Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Liam Fox (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 January 2010. It occurred during Topical debate on Afghanistan.


Afghanistan

My hon. Friend makes an extremely useful point. That is an argument for getting wider and better coverage of all the ethnic groups in Afghanistan within the Afghan national security forces—a task that the Government of Afghanistan need to turn their mind to. As I said, counter-insurgency is about protecting the population. It requires a better force-to-population ratio than we currently have in Helmand province; that is why the expected uplift in troop numbers is so welcome. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) noted, Britain is currently responsible for two thirds of the population in Helmand and 50 per cent. of the terrain, but with only one third of coalition troop strength. There needs to be a rebalancing between the UK and US areas of responsibility, even if that might mean concentrating Task Force Helmand's assets into a smaller geographical area in central Helmand. It is very important that the British public understand that this is not the same as what happened in Basra. It is not a case of our handing territory over to the United States—it is about having a better match between our capability and our resources. The Foreign Secretary was correct that those who make such arguments are in fact talking nonsense. The most important question for us to answer as politicians—it is very often thrown at us—is this: what is different about Afghanistan now that would lead us to believe that we can be successful, when, as those who are against the war in Afghanistan always say, the Russians were unsuccessful? There are a number of fundamental differences in what is happening in Afghanistan today. First, we are there supporting a democratic Government in Afghanistan, not trying to apply a regime to it. Secondly, the development of the Afghan national security forces is coming on apace—faster than many people thought possible—which is a great tribute not least to the British trainers involved in the process. Thirdly, there is the regional emergence of China. When we look at what China is doing in Afghanistan on contracts for copper, it becomes possible to see Afghanistan becoming a net contributor to the global economy if it is given a sufficient period of stability. Fourthly, the advent of globalisation, with the ability of Afghanistan to export products—largely agricultural products—to its neighbours also provides the chance for prosperity and stability through economic development in a way that was not possible before. Fifthly, something else that is not fully appreciated is the fact that there is a large Afghan diaspora, who would have many of the skills for improving governance and professional services, but they need to be given sufficient time to settle down and graft their skills in. We must avoid taking the defeatist view that we cannot succeed in Afghanistan. Many indicators suggest that we are actually making considerable progress and that there is considerable scope to give the people of Afghanistan the prosperity and security that they want, so that we can have the security that we want.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c880-1 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Armed forces Deployment Casualties Peacekeeping operations Pakistan Terrorism United Nations Afghanistan NATO Taliban
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk