§ 7. Mrs. ClwydTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of Britain's contribution to the US and allied offensive against Saddam Hussein in September 1996. [354]
§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo)The US military response in September to Saddam Hussein's aggression in northern Iraq, did not directly involve British forces. As a contingency measure some forces were put at higher readiness. The full costs of these cannot be separately identified, but included the deployment of two VCIO tankers to Cyprus at a cost of £88,000.
§ Mrs. ClwydWhy has the Department not replied as promised to points raised during the defence estimates debate? A Minister said then that any points that had not been answered would be answered in writing, but I am still waiting for a reply.
It would have cost $3 million to bring peace to northern Iraq in January this year, but the allies—of which Britain is one—delayed. In September, the United States spent at least $200 million—a part of which must have been paid by this country—on an exercise that has done nothing except consolidate Saddam Hussein in northern Iraq. Is that good value for money?
§ Mr. PortilloMy hon. Friend the Minister of State will write to the hon. Lady, who makes a number of assumptions that I do not share. She believes that a vigorous and expensive diplomatic effort to bring the Kurds together would necessarily have resulted in peace, but I am not sure that that would have been the case. One of her points in a recent speech was that a budget cut made it difficult for the Americans to pursue their diplomatic effort, and she suggested that we needed a more expensive diplomatic effort. She assumes that Saddam Hussein would not have chosen some other opportunity to remilitarise and to repress the population, but I believe that he would have seized any opportunity at any time to test the willpower of the international community. Money was required for a demonstration by the United States—backed by the United Kingdom—that we would not allow Saddam Hussein to get away with aggression, and I believe that money spent in that way is money well spent.
§ Mr. BrazierDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the costs of allowing Saddam Hussein to achieve his long-term goal—sovereignty over the area that produces most of the world's oil—would be literally incalculable? Would not it be totally wrong for us to stand back and leave the entire responsibility for containing that dangerous, powerful and evil man to the United States alone?
§ Mr. PortilloI entirely agree that that would be a catastrophically expensive option, and the United States deserves—and, under this Government, receives—our support. As it turned out, the method used to demonstrate to Saddam Hussein that he would not be allowed to get away with remilitarisation did not involve the direct participation of British forces, but we were pleased to make certain contingency arrangements and to allow the United States to use Diego Garcia.