| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Afghanistan
6. Mr. Andrew Pelling (Croydon, Central) (Con): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the security situation in Afghanistan. [44073]
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Reid):
The international community, including the UK, is in Afghanistan to support the Government of Afghanistan
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1158
as they extend their authority across the entire country, to facilitate reconstruction and development, improve security and counter the narcotics trade. We have made progress in all those things, but a great deal remains to be done. That is why we remain committed to the expansion of the international security assistance force across Afghanistan.
Mr. Pelling: If more of our troops are deployed, what assessment has been made of the risks that they will face as a result of the separate command structures for ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom? What work has been done to mitigate the identified risks?
John Reid: A great deal of work has been done, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that more will be done. We have agreed to begin phase 3 in principle, but I have said that we will not begin it until I am convinced that we have the correct British configuration and adequate complementary economic development aid money. That money is especially important as a means to offer an alternative livelihood for farmers whose income from drugs has been withdrawn. The third requirement that must be met before phase 3 can begin is securing the correct multinational configuration in NATO. We have spent a great deal of time assessing the threat, and I am satisfied about the first and second criteria. We are in discussions with our allies about the third criterion, and I shall bring my final decision on that to the House as soon as I have made it. I do not think that that will be too long from today.
Mr. Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): In my constituency, the parents of soldiers are enormously proud of what their children have achieved in Afghanistan over the course of the Bonn agreement. However, they will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said today about the likely expansion this year of ISAF's role in Afghanistan, and about the larger role that British forces will play in less stable parts of the country. That is bound to cause those parents worry and concern, so will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say a few words on the subject?
John Reid:
I understand the concerns of people in our armed forces, and their relatives, parents and loved ones. However, we would all do well to recall why we are in Afghanistan. We are there because, under cover of the terrible Taliban regime, it was used to launch a terrorist attack—without our intervention it would have become a series of attacks—that resulted in the massacre of thousands of people in the US. The country would have been used as a base against the west in general, and I have no doubt that it would have been used for attacks against this country in due course. We are in Afghanistan with the UN—the united world authority—to prevent terrorists from using that country used as a base against us. I do not pretend that the south of Afghanistan is in any way more benign than those areas where we already have a presence, but the dangers and risks associated with handing that country back to the Taliban and the terrorists are greater than any others that we face. We have no intention of handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban or the terrorists—or to both.
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1159
Mr. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD): In today's edition of the Financial Times, the NATO Secretary-General draws a clear distinction between ISAF's stabilisation role and the counter-insurgency efforts led by the US. He says that the
"allies have agreed command arrangements to ensure that the two missions do not get in each other's way."
Beyond that basic requirement, what arrangements are in place to ensure that, as one general put it, NATO does not
The Secretary of State said last month that there was not a complete distinction between counter-terrorist and counter-narcotics activities. How will those different demands be reconciled?
John Reid: They will be reconciled through two separate missions: "seek and destroy" against terrorists; and building and reconstructing Afghanistan's democracy, governance, economic development and security forces. However, only someone who is dreadfully naive would think that we will be allowed to carry out the second of those tasks—the NATO task, in which we will be involved when we go to the south—unhindered by any attacks. The House will expect us to say that if our troops are attacked while reconstructing Afghanistan, or helping and protecting the aid workers, or helping President Karzai's Government to extend, we will robustly defend ourselves. That is why I said that we cannot draw a complete distinction between the missions, but there will still be two. We will attempt to co-ordinate them, at a stage after phase 3, by establishing a double-hatted sequence in one General, so that there will be maximum co-ordination of two separate missions. We are not changing our mission to one of anti-terrorism. We are still there for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, but we will defend ourselves if attacked.
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): Can my right hon. Friend comment on the security of women in Afghanistan? Are they now able to go out alone without fear of punishment? This is a particularly important issue for the thousands of widows there, who want to become economically active again.
John Reid:
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Obviously, the primary reason that we went into Afghanistan was to ensure protection against its being used as a terrorist base against us. But in addition, in the light of the opium produced there—90 per cent. of the narcotics on our streets come from Afghanistan—and of the terrible treatment of Afghanistan's citizenry, particularly women, under the Taliban, the removal of that regime from the shoulders of the Afghan people was an undoubted boon. I was there recently, helping British soldiers to open a school. The opening was attended by hundreds, because the school allows young girls to be educated. Under the Taliban, it was not only undesirable to educate girls; assisting their education was an illegal offence punishable by imprisonment. So regarding women and the education of female children, there is a complete difference between the situation in
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1160
Afghanistan today and only 10 years ago. That difference is spreading across Afghanistan, and we should be justly proud of that.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at the height of the British Raj, when we had 100,000 troops in the Indian subcontinent, the greatest of our viceroys advised the British Government of the day on no account to allow this country to become involved in what he described as the "bloodthirsty convolutions of Afghan politics"? Does not the history of three Anglo-Afghan wars, and the more recent experience of the Russians in that country during the 1980s, show the urgent need for the right hon. Gentleman to continue to act on that advice?
John Reid: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose learning and lucidity in respect of these issues is always to be admired, there are two differences between the expeditions that he mentions and today's intervention. First, all those were imperialist in design; this one is not. Secondly, none of them was at the invitation of a democratically elected Government of Afghanistan. The lessons of history are very important and I do not diminish them at all; nor do I suggest for one minute that we are embarked on a project in Afghanistan that will be without its difficulties, or that will be finished, for the Afghanis, within five or 10 years. I do not mock or diminish what the hon. Gentleman says, but today's situation is significantly different—sufficiently so to lead us to believe that there is an imperative to stay there. Finally, all alternatives are much more dangerous and risky for this country. We cannot allow the handing back of Afghanistan to the Taliban fundamentalists and the al-Qaeda terrorists whom they protected to happen. To do so would be to abdicate our responsibility to the people of this country.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend had to say, but he will be aware that there is a growing insurgency in the south and south-east of Afghanistan and that the warlords are becoming entrenched as they subvert the political process and control the narcotics trade. Does he think he will have the resources necessary to implement a crop substitution, which will be required, and to build structures in the province of the integrity required to extend the democratic writ?
John Reid:
My hon. Friend makes some perfectly reasonable points. I would not pretend that Afghanistan is more benign in the south than in the north, but I do not think his description was absolutely correct; he may not have caught up with events, but the Governor of Helmand has been replaced by a new governor, Engineer Daud, who is, I think, pursuing more vigorously policies less easily open to accusations—I choose my words carefully here—of corruption or connection with some of the nefarious trades that go on. Nevertheless, the area is a difficult one to go into, and I can only assure my hon. Friend that one reason why I have spent so much time on, and have as yet, despite all the pressure, made no announcement on, the details for go-ahead, in spite of its being agreed in principle, is that I wanted to be satisfied on some of the very points that
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1161
he has raised. In particular, there must be sufficient economic development and financial assistance for the area.
Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): Does the Secretary of State accept the importance of the principle of the application of overwhelming force? Is he not a little concerned that the small size of the deployment being considered in relation to the south of Afghanistan does not satisfy the principle of overwhelming force?
John Reid: No. I accept the principle but think that the right hon. Gentleman's figures are awry. When I finally announce what will go in, if we go ahead, he will find that in comparison with the number, or suspected number, of Taliban, we are considering far more than we have there at present or than would be required by the doctrine of overwhelming force. At the moment, in areas of Oruzgan for instance, the number of Americans in the north of Helmand province are 20 and 20. In Helmand province itself, the Americans are numbered not more than 100 or so. The idea that there is already a huge presence or that there is a huge presence of, for instance, Taliban is not necessarily correct.
That does not mean to say that those who are there are not dangerous. A relatively small number of terrorists, particularly those unconstrained by any convention of morality or legality and prepared to murder civilians and to make no distinction between civilians and combatants, can be very strong. I do not believe, however, that we are putting in, or considering putting in, a force of insufficient configuration of size.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): When British forces come into contact with terrorist suspects in Afghanistan, as the Secretary of State has conceded they surely will, to whom will those suspects be handed over, by whom will they primarily be interrogated, and in which countries will those interrogations take place?
John Reid: Without wishing to seem over philosophical, that depends. It depends on what people are arrested for: is it acts of terrorism or something primarily to do with narcotics or insurgency? It depends at what time arrest happens. It depends on the state of the judicial system that will be built. It depends on whether there are prison facilities. It depends on which of the allies is working alongside us—for example, the Australians, the Danes or the Dutch. I very much welcome the fact that the Dutch Cabinet have unanimously agreed that the Dutch ought to go in, although that is subject to their Parliament discussing the matter. If the hon. Gentleman were asking a specific question about specific cases, I should be able to respond.
John Reid:
I understand that he is saying terrorists, but I am not sure whether that includes insurgents or whether insurgents would include those involved in the narcotics trade. I shall write to him, if we decide to go ahead. I have to point out that I have not yet pressed the final button. When I do, I will come to the House and many of these matters, which we have already discussed in detail, can then be discussed in detail.
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1162
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |