| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I welcome the results of the Laeken Council. I think that the Belgian presidency did extremely well to get as much agreement as it did. The situation was not always easy.
I have two questions. First, given the welcome prospect of as many as 10 countries now coming into the European Union within the next four years, was anything said at the council about the confidence of the European Union to accommodate the costs up to 2006 within the 1.27 per cent GDP ceiling?
My second question relates to what appears to be a contradiction. The Laeken Statement says that in parallel with the proceedings of a convention a certain number of measures can already be taken without amending treaties. It lists proposals for adapting council structures and functioning. At the same time, it seems clear in the appendix that such an issue will be discussed in a convention. With discussions on two parallel tracks, are we in danger of being at cross purposes, making the operation of a convention somewhat difficult?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important question. I shall deal with his second question first, if I may.
The convention review is time limited to about a year. At the same time it is proposed to see whether there can be accommodation regarding existing practices. I agree with him that both parallels must not be allowed to operate so distinctly one from the other that muddle and confusion arise.
It is believed that the 10 countries joining can be welcomed and the costs accommodated.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have a couple of general questions for the noble and learned Lord. In answer to my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Lamont he says that we shall have the power to scrutinise this arrest warrant when it comes before us. Can he be specific? Is it not true that we shall not have any power to change what has been agreed at Laeken?
On the general points, is it not pretty clear that one question which should be on the convention agenda is whether the European Union should continue in
anything like its present form or whether it should be wound up and replaced by inter-governmental collaboration and free trade under NATO? After all, we all know that the European Union is at best irrelevant and at worst dangerous for its two pretended purposes: to guarantee peace and to foster trade. So why keep the European Union?Secondly, assuming that some of the other nations are foolish enough to proceed towards their megastate—and of course we cannot stop them—the question must be whether the United Kingdom should be part of it. Surely the noble and learned Lord agrees, because he is a reasonable man, that the Government cannot answer that question unless they have a clear idea as to what life might be like outside the European Union. So will the Government now agree to set up an impartial inquiry to inform the British people of the advantages and disadvantages of staying in or leaving the European Union and of just what liberation and riches might be ahead if we left the ill-fated venture? Surely it is only honourable for the Government to agree that we cannot have this debate unless we know what life might be like outside the thing altogether.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord says, "Surely we cannot have this debate". I must be mis-remembering. Most months we have a debate in your Lordships' House along the "Pearson of Rannoch lines" in one way or another—it may be only at Question Time. The noble Lord—here must be another budding lawyer—says, "Surely the noble Lord must agree"—that always implies that if one does not agree one is somewhat deficient "that the 10 candidates should be told how awful life might be within or without the Community". They know life outside the Community.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I refer to the people of the United Kingdom. I am quite content for this debate to take place in the United Kingdom.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the people of the United Kingdom have frequent opportunities—I think that they are called general elections—to express their views. We know what happened when the pro-Pearsons put forward their modest platform at the last election. I seem to remember that it did not achieve resounding support among the populace. Perhaps that is the fault of the populace but it might be the fault of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the debate at the last election was purely about the currency, not on whether we should be in or out.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no, we should not stifle debate. We are part of a civilised parliamentary democracy. I am happy because the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, takes up my 20 minutes quite agreeably.
On the European arrest warrant, that will have to be given effect in primary legislation. It will be part of a larger Bill to do with extradition. It will have to come to this House for scrutiny.
Afghanistan
4.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, like many who have participated in the recent debates on the anti-terrorism legislation, I greatly value the opportunity afforded by this debate to move our focus away from the pressing issues of how we might deal with perpetrators of terror and on to the situation as it is emerging in Afghanistan.
I am sure I speak for many when I say how much we are looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. I remember meeting him last year at a very agreeable naval occasion in Portsmouth—it consisted of rather more than the tea and sandwiches to which the Lord Privy Seal referred earlier—when he spoke most movingly of Lord Nelson.
I want to focus on some of the wider issues of this Question. Having a particular responsibility for the Portsmouth area I have been deeply impressed by, as well as concerned for, members of the Armed Forces who are participating, if only on the fringes, in the current conflict, especially where this impinges on the work of the Royal Navy. On Friday morning I was involved with a small group welcoming back to Portsmouth HMS "Marlborough" following her escort duties in the Saif Sareea duties in the Gulf. The professionalism and dedication that was displayed by those whom I encountered give me hope and confidence that other members of the Armed Forces will display an equal level of professionalism in the task they are undertaking. I am grateful to the Minister for what she said in that regard.
The present Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, has been quoted as saying that a difference in emphasis will emerge in the next stage of the current campaign. I stress how much I appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in that regard. I am not in a position to comment on the validity of that view, but I strongly suspect that I am not alone in wanting to acknowledge that we are at war. Much of the language that we have chosen to use skirts around that issue, but it nonetheless remains a fact that our Armed Forces are engaged in a combat situation. That merits a wider, more open and ongoing public debate. For example, there may be ethical questions about bombing; there are also ethical questions about different types of bombing. Some of the questions that have been raised in your Lordships' House in recent weeks bear witness to that. The possible extension of the current campaign to include a range of other spheres of activity seems to provide a timely opportunity for us to question what are the appropriate limits of our involvement and commitment.
I stand with a host of others in paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his handling of the war on terrorism and for the support that he has given to the United States of America. There has been a right place for the pursuit of justice, but the practical destruction of the Taliban, which we have witnessed in recent days, must give us pause for thought about where to turn to next.
In particular, I draw the attention of noble Lords to the role of the United Nations in the events since September 11th. The Security Council has passed no fewer than four resolutions of varying length unequivocally condemning terrorism and calling upon all member states to work together urgently to bring justice to those who organise terrorist attacks. The Security Council has likewise supported the programme to establish representative government in Afghanistan through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan. It has moved swiftly to bring forward the necessary humanitarian aid, another theme that noble Lords have touched on in various debates. However, apart from the generalised sense that the military campaign falls within the rights of member states to self-defence, the broader campaign has not received explicit support from the United Nations. I very much hope that the debate in the Security Council, which is going on as we speak, will result in support for a multinational peace-keeping force. I believe that the United Kingdom has a central part to play in such a role, one for which we are well-equipped and experienced. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the need for new and continuing intelligence services.
It seems that we are at a particular turning point where justice may end and retribution may begin. I have to ask myself whether the total elimination of all those who are regarded as terrorists would in fact lead to the end of terror. I suspect that the experience of the United Kingdom is very pertinent in that respect and not one on which the United States can so readily draw.
I am appalled by acts of terror and condemn them without reserve. Like many others, I found the recent bin Laden video as distasteful as I found the events of September 11th horrifying. I strongly echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but I should "nuance" slightly his words about value. It is, I suggest, possible to observe negative values at work as well as positive ones. It is nonetheless incumbent on the House to ask searching questions about whether the focus should now be turned on identifying the root causes of terror, however they may be perceived and however uncomfortable we may find them. We should do that rather than unwittingly help to create a new generation of people who are embittered by the West.
To turn to my classical and theological roots, this might be a moment for what is referred to in Ancient and New Testament Greek as kairos; that is, a moment of opportunity for decision, change and a new direction. The United States has won the sympathy of many nations around the world and has received the
practical support of numerous allies. At this crucial moment—at this kairos—respect and restraint would only enhance our esteem for a country that has been so sorely affected by recent events.4.55 p.m.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, I first thank Members and the staff of your Lordships' House for making me welcome and for their advice. I am honoured to have become a Member of your Lordships' House and trust that I will be able to make an appropriate contribution. I am also pleased to find that I have served in the Army with a surprising number of the Doorkeepers; I joined my regiment with one of them more than 40 years ago.
The operations in Afghanistan are continuing satisfactorily—very much more satisfactorily than some commentators predicted. The United States has given the coalition good leadership and only struck after calm deliberation and careful analysis. As the Minister said, the Taliban is in disarray and although some of its surviving members could still cause serious trouble, Afghanistan has been freed from a vile regime by what many Afghans—not just those supporting the Northern Alliance—see as a war of liberation, not as a war against Islam. There is every reason to suppose that in time Osama bin Laden will be captured or killed; he has no escape.
