria and the middle east, not least because of recent developments in the region and the change in the US's approach to the middle east. Obama has made engaging with Syria a key point of his foreign policy, which is a welcome change from the Bush years, and is a cause for optimism. As has been outlined, such engagement with Syria is vital to ensuring a peaceful withdrawal from Iraq, maintaining peace and stability in Lebanon, and for the Arab-Israeli peace process, on which we all so desperately want more progress.

Historically, Syria has been more isolated because of its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and its close ties with Iran, which have given countries reason to be cautious in their dealings with Syria. However, I argue that those are the very reasons why we must engage, because the influence that Syria has across the region makes it a vital player.

Recently, George Mitchell, the US envoy for Arab-Israeli peace, visited Damascus. That is a hugely positive step. Traditionally, the UK has been somewhat less hostile than the US towards Syria. We have maintained diplomatic relations and engage directly on regional and consular issues. That approach must be welcomed, because engagement is the cornerstone of how we can use influence with Syria to try to unlock some of the problems in that troubled region.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk talked about the close links between Syria and Iraq. He said that this is not the place to go over the arguments about the war, and I agree, but later today we have the Opposition-day debate on the Iraq inquiry. It is important that that inquiry, with its broader remit, is also able to consider the impact that the war had on the wider region and Britain's foreign policy objectives in the wider region, because, as he said, they have been somewhat undermined by our actions in Iraq.

There is the issue of Syria having allowed insurgents to cross the border into Iraq, which has made the situation there much more difficult. According to the eighth report of 2006-07 from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Syria expert Patrick Seale said that Syria had allowed "a few Jihadists" to "go across that territory" because

"the Syrians do not want the Americans to have too easy a time in Iraq, because they think that the Americans will win there and they will be next."

That sense of vulnerability and concern will have been a key motivator in Syria's decisions. I hope that now, with the change of approach, the Syrians will have some confidence that they will not be next and that that will help to build trust in order for them to clamp down on insurgency crossings into Iraq. Obviously, there is a fear with the troop withdrawal and handover that this will be a vulnerable time in Iraq and insurgency activity could instead increase.

The situation of Iraqi refugees in Syria was mentioned by Richard Burden. It was interesting for us to hear about his experiences seeing the refugee camps at first hand and to hear the positive stories that he had to tell about education and development there, but clearly the situation places huge stress on Syria. That strengthens the case for pointing out to Syria that it is in its interests to engage more regionally and to have a prosperous and stable Iraq next door, not only to act as a trading partner but to facilitate the return of refugees, at an appropriate pace, and to lessen the burden that Syria is experiencing. In foreign diplomacy, using the self-interest of countries to encourage certain behaviour is often the most successful approach.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield, Labour): The hon. Lady is right to say that repatriation of some Iraqi refugees will be the right option, but the point that I was trying to make and the issue that we need to tackle as an international community-this is certainly the view of a number of the Iraqi refugees themselves-is that a programme for resettlement elsewhere may be the long-term solution for a number of those refugees. In some cases that will be in Syria and the middle east; in other cases it will be in the wider world. We need to think through how that will be achieved.

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which highlights the importance of Syria being part of the wider engagement, because creating such a solution will not happen with just one country; it needs to be part of a much wider discussion.

Brooks Newmark (Whip, Whips; Braintree, Conservative): During my visits to Syria, I have talked about that issue as well. Given the work that the Syrian Government have done in absorbing perhaps 1 million or more refugees and giving them health care, education and housing, surely the international community, purely on a humanitarian level, should be doing more in giving some sort of funding towards that to support the Syrian Government.

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): I certainly think that the Syrian Government should be praised for what they have done. No doubt the humanitarian agencies will be involved, and they should be involved. I will not go into all the arguments about the Iraq war, but particularly where we have contributed to problems and to what I view as a terrible mistake, we have a responsibility to help to clear up the mess that we have made and to provide such support.

On Israel and Palestine, I was intrigued by the comments of Mr. Godsiff. I was feeling slightly despondent when he talked about being unable to see a two-state solution. As someone who supports a two-state solution, I thought that perhaps it was going to be a pessimistic comment, but I was interested to hear his suggestion that in fact a three or four-state solution might be the end point. I do not know whether that will be the case, but whether it is two, three or four, the word "solution" is what matters. That is surely the end that we all want.

Clearly, Syria will play a vital role in that. Various hon. Members mentioned the key importance of the Golan heights in getting Syria involved in the peace process. That is obviously a bottom line for the Syrians. Unlike many hon. Members in the debate, I have not been to Syria, but I did go to the Golan heights on a trip to Israel some years ago. It is clearly a much contested piece of land but, as was also pointed out, it is not just a territorial dispute. There is the human aspect in terms of displacement. What surprised me somewhat when I went there was the strategic importance of that land in terms of water-that key resource that sometimes in the UK we have far too much of with our climate, but which in drier areas of the world can be a strategically important resource. I think that, increasingly, water will replace oil as the key resource that might be in a position to provoke conflict. We need to be aware of that.

With regard to Israel's approach, Netanyahu was promising before the election not to return the Golan heights, but there is some cause for optimism, in that his stance may have softened when he told George Mitchell:

"I am unwilling to commit in advance to a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights."

That seems to constitute a move from his pre-election position. It is not yet clear whether it could be a concession that he would make later. The basing of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Damascus gives Syria an obvious role, potentially, in the peace negotiations. If we can resolve the issue of the Golan heights, Syria might be more willing to exert influence over Hamas to support the peace process.

There is a key economic imperative in considering the situation with Syria. Its isolation and the suspension of the EU trade association agreement, which was mentioned, have clearly caused difficulties for Syria. There is a danger in Syria being too isolated and ending up too dependent on Iran. They have obviously had close ties and that is a potential danger. Perhaps if Syria were to distance itself a little more from Iran, some of the other negotiations might end up being easier. Although the EU trade association agreement suspension in 2005 was put in place for sound reasons, it might end up being counter-productive, so it is worth considering again how we could shift economic incentives to encourage Syria to play a fuller role in the international community, including the trading ties that come with that.

The situation in Iran is moving incredibly quickly. Syria will be keeping a close eye on the demonstrations, perhaps with the fear that they might provoke similar unrest in Syria. I am sure that the Minister will mention the diplomatic developments over the past few days with the expulsion of the diplomats. I am sure that that is of great concern to us all, as have been the pictures of violence on our television screens. Just from a human point of view, they cannot be ignored. However, I think that it is right that the Government and Britain generally have not intervened and sought to tell the Iranians what to do. History shows that that type of intervention will not be helpful, so the Government have taken the right view on the issue.

The Government's approach to Syria is broadly welcome, because regular engagement and making progress step by step has to be the right way forward. Syria is clearly suffering financially because of the EU trade suspension, US sanctions, the fact that its oil reserves are going down and repeated drought, which goes back to what I said about water. There is also the huge burden, which it has been bearing well-it is living up to its humanitarian responsibilities-in relation to the influx of Iraqi refugees.

That brings dangers and opportunities. The situation is difficult for the Syrian people, and if they are allowed to continue in isolation, they could become closer to Iran. However, the UK, the EU and the US have an opportunity to offer new economic incentives to promote political reform and co-operation, particularly on Iraq and the peace process in Israel and Palestine.

Engagement in the region, including direct bilateral engagement with Syria, is important. The Government are taking broadly the right approach, but it is right that the House continues to discuss these issues. We hope that there will continue to be positive developments, but we should return to the issue regularly.