---

Defence Policy

Like the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), I was part of the delegation to the USA last week, and I want to make a few observations. We discussed issues that we have not discussed today but that are part of the general discussion. For example, we discussed the trade treaty, which the Defence Committee has asked to consider in particular and which this Parliament ratified some time ago. We were concerned that the new Administration should take that much more seriously than they seemed to have been doing up until now and deal with it much more quickly than they have been, because it speaks to an enduring relationship. In my opinion, a lot of loose language is used in talking about a special relationship and so on, but particular relationships need to be cemented and understood. The trade relationship is one of them. We were trying to ensure that that was the case. We were also concerned about a second engine for the joint strike fighter—a huge investment for us in terms of our defence, but one involving small numbers for the United States. The investment is of huge importance to our local economies, our national economy and our defence relationship. Those are a few of the things that we discussed. It is interesting that the debate in the United States—like the debate here—is clearly dominated by concerns about Afghanistan and where we will go in the future. Other issues were are stake, not least of which was a broader discussion about missile defence—that has not been mentioned today, and we cannot do everything in one day—but that affects the view from America about where it should be in the world. We all know that that has changed; it has changed radically with the election of the new President. That offers us opportunities to debate differently with the Americans and to speak to them about looking at parts of the world in a different way. They know that they have lost capacity to go and speak to certain parts of the world—whether it was deliberately destroyed or not. The previous Administration damaged their ability to do so. They know that they need to rectify that, and it was interesting to discuss it with them. As my colleague from the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire, said, the Americans' discussion about where they are going in Afghanistan was somewhat overlaid by their semi-hysterical press, which does not help. If anyone thinks that ours are bad, they should go and have a look at some of theirs. It did not inform the discussion but we felt that, underneath that, people were trying to get a real analysis. I was pleasantly surprised by at least the first half of the speech from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), as he seemed to begin a real analysis of where we need to be. He asked some genuine questions, similar to the ones that some of us have been trying to ask for some time. I take personal offence at the way in which problems tend to be collapsed together, and at the abuse of language exemplified by terms such "the AfPak solution". I am sure that the Pakistanis and Afghanis find it offensive too. It may only be shorthand but it does not help, as the type of language used in discussions with these people is very important. I agree that military activity is not always supported by civilian work to build capacity. It is clear that the US is now having that debate. It has a new organisation for reconstruction and stabilisation, but USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—has all the money. Organisationally, the US is not properly joined up, and that is a problem with which I think it knows it must deal. Our Department for International Development tries to make available most of the finance that it can offer through Afghan Government structures, however corrupt, difficult or dysfunctional they may be. The aim is to help to build indigenous capacity rather than offer a well meaning substitute for it. Those organisational questions are crucial to any discussion of where we go now in Afghanistan. The debate goes beyond numbers of front-line infantry combat forces. In that regard, it should be noted that Stan McChrystal talks about resources in the broader sense, and he is right to do so. What should be the shape of our contribution? That is the important question. I visited Iraq several times during the conflict there. I saw Bremer with his boots on, and I observed what happened all the way through. We learned a lot in that period, but one thing that became clear was that such operations have to be conducted with local people and not just for them. A way has to be found to engage them in the process, and that is the real discussion that has to be held in respect of Afghanistan. Some hon. Members not present in the Chamber believe that our contribution in Afghanistan should be confined to a counter-terrorism strategy. Similarly, there are people in America who say that their forces should use their technological advantages—drones, and so on—to spot the bad boys and deal with them that way. They do not want to tackle terrorism by getting involved in Afghanistan and fostering counter-insurgency from the inside; they say that they are about defence, and not nation building. I believe that that is the road to perdition, but it is one side of the continuum of discussion. Our approach is different, and more difficult. We cannot build a nation for other people, but we can help them do it for themselves. People tend to claim that NATO will collapse unless certain things are done, but they should recall that NATO supported the original UN mandate to take action in Afghanistan and that it is now trying to help a body of people there develop their country. We must remember that ISAF is an assistance force, not a substitute for anything, so the question that we must consider is how we give it the right combination of activities, over and above the merely military.