Much progress has been made in Bonn and elsewhere to find a new government. We should not expect a tidy solution or one that is similar to that which developed democracies enjoy. In a land where tribe has often been against tribe and, within a tribe, family against family, power sharing does not come naturally. We have every reason to hope for better leadership; more representative leadership; leadership that is not feared or hated; and leadership that gives Afghans hope. However, we should not be surprised if there are some members of the new government with whom we are not comfortable.
The scale of the humanitarian crisis has been nowhere near what was predicted by some. Great credit is due to our own NGOs and the DfID for their contribution to the international community's achievements.
The conflict in Afghanistan that we are witnessing may well prove to be relatively easy when compared with what remains to be done in the struggle against international terrorism. We should remember that Saddam Hussein has killed more than 1 million Muslims and that he was decisively defeated in the Gulf War but that he remains a hero to many Muslims. It is important that Osama bin Laden appears, particularly to the younger generation, as the evil man he is—whose actions have brought nothing but misery.
The recently secured and widely shown video—it has already been referred to—of a gloating bin Laden, should help. However, if he does emerge as a hero, the long struggle that we have embarked upon against international terrorism—which can certainly succeed—will be even harder and longer.
The front-line states in the conflict deserve our understanding—none more so than Pakistan, which has many internal, cross-border and ethnic problems and disputes with its neighbours, mostly notably over Kashmir with India. The president, General Musharraf, has with great courage steadfastly supported the coalition against terror and Al'Qaeda, and he deserves our help and understanding in return.
For far too many years, Pakistan was treated as an outcast. Certainly, some of her problems were of her own making. But those who cry for a quick return to democracy fail to understand that there has never been what we understand by "democracy" under the rule of either civilians or generals in Pakistan. President Musharraf has already shown that he is moving in the right direction and is committed to democratic rule. Once the crisis in Afghanistan is over, it will be indefensible for the people of Pakistan to be abandoned, as they have been before, by the richer members of the coalition.
I want to raise two other matters. The first is the quite outstanding work of the BBC World Service. Between 60 and 70 per cent of Afghan male heads of households are regular BBC listeners. Broadcasts in Pashto and Persian have been increased to more than 90 hours a week since 11th September. BBC radio broadcasts are trusted and are the only way that many Afghans, a large percentage of whom cannot read or write, receive independent, impartial information. That will continue to be important when the fighting stops and Afghanistan is being rebuilt. The importance of the World Service needs to be recognised in the next spending round.
Secondly, and lastly, the Armed Forces have yet again performed magnificently under particularly difficult and dangerous conditions. I am proud that the regiment in which I served and of which I am now the Colonel Commandant has yet again been in the van. Our forces remain respected and admired at home and overseas. But for how much longer can we go on taking that for granted? The defence programme was underfunded before 11th September. There is now a new commitment. Is there anything that can sensibly be given up now that we are involved in Afghanistan and the struggle against terrorism?
Priorities—particularly spending priorities—are always difficult. But we must avoid falling into the trap of becoming so mesmerised by Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda that other key parts of defence are neglected and underfunded and we are found unprepared when confronted by a new threat. For we live in dangerous times and we can be absolutely sure that new threats will appear.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord on his excellent maiden speech. His time as CDS, when considerable change was taking place in the Armed Forces and when those forces were very heavily committed operationally, will be a great asset to our discussions on defence and on the wider, important geopolitical issues.
Perhaps I may pick up two points in his speech. First, I reinforce what the noble and gallant Lord said about the importance of the BBC World Service. I sense that many people do not realise what wonderful work it does on behalf of this nation and in a wider capacity.
Secondly, I refer to the noble and gallant Lord's mention of Pakistan. He did not say that his personal relationship with General Musharraf was a key part in helping Pakistan to come on side during this very important time. I agree absolutely with what he said. General Musharraf took an important and also very brave step in supporting the battle against the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. He also said rightly that it would be a terrible mistake if we were to walk away from Pakistan after the support and assistance which it has given us.
I want to focus, first, on the military campaign. I am most grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for providing us with very helpful briefings about the situation as it has progressed. Like many others, I have been greatly heartened by the success to date of the military campaign. Its progress has been far quicker than I believe many of us expected. The combination of the devastating impact of US air power and the Northern Alliance, brilliantly and bravely encouraged by British and US special forces, has proved highly effective. I also praise—although it has had a much lower key role—the air refuelling fleet of the Royal Air Force. Without its assistance, the United States naval forces could not have taken such an effective part in the campaign. Certainly those forces destroyed the will and fighting effectiveness of the Taliban, although it is too early to say whether we have seen the last of them.
They also inflicted considerable damage on the Al'Qaeda organisation. If we get bin Laden, I believe that the military campaign in Afghanistan can be hailed a triumph. But, as the noble Baroness, the Minister, has been right to remind us, we are only at the beginning and there is a long way to go before we can say that the Al'Qaeda organisation no longer poses a serious threat. Certainly, after the success of the initial campaign, it would be a bad mistake if we thought that we could sit back, believing that the worst was over either for Al'Qaeda or for Afghanistan.
I know that we are concentrating on Afghanistan, but a number of noble Lords have already mentioned the importance of the tragic, ongoing crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. That deserves as much direct attention from America and Europe as does the war against international terrorism. While there is no sign of establishing a viable Palestinian state, the terrorists of the Al'Qaeda organisation will continue to believe that they have a cause.
Perhaps I may now focus again on Afghanistan and refer to the situation there, the role of the international security force and its command and control arrangements. I recognise that the meeting in Bonn was a great achievement and, certainly, much better than many expected. But, equally, we cannot divorce the present situation in Afghanistan and the way ahead from the country's turbulent history. More
recently, there has been no peace since 1973, and in the past five years Afghanistan has not existed as a functioning state.Even the Northern Alliance, which has had some success, consists of five or six tribal warlords, and their loyalty to the new government is at least questionable. The Northern Alliance has a history of changing sides and of resentment and suspicion towards foreigners. Revenge features high on its list. It will be a very long time before we see a viable state and viable Armed Forces there. That means that we must spend a lot of time on that country. We are in for a long haul and it will cost a great deal of money. I recognise, of course, that we cannot simply walk away from Afghanistan, as happened in 1989.
That said, I have great difficulty in understanding what will be the role of the international security force. It all seems to be rather vague at the moment. There is talk of maintaining only Kabul and perhaps its surrounding areas and some of the other towns where the UN mandated force might be deployed. But what will happen elsewhere in the country? It is also said that Afghan military units will be withdrawn from Kabul and elsewhere. However, I believe that that will be difficult to achieve. And what if those units do not agree and refuse to move or hand in their arms? Shall we be prepared to fight them? I believe that we must consider that before the force deploys.
There is talk of a training task, but we must recognise that the training standards of the forces being deployed from the various nations vary considerably. Finally, there is talk of protecting aid convoys. We are trying to achieve that in a country that is two-and-a-half times the size of France and where the terrain is difficult and rugged.
I am conscious that all that sounds very negative and that Afghanistan needs real help. Certainly, if the Armed Forces are deployed there, they will have my strongest support. But Her Majesty's Government should be in no doubt about the challenge that we may be asking our Armed Forces to undertake. They will be doing so at a time when they are already dangerously over-committed; at a time when, if they are committed to Afghanistan, we shall have very little left to deal with the unexpected; and at a time when they are under-recruited and when the defence budget is already underfunded.
The operational commitment has—to use a phrase which I dislike but which people seem to understand—"mission creep" written all over it. The Government must prevent mission failure.
I know it is early days, and I know that General McColl is still on his recce, but I hope that when he returns they will listen careful to what he says, to what the Chief of the Defence Staff says, and to what the Chief of the General Staff says. If we deploy a force to Afghanistan, it must be clear that the Government understand what that force will face. The force has to be properly structured; it must be competent, by which I mean that it is prepared to fight if necessary; it must be large enough; it must have adequate reserves; and
multi-nationality must not be taken to too low a level so that the fighting cohesiveness of the force is not undermined.On the command and control of that force, I have heard three options suggested. The first is the United Nations. I am glad to hear that that is unlikely to happen. I have great respect for the United Nations and some of the roles that that organisation undertakes. Clearly, it could be a UN-mandated force, but the UN cannot command awkward, difficult, dangerous and complicated military operations. Secondly, it has been suggested that Europe should take command. I belong to the school that believes that Europe should do more, but we are a long way from forming the European rapid reaction force, and the military structure in Brussels is nothing like ready to command something as complicated as that.
That leaves us with the United States, which is my favoured option. Frankly, even if the Americans are under a central command, that is not an ideal option because they will be concentrating on the fight against international terrorism. My biggest concern is that unless they have troops on the ground they will not concentrate or focus their minds in quite the same way. It is disappointing to hear the Americans say that already they are overstretched when I consider how overstretched the British Armed Forces are, and given the immediate, practical and real support that we gave the United States after those dreadful events on 11th September. I hope that somehow we can persuade the United States to provide forces that will stand shoulder to shoulder with ours if we decide to send forces to Afghanistan, which appears to be inevitable.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, although the convention is that only the immediately following speaker congratulates a maiden speaker, I hope that I have the indulgence of the House to comment on the outstanding speech that we have heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. That was not at all unexpected in view of his distinguished career. We look forward to hearing much more from him in the House in the future.
Not one noble Lord who spoke in the debates when the House was recalled during the Recess could have believed that at this date, barely three months later, we would be in the present position, either militarily—with the Taliban not entirely extinguished, but no longer in control of any region in Afghanistan—or politically—with the Bonn meeting of representatives from the four major groups in Afghanistan—the Northern Alliance, the former King's group, the Cyprus group and the Peshawar group—all agreeing on an interim executive and an interim council to govern until the spring when a Loya Jirga should convene to start to discuss a new constitution.
The interim government is due to commence on Saturday, 22nd December. While the situation is extremely fragile and the problems enormous, it is still a huge step forward. There are misgivings outside and
inside Afghanistan, but I do not believe that one could continue in foreign affairs or diplomacy if one were not a perennial optimist. However, one also has to be a realist. One has to hope and to work for the best, but to be aware of what could be the worst. Nowhere is that more true than in Afghanistan.However, it is not helpful for commentators to harp constantly only on the negative and to carp if they cannot have the ideal instantly. Courageous and patient negotiators such as Mr Brahimi and others, deserve great praise for what they have achieved. I echo what my noble friend Lady Symons said about that in her opening speech. The Afghans, in Bonn and in Afghanistan, also deserve great praise. They have reached a compromise and are struggling to make matters work.
Sometimes I lose patience with outside critics (often in the media) who, with little detailed knowledge or sensitivity, make instant judgments based on their own cultural prejudices of groups and individuals inside Afghanistan, be it the forces of the Northern Alliance or others. Of course, I do not mean that we should suspend judgment, but some understanding of circumstances, history and context should be brought into play.
Inside Afghanistan, not everyone is content with the Bonn agreement; for example, Uzbek General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who controls a large region around Mazar-i Sharif, believes that his faction has not been given enough power in the new executive. The Pashtun spiritual leader, Sayed Ahmed Gailani, is also critical of the agreement, and the former President Rabbani, who was persuaded to stand aside for the new structure is, perhaps understandably, also less than happy with the new arrangements.
Looking at the new executive, one sees real grounds for hope that it may work. Inevitably, it is headed by a Pashtun leader, Hamid Karzai, who appears to enjoy the confidence of most. Three key ministries are headed by Tajiks who were close to Ahmed Shah Massoud, who was assassinated on 9th September, undoubtedly by Al'Qaeda. Many, like myself, consider that his loss was a tragic blow to Afghanistan and welcome the presence of the people whom he trusted in the new government. They include Dr Abdullah Abdullah as foreign minister; Yunis Qanuni, who led the Northern Alliance delegation in Bonn and who was given the honour of delivering the eulogy at Massoud's funeral, as interior minister; and Mohammed Fahim, who succeeded as military commander of the alliance on the death of Massoud, as defence minister.
An issue of enormous sensitivity and importance is the place of women in the future of Afghanistan. That is an issue dear to my heart, as it is to many others in this House. I believe that it is important to remember that politics is the art of the possible. It is most important to listen to the women of Afghanistan and with all means at our disposal to support them in the way in which they choose to proceed. They have various opinions, but it is worth looking at what two
of the women who attended the Bonn meeting said. Fatima Gailani, who was with the former King's delegation, said:
- "We do not want things that will lead to a backlash. I just want three things—education, work, politics. If we have these we can build on them".
- "I wear the veil because I want to, not to please the men round the table".
Those are small steps, but they are enormously important for women in Afghanistan. I believe that we would do a disservice to Afghan women if from outside the country we appeared to want the impossible immediately. That does not mean that we should not do everything possible to encourage and to support their progress along the paths that they choose.
I am afraid that whatever can go wrong probably will go wrong. Enormous progress has been made along the way to better governance for Afghanistan and a better life for its people. We must do everything that we can to help. We must not impose our ideas, our norms or our ways, but assist the Afghan people, men and women, to do things their way to achieve that better life. It is only right that we provide whatever appropriate support we can, including, if necessary, our Armed Forces.
I welcome the Statement today by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister which we have just heard repeated in this House, that in principle Britain is willing to lead an international security assistance force. I am confident that our forces, if deployed, will provide whatever is needed in whatever leadership role is asked of them with their usual high standards of professionalism and expertise.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, it was good to hear my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie make his most excellent and wise maiden speech. He has had much recent experience in troubled times. No one knows better the delicate balance and interrelationship between the political and military imperatives that exist in any crisis situation. He will have so much to contribute in your Lordships' House.
I want to make three points. First, as has been said, the military campaign in Afghanistan has so far gone extremely well. All concerned deserve congratulations, in particular the commander-in-chief of the US central command, General Franks, who has organised and co-ordinated the land/air battle with skill and a strong degree of sensitivity. His success has been due, first, to the fact that, as my noble and gallant friend said, he was initially patient and did not rush in before he had gathered intelligence and could be selective in his targeting; secondly, because he increasingly related the
air bombardment to the ground action undertaken, largely and sensibly, by indigenous forces; and, thirdly, because the United States was presumably prepared to provide sufficient gold to enable field commanders to persuade large numbers of the opposition to give themselves up and even change sides without too prolonged and costly fighting, although I imagine that the going became a little rougher as the Al'Qaeda were cornered. Anyhow, that famous Chinese general and tactician of 500 BC, Sun Tsu, would no doubt have thoroughly approved.As a result, the most impressive results in destroying the power of the Taliban have been achieved far quicker than many of us dared hoped. In all this the American marines and special forces and our own special forces have clearly played a significant part in advising local forces of the Northern Alliance and other factions and specifically in directing the air effort to both Taliban and Al'Qaeda targets and also by providing maximum fire support to friendly forces on the ground. As has been said, the Royal Air Force has played a big role in photo-recognisance and air refuelling. We should be grateful to them all and very proud of our own country's contribution.
Now the remaining Al'Qaeda bases, hideaways and training camps must be destroyed. Osama bin Laden, who may well, for all we know, now be in Pakistan, must be isolated from any network in that area or anywhere else, and, if possible, put out of action for good. But I have always felt that the network, much of which lies elsewhere than in Afghanistan, and some of it much nearer to home, has always in some ways been a more important target than the figurehead himself, whose mantle could so easily, while various issues remain unresolved, be assumed by others.
My second point is that having been so successful so far, I, too, like my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge, hope that we do not spoil it by forcing formed bodies of British troops on to reluctant Afghans, to do heaven knows what for heaven knows how long. It would surely be tactless to those who have done the lion's share of the fighting; their precise task would seem still to be obscure; and, as the realities of non-Muslim forces getting involved in internal domestic power struggles and squabbles sinks in, their safety could become increasingly precarious.
