| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the last part of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and I am pleased that we are in agreement on that. The truth is that NATO is changing to reflect the new security threat, but as I implied in my statement, I worry that the nature of that threat and the need to gear up to it are not yet sufficiently understood.
I would answer the question on Afghanistan and our response in this way. If NATO is asked for and sends the NATO response force, that would be a significant step change in its attitude to Afghanistan, but I make no secret of the fact that I would have preferred to have a larger number of troops there from the very beginning. That would have been a better thing and we should have done it, and I agree with the remarks of the NATO Secretary-General. Since that time, we have had the Berlin conference that has donated, or put aside, $8 billion-worth of aid for Afghanistan, and we have had the NATO summit, but we want to be under no illusions at all.
The fact is that in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem is not complicated to describe, but simple: it is security. Everything else in those two countries would move ahead at speed if the security situation were better. That is precisely what NATO should be able to do. There is still, at least in certain quarters, not the right sense of urgency—willingness would perhaps be putting it the wrong way—in meeting the challenge that we face.
Listening to President Karzai and the new leaders in Iraq is truly inspirational. In such countries they are dealing with problems that we cannot even contemplate, and they are doing so under threat to their personal safety every day, but in the knowledge that the vast majority of their people are on side with them. We should step up to the mark and help them. The summit marks a move forward, but there is more still to do.
Let me deal with some of the other issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised. In respect of Iraq, the rules of engagement remain pretty much the same for the multinational force, as does the chain of command. The thing that has changed is that, in respect of whether to do a particular operation, the political control is with the Iraqi Government. We are there in a supporting role, but there is no question of coalition or British troops or the multinational force being subject to
30 Jun 2004 : Column 290
an order to do things that we do not think are right or necessary. The British troops in the south of the country have already undergone something of a change of posture. Already in the south, there are significant numbers of trained Iraqi police and civil defence people who can take on some of these tasks. Some of the councils have already elected local leaders and they are taking charge of political control. Around Baghdad the situation is more difficult, but in time I hope that we can resolve it.
In respect of the supply of arms and their control and purchase, there is a part of the agreement with the new Iraqi Government that deals with that. Basically, they are obviously subject to restrictions in respect of weapons of mass destruction, but in respect of arms supply they are subject to the same rules as other countries. In the short term at least, we will be supplying; the coalition will have to supply the right equipment.
I suspect that the training will be done mainly in Iraq. It is possible for some to be done outside, but I think that the reality is that we would want it done in Iraq. I had not heard the comments about the flags and emblems, but I am sure that the NATO soldiers will be there as NATO soldiers.
On electricity supply and oil, the only problem is the terrorism. That is why the new Iraqi Prime Minister wants to train specialist units of either armed forces or civil defence people who can guard the electricity supply better. In the long term, of course, we are now letting the contracts to build major new power supply and equipment in the whole of Iraq. Those contracts will obviously make a huge difference to the people in Iraq.
Finally, on NATO in the European Union, as we make clear in the European defence document, NATO remains the cornerstone of our security, but as I think we are proving in Bosnia, there can be a role for European defence. I would only point out that it was unanimously agreed at the summit that the relationship between NATO and the EU is important. Specifically, it endorsed the concept of European Union defence as we set it out.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West) (LD): May I join the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in expressing our sympathies to the family of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, who so tragically lost his life this week in Iraq? Whatever views people in the House and across the country legitimately hold, everybody wishes the handover of power from the occupying forces to the interim Administration every chance of success. The handover is in everybody's interests—not least, of course, those of the Iraqi people themselves.
I want to ask the Prime Minister some specific questions arising from both summits and, indeed, the exchanges that have just taken place. I welcome NATO's agreement to help train Iraqi security forces, but I want to press the Prime Minister further. Given the recent statements from the previous Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson, and the new Secretary-General of NATO about the strain imposed on NATO by its operations in Afghanistan, is the Prime Minister satisfied that NATO can prioritise the training of the
30 Jun 2004 : Column 291
Iraqi security forces while maintaining, and if necessary extending, its commitment in Afghanistan? What was the view on that question at the summit?
Where does that decision leave the outstanding consideration for the British Government, namely the possible deployment of 3,000 additional British troops to Iraq? In earlier exchanges on that issue, a number of Liberal Democrat Members made it clear that we do not want to see a significant additional British troop presence outside our existing territorial area of operation and responsibility. When can we expect the Government to announce a decision on a possible significant deployment?
As a result of the handover taking place in Iraq this week, do the Government envisage making public any phased withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, and what is the current status of such considerations? A few moments ago, the Prime Minister referred to the essential political control of the new Administration. If, as a result of the continuing horrible levels of violence, the new Administration decided, for example, that they want to impose martial law, what position would the British Government take on the policing and administration of martial law in Iraq by our forces? Was the Prime Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) at Prime Minister's questions a tacit acceptance that, given the status of the new Iraqi Government, weapons of mass destruction no longer exist within Iraq?
Was Sudan discussed, either formally or on the margins, at either the European summit or the NATO summit? The Prime Minister did not refer to Sudan in his statement, and it may be that the issue did not arise. What action are the Government taking to get the Government of Sudan to accept responsibility for the horrendous violence occurring within Sudan's borders? Will they move to give urgent aid to the authorities in neighbouring Chad to help deal with the growing refugee crisis as a result of events in Sudan? What more can the UK do to help ensure that the terrible situation in Sudan does not spill over into Chad? Was the matter discussed as a result of the European Union position on placing monitors in that country?
Finally, we wish the new President of the European Commission well and congratulate him on his appointment. We hope that his period in office will be successful both for him personally and for Europe as a whole. Given that that appointment has been agreed, a subsequent consideration is the appointment of the new Commissioners. The Prime Minister would perform a valuable service and, perhaps, put one or two Labour Members out of their misery if he told us when he expects formally to submit the name of the new British Commissioner and who it will be.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must wait a little longer in suspense for the answer to his last question. I thank him for his immensely constructive contribution—I do not know whether there is any significance in that. [Laughter.]
On training, NATO has the resources, but they will be stretched. The vital long-term point concerns capability: leaving aside the United States, NATO contains
30 Jun 2004 : Column 292
hundreds of thousands of soldiers, but how many of them are operational, and how many of them can actually fight? The Secretary-General of NATO reminded us that—George Robertson often used to say this—we must obtain capability. If, apart from the modest role that we have assigned to it, European defence has one benefit, it is that it allows us to try to get other European countries to focus on defence capability, which sometimes does not match the number of troops on paper.
I cannot say whether we will need more troops in Iraq, but the matter is kept under constant review, and no decision has been taken.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |