---

NATO Summit/Special EU Council

12.30 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the NATO summit in Istanbul, and briefly report on the special European Council in Brussels last night.

First, I thank the new NATO Secretary-General, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer, for his chairmanship of the NATO Summit, and President Sezer and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey for hosting it. I am placing copies of the summit declaration in the Library of the House. We were joined in Istanbul by NATO's seven new members from central Europe. They bring a renewed perspective to the alliance, and their recent history of repression makes their attachment to security, freedom and democracy that much keener. We were also joined by NATO's partners: Russia, Ukraine and others from across stern Europe and central Asia. We endorsed capabilities targets to ensure that we make the best use of NATO forces. We supported the further reform of NATO's structures to adapt the alliance to the new threats that we face. We agreed to end the NATO mission in Bosnia, SFOR, at the end of the year and committed to a successful handover to a European Union force.

The two main issues on the NATO agenda, however, were Iraq and Afghanistan. The summit opened just as the new Iraqi Interim Government assumed full authority and sovereignty in Iraq. Politically, Iraq now has a broad-based and representative Government; a timetable and a process for its first democratic elections; a new constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms and the rule of law; a devolved system of government—almost all towns now have municipal councils and those that have been elected are largely secular; and guaranteed protection of minority rights. That is in place of a dictatorship that brutalised the people and ransacked the country. Economically, Iraq now has an open economy with an independent central bank, a real budgetary process, and a new and stable currency. A start has been made to rebuild Iraq's hugely damaged and underinvested infrastructure—a process that will now continue under the guidance of the new Iraqi Government. That is in place of an economy where a country rich in resources had, under Saddam, 60 per cent. of its population dependent on food vouchers.

Britain can be proud as a country of the part that we, and in particular our magnificent armed forces, played in bringing that about. We express our deep condolences to the family of Fusilier Gordon Gentle and to all those who have lost their lives in that struggle. We should pay tribute, too, to the many British public servants, policemen and women and volunteers, so ably led by David Richmond, the UK special representative, who played a crucial role in helping the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives under difficult and stressful conditions. Her Majesty The Queen has graciously agreed that their extraordinary contribution should be recognised with the award of a special civilian medal.

One overwhelming central challenge, however, remains in Iraq: security. Former Saddam supporters, and increasingly terrorists from outside Iraq linked to al-Qaeda, see progress in Iraq and its potential, and hate all that it represents. They are therefore killing as many
 
30 Jun 2004 : Column 286
 
innocent people as they can, trying to destroy oil and power supplies and create chaos, so that the path to stability and democracy for Iraq is blocked. At the NATO summit, the Iraqi Government requested NATO's help with the training of the new Iraqi security forces, and NATO agreed it. The crucial task is now to put in place the training, leadership and equipment to give Iraqi police, civil defence and armed forces the capability to take on the terrorists and beat them. The determination of the new Iraqi Government is inspirational, but the challenge, especially around Baghdad, is formidable. None the less, I hope that by the end of July, the Iraqi Government and the multinational force will agree and publish plans to ensure that over time that capability exists. There is simply nothing more important to the stability of Iraq or that of the wider region. Britain, the United States and the rest of the former coalition remain dedicated to helping the Iraqi people in that task.

In addition, NATO as a whole has agreed urgently to consider further proposals to support the nascent Iraqi security institutions in response to Prime Minister Allawi's request.

In respect of Afghanistan, President Karzai gave a typically forceful presentation, both on the progress made in that country over the past two years and on the huge challenges that remain to be overcome. President Karzai explained that more than 5 million Afghans have now registered to vote in the September elections, 3.5 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan, and 3 million girls are in school. Living standards are rising and the economy is growing by 20 per cent. a year. But again, terrorists with the same intent as in Iraq stand in the way.

NATO agreed, therefore, to expand the role of the international security assistance force outside Kabul, with provincial reconstruction teams to help build Afghan force capability. Some of those teams are already set up in the north. The UK is providing two. The next stage will be to establish similar teams in the rest of the country too. In addition, we agreed a package of support for the upcoming elections in Afghanistan, including a role for the NATO response force. Finally on Afghanistan, we now have an agreed process of stability in the command of the international security assistance force for the years ahead. We have offered to provide the UK-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, one of NATO's high-readiness headquarters, to lead ISAF in 2006.

The role that NATO is playing in Afghanistan and the new role it is taking on in Iraq reflect the new security challenges that we face. Our adversary is no longer the Soviet Union, but terrorism and unstable states that deal in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the possibility of the two coming together. Both Iraq and Afghanistan face the same struggle for democracy and freedom. Both were used as terrorist bases, and both were horrific examples of repression organised and promoted by their Governments while their people were deprived of even the most basic dignity and human rights. Both now have the hope of a new dawn, but are confronted by the remnants of the past they seek to escape.

