Questions and Answers - Provisional Transcript
Dr John Chipman
Both speakers gave a very global perspective on the contribution to security that each of their countries could bring to this region, and beyond. A common thread was the special challenge terrorism that has sadly re-emerged, especially in South Asia in the last two weeks. I am ready now to take questions.
Abdel Raouf El Reedy, Chairman, Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs
I would like to express to Dr Baru the very deep condolences of our people in Egypt for what has happened in India. These were acts of horrifying terror that were universally condemned by all of the Egyptian people.
I share Mr Hutton’s thoughts about the new security threats in the world. I would particularly like to refer to the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We know that weapons of mass destruction were the cause of a war – a war in Iraq, on Iraq – in 2003, which was launched in the name of weapons of mass destruction. It is not the time to elaborate on this because we all know what has happened since, but the credibility of any policy to address the question of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, would depend on what those who are following and promoting these policies would do with regard to the Israeli nuclear threat. Until now, we have noticed a double standard in dealing with questions such as that. There is a danger of having a silent response to Israel’s nuclear threat. All of our countries have joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and we in Egypt have advocated the creation of a weapons of mass destruction zone. How credible can a policy addressing the nuclear threat and weapons of mass destruction be while ignoring Israel’s nuclear threat to the region?
Geoffrey Tantum, Director, Gulf Consultancy Services
My question is directly linked to the question of the former speaker. Secretary of State Hutton mentioned that in the context of nuclear proliferation, only Iran was ignoring UN resolutions and failing to abide by them. That, of course, precisely applies to the state of Israel. Do you feel that Israel’s nuclear arsenal is a major factor causing instability in the region? Does the recently announced suggestion that the US may provide a nuclear umbrella to Israel offer them, and the international community, an opportunity to rid themselves of that arsenal, and in the process of what many see as a factor causing that instability?
Charles Powell
Secretary of State, thank you for an admirable and lucid account of British defence policy. It is great to have top-level British government representation here again after a bit of a pause. You spoke eloquently of the government’s determination that Britain should continue to play an important defence role in this region and, looking to the future, obviously one important aspect of that will be the two new aircraft carriers which are going to be built. You had to announce this week some delay in those carriers, which is understandable; there are many obviously urgent demands on the defence budget. Nonetheless, countries in this region are used to reading and studying the tea leaves of British defence policy pretty closely, and there is some risk they will see a postponement as an indication of faltering will. Can you reassure us here that despite the understandable delay, the aircraft carriers will in fact come and will enable us to maintain the commitments of which you spoke?
Pierre Lellouche, Parliamentary Rapporteur on Afghanistan, National Assembly
Minster, you mentioned the reform of NATO; you also mentioned European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). If I am not mistaken, this is the first time with the force that Europe is sending to the area; this is the first time that the UK is leading a major European military operation. What does it mean in terms of UK involvement in European defence policy in the future? How relevant is it for the stability of this area?
Mr Baru, I want to express my solidarity with the Indian people after what happened, as well as my greatest admiration and esteem for the moderation and wisdom of the Indian government’s reaction to this. If you are correct to say, and I think you are, that the epicentre of terror is based in Pakistan and has an impact all around the world, you are of course the best informed as a neighbour. What is your advice as to how we should lead the Pakistani government to break once and for all with terror in internal Pakistani politics?
Dr Anwar Gargash, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, UAE
I certainly concur with the view that this is a wider region with more problems. I think that we need to look at the role of non-state actors because whatever framework we try to devise, at the end of the day, non-state actors seem to be playing an increasingly important role. I would like to hear the thoughts of the speakers on that.
Secondly, we in the Gulf understand that in the coming period with regards to Iran’s nuclear programme, there will be early discussions and a mood of opening doors. It is very important that as the Gulf region is asked to shoulder some of the load of various issues in the area, it should also be fully in the picture with regards to incentivising Iran, whatever incentive there is. I would like to emphasise that.
Thirdly, the area is on the verge of greater nuclear proliferation. I think this is happening, and for the sake of the area and for the world, we really need to agree on a certain framework for the useful use of nuclear power within many countries in the region. I would like to hear the speakers’ views on that. Will this kind of framework be used for peaceful nuclear power?
John Hutton
Let me try to address some of the points that have been raised on the very real and understandable concerns about nuclear weapons and their presence in the Middle East. People in this room will know very well the history and the background to all of this, and will be aware of the long-standing view that British governments have taken towards all of these issues. We have very strongly urged Israel to side and accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state. We have expressed our support for the concept of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East; I think we would all regard that as a very important step forward.
I have to be very honest and frank today, however, and say that the most immediate threat is Iran and the proliferation risk that Iran’s programme represents. I think we must focus on this; it is our priority, and I hope it is the priority of everyone here in this room, to help support the work of the international community to try to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapons capability. Most of us would likely shudder at the prospect of that, not just because of the risk of proliferation, but because of the hostility that Iran has repeatedly aimed at the state of Israel. That is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. It has to be resolved. The UN and others are working to address that.
In my remarks, I was not uniquely identifying Iran in this context, but I think that Iran’s position is unique in that they have been the beneficiaries of a unique offer on the part of the international community to proceed with the development of its civil nuclear power programme in a way that is transparently safe and secure and does not risk proliferation. The United Kingdom has made proposals, for example, for an enrichment bond; I understand the Russians are prepared to supply nuclear fuel for the recently-built civil nuclear power station in Iran. The enrichment technology that Iran is determined to develop is not justifiable and cannot be reconciled with its stated intentions to develop a peaceful civil nuclear power programme. I really do not think there can be any ambiguity about that. I think the international community must all stand shoulder to shoulder to make sure that we do not witness the spread of nuclear weapons technology in the Middle East. That should be a cause of common concern and common sense, and I hope that will eventually prevail.
Charles Powell raised a very important issue, perhaps more uniquely relevant in the UK than in many of the newspapers and television stations represented here, about the future of Britain’s programme to develop new aircraft carriers. Those new aircraft carriers will be built; the contracts have been signed for them. The announcement I had to make in the UK in the last couple of days, to be honest, is more of a reconciliation between when those carriers are likely to be completed, and we have just confirmed that we have brought the programme into better focus. By the time those carriers are completed, I hope that we will have the new generation of aircraft to fly from them, as well. I think if you are going to build two new aircraft carriers, it is probably a good idea to have some aircraft to fly from them; otherwise, they are very expensive pieces of kit that probably will not add to global or regional security in any obvious way that I can think of. However, it is a programme that we are absolutely committed to, and for the UK, it is very much part and parcel of how we see our role on the international stage, working with our partners. Supporting the efforts of the United Nations and others, we know that we need a capability to project our influence in those areas of the world where this type of capability can make a difference. We are going to go ahead with that programme. There is nothing that will stop us from doing that, and there is no faltering will.
On the reform of NATO, we have made a very substantial and, I hope, effectively contribution to that debate. NATO must change. It cannot go on thinking it is still 1978-79 any more; it is not. We have a different set of threats to deal with, and we have to raise our game to meet them. I think there is a growing consensus in NATO about the nature of those reforms. We need more deployable forces, more flexible forces, that can support a range of missions around the world. That is what we have to focus on. Our core responsibility, of course, remains homeland security, for each of us in NATO, but we know that threats to our national security are going to come from a variety of very different sources. To deal with them effectively, we have to change our doctrine, our force generation capabilities, our equipment programmes, and the way we work through regional and multilateral security organisations. I think this is really important for us.
With regard to ESDP, we are very proud to be providing the strategic command for the new anti-piracy mission that will arrive any day in the Gulf of Aden. The threat of piracy is very real and substantial, and we all have to work together to support it. Our support for the ESDP mission is a pragmatic one. We know for a variety of reasons that some of our coalition partners will not take part in CTF-150; we know that the NATO anti-piracy mission is coming to an end very soon, as well. We thus have to fill that gap, and I think ESDP can do that, is doing that, and for those of us who have committed to dealing with this problem of pirates in the Horn of Africa, we should support this mission because it is a way of deploying a very capable and effective force to meet a very determined foe. That is why we are supporting it and are proud to be there.
Dr Sanjaya Baru
On the question of Pakistan and domestic politics, I would not like to comment on that as an Indian, but there is enough happening in Pakistani civil society and the media which gives us a lot of hope. There is recognition today within Pakistan civil society, within the media, which I read very closely, and within the political community that unless they act, they would be overwhelmed by these very groups. Until now, there has been a dual approach of focusing only on some groups because of the pressure on Pakistan from the West and not focusing on other groups which were operating in India. I think now there has been a recognition that there terrorism is not divisible. There are no good terrorists and bad terrorists. They keep changing their name and their identity, but there are so many links between one group and another, cutting across national boundaries, that unless states act against non-state actors, states have nothing to claim for themselves. This argument about non-state actors cannot go to a point where states pretend to be helpless. Why then do they exist? I think there is a responsibility that states have, and an obligation, to work with each other to deal with the menace of non-state actors. Otherwise, those states that are capable of acting will act, and you cannot say that some governments can go outside their borders and act against their enemies, and other governments are not allowed to. This kind of hypocrisy cannot go on forever.
On the whole issue of proliferation, let’s face it: proliferation began with states and signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They were the original proliferators. In the debate on proliferation and non-proliferation, I as an Indian believe that we have consistently followed every single tenet of non-proliferation. India’s record there is impeccable, even though we were not signatories to the NPT. There were signatories who have not adhered to their obligations. The debate about proliferation and non-proliferation must recognise the role of states that are proliferating before we can progress any further.
The entire Indian civil nuclear agreement with the United States has been made possible precisely because of our record in non-proliferation. If India’s record were not as impeccable as it is, this legislation would not have passed muster in the US congress because the number of people who were opposed to this agreement was so overwhelming and so active that unless we were able to subject ourselves to the kind of scrutiny that we did and come out of it with our record recognised, we could not have got this civil nuclear cooperation agreement. Therefore, every country that wishes to have a civil nuclear programme must be so subjected to its record as far as nuclear non-proliferation is concerned. If that record is found wanting, you cannot allow such a country to proceed with its civil programme because you never know when that civil programme will become a non-civil programme.
Dr Zafar Iqbal Cheema, Senior Advisor on Arms Control and Nuclear Non‐Proliferation, South Asian Strategic Stability Institute
My observation and question is to Dr Sanjaya Baru on two accounts. Firstly, we heard from the US Secretary of Defence in the morning that terrorism has no religion and no boundaries. It is a politically-motivated statement that Pakistan is the epicentre of terrorism. Terrorism is in India as well.
A serving lieutenant colonel of the Indian Army has been found by the Indian Government, and apprehended for bombing the Samjhauta Express which burnt alive as many individuals as were killed in the Mumbai blast. Was it not an act of terrorism?
I appreciate that Pakistan has a deep problem with terrorism that it must tackle. It must not allow anybody to engage in any such activity in Pakistan. There is no disagreement on that. However, to say that Pakistan is the epicentre of terrorism is highly unfair. The internal dynamics of India encourage such kind of terrorism.
Secondly, with due respect, I would like to differ with your view on India’s record on proliferation. You are a media expert, but my whole life has been involved in the field of non-proliferation. India is one country that has acquired civilian nuclear facilities under binding agreements from Canada, the US, and other countries, to use them for exclusively peaceful purposes, and to use those activities for military purposes. It acquired reactors from Canada that were used for the 1974 test. The architect of the test accepted that it was a weapons test and not a Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) at that time. There are many examples where civilian nuclear facilities have been acquired under binding commitments for civilian use were used for military purposes.
Dr Ligia Noronha, India
I wish to introduce a more positive note to this discussion, which is to move from threats as a source of cooperation to ask the panellists if they have any ideas of visions of engaging this region – which is so rich in natural resources, especially energy – in a more positive global agenda of cooperation?
Ambassador Abdulaziz Al Sharikh, Kuwait
Notwithstanding the time constraints, but I do feel compelled to applaud the Kingdom of Bahrain and the IISS for gathering us together here and for a very great common purpose. Thank you.
I have a question for His Excellency, Mr Hutton, regarding the Iranian nuclear fine. I have lived in Europe for quite a long time, serving as an Ambassador in Brussels, returning last year. I have some knowledge of the European positions with regards to this fine. With the arrival of the new administration in the US, does His Excellency expect the European position to be drawn closer to each other now that it is expected that the US will see more eye to eye with the European alliance?
The other aspect of my question is regarding the role of the GCC countries. Your country, Mr Secretary, enjoys a traditional friendly relationship with the GCC countries. You know us very well. What do you expect from us?
Dr John Chipman
To help understand the European role, I could perhaps bring in Christian Schmidt, the Defence Minister of Germany.
Dr Christian Schmidt
Thank you. I would like to pose a question to my colleague, Mr Hutton, referring to the proliferation issue. There is an interesting upcoming discussion about a new layer for a new round of disarmament talks. I refer to the proposal initiative. Could you imagine that this might be a way to reach a double initiative?
On one side there would be possibilities for defending regions and countries against weapons of mass destructions, and on the other side, there would be the launching of the idea of a regionally-controlled disarmament initiative on the nuclear sector?
Participant
Perhaps the recent attack on Mumbai has highlighted the question of Kashmir. This political conflict seems to be forgotten unless the whole world witnesses a massive attack, like the one we saw recently. Does the panel think that the international community – or the regional players – is now motivated to reopen the question of Kashmir and to dry up the recruitment for terrorists that obviously engage in such acts?
Professor Ebtisam Al Kitbi, UAE University
My question is to Secretary Hutton. Two wars were launched for the sake of fighting terrorism. Terrorism was not defeated, but we are now witnessing more terrorists and the spread of terrorism around the region. Do you think that a third war will stop terrorism or create more of it? Are there any other tactics or strategies instead of military solutions? I refer to what was said in the morning: that they are going to send more troops to Afghanistan. We are witnessing that instead of one Taliban, there are now two Taliban groups. There is one in Afghanistan and one in Pakistan. Bin Laden is still there. How do you think it will help?
Participant
Firstly, I would like to thank the two speakers for their excellent comments. I have two questions. One for each panellist. Firstly, Mr Hutton, with regards to the India-US deal – which has given India an extraordinary position with regards to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – and the new demands which are being placed on other signatories to the NPT, how would you see the balance to the non-nuclear weapons states to put more effective controls on the nuclear programme and denial of technologies which were their inalienable right, according to the NPT? How do you see this balance emerging? Do you think it will cause an internal implosion within the treaty structure, and would states demand more?
My second question is to Dr Sanjaya Baru. Taking the lead from your statement that under no circumstances can the loss of innocent life be acceptable, do you foresee a change in policy of state terrorism used by India as a policy option in Kashmir with regards to extra-judicial killings there or with regards to the Gujarat violence which we saw in India?
It would also be great if you could comment about the Indian rare earth metals plant which, according to David Albright’s Institute in the US, has put certain centrifuge designs on the internet for $10 each. Could you please comment on that? Does it show India’s impeccable non-proliferation record? What kind of effective checks and balances would there be in regard to the new India-US nuclear deal?
Robert James
I have a question about energy security, particularly crude oil. For over 60 years, no country has been unable to freely buy crude oil from the world market. No country has been denied crude oil. What is it today that makes us fear that crude oil is now a major security problem? What has changed in the last 10-30 years that should now make us fear that we might not be able to get crude oil freely?
James Hackett
I have a question for the UK Secretary of State for Defence. Can you give us an indication of your hopes regarding the future UK-Iraq security and military relationship after the fundamental change of mission that has been announced for 2009? For instance, will the UK seek to maintain its training activities in the country or will the UK seek rights to access bases?
General Mohammad Khair Shiyyab, Jordan
I would like to thank the speakers. It was appropriate that the plenary was referred to ‘Energy Security and Iran’ because these are the two main areas that I felt the speakers focused on. Quite rightly, the Right Honourable John Hutton outlined the problems that we face in the context of regional as well as international conflict. The proliferation threat and the threat of terrorism were referred to as the most important. In terms of proliferation, would it be possible that something should be done – multilaterally, multi-nationally, internationally – to control the fuel cycle for those interested in using nuclear energy for civilian purposes? For example, with the fuel cycle, regional or international arrangements.
Secondly, not much has been mentioned regarding empowering the NPT or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for that purpose. That is another area that we need to focus on.
Last but not least, in my judgment, although we speak a lot about regional and international cooperation, the obstacles to this – namely the political problems – are not given emphasis. Resolving this would contribute positively to terrorism as well as proliferation, as well as economic collaboration, and so on. How can we do more to try to approach these political situations and resolve them so that we can succeed in other areas?
Mansoor Al Arayedh, Gulf Council for Foreign Relations, Bahrain
I have a question for Mr Hutton. Given the sensitivity of the Iranian nuclear energy programme, the GCC countries are neighbours to Iran where we share water and air and thus we have a stake in the regional security. How could the GCC cooperate with Iran to ensure regional and neighbourhood security?
Dr Majeed Al Alawi, Bahrain
I had wanted to ask a question to the previous speakers, but there was not enough time. I was going to ask about the deadline given by President Bush that by the end of this year there would be a Palestinian state. I was going to ask if we still have time in the next two weeks!
My current contribution is that I would firstly like to thank the two speakers for their excellent speeches. I want to point out the important issue that most Arab people believe in. When dealing with tourism, energy, piracy, and other issues in this region, you are actually dealing with the symptoms of the problems; you are not tackling the roots of the problems. These include poverty, lack of democracy, and, most importantly – which has been ignored by Mr Hutton and Secretary Gates – the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It is the core of the instability of the region. To ignore it in speeches and conferences will not change this fact.
Ambassador Khaled Al Duwaisan
I have a question for Mr Hutton and a question to Dr Baru. Mr Secretary, you have been to the south of Iraq for the last five years. You have trained the Iraqi forces in Iraq. After your total withdrawal in Iraq, will the Iraqi security forces cover the south of Iraq or, as some media mentioned, will there be a security vacuum in the south of Iraq?
Dr Baru, after the catastrophe that happened in Mumbai, do you think this will be a wake up call for both countries to cooperate with each other to eliminate the terrorism and the source of the terrorism? Alternatively, will this widen the gap between India and Pakistan?
Nasser Al Jaidah, Qatar
My question is directed to Secretary Hutton. Coming back to the issue of the maritime routes and the piracy that we are facing these days, especially in the Gulf of Aden where we have seen a significant increase of these activities in 2008, what I did not hear during the discussions is that the piracy is going beyond the territorial water of Somalia. It is even going beyond the 200 km ‘economic zones’ to 700 km. These are sophisticated operations. My observation from today is that nobody, until now, is discussing what we are going to do about Somalia itself. Minister Al Alawi mentioned that we are known to be addressing issues dealing with symptoms rather than causes of problems. This is really the situation in Somalia today. What is the will of the international community in terms of being willing to solve the problems of the country that is left to deteriorate?
The issues of a country which has basically disappeared from the map as a state are major issues that need to be addressed rather than simply dealing with a few naval boats. We have a vested interest here because, in the last 15 years, this region has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in order to ensure the security of supply and to be a part of the energy equation of this world. We do not want to be victims – one way or the other – of the maritime piracy or the threats we are facing today.
Dr John Chipman
We will first turn to Dr Baru to answer his questions. We will then turn to the Secretary of State for him to conclude.
Dr Sanjaya Baru
Firstly, on the issue of proliferation and non-proliferation in India’s nuclear programme, so much mythology has been generated over the last 20-30 years, that generations of analysts have grown up being victims of this mythology. The David Albright point is part of that mythology. There is enough in the published terrain that completely demolishes his various fictitious arguments. Similarly, on the whole issue of the Indian nuclear programme, I do not have the time to cover the history of the programme, but there is now enough published material on this. The Civil Nuclear Agreement has now happened not only with the US, but with 45 members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). They would not all have signed to this if they believed all the mythologies. There is an indigenous fuel cycle in India. It has not seen any proliferation to any other country. No other country today has a nuclear programme because of any proliferation by India.
With regards to the issue of Kashmir, I will make two comments. Firstly, the thrust of what the Prime Minister said in Parliament last week is that there is no issue for any country that justifies terrorism. That does not mean that there are no problems that the international country has to deal with. Every country has internal problems, whether it is or is not a democracy; every country is dealing with internal problems of law and order, dissent, disaffection, and so on. They have to be dealt with within the framework of the rule of law.
Somebody mentioned the army official who was involved in the Samjhauta Express blast. This official is in jail. He is not living in a house in Karachi or in some charity mission doling out food to the poor. He is in jail. If you are a modern country with a functioning state and you catch people like that, you put them in jail through due process of law. Everyone who has been identified and implicated in the riots in different parts of the country, including Gujarat, is in jail. There is due process. Courts take time, but there is a due process of law.
I do not think India would condone such acts. Nothing justifies terrorism. The time has come for states to stand up against non-state actors, otherwise the state system as we know it will not last. That is the threat that terrorism poses to various countries around the world, particularly in this region.
Finally, I will end on a hopeful note. The story on Kashmir is a very positive story today. India and Pakistan have been engaged for the last four or five years in a very systematic process of consultation. If MK Narayanan had been here today, as he was scheduled to be, he would have shared with you his agony of how much he was criticised by the Indian press for saying that General Musharraf was a great guy. In fact, many of my Pakistani journalist friends keep asking me, ‘What went wrong with your National Security Advisor? How come he praised Musharraf?’ One of the reasons why MK Narayanan made the statement was because of the progress we were actually making on the Kashmir issues.
I sat through two days in an India-Pakistan dialogue in Singapore a couple of weeks ago. Various senior officials participated in the dialogue, from think tanks in Pakistan and from the media and think tanks in India. We spent two days in a hotel in Singapore. This was after the Mumbai attacks. There is recognition that we have a solution. That is precisely why the Mumbai attacks are happening. Those who do not want the solution want to create a situation of conflict between the two countries. We have peaceful solutions to these problems, but it is those who do not want the solutions to go forward who are creating an environment of conflict between the two countries. There is recognition of that. There is recognition of that in Islamabad and in New Delhi. This is at least one reason why New Delhi’s reaction was so measured and wise.
We recognise that there are elements within civil society within Pakistan that want a democratic Pakistan; that want a secular and a liberal Pakistan, even though it calls itself a ‘constitutional Islamic republic.’ There are people there who want the good things in life. There are people in Pakistan who want peace with India. We also want this. That is precisely why these elements have become active; it is to disrupt the process. The time has come for states to stand together and deal with the non-state actors, otherwise they will be consumed by the conflict.
John Hutton
I will try to be brief in responding to the 14 questions that I have been asked. The questions have fallen into four groups. The first group of questions were about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and some of the issues to do with Iran. Next year will be a very important year as we prepare for the 2010 conference. We should not lose sight of one very important issue. The right of states to peacefully develop civil nuclear power is one of the three pillars of the Non-proliferation Treaty. However, all of the concerns that we have been debating today stem out of that particular aspect to it. I think we should be prepared to sit down together – as we prepare for the NPT Review Conference – to think about whether we do need to strengthen the powers of the IAEA. I think there is a particular issue, that many others have commented on, that many states can do quite a lot that is in contravention of the Treaty and withdraw from it without any sanction. I think we have to look at that.
There is a range of issues there that we need to look at. I for one am very strongly committed. I understand why countries will want to look at developing civil nuclear power programmes to deal with this challenge of climate change and energy security. Therefore, we have to make sure that the Treaty reflects that fact and continues to reflect that fact, but also deals with these growing concerns about proliferation. We need to consider that in the context of the Treaty.
There was a group of questions about terrorism and what we do about it in the region, and in Kashmir, and elsewhere. A lady asked about the war on terror. I am often surprised at home and abroad when I talk to people about this. I am told: ‘None of this would have happened, for example, 9/11 would not have happened, if you had not invaded Iraq.’ However, it did happen before we entered Iraq. We have to remember that the antecedents of this ferocious terrorism – criminal in their origins, motivated by hatred – predate these campaigns.
I take very seriously the point that was made about the Middle East Peace Plan. We have to get behind that. Again, I know people will say, ‘Of course we have.’ for 50 years we have been debating the pros and cons of how we can make progress. However, I genuinely believe – and not just with the new administration Washington – that there is a new resolve around Europe and elsewhere. In this region, it goes without saying that we must find a way to strengthen that road map. I believe we can and I believe that this is the right time to do it.
We should not be under any illusions about the terrorists. I am saying this particularly today because of what has happened to my forces in Afghanistan. We have to confront them. I am afraid there is no way of making peace with some of these hard core idealogs. They are immune to any rationality or process of discussion. I suspect they are also immune to any eventual outcome in the Middle East Peace Plan. I do not think we should be under any illusions about what really is behind some of the al-Qaeda terrorist ideology. We must take them on. We must defeat them. All of us together. It is not just for the West; it is for everyone here.
The debate between India and Pakistan is obviously one that we all take a close interest in, and want to see successfully and sensibly resolved. Pakistan has been the victim of terrorism. We should never lose sight of that fact. We should also never lose sight of the fact that Pakistan is doing a very good job in trying to deal with an existential threat to its own statehood from Taliban al-Qaeda. However, Pakistan cannot be in the state of denial about the origins of this particular terrorist attack on the innocent men, women and children in Mumbai. We are clear about the origins of this attack. We made this clear to the Pakistan Government and all of us expect to see action taken to deal with this totally unacceptable terrorist atrocity.
I can talk about the subject of energy security because I used to be an Energy Minister. Energy security has become a problem because energy markets do not work effectively. We have to deal with that problem. There is a conference in London next week which I hope will begin to make progress in terms of how those markets work. Energy security is becoming an obvious problem because we know at some point we have to prepare for the era and age beyond oil and gas.
Someone asked me about the GCC and what could be done in the region. Again, my Prime Minister has had some very good discussions with states in the region about how we can begin to invest some of the very significant resources that are available in some of the new technologies that are going to be important for the future. I very much hope that the energy security challenge – which is perceived very acutely across the world – can be something that brings us together rather than pushes us apart. It is a real problem. It is because of failings in insufficiently transparent markets. What can we do about it? We have to deal with it through technology and investment.
Finally, there was a series of questions about the UK’s role in Iraq. We have to complete these negotiations with the Government of Iraq, but our intention is to continue with an ongoing training and support role in Iraq, at the invitation of the Iraqi Government, particularly around developing the Iraqi officer core, and the Iraqi Navy which will have to take on more responsibility for protecting Iraq’s vital offshore gas and oil installations. It is a very, very important mission. We would like to work with the Government of Iraq to complete that. It is a matter, of course, for the Government of Iraq.
In relation to the south and the Basra area, the plan is, in the first few months of next year, that the British forces will substantially withdraw from any active role in security in Iraq. We are able to do that because of the increasing capability and effectiveness of Iraqi security forces. The 10th and the 14th Iraqi divisions are very capable divisions. When we pull back from that mentoring and support role, the Iraqis will take over security in that part of Basra and the south. That will be a great day for everyone. Our role then will be a normal bilateral defence role. I do not think that there will be a security vacuum in the south; quite the opposite. I think the Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army are fantastically capable, well-disciplined, well-led, well-trained and well-equipped soldiers. They will be able to defend their own people and their own country very, very effectively indeed.
Dr John Chipman
Secretary of State Hutton and Dr Sanjaya Baru, thank you very much for your wisdom, your controlled passion on very difficult issues, and for your advice to us all. I thank you both for your excellent presentations and your engagement with this audience.