Such deployment would also significantly increase overstretch and it is highly doubtful whether the necessary support services, not least the medical services, could be provided without irreparable damage being done elsewhere. For all those reasons it must surely be contrary to military advice. But if I am wrong about that no doubt the Minister will correct me. Only in the context of humanitarian aid under UN mandate could an intervention such as this be seen to be justified.
I would therefore plead for the most thorough consultation with the people on the ground and not just in a European forum, as to what kind of force or organisation is needed. Also, like my noble and gallant friend, I hope that the general officer who has been sent out there, when he comes back will be listened to
carefully as to what he thinks will and will not work, and that there will not be some preconceived idea which does not fit in to his report. I also hope that we shall not be contriving to create a democratic Afghanistan with full human rights, long after the military aims have been fully met. That must surely be left to the Afghans with the maximum encouragement and financial aid from outside.My third and last point—this has already been touched on—is that I wonder, when our Armed Forces are needed as much as they are respected, what possessed the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence to raise in a very long speech delivered to a seminar at King's College London the spectre of yet another defence review, albeit dressed up as a new chapter of the last one. Of course the JIC should be making an up-to-date assessment of the relevant threats post 11th September. That is its job. An intelligence effort should be strengthened. After all, the only sensible way to deal with terrorism is to be forewarned.
In the light of that assessment, the chiefs of staff should be revising organisation and deployment of forces at home and overseas; and the home commands, in consultation with the home department, should, if necessary, be revising plans to deal with a variety of crises situations, in particular, how to make best use of our splendid reserve forces, as has already been said. All that is their job, but it should be part of an ongoing process in any efficient and flexible organisation.
But to announce in public in a speech—much of which admitted, not unreasonably, that the situation may not have changed that much and that there are no obvious reasons why the presently organised Armed Forces should not be capable of reacting effectively to any new situation—that now there would be a formal review, a new chapter, run by a small caucus of the central staff, and which proudly boasted that the Treasury were in from the outset, can only set alarm bells ringing among those desperately trying to see that the last review—which incidentally fully took into account international terrorism and the threat of religious fundamentalism—was fully implemented in terms of manpower, equipment and money.
For however it is dressed up, however the approach to this chapter is paved with good intentions, any one with any experience in Whitehall will see this as a golden opportunity for the Treasury to question the sensible and fully agreed parameters of the Strategic Defence Review and reduce still further in cash flow terms the already underfunded and overstretched defence programme. This can of course only reproduce the uncertainly which was so powerful in the past among middle piece officers and senior non-commissioned officers, all of whom are so vital for retention and manning.
The organisation and speed of reaction of our forces works—as has been manifest over and again. After all, we sent a task force to the Falklands with four days' notice; we have long had a spearhead battalion at immediate readiness; we have special forces grouped for quick reaction, a Marine Commando Brigade, an
Air Assault Brigade, a Strategic Reserve Division and a Rapid Reaction Corps all designed for rapid deployment anywhere in the world. If it works, why try to fix it? No two crisis situations will ever be exactly the same—as my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank has said. What is needed is a general combat capability over a wide spectrum of threats and great flexibility in its usage. Of course, that is exactly what the Strategic Defence Review provides.Finally, with your Lordships' indulgence, I should like to pay a short tribute to the late Lord Carver. Over the years, he was a most regular attendee of your Lordships' House and often a committee chairman. His speeches in debates such as this were keenly looked forward to, as he was a brilliant and erudite speaker with great experience behind him.
Although his obituaries may to some extent have dwelt on his brusqueness and intellectual self-confidence, noble Lords will have experienced nothing but courtesy and kindness from him in his dealings in your Lordships' House. As someone who served under him in Normandy and north-west Europe, I can vouch for his excellence as a commander in war. Clear headed and calm under fire, he was always, like the great Duke of Wellington, to whom he was related through his mother, where he was most needed in the battle. He was ready to take clear-cut decisions, however tough, and to seize tactical opportunities as they occurred, while at the same time being considerate of the lives of the soldiers under him. In this, he was everything that a soldier should be.
Michael Carver was also, in peacetime, a highly civilised human being—a man of letters and of culture. Those who knew him well—and I count a great number in your Lordships' House—will miss him very much indeed.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page