Proceeding contribution from Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 12 December 2006. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Iraq.
Iraq
My Lords, I can only extend my sympathy to the Minister for having to read out such a thin Statement, which has in its second sentence the words that our security strategy is not driven by the American political calendar. We all understand that should be understood as reading that our security strategy is in severe danger of being driven by the American political calendar. This Statement is clearly about the Iraq Study Group. It talks about our strategy and what we are doing, but it implies that actually our strategy is being defined in Washington, without very much influence from London. Indeed, if we want to exert influence in Washington, the Prime Minister has to go over there and do his best. The Statement says that the Iraq Study Group’s assessment of the security situation is largely in tune with our own. We may be very glad to hear that. We would love to know a little more about what Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment is, since there has been no comparable inquiry in Britain and no comparable dialogue with Parliament or with Opposition parties. We are asked, as ever, to trust the Prime Minister. Furthermore, if our assessment of the situation is comparable to that of the Iraq Study Group, there are disturbing noises in Washington that President Bush does not agree with that. The Iraq Study Group, for example, says that we have to have a dialogue with Iraq’s neighbours, including Iran and Syria; and President Bush has clearly said that he does not accept that. What are Her Majesty’s Government going to do about the divergence of view between official Washington, the rather wiser statements of the members of the Iraq Study Group, and the opinions of Her Majesty’s Government? It is not surprising that in view of that the Prime Minister looked extremely uncomfortable at various points during the joint press conference. For the rest, we are unhappy about some other aspects of the Statement. We have again been told that 14 of the 18 provinces are relatively peaceful, but the other four are by far the most important and heavily populated. We are told that the British will hand over our provinces one by one, with two more to go as situations improve. What will happen if the British have completed handing over our four provinces before the United States has finished with its remaining three? Do we leave ahead of the Americans or do we wait for them before we do so? After all, they may wish to leave with much of their equipment through Basra. We are told that we will hand over when it is right to do so, which I take as meaning that we will hand over when the Prime Minister considers that is right to do so. This is not a satisfactory report. The Iraq Study Group has now set a rather more constructive direction for American policy, which we know the British follow, and we find ourselves yet again without influence in Washington as a substantial amount of influential opinion there does its best to rubbish the report of the Iraq Study Group. As ever, that leaves us in a deeply unhappy situation.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 687 c1491-2
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Iraq Police Peacekeeping operations Politics and government Terrorism Security
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:42:18 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_364777
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_364777
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_364777