Let us be quite plain about what is at stake. If we succeed, the Iraqi and Afghan people prosper, their states become valued partners in the international
 
30 Jun 2004 : Column 287
 
community, and the propaganda of the terrorists—that our purpose is to wage war on or dominate Muslims—is exposed for the evil nonsense it is. Should we fail, those countries would sink back into degradation, threaten their neighbours and the world, and become again a haven for terrorism. The terrorism that we face is not confined now to any one continent, let alone any one country. From Saudi Arabia to the cities of Europe, it is there, active and planning. Since 11 September 2001 in New York we have known its potency. So what now happens in Iraq and Afghanistan affects us here as it does every nation, supportive or not of the actions we have taken.

NATO's focus on these issues shows at least a start to understanding this threat and its implications. But I worry, frankly, that our response is still not sufficient to the scale of the challenge that we face. I repeat what I said at the NATO plenary session: this threat cannot be defeated by security means alone. It also needs us to focus on the causes of it. Progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains a vital strategic necessity, as does the recognition that our ultimate security lies in the spread of our values—freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The more we can assist in the development of these values in the wider middle east, in partnership with reform-minded Governments and people, the better will be our long-term prospects of defeating the threat.

But the battle is here and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even for those who passionately disagreed with our decision to go to war, the issues are now clear, the side we should be on without doubt, and the cause manifestly one worth winning. Succeeding in it would be a fitting way to reinvigorate the transatlantic Alliance and heal its divisions.

Finally, on the way back from Istanbul I attended a special European Council. It agreed the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, as the new Commission President. He is an excellent choice, committed to economic reform, committed to the transatlantic alliance, and committed to a European Union of nation states. It was a good finale to a brilliant Irish presidency of Europe.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the decision on the new Commission President.

The whole House will, I am sure, wish to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the bravery of our armed forces in Iraq, and that of our public servants in that country. The House will also be as one in condemning the killing this week of Fusilier Gordon Gentle. He is the 60th British soldier to have lost his life since the start of the war in Iraq. We send our sincere condolences to his family.

May I also join the Prime Minister in welcoming wholeheartedly the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq? We wish the Interim Government well in the challenges that lie ahead. Their first few weeks are clearly vitally important. Could the Prime Minister therefore answer some specific questions on the implications of the handover?

First and foremost, can the Prime Minister update the House on the immediate security situation? Are there now clear rules of engagement for the multinational
 
30 Jun 2004 : Column 288
 
forces, clear lines of command, and agreement on the precise nature of political control to be exercised by the Interim Government, including control over sensitive operations? Does he envisage any increase in British troop deployment, and is there now any potential for further troop deployment from non-NATO members, including Arab states?

What are the implications of the handover for the ability of the security services in Iraq to purchase arms with which to defend themselves and carry out their responsibilities? What progress has been made so far in training the security services in Iraq? We welcome NATO's decision to offer assistance to the Government of Iraq with the training of its security forces. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the likely numbers involved, including the UK contribution? Will all the training take place in Iraq? Can he confirm that France has insisted that there should be no NATO flags or insignia on the uniforms of soldiers sent to help Iraq? What is the basis for such an objection, when all countries are now united behind United Nations resolution 1546, when NATO pledged its

"full support for the effective implementation"

of that resolution, and when it was the Iraqi Government themselves who requested the NATO training support?

What are the prospects for an acceleration in reconstruction work in Iraq, with electricity supply, for example, still falling well short of target, and for better employment prospects for the citizens of Iraq? Following the announcement from the Iraqi authorities that Saddam Hussein has now been transferred to the legal custody of Iraq, what is the position of the other prisoners being held in Iraq?

We welcome the ongoing NATO commitment to enlargement. The Prime Minister said this week that

"it makes sense to build up European military capabilities equally available to NATO and to the European Union".

Does that represent his view of the future balance between the military responsibilities of NATO and the EU?

The Prime Minister also referred to the additional troops to be provided to Afghanistan. What, once again, is the UK contribution to be? Can the Prime Minister tell us more about the nature and size of our proposed contribution to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, to which he has referred? What are the prospects of finding enough troops to extend peacekeeping in the longer term, including outside Kabul? The Prime Minister wrote on Monday that the challenge for NATO was to come up with the military resources. Does he think that it has met that challenge?

The NATO Secretary-General recently said, with reference to Afghanistan, that it was "simply intolerable" that he was forced to get out his begging bowl as a standard operating procedure. NATO's members, he said, announced political decisions to undertake missions, but then, he said,

"we suddenly find out that nations are not prepared to make available the necessary capabilities".

What lessons can be learned from this? Is not the presence in Afghanistan precisely the kind of operation in which a post-cold war NATO should have come into its own?
 
30 Jun 2004 : Column 289
 

We welcome the measures announced to enhance the fight against terrorism and on non-proliferation, and also the ongoing review of NATO's capabilities, but does the Prime Minister agree that a step change is necessary in the thinking of NATO members themselves? In particular, the communiqué itself calls for greater willingness and preparedness of nations to provide the resources and capabilities required. What progress does the Prime Minister envisage being made in that area?

Does not the Istanbul summit point not only to the progress NATO has already made in adapting to changed circumstances, but to the huge amount that there is still to do? Does the Prime Minister agree that the future development of NATO as a whole is at a crossroads? Will he do his part in ensuing that having helped to win the cold war, NATO is better equipped to help achieve a lasting peace?

---