Please find below Tobias Ellwood's statement on the SNP Ceasefire debate. This statement outlines his position on the ceasefire resolution being raised in the House of Commons, today - Wednesday 21st February 2024.
"Before I set out my thoughts, I would like to make it clear, I am deeply saddened to see how this motion for a ceasefire has been written, deliberately designed to divide Parliament not unite it. The SNP has chosen to turn such an important debate into a political football and point scoring. Labour has subsequently put forward their amendment and now the Government is offering another. What a missed opportunity to speak with one voice and yield greater influence on the very subject we debate."
"To address the subject of the ceasefire directly, it is right that Parliament identifies the appalling situation in Gaza and must examine how this has been caused by the Israeli Prime Minister’s cack-handed and ill thought out invasion. Hamas has lost its right to represent the people of Gaza and its removal is imperative for any future peace– but this current approach is not the way towards securing a two-state solution. It has simply led to escalation. I warned Israel after the barbaric attacks on the 7th October that any military operation in Gaza should only be conducted after a clear plan of governance and security was established that minimised the danger to innocent lives and ensured the removal of Hamas. I even wrote a plan that might be considered – published in Politico which I invite you to read:"
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-gaza-hamas-uk-benjamin-netanyahu…
"The scale of collateral damage is shocking, and I’m pleased international voices (including the UK) are getting louder in criticising Israel. But the only country with the ability to have a serious material impact on Israel’s behaviour is the United States, and behind the scenes they are making their views heard but more needs to be done. On the question of arms sales, I have asked for more information on what is being sold. The call to block all arms sales is understandable, but it could have wider economic and diplomatic consequences for our relationship with Israel. Licences are valued at £500m versus overall trade with Israel, including many businesses from Dorset, worth £9bn. Would such action in cutting arms sales alter Netanyahu’s behaviour? Or would we lose precious leverage in speaking and influencing privately? Away from Netanyahu’s appalling response, Israel is an important UK ally and rare democratic state in a troubled part of the world. It has continued to foster a positive relationship with its neighbours in more recent years and whilst exports must be reviewed, a complete embargo could have detrimental consequences. Reviewing our arms sales therefore requires wise decision making to leverage our influence efficiently. I’d prefer to see consideration of halting specific military exports if they are involved with IDF’s operations in Gaza. I am seeking clarity in what that is from my relevant ministerial colleagues."
"UK funding for UNWRA has not been cut as many have suggested. I have checked with the Minister and there was a question raised about future funding but right now there is no question of programmes stopping because UK money has been switched off. I have made my views clear. The speed in which threats to turn off future funding were made was ill-considered. There are over 13,000 UNRWA staff work in Gaza conducting life-saving work. The involvement of a dozen associates of Hamas, which is now being investigated by the UN Chief, should not jeopardise the critical work of the most senior UN agency working in such desperate conditions."
"Finally, the call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire. Yes, I would like to support this. It is where this terrible conflict must eventually go. But having been involved in a few cease fires, whilst serving in the British Army, could I spell out some issues which must be in place at the same time for this to effectively work. Cease fires are not something you can shout from afar and then they just happen."
1. "A Cease fire is the title to a list of agreements both sides have signed up to - that results in a cessation of fighting in order to give space for other activities to take place."
2. "If both warring parties do not support a cease fire (and conditions) – but are intent on continuing the fighting it will not happen. Both Hamas and Israel are at present intent to keep fighting."
3. "Fighting can be stopped by a third party/force which marches in the separate sides and enforce the peace."
4. "The details of any ceasefire are almost always arbitrated by a third party / parties. This usually comes after a number of rounds of discussions, such discussions are happening in Egypt and Qatar but to date little progress has been made."
5. "Details of any ceasefire will include: - Time frames of commencement of ceasefire. - 3rd party monitoring teams (UK might play a role here). - No fly zones, buffer zones, humanitarian corridors - Emergency procedures to quash any breaches by individuals seeking to see the ceasefire fail. - agreed incentives to help the cease fire last (outside funding/ hostage release /humanitarian support infrastructure repair) for activities to take place to build trust."
6. "All the above supported by an international legal framework – usually in the form of a UN resolution.
7. "Agreement on round table discussions to discuss the long term solutions."
"As you can see a ‘cease fire’ is simple to demand from afar and significantly less simple to implement in practice. It is easy to challenge Western governments about why one is not in place. It is worth remembering that such agreements are occasionally signed up to as opportunity for one side or both to re-group and re-arm which is something we must be particularly weary of."
"I hope therefore you will appreciate my concerns about the context of an Opposition party calling for a vote on a ceasefire. Perhaps it’s an important political statement. But as I highlight above there are practical implications, which, if I am honest are not discussed in anywhere near the level of detail needed to bring an effective change. The discussion then boils down to an over-simplistic binary position on supporting the people of Gaza without consideration of the magnitude of obstacles to overcome if a meaningful ceasefire was to be introduced. I so dislike such binary and divisive politics, yet right now that’s how the debate today is shaping up. We should be better than this. I will push for a cease fire in the context I’ve outlined above. I will think carefully how I will vote. But if this is just about having another pop at the Government for political gain I will not get involved as I am committed to securing a ceasefire on the basis of the points, I have raised above. The people of Gaza deserve better. I plan to visit Rafah in the next couple of weeks."
"I apologise about the long statement. There is nothing simple about conflict and indeed ending it."