« Parliament and Iraq | Main | Parliamentary privilege »
I hadn't intended to intervene in this question but I was troubled by the Liberals assumption of 'no regime change' in Iran. Although I think military intervention in Iran would be a serious mistake I do not take the view that regime change itself would be a bad thing.
It is an authoritarian regime and as a democrat having a strong belief that free and open societies with the rule of law are infinitely preferable for everyones sake I would be quite happy to see regime change.
"regime change" is a poorly defined concept that has dangerous connotations. What do you mean by it? Regime change from outside? Regime change by the people? How should it come about?
The Mujahideen-e-Khalq has been fighting for regime change in Iran, but is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the British government although it has never threatened a British citizen and no-one pretends that it is a threat to the West. I don't like the MEK and I doubt that they have much popular support in Iran, but they are the largest and best armed of the Iranian insurgent groups.
Perhaps you mean grass-roots regime change. But how can that be achieved in an atmosphere of intense internal repression? Meanwhile, political activists fleeing persecution - some of them have endured torture - are being denied asylum in the UK. There is absolutely no proactive support for democracy in Iran within the British government and very little among British members of parliament. Clive has, in fact, dismissed Iranian opposition groups "dodgy". I wonder how "regime change" can come about without opposition to the regime?
Which brings me to another point. The FCO has declined a request for the release of information on its operational understandings with the Iranian government and the Iranian embassy on the deportations of those refused asylum. Since 11 May, there have been five requests for this under the Freedom of Information Act. The FCO is obliged by statute to respond within twenty working days. So far they have invoked the public interest and potential damage to international relations no fewer than five times in declining to meet the statutory deadline in responding. Are Iranians to be imprisoned in the UK for refusing to go to the embassy to secure travel documentation? Are Iranians with travel documentation regularly returned to Iran without due process after seeking asylum at Heathrow? Is there to be independent monitoring of the safety of those returned to Iran? All these questions have been raised with the FCO, but have been met with silence.
I personally know of two Iranian asylum seekers who have been deported to Iran after their applications were refused (despite clear and corroborated supporting evidence) on technical grounds. I know that one - a woman - is now in Evin Prison and is probably being tortured.
It doesn't look like the British government has any interest in regime change - it looks like appeasement.
Clive: You have called for addressing to problem "failed states" to be a central focus in the fight against terrorism. Somaliland currently faces attack from jihadists who have seized control over large parts of Somalia. Somaliland has been independent since 1991 and has established a functioning and stable democracy that has enabled a change of government by free and fair elections. This is in stark contrast to Somalia, which has experienced years of brutal civil war and its transitional government is confined to a small corner of the country. Yet, Somaliland's independence is not recognised by the international community. It seems ludicrous to allow Somaliland to fall to a Taliban-style regime and allow a crisis to develop which could become a new front in the war on terrorism as well as a regional war that could reignite hostilities between rival states such as Eritrea and Ethiopia - and yet another humanitarian disaster.
Do you support Somaliland's independence based on its right to self-determination under the UN Charter and its role as a point of stability in East Africa?