Gulf Crisis

HC Deb 25 November 1998 vol 321 cc144-65 10.59 am

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Kelvin)

This is a profoundly important subject which affects many people's lives and touches our country's vital interests. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister a series of questions, not all of which I expect him to answer today, but on which I hope he will write to me in due course.

The fact that there is a crisis in the Arabian gulf cannot be gainsaid. Just over a week ago, American and British sailors and airmen readied themselves, we are told, for political orders from the United States President and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to launch a series of devastating raids involving cruise missiles and a massive bombardment of Iraq.

By the grace of God and the skilful diplomacy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, the slaughter that would have resulted was averted—much, it seems, to the disappointment of some. It was reported that, after the Secretary-General had accepted Tariq Aziz's letter, President Clinton felt that he could not justify the attacks, especially as the Pentagon's assessment was that they would have left 10,000 people dead—every one of them somebody's son or daughter, father or mother, husband or wife.

Do Her Majesty's Government share the Pentagon's estimate that 10,000 Iraqis would have been killed if the attack had gone ahead? If not, what is their estimate of what the death toll would have been? How many of the dead Iraqis does my right hon. Friend estimate would have been high officials of the Ba'ath party, important military or security officers, or innocent men, women and children with no responsibility whatever for the actions of their Government, whom they never elected and cannot remove?

We keep hearing that the Government have no quarrel with the Iraqi people, but how many dead does my right hon. Friend think would constitute a price worth paying? Does he recall the words of the American officer who said, as he incinerated yet another hamlet on the Mekong delta, that the village would have to be destroyed in order to save it?

My right hon. Friend will be familiar with the words of Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State. During an interview on US television, Lesley Stahl asked her: perhaps half a million Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions, is the price worth it? Albright replied: It's a very hard choice but the price … we think the price is worth it. Do Her Majesty's Government share the view that the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children—who, I assure my right hon. Friend, bleed just like his children and mine—is a price worth paying for their political objectives?

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

My hon. Friend will recollect very well the terrible sights in the hospitals that he and I have visited in and outside Baghdad. Does he also recall Denis Halliday writing in Middle East International on 13 November that 6,000 children were dying each and every week?

Mr. Galloway

I remember it vividly. This week's Tribune reported that Denis Halliday, a former UN Under-Secretary-General, also said: We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral. Those are the words not of me or my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but of the former humanitarian co-ordinator for the UN in Baghdad.

I fear that someone was talking to my right hon. Friend the Minister when I asked whether Her Majesty's Government shared Mrs. Albright's view that the 500,000 children who, according to Lesley Stahl, had died as a result of sanctions, were a price worth paying. Perhaps, unlike Mrs. Albright, the Government contend that children are not dying as a result of sanctions—that is the position that some Ministers seem to have adopted in the bellicose days of late. Do the Government accept that any Iraqis have died as a result of the sanctions? If so, how many, and how many would they consider a price worth paying?

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that we have common ground on this issue, but does he have any estimates of the number of Iraqis who died in the Kurdish area before and after the Gulf war as a result of nerve agents? How many Iraqis—and, indeed, Iranians—died in the Iran-Iraq war, which was stimulated by Saddam Hussein? Although many of them were soldiers, they were all, as he rightly pointed out, some mother's son. How many people in the marsh areas have died as a result of the actions of Saddam Hussein? Most people estimate that Saddam Hussein has killed more than 500,000 of his people, so does not the hon. Gentleman believe that Saddam Hussein bears some responsibility for the situation in Iraq?

Mr. Galloway

The figures are, in fact, rather worse than the hon. Gentleman suggests. The Iran-Iraq war was a lunatic and disastrous conflict, but it was encouraged by the west, which armed both sides, and had a vested interest in its continuing for as long as possible. The numbers who died were perhaps a million on each side, so I am in no doubt about the disastrous consequences of those eight years of war—or, indeed, of the gas attacks on Halabja. However, the Conservative Government continued to do business as usual with the Iraqi regime after the Halabja tragedy was brought to their attention, not least by Labour Members when they were in opposition. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he can read the Scott report for elucidation of that point.

It is scarcely credible that a Member of Parliament should seek to justify—if that is what was being done—our killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on the grounds that the Iraqi dictator was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Are we saying that we are morally equivalent to the Iraqi dictatorship?

Mr. Dalyell

Those who have seen the war memorials of first world war proportions in Iran will know that, in the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians suffered a terrible loss. However, the Iranian Government have made it absolutely clear that the last thing they want is a British-American military strike against Iraq. Given our better relations with Iran, could not Ministers at least talk to the Iranians about the matter?

Mr. Galloway

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I shall deal with that point later.

The House will now be familiar with Mr. Denis Halliday, whom, I assume, my right hon. Friend the Minister will not want to accuse of ignorance or bad faith. Halliday is a former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, and was an official of the UN for more than 20 years. He is a respected Irish official, who formerly served as the UN humanitarian co-ordinator in Baghdad.

Last July, Dennis Halliday resigned his post, saying that he could no longer defend a policy which he described as "bankrupt." As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow mentioned, Halliday has said that between 5,000 and 6,000 Iraqi children every month of every year are dying as a result of sanctions. Is Halliday lying? Is Halliday wrong? If he is not lying, and if he is not wrong, is the Minister really saying that we are prepared to kill more than 200 Iraqi children each day of every month of every year in pursuit of our ethical foreign policy and our non-quarrel with the Iraqi people?

It ought not to be necessary to describe in detail the suffering of the Iraqis under sanctions, given the acres of detailed reportage by fine British journalists in some of the finest newspapers in the world—people such as the incomparable Robert Fisk, Alexander Coburn, Maggie O'Kane, Ron McKay and Felicity Arbuthnot. Again, I ask the Minister—are these people lying? Are they wrong?

Was Martti Ahtissari—the then UN Under-Secretary-General, and now the President of friendly Finland—lying when he said: nothing that we had seen or read had quite prepared us for the particular form of devastation which has now befallen Iraq"? Was the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation lying when it said: the continued sanctions have virtually paralysed the whole economy and generated persistent deprivation, chronic hunger, endemic malnutrition, massive unemployment and widespread human suffering … with the vast majority of Iraqis simply engaged in a struggle for survival"? Was the UN World Food Programme lying when it reported: Alarming food shortages are causing irreparable damage to an entire generation of Iraqi children …a fifth of Iraq's population is at severe nutritional risk … we are the point of no return in Iraq … the social fabric of the nation is disintegrating …people have exhausted their ability to cope"? Was The Lancet lying in 1995 when it said that, since 1990, 567,000 children in Iraq have died as a result of sanctions"?

Mr. Ivan Lewis (Bury, South)

Notwithstanding any differences that hon. Members may have about where the responsibility lies for the suffering of the Iraqi people—whether it is economic suffering, or suffering due to the tyranny of Saddam Hussein—does my hon. Friend agree that there have been times in history when he and other hon. Members have no doubt advocated sanctions against repressive, tyrannical regimes because that was the only way to influence those regimes? For example, did my hon. Friend advocate sanctions against South Africa during the time of apartheid?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

And Iraq.

Mr. Lewis

And Iraq. If so, what is the difference now?

Mr. Galloway

There is no dispute about the quotations that I have given the House, which unequivocally place the responsibility for the massacre upon sanctions. The UN World Food Programme, the UN children's fund, The Lancet, the president of Finland—all say that those deaths are being caused by sanctions.

The tyranny of Saddam Hussein is another question, to which I shall return. I was on the demonstrations against the tyranny of Saddam Hussein when British Ministers were inside the embassy, signing trade deals. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) was with me in the 1970s when we formed the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Perhaps he was there, and I just did not know him then. However, nobody in this House has a longer record of opposition to the Ba'ath dictatorship in Iraq than me. That I can unequivocally state.

Mr. Lewis

I was at school in the 1970s. More seriously, will my hon. Friend answer my question? Has he personally ever advocated sanctions against the Iraqi regime, or any other tyrannical regime, because he believed—as the Government believe—that that was the only way to bring the political leadership of that country to its senses and to democracy? If so, has not he understood the inevitable consequences of those sanctions? Why is the situation now so different?

Mr. Galloway

I was coming to that point. I, too, was at school in the 1970s—I look older than I am.

Mr. Lewis

Not at the same school.

Mr. Galloway

Probably not, no. However, that did not stop me demonstrating or getting involved in political work. I reiterate my point, because I suspect that there is a sub-text. No one in the entire House has been active in political campaigns against the dictatorship in Iraq for longer than me—although some have been active for as long.

I was in favour of economic sanctions against South Africa.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

And Iraq.

Mr. Galloway

I was in favour of sanctions, rather than war, against Iraq in 1990. I have not changed my mind about that. If I have a choice—either Iraq is bombarded with cruise missiles tonight, or sanctions continue—of course I will choose sanctions. To do otherwise would be to call upon the visitation of missiles, bombs and weapons of horrific destruction against the people of Iraq. Why is that the choice being offered me by my hon. Friends' intercessions? I want to develop the argument for a policy that does not rely upon sanctions or upon war.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South talked about sanctions bringing a regime to its senses. Is the Iraqi regime coming to its senses after eight years of appalling carnage? As the bodies are stretched end to end—the hundreds of thousands, the million or more dead Iraqis—is the Iraqi regime, in my hon. Friend's terms, coming to its senses?

Mr. Lewis

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway

No. I have given way to my hon. Friend twice, and I want to make some progress.

Is the Iraqi regime changing its policy as a result of the carnage? No. Even the best friends of this policy do not pretend that it is working. Is not a policy that is both immoral—as Dennis Halliday, the others whom I have quoted and I say—and ineffective overdue for review?

Was the distinguished foreign editor, Victoria Brittain, lying when she said in 1995 that there are 20,000 new cases of child malnutrition every month"? Was the World Health Organisation lying when it said: health conditions are deteriorating at an alarming rate under the sanctions regime … the vast majority of Iraqis continue to survive on a semi starvation diet … the damaging effects of poor nutrition are being compounded by epidemics and by a precipitous decline in health care, the most visible impact of which is seen in the dramatic rise of mortality rates amongst infants and children"? Are the WHO, the United Nations officials, the distinguished correspondents and the medical journals all lying when they spell out the catastrophic price that is being paid by ordinary Iraqis as the result of the policy that my right hon. Friend the Minister supports? I beg him not to try to wash his hands of all the suffering by blaming it on others. It is a spot that will not out, and all the perfumes of Arabia will not expunge it.[Interruption.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South may think that it is funny, but let him imagine the ocean of blood represented by all the dead people about whom all those eminent authorities have spoken.

Mr. Lewis

rose—

Mr. Galloway

My hon. Friend is a good friend of Israel, and I will come to Israel's crimes in a moment. I have no doubt that he will want to intervene at that point, so I advise him to keep his powder dry for that.

Mr. Dalyell

On the subject of the perfumes of Arabia, in Iraq I saw by far the worst pollution that I have ever seen anywhere. Last night, I explained to the Deputy Prime Minister that, for all his good work in Buenos Aires, sanctions create pollution because of the lack of spare parts and the endless streams of leaking, badly maintained oil wagons going from Iraq to Amman. The good work in Buenos Aires is negated by what is going on in Iraq, and indeed Iran.

Mr. Galloway

When Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols in the 11th century, the Tigris ran red with blood. In the 15th century, it ran black after the sacking by Timur's hordes of the world's greatest library at Mustansariya. Let me assure the House that the Tigris and the Euphrates run brown today with raw sewage. People from the villages and hamlets in rural Iraq drink directly from those rivers, because of the breakdown of the water purification systems.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

My hon. Friend talks of rivers of blood. Does he recall the article in The Sunday Telegraph by Mr. Con Coughlin, who debriefed in detail a Mr. Sami Salih, who was a friend of the person in charge of the military industrialisation commission and set out in graphic detail what is going on in Iraq today, referring to the mass executions and the huge loss of life inside and outside Baghdad, the elimination of whole villages, the destruction of houses, and the way in which Saddam Hussein is hoarding munitions and weapons of mass destruction under swimming pools and in parks throughout the country, to be used against his own people? The west has a responsibility to deal with Saddam in some way. The problem is that people such as my hon. Friend persist in misreading the situation, and they do not come up with solutions. What is his solution?

Mr. Galloway

I am glad to say that I do not rely on Mr. Coughlin of The Sunday Telegraph for my information.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Why not?

Mr. Galloway

Because it is a rubbish newspaper, and he is a rubbish journalist.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

If you disagree, it is rubbish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order.

Mr. Galloway

I could debate with my hon. Friend the value of Mr. Conrad Black to the English-speaking world, and the value of his newspapers to the great body of newspapers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go down that path, but will remember that this is a time-limited debate to which others want to contribute.

Mr. Galloway

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have been very generous in allowing hon. Members to intervene. Perhaps I should press on.

I am not sure what my hon. Friend's point was supposed to mean. If it means that Saddam is a tyrant, I am the last person who needs to be told about that, but how many executions has he carried out? Has he executed 567,000 children or killed more than 1 million people, which is the number that United Nations officials say have been killed by sanctions? I very much doubt it, but even if he had, is his river of blood an excuse for us to create our own? That is the $64,000 question.

Does my right hon. Friend the Minister know the tears that have been shed over the more than 1 million corpses, dead as a result of the policy over the past eight years? Do not think that Iraqi women do not cry over the deaths of their children, or that Iraqi children do not cry over the suffering of their parents and grandparents. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow are in a position to tell the House that a walk through the vale of tears that is Iraq is almost too much for the ordinary mortal to bear, so searing is the grief, so traumatised the population, and so enraged the people with whom we say that we have no quarrel.

What is all this for? Is it about the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force in the middle east, contrary to international law and in defiance of Security Council resolutions? It cannot be, can it? Iraq withdrew from its illegal occupation of Kuwait seven and a half years ago, while another middle eastern country, Israel, has continued to occupy not one or two but three Arab countries for decades, in absolute defiance of a whole series of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and in flagrant disregard of international law.

Iraq has rescinded its annexation of Kuwait, but has Israel rescinded its illegal annexation of the Golan heights or of east Jerusalem, the holiest of Christian places and one of the most sacred sites of Islam? The answer, of course, is that it has not.

Is it about weapons of mass destruction, then? Well, it cannot be that, either. After all, who were the first to use chemical weapons against Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq? We were, in the 1920s, and the allies used them again in 1991, when we used what are essentially atomic weapons.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

They are not atomic weapons.

Mr. Galloway

The weapons were made of depleted uranium: 900,000 uranium bullets and 30,000 uranium shells were used in the south of Iraq, where radioactive dust has entered the water, the food chain, the bodies, and, ultimately, the children of Iraq, and is responsible for the huge cancer and leukaemia epidemic, with a tenfold increase in the number of cancer cases in the country.

Has my right hon. Friend the Minister read the trail-blazing journalism of Robert Fisk, the doyen of middle east correspondents, on the subject? Does he think that Fisk has got it wrong? What can he tell us about the World Health Organisation investigation? My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says that the uranium weapons are not essentially atomic weapons, but in The Toronto Star this week Michele Landsberg said: DU, a toxic nuclear waste, is used to coat missiles and bullets, increasing their armour-piercing power. It bursts into flames on impact and is 'aerosolized' into radioactive dust. The stuff remains radioactive for 4,500 million years. The article continued: The U.S. Defence Department estimates that 630,000 pounds of depleted uranium were fired in the gulf in 1991". We used other weapons as well, such as fuel air bombs which ignite huge volumes of petrol above their human targets, creating, in effect, mini nuclear explosions. We also used napalm and cluster bombs. All those weapons were described by the 49th session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations as weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction". Can my right hon. Friend the Minister do any better than his colleagues in answering the following question in a way that will make sense in the Arab world and on the streets of Muslim countries? Why is it that Israel, which illegally occupies the territories of its neighbours, and which has sought to obliterate Palestinian identity for half a century, is allowed to amass a mountain of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, while no Arab country is allowed to do so?

Mr. Ivan Lewis

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway

Later.

When I asked that question in the House recently, a number of Tel Aviv's little echoes in the Chamber chorused that Israel was a democracy. Leaving aside the question of how a country that illegally occupies the territories of others can be so described, and leaving aside the fact that 1.5 million Palestinians lived under brutal Israeli occupation for more than 30 years without ever being allowed to vote—

Mr. Lewis

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway

Later.

Leaving aside the fact that, for the crime of telling the rest of us about Israel's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, Mordechai Vanunu is held in solitary confinement, serving a 20-year sentence, and had his jaw wired up in court like Hannibal Lecter in "The Silence of the Lambs" in case he told the court anything else, surely hon. Members, including the friends of Israel who are present, can see that international gangsterism by a country that claims to be a democracy is worse—not better—than gangsterism practised by a regime that makes no such claims.

After all, the Iraqi people have no responsibility whatever for the actions of their Government, because they did not choose their Government and they cannot remove their Government, no matter how much we make them suffer. The Israeli people, however, are entirely responsible for the actions of their Government, because they elected their Government and they can remove their Government.

Mr. Lewis

Does my hon. Friend accept that petty, personal and vindictive attacks do nothing to enhance his argument, but in fact undermine it? Does he accept that Israel is not only a democracy, but engaged in an on-going peace process with the Palestinians? Recent weeks have seen progress in that peace process. My hon. Friend does nothing to help his case when he seeks to rewrite history about the relationship between Israel and its neighbouring countries. The reality is that Israel has been surrounded throughout its history by countries hell bent on its destruction, including the regime in Iraq.

The problem with my hon. Friend's whole argument is that, by turning the issue into a comparison between Israel and Iraq, he lets Saddam Hussein off the hook once again, and reinforces his strength in the Arab world. That is what is so irresponsible about my hon. Friend's argument about the British, American and Israeli Governments' responsibility. It is Saddam Hussein who is responsible for the situation that faces the Iraqi people and for the instability in the middle east.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) cannot make a speech in an intervention. May I add that moderation should be the hallmark of language in our debates? I have heard nothing out of order so far, but laying the stress on moderation would be helpful in the present atmosphere.

Mr. Galloway

I do not believe that it can be petty and vindictive to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South, with his well known views, to intervene in my speech four times. Indeed, it is probably generous. I am not sure that the people who live in the illegally occupied Golan Heights, illegally annexed by Israel, look on Tel Aviv as a democracy. I am not sure that the people of southern Lebanon, occupied by Israel since 1982, look upon Israel as a democracy. Certainly, the 1.5 million Palestinians who have lived for more than 30 years in occupied West Bank and Gaza have never been allowed to vote. I do not imagine that they look upon Tel Aviv as a democracy. Even if I accept that Israel is a democracy, my point is that crimes committed by a democracy are worse than crimes committed by a dictatorship. That is indisputable.

Has anyone advanced any proposal to punish the people of Israel for the international law breaking of the Government whom they elected? No, unless one counts making them participate in the Eurovision song contest and the European cup winners cup. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister, as a long-time friend of Israel, does not like the double standards argument, but I assure him that it is an argument permanently on the lips of every Arab, from the most august in the palaces of the friendly Arab states to the man and woman in the street and it is the principal reason why his policy is utterly discredited in the Arab and Muslim world, and more widely.

What about the white knights of UNSCOM, led by Richard Butler? Can my right hon. Friend the Minister hazard a guess why a senior—and I mean very senior—still-serving official of the UN should describe Mr. Butler to me recently, on the basis of more than 20 years' close knowledge of the man, as a "congenital liar"? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread unhappiness in the secretariat of the UN and in the Security Council about the conduct and the style of work of Mr. Butler?

Did my right hon. Friend read the article by David Usborne in The Independent almost a year ago in which he wrote: The criticism voiced privately in the corridors of UN headquarters is this: in his handling of the crisis that has put the United States on the brink of military action in the Gulf, Mr. Butler has failed utterly to lower the temperature. Indeed, by refusing to moderate his confrontational style, he has provoked almost everyone involved. An opinion whispered a year ago in the corridors of New York is now openly discussed by everyone, except—it seems—the US Government and our own.

Can my right hon. Friend the Minister understand the widespread view that Mr. Butler is a provocateur who has his men swaggering around Iraq, trying not to resolve the remaining questions between the UN and Iraq, but to create pretexts for continuing the crisis and even to provoke a new and terrible military confrontation? The Arabs feel it, the majority of the permanent five on the security council feel it, and the Minister must know it. That feeling was exacerbated when Mr. Butler's deputy, the former US intelligence officer, Scott Ritter, announced to the world, after leaving his post, that he had indeed collaborated with Israeli intelligence during his time in Baghdad.

While I am on that subject, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said four weeks ago that he would write to me about the revelation—the source of which was in New York, not Baghdad—that four named agents of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad had served under false names and false passports as UNSCOM agents of Mr. Butler in Baghdad. What has been the progress of my right hon. Friend's investigation of that matter, and when will he be in a position to write to me as he promised?

Mr. Dalyell

A fortnight ago, the former Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, and I sat in the office of UNSCOM talking to the acting director, the honest Finn Jaakko Ylitalo, and Caroline Cross. When we asked about Scott Ritter, they said, "Please don't mention him, we are ashamed."

Mr. Galloway

That is widely felt.

The events of the past week have vindicated absolutely the contentions of those who say that UNSCOM under Butler is bent upon provocation. There was the ridiculous squall over missing or non-existent paperwork which, if we had listened to the preposterous foreign affairs spokesman for the Opposition, would have seen us wipe out 10,000 people over a missing Iraqi air force diary dating back to the 1980s. It was a preposterous call, which was rightly ridiculed by Liberal Democrat spokesmen as well as by our own Government.

What would the bombing, called for by the Opposition spokesman, have achieved? Would it have produced the diary or incinerated it? Does the diary exist or not? Cannot the Minister see that, to seek to elevate this paper chase into a casus belli against a now practically defenceless country simply reduces us to figures of ridicule?

Some of the documents do exist and Iraq has said that the inspectors can read them but not take them away. They must read them in the presence of Prakesh Shah, the respected UN special envoy. What is wrong with that? Are we to wipe out 10,000 Iraqis in order to exercise our inalienable right to photocopy Iraq's whole national archive? If we do, how much support does the Minister think that we will have for such barbarism in the world, on the Security Council or in the Arab League?

The problem with the documents, which Iraq says do not exist, is, in microcosm, the central problem of the whole issue. How can someone be asked to prove a negative? I could insist that the Minister is hoarding a silver threepenny bit in his house and, after he denies it, I could search his house year after year after year, all the while starving his wife and children. I might then say, finally, that the Minister must prove to me that he does not have a silver threepenny bit. That is a recipe for endless confrontation and misery.

Then there is that old reliable chestnut, kept in reserve for that rainy day when even UNSCOM cannot justify its odyssey in Iraq any more, and that is the issue of Kuwait's missing in action. Of course, the United States has great experience of using that one and has made it the stuff of half a dozen Rambo fantasies. The search for the bones of American MIAs kept the embargo against Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos going for literally decades, and it is being dusted down again for use in the Gulf as the final excuse for continuing the quiet massacre of sanctions.

Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway

I must press on.

There is an old saying that when one is in a hole, one should stop digging. Our policy towards Iraq is in a deep hole, neither moral nor effective, yet we seem incapable of devising an exit strategy to get us all out of that hole. Let us take the most recent act of excavation in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was involved—the much-trumpeted act of meeting and seeking to unify the Iraqi opposition based in London. It included everyone from the Turkoman Liberationists to something called the Democratic Monarchists who seek to put on a newly minted throne in Baghdad one of two pretenders to the kingdom—Shan-if Ali Bin Hussain—who left Iraq when he was still a baby.

Does the Minister really believe that the Turkoman organisation—there are six such organisations of Turkomen, and Turkomen constitute no more than 6 per cent. of Iraq's population—or the Democratic Monarchists are serious contenders for power in Baghdad? There is also the so-called Iraqi National Congress, whose CIA funds have been discontinued because of the shambolic and corrupt incompetence it has displayed. Has the Minister spoken to his counterparts in friendly Jordan about the three prison sentences handed out to the INC leader, Mr. Chelabi, for his involvement in the Petra bank fraud scandal?

The Minister met the Shi'ite representatives in the form of Iraq's Islamic Supreme Council. Given the experience of those other holy warriors whom we financed, armed and trained, the Afghan Mujaheddin, is the Minister really sure that that is the company he wishes to keep? Is it the Government's policy to try to help the Shia revolution to power in Baghdad? Do the Government think that Iraq can be ruled by Turkomen or by the two Kurdish parties when they take a break from murdering each other?

I heard the Minister on the admirable Nicky Campbell's phone-in programme on Radio 5 yesterday. He said that he was meeting "constitutional" politicians. Really? On the very day, almost at the very hour when the Minister was pouring tea for his new friends, one of the "constitutional" activists threw two hand grenades into a crowd of people in the Shia holy city of Karbala.

