House of Commons
Tuesday 11 November 2003
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
Bill to be considered on Tuesday 18 November.
Oral Answers to Questions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked—
Afghanistan
1. Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): If he will make a statement on the proposed constitution for Afghanistan. [137395]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The draft Afghan constitution was published on 3 November, following a process of popular consultation. It will be discussed and approved at a constitutional Loya Jirga which is expected to take place in Kabul in December.
It is for the Afghan people to decide on the form of the constitution, but the UK has made it clear to the Afghan Transitional Administration that, while we understand that the constitution must reflect Afghan culture and traditions, we also expect it to respect Afghanistan's international obligations and commitments in the area of human rights.
Gregory Barker : I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and it is clear that we have come a long way in the past couple of years, but what assurances can he give the House that the powerful regional warlords will buy into the constitution and the democratic process? That is especially important given that the respected group Human Rights Watch, which is based in New York, said recently that a climate of fear exists in every region of Afghanistan, and that numerous candidates have received death threats and want to stay away from the elections due to take place after the Loya Jirga has been held.
Mr. Rammell: First, it is important to make it clear that significant progress has been made, despite the
difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. The Afghan economy grew by some 30 per cent. last year. Children—particularly young girls—are back at school, and hundreds of schools, hospitals and clinics have been rebuilt and repaired. Clearly, the security situation outside Kabul is not as good as it is in the capital. We need to work with the Afghan authorities to improve law enforcement, but the draft constitution contains significant safeguards that will ensure human rights and the protection of all the Afghan people. We will work with our Afghan partners to realise that.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): I congratulate the Afghan Transitional Authority and the British Government on the progress that has been made to get to a point that many thought would never be reached. I have read the draft constitution in English only, but it contains elements that do not seem comprehensively to protect the rights of women. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that that matter is not for us to choose or determine, so will he say what assistance the Government will give to ensure that Afghan women are present in numbers at the Loya Jirga, that they have security, and that they are able to make their voices heard so that they may determine the rights of Afghan women under the constitution?
Mr. Rammell: May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the significant work that she has done on the rights of women in Afghanistan? She raises an important point: it is for the Afghan authorities to determine these matters, but we provide advice and assistance. When I visited Afghanistan in July, I took the opportunity—as all my colleagues do—to seek out the views of women and to ensure that they are involved in the political process. The draft constitution contains significant safeguards, especially in respect of Afghanistan making it clear that it will abide by the UN charter and the universal declaration on human rights. I welcome my hon. Friend's congratulations on the progress that has been made, but we are entering a critical phase and we must remain focused on the issue.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): Earlier this year, a Minister visiting Baghdad said that it was the Government's intention to give the Afghan people a final say on their constitution in a national referendum. Is it still the Government's policy to give the Afghans a say on their new constitution but to deny the British people a say on the European constitution?
Mr. Rammell: It is fascinating to observe that the old stories are still running, even after a change of leadership and of Front-Bench personnel. The previous Conservative Government held no referendum on Maastricht or on other changes, and we will take this issue forward in exactly the same way.
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): Although we welcome the new constitution as a potential element for stability in Afghanistan, does the Minister agree that it can be only one stabilising element at best, which on its own will not be enough? Does he agree that eliminating opium poppy production—as I saw for myself when I visited Afghanistan in July—would also contribute to future stability and that failure to do so will cause
further instability? Given that Britain is officially responsible for international efforts to eradicate that problem and given that, in 2002, the Government promised to reduce poppy cultivation by
- "70 per cent. in five years",
Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West): Congratulate him on his appointment.
Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend; I was just about to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion. I think that the hon. Gentleman makes an important—[Interruption.] My apologies. The right hon. Gentleman makes—[Interruption.] The shadow Foreign Secretary makes an important point about the progress that is being made on stability through the draft constitution. Nevertheless, the situation in regard to drug production remains difficult. We have always said that it will be a long haul; a 10-year plan is in place and if the shadow Foreign Secretary considers those countries where there has been significant progress on tackling drug cultivation—for example, in Pakistan and Thailand—he will see that one could not have expected significant progress to have been made by this stage. However, the building blocks, in terms of law enforcement and alternative livelihoods, are in place to create a situation in which we are confident that over the five to 10-year period the problem will be removed.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks; I take them in the spirit in which they were intended.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): We are very pleased, Michael.
Mr. Ancram: I am always pleased to please the Foreign Secretary.
Is not the true problem, which is not in any way covered by the constitution, that opium production has risen from a starting point in 2001—in terms of the five-year target—of 185 tonnes to 3,400 tonnes in 2002 and 3,600 tonnes in 2003? Does the Minister agree with the International Monetary Fund, which warned in September that Afghanistan was in danger of sliding into what it called a "narco-state"? Why were the Government's predictions so wildly and dangerously out of line? What has gone wrong?
Mr. Rammell: The specific year to which the shadow Foreign Secretary refers is the year when the Taliban, using all the repressive measures at their disposal, stopped cultivation while continuing to process and traffic to feed the regime financially. If the shadow Foreign Secretary looks at the figures for this year, he will see that, yes, there has been a small increase, and given the experience in Pakistan and Thailand, that is in line with what one would expect at this stage of the redevelopment of Afghanistan. As the infrastructure is improved, there is initially a small increase in production. However, with the other measures that are
being taken, especially for alternative livelihoods and for the enhancement of law enforcement throughout the country, we remain confident that the objectives can be met.Iraq
2. Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): If he will make a statement on the recent attack on the Red Cross in Iraq. [137396]
3. Mr. David Stewart (Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber): If he will make a statement on his assessment of the future role of aid agencies in Iraq. [137397]
6. Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): If he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq. [137400]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Life in many parts of Iraq is better than it was before military action began. Power, water and sewerage have been restored. Schools, universities and hospitals are in operation. A new currency has been introduced. Economic activity is rising, as is oil production. Not least, there are now remarkably free and active media, where before information was tightly controlled by the Saddam regime. Opinion polls taken in Iraq show consistently high levels of support for the removal of Saddam by the coalition.
I am the first to accept, however, that the security situation in parts of Iraq, especially in Baghdad and the so-called Sunni triangle, remains unsatisfactory. Terrorist attacks have led to the withdrawal of the international staff of aid agencies and non-governmental organisations. This morning, I spoke to Dr. Jacob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who assured me that the closure of the Red Cross offices in Baghdad and Basra was on a temporary basis and that it was being kept under close review. Many agencies continue to operate with local staff, and every effort is being made, not least by the coalition, to ensure that aid gets through.
Mr. Wiggin : The House will be aware that this is the first time that the Red Cross has been directly attacked. Is it true that the person suspected of co-ordinating those attacks is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam Hussein's No. 2? Will there be an increase in the amount of intelligence available to find out about that?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is the first time, so far as I know, that ICRC offices anywhere have been attacked. The ICRC has had an extremely fine record of working for people in a number of conflict situations. As Dr. Kellenberger told me this morning, it is always first in, last out, and it has an exceptional reputation for integrity and independence from the occupying powers, as is required of it given its responsibilities to secure the enforcement of the Geneva conventions.
As for Mr. al-Douri, I, too, have seen those reports, but I can offer no further comment on them. Of course, we accept that part of the effort to improve the security situation, along with direct military action and an
improvement in the overall environment in which the majority of Iraqis work and live, is an improvement in intelligence.
Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the aid agencies on the work that they carry out in Iraq in very difficult circumstances, as I experienced a few weeks ago? What contingency plans does he have to ensure that humanitarian aid continues to be delivered to the Iraqi people?
Mr. Straw: I do indeed know of my hon. Friend's experience in Basra as a member of the parliamentary forces partnership arrangement. I am extremely grateful to him for spending three days in a tent in Basra, experiencing life with the military there. We are working very hard indeed through the coalition and now increasingly through the civilian Government, under the governing council and the Iraqi ministries, to ensure that aid gets through. The proof of that is that so much of life is now much better, not just than it was in the immediate aftermath of the military action but well before it, not least as a result of the better partnership between the coalition authorities and the aid agencies, many of which continue to use their local staff.
Mr. Allen: The Foreign Secretary will know better than anyone that there was some dispute over the legal basis of the invasion of Iraq, but I know that he takes second place to no one in his desire to rebuild both the global coalition against terrorism and the United Nations. Can he tell the House whether—in case we were ever to take on a murdering butcher in future—he is working on restoring and strengthening the legal basis on which the UN and, indeed, a coalition of nations might act?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says and the manner in which he says it. The legal argument about whether military action was justified in respect of Iraq emphasised the fact that the legal basis for military action contained in the UN charter, which was agreed just after the last world war, is no longer fully adequate to cope with today's threats. It copes very well with the traditional threats of action being taken by one sovereign nation against another, but it no longer copes with the new set of threats from rogue and/or failing states, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. How exactly we resolve that is difficult, but it is a matter to which we are applying ourselves, to which the United States is applying itself and to which the European Union in its important draft security strategy, to which we have contributed, is also applying itself, and I undertake to keep the House informed of developments.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): Is it not a simple truth that the efforts to bring about the reconstruction of Iraq and to establish democracy there simply cannot be allowed to fail? Is it not equally true that the achievement of those objectives is likely to take a much higher degree of commitment than was first envisaged? Do not those facts require the British
Government to be entirely honest with the British people about how long that may take and how much it may cost?
Mr. Straw: We are not going to allow our efforts to fail. We are absolutely determined about that, and it is interesting that the whole international community is of the same opinion, whatever view may have been taken about the military action in the first place. We have been as explicit as we can with the British public, as we are required to be and as we must be, about the long-term prospects. The truth is that I cannot say how long we will have to stay in Iraq, any more than anyone could have said how long we would be in Kosovo or Bosnia. But I can say that we will be there until the job is completed. I hope very much that, in a short while, we will be there at the invitation of a sovereign Iraqi Administration.
Tony Baldry (Banbury): When the reconstruction plans for Iraq were promulgated, it was assumed that much of the cost of reconstruction would come from Iraq's own oil. Because of the disruption, that is not happening, and consequently donors must give more money and the Department for International Development's budget has been raided to the tune of £100 million, which will mean a withdrawal of UK bilateral development aid to most of Latin America, central Asia and elsewhere. When does the Foreign Secretary anticipate that Iraq will be able to start paying something towards its own reconstruction costs?
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. All the oil revenues are paid into the Iraqi development fund, which, under resolution 1483, is explicitly for the benefit of the Iraqis and nobody else. It was always anticipated that in addition to the revenues that the Iraqis might be able to generate, because of the huge damage done to the infrastructure of Iraq and the squandering of its wealth, a substantial international aid effort would be required, including contributions from the United Kingdom. Nor do I accept for a second that DFID's funds have been raided to pay for reconstruction, which is now a very high priority. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that we have more than doubled our aid programme overall in the last six years, from the shadow of what it should have been when we came to office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made it very clear that 90 per cent. of the funds of DFID, which are related to poverty alleviation, remain entirely untouched.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Is it not fundamental, as was recognised at Nuremberg in 1945, that whatever crimes men may or may not have committed, they are entitled to a trial? Why has not a trial started of Tariq Aziz and others? In the case of Tariq Aziz, is it on account of his medical condition?
Mr. Straw: I accept the basis of my hon. Friend's point that it is fundamental that when there is evidence against people, they must be subject to proceedings, and steps are being taken to establish appropriate tribunals within Iraq.
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): We share the general concern at the deteriorating security situation in Iraq. Does the Foreign Secretary share the view of his Government representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock that the current security threat emanates largely from elements originating from outside Iraq, and can he identify those elements? In the light of what he had to say about intelligence earlier, does he also share United States administrator Paul Bremer's analysis in The Times yesterday that the terrorist attacks will
- "be more of a problem in the months ahead unless the intelligence gets better"?
Mr. Straw: May I repeat the congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his survival in the shadow Cabinet, a matter on which I am something of an expert? May I also say that I noticed in The Daily Telegraph that the new team has been described as "lean and mean"? Although I have great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman's many sterling qualities, lean and mean is not the first description that comes to mind. He asked me two specific questions. First, yes, I do agree with Sir Jeremy Greenstock. We cannot tell for certain, and if we knew for certain, dealing with the terrorists would be that much easier. We believe, however, that terrorist actions are, in turns, taken either by remnants of the Saddam regime, by outside terrorists or by a mix of both. Ambassador Bremer was entirely correct to say that terrorism will become more of a problem unless intelligence is improved, and a considerable effort is now being made by the coalition and coalition forces to do just that.
4. Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): What the Government's policy is in respect of the Kurdish population in northern Iraq and other parts of the region. [137398]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): Relationships between the Kurdish population in the north and other parts of the region are a matter for the Iraqis. Representatives of the Government and the coalition provisional authority meet regularly with a wide variety of political groups in Iraq, including representatives of the Kurdish population, to hear their views. We are fully committed to maintaining relationships with the Kurdish population throughout Iraq.
Mr. Clarke: Is my hon. Friend in a position to give the Government's response to the unanimous decision of the Kurdish National Assembly to assert that in the new Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan should be regarded as a single
federal region embracing Kirkuk and Mosul, and that it should be protected against both threats and interference from any neighbouring states?
Mr. Rammell: We have made it clear from the beginning of the process that we believe that the territorial integrity of Iraq should be protected. Nevertheless, we try to uphold the human rights of all Iraqis, including the Kurds. The appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) as the Prime Minister's special envoy on human rights in Iraq has helped significantly in that regard.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): As the Prime Minister made plain last night in his speech at Guildhall, our Government are working in close co-operation with the American Government on all aspects in Iraq. In view of that, will the Minister confirm that when President Bush is here next week, he will address both Houses of Parliament, as Presidents Clinton and Reagan did, and as our Prime Minister addressed Congress?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Is not an important area in which the Kurds could work together with others in Iraq—Shi'a, Sunni, Turkomen, Assyrians, Christians and Jews—the federal trade union movement that is developing quickly in Iraq, in which people work together as teachers, railwaymen and oil workers? What is being done to facilitate the newly emerging movement, which is in desperate need of such facilitation?
Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question because he has long argued that a way to confront some of the historical divisions that exist is through the legitimate pursuit of trade union activity. In that regard, I am pleased that we in the Foreign Office are considering all that we can do to help. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the TUC general secretary and other leading trade unionists last week to discuss that very issue.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): Going back to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), may I suggest to the Minister that now is the time for the occupying powers to call together a true international convention to decide what is to happen to the Kurdish people in the north of Iraq? Many of us were concerned about the plight of those people prior to and during the conflict. Thankfully, things are not as bad as we feared, but it is time to regularise the position, and for the self-determination of those people to be recognised by the international community rather than the occupying forces.
Mr. Rammell: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that improvements are being made in Iraq and I understand his concerns about the position of the Kurds. We take that up at every opportunity with all our partners in Iraq and the Iraqi governing council. However, it is critical that we do not impose solutions from the outside on the constitutional
structure that Iraq and the Iraqi people should eventually agree for themselves. That will be critical, but the Iraqis must take the process forward.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |