|
Proliferation in ParliamentBack to Proliferation in Parliament, Winter 2008 Westminster ParliamentMiddle East
Israel: Nuclear Weapons, Written Answers, 26 Nov 2008 : Column 1780WMr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Israeli government on its nuclear weapons. Bill Rammell: The UK has consistently urged Israel to accede to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state, and
to sign a full-scope safeguards agreement with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). Syria: Nuclear Weapons, Written Answers, 17 Nov 2008 : Column 200WMr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 12 May 2008, Official Report, column 1403W, on Syria: nuclear weapons, whether the government of Syria has provided full access to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to sites of concern in Syria; and when the IAEA Secretary General is expected to report the findings of his investigation. David Miliband: The Deputy Director General of the IAEA, Olli Heinonen, visited Syria on 22-24 June to hold talks with the Syrian Government and investigate the Al Kibar site, where environmental samples were taken. The Syrian Government did not provide the IAEA with unfettered access to all the sites the Agency requested to inspect during that visit. We regret that a follow-up visit to Syria as requested by the IAEA has not taken place. We understand that Dr. El Baradei, the IAEA Director General, intends
to report formally on the matter at the next IAEA Board of Government
from 27-28 November. Iran, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Oral Questions, 11 Nov 2008 : Column 629Mr. Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): When he or his officials last met representatives of the Russian Government to discuss Iran. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Bill Rammell): The Foreign Secretary met his Russian opposite number on 25 September to discuss Iran. He also took part in a meeting of E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers on 26 September. Political directors from the E3 plus 3 last met on 19 September and are scheduled to meet again on 13 November. An official from our embassy in Moscow most recently discussed Iran with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 16 October. 11 Nov 2008 : Column 630 Mr. Wallace: Over the past few years, Russia has used energy as a weapon to bully other countries. Is it therefore a credible option to offer the Iranians Russian fuel as a way out of the nuclear impasse? Is it not about time that the United States and the west went their own way with some imaginative thinking in trying to solve the Iranian problem, rather than waiting for an ever more totalitarian Russia and an ambivalent China? Bill Rammell: Part of the resolution of that problem has to be to ensure the meeting of the legitimate civilian nuclear needs of Iran, and Russia can be helpful in that regard. However, we should be in no doubt that significant concerns remain about the willingness of the Iranian Government to engage with safeguard provision. We need to press them through sanctions and other measures. A significant offer is on the table from the E3 plus 3 process and we have to push internationally for Iran to engage with that process. Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend believe that the strength of economic and political ties between Russia and Iran is undermining international sanctions aimed at putting an end to the Iranians’ development of nuclear power? Bill Rammell: Russian has supported all five UN Security Council resolutions in respect of Iran’s nuclear obligations. It remains the case that we expect all our partners in the E3 plus 3 process to do everything possible to fulfil their commitments to stop Iran generating and developing nuclear capability. Mr. Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con): Are the Government convinced that the objectives of Russian policy vis-a-vis Iran are the same as those of Her Majesty’s Government? Bill Rammell: On the nuclear issue, yes, I believe that that is the case. On five occasions at the Security Council Russia has voted with us in respect of those resolutions, urging Iran to engage. We expect all our partners to fulfil their commitments to stop Iran getting that nuclear capability, and we believe that they will work with us. Kerry McCarthy (Bristol, East) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that if we want to build better co-operation with Russia on the subject of Iran and the nuclear issue, the strident anti-Russian remarks of the likes of the shadow Foreign Secretary are not at all helpful? Mr. Speaker: Order. The remarks of the shadow Foreign Secretary
are nothing to do with the Minister. Israel: Nuclear Weapons, Written Anwers, 27 Oct 2008 : Column 667WJeremy Corbyn: (2) what discussions he has had with Prime Minister Olmert on (a) the accession of Israel to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and (b) proposals for a Middle East nuclear-free zone; and if he will make a statement. The Prime Minister: I discussed a wide range of issues with Prime
Minister Olmert on my recent visit to Israel. In addition, I refer my
hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr.
