It did not rise to the level of the last big parliamentary event following a failure of UK defence, but there were still giants in the House when Argentine's takeover of the Falklands was debated. There were some highlights, though. Most of the genuine feeling was expressed by women MPs, who understandably feared for the future not only of female MPs, judges and other officials in Afghanistan, but of all girls in education. On the other side, most men were concerned by the loss of face on the part of our military, though the United States' unilateral decision to withdraw all support came in for criticism.
The prime minister seemed ill at ease but was able to announce a resettlement scheme for a limited number of Afghan refugees. In interventions, he was challenged to make this allocation additional to the current 20,000 target for asylum-seekers, to provide emergency funding to local authorities who will bear the brunt of resettlement and to cut the bureaucracy hindering Afghans at risk seeking asylum here.
One Labour MP asserted that right up until last week, immigrants were still being repatriated to Kabul as being a safe place. Ironically, for the short term at least, Kabul is probably safer than it has been for years given the Taliban leaders' determination to present an acceptable face to the world. The gravest, and increased risk, is in the provinces after the withdrawal of UK military personnel who could have protected locally-employed staff of both the military and NGOs such as the British Council. Many MPs, in speeches and in interventions, pointed out the need for safe corridors to either Kabul or to the Pakistan border so that those people we owed a duty of care to, could escape. Tragedies could have been avoided, of course, if the Tory government had granted asylum immediately that the danger to locally-employed Afghans had become apparent, over a year ago.
The PM also ignored demands for the so-called anti-migrant legislation, the Nationality and Borders Bill, to be dropped in view of the Afghan emigration emergency. Sadly, the leader of the opposition, also failed to add his voice to the demands, even when prompted to by Caroline Lucas of the Greens. Nor did he endorse Layla Moran's demand for a safe corridor. Sir Keir's contribution was a disappointment all round. He devoted virtually all his speech to an attack on prime ministerial failings, with no constructive content at all. This was in contrast to Johnson's opening speech and indeed the foreign secretary's summing-up which, to their credit, eschewed political point-scoring. More depressingly, Ed Davey was guilty of the same fault. It got worse when Ian Blackford spoke - at length - for the third party in the House. Tory back-benchers could not resist using the occasion to snipe at SNP-controlled Glasgow City Council and the Scottish government.
Those MPs (who included Sir Keir) who attacked the fundamentalism of the Taliban and condemned the armed overthrow of the elected government were not all on firm moral high ground. Many were silent when the army seized power in Egypt and welcomed the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and the UAE whose failings on human rights and justice are well-known.
"We do not abandon our friends in their hour of need" was one cry. Too many of those friends in Kabul were taking Western aid money and sticking it in their back pocket instead of spreading it where it was needed. Too many commanders were inventing "ghost soldiers" and pocketing their pay - incidentally, making the hard-pressed Afghan army look larger than it actually was.
Theresa May, who looks more statesmanlike out of office than she ever was in it, asked what it said about NATO when it can be by-passed by a unilateral decision by the president of the USA. In response to an intervention from Alistair Carmichael she agreed, with hindsight, that it would have been more sensible to have looked at functionally devolved government when the Taliban were first ousted twenty years ago. Stuart Hosie of the SNP later asked rhetorically why there were always funds, voted for by Parliament and by Congress, to wage war but never for reconstruction and to win the peace.
The failure to consult other NATO nations was echoed in other speeches, mainly from the Tory benches. Democrat president Biden ("more concerned about the mid-term elections than the people of Afghanistan") came in for most criticism, but Republican Donald Trump's decision to sell out the Afghan government by making a back-stairs agreement with the Taliban was also condemned. There were those on both sides who felt that Johnson could have done more to dissuade either president from a commitment to pulling US support out. It made a mockery of Johnson's boasts about UK's influence in the world.
The presidents' slur on the bravery of UK and Afghan troops was condemned in a moving speech by Tom Tugendhat, one of many members who had served in Afghanistan. He also implied that NATO had had its day and that the UK should actively be seeking multilateral and bilateral military alliances around the globe.
On the Liberal Democrat benches, in addition to Alistair Carmichael, Jamie Stone and Layla Moran made up for their party leader's failure by avoiding political knockabout and asking pertinent questions. Moran drew attention to the vulnerable position of the Hazara community in Afghanistan. Earlier, Chris Bryant had predicted the genocide of known homosexuals under the Taliban. Both groups as I understand it are protected under the 2004 constitution which it is feared the Taliban will tear up.
There may be more tomorrow when I have had a chance to read the official Hansard report.
No comments:
Post a Comment