more … ]]> Commenting on Tony Blair’s former Director of Communication Alastair Campbell’s evidence to the Iraq Inquiry, former Liberal Democrat Leader and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee Sir Menzies Campbell said:

“Alastair Campbell’s evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry was only the hors d’oeuvre, the main dish will be Tony Blair on Friday 29th January.

“It is clear now what Mr Blair’s line is going to be – there is nothing for which to apologise and military action against Saddam was the right thing to do!

“The only thing wrong with that position is that it ignores the fact that the action was illegal under the UN Charter, that the resolutions of the United Nations did not authorise the use of military force and that the inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction did not get the chance to finish their job. If they had been allowed to do so then both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair would have known the truth – that there were no such weapons!

“The result of the illegal Iraq war was to cause incalculable instability in the Middle East, to provoke terrorist activity, to damage reputation significantly, and to cause the death of a huge but unknown number of Iraqi citizens.

“On the 29th January we shall see whether Mr Blair still thinks that it was the right thing to do.”

more … ]]> Commenting on the Prime Minister’s speech today about Afghanistan, Former Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Sir Menzies Campbell MP said:

“The weakness in the Prime Minister’s case is that it depends not only on President Karzai’s good faith but also his competence, neither of which have been much in evidence in recent times.

“To succeed with Karzai, the allies will have to be willing to “hold his feet to the fire”. The position is most certainly not helped by President Obama’s long deliberations on a new strategy. He has left a vacuum at a time when decisiveness is essential.”

more … ]]>
Senior Liberal Democrat MP Sir Menzies Campbell questioned Gordon Brown today during the Prime Minister’s statement on Afghanistan and Pakistan in the House of Commons.

Sir Menzies asked:

“After eight years, what confidence can we have that the strategy announced today by the Prime Minister has any better chance of success than the strategies previously announced by this Government?”

In his response the Prime Minister said that unless you have a strategy for Afghan people taking responsibility for their own affairs “you cannot see a way through this that doesn’t involve British or other troops there for many, many years”.

He added, “The importance of what we are saying today is supported by NATO itself. It is very much in-tune to what General McChrystal is saying. He has reconsidered the American strategy, he says he is moving from counter-terrorism to counter-insurgency and focusing on people and winning their support rather than alienating them. I believe it is the right strategy as it gives us a way forward.”

Commenting after his exchange with the Prime Minister, Sir Menzies said:

“The Prime Minister did not answer my question. I have lost count of the number of occasions I have heard the “Launch” in the House of Commons of new strategy. The fact that eight years on yet another strategy is required tells you all you need to know.

“Barack Obama is engaged in a wholesale review of US strategy and such is the subordinate position of the United Kingdom that we will have to conform to his ultimate strategic decisions. It’s not what General McChrystal says that counts but what Barack Obama decides.”

ENDS

more … ]]>

Sir Menzies Campbell has today tabled a parliamentary motion and written to the Foreign Secretary to urge the British Government to protect equal rights for women in Afghanistan. The President of Afghanistan is reported to have introduced laws which would effectively legalise rape within marriage and prevent women entering employment or accessing education and health services without their husbands agreement.

Commenting on the need for urgent action, Sir Menzies said:

“Many people in Britain supported British troops being sent to Afghanistan to remove the Taliban under whose brutal regime millions of people – women in particular – suffered extreme hardship.

“The progress made since the removal of the Taliban is now being threatened. The President of Afghanistan is prepared to introduce legislation which would remove equal rights for women – basic freedoms such as being able to go to a doctor without first having to get her husbands approval or having recourse to the law if she has been forced by her husband to have sexual relations against her will.

“This is a step backwards for Afghanistan. If the President of Afghanistan is going to introduce legislation which evokes memories of the Taliban, we have to ask – what are our soldiers fighting there for?”

Sir Menzies Campbell’s Early Day Motion tabled on the 2nd April 2009:

“That this House notes with concern reports that the President of Afghanistan supports the introduction of legislation designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of Afghan women, including articles which would legalise rape within marriage and end a woman’s freedom to enter employment or access education and health services without her husband’s permission, despite the Afghan constitution and a number of the international treaties Afghanistan has signed guaranteeing equal rights for women; and urges the British Government unequivocally to convey its opposition to the introduction of such repressive laws given the support the United Kingdom and British troops in particular are giving the Afghan government in its struggle against the Taliban, an organisation synonymous with the repression of women.”

more … ]]> Commenting on the current conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Sir Menzies Campbell MP said:

“This latest situation in Gaza and the West Bank is extremely alarming yet not entirely surprising. The aggression between the two sides has been raging for the past 60 years and there is no clear end in sight.

“The lack of decisive action from Governments and International Organisations such as the UN has only acted to compound the issue and America’s uncritical attitude towards Israel’s actions has not helped.

“Israel’s overwhelming use of force which results in the tragic loss of civilian lives is acting to radicalise opinion among Palestinians and indeed throughout the Arab world.

“Israel clearly has the right to defend itself from attack, but bombing alone has never resulted in the defeat of a terrorist organisation.

“By no means should Hamas escape condemnation and blame, but the only way to resolve these matters is through diplomacy and negotiation.”

ENDS

more … ]]> Commenting on the news that Iran will release the British naval personnel, Liberal Democrat Leader Menzies Campbell said:

“There will be many lessons to be learned from this episode. But for the moment we should welcome this announcement and look forward to the return of the naval personnel.

“Their seizure underlines the difficult and dangerous tasks we ask of our armed forces.”

more … ]]> Commenting on a survey showing that only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops, Liberal Democrat Leader Menzies Campbell said:

“This survey shows how military action against Iraq has practically brought the country and people to its knees.

“It is clear that coalition troops are exacerbating the security situation and increasingly being seen as legitimate targets for political motivated attacks.

“Our involvement in Iraq has cost us over £5 billion.

“President Bush made the decisions, the Prime Minister argued the case, the Chancellor signed the cheques and the Tories voted it through.

“It is now time to plan for an orderly withdrawal that should begin on 1st May and no British troops should remain after the end of October.”

more … ]]>

Ming Campbell gave this speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy. You can listen to the speech here.

It is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the Secretary General and High Representative.

It has always been my belief that peace in the Middle East cannot be fully realised unless there is agreement, not only between the principal actors in the Middle East, but in a global approach to the Middle East.

The challenge for Europeans has always been to find ways of working together, rather than competing with each other, and so to promote a common agenda for the region.

With a common agenda, Europe can be a more active and productive partner in the peace process, with the countries of the Middle East, and with the other members of the Quartet.

I observe also that the situation in the Middle East provides yet another compelling reason for the continuance of a strong transatlantic partnership fit for the 21st century (as we shall discuss tomorrow).

Chancellor Merkel has spoken about the need for “a broader division of labour within the international community“.

Europe must shoulder a greater share of the diplomatic and military burden.

But a division of labour is only successful if each partner is agreed on the strategic goals and aims.

If division of labour results in division of strategy, common objectives are impossible to achieve.

So our first challenge is ensure we are agreed on a common strategy.

Let me sketch out in the time available two of the priorities I see facing us.

These are first; doing all we can to forestall civil wars in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and second; to seek to bring Iran within international influence.

Without tackling these priorities, efforts to forge a common strategy for the revival and implementation of the roadmap will not succeed.

The first priority is to act in concert to avert the possibility of three separate but linked civil wars: in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in the Palestinian Territories.

These are powder kegs upon which the stalled Middle East peace process currently rests. Every one of these requires concerted international action.

I would like to concentrate my remarks here on Iraq which I believe to be the most pressing of these three.

Lebanon remains fragile, while the Palestinians have offered some small signs of encouragement.

But in Iraq, whether you choose to define the current situation as civil war or not, the facts on the ground speak for themselves.

It is not only the killings, bombings and kidnappings that have gathered pace – at the same time we see the slide towards the segregation of communities which provides a natural geography and battleground for civil and sectarian conflict.

The new Iraq show all the signs of a failed state. Iraq’s new institutions lack coherence and common purpose. Its political infrastructure is inadequate to meet the challenge of bringing its communities together with the promise of a prosperous future. And its security services have become embroiled in internecine violence.

After four years of occupation, coalition forces have become a focus for resentment rather than a force for containing internal conflict.

I regret that the core of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group has been unacceptable to the current American administration.

Nor is there unanimity in Congress about the way forward.

I fear that the President’s new strategy is likely to inflame resentment, not to bring stability.

It is my conclusion that it is now no longer in the UK national interest to maintain a British military presence in Iraq.

This, it should be said, is a minority view in the British Parliament, though not among the British people.

If we had a United Nations led and internationally endorsed peace process for Iraq, the withdrawal of British, and eventually all coalition troops, would be manageable within a framework that provided for continuing obligations to Iraq to be met.

Such a process should include:

1. A regional contact group, to strengthen and promote the engagement of Iraq’s neighbours;
2. A comprehensive, national disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration strategy for the militias;
3. Enhanced measures to train, equip, professionalise and regularise Iraqi security forces;
4. A time-limited programme for phased security transfer and withdrawal of coalition troops.

Effective? More likely to be effective than the strategy of remaining as long as the Iraqi Government requests us to do so, or the current surge strategy, less elegantly described by a distinguished commentator as “one more heave“.

Let me turn to Iran, the second priority.

Regional stability is dependent upon the engagement of Iran.

Continuing isolation of Iran will have significant repercussions.

No comprehensive peace agreement in Iraq will last for long without the willingness of Iran to play a constructive part.

A now isolated Iran seeks to influence events first by enrolling Shia populations in other Arab states, and second by using any means to advance national security.

This has led Iran towards the sponsorship of terrorism and the aspiration for a military nuclear capability.

Seen from an Iranian perspective, what incentive is there to abandon the enrichment of uranium when it is surrounded by what it sees as aggressive international forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seen from an Iranian perspective what incentive is there to influence Shias in the region and encourage stability and co-operation, when the language they believe they hear is of confrontation.

I do not believe we can exclude Iran from discussions on Iraq, on Afghanistan, or the wider Middle East peace process.

The regime in Tehran is authoritarian and nationalist.

But in spite of its distasteful characteristics it has interests and influence that cannot be ignored.

It is important to remember that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s party did not do well in recent local elections; that the economy is suffering; and that there are increasing signs from inside Iran of anxiety about the consequences of sanctions.

These provide an opportunity that should not be ignored.

It will not be possible to take advantage of this opportunity if we persist in an overt threat of military action.

more … ]]> Ming Campbell recently wrote to party supporters as follows:

Of all the problems that face our country today, the situation in Iraq is the most tragic; not only because of the scale of the catastrophe in that country – food shortages, electricity and oil supplies still below their pre-war levels, and the rise of sectarian violence with 3000 deaths per month – but because this terrible situation could and should have been avoided.

Liberal Democrats opposed the 2003 invasion on principle. It was an illegal war, fought without a proper plan for postwar reconstruction. We also now know that it was launched on a flawed prospectus. Weapons of Mass Destruction – ready to fire within forty minutes of a command – simply did not exist.

Last month Liberal Democrats joined with others to vote in the House of Commons for a motion that would have initiated an investigation into the war in Iraq and its aftermath. Unfortunately the government narrowly defeated that motion.

Three and a half years after the occupation, Iraq is on the verge of civil war, and its population is united only in its hostility to the presence of coalition troops (a Ministry of Defence survey found that eight out of ten strongly opposed their presence). Last month, Sir Richard Dannatt, our most senior soldier said that the presence of British soldiers is making the security situation worse. The difficulties that they are experiencing, and Sir Richard’s comments, are a reminder that in addition to our responsibilities to the Iraqi people, we have an obligation to our armed forces to provide them with a clear strategy and a credible mission.

Our government should heed those words and change its strategy now. I have made this point to Tony Blair in the House of Commons. He has refused to change his position. America is openly debating its strategy, and our Prime Minister is awaiting decisions from Washington. Britain’s foreign policy is once again reliant on America’s, just as it was in Lebanon.

There is another way. We need a phased withdrawal from Iraq – and sooner rather than later. That means taking a number of steps in the immediate future: establishing a UN-led effort to disarm, reintegrating and rebuilding the state, with support from the World bank and international donors; creating a regional contact group to engage Iraq’s neighbours in defusing sectarianism and helping to reconstruct the country; speeding up the training of Iraq’s security forces and depoliticising them; an end to the indefinite detentions by Iraqi and US forces that enrage the population; and full access granted to UN human rights monitors and the Red Cross.

These are the conditions that will allow a phased security transfer and withdrawal of coalition troops in months rather than years – and may be the only hope for securing a peaceful future in Iraq.

Yours sincerely

Ming Campbell
Leader, Liberal Democrats

more … ]]> Responding to Tony Blair’s comments that Britain intends ‘to hold its nerve’ in Iraq, Liberal Democrat Leader Ming Campbell said:

If we are to salvage anything from Iraq the essential first step is an admission from the Prime Minister and President Bush that they got it wrong. Their strategy is in ruins.

In March 2003 Parliament was allowed to debate whether military action should be taken surely Parliament should now be allowed to debate whether we stay or go. The Government owes that to the House of Commons but most of all to the British people.