Turkey

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

We always stand ready to support Turkey in whatever way we feel that we can add value.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I share the view that the Minister has expressed about the importance of Turkey, to this country, its own region and potentially the European Union. I would like to return to one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, because it is important to get a precise answer. The attacks on doctors and nurses in the course of these demonstrations, and on hospitals to where people injured in the demonstrations have been taken, seem to raise profound questions about the way in which we work with the World Medical Association and other competent medical authorities. How do the Government propose to do that? Plainly it cannot be the case that those who are assisting the injured and seriously injured are left to fend for themselves.

[Baroness Warsi]

It is important for noble Lords to understand slightly more the complexity of what led to these protests. What started off as concerns about a Bill on the use and sale of alcohol became an environmental dispute about the development of a shopping mall in Gezi Park, which has stood for 60 years. This then became a broader political dispute. It is important for us to remember that there are different things happening with the different groups in Turkey, but I completely take the noble Lord’s point in relation to making sure that these matters are resolved peacefully and by a political dialogue, and that Turkey continues to be aware of its international obligations in dealing with these protests.

Kenya: Kenyan Emergency

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

It is important to understand that this was not compensation agreed: it was an out-of-court settlement in a specific case involving specific claimants. I do not believe that it sets a precedent but, of course, anyone who believes that they have a case can bring it.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I share the views of many noble Lords about this very regrettable and sad part of our history. Noting that a successful election has been authenticated by all the judicial bodies in Kenya, does the noble Baroness feel that this might be a moment for a deeper and more significant conversation with President Kenyatta, with a view not just to rectifying what went wrong in the past, which we plainly must do, but to building a much more successful future with that country?

[Baroness Warsi]

I agree with the noble Lord; it is a moment for the relationship to move on. We have a huge amount of bilateral interest, including our commitment to regional security. Kenya is, of course, a vital partner for us on Somalia, providing both troops and a home for refugees from Somalia. In terms of development, we have a relationship that will probably amount to about £143 million this year. Some 20,000 Brits live in Kenya and 200,000 Brits travel to Kenya. We have a broad relationship and it is important that we can now focus on that.

Burma

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. This debate takes place at a point where it is hard to make completely clear judgments because the evidence has not, as yet, pointed conclusively in any one direction. I found the latest report by the special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar particularly helpful. I know it is unedited, but it was published on 6 March and is therefore very recent. It is an attempt at a balanced review, occasioned, it appears to me, by a wish to give encouragement to former prisoners of conscience and to sustain, and even increase, their remarkable and brave efforts.

When Aung San Suu Kyi visited our Parliament, the admiration felt for her was evident. The facts that she was no longer a prisoner, she was active in political life in Burma and that she was able to speak and publish very widely were all powerful signs of progress. Her measured optimism was an encouragement and from what I heard of what she said, I conclude that she was not overoptimistic. She is plainly wholly seized of the massive issues in democratic life, the continued violence against opponents of the Government, their military leadership’s actions, the deadly assaults that still continue and the cultural subjugation of minority peoples. In part because of what she had to say and in part because of the changes that we can observe, we have also tended to add qualified encouragement. Earlier today the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, invited the Government to recognise the progress that has been made, and in a way, he is right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Williams, tonight. I know they are both far too wise to believe that things are now okay or may not go into reverse. None the less, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said this evening, ceasefires, prisoner releases and so on are welcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, invites us to ask whether it is reasonable enough for us to look at both sides of this balance sheet rather more acutely and without any euphoria. Uncritical optimism is not a policy. Last September, the President of Burma said that changes are irreversible. Is that true? Eight amnesties have freed about 850 prisoners of conscience, but there are certainly in excess of 250 still in prison, and it is unclear to me why any kind of special committee is needed to oversee the process of their release. Does the Minister know the rationale? How have representations made by the Government about medical help for current and past prisoners or those who are in the revolving door of repeated arrests been received? Do the Government think that the Burmese authorities will ratify CAT and OPCAT and, if so, when? Do the Government regard this, as I would, as a benchmark test for eradicating the torture of detainees and others? How have the Burmese Government reacted to representations that we have made on the impropriety of imprisoning peaceful demonstrators? I know there have been improvements in this area, but there have also been significant lurches backwards.

Have the Government made representations on illegal land seizures and, if so, with what response? How much progress does the Minister believe has been made by the national planning authority on the pledge that has been made to halve the rate of poverty? My noble friend Lady Nye and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, have illustrated the economic potential, if it were to be grasped. Does the Minister have an estimate, which has been recommended several times in the past by the UN Commission on Human Rights, of when universal education for younger children—their human right, if I can put it that way—might be achieved?

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, this evening for her report on her recent visit and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, made a very powerful statement on this. I, too, note with deep apprehension the reports of every kind of vile atrocity suffered by ethnic minorities in Burma. The announcement in the joint statement of work on de-escalation between the authorities and the KIO on 6 February is an important step, and China is to be thanked for the constructive hosting of the talks on Kachin state.

The crisis in Rakhine state raises the same deep apprehensions. Blame is attributed by both sides to each other. The offer by the UN of an independent investigation is welcome, but removal of the violent assaults and killings in the wider Rohingya community is surely the starting point before there is any prospect of a serious discussion on a federal outcome. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and my noble friend Lady Nye in asking this question—I hope I am not putting words in their mouth. Does the Minister agree that we are witnessing, in the words that they carefully chose to use, ethnic cleansing?

I appreciate the typically thoughtful statement by Hugo Swire MP, the Minister responsible for Burma. He is right to emphasise that our Government’s action must go beyond lobbying. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, called for a much wider and more active UK role. Policy will, as Mr Swire said, evolve, but I urge a process somewhat faster than evolution, which is a slow process. Let us include active sponsorship of ethnic reconciliation, no impunity and closer co-operation with China on these matters. Their roles, alongside the bravery of the opposition, should be at the forefront of all our involvement. Finally, if progress stalls, will we press for the reinstatement of sanctions?

Burma

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

Noble Lords may be aware that there will be a full debate on Burma during the dinner hour later today, so this is very much an opener; we will have the full course later on. I will be able to give the noble Baroness a lot of detail later about that issue, and about the work that the human rights and refugee commissioner is doing.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the discussion in the European Union has focused in recent weeks on whether sanctions were lifted too early. I want to be clear that I have not formed a view as to whether that is the case. What have the United Kingdom Government said in EU foreign service circles about that matter, and what course do they plan to take?

Kenya: Presidential Election

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I start with an apology. I intended no discourtesy to the Committee but an urgent family medical problem delayed me. I hope that no one will take offence. I am very grateful that I am able to contribute, and have been advised on what has been said so far.

In the disputed election of 2007, approximately 1,200 people lost their lives. The conflict was glibly and inaccurately described in much of our media as “tribal”, whereas the complexity of the land grievances, separatism issues, corruption, ethnic tensions and a culture of impunity all contributed. Kenyan state institutions, including regional bodies, had not and still have not addressed the sharp socio-economic inequalities which fed the events of 2007. Our Foreign Secretary at the time, David Miliband called on,

“Kenya’s political leaders and democratic institutions to work together to address those concerns, seriously, in a spirit of unity”.

Together with the then Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander, he said the election marked a “pivotal moment for Kenya”. They emphasised, quite rightly, the democratic processes have,

“to be seen to be fair in the eyes of the Kenyan people”.

Through the next two years, the Government of this country provided aid to support democratic reform and the work of civil society institutions and offered strong support for the role taken, with his customary energy, by Kofi Annan in the reform process. I extend my appreciation—and probably that of all of us—to him. Six years on we have seen an election which tested Kenyan democracy before polling day on 4 March and the declaration of the result on 9 March by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. The election was tested by a number of attacks on security forces on the coast and Somali border areas, principally launched by separatists. But the enormous queues that formed, the desire of people to vote, and even the bane, which we all suffer from, from time to time, of computer glitches, did not change the fact that the outcome was immeasurably more peaceful than it had been at the previous election.

Uhuru Kenyatta was declared elected on the first ballot, and his election was immediately challenged by former Prime Minister Odinga who immediately challenged his victory in court. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the declaration of Mr Kenyatta’s victory rejecting claims of electoral rigging. Mr Odinga held a press conference immediately—and it was helpful that he did—to accept the decision and acknowledge defeat.

A process that involved a ballot box and a full court hearing demonstrated what the chief justice declared had been a,

“free, fair, transparent and credible”,

election. It had taken massive levels of policing to achieve, but it is of the greatest significance to Kenya and to sub-Saharan Africa as a whole that the process was vindicated. Mr Kenyatta was sworn in, as noble Lords know. I rehearse these facts only because the issues which should now focus our attention have to be understood against that backdrop.

For me there are three sets of issues upon which I would welcome the Minister’s view. The first is that the new president is currently charged with crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court. He may well be the first person who has been elected as head of state while facing such charges. Inevitably, these circumstances produce a real diplomatic difficulty in calibrating our relationship with Kenya and its new president, a difficulty all too evident when he recently visited the United Kingdom for the Somalia conference. That was handled very carefully and sensitively in all the circumstances by the Prime Minister. The charges relate to allegations, which he has consistently denied, that he choreographed inter-communal violence after the 2007 presidential election. He has repeatedly said that he would work with the court to clear his name. Since we are clear that there should never be impunity, it must follow that the legal process must be completed satisfactorily to yield a decision in one direction or another. He appears to share the view that that is what is desirable, which is in my view to his credit.

Let me be plain that when I have read criticisms, particularly from President Museveni of Uganda, that the ICC process constitutes “blackmail”, to use his word—an unfortunate word in the circumstances—or demonstrates why Africans should distrust the ICC generally, I do not accept that view at all. Where it has acted, as it acted in Africa with Charles Taylor, in events with which I was directly involved as a Minister, or seeks to act with respect to the president of Sudan over Darfur, there has always been, or is currently, a case to answer. These are cases about crimes that have been committed in Africa. But the proposition is also true for President Milosevic, and General Mladic in Bosnia. No impunity in my view means no impunity, and that has been the attitude that, generally speaking, the ICC has taken, and which I believe that Governments of all persuasions in this country have systematically supported. The notion that it has been directed specifically at Africa seems to fly in the face of almost all the recent evidence.

I make no inference in saying this about President Kenyatta or what happened in 2007, but I am encouraged by his willingness to answer the charges and his intention to clear his name. His intent may also be signalled by some of the appointments he has made to his Government, because they could hardly be said to be people who are desirous of avoiding legal consequences or proper processes. I mention particularly the appointment of Mrs Amina Mohamed as Secretary for Foreign Affairs. She is a world class diplomat and has an outstanding legal reputation. Her work in international organisations has been first class.

The Minister may be able to tell us by how much the position has altered since the election campaign, or if it has altered. During the campaign, the EU and the United States limited themselves to what they described as “essential contacts” with ICC indictees, but that, I suspect, can be only a short-term position. We must balance such a policy with fostering close ties with Kenya. It is a vital ally in sub-Saharan Africa and, I think, across Africa more generally, both in economic terms and in the regional battle with militant Islam. It would be a mistake to abandon political or trading influence in Africa, and certainly not in east Africa, to the commercial interests of China or some of the other major Asian powers. How will the Government strike this balance and how rapidly will they do so? Does the Minister agree that the earliest possible attempt to grasp what I think is a new opening in relations with Kenya would be prudent?

Secondly, local commentators, including Mr Kenyatta, have suggested that the United Kingdom interfered in the elections by deploying abnormal numbers of British soldiers to Kenya both before the polls and since, and have claimed that our high commissioner, Dr Christian Turner, who I believe is an excellent diplomat in the FCO, had somehow taken part in what was described as a “rather animated involvement” in Kenya’s election. Let me be clear: I do not believe the allegations. I know the people involved and I have thought about it, and I repeat that I do not believe them. However, it might be as well to put on the public record through Hansard the statement of the Government that these were not interventions of that kind, and they should not disturb our relationship with Kenya.

Finally, let me turn briefly to the Kenyan economy at this new juncture. There are different assessments of the prospects for the Kenyan economy. I have read papers by the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Many see the prospect of significant developments in what is a very entrepreneurial economy that involves significant numbers of the Kenyan people, not least the women who run so many of the small businesses in Africa generally, and certainly in east Africa. Equally, if the country were to become more isolated and it was impossible to create the kind of relationship that I have tried to describe, it may well be that rather than moving upwards and becoming more successful, the economy will drop through several layers. In my view, it is hard to get on to the first rungs of the ladder of economic development and to take the steps towards prosperity that we all desire for sub-Saharan Africa. It is very easy to fall off those first rungs and find yourself back where you started. I would be pleased to hear if the Minister takes a view on the Kenyan economy and what steps might be taken by the United Kingdom and, indeed, by the European Union, which is no small player in this, to ensure that the 44 million people of Kenya receive their entitlement; that is, to look with optimism to the future.

Pakistan: Religious Violence

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As I suspect is the case for other noble Lords, the preparation for this debate has made some pretty depressing reading. I have looked at the Questions from Richard Burden MP and Angus Robertson MP, as well as the very many Questions from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which have raised the issue of a whole sequence of really appalling circumstances. Questions have been robustly replied to by Mr Burt in the other place. Having read the replies, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has every right to be proud of his determination to test the Government on these and other issues, but he is perhaps also entitled to feel a little frustrated when the responses are that we are engaged in close monitoring and raising the issues. Perhaps that is all that one can reasonably say we are in a position to do, but I think we should explore some other options.

Alongside parliamentary discussion, there has been a great deal of other discouraging and dispiriting coverage. Hindus and Christians say that they are living in hell. Their accounts say that they will try any means to get their families out of the country. Other newspaper accounts—not always with the detail that might be most useful—describe the violent persecution of Shias by Sunnis, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, regard some or perhaps all of the Shia population as heretical, and in some instances not Muslims at all. There is systematic suppression, targeted killings and endemic discrimination. Just a few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, added to the depressing story and, quite rightly, reminded us of the history of the way in which the western powers dealt with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and its consequences. I thank him for that insight.

Perhaps I may start with one or two basic points. First, these terrible events and persecutions are taking place in a nation which has itself become the subject of more terrorist violence than almost anywhere else on the planet. Secondly, despite the threat of international terrorism, there seems on occasion to be some ambivalence in Pakistan about how to deal with it. That is illustrated by the relative ease with which Osama bin Laden could live in Abbottabad without anybody trying to remove him from Pakistani territory. As has been said in this debate, there seems on occasion to be a lack of response to extremist violence. There has been little discussion of nuclear proliferation issues, and the threats seem, as a number of noble Lords have said, to mean that we have to focus still more intently on Pakistan and recognise that the strategic content of what is taking place is fundamental to us as well. Thirdly, it is important for America to engage and to resist calls to sever links—something that one hears around the international circuit. I should be grateful if the Minister could set out the extent of our co-ordination with the United States on this question.

I ask these questions and make these points because, with the sixth largest population and the sixth largest military in the world, and with a nuclear arsenal, the country is—to borrow a concept from the world of finance—too big to fail. My noble friend Lord Soley was right to point out that there is a risk of it becoming a failed state. It is also too mission-critical for us in relation to Afghanistan and the withdrawal from that country. Other noble Lords have covered that point.

My noble friend Lord Desai asked why Pakistan is in its current position and made the point that the transition to democratic government is at least a positive sign. What are the sources of our influence? I accept that they are limited and they certainly require us to understand with greater sympathy what might be possible. For a start, nearly 1 million citizens of this country have direct ties to Pakistan. I wonder whether we have tried to encourage the discussion that could be held here among that very significant number of well meaning and honourable people, as my noble friend Lord Soley suggested. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, aside from our becoming Pakistan’s largest aid donor, we are its second biggest investor and fourth biggest trading partner. What leverage does this kind of economic engagement offer us? Might it be in any respect a vehicle for knowledge transfer and economic stimulus? Unless religious zealots try to prevent the modernisation of the economy, these may be ways in which relationships could become more productive and deeper.

In respect of religious freedoms, which are at the centre of this debate, and the active engagement with women’s rights that we wish to see, I wonder whether in the Commonwealth the Harare principles could be extended, better codified and urged on all Commonwealth members. This is one of the occasions when people talk in an interfaith sense of the need to win hearts and minds. That need certainly exists, but I confess that when I hear those words, I fear that they are a formula to avoid dealing with something that is rather more profound and difficult. When we call for gradual influence from the Commonwealth or comment on the impact of the diaspora here, it should not come to mean doing very little else.

I share the view that has been expressed, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that some of the persecutions that have been described are crimes of concern to humanity. I choose the word carefully and do not seek to be offensive, but they are crimes, and they would be in any part of the international community. Persuasion is, of course, very important and reshaping attitudes is vital but the buck must stop somewhere in all this. We need to explore urgently the role of the international community, perhaps through the United Nations in the discussions it has about the responsibility to protect, or, indeed, in the need to look further east to other Asian communities to begin to build a regional dynamic which is also economically sustainable. As I say, these are things that need to be explored with some urgency. Pakistan is too big to fail and I am afraid that some crimes are too big to fail to act upon.

G8 Meeting

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord can be assured that Syria will be on the agenda. He may be aware that I repeated a Statement in this House yesterday. It is clear that this is one of our biggest foreign policy priorities. In terms of violence against women, the noble Lord may be aware of the Preventing Sexual Violence initiative, which the Foreign Secretary has been leading on. The G8 meeting of Foreign Ministers put out a robust and extensive statement on action taken to prevent sexual violence in conflict, and I am sure that this will be reaffirmed at the G8 meeting.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the list the Minister started with contains security, but I confess that I was a little disappointed that action against nuclear proliferation was not included. There are at least two nations—and arguably very many more because of those two—where the nuclear arms race could well take hold. That must be a fundamental issue to our security and to security more generally. How will the Government ensure that that is discussed at the G8 meeting?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord will agree that a whole series of important issues could be put on the G8 agenda. We feel that what is important is to discuss the political and economic challenges of the day—as they always are. However, it is also important for the G8 to look at ways in which it can get its house in order and agree on those things that would make a real difference to developing countries—such as tax, transparency and trade. This allows developing nations to have much more transparent, open systems, so that countries know when developed nations go into their country, what they are paying for those contracts, what those governments are receiving and what the real benefits will be for the people of those nations.

UN Arms Trade Treaty

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

I do not know whether I can tell my noble friend which countries are sending arms to undesirables. However, I can say that there are countries heavily involved in arms exports—for example, the US, Russia, China and India. The US will, of course, sign the treaty. Russia, China and India abstained but they made positive statements and we are hopeful that they will move in the right direction.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the Government and former Foreign Secretaries on this achievement. Indeed, I have written to Alistair Burt personally to say how much I admire and respect the work that he did in achieving this outcome. I return to the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. There will be those, like us, who have signed the treaty. There will be others who do not sign the treaty. How do the Government envisage ensuring that the people who have signed the treaty do not export arms to those who will not abide by these international standards?

[Baroness Warsi]

The treaty sets out an international benchmark and even for those countries which do not sign the treaty initially, and are not supportive of it fully at this stage, political pressure will build off the back of this saying this is what the international community sees as the standard—you may not have signed up to it but it is how we expect you to conduct yourselves. That will be an important lever in trying to move those countries in the right direction.

Crime: British Victims Abroad

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

That is an interesting issue which we face regularly, most often in relation to the case of forced marriages where young girls are taken overseas. They are, by default, dual nationals because of their heritage and the origins of their parents. Thankfully, we have quite good relations with many countries where our citizens would be considered to be dual nationals, but strictly, when that national is in a country for which they also hold the nationality, they are citizens of that country and that provides us with great challenges.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty in helping victims in some jurisdictions. For good reason, we do not have missions and consular services everywhere. However, this gives little comfort to individuals in frightening circumstances where there are language barriers or to their families. Can the Minister give them more comfort? What targets do we ask other Governments to observe in notifying us of violent crimes committed against our citizens abroad? What are our consular services’ targets for responding to those individuals and will the Government publish, country by country, the numbers of violent crimes committed against our citizens?

[Baroness Warsi]

The figure in relation to the number of murders and violent deaths that have occurred in the past year is 60. I am not sure whether that is broken down by country. It probably is, and if so, I will certainly make it available to the noble Lord. There are some very clear guidelines under the Vienna Convention as to the obligations that states have about notifying us and doing so within a specific timeframe when our citizens are caught up in these matters. Going back to the main issue, it is important that we are very clear about what support we can give. We are very clear about the travel advice we give to people when they go to many places where we may not, for example, have embassies or high commissions and that we then support those who are the most vulnerable.

Afghanistan

Lord Triesman Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, it has been helpful to have this debate today, and I appreciate that the Minister has provided us with the opportunity to do so. I share the view expressed, and appreciate her contribution to the work that is being done in the region. I express the same appreciation for other Members of your Lordships’ House for the work that they have done as well. Irrespective of agreement or nuances of disagreement that may emerge today, the opportunity for a review at this moment is very welcome. Sometimes detailed discussion and analysis on Afghanistan seem to vanish from the agenda altogether. I think that, given our national commitment to resolving some of the problems of Afghanistan, it is hard to understand that, but it does happen.

First things first. We debate Afghanistan and its region against the background of the combat engagement of our forces. Their courage and heroism deserve both our unstinting praise and the reflection that they are and remain the very best of our nation. They protect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said, our security interests. That is why they are there. But they are not the only heroes in the story, although, of course, they are placed at the greatest possible risk. Our embassy staff do a remarkable job. The aid workers also do a remarkable job and fill me with pride about the United Kingdom at its best. The same goes for the unsung members of our intelligence services. It is no criticism of any of them at all—none in the slightest—to try to draw up a balance sheet and ask: what are the key issues now? How are they being prosecuted? What has gone right and what has not, and what should we do now?

I want to look at these questions to assess how we stand in the region. I do so, and know how true this is, without the exceptional background resources and latest intelligence appraisals that are always available to Ministers on these occasions. Noble Lords may have to allow for any imprecision or gaps in knowledge on my part. Also, I cannot assess anything other than the work we are doing with our allies. We are not doing this on our own, and the impact of the alliances through NATO and especially the United States establishes particular conditions in which we conduct much of our work, not least in our relationship with Kabul.

My noble friend Lord Parekh was relatively optimistic about some aspects and less so about others. I am not generally speaking a pessimist, but on this occasion I am slightly on the side of pessimism. I wonder whether what we have heard today from the Government really speaks to the full scale of the challenges. That does seem to be an issue. The word “welcome” has been used a number of times, but can we really see in the category of successes an outstanding list of things that we would genuinely welcome as signs of success?

The United Kingdom and the United States are about a year away from a substantial diminution of their military presence in Afghanistan, while others have already left or lowered their numbers. Although we are committed to the longer-term training and mentoring programmes we will not, as the Minister has said, be in the combat roles. Wisely, or more likely perhaps not entirely wisely, we have given our enemies considerable notice, allowing them to repurpose their strategic resources and programmes in the country. It seems all but certain that, whatever the real gains that have been made, Afghanistan will none the less be left with a precarious security problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said a moment ago, there is likely to be a significant economic downturn, along with political and social institutions in which many Afghans have very little confidence. They believe that, on some grounds, the institutions lack legitimacy. I am not clear on the extent of the risk of civil war being led by disparate warlords, but I suppose that any assessment must say that it is likely. Indeed, there could be a general internal conflict. In such circumstances it is not clear how we, the United States, the wider community or the neighbouring community will prosecute key interests and what options would really be open to us.

The helpful House of Lords Library brief—I congratulate the staff on it—illustrates each of these points. It counterposes the official narrative on security improvements, which is partly justified but not universally accepted as being the most accurate account there could be, with a bleak disbelief about the quality of the emerging Afghan forces. I am bound to say that while we should not gravitate towards any kind of complete pessimism, some recent media, including TV coverage, suggest frightening levels of military incompetence on the part of some of those forces. That is along with the abuse of women and small boys by members of the forces, some of whom appear to have serious drug problems as they prosecute the business of military involvement and command.

The Library brief shows what any economist would regard as an economy that is growing now but that is beyond fragility in the middle term. That is illustrated not simply by the aid requirements. As matters stand, the reliance on different agricultural products at the levels illustrated by my noble friend Lord Parekh leaves little scope for externally tradable goods, except arguably for heroin, and even the internal distribution of agricultural products is inadequate. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also talked about the complexity of the politics that lie in the background to all this, and I share his view. The remoteness of political institutions that are far from the reach of many Afghans, the persistent corruption that puts Afghanistan in the bronze medal position in international tables for corruption, and the weakness of the rule of law suggest fertile ground for all kinds of groups to return, not least the Taliban, whether a negotiation moderates its position or not. Drawdown is likely to make the role of institution-building a regional target, but it is hard to see how realistically that is to be achieved. I do not want to be hopeless about the situation, but I do want to understand what we need in order to do it properly.

However, it has to be said that there are things on the positive side, although I have to say that I find it impossible to agree with the Prime Minister’s somewhat effervescent belief that so many things are approaching the sunny uplands. I regret that that is a worrying and somewhat shallow view, because I can see no evidence that everything is going well. It is clear that Afghanistan is marginally safer today. There are fewer civilian casualties and many of them are the victims of the Taliban. The national solidarity programmes have embedded significant aid progress and processes, of which many are cost-efficient and popular. However, the reality is that they have barely marginalised corrupt local officials. Thousands of schools and major irrigation projects have been built, and in this regard I accept the analysis of the international community that President Karzai has performed in a competent way. However, after the drawdown, it is not clear how the incoming forces will occupy the space. My assessment, for what it is worth, is that it is not likely that the Taliban will occupy it or become the hosts of al-Qaeda again in a straightforward way, but that does not mean that other warlords and factional regional groups will not move in. Indeed, cross-border factions are important in this regard.

GDP in Afghanistan has grown but, as we have heard, it is vulnerable to any dip in aid and to the structural features of the economy itself. However, growth there has been—a tenfold growth in 10 years—while life expectancy has gone up by 18 years over the same decade. A great deal has gone right, but as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, was saying, a great many things still look like extremely big challenges. Like my noble friend Lord Parekh, I doubt that we understand the country or the region adequately. Given the frailties, as we pull out it is quite possible that we will abandon all our security interests in that part of south Asia as a whole, not just in Afghanistan. Progress has been made on the status of women and girls, some of it in pursuit of UNSCR 1325 on women, peace and security, which emphasises the healthier prospects for peace in a nation when women are enabled to participate and play an active role. Has the Prime Minister raised this in the trilateral discussions in order to ensure that it is a process that is capable of being continued?

After drawdown, there is a sharp risk that any advances could be thrown into reverse. Gains in schools have been made, but they are not easily sustained either in Afghanistan or in other parts of the region. When we consider the impact of the region on Afghanistan, we necessarily focus on Pakistan. Here, I welcome the work on Pakistan of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, which has been refreshing in exactly the way many noble Lords have described. However, it should be acknowledged that the problems of dealing with terrorism in the region are complicated. I recognise fully and acknowledge the sacrifices that have been made by Pakistan in combating terrorism, but it is vital to the United Kingdom that Pakistan should none the less change to a greater extent. Parts of it cannot be allowed to remain like a failed state, much less a failed nuclear state, but can those changes be accomplished? It is hard to see real consistency in our approach to this question. We provide military and financial support to a country that also appears to shelter insurgency in difficult parts of its terrain. Of course, it bravely fights any insurgency that is directed at itself, but the hot/cold relationship with Afghanistan leaves a feeling that there is still complicity with some terrorism in Afghanistan.

Any aid to the Haqqani faction, which I can regard only as a major crime family, would be a disgraceful development. The United Nations should list it as a terrorist organisation. Its only realistic role is to destabilise Indian interests at the behest of what I suspect are some factions inside the intelligence community in Pakistan. A proxy war between the subcontinent’s nuclear powers is a dangerous proposition.

We may very well have to work doubly hard to ensure that relationships between all the countries in the region are more successful. I wonder whether we really have developed a comprehensive political strategy and whether we have not relied too much on military force. I still fear that that may be the case. My right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has consistently advocated stepping up the political strategy, and before each of the major conferences that we have heard mentioned today—Tokyo, Istanbul and Chicago—has asked, as I do today, precisely what our political contribution is and whether we are failing to debate it often enough in our own Parliament. We have learnt a good deal from the Minister today, but the question still has to be asked. In addition, how, in the context of that question, can we ensure that the Pashtuns do not get consistently marginalised in some of the major discussions? That is a regional question.

I conclude with a few quick thoughts, but first by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who gave a tremendous analytical overview. I shall not, noble Lords will be relieved to know, try to repeat the points that she made. She gave us a realistic assessment of the characteristics of regional neighbours, the problems of a time limit of six months to make major steps and the questions about Pakistan’s willingness to create strategic stability. As we withdraw, in an orderly fashion, we must not step ahead of Afghanistan’s real capacities or in ignorance of the current levels of corruption and incompetence. We should accept that it would be wilfully naive to believe that the ANSF has avoided some of the systematic corruption that has appeared in almost all other institutions. This was widely understood at the Chicago conference, even if it is thought disobliging on occasions to mention it.

We need to continue to provide security assistance and work to avoid threatened divisions within the Afghan National Army itself. What can our role be there? We need to put emphasis on good governance and do it on a par with security, encouraging political reform. We should not accept that this should always go to the back burner because of the latest political or military exigency. This also means being very choosy about which of the warlords and power brokers in Afghanistan we cosy up to when we try to judge the consequences. How will we approach that? We should ensure that any negotiations with the Taliban are part of a broader process—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells was essentially driving at the same point, not least in welcoming the establishment of the office in Doha—and cover all aspects of the rule of law and the rights of women.

We need to try to keep the broader regional discussions inclusive and make sure as far as we can that we influence them to ensure that India is not excluded, that China engages and continues to engage to a greater extent, and that the complexity of the “-stans” is grasped, while ensuring that Iran, rather than having more influence, has as little influence as we can succeed in achieving, including among the Persian-speakers in Afghanistan. In all this, we need to get our tone right. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, will take this in the spirit that I intend it, but I always welcome the very measured way in which the Minister deals with these things; there is nothing gushing or rose tinted in enthusiasm about untested capabilities among Afghanistan’s forces or its leaders, the foot soldiers or the operational skills. However, we cannot in other places, particularly in the leadership of the Government, sound as though we are enthusiastic schoolboys, somewhat lacking gravitas as we make a realistic assessment of what is going on. That is not how I believe people will take us seriously.