HC Deb 13 February 1998 vol 306 cc738-44

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.,—[Mr. Dowd.]

2.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

As reported in Hansard on 10 February, I asked the Foreign Secretary: Does the House have the clear, unambiguous undertaking that, before military action is taken, we will return to the Security Council of the United Nations for its clear, unambiguous endorsement of that military action? The Foreign Secretary replied: A large number of diplomats in the Foreign Office have been working towards precisely that objective for several days. We hope to table the resolution in New York this week and I hope that the resolution will gain the support of the Security Council, so I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance."—[Official Report, 10 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 149.] In the Queen's counsel opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), that is a watertight undertaking. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether that is still the position.

On 12 February 1998, in column 561 of Hansard, I asked for an assessment of the situation between Iran and Iraq and about the story in that day's edition of The Times. I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that, in October, my wife and I went on holiday to Iran on—I hasten to say—a paid-for bus tour. In Tehran, in Tabriz, in Kashan, in Hamadan, in Yazd, in Shiraz and in Isfahan, one sees war memorials of the type that one would see in many villages and towns in Britain. They are war memorials of the quite appalling Iran-Iraq war, in which the Iranians lost the kind of casualties that we lost in the first world war.

The truth is that the Iranian people loathe Saddam Hussein. Yet it was the view of all the people we met, and certainly the official view of the Iranian Government, that they are absolutely against any type of proposed British-American air strike against Iraq.

What discussions have the Government had with the Government of Iran? After all, Iran and Iraq are neighbours, and supposedly one of the objects in taking action would be to prevent any attack—either with biological or chemical weapons, or with other nasty weapons—that Saddam Hussein could make against his neighbours.

It was on 24 July 1968 that I had the misfortune—I think that I was the last hon. Member to have had such a misfortune, which is duly recorded in columns 587 to 666 of the Hansard of that date—to be called to the Bar of the House, with Mr. Speaker King putting his black cap on, because of my talking too freely to the late Lawrence Marks about chemical and biological weapons at a Select Committee visit to Porton. So I have had over 30 years of intense interest in the problems of chemical and biological weapons.

I should therefore like to go through a letter that has been written both to the Defence Secretary and to the Foreign Secretary—about which I rang his office this morning—from a man whom I have known for over 35 years: Stephen Rose, of the department of biology in the Open university and director of the brain and behaviour research group. He says to my right hon. Friends that he is writing as someone with more than 25 years of direct personal and professional experience of the use of chemical weapons in general, and by Saddam Hussein against Iran and the Kurds in particular, to try to impress upon you the enormous potential genocidic hazard of your declared intentions to attempt to destroy the Iraqi"— chemical, biological and nuclear— capability by sanctioning bombing. Professor Rose says that he does not deny the need to attempt to enforce United Nations sanctions. Neither does he deny the evidence that the Iraqi regime is manufacturing and has putative stockpiles of those agents. He continues: But your military advisers will surely have pointed out to you that bombing such stockpiles will not destroy more than a fraction of the agents. Most will be dispersed into the air, much as was the case during the last Gulf War and in the attempt to destroy the Iraqi stockpiles subsequently. You will be aware of the claim that Gulf War syndrome was caused at least in part by low level exposure to such released agents. You must also know of the difficulties that the US has experienced in safely destroying its own stockpiles by incineration. So if the bombing is effective we are faced with the inevitable uncontrolled release of large quantities of lethal agents, including presumably nerve and mustard gas, as well as anthrax and radioactive materials. These agents will drift over significant areas of Iraq, resulting in further illness and death amongst its already impoverished citizenry, and will not stop at Iraq's borders, with potential but incalculable danger to citizens of neighbouring friendly states. The result will be that by a sort of dreadful collusion with Saddam, the US and UK governments will be directly contributing to genocide. Whatever the logic of threatening military action to back up diplomatic pressure, its use in this context can only be disastrous, increasing innocent people's misery, bringing no obvious political gains, and casting a lasting shadow over the UK's claims to be embarking on an ethical foreign policy. I urge you, even at this late stage, to accept a political compromise, even if imperfect, rather than take this doom-laden step. I would ask for some comment on Professor Rose's analysis.

I shall address myself to the Foreign Secretary and then to the Prime Minister; but first to the Foreign Secretary. I shall read out a resolution drafted not by me—I was slightly late for the meeting, having listened to two former Secretary-Generals of the United Nations, Boutros-Ghali and Perez de Cuellar, explaining that they believe that the proposed action was unlawful—but by Deputy Provost Councillor Allister Mackie, chairman of the Linlithgow constituency Labour party, and the Deputy Provost of the area of West Lothian which the Foreign Secretary and I represent.

The resolution reads as follows: That Linlithgow Constituency Party of the Labour Party views with dismay the threats and statements made by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, in relation to the British Government's policies towards Iraq. Although opposed to Hussein's Regime in Iraq, this CLP believes that Britain's and the world's interests would not be better served by a war of aggression on the part of the American and British Governments, without unambiguous world support. Further, we are of the view that, taking into account the Government's proposals to reduce financial support to One Parent Families, introducing tuition charges to students, the proposals to reduce payments to disabled persons, and the continuing pressure on local Government to reduce levels of service, due to lack of adequate financing of local Government, the finances of the UK could be put to better use than waging war on an innocent people, whose sole criticism is that they were governed by an unacceptable leader. Thus we call upon the 2 above-named Government Ministers to consider if they are pursuing personal agendas rather than the interests of the people of the UK, who they were duly elected and appointed to serve. It is the view of the Members of this CLP that their conduct in relation to this matter is irrational and indeed illegal, and therefore we call upon Mr. Blair and Mr. Cook to reconsider with urgency further pursuit of their war-inducing threats and statements. In particular, we call on the Government, in view of the stated doubts of two former UN General Secretaries and several international lawyers to make public the legal basis on which military action would be taken. I had the opportunity when he kindly saw me for some 25 minutes to put into the hands of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the legal opinion of Mr. Marc Weller, an international lawyer at the centre of international studies in the university of Cambridge—supported by other international lawyers whose names I have given to Downing street.

For 21 years, I had the privilege of representing the people of Broxburn and Uphall. I do not think that they want their present representative, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, prancing around the middle east trying to drum up support for allowing the British to use bases from which to launch weapons of awesome destruction. I not only think, but know, that some of their representatives and former representatives are as dismayed as I am at my right hon. Friend's recent action and attitude.

For 35 years, I had the privilege of representing Stonyburn, a former mining village in West Lothian which is now in the Livingston constituency. The people of Stonyburn have spoken through their councillor, Provost Joe Thomas of West Lothian council. He told me this morning that he was aware of widespread concern among my former constituents in Stonyburn at the uncompromising nature of the threatened war against Iraqi people. He said, "Violence does not solve problems. Violence creates problems." I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that there are people in Stonyburn praying that no action is taken. Those people sent me, and now my right hon. Friend, to the House of Commons. If there is military action, we can imagine pictures many times those of Dunblane flashing round the world.

I am one of comparatively few—a dwindling number of hon. Members who have actually worn the Queen's uniform, done gunnery and experienced the smell of cordite. Perhaps we are a bit less relaxed about unleashing war than those who have never been in a military situation. I am hesitant to claim great military virtue, but I wear the tie of the Royal Scots Greys, now the Scots Dragoon Guards, and I had the opportunity of sitting in his room and reading to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the letter from the colonel of the regiment to The Times. I spoke to Field Marshal Sir John Stanier and I repeat part of the letter that I read out to my right hon. Friend: The conduct of a successful air war is a politicians dream; it avoids the mud and blood of a ground campaign and enables wars to be fought without getting your hands dirty. Unfortunately air wars are never successful in isolation. If you wish to expel an invading dictator from say, Kuwait or the Falklands, you have to go there and drive him out. The same applies to stopping him from doing some things that you don't like. He concludes: Perhaps if we attempted to improve the lot of Saddam Hussein's people by offering a reduction in sanctions in exchange for evidence of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction, a more realistic result might be achieved. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes up the Downing street staircase at night, with the pictures of his predecessors on the wall, he might pause for a moment to look at the picture of Anthony Eden. Saddam Hussein is no Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser was an impressive figure. I had the good fortune to be asked to see him in his house in Cairo in 1964. Unless we are very careful, Saddam Hussein will be perceived in large parts of the Arab world—and not only the Arab world—as another Nasser. Is that what we want?

2.50 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)

My hon. Friend has a reputation for having a long-standing and principled interest in these matters. I fear that when he comes to read the record of his speech, he will be disappointed with its content, not least because—somewhat out of character—he has quoted others to cloak personal attacks on my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. That is unworthy of him. I fear that he will regret it when he reads his speech.

I welcome the opportunity to reply to the debate and bring my hon. Friend and the House up to date with diplomatic activity. I have just returned from the middle east, where I spoke to leaders in Oman, the Emirates and Egypt. Three key points emerged from those discussions.

First, there was unanimous strong support in each of those countries for the notion that Saddam Hussein must comply with the Security Council resolutions. There is no need to remind those countries of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the region. Their Arab cousins in Kuwait know that. My hon. Friend quoted Field Marshal Stanier. Saddam Hussein, the dictator, was driven out of Kuwait by military action. That action was necessary, but it was not supported at the time by my hon. Friend. If we had taken his preferred course of action then, the countries in the Gulf that I have visited this week would have been under even greater threat from the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam owns and is developing.

Secondly, there was wholesale support for exhausting every diplomatic opportunity. The United Kingdom agrees with that. I shall tell the House in a few moments about some of the actions that we are taking.

Thirdly, there was a strongly held view that if Saddam Hussein did not take the opportunities provided by diplomacy, he alone would be responsible. Those opportunities are available to him. All that we are asking is that he should abide by Security Council resolutions.

My hon. Friend quoted several authorities. I shall quote no authorities; just one basic principle. In diplomacy, a word given should be a word honoured. The word that Saddam Hussein gave when he agreed to allow the United Nations Special Commission inspectors to do their work is being broken. We know Saddam Hussein's record. We now know that his word is worth very little. A basic tenet of diplomacy is that a word should be followed and a promise that is committed should be carried through.

Those three principles were clearly reinforced by my contacts in the Gulf and the middle east this week. All those countries want UNSCOM to do its work without restriction so that it can find the biological and chemical arsenal that exists within Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published the extent of that arsenal last week and referred to the success that UNSCOM has already enjoyed in locating weapons of mass destruction.

In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend recognised by implication the danger that Iraq poses to other countries in the region. At no point during his 18-minute speech did my hon. Friend try to deny that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. My hon. Friend recognises that fact. If he were to talk to those in the Arab countries near Iraq—rather than those who enjoy the comfort of Westminster—he would appreciate the real threat that those weapons represent.

UNSCOM must be allowed to do its work without restriction. There is no reason for agreeing to any position less than that which is enshrined in the Security Council resolutions. Our basic principle is that those resolutions must be agreed to, implemented and complied with.

I told my hon. Friend that I would inform him of the diplomatic efforts that are being made. The United Kingdom has played a leading role in those efforts. A meeting of European Ministers in Panama on Wednesday issued a statement, which I draw to the attention of the House. European Union representatives at the meeting called upon Iraq to comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, and in particular to permit UNSCOM to carry out effective inspections of sites where it suspects that vital information or chemical and biological weapons are concealed.

A Gulf Co-operation Council meeting of Foreign Ministers on Wednesday also issued a very strong statement condemning Saddam Hussein both in terms of his denial of the United Nations and his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The United Kingdom's position is supported by countries such as Australia, Canada, Poland—and the list continues. It is clear that no one in the United Nations does not want to see Iraq comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Some claim that we should not consider the military option and that we should ask Saddam Hussein to play the game in a decent way—he old public school rules. I suppose that we could go to the palace in Baghdad and say, "Isn't it about time, Saddam, that you allowed the arms inspectors to do their job?" Does anyone imagine that Saddam Hussein would respond by opening the door to Richard Butler and the arms inspectors and allowing them to get on with their business? It is fanciful to believe that that will occur.

There is pressure on Saddam Hussein to allow the inspectors to do their job because he understands the consequences of his failure to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The military option, to which my hon. Friend refers regularly, is key to our ability to negotiate and ensure that there is compliance. Without that option, the diplomatic process could not be successful. We have always sought—and continue to seek—a diplomatic resolution.

The representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council met yesterday, and they will continue to have further meetings in the hope and the expectation that a Security Council resolution will be forthcoming in the next few days. That will enable the diplomatic process to continue to work towards our sole objective: ensuring compliance with Security Council resolutions.

Without the pressure and without the potential risk to the regime in Baghdad, there would be no possibility of compliance with Security Council resolutions. In the past seven years, Saddam Hussein has denied weapons inspectors access to sites. My hon. Friend is right to say that chemical and biological weapons are wicked and evil. He should join the campaign that we are waging to ensure that Iraq is clear of weapons of mass destruction.

The history of this century shows us that if we play the game in such a way as to appear to offer appeasement to dictatorship, the consequences are more horrific than standing up to a dictator. That is why we have taken this position.

Mr. Dalyell

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fatchett

No, I must finish. My hon. Friend had 18 minutes, and left me with a shorter time to reply.

My hon. Friend rightly referred to the state and condition of the people of Iraq. We share his humanitarian concerns. That is why the United Kingdom Government are leading the call for an extension of the "oil for food" regime. The people of Iraq should have greater access to oil revenues, so that their humanitarian needs can be meet. That is crucial.

I hope that my hon. Friend applauds that humanitarian gesture. He should ask himself what has happened to the "oil for food" scheme and resolution 986 in the past few years. Why have the Iraqi people been denied access to food? It is not because of the United Nations or the United States. If the red smoke of envy and resentment can be cleared from Saddam Hussein' s eyes, he will see that. Nor is it because of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. It is because of the actions of Saddam Hussein and his treatment of his own people.

I applaud the position taken by both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats. The Government are determined to ensure that the United Nations resolution is upheld. Over the years, my hon. Friend has been a great supporter of the United Nations. If we back down, and if Security Council resolutions become negotiable, the legitimacy and integrity of the United Nations will be damaged for ever. We are the friends of the United Nations, and we respect international law. We are determined to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with Security Council resolutions, because that is the only way to make progress.

My hon. Friend raises these issues time and again, and he will do so on Tuesday. I ask him to think about the consequences of appeasement, and of not pushing Saddam Hussein hard to ensure compliance. We have taken the right course, and we shall continue to follow it, because that is in the best interests of the people of Iraq, the people of the region and the United Nations.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.