Jo Swinson

Global Security (Iran) - Westminster Hall Debate

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): It is a pleasure to follow Mr. Wallace, who has great expertise on this issue. I am sure that all hon. Members enjoyed his remarks. I congratulate the Select Committee Chairman on his introduction to the debate and on the work of his Committee in producing this well-researched and thorough report. It has led to an important and lively debate this afternoon. Unfortunately, it is almost 18 months since the report's publication. Although it might have been helpful to debate it earlier, sadly, many of the conclusions still apply.

Paragraph 109 illustrates the thrust of the report in the recommendation that there be a wholesale recasting of Iran's

"relationship with the international community, particularly with the United States and European Union."

We all felt a sense of elation when President Obama was elected. In his foreign policy moves thus far, he seems be pursuing a more positive path on the world stage and extending an open hand. The international community is therefore effectively following the Select Committee's recommendation, but the response has not been encouraging, to say the least. However, the international community is taking the correct approach and it must be given a chance to work. President Obama's and Joe Biden's recent restatement of that intention is welcome.

The most important recent event in Iran is the election. I agree with the Government's position that the will of the Iranian people should be upheld, as should be the case in any democratic election. I was just as critical of President Bush's first election victory, because I believed that the will of the American people had been usurped. There are serious questions over the Iranian election. Andrew Mackinlay rightly raised the problem that half of the population was ineligible to stand for the presidency. Such discrimination against women is not welcome in any country. Regardless of what we in the UK say about the election, many Iranians want answers. They are the people who matter the most, because they had the right to cast the votes and should be able to ensure that they were counted correctly.

We have all seen the protests on television and on YouTube. We have followed them online on various internet sites. Regardless of who won the election and what we think about it, the horrendous violence we have seen on our screens is cause for great concern. In a sense, it is wonderful that citizens have been empowered to report and communicate the news themselves through a variety of mobile technologies. At the same time, that has put many disturbing images into the public domain. In general, it is positive to see people anywhere in the world empowered by such new technology.

It is too early to say where we are in the post-election situation. It has been reported that there might be more protests today because it is the 10th anniversary of the crackdown on the student protests. Professor Ali Ansari, who gave evidence to the Select Committee, was quoted in The Times this week saying that the situation is nowhere near resolved. I suspect that he, as an esteemed expert on Iran, is right. It is difficult to predict what will happen, and we will have to watch as events unfold. The one exception is that when British nationals are held in Iran, we must make strong representations for them to be released. That is unacceptable and the Government are right to pursue such action with all possible haste.

I was taken by the analysis of the election by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. There has been a certain reaction in Britain to seeing protestors and people rallying around the reform cause. Because of the news story about the protests, there has not been much analysis of the policies of the presidential candidates. It is right that what we would perceive as reform is not what was on offer from Mousavi. There was not a great choice for reform. All the candidates had to be approved in advance by the existing structures in Iran. Whatever the outcome of the election, the nuclear issue would not have gone away because there was consensus on it among the candidates. Although we should watch the developments with the election, the bigger issues were always going to remain. The nuclear issue is one of the greatest foreign policy challenges faced by the world.

I agree with the analysis of Ms Stuart that the regime acts in a fairly rational way. If one puts oneself in the shoes of the Iranians, it is clear that there are many reasons why they should pursue a nuclear weapons capability. In the same region, Israel has nuclear arms and there is no love lost between the two states. There is also an issue of status and the desire to be seen as a world player. The threat has diminished with the Obama regime, but when Bush was in power there was a real prospect of an American invasion, especially considering what happened in Iraq. We need to recognise and understand that reality if we are to reduce the danger.

The Select Committee's subsequent report on non-proliferation is welcome. Worryingly, it states that there has been rapid progress in Iran towards further enrichment and the expansion of centrifuges. We do not know what stage the process is at, or how many months or years away the Iranians are from acquiring a nuclear capability. There is a danger that if that happened, it would have a domino effect in a region where there are already heightened tensions. The next steps after Iran obtains a nuclear weapon do not bear thinking about. The potential disasters are immense. Other middle eastern states might want to acquire nuclear weapons. Given that we want to stop nuclear proliferation and reduce nuclear capabilities across the globe, Iran's nuclear programme is very worrying. We have not done ourselves any favours by committing to replacing Trident when there was no need to do so, given the lifespan of the current submarines. Doing that just before going to the 2010 non-proliferation conference seems bizarre. Surely, we want to go to that conference being able to negotiate and say that our nuclear weapons are on the table.

