| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): I thank the Foreign Secretary for his lengthy and detailed statement and for advance sight of it.
I, too, deeply regret the resignation of Abu Mazen, which is an enormous blow to the middle east peace process. I fear that he has been let down by all sides. Abu Ala has shown in the past that he is prepared to work for peace in direct dialogue with the Israelis. If his appointment is confirmed, I hope that he will be given a fair chance to deliver on the principles of the road map, sufficient power by the Palestinian Authority to deal with the problems of terrorism, and a stronger adherence to the road map by the Government of Israel to enable him to show tangible benefits for the Palestinian people.
The news from Iraq is more grim than it was when I was in Baghdad at the end of July. I, too, pay tribute to the members of our armed forces who recently lost their lives. They died in the service of their country and the people of Iraq, whose lives they were trying to make better. Our thoughts are with their families and the families of Fiona Watson and Sergio Vieira de Mello.
Despite criticism of what we are doing in Iraq, I have nothing but praise for the performance of our troops in and around Basra and our team working with the CPA in Baghdad. Peacemaking and nation building are never easy, and they are all doing a remarkable job. I, too, wish Sir Jeremy Greenstock and Sir Hilary Synnott well in the challenging posts that they have undertaken.
On weapons of mass destruction, does the Foreign Secretary still agree with the Prime Minister that concrete evidence of such programmes and their product will be found? In May, the Prime Minister said that such information existed and would be published in due course. To restore public trust, would it not be a good idea to publish it now?
The latest draft United Nations resolution is welcome. There must be a single chain of command and control, which, given the circumstances on the ground, should logically be America-led. Will the Foreign Secretary tell his French colleague to stop posturing and start helping people to get on with what urgently needs to be done?
In Afghanistan and Bosnia, the UN has a significant role to play on the political and humanitarian front in co-ordination with NATO and American forces, but without controlling them. Why should it not do the same in Iraq?
I note what the Foreign Secretary said about Iraq's own security forces. The police numbers are encouraging, but is it not the case that the numbers in Baghdad, where some of the greatest difficulties arise, are still woefully low?
The greatest threat to security now is targeted terrorism, designed, as recent targets clearly demonstrate, to destabilise and undermine the reconstruction of Iraq. Oil, water, political leaders and international institutions are classic terrorist targets, and I fear that they will not be the last.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that such terrorism must be pursued and ruthlessly eliminated with the help of the Iraqi people as a whole? Does he share my concern that the Iraqi people are, as I learned in Basra and Baghdad, increasingly resentful at the lack of urgency in restoring basic amenities such as water, electricity and sewers? They cannot understand why that is taking so long. They are incredulous that countries that put men on the moon 30 years ago cannot get the lights working in Iraq in four months. Such frustrations will only make Iraqi people less co-operative in fighting terrorism and, as recently seen in Basra, a source of instability.
This is certainly not the fault of our armed services. Indeed, as senior British military sources in Iraq told me, additional troops will achieve little if civilian reconstruction remains stagnant.
It is now clear that there has been a culpable failure of planning for post-war Iraq, for which the Government cannot this time escape blame. Ministers assured us that all this was in hand, so what went wrong? What plans were made to ensure the swift rehabilitation of basic amenities and utilities once the war was over? What plans were drawn up for the speedy signing of contracts? How many reconstruction contracts are in place and how many are in preparation? What on earth has the Department for International Development been doing, and is it not about time that the Foreign Secretary took a grip?
The coalition urgently needs to show that it has a clearly defined strategy and that Iraq will be restored as soon as possible to the Iraqis. I therefore welcome the appointment of Iraqi Ministers by the governing council, but that, too, will be an empty gesture if major reconstruction work does not start soon.
What we did in the war was right. What we must not do now is squander the peace for lack of political direction. Yesterday, President Bush demonstrated a clear determination to make reconstruction work. This Government should get their act together and do the same—and this time announce it by a direct oral statement in Parliament and never again, as last week, by leaked memo. After the events of the last few weeks, that should be a totally discredited practice.
Mr. Straw: On the middle east, I note what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has to say. As I came into the Chamber there was no information confirming the appointment of Abu Ala as Prime Minister. I have indicated to the House that we will do all that we can to support the process and to encourage all sides to stick to their obligations under the road map, because the simple fact is that it remains the only viable path to peace for millions of Israelis and Palestinians.
The situation on the ground in Iraq is more serious than when the right hon. Gentleman was there on 27 July and there is one reason for that. He asked me whether I would tell my good friend Dominique de Villepin to "stop posturing". I was reminded of the parable of the beam and the mote at that point. On that
specific piece of advice on diplomacy, I do not wish to take his advice because I had constructive conversations with Dominique de Villepin at the weekend and we are looking forward with all other EU foreign Ministers to a constructive outcome to the discussions to provide an enhanced and strengthened role for the UN in Iraq.I understand the difficulties of the official Opposition, who fully backed the military action that we took. However, it was not a shortage of planning that led to the atrocity against the UN on 19 August, or the even worse atrocity on 29 August against over 100 worshippers in Najaf; it was terrorists. If the right hon. Gentleman fails to understand that difference, it is not surprising that his analysis is so poor.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence put to the Conservative defence spokesman: if we are now being told that the planning has been totally inadequate—a point on which his right hon. Friend was totally silent when he visited Iraq on 27 July; I checked on Conservatives.com just to see—and that this is a total shambles, is that also a criticism of President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, who have the greatest responsibility for Iraq? I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman making clear at whom his criticism is directed. [Interruption.] Yes, we take responsibility for what is happening in the south, but he must understand that by general agreement what has happened in the south has been more satisfactory than what is happening in many other areas, thanks precisely to those whom he is praising, who have done the planning and implementation with political direction. He needs to spell out—let this be heard very clearly in Washington—whether these criticisms from the neo-cons' friends also extend to the American Administration in Washington.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me two other questions. He asked about concrete evidence in respect of weapons of mass destruction. Plenty of concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction was put before this House in successive documents—[Interruption]. Well, it was sufficient to convince Opposition Members and others on 18 March. If they are now saying that the 173 pages of the weapons inspectorate's reports were not sufficient, I am surprised that they did not say that during the debates on 17 and 18 March.
As for further evidence, the Iraq survey group is doing its job in more difficult circumstances than had been anticipated because of the situation caused by terrorists. At the appropriate moment, details of their work will be published.
On a unified command, we agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a unified command of a multinational force under the United Nations mandate, and I do not anticipate very great difficulties in achieving that.
Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): May I begin by associating myself with the Foreign Secretary's expressions of sympathy and condolence, especially in relation to Fiona Watson, who was formerly my constituent and whose parents still live in Pittenweem in north-east Fife? The whole community was saddened by her death.
It is clear that there is broad agreement between the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and me on the middle east, so let me confine myself to two specifics. First, following the events of the past week, is it conceivable that there can be any lasting settlement that does not in some way involve Yasser Arafat? Is not the ever-extending so-called defensive wall an increasingly insurmountable and political obstacle to peace?
Secondly, I hope I might be forgiven the observation that the indignation of Conservative Members about Iraq might ring a little more true if there had been a little more scepticism before the conflict.
I was much impressed—indeed, persuaded—by the memorandum attributed to the Secretary of State, which somehow found its way into the public domain last week. Is it not clear that if additional troops from the United Kingdom and elsewhere are to be provided, they will be made available by capable nations only if a fresh United Nations mandate allows the UN a greater role in security and reconstruction than the draft resolution currently contemplates? Indeed, a vital role in precisely the language used by President Bush and Prime Minister when they held a press conference in Northern Ireland before the outbreak of the conflict.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |