Category: Foreign Affairs

The speech made by Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, on 17 January 2006.

Thank you very much Stephen, and you are all very welcome indeed to this, the India Office Council Chamber. It is a room which illustrates just by itself a part of our history. This building was once four government departments, not one. Where we are now was the centre of the India Office, over in the opposite corner of the main courtyard was the Colonial Office, the Home Office stuck at the front – where they could be in the front line of the brickbats from the hoi polloi in Whitehall, and the Foreign Office comfortably round the side.

May I particularly congratulate you, Stephen. I, like all of your parliamentary colleagues, were very sorry about the circumstances in which you became available for work, but I have to say that our loss has very much been the Foreign Policy Centre’s gain; and you are following in fine footsteps taking up where Mark Leonard left off.

As we have heard from Stephen, tonight’s event is about launching the centre’s membership for key partners. Some of you here– the Corporation of London, GKN, Linklaters, BP and others –are already members of this organisation, and I hope that by the end of the evening others will have been persuaded.

You don’t want too long a speech, but what I want to do is just to offer you my thoughts on some of the big foreign policy challenges in the year ahead, which I bring together as three regions and three themes.

Three Regions

First, three regions. One, the Middle East. It has dominated much of our international politics for decades, and it will continue to do so. But over the next year Israel and the Palestinian people are going to have to adjust to a political landscape no longer dominated by Ariel Sharon. And we have to maintain the momentum which has built up over the last two years towards a relative peace, however difficult. It is always difficult there, but the fact that the levels of killings on each side has gone down so dramatically is an indication that gradually, and by fits and starts, politics is taking over from violence. But all of us who know the region also know that you have got to keep working these accounts if we are to ensure that progress continues. Iran and Syria remain big challenges and they have to make up their mind whether they want to work with the international community, or against it. Other governments in the region have to decide whether they are serious about political and economic reform, an issue which was discussed yesterday at a very important conference on counter-terrorism which RUSI ran yesterday – not tangentially but at the heart of the debate. At the conference, the Foreign Minister for Saudi Arabia and I spoke about this in the context of counter-terrorism, because (to pick up a point that Condi Rice made recently in a very important and reflective speech), if we look at the record of the West towards the Middle East and other countries, for decades the United States – for which also read Western Europe – had placed stability as a higher priority than democracy, and it ended up by getting neither. If we are now, as we are, committed to democracy as the means by which you achieve stability, rather than the reverse, we also have to be prepared where there are democratic elections, and where they are run fairly, to accept the result. That applies domestically, it also applies abroad.

The second region is Europe. We had a good Presidency. We opened talks on Turkish membership and we agreed a budget. And I may say we did much else besides that, including agreement on the Reach Chemicals Directive. We almost got political agreement on the Services Directive. Now that we are handing over to the Austrians, we can expect to see the United Kingdom pushing the modernisation agenda even harder. What we will be looking at is how the Union can concentrate on what it does well, and spend less time on those things which can be done better at a national level. At a meeting earlier today of a Cabinet Committee on Europe, which I chaired, it is called the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was making the point that there was a great story about what we and the Commission had stopped happening, partly during our Presidency. This is our work to make a reality of better regulation. We have worked very closely with Gunther Verhoigen, the excellent Vice President of the Commission who is in charge, with the Commission, of reducing the regulatory burden in Europe. I think as a result of that 68 draft directives have been stopped in their tracks and won’t ever see the light of day. One of them (Alan Johnson couldn’t have made this up, because none of us could have made this up) was a proposal seriously going through the machine of the European Union, which would have regulated at a European level those Two for One, or Three for Two offers that you can get in Tesco or Sainsbury’s. I mean I think I probably would have been the only person in the world who would have appreciated this, because every time I go to Tesco or Sainsbury’s with my son, and I think oh well I will have one of those Three for Two offers, or Three for One offers, he says: ‘No Dad, do you actually want more than one?’ I think that explains economic theory, but aside from him everybody else thinks why don’t we just make up our own mind about it, we don’t actually need a European directive. That is one example of a great many. So I think we did pretty well, but we have got to carry on in that direction, and one of the other things we were looking at today was the Working Time Directive where we came within a whisker of getting political agreement on a satisfactory solution both to the directive and the opt-out, and also for those involved in the health field, a reverse of some European Court of Justice decisions in Simap and Jaeger.

The third area I wanted to talk about was Asia, and particularly India and China. And it is interesting how both countries have really come up the agenda in the last few years. There are real opportunities for Britain here. For example in 2003 Chinese imports, that is into China, grew by 40%. Merrill Lynch estimates that in less than five years China itself will account for 20% of the global market in luxury goods, again an opportunity for importing and for services. Its advertising market is already worth an estimated £6.4 billion a year. But we do have to be flexible and organised if we are going to take advantage of these opportunities, and we also have to continue to encourage China and India as responsible partners on the global political stage. They will for example both be major participants in the increasingly important debate on climate change.

Three Themes

Now the three themes. And I move from climate change in India and China to the first of these three themes, which is energy security. Your centre, Stephen, has done a great deal of work on this, as it showed in its September report, but what happened over the New Year between Russia and Ukraine, which then had a very substantial impact on the rest of western Europe, shows how crucial it is that we develop more effective policies for ensuring energy security.

The second theme was development, and particularly in Africa. Part of this is making sure that the international community follows through on last year’s promises on aid and debt relief. I am proud of much that this government has done, and I am particularly proud of our record on development where we have said that we would increase our aid, and we have increased both the amount of the aid and the quality. Where we say that we are going to make a pledge, we then ensure that it is paid. I have to say that we are generally the exception rather than the rule in doing what we say we are going to do. The aftermath of donor conferences is usually a rather sad affair when the actual reality of whether people are going to pay up doesn’t match the original promise. It leads to a very sour taste, particularly amongst those who thought they were going to be the recipients. So getting others in the donor community, not us, to do what they say they are going to do is important. But, as Hilary Benn has often made clear, in the end we are only going to make poverty history if we get the developing countries themselves to understand their clear responsibilities. And that means their general responsibility to good government and their particular responsibility in very difficult situations, for example in the Sudan or in both Eritrea and Ethiopia at the moment.

The third theme is the global terrorist threat, which was indeed the theme of yesterday’s conference. This means disrupting the organisation and operation of terrorist networks, undermining their propaganda, supporting good governance and democracy, and dealing with the sources of discontent which are so skilfully exploited by the preachers of hatred and violence. And as part of that I have made a very personal commitment, which I am pleased to say got into our manifesto, which is the establishment, which will take time but I am determined it should happen, of an international arms trade treaty at the United Nations.

Now underpinning all of these areas will be our strategic relationship with the United States and our active membership of the European Union. What I have said is in no sense the totality of our agenda, it is simply a sketch, as I say, of three key areas and of three key themes. There is a huge amount else to do.

One of the things however that we are trying to do much more within the Foreign Office is to be explicit about our strategy and sharing the way in which that strategy is developed. So three years ago I published a strategy document for foreign policy which was drawn up in consultation with the whole of Whitehall. It wasn’t, therefore, just for the Foreign Office, it was a strategy for government as a whole. We are now going through the process of revising that strategy document and I aim to publish the revised version later in Spring.

Everybody here, particularly corporate members, is busy, but I hope that you will be able to see organisations like Stephen’s, not least Stephen’s organisation – the Foreign Policy Centre – as a means by which your ideas can filter through into our generation of this policy. The strategy was generally welcomed, but even in the last three years things have changed. There was a big chunk in the last strategy document about energy security, but it has got to be an even bigger chunk this time and a tougher chunk this time about how we deal with the real risks that we all face. One of the most important roles of operational think tanks like the FPC is working.

It was my late friend and colleague, Robin Cook, who helped to get this Centre going. He saw it as a bridge – in his own words as a ‘two-way think exchange’ between government and society. And the success of Britain’s foreign policy is in no small part determined by how effectively this exchange works.

The FPC since its launch 8 years ago really has done great work, I know it continues to do it under Stephen’s leadership and I wish you well and wish the corporate members well. This new partnership should be a very great strength to the Centre, but also to the partners as well. Thank you very much indeed.

The comments made by Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, on 25 January 2006.

Let me begin with a confession. There are many aspects of the job of Foreign Secretary which I love. But – and I suspect that my good friend, Abdullah [Gul] might sympathise here – the daily ritual of answering huge piles of mail is not top of that list.

However, every so often, in amongst the complaints, the bad news and the requests for the impossible, I find one letter which truly brightens my day. Such letters are always welcome; but none more so than the one which invited me to come here tonight to receive this award. Accepting that invitation was certainly one of the easier and more pleasant decisions I have had to make.

It is indeed an immense honour to receive this award from you. And I want to thank the President of the High Advisory Council, Mustafa Koc, the Chairman of the Board, Omer Sabanci, and all the members of TUSIAD for the friendship and support which this award represents.

Now, as I have said, I count Abdullah as a friend. We have worked together closely for many years and on many difficult tasks. It is always a pleasure to see him – and tonight is no exception. But I don’t think that there has ever been a time when I have been happier to glimpse him heading in my direction than on a cold night in Luxembourg just under four months ago.

That night was a night to remember. But in accepting this award, I am conscious of two things. First, that the credit for getting agreement to open membership talks does not fall to any single person, group or country. And second, that we are at the beginning of a process and not at the end.

In October, we were proud to play our role as Presidency. There were obstacles to be overcome. But with courage and flexibility we were able to do so. The political leadership shown by all sides that night was crucial. But – and this is something which I wrote to Omer Sabanci when I first accepted this award – our success was above all a reflection of Turkey’s own accomplishments over recent years; and an acknowledgement of this country’s future within Europe. In the end, we opened accession talks in October because it was in all our interests to do so – in Turkey’s interest, in the interest of the European Union as a whole, and of every other individual state.

Economically, the European single market will be stronger by expanding to take in a country which in 2006 is projected to see an impressive GDP growth of around six per cent – more than three times the average growth in the EU-25. This is also a country which attracted foreign investment to the tune of US$ 24 billion last year – hard evidence that the private sector has firm faith in Turkey’s future.

And there is no better reminder of the political importance of Turkey than this great city itself. For thousands of years Istanbul has been a bridge between Asia and Europe; and during that long and illustrious history it has been a centre for both the Christian and Muslim faiths.

Turkey’s geographical position is of huge strategic importance, with such interesting neighbours such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and Georgia, as well as EU partners Bulgaria and Greece. I applaud Turkey for the contribution it is playing in difficult dossiers like Iran Nuclear; and on Iraq where an important meeting in December held here encouraged the Sunni communities to take part in last months elections – and on the MEPP, where the Government of Turkey facilitated last years historic meeting between Israel and Pakistan. We already depend on Turkey for good cooperation against terrorism, drug trafficking and illegal migration, and increasingly for the security of energy supplies to Europe.

Despite these mutual dependencies on Turkey, it is no secret that some people within the European Union worry about the potential impact of Turkish membership, especially on their jobs and livelihoods. European leaders have a responsibility to allay those fears and to set out to their citizens the overwhelmingly positive case – as I have above –– for Turkey, when ready, joining the Union.

We in the United Kingdom – Government and business alike – are in absolutely no doubt that our own interests lie in ever closer partnership with this modern, European country. The United Kingdom and Turkey have enjoyed a good bilateral relationship for many years. In 2004, Prime Ministers Blair and Erdogan signed an action plan to further bolster bilateral ties. And the relationship now is closer than it’s ever been.

Today, the United Kingdom is the second largest destination for Turkish exports, bilateral trade between our two countries stands at around US$ 10 billion per annum. There are 400 British companies in operation here. A single British company, Vodafone, is investing over US$ 4.5 billion here. Another, BP, is the largest single shareholder in the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Some of the chief executives of the largest of those British companies are here tonight: Vodafone, International Power, HSBC and Diageo. Also present is Ladbrokes, which is interested in the privatisation of the Turkish lottery.

And, of course, it’s not just about exchanges in goods and capital. The British Council – which runs cultural and educational exchanges – has a bigger operation in Turkey than in any of the current EU-25 member states. On a very personal note, the Turkish footballer Tugay Kerimoglu has been terrific as a team member of Blackburn Rovers on the field; but he is also a great ambassador for Turkey and imperceptibly I believe the presence in our team of a player of the Muslim faith has encouraged more of my Muslim constituents to attend matches. And last year around 1.8 million British tourists came to Turkey – a year on year increase of nearly 30 per cent, in spite of July’s cowardly terrorist attacks in Kusadasi and other resorts.

The second point I wanted to make this evening is this. On October 3rd we ended a long journey dating back to Turkey’s original association agreement with the EEC in 1963. But we also embarked on a new road which may take a decade or more and which will require continued flexibility and commitment from all sides. That process, leading to full membership, of itself draws Turkey, its people and its institutions closer to Europe.

A settlement on Cyprus – under the good offices of the UN Secretary General and under the authority of a number of UN Security Council Resolutions – is, of course, vital.

Before I came here, I visited Cyprus I shall be reporting back to Kofi Annan, Ursula Plassnick (EU Presidency) and Olli Rehn (EU Enlargement Commissioner). I welcome Abdullah Gul’s proposals on Cyprus set out in his speech yesterday. If I may so, Abdullah, you rightly say the current deadlock works against the interest of all. I welcome the priority the Turkish Government continues to give to the tasks of finding a lasting and just comprehensive settlement, and to your willingness to take concrete steps to improve the overall atmosphere in the region. Like Olli Rehn I believe that these proposals should be examined with care.

Both the European Union and Turkey have responsibilities they must fulfil in regard of Cyprus: Turkey to apply the Ankara Protocol fully to all member states and to normalise relations with them as soon as possible; we to find a way of ending the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots and for them to trade with the rest of the European Union. These are separate tracks but they must both work.

My belief is that the very process of holding accession talks – the daily, mundane business of political engagement – will help break barriers and give impetus to the resolution of this dispute; much as it was an important element in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland resolving our differences over Northern Ireland. But – just as in that long-running problem – it will require bold leadership and some tough decisions.

It’s also important, of course, that the momentum for reform and modernisation is maintained; and that the political will of Prime Minister Erdogan’s government – which is not in any doubt – is reflected in the decisions taken by those applying laws on the ground. Thankfully the case against Orhan Pamuk has now been dropped but there are a number of others ongoing, and I know that Abdullah and his colleagues are all to aware that such cases have the potential overshadow Turkey’s considerable achievements over the past few years.

I’m aware that I’ve been speaking for quite a while. If I was receiving an award at the Oscars they would have started up the orchestra and bundled me off stage by now. So may I just finish by once again thanking all the members of TUSIAD for this Bosphorus Prize for European Understanding. In all honesty, I cannot think of an award I would rather receive.

The speech made by Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, on 28 January 2006.

In time to come historians will say of the last five years of the Middle East not that the sands had shifted but that the earth had moved: something profound and sustainable – though not irreversible – happened over that period: the number of potential nuclear weapon states in the wider Middle East reduced from four to two; there was the removal of a dictator who not only terrorised his own people but actively supported terrorism elsewhere in the region and sought wider regional domination; and there was the beginnings of democratic change in many – but by no means all – Middle Eastern states.

Against these more positive developments there is the fact that Iran, its likely nuclear weapons ambitions, and its sickening, horrific hostility to Israel and to Jewish people have made it a much bigger problem than five years ago. There is the fragility of governance and the intensity of terrorism within Iraq. And this new power but greater potential instability from the increase in the oil price. But Iran, Iraq and the oil price are being debated thoroughly in other sessions.

So let me in this session concentrate on one of the biggest tests of all in the Middle East, the transfer of power from elite to street – otherwise known as democracy. All the countries represented here and which are now democracies have followed different routes and time-scales in arriving at that state of grace. In countries like Iraq, the timescale is likely to be remarkably short. Many countries in the European Union have only been democracies for a decade or so: and in some, indeed many, it took violent convulsions to kick start the process. For the UK the process has been more gradual over centuries and more benign. But whatever the route, whatever the timescale, the argument was always the same: could the mob, the mass, the hoi polloi, ‘the street’ be trusted. What if, as the old communists used to say, the proletariat showed a false consciousness or simply came up with the wrong answer? Let’s be clear – I do not take that view. I’ve lived by democratic elections all my life.

Indeed, it’s when you get the so-called wrong answer that the faith of the elite and the powerful in a democracy can really be tested. That faith is being tested here and now in the occupied territories following Hamas’s unexpected victory in Wednesday’s PLC election.

Already there are those saying within the Palestinian Authority, in Israel and beyond: ‘We should never have listened to the US, the UK, the quartet, the European Union. The Palestinians have given the wrong answer: how much better if elections had simply been stalled yet again, having been stalled for many years in the past.’

But I do not agree. Condoleeza Rice was correct last year when she said that the US had traditionally pursued security over democracy, but had got neither – and she is still right. Let’s look at the counterfactuals. Yes, there is a problem now in the Occupied Territories; it’s a problem for Hamas. But the ‘wrong answer’ approach leads straight back to Saddam Hussein; or as a western backed coup d’etat to overturn the results of an election, military rule and decades of insurgency and bloodshed. And the ‘wrong answer’ approach above all leads to a loss of moral leadership by the West as critics would fairly say that our subscription to democracy is only skin deep.

Instead, what we have to do from this result is ensure that it provides a wider lesson in democracy. Democracy is – yes –about universal suffrage, free and fair elections and the respecting of results; but much more too. There are fundamental principles on which democracies absolutely depend: the first of these is that democracy and violence are incompatible; the ballot and the bullet cannot be used interchangeably – democracy by terrorism is no democracy at all, ever. The second principle is that democracy involves a bond of trust between electors and the elected – that the latter will deliver by peaceful, non-violent means. The third, in the specific context of the Middle East, is that Israel, a democracy itself, has a right to exist, and that no governing authority inside the occupied territories can deliver without dealing with Israel. I just add this parenthetically about Hamas’s victory. Many have been surprised by the result. But I suspect none more so than the Hamas leadership itself. They wanted to be the opposition – enjoy negative power and no responsibility. Now the responsibilities they have are much greater than their power – a truth for all leaders of all democracies. And any of these leaders have to be on notice to meet those responsibilities.

As to the rest of the Middle East, within a complex reality, and with Iran moving backwards we can see an overall shift in the direction of reform and democratic institutions. In Lebanon a popular political movement was followed by that country’s first credible national elections since the civil war in May and June of last year. In Iraq, we had two sets of elections and a referendum which despite the threat of terrorism attracted higher levels of voter participation than are seen in much better established democracies. Algeria held a referendum in September on a charter for peace and reconciliation. Opinions on the charter remain divided but the participation of the Algerian people in that decision was broadly welcomed. Morocco has just published an extensive report on past human rights abuses. And Kuwait has approved suffrage for women. And while I don’t wish to underplay the problems and violence of the Presidential and Parliamentary elections last year in Egypt, it is true that they still remain the most representative in that country’s history.

I said at the beginning that this shift of power from elite to street was profound and sustainable but not necessarily irreversible. Whether it can become thus, whether we will see what the United Nations Arab Development Report called “ a new renaissance” now depends, in my judgement, on the collection of decisions which the international community, the region and above all Hamas make.

The text of the speech made by Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, on 1 February 2006.

Let me first thank Lord Hannay for his introduction and say how delighted I was to hear he has been appointed as Chairman of the UNA. It is difficult to think of anyone more suited for the position. His skill as a diplomat and advocate is matched only by his profound knowledge of and commitment to the United Nations.

And may I also extend a welcome to everyone here tonight – and in particular to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan.

As Lord Hannay has said, tonight we are marking the 60th anniversary of the first plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly – though as you probably know, that first gathering, which the newspapers of the time affectionately referred to as “the town meeting of the world”, actually took place a little earlier in the month – January 10th to be precise.

When that first General Assembly gathered here in Methodist Central Hall it was, I understand, rather to the annoyance of the congregation who were forced to decamp to the London Coliseum and who expressed deep disquiet at the idea of gin-swilling diplomats being allowed on the premises.

Indeed, it wasn’t a foregone conclusion that this would be the venue. Many of the officials in the Preparatory Commission advocated holding the meeting on the other side of Parliament Square in the great medieval chamber of Westminster Hall. In the end, this building won out for the rather prosaic reasons of heating and acoustics.

It was, though, rather an apt venue for the United Nations – an organisation committed to freedom, peace and equality. The Suffragettes met here in 1914; Mahatma Gandhi spoke here in 1931; it was in this building, in 1940, that General de Gaulle announced the foundation of the Free French movement. And throughout the war, the basement served as one of the biggest air raid shelters in London, providing safety for hundreds of people.

The minutes of that first meeting of the United Nations are fascinating. They reverberate with a real sense of the optimism and idealism. Much of what was said still resonates today. The British Prime Minster Clement Atlee spoke eloquently of how the welfare of each nation was bound up with the welfare of the world as a whole; how, in his words, “we are truly all members one of another”. If that was true in 1946 – and it was – it is even more true in today’s interconnected world.

There are even some early examples of the pitfalls which can befall those of us who appear at the United Nations; the British Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, didn’t realise his microphone was on and the entire Security Council heard him mutter: “..the bloody Chairman has double-crossed me again”.

There is one thing which stands out from the minutes of those early meetings. Many of the people in this room that day were veterans of the League of Nations. Aware of the tragic consequences of that organisation’s failings they were absolutely determined that the United Nations would be new and different; it must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

So the recognition of the need to change and adapt in the face of each new challenge has always been vital to the success of the United Nations. And no-one has shown more commitment to this task than tonight’s guest of honour, Kofi Annan.

As Secretary General, he has not been afraid to engender debate on questions which are as sensitive as they are important. For example, he has forcefully challenged the idea that states can hide behind their sovereignty to defend human rights abuse. He used his voice to urge the international community to agree upon its collective responsibility to protect vulnerable populations from the worst atrocities: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Similarly, Kofi has worked to cut through the ambiguity and equivocation which has surrounded the definition of terrorism. And in the fractious aftermath to the war in Iraq, it was he who spoke of a fork in the road and who helped to heal divisions.

His long career in the United Nations, at the World Health Organisation and UNHCR in Geneva, at the Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, in the Secretariat in New York and on various special assignments equipped him to drive reform of the United Nations machinery itself. His important reports in 1997 and 2002 on UN reform showed how the organisation could be made much more efficient. Making good the Charter’s “We the peoples”, under his stewardship the UN is more open than ever before, with wider access for civil society and more participation by the private sector through initiatives such as the Global Compact. Last year, his report “In larger freedom” set out a vision for a United Nations better able to bring development, security and human rights for all.

No-one – least of all Kofi – underestimates the scale of the challenges ahead both for the United Nations and for its member states. Take a quick glance at the headlines on any given day in the past week – worries over climate change, uncertainty in the Palestinian Authority, concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the complex dispute in Cyprus. If we are to meet these challenges – and many others besides – the international community will need a strong United Nations.

At the World Summit last year we agreed a programme of reform at the United Nations that will make it a more effective organisation. We must maintain that momentum. This means ensuring that the recently created Peacebuilding Commission becomes an effective body and it means establishing a Human Rights Council which avoids the weaknesses of the existing Commission. Modernising the administration will dominate the agenda for the first half of 2006. In particular, we look forward to the Secretary General’s imminent recommendations on how we should reprioritise programme activity across the organisation.

At the same time, we need to strengthen the international consensus in support of the non-proliferation regime and against the threat of global terrorism. There is still a lot more we must do if we are to meet the Millennium Development Goals; and in Africa progress is further threatened by ongoing conflicts such as those in Darfur and the Great Lakes and worsening situations like those on the borders of Eritrea and Ethiopia and the Ivory Coast.

Earlier today, Kofi co-chaired – with the Afghan and British governments – the London Conference on Afghanistan. The United Nations has done great work there and has a key role in co-ordinating international support. The same is true in Iraq, where it played a vital role in the three sets of elections last year. I know the United Nations has some very legitimate security and other concerns but I hope that over the coming year we will be able to see the Iraqi people – particularly those outside Baghdad – benefiting even more from the organisation’s immense expertise and experience.

So there is some tough work ahead – work which I am sure that Kofi will go into in much more detail.

In this his final year of office, he can be sure of the support of the United Kingdom and of our continuing commitment to the United Nations. It is support which can be measured in the levels of our assessed and voluntary contributions to the UN budget – significantly more than any other European country and double what we were contributing a decade ago. But it can also be measured in our constructive engagement with the United Nations agenda across the board. We act as strong advocates for reform precisely because we know that the world needs a robust and effective United Nations. In the foundations which he has laid over the past nine years, Kofi Annan has given us good reason for confidence in the future.

It is then my great pleasure and privilege to introduce the Secretary General of the United Nations.

The comments made by Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, on 10 February 2006.

I congratulate all those elected to the new Council of Representatives of Iraq.

The December elections were a historic day when the Iraqi people turned out in their millions, braving the threat of violence so that they could elect a new parliament and government. Today the shape of the new parliament is clear. I look forward to the first meeting of the new Council of Representatives which we hope to see taking place as soon as possible. This is a decisive step on the road to establishing a strong democracy.

It is now imperative that all parties accept the results and continue to play a full role in the political process. International monitors oversaw the election and have pronounced themselves content with the election process. There has been a thorough process for investigating complaints. Everyone in a democracy has to accept its result.

It is now up to the politicians of all communities to work together to form an effective and representative government. The new government will face big decisions. All Iraqis are impatient to see a new government get down to work quickly and make progress in tackling the tough challenges ahead. The British Government and the international community will continue to support the new Iraqi Administration and the Iraqi people as a whole in their efforts to establish a strong and stable Iraq.