Proceeding contribution from Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 12 December 2006. It occurred during Urgent question on Iraq.
Iraq
I make no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to have the issue addressed at the Dispatch Box and I cast no aspersions on his motives. I welcome his positive contribution to the debate in respect of these challenging issues. There is, however, a degree of prematurity about his questions, given that the US Administration are still deliberating on the report’s recommendations. It was, after all, a report to the US Administration. As I understand it, the President will respond some time in the near future. We are considering the recommendations ourselves, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, in so far as they are directly relevant to the area for which we have responsibility and to the issues that I addressed in my remarks this afternoon. There has to be space to discuss the recommendations, as the Prime Minister did when he went to Washington with the principal ally in our coalition—the United States. We must also recognise that the Iraqi Government are, as the right hon. Gentleman said, important contributors to those discussions. To deal with the specific question about the Iraqi Government’s response, the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as everyone else that President Talabani specifically referred to some of the report’s recommendations in his observation that they are inconsistent with the sovereign position of the Iraqi Government. He has specific concerns—I understand them—about interference with the sovereignty of the Iraqi Government, particularly if the strict letter of some of the recommendations on an international convention or the embedding of forces inside sovereign Iraqi forces were to be misunderstood. Discussions with the Iraqi Government will continue, and in the fullness of time they will come to a considered response, as we are duty bound to do with them. We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the approach to Iraq needs to be set firmly in the context of a broader middle east strategy that has to take account of the Palestinian-Israeli situation, which is at the heart of the motives for violence apparent in the region. The right hon. Gentleman asks about the focus of the Prime Minister’s visit to the middle east. It will be a follow-up to his earlier visit, when he focused on energising the necessary momentum for talks that will hopefully lead to a stable peace in that part of the world. The Prime Minister has indicated his commitment to that and he is taking it forward. As far as Syria is concerned, we said exactly what I reported—that it must make a constructive contribution to Iraq and must accept its responsibilities as a country that borders Iraq and as a country from which some of the violence and those who perpetrate it travel into Iraq. I have said nothing to the House that I have not said to Syria. To my knowledge, there have been no talks with Iran. As far as our commitment to the training of Iraqi security forces is concerned, we are very pleased with the progress of the 10th division of the Iraqi army. One indication of how successful our training has been can be seen in the contribution of that division to Operation Sinbad.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 454 c726-8
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Armed conflict Deployment Iraq Peacekeeping operations Politics and government USA Police Terrorism
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:43:03 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1195419/answer
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1195419/answer
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1195419/answer