---

Afghanistan and Pakistan

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. It follows the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government, which in itself used to merit a Statement. On that point, does the noble Baroness share my dismay at a contribution made as part of a submission to a Royal Commonwealth Society study saying that the Commonwealth is fading away as, I quote, ""a survivor of the old British empire"?" Is not the point of the Commonwealth that it long ago transformed those relics into a forward-looking, international force for good? Is not the truth of it that while other 20th century global institutions are failing, the Commonwealth is clearly a network for the future and a strong global platform for both small and large, rich and poor states? Credit should go to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago for their focus on climate change and its significance to the world’s poorest nations, thus putting the Commonwealth at the heart of the debate. There is a Commonwealth dimension to almost every international issue, and that includes Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some 235 British service and Ministry of Defence personnel have lost their lives in Afghanistan, while many more have been injured. Our forces are doing an extraordinary job. They have the support of the people of this country who are well able to separate doubts about the clarity of past political strategies from support for our service men and women in action. The rationale for our presence in Afghanistan is to enable Afghans to look after their own security without their territory being a base for terrorist danger to the rest of the world. That is what I take the Prime Minister to mean when he says that the safety of British streets starts on the old North West Frontier. We need clarity of mission, and in so far as we now have it, we welcome it. But when the 500 additional British troops announced today were first announced by the Prime Minister on 14 October, he set three conditions on their deployment, the first of which was more burden-sharing among NATO allies. The Statement repeats that eight countries stand ready to help. Which countries have pledged more troops, how many, when will they be deployed and how many of them will go to Helmand? The second condition was that our forces had the necessary equipment. I welcome the further news about helicopters. It would be hard, though I fear justified, to say that this is desperately belated. Can the noble Baroness say how, as a result of this announcement, our airlift and support capacity will compare with that of US forces? The third condition was that additional Afghan forces would deploy to Helmand. We hear talk of 5,000 being ready in 12 months, and we heard in the Statement of others arriving for training. Are these part of the 5,000 or are they part of the striking 50 per cent increase in the Afghan army promised in one year? Exactly how many of them will deploy to the front line in Helmand, and when? We welcome, of course, the Prime Minister’s tough talk about the responsibilities of the Karzai Government. We need clean government, but that is never easy to believe in after an election disfigured by massive vote-rigging. Why is it only now, some three and a half years after our forces arrived in Helmand, that we are setting out such conditions? Can the noble Baroness clarify the position on provincial governors? The Prime Minister said that some of them must be replaced, but how many, and how exactly is that going to be done? How will the proposed London conference ensure that the international community pursues a more united strategy? Will a senior figure be appointed to drive forward the political strategy, as happened with the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, in the Balkans? After all, we hear that the First Secretary of State is pressing for an international role. Will the Prime Minister take up our suggestion to create a permanent contact group of Afghanistan’s neighbours? What role will Pakistan play in the London conference? In October, the Prime Minister praised Pakistan, saying that it was, ""planning how to deal with not only the Pakistan Taliban but the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda itself".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/09; col. 305.]" Now the Prime Minister has gone out of his way, across the media of the world, to criticise Pakistan for failing to deal with al-Qaeda. What exactly is the Government’s appraisal of Pakistan’s role? Can the noble Baroness clarify current thinking on contact with the Taliban? At some point, is not a reconciliation programme with fighters who can be brought in from the hills a key need? What do the Government believe should happen to the insurgency leaders? At the Trinidad summit, the Prime Minister spoke about timetables. He said that he wants the London conference to decide the conditions for transferring provinces and districts to Afghan control. He said that he sees potential for some districts and provinces being transferred to Afghan security lead by the end of 2010. He had previously said that this would be possible for one or two districts in Helmand. What are the prospects of the criteria being met? We all want our troops to come home as soon as possible, as soon as their job is done, but does the noble Baroness agree that it is vital that we do not send signals to our enemies that the outcome will be decided not by hard-headed appraisal of progress on the ground but by the ticking of an artificial timetable set thousands of miles away? If the Government’s objectives and motivations are muddled they will not easily be forgiven by the British people.