Asked by Lord Cormack To ask Her Majesty’s
Government, further to the remarks by the Foreign Secretary before
the Select Committee on International Relations on 26 January,
whether it is their policy that President Bashar al-Assad should be
allowed to run for re-election in the event of a peace settlement
in Syria. The Minister of State, Foreign and...Request free trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by
the Foreign Secretary before the Select Committee on
International Relations on 26 January, whether it is their
policy that President Bashar al-Assad should be allowed to
run for re-election in the event of a peace settlement in
Syria.
-
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, our long-standing position is that there can be no
sustainable peace in Syria while Assad remains in power. He
is incapable of uniting the country because of his military
campaign against political opposition. Syria needs a
transition to a new, inclusive, non-sectarian Government to
achieve the credible political settlement that will bring
long-term stability. This is set out in the Geneva communiqué
and endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2254.
-
(Con)
My Lords, of course I thank my noble friend for that Answer
but, in the light of the evidence given last week to the
committee of my noble friend —I am so glad to see him back—I
am somewhat disappointed. Could we not have a new, realistic
approach, recognising that we cannot remove Assad? In the
words of the patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church, who was
here a few weeks ago, he should be a candidate in any
election. Far be it for me to suggest that, if he wins, he
would be invited on a second state visit—but should we not
establish diplomatic representation in Damascus and be at the
centre, so that when peace is eventually restored we will
have played a constructive part in restoring it?
-
My Lords, we are taking a lead in the constructive
discussions for resolving what is an appalling situation
across Syria—a situation where, at the last election, the
only opposition opponent to Assad felt it necessary at the
last moment to encourage everybody in the country to vote for
Assad rather than himself as a candidate. Assad has shown
that he is incapable of protecting his own people, but I
agree with my noble friend that we should not dictate an
outcome. What we are saying is that Assad has not proved that
he can bring peace to the country. We are leading the way in
the Syria Support Group of the United Nations in trying to
ensure that there can be a position where the Syrian people
decide the next steps. My right honourable friend the Foreign
Secretary said when he appeared before the committee of my
noble friend , whom I am delighted
to see today:
“I would hope that it would be possible to have a plebiscite
or an election, properly supervised by the UN, in which all
the 11 million displaced persons, including the 4 million who
are now outside Syria, are fully entitled to vote”.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, we are a long way off the pathway to peace, but one
principle—which I know the noble Baroness shares
strongly—that we need to make clear in following that pathway
is that there is no impunity and that people who are
responsible for crimes against humanity are held responsible,
come what may.
-
That is absolutely right and we will continue to take forward
work with the United Nations and our allies to find a way in
which those who have committed appalling crimes can be
brought to justice. In particular, we are continuing to
invest money in providing a way in which robust evidence that
would stand up in the case of prosecutions can be collected
and stored—and I pay tribute to the brave people who are
collecting that evidence.
-
(CB)
My Lords, in view of a rather more positive interpretation of
what the Foreign Secretary told the committee of the noble
Lord, , can the Minister tell
us whether the Foreign Office is considering any installation
of a diplomatic presence in Damascus?
-
My Lords, certainly not. We have found in the past that Assad
is an unreliable person in the dealings we had with him. It
would not be appropriate to show that we trust him in any
way, because he is not to be trusted.
-
(LD)
My Lords, if the Foreign Secretary is shifting his position
on Syrian elections, does the Minister agree that there needs
to be a constitutional agreement to restrict current
autocratic powers and, therefore, are we supporting Syrian
civil society organisations and others in drafting such
changes?
-
My Lords, I repeat that our position and policy have not
changed. What the Foreign Secretary was trying to say, in his
inimitable manner, to the Select Committee is that in the
real world it is for the Syrians to decide. It is their
decision; it is not for us to impose a solution on them. That
has been our position throughout. With regard to the shape of
any constitution, we would not wish to dictate that. It is
for the Syrian people to be given an opportunity to discuss
how that may be achieved.
-
(Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I agree with her very
much that it is not for us to decide who should be the
President of Syria? But surely, once we take the step of
saying who should not be the President, we are in effect
transgressing against that very good principle that she just
set out.
-
My Lords, I said that President Assad has shown that he
cannot be trusted. He has led to the deaths of something like
400,000 of his own people, has put tens of thousands in
detention— I have met some of those who have experienced
torture at the hands of people there—and has failed to
provide a secure future for his country without the air power
of countries such as Iran and Russia. That is somebody whom
we do not see as being capable of providing a political
solution and providing peace. However, what we are doing, and
continue to do, through the UN Geneva process is to provide
the opportunity for the Syrians to decide this matter.
Whatever our view is, it is for the Syrians to decide.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, is not the very problem with our foreign policy
that, to use our own phrase, we have tried to dictate what
should happen, not having learned the lessons from Northern
Ireland that you do not impose preconditions when trying to
resolve a conflict? To demand at the beginning with a bit of
bombast and bluster that Assad must go—he was never going
to—then say that he should stay for only six months, and now
say that he cannot stand for re-election, is a failed
strategy which is contributing to a disastrous catastrophe.
Why do the Government not change course and recognise that he
has to be negotiated with and a transition agreed?
-
My Lords, the noble Lord has interpreted what has been said
in a way that is not accurate. Throughout this process we
have always stressed that it is for the Syrians to decide
this matter. We have also said that Assad cannot be trusted.
That has been proven by his past relationship with us. The
peace process is one in which the opposition groups need to
come together in security to discuss the future. The Syrian
Government have, of course, been part of that process. That
is the objective of the UN procedure. That is why the Geneva
process, which we hope and expect will be reconvened by
Staffan de Mistura later this month, provides an opportunity
for the future. As I said, it is not for us to dictate. We
have said that we do not think Assad can lead the country to
a peaceful future. The Syrians need to have a chance to
decide that for themselves. That is what we are trying to
provide.
-
(CB)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that a considerable
number of people in the government-held areas are supportive
of President Assad? That includes the minorities, including
Christians, and a lot of women who have had far more
opportunities under the regime in Syria than elsewhere in the
Middle East. Do the Government recognise—this is the key
point on which I entirely agree with the noble Lord—that the
collapse of this regime would lead to the most terrible
revenge killing throughout Syria? We cannot allow that. We
should keep our fingers out.
-
My Lords, where I entirely agree with the noble Lord is that
nobody wants to see the collapse of the country. Whether it
is the collapse of the regime by negotiated means is a
different matter. But, as I stressed, the important thing is
for the international community to give the Syrian people the
opportunity not just to come together as they are doing at
the moment, meeting in separate rooms in the same city, but
ultimately to meet in the same room and come to a peaceful
conclusion.
|
