John Baron MP: The West has got it wrong on Iran

John Baron is the Member of Parliament for Basildon and Billericay. A former soldier and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he resigned from the shadow frontbench to vote against the Iraq War, opposed our intervention in Afghanistan, and was the only Tory MP to vote against the Libyan intervention.

Here we go again! The condemnation of Iran over the nuclear issue has become almost an annual event on the international stage.

The catalyst for this latest round of condemnation has been the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) report earlier this month, followed by the storming of our Embassy in Tehran. The US and UK seized upon the report as providing yet further evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. Further financial sanctions led directly to the events on Tuesday.

However, one should be careful of accepting such reports at face value: a close reading of the IAEA’s report reveals little new evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. There is no smoking gun: only the suggestion that Iran is moving towards the option of a nuclear weapon. There is reference to weapons-related research and development, foreign scientists and high-explosives – much of this based on Western intelligence reports. But Iraq should have taught us to be careful of basing our major foreign policy decisions on secret intelligence.

John Baron MP: The Government is right to attempt to reduce EU budget proposals, but it is still living dangerously

John Baron is the Member of Parliament for Basildon and Billericay.

The Government is now considering proposals by the EU Commission to increase its budget to €1 trillion in the period 2014-2020. This represents an above-inflation increase on the previous period. Such proposals fly in the face of the austerity measures adopted by governments across Europe, and are further evidence – if any were required – that the Commission is living on another planet.

The Government is right in its attempts to reduce the budget proposals. Because of changes to our rebate, courtesy of the previous Labour Government, these increases will affect us more than most. In the previous Parliament, our total net contribution was around £19 billion. This is projected to rise to more than £41 billion in this Parliament. These are big numbers. This £22 billion increase could fund an extra 100,000 police officers or nurses a year over the lifetime of the budget. It could also build a further 80 hospitals. In order to encourage economic growth, it could fund a one penny cut each year in the basic rate of income tax or a six penny cut in small enterprise corporation tax.

John Baron MP: The Conservative party has missed a golden opportunity to show it is in tune with the British electorate over an EU referendum, to Labour’s gain

John Baron is Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay.

Oh, what an opportunity missed! The majority of the British electorate want a referendum. It knows that the relationship with the EU has fundamentally changed since we first joined what was then an economic free-trade area. The heart and soul of the Conservative Party wants to represent them. But instead, Monday’s three-line whip has served only to conceal the extent to which the Party is in tune with the country, despite the best efforts of 81 Tory MPs.

Let us remember why this debate took place. The Prime Minster supported the establishment of a Backbench Business Committee through which an e-petition with sufficient signatures triggers a debate on the floor of the House. He knows that over 100,000 people signed this petition calling for a referendum. Yet a three-line whip by all party leaders ensured the vote was defeated.

Like previous Administrations, this Government claims it knows best and ignores the electorate. Yet, the red herrings and Aunt Sallies which the Government uses to justify its refusal to allow a referendum illustrates the weakness of its case.

John Baron MP: Is Libya the longest assassination attempt in history? Time for peace talks.

John Baron is Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay and a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

The debate and vote in the House of Commons in March was very much couched in terms of humanitarian aid. But the citizens of Benghazi were saved months ago. Developments since – including NATO’s targeting of Gaddafi’s winnebago and family homes – prove regime change is the key driver. And the arming of the rebels clearly shows NATO is now operating outside the remit of UN Resolution 1973. The civilians of Libya are suffering as a result. The time has now come for peace talks.

The claim that NATO’s intervention saved the citizens of Benghazi from slaughter will be properly scrutinised in the fullness of time. This claim conveniently overlooked the fact that Gaddafi was having real trouble at the time in taking Misrata - a much smaller town in the west. But even if the claim was found to be true, it begs the question why a no-fly zone (NFZ) could not have been instigated by Arab neighbours.
Egypt alone, with its vastly superior air force untouched by a largely peaceful revolution, was ideally placed – the Libyan air force would not have lasted an afternoon. But this was not the mission. Instead regime change was – and the West was better placed to make it happen. Why else did NATO not put in NFZs in countries such as Yemen and Bahrain, whose autocratic leaders were busy putting down their own people at the time? It was because these leaders were friends.

Developments since our initial intervention illustrate just how transparent the humanitarian fig leaf has become. First we had the joint statement by the three leaders which made clear they wanted Gaddafi’s removal. Then we had the rejection of the African Union (AU) peace proposals - which largely mirrored UN Resolution 1973 - because they made no provision for Gaddafi’s removal. Increasingly frustrated at the lack of success, we then deployed military advisors on the ground and Apache helicopters. Most recently, NATO has resorted to targeting Gaddafi’s family homes – killing his son and three grandchildren – and winnebago.

John Baron MP: A £2.2million reprieve for the BBC World Service does not reverse short-sighted cuts to our soft power capability

John Baron is Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay.

News that the Government has found an extra £2.2million for the BBC World Service is welcome. But this in itself does not reverse the cuts being made to our soft power capability. One of the key lessons from the Arab Spring is that, in this information age, winning the story is just as important as winning the conflict. To this end, soft power will become increasingly important, to the advantage of those countries which properly resource this asset. Yet Britain is almost alone in reducing its soft power capability.

Secular trends such as increased competition for the world’s natural resources, the rise of powerful competitors, the advent of the information age, and climate change have created new dynamics and challenges. The relatively straight forward realities of statecraft and power are giving way to much more fluid geopolitical forces, in terms of both state and non-state agents.

The information revolution in particular has had a profound effect. Increased computing speed and a huge reduction in transmission costs have reduced barriers to entry into the information marketplace. As a result, in today’s global information age, even the most powerful countries and institutions now have to share the world stage with new entrants such as Wikileaks, NGO’s and terrorist groups. This development brings with it greater transparency and scrutiny.

In this information age, success will depend on who wins the story. And the ability to win the battle of ideas and not just the conflict will depend increasingly on a country’s ability to project its soft power - to obtain what one wants through co-option and attraction, rather than coercion and payment.

John Baron MP: Skirmishes over the Government’s NHS reforms have been a distraction – the new focus on outcomes remains the big idea

John Baron is MP for Basildon and Billericay and Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer. 

The three big ideas contained in the Coalition Government’s health reforms are:

1. A new focus on outcomes
2. A renewed focus on patient empowerment and
3. Changes to the commissioning structures.

Despite all the hullabaloo about GP commissioning, as Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer, the most important aspect of these reforms for me has always been the new focus on outcomes. This focus above all else will encourage and force the NHS to raise its game. And luckily for patients, the plans to implement this new focus have escaped the skirmishes and remain intact.

The concept of GP commissioning was always going to attract criticism and scorn. Too many questions remain unanswered. Cancer is a set of 200+ diseases with often complex care pathways, so how were GPs going to commission specialised cancer services and ensure they remain integrated? How were services that spanned consortia boundaries - such as radiotherapy – going to be commissioned? Why was the guaranteed funding for cancer networks – a tremendous source of expertise for GPs – going to end well before the transition period for GP commissioning was complete?

There were too many targets for the opponents of reform to hit. In speeches in the House last year and at the Britain Against Cancer conference in December, I and many others advocated changes to GP commissioning. After pressure both inside and outside Parliament, I believe the Government was wise to conduct its listening exercise.

John Baron MP: With the West having now lost the moral high ground in Libya, what does our intervention tell us?

John Baron is MP for Basildon and Billericay.

The West’s intervention was always going to be a contentious issue. For those of us who opposed the government or expressed doubt, regime change rather than humanitarian aid was the real reason. But until fairly recently, the West could still claim the moral high ground with some credibility. The killing of three of Gaddafi’s grandchildren in a missile strike – a fact not disputed by NATO – and other recent events now lays bare that credibility. The humanitarian fig leaf has become ever more transparent with each twist and turn of this increasingly shabby affair.

In the fullness of time, the claim that the West’s intervention saved the citizens of Benghazi from slaughter will be properly scrutinised. The fact that Gaddafi was from the start having trouble taking the much smaller town of Misurata has been conveniently overlooked. But even if the claim was true, it does not explain why those Arab countries who called for a No Fly Zone (NFZ) could not have instigated one. Egypt alone, with its vastly superior air force untouched by a largely peaceful revolution, was ideally placed. But this was not the mission. Instead, regime change was - and the West was better placed to make it happen.

Why else was the West not putting in NFZs in those other countries where autocratic leaders were putting down their own people. After all, countries such as Yemen and Bahrain were smaller and there would have been a higher chance of success. But these leaders were friends.

John Baron MP: Cameron’s AV gamble - "legged-over" or astute political move?

John Baron is MP for Basildon and Billericay.

Five days after the General Election, David Cameron called an important meeting of the Parliamentary Party. This was after a disappointing campaign and election result. He needed the Party’s consent to offer the Liberal Democrats a referendum on AV in order to put into place a coalition government - the implication being that if we didn’t, then Gordon Brown would.

A number of us at the time thought this was a concession too far, and subsequently voted against the idea when it came before the House of Commons. I believe the Parliamentary Party should have had a ballot on this fundamentally important issue. This could have been organised at very short notice, as were subsequent ballots on less important issues.

At the time I advocated playing hardball with the Liberal Democrats. What was uppermost in people’s minds was the dire state of the economy, jobs, immigration, NHS etc - not the voting system. The Lib Dems knew that if they had formed a minority government with Labour they would have taken a hammering. Not only would they have kept Labour in power but the country would have had an unelected Prime Minister yet again. Such a minority government would not have lasted and most sensible Lib Dems knew this. There was simply no other game in town.

John Baron MP: It is quite clear from the facts that Cameron and Sarkozy have intervened in Libya to secure regime change but are not willing to admit it

John Baron is MP for Basildon and Billericay.

There are strange stirrings in No.10 and the FCO! The Prime Minister has been talking about the building-blocks of democracy and almost apologised when addressing the Kuwaiti Parliament in February for Britain having made calculated choices in the past between our interests and our values. Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary on 16 March promised to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to instigate a review [subject to Parliamentary scrutiny] of our policy on arms sales, having agreed the best place to preach about democracy is from the moral high ground.

And yet, here we are yet again intervening in another commodity rich Muslim country. This time the fig leaf is humanitarian aid – and this may well have been a consideration. But comments by Cabinet Ministers over the last week have made it clear that our targeting of military assets on the ground in Libya will only end with Gaddafi’s departure, despite UN Resolution 1973 only talking of a ceasefire and an end to attacks on civilians.

There can be little doubt now that regime change was a key, if not the key, reason for our intervention. If confirmation were needed, one only has to look at the last week’s events in the Yemen and Bahrain. Here we have brutal autocrats putting down popular uprisings often using weapons supplied by the West, and yet where is the no-fly zone (NFZ)? There will be no military intervention because both countries are allies of the West.

John Baron MP: Why not let our Arab allies enforce the No Fly Zone? After all, we've already sold them the capability to do so.

John Baron is Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay.

Libya – Recent interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan showed poor intelligence and confusion as to mission. The No-Fly Zone suggests we have not learned those lessons. For one thing, what is the end game and what do we know of the rebels?

Military doctrine dictates that the mission should be clearly defined. Whether or not a No-Fly Zone [NFZ] is successfully enforced - though the West is unlikely to fail - I remain of the view that our intervention is the wrong decision. Too many unknowns exist - not least, what exactly is the end-game?

Our record of intervention in the Region has not been good. Most recently, politicians corrupting intelligence on WMD in Iraq and continued confusion regarding our mission in Afghanistan do not bode well. Yet again we are meddling in another Muslim country without it being absolutely necessary. We are told we are responding to calls from our Arab allies and the Arab League, so why not let them enforce a NFZ – after all, we’ve sold them in the past the capability to do so?

Meanwhile, the enforcement of a NFZ will continue to involve attacks on Gaddafi’s ground forces and, regardless of whether there are civilian casualties, this will allow Gaddafi to claim his own people are being murdered. This could affect public opinion in the Arab world. I hope our PR messaging is ready and has better success when compared to Afghanistan. Already, other Arab countries are expressing concern that Allied military action is going beyond what they thought a NFZ entailed.

Furthermore, our intervention does not sit well with our present policy on Arms sales. It is wrong to preach democracy whilst selling arms – particularly crowd-control weapons – to autocratic regimes who suppress popular dissent.  On this matter at least, there is perhaps hope. When questioning the Foreign Secretary during a Foreign Affairs Select Committee hearing last week, he agreed to a full Review of government policy which will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. William Hague understands that being hypocritical on this issue undermines the UK’s international standing.

John Baron MP: The Government should focus on the mission in Afghanistan, and not become missionaries

John Baron is MP for Basildon and Billericay and was was the only Conservative to vote against the Government’s continued policy in Afghanistan in the first vote on the issue in September 2010.

Having opposed our involvement in Afghanistan and been critical of our policy ever since, my criticism is not levied against the troops. As an ex-soldier, I know they have done everything we have asked of them. Rather, my criticism is levied against the US and UK governments which have failed because they have not recognised two fundamentally important distinctions – which even at this late stage could provide the basis for a solution.

The first is that we fail to distinguish between the ‘key objective’ of keeping al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and the ‘four main goals’ upon which this objective is said to depend. These ‘goals’ include a stable and secure Afghanistan. But there has been a disconnection between the key objective and the attainment of these goals so that they have become ends in themselves. This loss of focus has produced ‘mission creep’ – talk of ‘nation building’ and concern over human rights are two examples.

This confusion of purpose was clearly illustrated by Gordon Brown when, as Prime Minister, he claimed that our troops were in Afghanistan to protect the streets of London from terrorism, and yet in almost the same breath threatened President Karzai with troop withdrawal should corrupt government not come to an end. I suggested to him during PMQs in 2008 that these statements do not sit well together.