Mr. Robathan

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Galloway

No, I will not give way any more.

Of course, the grenades did not hurt the deputy Prime Minister of Iraq at whom they were aimed, but they made some spectacular holes in the faces and bodies of the civilians who were in the crowd.

The Minister may say that he wants no part of that, although he did not quite say that on Radio 5. Does he think that that act of terrorism was unconnected with his meeting with the Opposition in London? Does he think that its timing was just a coincidence? Does he think that that will be the last act purchased, not by British money but by the $97 million voted by the US Congress for the armed overthrow of the Iraqi regime? Does he realise that that money will take us down the road that leads to the illegal mining of the harbours of Nicaragua by the Contras, to the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to the blowing up of hotel foyers in Cuba and to the obscurantist barbarism of present-day Kabul?

Mr. Robathan

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Galloway

I am not giving way again.

Does the Minister realise that the road down which he is taking us is illegal under the very legislation that our Government rushed through both Houses of Parliament during the summer? The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 makes it an offence under British law to plan or encourage others to plan to commit any act which would be illegal in any other country. I know that, because I was the person responsible for defeating the attempt made by the previous Government to introduce precisely that law.

Just what activities does the Minister imagine that the Iraqi Opposition, newly unified by him and refreshed by their $97 million, intend to plan from their bases in London? Would they be activities that are legal or illegal in Iraq? If the activities they plan are illegal in Iraq, will our Law Officers proceed to prosecute them?

Mr. Ivan Lewis

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galloway

I am not giving way again.

If, as seems obvious, they do not prosecute, what will happen in the courts to any attempts to prosecute the madmen based in London who exhort others to fire upon tourists at Luxor or to murder Muslims at prayer in the mosques of Algeria? Does not the Minister know that what began with two hand grenades in Karbala will become car bombs in Baghdad, explosions in shopping malls in Mosul and carnage on the streets of Basra? Does he know that the process he unleashed on Monday is not only illegal under our laws but contrary to article 2 of the charter of the United Nations, paragraphs 4 and 7? It is contrary to the Arab states treaty against terrorism, signed by every Arab country, including Iraq, on 22 April this year and ratified by the Egyptian Parliament just last week.

Has the Minister seen the criticism of his new initiative from Amr Moussa, the Foreign Minister of Egypt, and from the League of Arab States? What does he have to say in response to that criticism? Will my right hon Friend say how he viewed the meeting yesterday at the US embassy in Grosvenor square between Martin Endick, the US Under-Secretary of State and the Iraqi opposition groups? Unlike Her Majesty's Government, the American Administration have pledged money and arms to our new friends. What were they discussing at the meeting yesterday? Were they planning how to use those arms? Why did the meeting take place in our capital city? Are our Government privy to the strategy that was being mapped out there?

That brings me to the nub of my argument, which is how far we have a policy of our own toward the Arabian Gulf and to what extent we are being subsumed in a crude, unsophisticated American policy which has done and will do great damage to our once pre-eminent position of influence in the middle east. We were guiding statecraft in the middle east when American cowboys were still ethnically cleansing red Indians.

Wherever I go in the middle east, our friends ask why we are following the USA so blindly. What is in it for us, they ask. They point, for example, to Kuwait, where Britain once had most of the business, and where now we have almost none. They point out that the Union Jack has been burned in the streets along with the Stars and Stripes in countries in which the BBC, the Beatles and Bobby Charlton were once considered the acme of all that was good in the western world.

The fact has not been missed in the middle east that there were no French aeroplanes lined up on the tarmac a fortnight ago to kill 10,000 Iraqis. There were no Italian planes, no Spanish, no German, no Dutch, no Canadian, no Australian, no Russian, no Chinese, no Saudi, no Syrian, no Egyptian, no Moroccan, no Algerian and no Tunisian. There were no planes from the Emirates, and none from Jordan. There was no one from the coalition mustered in 1991, except for John Bull and Uncle Sam. Everyone in the world was out of step, except our Johnnie.

If we really want to end the apparently perpetual cycle of crisis and suffering, and the threats of violence, there are measures that we can and must take. First, we need a new head of UNSCOM, a head who is respected by his colleagues, by the Security Council and in the region.

Mr. Dalyell

Hear, hear.

Mr. Galloway

It will surprise hon. Members and the country that no Arab inspectors are permitted in UNSCOM. That means no Saudi scientists or Jordanian engineers. Why? A new UNSCOM leadership must make the effort to build bridges in the region across which success may come.

Secondly, light at the end of the tunnel must be offered to the Iraqis in exchange for their co-operation. Why is it so difficult to produce an agreed file of what has been achieved during eight years of UNSCOM work? Thousands of weapons have been destroyed, many hundreds of sites have been inspected and a huge monitoring apparatus has been put in place. A file might help us to put in perspective that which has not yet been achieved.

I am among those who believe that UNSCOM has almost completely destroyed Iraq's non-conventional military capacity. I say that not because I trust the word of the Iraqi regime, but because it is not logical that Iraq would continue to endure its current agony in order to hide things that it could easily reproduce once sanctions had been lifted. The awfulness of non-conventional weapons is that they exist in the minds of scientists and engineers in all countries. Nor are Einsteins an essential requirement; a group of crazed Japanese terrorists operating from a greenhouse halfway up mount Fujiyama produced enough sarin nerve gas to massacre the population of Tokyo, and they had a delivery system—a human courier—to introduce it to the Tokyo subway.

What is to prevent the Iraqi President from building up an arsenal again? The short answer is that we can do as much or as little to prevent that as we can to stop any dictator becoming over-powerful. Does the Indonesian dictatorship possess weapons of mass destruction? Yes, it does. Does it occupy other people's territory illegally? Yes, it does. Are we starving the Indonesian people, and proposing to bombard them until they give that territory up? No, we are not. The previous Government sold Indonesia all the arms it could buy, and even our Government have not placed a military sales embargo on Indonesia.

UNSCOM should provide a clear list of sites that it wishes to visit. That list can be as long as UNSCOM likes, but once the sites have been inspected and cleared, the matter must be at an end. Of course international monitoring of Iraq will have to continue. Of course an embargo on weapons and military hardware should remain. I have always been in favour of a military embargo on Iraq, unlike the Conservative party. However, only when the murderous economic sanctions are finally lifted will the Iraqi people be able to breathe again.

Mr. Dalyell

UNSCOM tells us that it visited 496 sites, but found no violation.

Mr. Galloway

That is correct. It also inspected all the presidential sites. I remember the maps that were brought to the House. We were told that the presidential sites were bigger than Paris, but they turned out to be smaller than Paddington. They turned out to be rather smaller than the presidential sites occupied by our royal family in London, never mind the presidential sites that that family occupies outside the capital. I am against all palaces, and I am glad that the Iraqi ones have been searched, but absolutely nothing was found in them, despite their elevation into a casus belli in February. The sites have been searched over and over. Cameras have been placed on them, but there are no violations.

Let UNSCOM produce a list as long as it likes, so long as, once the list has been exhausted, there is no more moving of the goalposts, and no more pulling of rabbits from hats as excuses for continuing the agony. Only breathing men or women free of constant fear of hunger, illness and disease can turn their minds to politics, and to the need for democratic change in their country. That democratc change is sorely needed in Iraq.

11.56 am

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

I want to clarify one point, which is whether anything was found. Let me tell my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) exactly what has been found. Since 1991, in carrying out its mandate under United Nations Security Council resolution 687, the UN Special Commission has destroyed or made harmless a supergun, 48 Scud missiles, 40,000 chemical munitions, 690 tonnes of CW agents, 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, and biological warfare-related factories and equipment. The International Atomic Energy Agency found a nuclear weapons programme far more advanced than suspected, and dismantled it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin made an interesting speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow also intervened. However, both my hon. Friends make it their policy in the Chamber to make statements that are simply not true. When we consider in detail the allegations that my hon. Friends make, and when we research the documents that they should have researched, we find that the truth bears no resemblance to their statements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin wrote off the comments made by Mr. Sami Salih, but that man seems to me to have been particularly well connected. He knew all the people involved, and he talked of a series of front companies managed by his friend that were responsible for the importation of defence and military equipment in breach of sanctions, and paid for from revenues for oil exported through Iranian waters and through the port of Dubai. Saddam Hussein has clearly constructed a mechanism by which to employ people to export oil in breach of sanctions to raise money to fund an internal weapons programme. That is a perfectly legitimate target for UNSCOM. We need to know what is going on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin spoke as if there were no threat. Saddam Hussein presents a threat to people in Iraq, and to other people. My hon. Friend said that no aircraft were involved in the multi-country operation last week, but there may be a simple reason for that: many countries may not be prepared to be identified as involved in actions against Iraq for fear of Scud or chemical weapons attacks on them. If I lived in a neighbouring country, that would be my view.

Mr. Dalyell

rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I would like to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am conscious of the time.

I want to move the debate on, to the position of the Iraqi National Congress and what has happened in Washington. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin knows, $95 million has been allocated to the INC for operations. The Americans have managed to find a way to justify that within their constitutional and legal arrangements. Congress has enacted legislation and has found a way. It recognises that the use of those weapons would inevitably undermine the regime in Baghdad, which must be the preoccupation and objective of all of us. The question is, what is the British position on the matter?

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin set out a perfectly reasonable argument, outlining the international legal framework as he understands it, which in his view prohibits the INC in the United Kingdom from being involved in particular exercises overseas. I want it to be involved in such exercises. I want the Baghdad regime to be brought down. I believe that the civilised nations of the world have a responsibility to break down a dictator who threatens international stability and, in particular, stability in the middle east.

Without wanting to criticise my right hon. Friend the Minister—I support the Government's position, as he knows—I want to know why the Americans are prepared to be a little more robust than the British in the way in which they advocate their support for INC activities. We seem invariably to use the terminology, "It is not our role to be involved in bringing down a foreign leader." I think that we have a responsibility, and I want us to take a more robust position.

Finally, on sanctions busting, which I mentioned recently, I do not understand why we cannot block oil exports to Turkey from Baghdad by lorry. Information on those freight movements is well documented and those revenues, along with those secured by the sale of oil through Shatt al 'Arab and the port of Dubai, are funding the regime in Baghdad. I cannot see how it would be possible for Saddam Hussein to survive if those revenues were cut off. That is another approach, and we should be adopting it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin spoke eloquently for 50 minutes but, despite promises, did not offer us a way forward that would resolve the crisis, apart from suggesting that certain UNSCOM officials should be removed. That was his only recommendation.

Mr. Galloway

That is not true. My hon. Friend cannot have been listening.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech, and that was the only recommendation that I could identify. I do not believe that it will resolve the problem. We need to be far more robust and to take positive action.

12.3 pm

Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)

I think I am the only Member of Parliament who was born in a country in the Arab world—Yemen—and I simply want to make a brief point to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. Will he assure the House that he has had the fullest possible consultation with our allies in the Gulf?

I recently returned from a visit to Bahrain, where some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) were related to me informally—obviously, the formal position remains that all the Gulf countries fully support the actions that are to be taken by the United Kingdom. However, the House and the rest of the Arab world should be assured that we are consulting our allies and keeping them informed of what is happening, and that we will take no action unless we have their support.

There is a view that we are acting on our own, without consulting others. It is important for the Minister to use this opportunity to reassert the fact that we are going with the co-operation of countries that have always shown Britain good will and which want to continue to trade and invest in Britain and to remain our firmest and strongest allies.

12.4 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

On the final point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), about stopping lorries crossing the Turkish border, the economy of Jordan is entirely dependent on the oil lorries, which go all the way from the Iraqi oilfields to Oman. The Iraqis sell the oil to Jordan at 60 per cent. of cost. The Jordanian economy refines it and pays in kind. It is entirely geared to what happens in Iraq. Therefore, there will be real problems with stopping the oil lorries.

As it is more important that the House hears the Minister than hears me, I shall make one request, which is that, before any military action is taken, a group of American and British officials should at least go to Baghdad to talk in depth to people such as Dr. Riyadh al Quasi. Many points of fact are in dispute. I understand many of the difficulties, not least with Israel, but one hears Iraqis say that there is a synagogue in Baghdad although there is not one in a number of other Arab states. I realise that the Jewish community there may be small and ancient.

There are many matters to be discussed—and before any precipitate military action is taken, for God's sake let us send a delegation, preferably with some Arab speakers, to talk things through properly.

12.6 pm

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on obtaining this debate. It is even more timely today than it might have appeared to be when he applied for it. He made a powerful speech. At the heart of his position is concern for the future of the Iraqi people. That is a proper cause and basis for anxiety, but it is a concern shared by the international community and reflected in the fact that, notwithstanding the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi regime, it has the facility to sell $10 billion of oil a year with which to finance the purchase of food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Alas, it is not a concern shared by that regime. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, Saddam Hussein chooses instead to spend that money on weapons of war and the luxurious life style of his entourage".— [Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 611.] The concern of the international community—and, I have no doubt, that of the hon. Gentleman as well—for humanity does not stop at the borders of Iraq. What lies at the heart of the anguished consideration that so many people have so often given to the questions that arise as a result of the activities of the Iraqi regime is concern for the people in the region as a whole, as well as and including the people of Iraq. We are dealing with a regime that has proved itself capable of the most brutal treatment both of its citizens and of others—a regime that would not hesitate not only to manufacture but to use weapons of mass destruction. We are dealing with a regime that has played fast and loose with the international community. It is a regime that poses a direct threat to humanity. If Saddam Hussein gets his way, countless lives will be at risk. That is what lies at the heart of our concern.

There is no lack of evidence to support that concern. Last week, the Prime Minister referred to the question marks that remain over 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals for the nerve gas UX; over material capable of producing large amounts of anthrax; and over missile warheads designed for chemical and biological weapons. Contrary to Iraqi assurances, traces of UX have been found in missile warhead fragments.

Reference has been made to the recent Iraqi defector, Sami Salih. I think that the hon. Member for Kelvin acknowledged that he was well placed to testify to the intentions of the Iraqi regime. Sami Salih has said that the regime never had any intention of complying with the terms of the United Nations resolutions on weapons inspections, and that he had seen missiles hidden all over Iraq". Another recent defector, Abbas al-Janati, told the BBC last week that rocket launchers are constantly moved between sites to outwit the UNSCOM teams, and that an army brigade was dedicated to undertaking anti-UNSCOM measures. The threat is real and appalling, and it has to be met with resolve. That real and appalling threat justifies the action taken by the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government, and it makes the most recent breach of faith by the Iraqi regime a matter of acute apprehension.

Last week, the Prime Minister told the House: One of two things will now happen: either he"— Saddam Hussein— will co-operate, in which case inspectors will do their job, or he will fail to co-operate and … force will follow."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 612.] Within days, the Prime Minister and the international community had received their answer; within days, the work of the UNSCOM inspectors was again being thwarted; and within days Iraqi obstruction and prevarication were once again the order of the day.

Of course, we are not arguing for a precipitate response. No doubt it is necessary for a cool assessment to be made of the latest crisis, and the head of UNSCOM may want to report to the Security Council on the latest position. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether there was such a report before the Security Council last night, and give us a more comprehensive statement on the outcome of that meeting of the Security Council than has so far become available.

What we must not have in relation to Iraq is a repeat of the lamentable saga that took place earlier this year over Kosovo. Dire threat after dire threat was issued against President Milosevic of Serbia, not least by our own Foreign Secretary. Time after time, Milosevic was given what was described as a final warning, and, time after time, nothing was done. That is a classic recipe for how not to conduct foreign policy, and the failure of that policy can, alas, be measured in the loss of life and intense suffering that took place in Kosovo. The lesson of Kosovo is clear: if a threat cannot be fulfilled, do not make it.

The whole House will want to resolve the crisis over Iraq, including this latest episode, without needing to take military action—but resolved it must be, and if it can be resolved only through the use of force, Conservative Members will support any action that is clearly related to achievable objectives.

I hope that the Minister will answer a number of questions. Will he clear up the confusion that evidently exists over Government policy towards the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power? Last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested to the Prime Minister that a prime objective of western policy should be the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The Prime Minister appeared to agree with my right hon. Friend.

Since then, we have heard a great deal from the Government about their efforts to help the Iraqi opposition—I hope that the Minister will tell us about any progress that has been made on that front in the past few days—but BBC news was reporting this week that neither the United States nor Britain has declared a new policy of trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Which is true? I hope the Minister will clarify this confusion.

Can the Minister be a little more specific than he and others have been about the precise basis on which they affirm that legal authority for the use of force exists? Will he confirm that the Government believe that no further resolutions of the Security Council are necessary? Which resolutions provide the necessary authority for action, in the Government's view?

Despite what the hon. Member for Kelvin said on the matter—I did not follow his argument at all—and in so far as resolution 687 is relevant, will the Minister comment on the references in that resolution to the return of Kuwaiti prisoners of war? He will be aware that those prisoners of war are widely thought to be still alive and that some of them have reportedly been seen in Iraq. What part does their fate play in assessing Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions?

Will the Minister also say what assistance, if any, the Government plan to give to the Kurds in northern Iraq? He will be aware that there appears to be evidence of a recent rapprochement between the two factions. Can he tell the House more about the situation in that part of Iraq? Can he tell the House about the support for a United Nations tribunal to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity, which he is reported to have announced on Monday? What action does he propose to take to implement that proposal? What time scale is involved? What support has there been from other quarters?

The world continues to face a threat to peace and humanity from the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is a measure of his success in the cat-and-mouse game at which he is so adept that Iraq is not the first item on our news headlines this morning, but its absence from those headlines should not lull either Saddam Hussein or anyone else into a false sense of security. I look forward to a robust and meaningful response from the Minister.

12.16 pm

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

I have been charged with an almost impossible task—answering an enormous number of questions—and I shall do my best to satisfy the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) argued that it was time to consider a new policy, although my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) intervened to make a valid point. It is worth while reminding ourselves of the chronology of events that have led to this most recent crisis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin said that the Iraqis deserve an element of light at the end of the tunnel. That is diplomatic language that we have heard on many occasions. My hon. Friend did not mention that the chronology is crucial: the Security Council agreed unanimously that we should seek a comprehensive review of the sanctions system. That announcement was made by the Security Council on a Friday in October; it was unanimous—there were no difficulties and no differences. My hon. Friend's new policy? It was announced.

What happened? In less than 24 hours, Baghdad had announced its refusal to co-operate with that comprehensive review. My hon. Friend has to explain to the House, and to the public outside, how it is possible for him to argue for a new way and a new approach, and then to suggest that the international community has not offered such an approach when the fact is that it has. It offered a comprehensive review, but it was rejected solidly, wholly—and, in my view, totally incomprehensibly—by Baghdad. That is the position that was taken.

Although my hon. Friend did not refer to it, there has been a litany of broken promises from Saddam Hussein. My hon. Friend is a great democrat—a great believer in word and integrity. Let me say to him that his argument, and his emotions, could be construed by those less charitable than me as an argument in favour of the broken word and rewarding the broken word.

Let us not forget that Iraq has promised co-operation on a number of occasions. On each occasion, that word—the word of the Iraqi leadership, not to the United Kingdom or to the United States, but to the international community—has been broken. Let me take four examples: first, the ceasefire agreement at the end of the Gulf war. I had a wry smile on my face when my hon. Friend talked about Iraq voluntarily relinquishing Kuwait. At the end of that process—

Mr. Galloway

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fatchett

No, my hon. Friend spoke for 50 minutes.

Mr. Galloway

What my right hon. Friend has said is false.

Mr. Fatchett

My hon. Friend spoke for 50 minutes.

Mr. Galloway

I did not say that.

Mr. Fatchett

At the end of the Gulf war, the Iraqi regime signed up to United Nations resolutions and made certain commitments. Those commitments were broken.

My hon. Friend knows that Saddam Hussein has broken his word three times in the past 12 months. First, last November, the then Russian Foreign Minister Primakov intervened to say that, with the word and co-operation of Baghdad, we could look forward to UNSCOM delivering what was necessary and that there was light at the end of the tunnel. The Russians invested a great deal in that. The Foreign Ministers of the P5—the five permanent members of the Security Council—met in Switzerland and made a deal with Primakov, but Saddam Hussein broke it within months. Secondly, Kofi Annan, to whom my hon. Friend rightly paid tribute, went to Baghdad and struck a deal with Saddam. On 5 August this year, that deal was also broken. The last agreement, made only 10 days ago, has again been broken by Saddam Hussein.

We are dealing with a man who, time and again, has broken his word and continues to do so. The fact is that, had Saddam Hussein co-operated, sanctions could have been lifted many years ago. The international community does not want sanctions to continue, but Saddam Hussein has simply refused to co-operate over the years.

My hon. Friend asked what the work of UNSCOM is for and challenged its work. Let me remind the House of what UNSCOM has already revealed: more than 38,000 chemical weapons and munitions; 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agents; 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; 48 Scud missiles; a biological weapons factory designed to produce up to 50,000 litres of anthrax, botulism toxin and other agents. That shows the extent of the threat of those weapons of mass destruction, meant for the people not just of Iraq but of the whole region.

My hon. Friend suggests that everything may now have been found. There is no guarantee of that. We know, however, that the Iraqis have a concealment committee, the purpose of which is to ensure that there is no compliance or co-operation. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe quoted a recent report in The Sunday Telegraph on that matter. The Iraqis are not only reluctant to co-operate, but have deliberately attempted to conceal evidence from UNSCOM. We are dealing with a regime that has used weapons of mass destruction, and I have no doubt that it will use them again.

I share the acute apprehension of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe about what has happened over the past few days. We have said that it is another bad sign of Iraqi non co-operation. Saddam Hussein knows the consequences of continuing that non-co-operation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the legal base for any military action that we take. We believe that we have that legal base. He also asked about the nature of compliance and co-operation. He is right to draw our attention to the fact that it is not just compliance with UNSCOM, however important that may be, but that there are other elements of co-operation and compliance. He is also right to say that the Kuwaiti prisoners of war form an important part of that.

As my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, human rights in Iraq are another element. We have heard much evidence and many quotes this morning, but the recent report produced by the UN special rapporteur, Max van der Stoel, is the most recent authoritative report. It shows that the number of people assassinated this year for their political views has reached four figures. That is the nature of Iraq, and that is the blood that is running down the streets of Baghdad. If people want emotive language, let them have the truth, which is that the Iraqi regime has used its weapons against its own people and killed tens of thousands of them.

My hon. Friend says that he is a great believer in democracy, human rights and socialism. I believe him; I share those views. However, one of the lessons of the 20th century is that, when one is mealy-mouthed and looks for excuses for a dictatorship, that dictatorship will continue and will create havoc wherever it can. Supporting human rights means standing up for those who will be subjected to violence by that regime in the future. I have no hesitation in doing that. I also have a view on new policy and co-operation by Iraq: we must not allow Iraq to get away with a short period of co-operation now before we undertake a comprehensive review of the sanctions regime; we must see true faith and commitment, and a willingness on the part of Iraq to carry out the commitment that it has made.

My hon. Friend spoke a great deal about the humanitarian position. I remind the House what the international community, led by Britain under this Government and the previous Government, has done in relation to "oil for food", and the effects of that programme. Let me give the correct figures. More than $5.2 billion has been raised through the sale of oil to purchase humanitarian aid; $2.5 billion-worth of foodstuffs have arrived in Iraq; and $440 million-worth of medicines have been delivered to Iraq, leading to a marked improvement in the availability of medicines and the number of operations carried out. Those are the latest figures produced by the UN Secretary-General, which for some reason were not included in my hon. Friend's speech. I shall send them to him if he so requires.

Mr. Galloway

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fatchett

No. My hon. Friend spoke for a long time, which was unusual in an Adjournment debate.

The UN special rapporteur made a number of other comments about human rights, none of which appeared in my hon. Friend's speech—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) keeps intervening from a sedentary position. He had a long time to put his case and he should now listen to the Minister's response.

Mr. Fatchett

The special rapporteur said that he holds Iraq primarily responsible for the precarious food and health situation in Iraq. His reasons are: Iraq's refusal to take advantage of the "oil for food" programme for five years, while failing to bring about an end to the sanctions regime; Iraq's prevarication in negotiations, causing the regular interruption of oil sales; and Iraq's discrimination against Iraqis living outside Baghdad, in terms of access to medical supplies. Let me add another reason: Iraq's discrimination against ordinary Iraqis who do not form part of the elite in the Iraqi regime.

Many other points have been raised about the Iraqi opposition. Given the short time available, I shall write to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington on the points that they raised.

Mr. Dalyell

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fatchett

No.

I understand the humanitarian concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin. We share those concerns. Our actions have been designed to deal with them. I must stress to my hon. Friend that he should never lose sight of an evil—the existing regime in Baghdad, which has inflicted massive suffering on its people and on people in the region. He must never find himself, in the context of a debate, defending that regime. That is against any ethical view of the world and international relations.