Foreign policy debate at the Conservative Party conference

The British Prime Minister Theresa May began her speech at this week’s Conservative conference by gently mocking her new foreign secretary in asking “Can Boris Johnson stay on message for a full four days?” – “Just about” was her own answer but Johnson did more than that by delivering a thoughtful and substantial speech on British foreign policy.

Johnson cited a conversation with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov which ended with Lavrov complaining that the West imposed democracy on Russia at the end of the Cold War in 1990. Johnson said it illustrated the fragility of Francis Fukuyama’s famous and influential “end of history” thesis and what Johnson dubbed “a moment of ideological resolution” for the “conglomerate of Western liberal values and ideals” such as the rule of law, human rights, independent judiciary, and the right of the media to mock politicians.

He also said the notion that the West could endlessly expand the realm of liberal democracy was badly damaged by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and because its model of free-market Anglo-Saxon capitalism was seriously discredited by the crash of 2008. Other leading international conservative figures candidly acknowledged that globalisation has slashed absolute poverty in a generation but many outside the top 1% and the bottom 30% feel excluded from its fruits.

Johnson concluded that the lack of Western political, military, and economic self-confidence means that the world is less safe. The number of deaths in conflict rose from 49,000 in 2010 to 167,000 last year. The global tally of refugees is up by 30% on 2013 to 46 million. The number of free or partly free African countries has fallen.

He rounded on Russian “war crimes” in Aleppo – “bombing hospitals when they know they are hospitals and nothing but hospitals” and which is making it impossible for peace negotiations to begin. The bleak picture he painted included a migration crisis that last year overwhelmed Europe’s ability to cope, and the violent extremism of Daesh erupting across the Middle East and spreading to Europe.

Such threats chill tourism and trade and tempt governments to use instability and insecurity as an excuse to move away from democracy in the belief they can have economic prosperity without political and social freedom.

Turning to the role of Britain today, he reflected that the Foreign Office was once the nerve centre of an empire that was seven times the size of the Roman empire at its greatest extent and had for 200 years directed the invasion or conquest of 178 countries but “those days are gone forever and that is a profoundly good thing.”

But he sought to reclaim the UK’s global role and said it would be a fatal mistake now to underestimate what Britain is doing or can do because, in spite of Iraq, it is simply not the case that every military intervention has been a disaster.

He added that Britain thinks an age before wielding hard power, which has been enhanced by “the gentle kindly gunboats of British soft power” – “the vast and subtle and pervasive extension of British influence around the world that goes with having the language that was invented and perfected in this country and now has more speakers than any other language on Earth and up the creeks and inlets of every continent on Earth.” He cited Churchill’s adage that the empires of the future will be empires of the mind.

How much influence the UK will have will depend to a large degree on how successfully Britain reconfigures its links with the European Union and the wider world, a process that is still being defined but which will formally begin next Spring. Much could go wrong and divisions could deepen, while the apparently unassailable dominance of the Conservatives, as they seek to win Labour voters and those on the right, is far from given.

As well as hard and soft power, ministers are proud that the UK is a development superpower and that includes great efforts in helping look after those who have fled to the Kurdistan Region. Yet this is rarely mentioned by ministers and nor is the potential of the KRG, which does not fit classic categories of international relations, and may concern those who hear Iraq and think disaster.

I was at the Conservative conference in Birmingham with the KRG High Representative Karwan Jamal Tahir who actively made the case for the Anglo-Kurdistani relationship with ministers and others. Tangible signs and symbols of British support need to be heard, understood and supported by party members and the wider British public. After all, the Kurdistan Region’s ideological and military rejection of Daesh is vital to the British and indeed global interest.

This is a personal view by Gary Kent

Posted in General | Comments Off

The foreign policy debate at the Labour Party conference

“And then there’s Iraq” is a phrase often used by critics of the Blair years who have been boosted by the re-election as leader of the Labour Party of Jeremy Corbyn, whose apology for invading Iraq easily won the biggest applause at this week’s conference in Liverpool.

This four word phrase or just the four letter word, Iraq, usually suffices as shorthand for all that angered many party members with Blair and underpins Corbyn’s second and larger victory. But hard questions about security and intervention cannot be shirked by a party that could form a government and whose actions in opposition can set limits on current government action.

We saw the results of this when Labour MPs refused to back a relatively minor military action to punish Syrian President Assad for using chemical weapons in August 2013. This failure to act prolonged the war and enabled Russia to flex its muscles in the Middle East. Corbyn himself opposed airstrikes in Iraq and in Syria, as a backbencher and then leader in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

Unpacking and understanding the invasion of Iraq and detailed critiques of how it was done is not an academic exercise but essential to retrieving the principle of using British political, economic, diplomatic, moral, cultural and military power for the good of humanity.

Labour’s divisions on intervention were on display at the conference. Former shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn told supporters that “when people who are fascists – and I use that word deliberately – are committing genocide, as the UN has now said, against Yazidis and other minorities in Iraq and elsewhere, I think it is the duty of an internationalist Labour party to say we are prepared to help against the fascists … We have got to be, and remain, an internationalist, outward-looking party that will play its part.’

His successor, Emily Thornberry argued in her conference speech for an ethical foreign policy where war is always the last resort but where “peace is never achieved by dropping bombs from 30,000 feet.”

On the eve of his keynote conference speech Corbyn was asked if he would support bombing against Daesh in Iraq and Syria if he were Prime Minister. His answer focused on Syria but he said he didn’t think the bombing was working although, I would say, it saved the Kurds, continues to protect them, and is essential to liberating Mosul.

He said that conflicts always end in political settlement so why not start there although he excluded Daesh from a place at the negotiating table. This worthy but unworldly aspiration was impossible in this case given that there was no avoiding military force against an aggressive fascism that commits genocide and rape as a theocratic duty.

Corbyn’s pitch on foreign policy principles was that Europe faces the impact of a refugee crisis fuelled by wars across the Middle East, that “we have to face the role that repeated military interventions by British governments have played in that crisis,” and that the catastrophic consequences of western wars “have been the spread of terrorism, sectarianism and violence across an arc of conflict that has displaced millions of people forcing them from their countries.” He urged “a foreign policy based on peace, justice and human rights” and apart from the apology for Blair’s invasion majored on banning arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

To be fair, the foreign policy section of Corbyn’s speech was brief, and these homilies contain enough caveats to avoid being a simplistic reiteration of the antiwar movement’s line that the west is mostly to blame. But it rejects an anti-fascist narrative and avoids the autonomous agency of Baathism, Al Qaeda and Daesh as well as the needs of their victims.

Conference delegates cheered his apology for Iraq and his hope that lessons will be learnt from the Chilcot report. But if the lesson is taken as never or perhaps rarely accepting the use of British military force, especially when it is allied to baseless scepticism about the efficacy of limited bombing in Iraq and Syria, then those seeking British military intervention in an emergency from a Corbyn government will be disappointed.

The anger over Iraq 2003 clearly continues to feed a popular desire to avoid using British military force and encourages at best a stress on development, diplomacy and deterrence, which are fine as far as they go but they can and do fail. Thornberry is right that war is the last resort but Benn is also right in urging anti-fascism and Britain pulling its weight in helping protect victims.

This is a personal view by Gary Kent

Posted in General | Comments Off

Minutes of general meeting

Minutes of general meeting of the APPG on the Kurdistan Region in Iraq. Tuesday 13 September 2016. W2.

Attendance – Parliamentarians. Mary Glindon, Jack Lopresti, Jason McCartney, Stephen Metcalfe, Bob Stewart, Nadhim Zahawi.

Also in attendance: Gary Kent (Director), Karwan Jamal Tahir and Khasro Ajgayi (KRG), Dlawer Al Al’Aldeen (Middle East Research Institute, Meri) and observer for Jonathan Djanogly MP.
Apologies. Lord Clement Jones, Lady Hodgson

1 Meeting agreed to add Jack Lopresti as a Vice-Chair.

2 Meeting approved the Income and Expenditure statement for the period of the reporting year from 15 June 2015 to 14 June 2016.*

3 Gary Kent updated APPG on plans for delegation in November 2016.

4 KRG High Representative Karwan Jamal Tahir briefed the group on the current situation in the Kurdistan Region. Conclusions included seeking a Westminster Hall debate on British support for the Peshmerga and the KRG, pressing the government to supply free beds for the most seriously injured Peshmerga in Birmingham, and the need for a visit by the KRG President and/or Prime Minister.

5 Dlawer Al Al’Aldeen briefed the APPG on the work of Meri and the current situation including the debate about how to liberate and then govern Mosul.

* This shows nil subscriptions, trading income, interest or other but receipt of monetary benefit and expenditure on employment costs for the Secretariat of £58,000 from Petoil Chia Surkh Ltd, and benefits in kind for the November 2015 delegation to the Kurdistan Region – £18,001-19,500 from Qaiwan Group for travel, and £9,001-10,500 from the Kurdistan Regional Government for hotels and internal travel.

Posted in General | Comments Off

Jack Lopresti MP advocates support for the Peshmerga in the Commons

!2 September

Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)

May I ask the Secretary of State why it took a year for us to supply ammunition for the heavy weapons that we supply to the peshmerga in Iraq? Can he assure the House that such delays will never happen again, and that we are doing everything that we possibly can to help the peshmerga in their fight against Daesh?

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon

We have supplied, as my hon. Friend knows, not only heavy machine guns to the peshmerga but ammunition for those heavy machine guns. I announced earlier in the summer a fresh gift from us of ammunition for those heavy machine guns, and I am very pleased to tell him that that ammunition has now arrived and is being used.

Posted in General | Comments Off

Hilary Benn MP on the Kurdistan Region in the debate on Chilcot

Ectract. The best evidence for the difference that good politics and good governance can make in Iraq is shown by the Kurdish region, which, let us not forget, was as it was partly because of the support we had given it through the no-fly zone. As a result, it is now the most stable and relatively prosperous part of Iraq. I pay tribute, as others have, to the Peshmerga for the role that they have played, and still play, in trying to defeat Daesh.

The Kurds regard the 2003 invasion as a liberation. Karwan Jamal Tahir, the Kurdistan Regional Government representative to the UK, wrote this week about the Chilcot report that “there was an Iraq before the 2003 invasion, an Iraq that, for millions, was a concentration camp on the surface and a mass grave beneath.”

Posted in General | Comments Off

Support for Peshmerga raised in David Cameron’s final PMQs

Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)

Q4. I, too, pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the hard work that he has done leading this great country for the past few years. My right hon. Friend’s lasting legacy will include supporting the Kurds whose peshmerga are bravely fighting Daesh in all our interests. Having visited the peshmerga on the frontline, I know that our airstrikes, weapons and training are crucial, but peshmerga injuries could be reduced with additional equipment such as body armour, respirators and front-line medical facilities, and we possibly could provide some beds in our specialist hospital in Birmingham to the most seriously injured. Does he agree that that is a relatively small investment that would make a huge difference to our allies in our common fight to defeat the evil of terrorism?

The Prime Minister

First, I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is absolutely right that the Kurds are incredibly brave fighters and are doing valuable work against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. I will look carefully at his suggestion of using the Birmingham hospital. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital has excellent facilities for battlefield casualties. Our Army is already providing medical instruction to the peshmerga to help them deal with the situation, but we will look to see whether more can be done. Let us be frank, the strategy is working. Daesh is on the back foot: it has lost 45% of the territory that it once held in Iraq; its finances have been hit; more than 25,000 Daesh fighters have now been killed; desertion has increased; and the flow of foreign fighters has fallen by 90%. I have always said that this will take a long time to work in Iraq and Syria, but we must stick at it and we must stay the course.

Posted in General | Comments Off

We have embraced and will continue to fight for the freedom Britain gave us

Guest Column by Karwan Jamal Tahir, Kurdistan Regional Government Representative to the UK

There is much for the UK to think about and examine now that the Chilcot Inquiry has released its findings. However, amidst the media frenzy that followed the publication of the Chilcot report it was forgotten last week that there was an Iraq before the 2003 invasion, an Iraq that, for millions, was a concentration camp on the surface and a mass grave beneath.

I commend the British people for commissioning a major investigation into the invasion and the aftermath. This is a testament to the great democracy this country has. However, as a Kurd who personally lived through the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s regime, I am glad that Saddam and the Baath regime are no more. My father, a Peshmerga freedom fighter who was killed by the regime, dedicated his life to the freedom and self-determination of Kurdistan and democracy for Iraqis as a whole. This story is a familiar one for millions of Kurds, and indeed Shias, whose families, relatives and friends were lost to the brutality of Saddam Hussein and his genocides.

This history is often forgotten in the UK and the West. As a former student in Manchester, I know very well that many British people disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq. But as the Kurds’ representative here in London, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the 179 British soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice for us and for the Iraqi people. I also thank their relatives and loved ones and assure them that, as far as the Kurds are concerned, a population that faced extermination under Saddam, their sacrifices were not in vain.

Mr Blair righted all the wrongs of the past: it was the British that denied us an independent state and, along with the rest of the West, supported Saddam during his war with Iran. He completed former Prime Minister John Major’s intervention in 1991, when a no-fly zone was established and saved us from Saddam’s wrath. Removing Saddam in 2003 was the completion of a job half-done in 1991. Britain should be reminded that it is for these reasons the Kurds, who lost more than 200,000 to Saddam and suffered genocide at his hands, including the use of chemical weapons, welcomed Britain and the US with open arms in 2003.

Unlike the rest of Iraq, after 2003 we had more than a decades’ worth of experience in state building and developing institutions. As a result, our region was the most stable part of Iraq after 2003 and, unlike like the rest of Iraq, we did not suffer terrorist atrocities, war and large-scale destruction. This does not mean Saddam was not a threat to us before 2003. We were still beholden to the psychotic whims of Saddam and his sons. Ask Iraq’s Shias, who despite their own no-fly zone in the south, were routinely rounded up by the regime, suffered massacres and indiscriminately attacked; their religious institutions and places of worship were violently suppressed. Long after 1991.

Make no mistake. Saddam is gone. But the threat of terrorism remains. The Baath regime has rebranded itself in the form of so-called Islamic State (Isis). Its most senior members are former Baathists who developed the capacity to butcher and maim decades before we knew Isis as it is today.

Just as we have done for decades, we will continue to combat this terrorist threat, for our freedom but also the West’s. Just as we have done for centuries, we will continue to combat the forces of totalitarianism and facism. Isis represents a terrorist scourge that threatens not just Iraq today but the region, the West and the broader international community. Isis recognises no boundaries, as it has made clear with its recent attacks on the West.

We must learn the lessons of Chilcot but we must not forget that a war is still being fought, that there is an imminent threat to us all. British soldiers need not sacrifice their lives anymore, for our Peshmerga are already fighting, bleeding and dying in this war. We seek financial support, arms, medical supplies and training and intelligence support. We Kurds are grateful for the freedom the 2003 invasion provided us with. We have embraced this freedom and will continue to fight for it.

Posted in General | Comments Off

Chilcot: comment by KRG High Representative to the UK

“It is a sign of the resilience and confidence of the British people that its government commissioned such a major investigation into its decision to join the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It’s not for me to comment in detail on domestic decision-making but I can say that the Kurds are eternally grateful for the British helping to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who committed genocide against us. I also send the most sincere condolences of the Kurdish people to the relatives and loved ones of the British soldiers who died and to those who were injured. Whatever conclusions are drawn from the Chilcot report, we remain allies of the UK in our joint efforts to defeat the common threat posed to us all by the so-called Islamic State.”

Karwan Jamal Tahir
KRG High Representative to the UK

Posted in General | Comments Off

Chilcot: the need to hear the voices of Kurds

The release of the report by Sir John Chilcot will trigger an avalanche of comment about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the occupation. I hope that the views of Kurds are not swept aside.

Most people in Kurdistan and Iraq were very happy that Saddam Hussein was overthrown and captured, although Iraqi President Jalal Talabani rightly refused to sign his death warrant. Saddam should have served life in prison.

Iraqis and Kurds murdered by his regime rarely had that option, and most people suffered under Saddam’s “Republic of Fear.” And for decades Kurds were the most mistreated by the Baathist Party, which proudly looked to German and Italian fascism for inspiration and whose leader also admired Stalin.

Chilcot focuses on the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of 2009. It has to start and finish somewhere but I hope people understand prior and later events. The defeat of Saddam in Kuwait in 1991 was the beginning of the end for Saddam who had deluded himself that invading Kuwait would be acceptable.

Kuwaitis suffered horrendously but an international force evicted him. The Kurds rose up and evicted him too although the years before what most Kurds call the liberation in 2003 were difficult. They were protected every day by British, French and American jets policing the no-fly zone.

In that interregnum Saddam constantly refused to comply with many resolutions of the UN, whose sanctions regime hurt ordinary Iraqis and all Kurds – doubly for the Kurds as Saddam added his own sanctions to those of the UN.

We know he had had WMD, because they were used against the Kurds and Iranian troops, and he acted as if he still had them. That WMD were not found does not excuse his refusal to respect the terms of the ceasefire after the defeat of his aggression in Kuwait. This defiance was viewed differently following the ghastly 911 attacks on America in 2001, not because Saddam was involved although he welcomed the attacks, but because of the danger that an aggressive rogue state could ally itself with jihadists and encourage other attacks.

A common myth about Saddam’s regime is that it remained secular until the end. But he used religion to mobilise support after 1991. From 2003, Baathist military and political leaders joined jihadists in Al Qaeda and now Daesh – the former US political adviser in Iraq, Emma Sky calls this the gathering of the moustaches and the beards. In any case, there was nothing to stop Saddam concluding alliances of convenience with Sunni jihadists. The Nazi-Soviet pact between Hitler and Stalin comes to mind.

The 2003 invasion quickly defeated Saddam’s forces but things clearly went wrong. A common criticism is the occupiers aggravated Sunni Baathists through excessive Debaathification and the disbandment of the army. Some were bound to resist, of course, but the scale could have been avoided.

Baathist rule also incubated sectarian passions which exploded to the surface. Some suggest that overthrowing Saddam was bound to expose these fault lines and should not have been undertaken. As one who rejoiced in the end of this fascistic regime, let me suggest another view. If Saddam – or his psychopathic sons – had survived, as he had over Kuwait, he could have consolidated his power as sanctions further crumbled and his revenues increased.

If Western troops had withdrawn in 2003, supposedly for a short time, would Saddam have felt he was off the hook? In that case, he would probably have tried to continue his efforts to exterminate the Kurds. Any later Western action would have been harder.

We will never know what might have been but Kurds believe Tony Blair and George Bush acted in good faith. The British public wants to learn lessons, but the Kurds’ views about the past and crucially about the future should also be part of the debate that Chilcot will unleash.

Furthermore, whatever Chilcot concludes about the past process of British decision-making and the specific faults of the post-invasion occupation should not mean embracing isolationism and spurning liberal intervention. Some have succeeded and some non-interventions have been disastrous. We can, however, say with certainty that genocide and suffering will sooner or later require the positive role of Britain and others to be deployed to protect people and uphold our interests.

Gary Kent has visited Iraq and Kurdistan over 20 times in the last ten years, is Director of the APPG on the Kurdistan Region and writes in a personal capacity. @garykent

Posted in General | Comments Off

Peshmerga need British field hospital on the Kurdish frontline

By Karwan Jamal Tahir, Kurdistan Regional Government High Representative to the UK

Many British people know who the Peshmerga are and that our female fighters frighten the murderers and rapists of Daesh. I have often heard this in my first year as the Kurdistan Regional Government’s representative in this country.

Our Peshmerga are great ambassadors but most importantly they are holding the line against Daesh not just for our people but also for the free world as a whole. The very name of the Peshmerga is based on bravery as it is Kurdish for “those who face death.” Nearly 1,500 Peshmerga have been killed and more than 8,000 have been injured.

But less well known is that many of our Peshmerga are needlessly dying from injuries of the sort that British soldiers have routinely survived for decades. Injuries can soon prove lethal if not tackled in the first golden hour but that’s harder on the frontline. By the time a Peshmerga reaches a city hospital, it is often too late to save them and we need frontline medical facilities that British and other Western soldiers take for granted.

But we’re struggling economically to cope with the war. Not only are we defending a 650 mile border against Daesh but we are also looking after nearly two million people who have fled from Daesh and sought shelter in Kurdistan. There will be more people fleeing as Mosul nears its liberation after two years of Daesh rule. And the oil revenues we depended on have been shot to pieces.

I recently briefed MPs from the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan Region, which has been a valued friend for a decade. MPs visited the frontline with me in Kirkuk last year and saw for themselves what the Peshmerga are up against.

The MPs have agreed to urge the British government to lend us a helping hand to reduce Peshmerga deaths and help the seriously injured. Colonel Bob Stewart, who fully understands frontline life as the former British Commander in Bosnia, is is asking the government to provide field surgical teams for the Peshmerga. Labour’s Ian Austin has asked the Defence Secretary to assess the merits of providing a British field hospital.

They could save Peshmerga but over 7,000 have already been injured and many have lost limbs. We don’t have the specialist facilities to adequately help amputees. Bob Stewart, who is also a senior member of the Defence Select Committee, is urging British ministers to provide some seriously injured Peshmerga with specialist treatment at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham. Its professional staff were crucial to helping British soldiers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know the UK is doing much to help us already. Your airstrikes have been and remain invaluable, as do your intelligence and reconnaissance, training, demining and heavy machine guns with armour-piercing ammunition. But the medical assistance urged by MPs on both sides of the Commons is also vital. An appeal for all these measures is contained in a cross-party Commons motion tabled by Labour MP Mary Glindon.

We are doing our best to reform our economy so we can look after our people in an age in which oil and gas revenues can no longer cover our needs. But we face an immediate emergency in caring for our Peshmerga.

America has recently given us substantial supplies of equipment and funds to pay our Peshmerga too – our economic crisis means they have not been paid for months. They fight without pay because the war against Daesh is about our very existence against a monstrous foe that also targets the West and Britain, as many British people recognise.

Posted in General | Comments Off