Tony Baldry (Banbury): When the Select Committee on International Development, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) were in Peshawar in the north-west frontier province of Pakistan in December, we visited the main depot of the World Food Programme where food aid was being transported from Pakistan through the Khyber pass to Afghanistan. Considerable quantities of food aid were being shifted and an impressive fleet of white-painted United Nations trucks was lined up at the depot. However, those trucks were not being used to transport food aid to Afghanistan because the UN authorities took the view that the security situation there was so unpredictable that they were unwilling to risk their personnel and, by inference, trucks to shift the aid. That was being done by local contract drivers in their trucks.

That starkly emphasises the Select Committee's concern about security, which was central to our report. We said:

"We remain to be convinced that the food delivered into Afghanistan can be distributed to all those in need, primarily because of poor security".

We went on to say:

"Everyone we spoke to, whether in London or Pakistan, stressed to us that the most serious barrier to humanitarian assistance has been, and remains, poor security ... Security needs to extend to the secondary distribution network as well as to the supply route into Afghanistan. Delivering food into the country is not enough - it must be distributed as well".

We concluded that security is not simply a symptom of the recent conflict. The war may be over, but the risks remain.

When the non-governmental organisations gave evidence to the Select Committee on Tuesday - we had a single evidence-taking session to update us - Sakandar Ali, the country representative of Islamic Relief, observed that he had received reports as recently as 19 February from its Kabul office where international aid workers were being targeted. Mr. Roseveare, acting director of Oxfam's humanitarian department, observed:

"The delivery of operations and food assistance to remote locations is much less certain and that there is plenty of evidence that local forces do not have a sense of looking to the centre for their lead."

Oliver Burch of Christian Aid commented:

"In practice, the local people, they have to relate to their gentleman in their valley or the next valley who can command 50 or 100 rifles. This is still the situation ... there appears to have been no disarmament. Armed groups in the countryside are as prevalent as ever. There seems to be in general increased inter-tribal tension. This is something new."

The security situation looks uncertain and the working team on food security, which produced a report on food security in Afghanistan five months before 11 September, raised similar concerns to those of the Select Committee.

When the NGOs gave evidence to the Select Committee on Tuesday, Elizabeth Winters, special adviser to the British Agencies Afghanistan group, said:

"It is worth reporting back to you what every single Afghan has ever said to any of us - I checked this with my colleagues before coming in - which is: 'please bring in more security Forces, because without security and stability we cannot rebuild our country'."

She went on to say:

"The economy improved 25 % in the six months when there were no hostilities in 1995. Entrepreneurs are waiting to come back in. Hey, they ring you up and say 'we want to invest, as long as the security is OK, we are ready to get this country back on its feet' but we do need more Forces, and not just in Kabul. We need them elsewhere."

Sakandar Ali, to whom I have already referred, observed:

"More troops are required to support the central government."

Security is essential for food distribution in Afghanistan, but who is responsible for providing such security? Who pays? Under what authority is such security to be provided? The issue is relevant not only to Afghanistan. The Committee expressed a general concern that more should be done to track what is happening in failing states. The United Nations Children's Fund told us in evidence that it currently classifies some 31 states as being in a state of emergency or crisis, with an additional 35 on a watch list. All of those are either failed or failing states. We expressed the hope that the Government's response to our report would

"address the issue of failing states, how they are monitored, and what level of preparedness the international system can maintain to respond to problems in these failing states."

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): May I take my hon. Friend back to the issue of security? The non-governmental organisations that we met on Tuesday expressed the view that the Afghans want more British and foreign troops. Does my hon. Friend agree that a useful means of delivering aid might be to train the native Afghan police and armed forces? I know that both the British and the Americans are doing that in some way or other, but I understand from newspaper reports that American and British troops are training different forms of forces. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?

Tony Baldry: I was going to come to that, because there are disturbing reports that police training is insufficient and not enough members of the previous military forces in Afghanistan are being demobilised. Chris Patten, the European Commission's External Relations Commissioner, commented in a recent article that

"if we are to deny Al-Quaeda and other networks the territory from which to plan future atrocities, we have to do all we can to bolster weak or failing states and prevent them falling into the clutches of the Bin Ladens of this world".

Earlier this month, the Prime Minister, when in Freetown in Sierra Leone, said that he felt very proud of the role that British soldiers had played in Sierra Leone, and went on to observe that he knew that they had

"been joined by soldiers of many, many other countries, and they have been joined in particular in the endeavours that they have had to carry out as Armed Forces by a strong sense of will in the international community that Sierra Leone was not going to be allowed to descend into chaos and conflict, but had to be rescued and helped for the future."

I do not think that any of us are under the illusion that Sierra Leone would have been rescued if the international community, led by the United Kingdom, had not intervened by force of arms. In their response to our report, the Government describe that as

"demonstrable security; in Sierra Leone this was provided for by a large and effective international UN-led peace-keeping force working closely with the National Security Force to give confidence to both refugees and international aid workers to return."

Some of us were fortunate to have a briefing from the editor of Africa Confidential. He commented that, even in Sierra Leone, with the help of UK forces, the situation is still fragile and is still threatened by Liberia, another failing state. One of the features of failing states is that they not only fail their own people, but invariably risk the security of neighbouring countries. No one is under any illusions that, had it not been for UN and UK intervention in Sierra Leone, the situation would not have improved; nor is anyone under the illusion that, had it not been for the coalition intervening in Afghanistan by force of arms, the Taliban would not have been defeated and Afghanistan would not be, as it is now, taking steps towards reconstruction and democracy.

However, as demonstrated by the recent murder at Kabul airport of a member of the Afghan Cabinet, security in Afghanistan is still pretty notional. Kabul is the only part of the country where the international security assistance force is helping to maintain security. Even there, the concept of security still seems fairly illusory. I turn to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. In The Sunday Telegraph of last week, Robert Fox, who recently spent a week with the UK forces in Kabul, reported that

"crime politics and peacekeeping are inextricably linked in Kabul. A spate of robberies and looting plaguing the city is believed to involve the local Police Force, gangster warlords, and the political parties...There are 100,000 or so men of the Northern Alliance still armed on the streets. They are supposed to be disarmed under the Bonn and Tokyo Future of Afghanistan Agreement to be replaced by June by a trained army of up to 60,000 but the transition is turning into a typical Afghan shambles...At the heart of the difficulties is the fact that so far not a cent of the US$2 billion reconstruction funding, voted by the Tokyo agreement, has found its way to Kabul...nobody is prepared to pay the police and there is no scheme for demobilising the armies."

The consequence of what appears to be some UN procrastination is the high possibility that Turkey will not assume the lead role for the international security force on the premise that it cannot see a clear mandate. UK forces will then become stuck there, and the Prime Minister's commitment that British troops will be in Afghanistan for only 90 days seems overly optimistic. That is all the more surprising because, when President Karzai of Afghanistan was in London recently, he asked the Prime Minister whether the United Kingdom would commit a larger number of troops for a longer time to peacekeeping in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister declined. I do not think that that was an unreasonable response by the Government.

Setting aside our own security needs in Northern Ireland, UK troops are currently involved in peacekeeping in 37 countries throughout the world, many of which will at times have appeared terminally conflict ridden, such as Sierra Leone, East Timor and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In recent years, there have been few occasions when UK troops have not been part of UN peacekeeping operations. Unlike Turkey, the Foreign Secretary can see a clear mandate for the United Kingdom Government and asserts that the international security force will give the United Kingdom an international role with which it is comfortable.

However, those who had hoped that the end of the cold war would bring an enduring peace dividend must now recognise the position. In the foreword to the slightly bizarre recent Green Paper on private military companies, the Foreign Secretary said:

"we find ourselves in a world of small wars, and weak states. Many of these states need outside help to maintain security at home. There may also be an increasing need for intervention by the International community."

Sixty-three countries currently contribute peacekeeping troops to the UN but, as the Green Paper further observes,

"it is clear that at least some countries that contribute to UN peacekeeping do so largely for financial reasons. Forces that are supplied are often of poor quality and badly equipped, but since the UN is dealing with a sovereign state and since it has great difficulty in recruiting forces for peacekeeping operations in the first place, it is rarely able to hold the providing states to account."

Some countries, including even members of the Security Council of the United Nations such as China, make little or no contribution to UN peacekeeping. China, which, after all, has approximately a quarter of the world's population, has just one - yes, one - troop person committed to UN peacekeeping, although I am not sure where he or she is.

There is little point in the international community getting food aid to Afghanistan or other countries if we cannot be confident that it will be distributed for want of security. As the Select Committee observed,

"secondary distribution has been inadequate because of the lack of security over large parts of Afghanistan. The collapse of the Taleban did not bring the safe humanitarian space which had been hoped for. It often substitutes one security concern for another."

It was that concern about the potential failure of secondary distribution that caused us to observe:

"We believe that food should not be counted as distributed until NGOs and local partners contracted to carry out the distribution have confirmed that the food has been distributed."

If sustained food security is symbiotic with conflict resolution, when the World Bank's reconstruction paper claims that

"the time is right to prepare for Afghanistan's post-conflict reconstruction"

and that

"political development, humanitarian relief and reconstruction are likely to overlap",

enhanced security will surely be the ratchet for successful reconstruction.

The international community must collectively give such issues urgent thought. For example, when is it right for the international community to intervene in the affairs of member states? In Freetown, the Prime Minister said that there was

"a strong sense of will in the international community that Sierra Leone was not going to be allowed to descend into chaos and conflict, but had to be rescued and helped for the future."

Is there now a principle of international law that, having regard to factors such as levels of conflict and violence that are sometimes aggravated by natural disasters such as floods, a country can effectively be deemed to be a failed state, and the United Nations is entitled to intervene in whatever way it feels appropriate to rescue the people of that country? If there is to be such a definition in international law, the international community must will the UN the means to ensure security in the countries concerned. That means far more countries being willing to commit peacekeeping forces more generally and readily to the UN Secretary-General.

Incidentally, I do not believe that there is any role for mercenaries in UN peacekeeping, as was suggested in the Foreign Secretary's Green Paper. For example, Frederick Forsyth observed of the mercenaries involved in the Biafra conflict that

"most of them were little more than thugs in uniform".

The Foreign Secretary's suggestion that

"A strong and reputable private military sector might have a role in enabling the UN to respond more rapidly and more effectively in a crisis"

is a complete non-starter. Other hon. Members may have a different view.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Does my hon. Friend agree that the comment by the distinguished journalist and novelist Frederick Forsyth is based on a great deal more understanding of the sharp end of conflicts than the rather banal and jejune views expressed by the Foreign Secretary, and that we should listen carefully to that distinguished Reuters correspondent, who has witnessed what happens in such places?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend makes his own point.

This is not intended to be a partisan comment, but I genuinely do not understand the purpose of the Foreign Secretary's Green Paper. I do not suggest, and I would be surprised if any hon. Member were to do so, that the lack of international security and peacekeepers could be met by the UN employing mercenaries. I make that point for the avoidance of doubt. To whom would such troops be accountable? Surely, armed forces should have a direct line of command and be subject to political control. Ultimately, when a national Government guarantee a country's security, they must also recruit and maintain that country's armed forces. In the long term, to delegate that function is to abdicate an essential responsibility of government as a concept.

The murder of the Afghan Cabinet Minister has been rightly interpreted as a political murder and a treachery against the Afghan Government. It was, however, also treachery against the Afghan people. That clearly raises concerns about the unity of the Government and the country as a whole. One day, however, they will need to rely on the security provided by a homogeneous armed force - an Afghan force, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby observed. Only then will reconstruction flourish and Afghan civil society start to gel.

More countries must be willing to commit peacekeeping forces more generally and more readily to the UN Secretary-General at a time when the most powerful country in the world, the United States, is preparing to redefine its international relationships and to focus on hostile countries, which it believes pose an immediate threat to its national security, sponsor terrorism and develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Its concern is not primarily failing or failed states, but regimes or countries that it sees as a threat. The projection of US military power alone will not, however, ensure global security. The lesson of 11 September is surely that the world welcomes United States leadership and commitment, but that it must be exercised in partnership. There is a need for international co-operation on an unprecedented scale. The coalition would not have achieved what it did in Afghanistan had it not been for the constructive support and co-operation of President Musharraf and the Government of Pakistan.

Recent events have surely demonstrated the interconnectedness of our world and perhaps reinforced the clear correlation between countries in which United Nations and NGO workers are attacked and those that we deem a security threat to ourselves. I alluded earlier to one such country, Sierra Leone, where the sale of diamonds is inextricably linked to conflict. Opium is to Afghanistan what diamonds are to Sierra Leone, and farmers grow poppies because they offer the prospect of being the most profitable crop. Those poppies are almost certainly the source of the opium that becomes the heroin that is conveyed across Asia to the street corners of Europe, where it will threaten our children.

The world must reflect on the fact that its interdependence makes us all dependent on the resolution of conflicts. The world does not want, at worst, ever-increasing armies of mercenaries or, at best, the United States using its military power to intervene only when it feels threatened. The world needs a strong United Nations, with member states that are willing to commit the necessary means to the Secretary-General. Otherwise, the world will simply stumble from crisis to crisis.

Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton): I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the United States. Does he agree that US targeting of Iran will very likely have a significant impact on the future of Afghanistan?

Tony Baldry: I was fortunate enough to visit Iran two years ago, and it was clear that many people were desperately trying to modernise the country. I am not sure that describing Iran as part of an "axis of evil" will help the modernisers; indeed, it will reinforce the position of the hardliners. The point that I am trying to make is that we must think about failing and failed states, not simply about countries that we feel are a security threat. That is a personal view, and colleagues may take a different view. The world must, however, accept its interconnectedness, and we must ensure that the United Nations has the means and the will to act.

We must also recognise that electorates in countries such as the UK will become increasingly weary of committing troops and taking on what increasingly seems to be an unreasonable burden of peacekeeping duties. I have not checked the figures, but I suspect that few other countries have committed proportionally as many troops to UN peacekeeping operations as we have. That raises considerable concerns about overstretch.

Norman Lamb (North Norfolk): I fully share the hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of trying to persuade other countries to join in the peacekeeping operation. I also accept how overstretched this country could become and may already be. Given the possibility that Turkey will not assume its proposed responsibilities at the end of our period of peacekeeping, does the hon. Gentleman think that the British Government should maintain their peacekeeping operation in Kabul and Afghanistan beyond that date?

Tony Baldry: I suspect that the UK Government will have little choice other than to stay in Kabul. The question is, for how long? It would be a great tragedy if the international security assistance force were to be withdrawn now. It looks as though we shall have to stay there for the foreseeable future, at least until the UN Secretary-General can find another country that is willing to accept the burden, but it is an unreasonable burden for the UK to bear alone. The Prime Minister was right to decline when the President of Afghanistan asked for more forces. We are already doing more than play our role in UN peacekeeping around the world.

I hope that the Select Committee report paid sufficient tribute to those who are working for UN agencies and NGOs in Afghanistan, because we have been impressed by their professionalism and commitment. We have also been grateful to them for the evidence that they have given us and for updating us, even as recently as last Tuesday. Frequent tribute has been paid, both by witnesses giving evidence to the Select Committee and by those whom we met in Pakistan, to the Department for International Development and the UK Government, who have often been first to come up with funds and have frequently been first on the scene. However, we should never underestimate the cost of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Somewhat worryingly, when the Select Committee was in Brussels talking to EU commissioners and officials, it was made clear to us that, in order to meet the EU contribution to the Afghanistan reconstruction programme, every single metaphorical cupboard had been stripped bare and the EU had no further funds for any other Afghan-type humanitarian disaster. I do not want to spend time now discussing the priorities of EU aid - that will be included in our forthcoming report -

Mr. Robathan: And the Moroccan fisheries.

Tony Baldry: Indeed. As my hon. Friend says, one of the budgets raided was that which provided support for Moroccan fisheries. I am unsure why the EU requires a Moroccan fisheries support programme but, again, we shall return to that in our next report.

The Commission made it clear that it simply had no further funds for any subsequent Afghan-type crisis. We can never underestimate the long-term costs of failed states, and we must give more thought to what we can do to help failing and failed states. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) are shortly going to Sudan, a country that has been in conflict for almost 40 years.

The Select Committee is committed to undertaking a further inquiry into the reconstruction needs of Afghanistan, so I am sure that we shall return to this issue time and time again during the lifetime of this Parliament. Likewise, we shall have to return to the issue of peacekeeping in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, especially to consider who authorises and pays the peacekeepers, and to whom the peacekeepers are accountable. I suspect that the House will have to return to the whole question of security in Afghanistan and the need for security to guarantee humanitarian food distribution.