HC Deb 13 January 1993 vol 216 cc915-20 3.32 pm
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation on the Iraq-Kuwait border.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of violations by the Iraqis of the border with Kuwait. The United Nations Secretary-General reported on 10 January that, on that morning, a party of some 200 Iraqis with trucks and heavy loading equipment forced entry into six ammunition bunkers in a former Iraqi naval base at Umm Qasr on Kuwaiti territory and took away most of their contents, including four anti-ship Silkworm missiles. Later that day, 500 Iraqis continued to dismantle prefabricated buildings in the former naval base. Similar violations have continued until today.

The Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that these activities were in violation of the procedures established by the Security Council. The Security Council responded on 11 January with a statement condemning the action taken by Iraq which constituted further material breaches of Security Council resolution 687, which established the formal ceasefire at the end of the Gulf war.

The council demanded that Iraq co-operate fully with the United Nations Iraq/Kuwait observer mission—UNIKOM—and warned Iraq of the serious consequences that would flow from continued defiance. We hope that Iraq will not miscalculate, that the violations of the border will cease immediately, as will other Iraqi provocations, and that Iraq will comply with all United Nations resolutions.

Mr. Robertson

We fully understand why the Foreign Secretary cannot be here but has to be in Brussels this evening.

Is the Minister aware that there is wide international agreement that the conduct of President Saddam Hussein in the last few days has been designed as a deliberate and calculated provocation by a despicable regime, which calls in one breath for constructive dialogue and with the next says that it will recover Kuwait again? Is he further aware that there is no question but that Saddam Hussein must comply with the provisions of the United Nations Security Council resolutions that formed the basis for the ceasefire at the end of the Gulf war?

I assure the Minister that the good reasons for implementing the two air exclusion zones over northern and southern Iraq—protection from Saddam's genocidal attacks on the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ite Muslims in the south—remain as valid as they ever were. The imposition of the two air exclusion zones was supported by the Opposition in order to save many lives which were and are still in danger, and for that same reason we shall continue to support the air exclusion zones and their enforcement.

I welcome the assurance that the Foreign Secretary gave the House earlier today—that whatever necessary military action is taken will be taken in accordance with international law. I also strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary's assurance that he will keep the House fully informed of all developments, because that is an assurance which is of extreme importance to hon. Members from both sides.

Mr. Hogg

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He is right: Saddam Hussein must comply with the Security Council resolutions. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the no-fly zones. He is right to say that Iraq must not infringe the zones.

I can give the assurance once again that any action that may be contemplated at any stage by any party would proceed in accordance with international law. I can also assure the House once again that any material acts of any kind will be reported to the House.

Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham)

Everybody supports action against Saddam Hussein to make sure that he complies with United Nations resolutions, but will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any action is taken with the agreement and support of our Arab allies in the Gulf war?

Mr. Hogg

It is very important that our Arab allies should support any action that the international community might deem appropriate; that is why it is important that any appropriate action should proceed in accordance with international law.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Does the Minister agree that it is not just border incursions but the deployment of anti-aircraft missiles in southern Iraq and the interference with the United Nations arms inspection teams' rights to fly into Baghdad which mount up to a worrying picture? Is it not necessary to remind Saddam Hussein that he finds himself in the position that he does today only because of his invasion of a neighbouring member state of the United Nations?

In view of the disturbing report this morning by Saddam Hussein's press officer in an Iraqi newspaper that Iraq intends to "retake Kuwait", is it not important that the Government enjoy cross-party support in the House for whatever action they take in an international context against Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Hogg

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for the remarks that have already been made this afternoon. I agree with the great importance of proceeding in accordance with international law and maintaining cross-House agreement. It also needs to be said that the violations that the right hon. Gentleman has described amount to a pattern of conduct which must be deeply deplored.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that no United Nations aid has reached the south of Iraq for many months, nor are there any plans for it to be sent, and that the recent meagre aid flows to the Kurds in the north were fire-bombed and have now ceased completely? Therefore, does he agree that the memorandum of understanding and the United Nations' plans to send food to the south and the north are in rags and tatters and that nothing save intervention on the ground will save millions of people in the north and hundreds of thousands in the south from death by starvation this winter?

Mr. Hogg

As the House is well aware, my hon. Friend has been deeply involved in trying to take assistance to the people of south Iraq. She deserves all our praise.

The suffering in south Iraq, especially among the Shia people, is one of the reasons why it was thought right to impose a no-fly zone south of parallel 32.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Has not the ceasefire agreement been systematically broken over the past two years, ever since it was signed by Iraq's criminal regime? Saddam Hussein has taken every possible opportunity to test and tease the allies.

I understand the difficulties that arose when the war of aggression against Kuwait was decisively defeated; but does not the Minister appreciate that many people—probably not least those in Iraq—are asking why the allies did not take the opportunity of ending once and for all the bloodstained tyranny that has been responsible For so many deaths and tortures in Iraq, and for all that has occurred since the invasion of Kuwait?

Mr. Hogg

I well understand why people ask on occasion why Saddam Hussein was not removed at the end of the Gulf war. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, however, that we were part of a coalition acting under the authority of the United Nations, for the purposes authorised by the Security Council and none other. Had we tried to go beyond the scope of those authorised purposes, the coalition would have fallen apart—and, incidentally, Ministers would have betrayed the word that they gave hon. Members in the House.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Saddam Hussein has won every move on the board? He is still in power, and he is still mocking all the western countries and treating them as a laughing stock.

What worries me particularly is the fact that, for some years, one of my constituents has been waiting for compensation for the death of her husband in Baghdad. There has been no movement whatever. The United Nations compensation committee has agreed that she should receive compensation, but Saddam Hussein simply refuses to sell oil for that purpose. Is it not time that he was taught a fundamental lesson in keeping his word? Should we not go in and do exactly what the United Nations has recommended, instead of playing what amounts to a game of draughts with him? Is it not time for firm action?

Mr. Hogg

I do not agree with my hon. Friend's observation that Saddam Hussein has won every game on the board. He has not. He invaded Iran; he lost that war, and tens of thousands of his people were killed. He invaded Kuwait; he lost that war too, and again tens of thousands of his people were killed. His country is now in a state of ruin. That is not winning every game on the board.

Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon)

The Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was disingenuous, to say the least. Hostilities ceased because of American domestic political opinion, not because our forces would have been acting beyond the constraint of the United Nations resolution; and the Republican Guard army units just north of our forces should have been taken out.

Will the Minister tell us which idiot left those Silkworms where they are? They pose a real threat.

Mr. Hogg

I was responding to a specific question from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)— whether we should in some way have deprived Saddam Hussein of the leadership of Iraq. My point was that we were acting within the authority given to us by the Security Council; we could not go outside that authority without the coalition falling apart, and without Ministers having misled the House in previous statements.

Sir George Gardiner (Reigate)

I refer to my right hon. and learned Friend's comment about the need to maintain the coalition at the end of the Gulf war. Will he give a further assurance that, if counter-action against Saddam Hussein is authorised, at least he will do his level best to ensure that this time the effort does not fall short of the objectives to be achieved?

Mr. Hogg

We shall proceed, in anything we do, in accordance with the principles of international law.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Why does not the Government more strenuously support the Iraqi opposition abroad, and in particular the Iraqi National Congress? Should not moneys owned by the Iraqi Government in the form of assets abroad be defrozen in part and handed to the INC to promote its internal campaigning in Iraq and to give it credibility in Baghdad?

Mr. Hogg

We have done various things to encourage the Iraqi opposition. We welcome the fact that a broad-based opposition is developing because that provides the people of Iraq with an alternative. As to compensation and assets, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting proposal that has not yet been advanced. I can see two obvious difficulties. It would be a clear breach of the Security Council resolution freezing those assets, and there is a whole range of other claims on them. However I shall reflect on the hon. Gentleman's point, as I do on all his points.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)

Has my right hon. and learned Friend held any discussions with the Kuwaiti Government, and will he confirm that it is no use the international community extending threats to Saddam Hussein, but that it must publicly be seen to be prepared to act?

Mr. Hogg

Discussions with the Kuwaiti Government have continued over many months, and will naturally continue. As to Iraq's violations of Kuwait, it is important for us to say that Iraq must comply with the Security Council resolutions and cease its violations of the no-fly zone—otherwise it will be exposed to great risk.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Count some of us out of the so-called all-party, cross-party agreement. Why is it that Al Ahram and the rest of the authoritative Egyptian press are against military action? Was not the Foreign Secretary's candid answer—which the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well—to my question on Egyptian and Bahraini support a blunt "No"? They do not support us in military action in the circumstances.

Mr. Hogg

One interesting aspect of the Security Council discussion and of the debate about Iraq generally is the broad consensus in support of the proposition that Saddam Hussein must comply with Security Council resolutions and cease to infringe the no-fly zones. There is very broad agreement for the proposition that, if Iraq does not do those things, it faces serious consequences.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill)— that Saddam Hussein has twice been severely defeated in the battlefield recently, but why do we continue to permit him to turn military defeat into propaganda victory? What steps are the Government taking in the Security Council to obtain its authority to take action to stop once and for all Saddam Hussein's retreat and cheat tactics?

Mr. Hogg

The best thing we can do to deflate Saddam Hussein's reputation is to explain the facts. They point to continued and dramatic failure—loss of the war against Iran, loss of the war in Kuwait, and a total destruction of Iraq's economy. That pattern of failure has seldom been surpassed.

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead)

rose—

Madam Speaker

Mr. George Gardiner—I mean Mr. George Galloway.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

My hon. Friend is much better looking.

Madam Speaker

My apologies all round.

Mr. Galloway

Notwithstanding the consensus that exists across the Front Benches, I must say—like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—that, whatever bloody act has been planned, it will not be done in my name, in the name of many people in this country or in the name of many members of the coalition that fought the Gulf war only a couple of years ago. Does not the Minister understand that, in the Islamic world and elsewhere, the new coalition is regarded as a bunch of bloody hypocrites? They are ready to pulverise Iraq for its transgressions against international agreements, yet stand by and watch while Israel—which for nearly 40 years has been breaking every international law in the book—expels, imprisons, tortures and kills people in occupied territories every day of the week; and they do absolutely nothing while Bosnian Muslims are massacred in the centre of Europe. They will be seen as a bunch of hypocrites and will receive the response from the international community that they deserve.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman's threat that he will be unable to support any action that we may have in mind is a threat that can be borne with equanimity.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

Given that, sadly, my right hon. Friend has unfinished business still to be accomplished, will he ensure that, rather than concentrating on the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, Her Majesty's Government and their western allies will concentrate on creating an effective no-go zone for Iraqi troops on the ground in neighbouring Kuwait? Will he also ensure that any further incursions into Kuwait by Iraqi forces or civilians will not go unpunished—because, if they do, Saddam Hussein will be further emboldened to defy international opinion and international law and to commit further acts of aggression?

Mr. Hogg

My hon. Friend will have heard me say in answer to the private notice question that the Secretary-General is of the opinion that what has happened in Kuwait constitutes a serious breach of the relevant procedures. In answer to his question, let me make it plain that Iraq must comply with the resolutions of the Security Council and must cease to infringe the no-fly zone. If she does not, she faces very serious consequences.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

As some sort of military response on the part of the Gulf war coalition seems more and more probable, can the Minister comment on reports that, this time round, the use of airfields in Turkey will be denied to the coalition forces?

Mr. Hogg

I do not wish to speculate about matters of that kind.

Back to