Ivan Lewis (Minister of State ( Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Bury South, Labour): I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to give the impression internationally that there is an equivalence between British foreign policy in any respect and the actions of the Iranian Government. That would be extremely damaging and I am sure she is not trying to do that, but it is important to make that clear in this debate.

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): I do not think for a second that I was making that link. I am saying that our position in non-proliferation talks around the world will surely be stronger if we are prepared to talk about reducing our nuclear weapons arsenal. That would give us much more power in negotiations. Surely, if it looks as though the main nuclear players are reducing their arsenals, that will reduce the pressure on countries such as Iran and others that are thinking of going nuclear to try to join the club, as it were. We have seen the success of such a strategy with President Obama's decision to put American nuclear weapons on the table in discussions with Russia. In a sense, the best possible and only positive way of using nuclear weapons is to use them to negotiate away other nuclear weapons.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre asked what we should do, and that question was well posed. We can discuss the problems and say what the difficulties are, but what are the real options? The Committee has said of the military option:

"We remain of the view that such a military strike would be unlikely to succeed and could provoke an extremely violent backlash across the region."

I strongly agree, because I think that that would be a dangerous road to go down. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has said that he is 100 per cent. behind the diplomatic track, although I note that the Government have not entirely ruled out the possibility of supporting a future US military strike. That would be dangerous territory and we should not go down that route: it would strengthen the position of the extremists and is not the right way forward.

So, we then look at the sanctions regime, which, as has been discussed, is not working well. A united approach from the E3 plus 3 is vital to that regime, but the approach is not as united as we might want, because of the loopholes that exist. We must continue and increase our efforts to encourage countries such as Russia and China to recognise the threat and to play ball-to borrow a phrase. As I have said, Obama's overtures to Russia are good news, such as his offer to scrap the "Son of Star Wars" project if the Russians help him in halting Iran's proliferation. Russia is a key player, and it would be great if we could get its help in getting Iran to negotiate, and in making progress. We have to accept that the UK's influence in this matter is not at its peak, given the current diplomatic situation, and that it might best be used in looking at what influence other countries can bring to bear.

On Iraq and Afghanistan, Sir John Stanley talked about the Government's analysis of the training and support being given to insurgents and the Taliban in Afghanistan by Iran in particular. That issue is cause for great concern. I note from the reports that there has been correspondence, in addition to what the Government have been able to discuss publicly, which could not be published in the public domain for understandable security reasons. I would be interested to hear whether the Committee is satisfied with the Government's responses on that aspect. It is rather difficult for those of us who have not seen that correspondence to judge. In general terms, I will say that there is a delicate balance to be struck, and that security concerns have to come first, but that it would be helpful if the Government tried as much as they could to put information in the public domain where possible.

I will touch on human rights only briefly because we had an excellent debate on that issue yesterday in this Chamber. The report concludes that Iran's human rights record is shocking, as we heard in detail yesterday in relation to religion and the treatment of the Baha'i, Christians and Jews. We also heard about the persecution of and discrimination against women for various perfectly reasonable behaviours, about the persecution of anyone who disagrees with the prevailing political views, and about the horrendous executions of minors by the state. Obviously, there is a range of human rights problems in Iran.

We did not have much time yesterday to go into detail about gay and lesbian Iranians being deported from the UK to Iran, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on that. In June 2008, the then Home Secretary said that there was no "real risk" to homosexuals who were deported to Iran if they behaved "discreetly". The suggestion that it is fine to deport someone to a place where they would have to hide such a key aspect of themselves to avoid being tortured does not fit with my judgment of what is appropriate. The Home Office guidance says that

"it is not accepted that there is systematic repression of gay men and lesbians"

in Iran, but, since 1979 in Iran, there have been 4,000 state executions of people for being gay. If that is not systematic repression, I do not know what is.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on these difficult and sensitive issues. Like everyone else, I await the outcome of the current unrest in Iran and wait to see what will happen there, but I should like to note the remarks made by hon. Members and by the academic Karim Sadjadpour in evidence to the Select Committee. Mr. Sadjadpour said that

"despite the fact that a seeming majority of Iranians favor a more tolerant, democratic system, there is little evidence to suggest that in the event of a sudden uprising it would be Iranian democrats who come to power."

We should all bear that in mind when we watch what is happening on our television screens. The future is clearly uncertain, with extreme dangers in relation to nuclear proliferation and the escalation of regional tensions, but I maintain, none the less, that the correct way forward must still be diplomacy and extending that open hand. I hope that that approach can be successful.