Debate on the Address

Oh, unhappy debate—unhappy for the Government, as there has not been a single contribution to it that reflects the astonishing complacency that appears to surround those who sit on the Government Front Bench. The Gracious Speech gave us all the usual platitudes about commitment to peace in the middle east, working with the United Nations and our European Union partners to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and the strengthening of NATO, but Her Majesty’s Government are not living in the real world. At present, there is no middle east peace process. The international institutions, which we are told have been the linchpins of United Kingdom foreign and defence policy, have been discredited by events both before and after the invasion of Iraq. As we have heard, last week on a programme broadcast by the al-Jazeera television station the Prime Minister appeared to accept—and, of course, subsequently denied—that the Iraq war was"““pretty much of a disaster””." The truth is that he does not know what to say. As shadow Defence Secretary from shortly after the fateful day of 11 September 2001, I supported the Prime Minister’s policy on Iraq. I voted for the war and sincerely believed in that decision at the time. I thought that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein, and I still believe that. I also believe that our long-term relationship with the United States is our most important foreign policy interest, and that doubt about that decision would have to weigh in its favour. But today we have to be realistic about where we find ourselves. The Prime Minister appeared to assent to the view that it is"““pretty much of a disaster””." To say that the only problem that we faced was a lack of planning is the mother of all understatements. For those in power, post-war planning was simply not the priority. The so-called neoconservatives talked about the democratisation of Iraq as though it was a natural corollary of the invasion, without having any idea of how it would be achieved. Opponents of the war reflected the culture of our broken foreign policy establishments on both sides of the Atlantic, obsessing about international legality and the UN long after President Bush and our own Prime Minister had made up their minds to go to war. Nobody applied themselves sufficiently to what would happen as a result of the invasion. That reflects a much deeper political malaise in the west as a whole. Big moral ideas about democratisation on the one hand, and placing faith in outdated cold war institutions such as the EU, NATO and the UN on the other, were both denying reality. If nobody in Europe can find even a few helicopters to help in Afghanistan, we begin to question the very existence of NATO as it currently is, let alone the purpose of an EU foreign and defence policy. Unless we all start to accept the world as it is, we will continue to miss the real questions that we must face in the short term or the long term. Let us start by addressing the consequences of Iraq. A relatively stable, albeit hostile, conglomerate state has been smashed. Far from having created circumstances that cow potential aggressors such as Iran, Syria and North Korea, they are gloating with delight at the current situation. The war has proved to be a classic pyrrhic victory: tactical victory has become strategic defeat. Far from dividing al-Qaeda and other extremist groups from mainstream Muslim opinion, the terrorists have become the heroes on the Muslim street, and it is the moderates who are isolated. There can be no wiping the slate clean of what we have done. I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). We must continue to support the United States in attempts to bring the occupation in Iraq to some kind of stable conclusion. I pay tribute to our servicemen and women, who are so bravely and gallantly sustaining that effort. However, we cannot base future policy on any kind of continuum with previous discredited thinking. We must start again. In the short term, neither Iraq nor the world can wait two years for a new US President and a credible US foreign policy. That is why the Baker-Hamilton commission, backed by George Bush senior and the newly elected Democrat Congress, is in the process of seizing the reins of US foreign and defence policy from the White House. It is testament to the clueless state of UK policy that the British Prime Minister’s role is reduced to giving a few minutes’ evidence down a video link. In the short term, policy in Iraq will be decided in Washington, and that is that. In the long term, British foreign policy must return to first principles, based on a proper analysis of the wider facts that we face. Europe’s population is ageing and her economy is in sharp relative decline. The huge shift of economic power from west to east will lead to a similar shift in political and military power. The rise of Asia is bringing 2 billion people into the global economy, with incalculable consequences. We must also consider the crisis in the Doha trade talks, global warming, energy security and Africa. We need to be realistic, moreover, about the problem of Muslim extremism, which lies far deeper in history than the establishment of Israel 60 years ago. The Muslim world has been perplexed by its political decline in relation to the Christian world since the failure of the second siege of Vienna in 1683. We must face the fact that only Muslims themselves can win the argument against the extremists in their midst. The destructive power of new technology is growing exponentially, and terrorists can get it ever more easily and cheaply. Faced with these facts, we need to go back to the most fundamental questions. What does Britain stand for in the world? What are our essential national interests, and by what means can we best promote them? The whole policy of the western powers must develop a new idiom, shorn of the messianic or naive pretensions of new right or old left. Practical policy must be based on good old-fashioned enlightened self-interest. Some in Washington are calling for what is termed ethical realism: ethical, because we must hold to our values; but realistic, because good intentions are not enough. I have heard enough rhetoric about healing the scars of Africa to make me sick. Ethical realism is akin to liberal conservatism, as espoused by the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), in his address to the Anglo-American project in a landmark speech in September. As he said, we need to hear more about diplomacy and trade, and less about the pre-emptive use of military power; more about building peaceful alliances, and less about dividing the world between the good guys and the bad guys. Long term, we need more patience with countries that do not share our views, but without losing confidence in our values. We should respect countries’ cultures, religious sensitivities and stable systems of government, even if they would not be acceptable in our own country. Talking with the Iranian or Syrian Governments is neither a means to endorsing their policies nor a solution in itself, as some now seem to be saying. At the moment, they hold all the cards. The real battle for hearts and minds may take generations, but conflict is about will-power, not physical force. At the moment, this United Kingdom—the fourth largest economy in the world and the west’s second most pre-eminent diplomatic and military power—does not have the first idea of a plan. We need one now. I echo those who have made it plain that we should have a proper, structured debate not just on Iraq, but on the whole middle east region and how the Government are going to take forward their policy.