Iraq: Future Strategic Relationship

I never thought in 1984, when I stood for Parliament against the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), that it would give me such pleasure to follow a speech of hers on a subject such as this. I found it extremely moving. The optimism that we are now expressing in relation to Iraq may well mean that her role as special envoy on human rights is no longer needed, and there could be no greater tribute to her than that. While I am on a Welsh theme, I shall say how much I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). As the right hon. Lady said, he has clearly been released from his chains. He relaxed into his speech in a way that I think the entire House found enormously enjoyable. Whatever the controversy over the origins of the war in Iraq, over such things as dodgy dossiers and 45 minutes—frankly, I found neither of those nearly as important as the media have since made them out to be—and over the planning of the aftermath of the war, which was much more important, the fact remains that our armed forces went in with our allies the United States, the Danes, the Australians and many others. They went into Iraq and made great sacrifices. They were doing it for us, for this country, but also for the good of the region, Iraq and the world. The result, as we now see, has given rise to the hope that we have discussed throughout the debate. The Defence Committee has visited Iraq regularly. Our analysis of what happened between 2003 and 2007 was that things were getting steadily worse. When we visited in 2007, for example, we found that there were rockets and bombs where we were every couple of hours or so. We were meant to have dinner with the President of Iraq, but the place where we were to have it was destroyed half an hour before we got there. Luckily the dinner was not, and it was sent round to the British embassy with the usual Iraqi hospitality that we have come to expect. We found also that when we were in convoys in 2007, there was such a threat from the local population that everybody was forced off the road as our convoy went past, and guns were trained on them because of the risk of suicide bombings. We found that we were not allowed into the centre of Basra because we were considered too high-value a target. By contrast, last year we were there for five days and there was not a single rocket or mortar attack. Things were so busy that only the vice-Chairman of the Committee and myself were able to go into Basra, but we did so in a convoy that, far from forcing everybody off the road, got stuck in a traffic jam. Nobody seemed the least bit bothered about it. Not only were there no rocket or mortar attacks, but we heard afterwards that British troops who went into the centre of Basra in military uniform were not allowed to pay for anything because of the popularity of the British, to which the right hon. Lady referred. I hope that we can recognise the value of what the British have done in Basra and elsewhere in Iraq to the same extent that the people of Basra do. We should not constantly denigrate what we as a country have done. Operation Charge of the Knights transformed the situation in Basra. My understanding of what happened is that there was a general misunderstanding—at the British level and the Baghdad, Iraqi Government level—about the level of militia control of Basra. Prime Minister al-Maliki decided to send in the 14th division. The decision nearly foundered and failed, and reserves had to be sent in. Prime Minister al-Maliki's decision was a surprise to the United Kingdom and the United States. The time scale was brought forward in a way that was perceived as unwise because of the risk of failure, which British and US military advisers identified. Nevertheless, Prime Minister al-Maliki's decision was brave. He was determined to take back his country from the grip of the militias. He recognised the importance of taking back Basra—the country's economic heart. When the exercise nearly failed because of the militias' grip, other Iraqi reserve forces came in, with United States mentors. A major battle for Basra took place and it was successful. We should pay great tribute to the Iraqi troops for their achievements, the British troops for the training that they gave the Iraqi troops and the American mentors, who managed to establish in the eyes of General Mohan that American troops could be welcomed on the streets of Basra. That also transformed the standing of British troops in Basra. As I understand it, the Basra police were involved in the battle for Basra as follows: a third fought on the side of the Iraqi army; a third stayed at home, and a third fought on the side of the militias. The Iraqi army took on those who fought for the militias and defeated them. That was a crucial defeat. We contributed a great deal with a small police mission from the United Kingdom, which did good work, to training the police. However, it is essential, if we are considering our future strategic relationship with Iraq, to ensure, through training, that the Basra police do not revert to the corruption and militia control that previously existed. It is therefore essential that the size of the UK police mission and its formulation is good enough and strong enough to ensure that the police in Basra remain in the supportive state that they have now reached. When we last visited Basra in June, we found that people spoke about the economy much more than security. That was a great step forward. Despite the traffic jams, which are a good economic sign, we noticed that there was high unemployment in Basra. Despite the security achievements, high unemployment had become the greatest risk. Iraq is potentially one of the richest countries in the world. The oil infrastructure is in serious need of renewal and expansion to exploit those riches. That is not a criticism of Iraq, except in that it is a criticism of Saddam Hussein, but the situation represents a major opportunity for British companies. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, we need the Shells and the BPs to go in there and exploit those resources and renew that infrastructure. We have a combination of experience that could be absolutely optimal for getting that oil exploited by and for the Iraqis. We have oil expertise and a level of good will among the Basrawi population that is second to none. That good will needs to be built on. I was therefore particularly worried by the strong point that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence made about the low importance that appears to be given to the development of British-Iraqi business links by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. We must address that, because it is essential that Government agencies pull out all the stops to help the links between Britain and Iraq to grow, particularly in the oil sector, if it is true that the Ministry of Defence and DFID are thinking of pooling resources to get a representative. One representative is not enough. We need far stronger representation in Iraq in order to help the Iraqis build their economy and to help British companies, too, to benefit from that. I want to turn, penultimately, to naval training, because, still on the issue of oil, the two oil platforms, one of which we visited in June last year, produce 90 per cent. of Iraqi income. They are terribly vulnerable and are protected by an Iraqi navy that is mentored and trained by the Royal Navy. The importance, therefore, of the work of the Royal Navy is obvious. The Royal Navy is involved in a huge task that is essential to the economic viability of the whole of Iraq. However, I am not entirely sure that the Secretary of State's comments gave quite enough prominence to that importance. I hope that the naval training that the Royal Navy carries out in Iraq will recognise that Iraq intends either to double or to treble the size of its navy in one year. That is rather a tall order. The Iraqi navy will still be a navy of small size, but it is important that we have a mission that is large enough, strong enough and of a high enough quality to be able to ensure that that transition works and works well. I would be grateful if either the Minister in his reply or somebody in a letter could tell me whether the order for ships that was originally made from Malaysia by the Iraqis remains on foot or whether it has been cancelled. If it has been cancelled, as I fear it may have been, it would be good to know, from a naval point of view, what size the Iraqi navy will be, in view of the importance of the task that it will be undertaking. In conclusion, I would like to read a couple of sentences from a briefing that the Iraqis themselves gave us for this debate. The fact that they are looking beyond the shores of their country to what is happening in other Parliaments is also a welcome development. What the Iraqis say is this:"““We believe in an Iraq that can be a beacon for democracy, freedom and moderation in the Middle East. It is the undemocratic nature of regimes in this region that has bred poverty, backwardness and extremism in a region which should be one of the most prosperous regions in the world. A democratic Iraq, that is stable and unified, will turn the tide against those who rule through tyranny.””" Even as an aspiration, that is a fantastic thing to say, and it is a tribute to the Iraqis. It is also a tribute to those British men and women who have sacrificed so much and achieved so much in order to allow the Iraqis to have that aspiration.