Iraq: Future Strategic Relationship

It is presumptuous if we think that we know what is good for the Iraqi people better than they do. It is clear to anyone who has been to Iraq and talked to the people there that those people believe that they are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein, because they have a chance to shape their own destiny in a way that they would have been perpetually denied under the authoritarian regime that existed previously. The Iraqi people know that they are better off, and I bend to their judgment on that matter. They are the ones who suffered under that regime. There is one further point to be made about the withdrawal of British troops and its impact. Let me say a word of caution. No one in this country should believe that removing our troops from Iraq will in some way be a panacea for troop shortages in southern Afghanistan. Many people, including some commentators, seem to believe that a simple shift of British troops from Basra to Helmand is possible. However, for some very good military, logistical and welfare reasons, it is not as simple as that. Although reduced commitments in Iraq may relieve the overstretch of our forces to some extent, the key to alleviating the shortfall in manpower in the vital, if not existential, struggle for NATO in Afghanistan is for our European allies to contribute more troops and equipment to the fight in southern Afghanistan. As we have said so often in the House, it is not acceptable for all the countries to get the insurance policy when only a few are paying the premiums. It is clear that our relationship with Iraq is changing and evolving, which is natural. That relationship can be viewed in a number of ways, as the Secretary of State said. It can be viewed as a commercial and economic relationship and as a military and political relationship. I want first to deal with the commercial and economic relationship, which the Secretary of State discussed. According to Iraqi Government officials, Iraq's budget surplus was $72 billion in 2008 and is forecast to be $90 billion in 2009, which is a change from what we are experiencing in the United Kingdom. Needless to say, a lot of money is being awarded in the form of lucrative contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. Considering the Secretary of State's previous incarnation in the Cabinet, I am compelled to ask where Britain plays a role in that process. When I visited Iraq recently, I was horrified to learn that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform had a representative in the UK embassy in Baghdad until 2007, but that the post was cut in 2008 owing to ““resource issues””. How short-sighted can we get? Our lack of trade presence in Baghdad means that we may have shed blood for Iraq but stand little chance of benefiting from the contracts flowing from Iraq's fiscal surplus. I found it rather pathetic that the FCO, the MOD and DFID were talking about pooling their budgets to get a trade representative in Baghdad, because the Government would not fund one centrally, which was certainly the position at the end of last year. I am sure that when the Minister responds to this debate, the House will want an assurance that that is no longer the case, because it is unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is a lot of potential for Iraq to become a regional financial and trading hub. We must do all that we can to help that become a reality, because, as the Secretary of State correctly said, a stable and prosperous Iraq is in all our interests. That is why we welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement about the formation of a Basra development commission in October 2007, with one of its goals being to"““co-ordinate projects to strengthen Basra's position as an economic hub, including the development of Basra international airport and the renovation of the port.””—[Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 24.]" The Prime Minister was referring to the port of Umm Qasr. I recently visited the airport, which is clearly ready for business. I also welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that the airport was transferred over to Iraqi control, on time, on 1 January. There are currently discussions about building a new deep-water port near Basra. Such a facility in the north of the Gulf could be the starting point for goods to be moved overland by rail from Iraq to Europe via Turkey, offering an alternative to the Suez canal and the strait of Hormuz and reducing the overall time to transport goods to Europe, which would be a major strategic advantage for us in the west. There is also talk of creating an economic free zone around Basra like that found in Dubai. Those would be extremely welcome projects not only for the people of Iraq, but for the region and, I believe, for us. We need to know what the Government think they can do to ensure that those projects become a reality. There is clearly a lot of reconstruction going on in Basra. When one visits it, it is not hard to imagine what a beautiful city it must have been and, almost by definition, could be again. There are plans to build a new bridge across the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which would drastically decongest the waterway and allow more shipping to get into the port. What are we doing to help all those projects? How is our expertise helping to make them a reality? I hope that the Minister will address those issues, because they will affect our future relationship with Iraq. Turning to our military relationship with Iraq, I welcome the fact that the Government believe that, some day, our military relationship will be"““similar to the normal relationships that our military have with other important countries in the region””." My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has referred to that point as well, which is something that we should be aiming for. Right now, the main effort of the British Army is to train the Iraqi 14th Division so that it can eventually act autonomously while conducting security operations. But, as Britain's military role is transformed from being ground based to being maritime based, how will the status of forces agreement impact on our Royal Navy's ability to accomplish its mission of mentoring and training the Iraqi navy? I ask that because it is my understanding that the Australian Government have removed the Australian navy from Iraqi territorial waters—and, consequently, from coalition task force 158—over concerns about the status of forces agreement. There are differences between the UK-Iraq agreement and the agreement between Iraq and the United States. The UK's agreement gives Iraq far wider jurisdiction over UK service personnel, stating that they"““shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Iraq with the exception of crimes committed by them while on duty which are not committed with intent or do not arise from gross negligence, and with the exception of those committed by them inside agreed facilities and military installations used by them, in which case they shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the country to which they belong.””" The qualifiers relating to intent and gross negligence do not appear in the US agreement. There is also no mention in the UK agreement of the due process protections offered to US service personnel. The House and our armed forces must be completely reassured that our forces are not in any way compromised when it comes to their legal protection. This is important because the Royal Navy is doing an outstanding job in securing Iraqi oil platforms and increasing the capability of the Iraqi navy as part of CTF158.