§ 2. Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)If he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq. [74908]
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)In late January, the United Nations Security Council established three panels to deal 869 with disarmament and humanitarian issues, and Kuwaiti detainees and property. It is anticipated that they will report by mid-April. Meanwhile, we continue to patrol the no-fly zone. All responses by United Kingdom aircraft in the no-fly zones are proportionate and in self-defence.
§ Mr. WinnickWhile recognising the need to defend the no-fly zones, which were indeed approved by virtually the whole House after the Gulf war, will my right hon. Friend accept that it is very important that there should be a precise limit on the bombing that is taking place? Is it not important to recognise that a bloodthirsty and murderous regime such as Saddam Hussein' s will not be brought down by bombing? We have to accept that as a fact.
§ Mr. FatchettMy hon. Friend is right to point out that the no-fly zones were humanitarian measures, introduced in 1991 and 1992, which had the support of the whole House, and they have performed an important humanitarian task. My hon. Friend is also right to say that the action we are taking under the rules of engagement on the no-fly zones is proportionate and will continue to be so. There is no suggestion that we will further change the rules on the no-fly zones.
§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)In considering the nature of military operations over the north and south of Iraq, is it not right to recognise a distinction between a defensive response and what is taking place now—the systematic destruction of Iraq's air defence system? Does the Minister understand the unease at an apparent change of policy towards Iraq, openly acknowledged in the United States of America, which is to disable, debilitate and destroy Saddam? That is a policy for which there is no authority in the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions or in international law. Does he also understand that the unease is compounded by the fact that neither the change of policy to which the United Kingdom is subscribing nor the strategy that underpins it has ever been debated by the House of Commons?
§ Mr. FatchettThe right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that in 1993, 1996 and 1997, Saddam Hussein violated the no-fly zones. On each of those occasions, we reacted in the same proportionate manner in which we are reacting on this occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also know that there have been more than 100 incursions by Iraqi aircraft and other military equipment into the no-fly zones. We have responded in the same way as before, and there has been no shift in policy.
There is no vacuum, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested there was in his article in The Independent this morning: we are continuing to carry out the humanitarian objectives of the no-fly zones. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he agreed to the no-fly zones in the first place, and that if we were to disengage from those zones, substantial damage would be inflicted on the Kurds and the people in the south of Iraq.
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)Is the Minister aware that what is being done has no United Nations authority and no authority from the House of Commons, and that it amounts, in the case of the civilians who are being killed, 870 to what a Nobel peace prize winner has described as genocide? The Government have shown no readiness to allow the House to discuss the matter when it is clear that there is great anxiety across the Floor of the House about what is being done in our name and without our authority—that is, killing innocent civilians who have no capacity to get rid of Saddam Hussein, although all recognise the brutal nature of his regime.
§ Mr. FatchettThere is legal support for the position taken by the United Kingdom. It flows from the United Nations Security Council resolutions and it is to support the humanitarian objectives. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the brutal nature of the regime in Baghdad is the backcloth against which we should ask and answer all these questions. He needs to remind himself, as do others, of what that regime has done to the people of Iraq over the past 20 years.
§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex)The right hon. Gentleman is being deliberately obtuse. No one here contradicts the absolute necessity for the policing of the no-fly zones, but the House is not happy about the practice—it continues at the moment—of allied aircraft attacking targets that are, to all intents and purposes, not hostile. Nobody disputes that if planes are locked on to, they should deal properly with targets; but just to take out targets on the ground is improper and outside the United Nations resolutions. It must stop, and Britain should not be a party to it.
§ Mr. FatchettMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement recently to the House on those issues. He explained the Government's policy and the continuation of the enforcement of the no-fly zones. There has been no change in that policy and if there is a change, the House will be informed accordingly.