---

Afghanistan and Yemen

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for the strategies that have been developed in respect of Yemen and Afghanistan. On confidence about the implementation of the plans agreed by the Government of Yemen, such confidence should be born of the deeds rather than the words that have been used. It is obviously better for words to be used than not to be used; but in the end, one learns to look for actions, rather than words, to give real confidence. However, the depth of the problems that Yemen faces and the remarkable document that the Government of Yemen produced about those problems suggest that no one can accuse them of being in denial. On the devotion of resources, notably by European countries, the right hon. Gentleman allowed, unusually for him, a degree of scepticism to emerge about what he thought other European countries might be doing. That would come rather amiss to the German and Dutch contributors to the development effort in Yemen. After all, their contributions are on a par with ours, and that commitment is welcome. So I am sorry to disappoint him, but there is no division in Europe on this issue or on its importance. On Afghanistan, the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised the need for additional manpower and for caveats to be lifted. I therefore think that it is worth putting on record the fact that the German Government announced last week not only an extra 500 troops—rising, I think, to 900 for the elections—but the removal of their caveats. That is the sort of decision that we welcome and want to be taken much more widely. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there is no way in the immediate future that the budget of the Government of Afghanistan will be able to support a security force of some 200,000, never mind 300,000. In that context, the answer to his question about the Afghan budget is that, no, its Government will not be able to cover it. It will need to be covered from outside, but, obviously, the twin track of a military strategy and a civilian strategy, including an economic one, is very important. Certainly, current estimates are that we—at least, the international community—will have to support the Afghan security effort for some time to come. In respect of NATO mentors and trainers, the most recent concern has been for Afghan troops to be delivered, mentored and trained. I am pleased about the way in which the NATO training effort is now working. The mentoring and partnering strategy takes us a long way forward. In respect of the police, I will send the right hon. Gentleman the national strategy that was recently published by the Interior Ministry of the Government of Afghanistan. I commend the national strategy to him. He may have met Interior Minister Atmar—perhaps he has not—who has been responsible for the Afghan national police force for a year or 18 months and is doing an excellent job. On EU representation, the proposal to replace two EU representatives, representing the Commission and the Council, with one is definitely a step forward of itself. On the relationship with the NATO and UN command, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the UN is superordinate in its role in any country—it is the apex of the international effort—but it will have a different role from that of the NATO Senior Civilian Representative, whose job is to combine military and civilian efforts. On the elections, it is clear that, for reasons of both security and electoral reform, it was hard to see those elections taking place on 22 May, which was the first date suggested. The need for reform in the intervening months to September is essential. The Opposition parties want elections but those can take place only if progress is made on reform, and we are working on that. On the peace and reintegration council, the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the detailed implementation of this policy will be critical to its effectiveness. The purposes of the fund, which are to provide employment, to provide security and to force the pace on the deradicalisation agenda, are the right outcomes. He asked who was the lead nation. The lead nation must be Afghanistan. The concept of lead nationhood was applied to G8 nations after the 2003 Bonn conference, but I think we have a much clearer method now of putting the Afghans in the lead and of ensuring the right balance between international and Afghan responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman asked questions about the number of provinces that will be under Afghan security leadership. The timetable has not slipped. As the Prime Minister said in his speech on Thursday, he thinks that more progress will be made than people realise, but it is important that we do this on a conditions basis. The figure of five years that the right hon. Gentleman raised is President Karzai's figure from his inauguration speech. It is he who said that within five years the whole of Afghanistan, every province, should have Afghan security leadership. That does not mean the end of an international support role, but it is a very different role. Finally, it is clear that the efforts that were made in 2006 at the London conference need to be supplemented. The Kabul conference will be able to renew the London compact, but it will do so on the basis of a strategy that has not only far greater clarity and coherence, but far greater international support. That is something that we have to build on in this decisive year.