Amess) on 23 October 2008, Official Report, column 555W. Iran: Sanctions, Written Answers, 21 Oct 2008 : Column 214WMr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 21 July 2008, Official Report, column 872W, on Iran: sanctions, on how many occasions UK authorities have undertaken inspection of cargoes to and from Iran in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1803 since March 2008. Mr. Woolas: I have been asked to reply. UK authorities undertake daily inspections of cargoes to and from Iran
on the basis of risk and intelligence. UK authorities have undertaken
no inspections in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1803
since March 2008. Inspections in the UK are triggered at a lower level
of confidence than the wording of the resolution which calls upon states
to undertake inspections only where there are ‘reasonable grounds to believe’. Iran: Uranium Enrichment, Lords Oral Question, 20 Oct 2008 : Column 937Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): My Lords, the UK and our partners in the E3+3 are determined to achieve a diplomatic solution to the challenge of Iran's nuclear programme. The unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1835 last month showed that international resolve remains firm. It calls for Iran to comply fully and without delay with the requirements of previous resolutions and suspend its nuclear programme. The resolution also expresses clear support for the IAEA in its efforts to establish the true nature of Iran's programme. 20 Oct 2008 : Column 938 Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response. Does he agree that we should have deep alarm at Iran's ongoing enrichment of uranium, against the will of the international community, especially as there have been further increases in that enrichment capacity and a continuing failure by Iran to provide acceptable reasons for that activity? Does he agree that current sanctions are clearly not working, because Iran has been able to trade with other countries in the region? Does he recognise that sanctions are not having the required effect and must be extended to enforce Iran's co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency? Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct to express alarm; I share it with him. The IAEA's most recent report in September reported a continuing pattern of non-co-operation with, and non-disclosure of the enrichment programme to, that agency. That left us to speculate on exactly how far advanced that programme is, but the core point is correct—we do not have the co-operation we would expect. However, sanctions are taking their toll on Iran. They are isolating the country, which ran last week to the Security Council and failed dismally, they have restricted Iran's ability to source nuclear parts and financial restrictions are having a very severe effect on its economy. Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Minister for listing the activities in his Answer. Is it the Government's view that progress is being made through all of those activities, or is the deadlock just as it was many months ago? Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We have not forced compliance with the IAEA programme or the end to enrichment. However, discussions are continuing and we hope that Iran will engage. It is suffering from greater and greater isolation and, through the E3+3 dual-track approach, we have made it clear that we will take further steps, if necessary. Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords— Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords— Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords— The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, there is time for everyone. Shall we hear from this side and then the noble Baroness? Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, could my noble friend say a little more about the extreme success that financial sanctions could have if they were pressed upon this extraordinary Iranian regime? Will he give a little more detail on what further financial sanctions could be imposed? Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, existing financial sanctions have limited Iran's abilities to move funds abroad and have made its proliferation-sensitive activities a lot more difficult. They have also contributed to a political debate within Iran about the appropriateness 20 Oct 2008 : Column 939 of the Government's course of action. A few months ago, the EU sanctioned and stopped the activities of Bank Melli; other financial institutions of Iran are suffering accordingly. Yes, I think there may still be occasion to strengthen that stranglehold further. Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, up to now, Iran has not been in breach of the nuclear proliferation treaty? Does he also agree that a very substantial regime of inspection has been mounted by the IAEA—probably the most intense of any country in the world? In the light of the remarkable approach, last Tuesday, by Mr Larijani, the Speaker of the Iranian Majlis, and the former chief nuclear negotiator for Iran, would Her Majesty's Government now consider the proposals he put forward for high-level, diplomatic discussions, including with the United States, at least one of whose presidential candidates has indicated that that would be an important way forward without precondition? Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, there was a meeting in Geneva with the Iranian nuclear negotiator which included a very senior US representative. That demonstrates that we—the US included—have sought to do everything we can to find a diplomatic way forward. The latest Iranian offer is made with an eye to the American elections and, in a sense, it is for America to indicate whether it is willing to comply with that. Our difficulty is that there is a continuous offer of talks from Iran but very little recent evidence of compliance with the IAEA, which, despite the regime to which the noble Baroness refers, feels that at this stage it is not receiving the information it requires to verify the nature of Iran's programme. Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, interestingly, the Minister mentioned the concept of new thinking inside Iran. He is right to say that Iran is under grave economic pressures at the moment, partly from the financial sanctions, partly from the collapse in the oil price and partly due to a number of other developments. As a result and given, as my noble friend Lord Mawhinney says, that nothing much seems to be changing as a result of all the talk of sanctions—the mullahs are very obdurate—are we now reaching a time when the combination of the financial pressures from outside, which certainly should be maintained, the more co-operative move towards working with, or co-opting, the Iranian nuclear programme and whether it can be developed in a civil, constructive and a transparent way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams indicated, may be producing the new thinking needed to move the situation forward? Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that there is a very generous offer on the table to allow Iran to continue with the development of a peaceful nuclear programme. We shall need to continue to pay attention to that incentive and not just to the sanctions—not just the stick but the carrot as well. Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister report any progress in our attempts to persuade Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty? Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, in the time available to me, no. Iran: Diplomatic Service, Written Answers, 20 Oct 2008 : Column 98WMr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect on commercial relations with Iran of changes in staffing levels in the commercial section of the British Embassy in Tehran. Bill Rammell: UK policy is to support UN and EU sanctions by making
clear to the Iranian regime that it cannot be business as usual as long
as they fail to comply with UN Security Council resolutions and co-operate
fully with the International Atomic Energy Authority. We are prepared
to risk any impact the reduction in trade promotion activities may have
on British business with Iran in order to maintain pressure on the Iranian
regime over its nuclear programme. It is too early to judge the effect
these changes may have on our wider commercial relationship with Iran.
We look forward to the day when we can return to business as usual, to
the benefit of the UK and Iran. But a decision to reach that state rests
with the Iranian regime. It is of note that trade between the UK and Iran
fell by 8 per cent. over the first four months of this year. Israel: Nuclear Weapons, Written Answers, 8 Oct 2008 : Column 617WMr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed with his Israeli counterpart the status of Israel’s nuclear weapons during his visit to Israel on 21 July. The Prime Minister: I discussed a wide range of issues on my recent trip to Israel. I refer the hon. Member to the speech I made to the Israeli Knesset, a transcript is available on the No. 10 website at: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page16423 A copy has also been placed in the Library of the House. Iran, Foreign and Commonwealth Oral Questions, 7 Oct 2008 : Column 1191. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): What recent developments there have been in UK-Iran relations. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband): I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and the House will allow me to thank my hon. Friends the Members for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), who in their time at the Foreign Office all made an important contribution to the country, and did so with grace, humour and determination, in the best traditions of this House. In early September, the Iranian deputy Foreign Minister visited the UK for meetings with a range of Ministers and senior officials, including myself. The discussions covered Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its role in the region, human rights and its relationship with the UK. We remain very concerned by Iran’s behaviour in all those areas, and we are working bilaterally and with our partners to address them. Mr. Robathan: I had the good opportunity to visit Iran in July, and it was extremely interesting. I share the Foreign Secretary’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme and human rights. However, we were told by people in Iran that bellicose statements threatening Iran militarily make those who do not support the Ahmadinejad regime rally behind it. It is a lesson of history that people will often rally behind a regime when their country is threatened. Will the Foreign Secretary take on board the fact that language is very important? That is not to say that we should not carry a big stick, but language is very important. David Miliband: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he and other hon. Members have been to Tehran; that sort of engagement is important. I hope that he will not find bellicosity in statements from the Government—I do not believe that he will. The whole House will have read the bellicose statements made by President Ahmadinejad at the UN and will have been 7 Oct 2008 : Column 120 appalled by them. I can affirm to the hon. Gentleman that there will not be bellicosity from the Government on this issue, because is it far too important. We are also making a serious offer to Iran for economic, cultural and scientific co-operation. I think that that is the way forward, but it is not a way forward while the Iranian Government continue to defy not only the UN Security Council, but the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has continuing serious concerns about their programme and about their refusal to come clean about it. Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Would my right hon. Friend, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, make it clear that an attack on Iran by Israel would trigger off uncontrollable, convulsive and irreversible consequences that would damage not only the region, but the entire global system, and that such an attack must not take place? It would be an attack on one of the nastiest regimes in the world by another of the nastiest regimes in the world. David Miliband: I do have genuinely huge respect for my right hon. Friend, but I cannot associate myself with that last sentence which he uttered. He will know that almost from my first day in this job I have emphasised that we are 100 per cent. committed to a diplomatic course with Iran and to a process of making it a serious offer that presents it major economic—never mind political—benefits, but that we must be insistent that a uranium enrichment programme in defiance of not only the UN Security Council, but of Iran’s obligations under the non-proliferation treaty is a serious danger to stability in not just the middle east, but in the world. The middle east has enough problems without a nuclear arms race, and it is very important that we address that matter diplomatically on all fronts. Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): Could the Foreign Secretary say a little more about the outcome of the human rights discussions, because how Iran treats its own citizens gives some indication of how it might treat other people if it ever got the chance? Is he aware of reports of widespread executions, including mass executions and the executions of minors? If he has not already done so, could he make it clear to the Iranian Government that if they want to play a part in the world order and to persuade others that their own religion is other than barbaric, they must conform better to world standards of human rights? David Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point: how a country treats its own citizens is often a good indicator of how it is willing to treat citizens in other parts of the world. Perhaps I can give him the figures, which are horrific. Some 235 people have been executed in Iran during the first eight months of this year, and there were more than 300 executions last year—that was an increase from 177 in 2006. He also rightly says that Iran executes more juvenile offenders than any other country in the world. He is absolutely right to raise those human rights questions. We raise them too, and we deplore the way in which the Iranian Parliament is also now discussing a draft penal code that would set out a mandatory death sentence for the crime, quote unquote, of apostasy. If adopted, that would violate the right of freedom of religion, which is 7 Oct 2008 : Column 121 also an important basis of any civilised society. I am pleased that he has raised the issue of human rights, and I assure him that we have raised it too. Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): Would the Foreign Secretary agree that President Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN was probably the most consistently anti-Semitic speech by any leader since the end of the Third Reich? Does he also agree that the Conservative Muslim Forum’s argument that Iran should have nuclear weapons is not helpful? The Prime Minister said last night, in an important speech, that we have to look at tightening up and increasing sanctions. Does the Foreign Secretary agree therefore that we need unity in this House, in Europe and with the United States and the world’s democracies, but not with those who find excuses for Iran’s leader? David Miliband: My right hon. Friend makes three important points. If he looks at the special UN Security Council discussion on the middle east the week before last in New York, he will see that I specifically raised President Ahmadinejad’s description of the, quote unquote, cesspool of Zionism, which was a disgraceful, anti-Semitic attack and a threat to a whole country. It was one member state of the UN threatening the life of another, which I am sure is abhorrent to all hon. Members. It is fair to say that we have seen a fair degree of unity across the House—in all three main parties—on this issue. The twin-track diplomatic approach is the right one. The so-called carrots of economic and scientific co-operation are right, but they have to be balanced by the potential sticks of economic sanctions. That is the right way for the world to express its displeasure at the way in which Iran is defying world opinion. Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): First, may I associate my colleagues with the tribute to the outgoing members of the Foreign Secretary’s ministerial team? I also welcome his three new colleagues and hope that they have a good, fruitful and enjoyable time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—[Hon. Members: “Short!”] We too would like to see the day dawn when we can enjoy a better relationship with Iran, but given that the IAEA says that it is still being refused access to key sites and that the most recent UN resolution—1835—contained no new specific sanctions, does the Foreign Secretary believe that he should now seek to persuade the EU at least to agree to the oil and gas sanctions and the ban on export credits that the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised but that have not yet been delivered? David Miliband: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind words and agree with all but one of the words that was used during his welcome for my new team. At the last oral questions, we talked about how the European Union would implement resolution 1803. I am sure that the House will be pleased that on 7 August a common position was established in respect of banking and a range of other issues relevant to 1803, which shows the EU’s determination to implement its sanctions obligations in full—and even go beyond the requirements of that resolution. In respect of the Prime Minister’s promise to pursue oil, gas and other sanctions on the 7 Oct 2008 : Column 122 Iranian regime, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that remains an important
part of our agenda, both within the EU and internationally. Iran, Foreign and Commonwealth Oral Questions, 7 Oct 2008 : Column 1275. Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): If he will make a statement on Iran’s nuclear programme. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Bill Rammell): Dr. Mohammad el-Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported on the state of Iran’s nuclear programme on 15 September. Once again his report confirmed that Iran had failed to suspend enrichment-related activities and had made no progress on the transparency measures the Security Council and the IAEA have long called for, and that as a result of Iran’s failure to engage, the IAEA had been unable to make any substantive progress on resolving the questions about studies with a possible military dimension—studies that it judges are of serious concern. Stephen Hammond: The Minister will of course know that there is a UN ban on sales from Iran, and an EU ban on sales to Iran. However, given what he has just said about the possible military applications, and given the expansion of the nuclear programme, what are the Government doing to secure a UN ban on sales of arms to Iran? Bill Rammell: We have taken the lead, through the European Union and the Security Council, in putting in place effective sanctions on Iran, and we will continue to make the case for improved sanctions. As the Foreign Secretary said, we very much want to take a twin-track strategy, in which we urge Iran to engage. There is a significant offer on the table following the EU3 plus three negotiating process, and I strongly urge the Iranians to engage in that process. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): Would my hon. Friend agree that, while he and the Foreign Secretary are absolutely right about the dangers that Iran poses to the region, and indeed to the whole world, it would be very helpful if the new Administration in Washington were prepared to hold a proper dialogue with Tehran? I mean a dialogue not without precondition—a dialogue in which we are determined to push the very important issues. Washington does matter, as it is the one voice that would make a real difference in Tehran. 7 Oct 2008 : Column 128 Bill Rammell: Washington certainly matters, and Bill Burns’s commitment to go to the Geneva talks is a positive step forward. Undoubtedly, Washington has to play a role, but we need a co-ordinated, concerted effort by all the international partners to make it very clear that a nuclear-engaged Iran is not the way forward. However, offers are on the table for diplomatic engagement with Iran. That is very much the path that we want Iran to take. Mr. John Horam (Orpington) (Con): How do the Government evaluate the role of Russia in relation to Iran’s nuclear programme? Has the Minister noticed any change since the war in Georgia? Bill Rammell: That is something that my right hon. Friend the
Foreign Secretary recently discussed with the Russians. It is clear that
they have supported, diplomatically, the efforts to ensure that the Iranians
understand our position, and they have supported successive UN Security
Council resolutions. Through dialogue, we will ensure that we continue
to put across the argument to the Russians that they need to work with
us on this crucial issue, as indeed they are doing. Diplomatic Relations: US and Iran, House of Lords, Written Answers, 29 Sep 2008 : Column WA394Lord Dykes asked Her Majesty's Government: What steps they will consider taking in discussions with the Government of the United States to encourage an early resumption of full diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran. Lord Bach: The Government are in close contact with the Government of the US in addressing the challenges posed by Iran's nuclear programme and her 29 Sep 2008 : Column WA395 regional actions. The US is a member of the E3+3 group of countries.
However, US-Iran bilateral contacts are a matter for the US Government. Iran: Politics and Government,Written Answers, 15 Sep 2008 : Column 2185WMr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of the Iranian government (a) he and (b) his Ministers have met in the last year; and where each meeting took place. Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had
three meetings with his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, in the
last year—in the margins of the UN General Assembly in September 2007,
in the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos on 26 January 2008
and in the margins of the Iraq Neighbours Conference in Kuwait on 22 April
2008. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also spoke to Foreign
Minister Mottaki by telephone on 26 February 2008. I have also met the
Iranian Foreign Minister in the margins of various conferences and meet
with the Iranian ambassador occasionally. Iran: Sanctions,Written Answers, 15 Sep 2008 : Column 2185WMr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the efforts of Brigadier-General Mohammed Reza Naqdi to get round UN sanctions on Iran were, as referred to in Annex 1 of UN Security Council Resolution 1803 (2008). David Miliband: Brigadier General Mohammed Reza Naqdi was sanctioned for his role as the head of state anti-smuggling headquarters, engaged in efforts to get round the sanctions imposed by UN Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747. Iran Daily quoted Naqdi on 23 April 2007 as saying, “after the new round of pressures (that is, sanctions) on Iran we have decided to provide all needs by ourselves and kill the enemy’s slightest hope of achieving its goals. We are going to take advantage of these opportunities against embargoes”. The Islamic Republic News Agency noted on 22 September 2007 that Naqdi admitted Iran exported arms without specifying the target destination, saying “no seller unveils his customer”. Back to Proliferation in Parliament, Winter 2008 © 2009 The Acronym Institute. |