| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
“We know also that Afghanistan will never be stable without the constructive engagement of its neighbours. During my visit, President Karzai agreed on the need for greater regional co-operation. We continue to work with the Afghan and Pakistan
12 Dec 2007 : Column 236
“The third priority is reconstruction and development, always at its most challenging where poverty is combined with insecurity and insurgency, but a strong long-term commitment to which is vital for the Afghan Government if they are to take responsibility successfully for the future of their country. I can announce to the House today that, in total, Britain will make available £450 million in development and stabilisation assistance for Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012. This money will cover both short-term priorities and long-term objectives.
“When I was in Afghanistan and met local business leaders, President Karzai and I agreed a comprehensive plan, to be taken forward jointly by the Afghan and British Governments and the Aga Khan Development Network, to attract private sector investment into the country and stimulate new businesses. A new growth fund, starting with an initial £30 million, will kick-start the development of basic legal and regulatory frameworks, build government capacity to involve the private sector in providing public services, and pilot business training programmes. This will be led by a council of Ministers, business representatives and other experts, who will build contacts with the private sector inside and outside Afghanistan. They will advise the Government on how to increase investment and economic growth, and monitor the progress being made. We will also provide an additional £10 million for small loans that will be of special help particularly to women to start up or expand businesses. Seventy per cent of the initial applicants have been women.
“Our long-term objective is to support Afghanistan’s own national development strategy by channelling our aid through the Afghan Government and what we believe is the best route to achieving sustainable progress as well as the best value for money. We shall do so on a long-term basis, helping the Afghans plan ahead and, with good governance, focus on their own priorities: economic growth, health and education, and rural livelihoods.
“However, we also recognise the need for short-term and high-impact stabilisation projects—better roads, more reliable power supplies, clean water and sanitation—which make an immediate difference to the lives of ordinary Afghan citizens and show them the benefits of improved security and governance. So part of the £450 million I announce today will help to fund Britain’s new cross-government unit, which has Afghanistan as its first priority. A global budget of £260 million will drive forward reconstruction projects over the next three years, and provide expert civilian support to rebuild basic services.
“Afghans cannot hope for stability while the poison of the narcotics trade continues to flourish, so Britain, Afghanistan’s lead partner-nation in
12 Dec 2007 : Column 237
“We will continue to work with our partners who have proved steadfast in Afghanistan. I welcome the recent announcements from Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Germany and Estonia that they will maintain or increase their troop numbers. This progress must now be matched by contributions from other countries in NATO, the European Union and beyond. We are talking to all our partners to address the immediate need for more training teams for the Afghan security forces, especially the police. We are having detailed talks with a number of countries on more support helicopters, which are needed. Where countries are unable to deploy their own troops or equipment, we are urging them to look at innovative ways to burden share and help fund those countries which can provide troops and equipment.
“Having described the challenges we face in Afghanistan, I have set out our long-term commitment. It is to build on the military progress made so far by helping the Afghans take greater leadership across security, governance and economic development. Because this priority and the need for a more consistent, integrated and co-ordinated international approach are now recognised across our partners, Britain continues to push for the next step in this process: the appointment of a strong UN envoy to bring greater coherence across the international effort in security, governance and development—and to relationships with the Afghan Government.
“Britain will continue to fulfil its obligations to the Afghan people and the international community. We will support the Afghan army, police and Government as they progressively take over greater responsibility for their own security. We will work with our international partners and help the Afghans themselves strengthen stability, foster democracy and build prosperity. At all times we will support the hard work, dedication, professionalism and courage of our Armed Forces who are doing everything in their power to defeat terrorism and to lay the foundations of a stable and secure future for Afghanistan. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.47 pm
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. We share the deep sense of condolence for all those who have died and with their families.
12 Dec 2007 : Column 238
One of the great differences between this House and another place is that many noble Lords have served in the Armed Forces. A significant number have seen active service. This House has little illusion about the ugliness of war. These are very taxing operations against a determined and astute enemy. Can the noble Baroness convey to the forces involved the support of the whole House, our admiration for their efforts in Musa Qaleh and our prayers for their safe and honoured return? When the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she could set out the full cost of the Afghan operation, not only in the 86 lives so far lost, but in other casualties and in money spent and committed.
We welcome the latest successes against the Taliban. We note that the Prime Minister says that we are winning the war, so can the noble Baroness set out, in the plainest possible terms, the strategic purpose of our long-term presence in Afghanistan? When will we have succeeded and how will we measure that success? The country and our forces need to understand that very clearly.
The Statement talks of this being a long-term commitment. How long-term will that be? Are we ready to stay there for years, perhaps decades, if need be? As I recall, before the Iraq imbroglio, we joined a coalition attack on Afghanistan as the first phase of a war on terror after the shocking atrocity at the World Trade Centre. Our declared objectives then were to root out al-Qaeda, capture bin Laden and remove the Taliban from power. I will first ask about al-Qaeda. Are we still involved in a war on terror? Will that phrase pass the noble Baroness's lips as it used to pass Mr Blair’s? If this is a war on terror—and given the plans for diminishing civil liberties here at home coming from this Government, one assumes that it is—what further deployments beyond the Afghan theatre are we prepared to consider in fighting al-Qaeda? What have our Armed Forces the capacity to consider?
Yesterday, al-Qaeda boasted of a new murderous outrage in Algiers. Our sincere sympathies go to the Algerian people and to the United Nations. Where, in the Government’s assessment, is al-Qaeda now training? Is all training in Afghanistan now eliminated? What about the impact of Pakistan on Afghan operations? Is there not still evidence of heavy al-Qaeda activity there? Is Pakistan still serving as a base for equipping, recruiting and supporting terrorists against Her Majesty's Armed Forces? If so, how can the Government ensure that the Afghan arm of the war will be won given the current instability in Pakistan?
Will the noble Baroness tell the House if there is evidence of Iran supporting terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Where in Africa is it thought that al-Qaeda is now training? Are the Government prepared to join in action against training bases in that continent—after all, if in Afghanistan then why not there? Where is the benefit of winning the battle in Afghanistan only to renounce the challenge elsewhere?
Turning to bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership, is there any prospect that they will be apprehended? On the final original objective in Afghanistan, the removal of the Taliban, how far are we succeeding in that? The House will have noted and welcomed the
12 Dec 2007 : Column 239
In Helmand province, our troops have been doing a miraculous job; sometimes with a scandalous lack of helicopters and other equipment. The announcements of extra equipment in the Statement today are of course extremely welcome, but are they not years too late?
Is it the intention to garrison Musa Qaleh after the battles of recent days? We welcome the role of United States and Estonian forces alongside our troops, but how many other NATO countries are in war-fighting operations? Although I agree entirely with the Prime Minister that others need to do more, what prospect realistically is there of securing any help from the unwilling? Perhaps we can expect some good news out of the EU summit this weekend and the Prime Minister will no doubt be able to report back on that on Monday afternoon.
We welcome some of the proposals for reconstruction announced today, but how can we be assured that this generous support from the British people will not be wasted in corruption? The Statement mentioned opium production, but what proportion of the world’s opium still comes from Afghanistan, and how much is produced in Helmand province? It was staggering to read in the press this morning that we were now going to talk to the Taliban. That has now been categorically denied by the Prime Minister, but what was the origin of that report? Will there be a searching inquiry? Such confusing messages and foolish spin in wartime can literally be deadly to our troops.
There is much that is welcome in the Statement—some that is, frankly, too late and some perhaps quite optimistic—but we wish the programme well. The House and the world must know what is our long-term strategic objective and how that fits into the worldwide battle against terrorism. Without that unremitting focus, all the heroism and sacrifice of our troops could end in failure and that would be the greatest betrayal of all.
3.55 pm
Lord McNally: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, there is a thread of optimism running through the Prime Minister’s Statement. It is sobering to think that Gladstone would probably have recognised most of the analysis and problems, for the history of Afghanistan has been one of sucking in, involving and frustrating great empires. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for the Statement. I associate myself with the tributes paid by noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, both to the dead and to those returning from war zones with injuries that they will carry for the rest of their lives. The Prime Minister’s frontline visit is also extremely welcome. We all pay tribute to the professionalism, courage and bravery of British service personnel.
12 Dec 2007 : Column 240
The strategy and the length of time are worrying. It is very brave to say that we are isolating and eliminating, and not negotiating, but how much has changed since the Defence Select Committee’s scathing analysis of the military situation in Afghanistan? I echo the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: one of the problems in winning the hearts and minds of the British people to this venture is the puzzlement that if we are fighting a just cause against a monstrous enemy—and anybody who looks at the Taliban’s record as is spelt out in the Statement would share that analysis—then why are so few of our allies willing to come to the sharp end with us and fight the battle? It is damaging to the whole cause. The Prime Minister’s statement in the other place that he will raise the question at the NATO meeting in Romania at Easter lacks urgency. I welcome the suggestion from the Conservative Benches and hope that the Prime Minister raises the prospect of greater EU co-operation at the EU summit. More enthusiasm from him about defence co-operation might help.
Have we really got a hearts-and-minds strategy that is fully co-ordinated and targeted? That will be important, if we are going to stick with this for any length of time. We are told that the problem of the poppy crop is difficult. There is some element of being dammed if we do and damned if we don’t deal with it ruthlessly. The Statement does not offer any direct solutions, other than that Helmand is particularly difficult. It is not just the overall level of defence spending that has been raised, but also the question of whether we are concentrating that spending in the right areas to guarantee the equipment for fighting this type of war.
Finally, the Statement underlines the need to involve neighbours. We know of the problems in Pakistan. This also raises the issue of Iran. Is Iran part of the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, seemed to suggest, or is it part of the solution? We certainly need to explore what can be done with Iran. I am not optimistic. When such Statements are made, there is always a temptation for the House to rally around the flag and the troops. However, when we in Parliament send troops into such a dangerous and bleak land with such a dangerous and bleak history, we have a duty to be absolutely sure that we know how long we are sending them for and what we are asking them to do. As my noble friend Lord Ashdown has repeatedly pointed out, there is the need for a policy directed towards hearts and minds that matches the military effort, because the military effort alone cannot solve this problem.
4 pm
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords for their intelligent interrogation of the Statement. I agree with everything that they have said in paying tribute not only to those who have lost their lives and to their families but also to those who have been wounded in Afghanistan.
I do not believe that the objectives that we set out with in 2001 have changed. We are trying to ensure that the Taliban cannot be returned to power and that we deny al-Qaeda a physical base in Afghanistan. The
12 Dec 2007 : Column 241
We are realistic about what we are seeking to do. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right to ensure that we have a calm perspective on what we are seeking to achieve in Afghanistan. I pay tribute to all 38 countries that are working with us and undertaking a variety of different tasks. Some, like Canada, have troops on the ground and others have provided expertise and back-up support in a headquarters focus. We are working as a team but that does not mean, as both noble Lords have indicated, that we should not do more to try to ensure that other partners play their part in the work in Afghanistan.
I also agree with what has been said about Pakistan where we hope that the situation is improving. There are 2,600 miles of border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which raises huge issues about the practicalities of policing the border. There are perhaps even more important issues about the way in which neighbours have to work together on the border issues, directly for the national governments and directly for the localities near the borders. It is true that Iran needs to play its part. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence is optimistic—that has been made clear to me in my discussions with him—about how far the Afghan national army has come since his last visit and certainly since his very first visit some 18 months ago. He described it to me as being rather like night and day, but that does not mean that there is not a lot more to do. The development of the Afghan national army is extremely important to the future.
I agree with much of what has been said about ensuring that we are working effectively in that country. I hope we will all agree that it is important to continue with that project. Over time, we must evaluate how long we will need to be there.
On a very specific area, the model that we are following for the eradication of the narcotics trade is based on experience, particularly in countries such as Thailand, where noble Lords will be aware that it took 15 years to ensure that that trade was eradicated. That feels like a long time in some ways but in other ways it seems like a very short time. There is the eight-pronged approach by the Afghan Government to try to tackle the narcotics trade, which ranges from high-profile moves towards bringing to justice those who take part in the trade through to the programme of eradication on the ground and the opportunities for alternatives.
In Helmand province, for example, which is an incredibly fertile area, it is very important to try to ensure that farmers grow other crops. That needs to be done in a diverse way rather than simply thinking about one alternative. It is also very important to provide the security for the future that will enable people to make real choices about their lives.
As for the money being spent, the overall defence budget is 2.3 per cent of GDP by 2010. That does not include the spending on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Treasury reserve has provided £6.6 billion since 2001. I do not have with me the breakdown
12 Dec 2007 : Column 242
It is important, too, that we look at the moves that have been made forward since 2001 in a country that had 30 years of Soviet occupation and Taliban rule, both in terms of democratic elections and the importance of the military presence, and also in terms of trying to work with civil society to develop health, education and economic growth. The successes outlined in the Statement, not least for the women and children of Afghanistan, point to that. Some of the practical points in the Statement about the loans and grants that can be made available to support fledgling enterprise in all of the provinces of Afghanistan will be very important too.
It is important that we try to increase security to deal with the insurgents—the Taliban is a generic name that covers people who, for a whole variety of reasons, are involved in violence—and to ensure that, as President Karzai has made clear, those who renounce violence and support the constitution can move into a more normal form of life within Afghan society. We must provide the underpinning to enable economic growth to take place. Those are the factors that will lead to success in Afghanistan but we must realise that this is difficult and that we have a longer term commitment. We cannot put a timescale on it for obvious reasons but we must provide the support for the people that noble Lords would wish to see.
4.07 pm
Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I am sure that these Benches would wish to add to the tributes that have already been paid to those who have been killed and injured in the conflict in Afghanistan. Earlier this week I, together with other Members of your Lordships’ House, met a team of officials from the Ministry of Counternarcotics in Afghanistan. They spoke very frankly. I was astonished at what they said about the degree, the depth and the spread of corruption in that country. They apparently have extremely hard evidence, including video evidence, of certain warlords who are now drug lords and who are dealing in drugs and are involved in corruption. However, they cannot be brought to court simply because they are so close to the Government. There is also evidence that those who were in the pay of various donors during the Cold War—the mujaheddin, the warlords—are themselves becoming drug lords and are still being paid by donors. So the corruption is not merely within the country; it also stretches outside the country and may well involve the donors. I have heard from several sources of a particular individual who has bought up a large amount of land in the south and will allow only poppies to be cultivated on that land when he gives it out to various villagers. I have also heard that if the leader of a village—or “khan”—is prepared to forbid poppy cultivation, then poppy cultivation will cease. Can the Minister say something about any new ideas the Government may have about dealing with the disease of corruption rather than the symptom of poppy cultivation and what kind of collaboration are they pursuing with Europe and America?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |