War Aims (Hansard, 25 February 1991)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the clarification of war aims in the Gulf. This is not a posturing effort. With the best will in the world, a statement in the House is insufficient. If the House is to do its job, it should have a three-hour debate on such a matter.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) asked specifically about war aims on the Secretary of State's statement, she was told that there was no change in the position, that the question had been answered four times and that she had better look at the United Nations resolutions. There is considerable confusion, even on the basis of the answers of the Secretary of State for Defence. I adduce for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, just four succinct points.

First, the United States military commanders are saying that it is essential to go into Iraq. Whatever the merits of such a policy, it is not consistent with the Egyptian or Arab coalition members' interpretation of United Nations resolutions. Secondly, when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) suggested that Saddam Hussein had to be brought to justice, the Secretary of State for Defence assented. On several occasions, it was stated that all individuals had to be held responsible for their actions. In short, the Commons should debate the issues raised by John and Ann Tusa in their article on war crimes in The Times. It opens up Pandora's box.

Thirdly, when the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said that Kuwait had to be liberated, the reply was that Western troops might well be involved in keeping Kuwait liberated. That goes against the professed views of Iran and the whole background of peace and stability being restored to the area. The House would want to know how, especially in terms of the photochemical smog.

Finally, Perez de Cuellar described the Russian peace proposals as a unique opportunity. It looks to some of us as though the Russian peace proposals have been scuppered, as the Peruvian peace proposals were scuppered by the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands war. The Secretary of State for Defence said that the Russians had been betrayed in good faith. This is a matter of timing that should be explained. The real nub of the matter is that some of us fear that our country is being sucked into a war near Greater Baghdad.