Iraq (Hansard, 16 April 2002)

§ 2. Mr. Greg Pope (Hyndburn)
What recent discussions he has had with the US Administration about Iraq. [45517]

§ 8. Ms Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley)
What recent discussions he has had with the US administration about Iraq. [45523]

§ 9. Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon)
What recent discussions he has had with the United Nations Security Council concerning weapons inspectors visiting Iraq. [45524]

§ 12. Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)
What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the United States in respect of Iraq. [45527]

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
My ministerial colleagues and I regularly discuss Iraq with the United States and our other Security Council counterparts. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush during his visit to Crawford, Texas slightly more than a week ago.
Iraq is in clear breach of nine separate UN Security Council resolutions, not least but not exclusively in respect of the threat posed by its weapons of mass destruction. The clear obligation on Iraq is to readmit UN weapons inspections without delay and without conditions.

§ Mr. Pope
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Iraq is a cause of not only regional instability but global instability; that it is right that UN weapons inspectors be allowed free and unfettered access to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; and that if that access is denied and 442 that denial continues, we, the international community, have the right under existing UN resolutions to take action?

§ Mr. Straw
My hon. Friend is correct to point out the extreme danger posed by Saddam Hussein's failure to meet the obligations of the UN Security Council resolutions, to abandon his development of weapons of mass destruction, and to ensure that there is proper inspection of what he has or has not done. My hon. Friend tempts me to comment on issues of international law, but I shall resist and say simply that, in our judgment, views about compliance with international law need to be taken in the circumstances at the time.
My hon. Friend has raised questions about military action. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last week, no decisions about military action have been made—nor, may I add, are such decisions, if they are to be made at all, likely to be made for some time.

§ Ms Munn
Have there been any discussions with the US Administration of the Israel-Palestine situation, which is of great concern and which threatens the stability of the whole region?

§ Mr. Straw
Indeed there have been continuous discussions between the United States and us. The middle east and the Arab-Israeli conflict formed the centrepiece of the discussions at Crawford. On Sunday I spoke at some length with US Secretary of State Colin Powell about precisely that situation and his work to secure a peace.

§ Mr. Djanogly
There has recently been press comment that the US Government asked the CIA to investigate the chief UN weapons inspector in relation to the last round of weapons investigations in Iraq. Does the Foreign Secretary care to comment on that and on the likelihood, if inspectors are allowed back into Iraq, of a new round of inspections being successful?

§ Mr. Straw
The hon. Gentleman invites me to comment on a report about alleged action taken by a foreign Government, the US Government. My reply is, no thanks.
On the more significant issue—the possibility of Saddam Hussein readmitting weapons inspectors—we and the United Nations continue to press the Government of Iraq to readmit weapons inspectors. However, the outlook is bleak in respect of compliance by Saddam Hussein. That is best illustrated by the fact that the Government of Iraq began to engage in a process of dialogue under the auspices of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan; a further meeting was due to take place a few days ago, but the Government of Iraq decided unilaterally to pull out.
Our message to Saddam Hussein is clear: if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear from weapons inspections. The view of the international community is also clear—he must readmit weapons inspectors, otherwise he will be seen by the whole world to be in the clearest possible breach of international obligations.

§ Mr. Chaytor
Does my right hon. Friend think that there is a relationship between the issue of weapons 443 inspections in Iraq and the issue of the Palestinian state? Does he think that recognising that relationship could be the way forward to resolve both problems?

§ Mr. Straw
Of course I recognise the fact that there are political connections between the two issues. Nobody more than Saddam Hussein would like the question of his failure to comply with international obligations to be intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict; of course I am aware of that. However, there is no reason on account of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Israel and the occupied territories for Saddam Hussein to fail to comply with his obligations. It is also a matter of record that the victims, internally and externally, of Saddam Hussein's crimes and aggression have almost exclusively been fellow Muslims—fellow Muslims whom he gassed in the south of Iran during the Iraq-Iran war and fellow Muslims whom he gassed in the north of Iraq during the Kurdistan civil war.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)
As neither the charter of the United Nations, nor indeed any other principle of international law, nor even the ceasefire resolutions which affect Iraq, authorise regime change, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, unlike others, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to replace Saddam Hussein through the use of military action?

§ Mr. Straw
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained our position when he said that in practice regime change has been a means to an end of securing a proper peace settlement, human rights and the enforcement of international obligations in countries such as Kosovo, Serbia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. We regard Saddam Hussein as, first, quite detestable and despicable on the basis of his record; I do not think that that is an issue. Secondly, he is in the clearest possible breach of international obligations. Thirdly, by his development of weapons of mass destruction, he poses a severe threat to the rest of the world, which has been acknowledged by the international community so, fourthly—I emphasise that no decisions whatever have been taken—to secure his compliance with those international obligations it may be necessary to see an end to that regime, but always in the context of international law.

§ Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton)
Further to the question of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), if the Foreign Secretary will not confirm that Paul Wolfowitz directed the CIA to subvert the position of chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, will he confirm that ironically the CIA found that Mr. Blix was guilty of nothing more than acting within the parameters set for him?

§ Mr. Straw
I am responsible for a great deal, but happily I am responsible neither for Mr. Wolfowitz nor the CIA.

§ Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield)
But is it not obvious, as the Foreign Secretary said, that Iraq represents an enormous clear and present danger, not only to neighbouring countries in the middle east and the Muslim population to which he referred, but very much to this 444 country and western Europe? Will he, as far as he can, cause to be published detailed evidence of the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Is not this country right to be enormously grateful to the United States of America for being prepared to take the necessary action to defend our interests just as much as its own?

§ Mr. Straw
So far as the evidence is concerned, almost all the evidence on Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction is already available and published. I have, and am happy to make available to all right hon. and hon. Members, details of United Nations reports on weapons inspections, human rights abuses and the development of nuclear weapons. They are already available on the website.

§ Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
Publish them then; print them.

§ Mr. Straw
They have already been published. I am happy to ensure that they are further published in an easily accessible form—in other words on paper, not on a website—and to place them in the Library.

§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)
Will the Secretary of State say whether he intends to publish the dossier that was in the news a few weeks ago containing the evidence of mass destruction? I understand that that is not the dossier that he has been waving about at the Dispatch Box.

§ Mr. Straw
My hon. Friend is right to say that this document is not the dossier, but most of the dossier to which she referred is drawn from such documents and other sources. No one should be in the least doubt about Iraq's flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. We do not have to wait for the publication of a dossier, which is held up only by difficulties in determining whether intelligence should be made public. We do not have to wait for such a dossier to read documents such as this and hundreds of pages more of the clearest evidence of Iraq's violation of its international obligations, in respect both of weapons of mass destruction and of its violation of the human rights of its neighbours and its own citizens.

§ Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in March 1999 a UN humanitarian panel of experts recommended a number of modifications to the sanctions on Iraq, which it thought might lead to incremental improvements in the internal humanitarian situation? One of those recommendations was to authorise foreign investment in Iraq's non-military export industries. Why is that recommendation absent from the Government's smart sanctions proposal, under which all exports from Iraq other than oil will be banned?

§ Mr. Straw
I am indeed aware of that recommendation. It is one that we, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, have been following up ever since. We want to see the so-called more focused smart sanctions in place. We have wanted to see them in place for well over a year and a half. Why have they been held up? The sanctions, which would apply only to defence materiel and weapons of mass destruction, rather than to 445 the whole gamut of imports into Iraq, are held up because of Iraq, and because of its efforts—diplomatic efforts up to now—to persuade in particular one permanent member of the Security Council, Russia, not to vote in favour.
I am pleased to say that, following our diplomatic efforts and those of the United States, Russia agreed to the principle of a goods review list at the end of November. The final process of negotiation is currently taking place, and I hope and believe that it will be possible to have the new regime of sanctions in place by the end of May, but it is the Government of Iraq who are opposing it, because they know that they will be denied a propaganda weapon, claiming—inaccurately—that all their imports are subject to and therefore controlled by sanctions. Also, they know that the more focused system of sanctions will be more effective at stopping defence materiel going into that country.

§ Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)
If we start a war with Iraq and if, in line with the speculations of the Defence Secretary on the Dimbleby programme on 24 March, we were subsequently to launch a pre-emptive nuclear first strike against the Iraqi people, with probable collateral damage in neighbouring countries, does my right hon. Friend believe that that would be a moral or sane way of seeking to bring peace to the middle east and the rest of the world?

§ Mr. Straw
There were two big ifs in my hon. Friend's question. His remarks were a parody of what my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said on that programme. There is no suggestion of the use of nuclear weapons in that theatre. My hon. Friend is right to say that there would be some collateral damage from a nuclear strike on Iraq, and that is not remotely on the agenda. I am aware of the speculation, but in all the military action in which this country has ever been involved under this Administration and, I believe, under previous Administrations, we have been careful, cautious and proportionate in the use of military action, as we should be, and it must be obvious to the entire House and the country that the current President of the United States has shown similar care and proportionality in the decisions that he has made about military action.