Margaret Beckett in Commons speech on International Affairs

Margaret Beckett says this of Iraq

We have all along had a clear vision of the future of Iraq. We want to see a fully sovereign Government, taking complete responsibility for providing security, and governing in the interests of all the people of Iraq.

Despite all the difficulties, Iraq has made a lot of progress down this path. For the last six months Iraq has had a Government of National Unity – democratically elected under a new permanent constitution.

As I made clear to the House on 31 October, the process of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces is well underway. Prime Minister Maliki is determined to press ahead with this process. We are equally determined to help his Government do so successfully and sustainably.

We expect Najaf to be the next province to be transferred to Iraqi control, in December. In our own area of responsibility, we expect Maysan to follow in January. And the progress of our work current operation in Basra gives us confidence that we will achieve transition in that province too at some point next Spring.

There is therefore a clear forward perspective – notwithstanding the very obvious difficulties Iraq faces. It demands our wholehearted attention and unwavering support.

Full Text

This House has a long memory. Historical comparisons can seem presumptuous.

It is not lightly, then, that I say that the international environment in which our country finds itself today is one of the most difficult – and the most complex – that we have ever seen.

Difficult because international challenges – global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, conflicts within and between states, illegal migration, rapid globalisation in some parts of the world, chronic underdevelopment in others – are increasing in scale and severity.

And they are increasing too in the direct impact they have upon us here in Britain. Today, foreign policy is one of the most crucial means by which we can deliver domestic priorities.

And that international environment is complex because its many different aspects are closely linked and mutually reinforcing: they cannot be dealt with in isolation but have to be tackled together.

Let me begin by setting out some of the most immediate and urgent challenges we face.

The Prime Minister has stated that there is no more pressing diplomatic task for this country or for the international community than to find a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

If we can do so, it will benefit the entire region, and remove a key source of global tension and division. That is why we are working closely with the EU, US and regional partners both to develop practical initiatives, such as strengthening Palestinian institutions and improving Palestinian security, and to restart the political process itself.

And at the same time, we remain one of the world’s biggest donors to the Palestinian people. This year alone, despite our concerns about a Hamas government in office, we have committed £30 million to the Palestinian people. And we played a key role in developing the main international mechanism through which all donors can channel assistance while bypassing the Hamas-run finance ministry. We intend to contribute £12 million through this temporary mechanism.

Yesterday I met the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni. Our meeting was constructive. We talked about President Abbas’s moves to build a government of national unity and about the issue of prisoners held by both sides in the conflict.
But just as I stood up to leave that encouraging meeting I was given the tragic and shocking news of the assassination of Pierre Gemayel.

I am sure the whole House joins me in expressing its horror and dismay at this act and in expressing its deepest sympathy to the family of Mr Gemayel and to the people and Government of Lebanon.

We welcomed the unequivocal condemnation of this murder by the UN Security Council last night.

No-one yet knows for sure who carried out this attack. It is imperative that an independent and thorough investigation begins immediately and we will offer whatever support is asked of us. As indeed we continue to support the work of the United Nations on the death of Rafiq Hariri.

Fingers have already been pointed at Syria. As I have said, it is too early to reach any definite conclusions. But the reason why many are looking in Syria’s direction is because of its long record of destructive meddling in Lebanon. There must be an end to outside interference in Lebanese affairs, as mandated in UN Security Council 1559.

Indeed, Syria faces a strategic choice. If the Syrian authorities are ready to play a constructive role in the region, we have made clear that we will work with them. But if they support terrorism, promote instability, and interfere in other countries, we will unite with our regional and international partners to prevent this.

This is the same choice which faces Iran.

We are – with France, Germany and our other European partners – leading efforts to encourage Iran to address international concerns over its nuclear ambitions, support for terrorism and dismal human rights record.

Thanks in part to those efforts, the international community is now more united than ever. The Iranian regime has been presented with a clear choice.

On the one hand we have offered Iran the chance of an improved relationship with Europe and the international community. This would give Iran: help in developing a civil nuclear power programme; an energy partnership and Trade & Co-operation partnership with the European Union; help with joining the WTO; and the first lifting of US sanctions since the 1979 revolution in some areas of real need.

On the other hand, if Iran continues to defy the Security Council, it should be in no doubt that that relationship will deteriorate, and that the international community will respond.

Both Iran and Syria can choose to be part of the solution and not part of the problem in Iraq.

British soldiers and civilians alike are working in tough conditions and with great bravery, to try to help build a better future for the Iraqi people. The horrific murder of our service men and women in Basra on Remembrance Day underlines their courage and sacrifice.

Indeed, the appalling reports of killings and of kidnappings which we hear every day are a clear sign that the fate of that country is hanging in the balance.

As I have said in this House before, we owe it to our own forces and to the Iraqi people to hold our nerve in this critical period. There is no question of us cutting and running from Iraq. To do so would be an act of gross irresponsibility – abandoning the Iraqi people to bloodshed much worse even than that we see today.

But that does not mean our strategy is standing still. On the contrary, our approach has evolved very significantly in recent months, in response to a dynamic situation.

We have all along had a clear vision of the future of Iraq. We want to see a fully sovereign Government, taking complete responsibility for providing security, and governing in the interests of all the people of Iraq.

Despite all the difficulties, Iraq has made a lot of progress down this path. For the last six months Iraq has had a Government of National Unity – democratically elected under a new permanent constitution.

As I made clear to the House on 31 October, the process of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces is well underway. Prime Minister Maliki is determined to press ahead with this process. We are equally determined to help his Government do so successfully and sustainably.

We expect Najaf to be the next province to be transferred to Iraqi control, in December. In our own area of responsibility, we expect Maysan to follow in January. And the progress of our work current operation in Basra gives us confidence that we will achieve transition in that province too at some point next Spring.

There is therefore a clear forward perspective – notwithstanding the very obvious difficulties Iraq faces. It demands our wholehearted attention and unwavering support.

The Middle East will inevitably dominate much of our discussions today. But British soldiers and civilians are engaged elsewhere around the world: building peace, supporting democratic institutions, safeguarding human rights and the rule of law.

The people of Darfur have suffered immensely in the last three years: from unacceptable violence, daily insecurity, and profound humanitarian misery; millions have had their lives disrupted or worse.

We have been leading the international community’s efforts to resolve this crisis. Last Thursday’s agreement in Addis Ababa on a peace keeping force for Darfur and a resumption of the political process shows that there is an international consensus on how to address the ongoing, deplorable violence in Darfur. We now need the Sudanese Government to agree. Peace, stability and prosperity in Sudan will go on being a top priority for the Government.

In Afghanistan, NATO is facing its greatest test. Succeeding in its mission there now is crucial for its credibility in the future.

The UK, with its NATO allies, is engaged in a struggle to turn a failed state into one that provides for its people and functions as a part of the international community.

What is being achieved is rarely reported.

Since 2001, more than four and a half million who fled their homes have returned. Men and women have turned out in their millions to vote in free and fair elections. Six million children are now in school, over a third of them girls. Seventy two new hospitals and clinics have been built. Thirty-five thousand children who would have died are alive today thanks to immunisation programmes.

British soldiers, alongside the Dutch and Canadians, are now supporting the Afghan government’s efforts to bring security to the South of the country. It is a tough job that they are carrying out with incredible professionalism and bravery.

I am sure that the whole House would join me in paying tribute to the outstanding work that our military and civilian personnel – from the FCO, the Department of International Development, the police and others organisations – are doing in Afghanistan and indeed in Iraq.

I should like to single out from my own department Stephen Evans and his team in Kabul, Nick Kay and his team in Lashkar Gah, Ros Marsden and her team in Basra, Dominic Asquith and his team in Baghdad.

Our diplomats do not always receive the recognition they are due for doing a difficult and often dangerous job in these countries and in others across the world.

These are a few of the issues that – quite rightly – are at the forefront of our minds.

But in focusing on the urgent we must not lose sight of the important, underlying factors which drive and exacerbate global insecurity.

Here too Britain is making a difference.

Last month we led a resolution at the UN General Assembly towards an International Arms Trade Treaty to end the irresponsible trade in arms world-wide which fuels conflict and ruins lives.

Since the last Queen’s speech, a great deal has been achieved in the fight against global poverty. At Gleneagles, G8 governments pledged to increase aid by US$50 billion a year by 2010 – with half going to Africa, to cancel debt worth another US$50 billion and to provide AIDS treatment to all who need it. As Presidency of the G8 we were instrumental in getting those agreements.

Last year the UK provided £5.9 billion in official development aid, making the UK the third largest donor in the world. And we were instrumental in the launch of the International Finance Facility for Immunisation which is expected to prevent five million child deaths before 2015 and more than five million adult deaths after that.

The Government’s White Paper Eliminating World Poverty: Making governance work for the poor sets out how it intends to work with others to meet the challenges ahead.

We will not end global poverty unless we give developing countries the means and the tools to help themselves.

The WTO Round is our best opportunity to help them to do just that. However, we only have a narrow window – a matter of months – to secure the ambitious, pro-development deal we all want.

There have been some encouraging signs. Pascal Lamy has restarted WTO negotiations at the technical level. Leaders at the APEC summit in Hanoi committed themselves to breaking the current deadlock and recognised that to do so all sides would need to move beyond their current positions. If others do move, then the European Union must be ready to move too. In his speech last week, Peter Mandelson confirmed that we are.

Let us not underestimate the cost of failure. If we cannot resolve these differences, our own economies will suffer. If we cannot overcome find a compromise we condemn millions of men, women and children to a life of poverty, or to no life at all. And if we cannot work together on this agenda which is so clearly in all our interests, what hope do we have of building global consensus on counter-terrorism, international crime, energy security.

And nowhere is the need for that mutual trust more obvious or more vital than on the global challenge which may come to define our generation – climate change.

Those few who remain who don’t think that this is a foreign policy issue simply fail to grasp the magnitude of the challenge we face. An unstable climate will place huge additional strain on the international tensions which we spend out time trying to resolve. They are already at breaking point and climate change has the potential to stretch them far beyond it.

The Stern Review has laid out the challenge for the international community. It has shown that it will not cost developed or developing countries the earth to tackle climate change. But it will cost the earth – literally, as well as financially – if we do not.

Through the G8+5 process which began at Gleneagles; through our role in pushing ambition within the EU; through our increasing co-operation with China, India and Brazil; through our links with individual states in the United States, Britain is helping to set and drive forward this agenda.

No country, however powerful, can address these challenges – and the many others I have not had time to set out – on their own. It calls out for concerted global action: a truly international consensus bringing together countries from across the political and economic spectrum.

One element of this will have to be a more effective multilateral system, including a reformed United Nations, better equipped to face these challenges.

For the UK, it means we are forging new partnerships with emerging economies and powers around the world. On recent visits to India and to Brazil I have spoken of the need for us to act as global partners; and I have restated our support for the growing influence of these countries to be fully reflected in the UN Security Council and other international organisations.

But alongside these partners we value our old allies and friends.

The Commonwealth continues to do important work – about a third of which we fund – not least in promoting democracy, good governance and the rule of law.

We do not see eye to eye with the United States on everything: still less do we automatically follow its lead. Indeed, in some areas of the global agenda such as the International Arms Trade Treaty or climate change, it is we who are in the driving seat and asking the United States to get on board.

But, none of the things that I have spoken of today – from global poverty and Africa to the Middle East Peace Process and reconstruction in Afghanistan – can possibly be addressed, let alone solved, without American involvement.

And our membership of the European Union – the largest political union, the biggest economic market and largest aid donor in the world – gives us a far more powerful voice on the international stage than we have speaking as a single nation.

That is why the Government has put Britain at the centre of Europe, from where we can influence how the European Union speaks and how it acts beyond its borders: rather than migrating to the margins and losing that hard-won leverage.

One of Europe’s greatest achievements has been the successive waves of enlargement that have created an ever wider circle of prosperous and stable democracies.

Earlier this year, I accompanied Her Majesty the Queen on a State Visit to the Baltic States. They are countries transformed – confident, free nations and strong allies and trading partners of the United Kingdom.

Next month’s European Council will conduct a strategic discussion on further enlargement. We are clear that further enlargement, coupled with rigorous conditionality, will bring clear benefits to Europe and clear benefits to Britain.

We must, then, honour our existing commitments on enlargement, above all by moving forward accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia. For that to happen these candidates will need to fulfil their existing obligations to all Member States, and make progress towards meeting European standards. We will support them in this process.

Later this month, Latvia will act as host to the NATO summit. It will be the first territory of the Former Soviet Union to do so: a powerful symbol of how NATO, like the European Union, has erased Cold War divides and helped to create a modern, united continent.

In Riga we want NATO to take the decisions that will allow it to meet the challenges of the century to come.

These are the strong, global partnerships through which we enact a distinctive, British foreign policy.

It is a foreign policy that we enact not by gesture or political grandstanding, but through quiet and steady progress. The hard-grind and determination of our soldiers and civilians around the world means that Britain continues to be a strong, independent and positive force in the world.