Iraq and the Kurds (Hansard, 27 June 1989)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)
My Lords, on the evidence we have, we do not believe that the alleged actions of the Iraqi authorities towards the Kurds, about which we have forcefully expressed our concern, constitute genocide as defined under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

§ Lord Kilbracken
My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. Does he agree that the definition of "genocide" in the convention is extremely wide? It is the killing, with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,"— I emphasise the words "in whole or in part"— a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Does he agree that under Article 8 of the convention Britain, as a contracting party, is able to, call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter … as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide"? Apart from anything else, does not the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in Halabja constitute the killing in whole or in part of the Kurdish people?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to those facts, but it is a fact also that the crime of genocide comprises two elements: the intent to destroy and one or more of the acts as listed in the convention, which the noble Lord has partially quoted from. Under the convention, conspiracy to commit genocide is punishable as well as the act itself. Of course we condemn Iraq's human rights record, but the evidence we possess does not back up genocide under the UN convention, however much the noble Lord may think it does.

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords, do the Government take the view that genocide actually has to be committed before action is taken under the convention, when acts which appear to any intelligent observer to be acts preparatory to genocide have already been committed?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, as I understand it, genocide has to comprise those two parts to which I 576 have referred: first of all the intent and then one or more of the acts which are listed under the convention.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in addition to the grim facts described by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, can the noble Lord confirm reports that 100,000 Kurds have recently been deported from their home city of Qala Diza? What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Iraqi Government about that? Secondly, in the light of these monstrous actions by the Iraqi Government, which Her Majesty's Government have from time to time condemned both in this House and outside, how can the noble Lord justify a British presence at the Iraqi arms fair last month, which in my view is quite indefensible?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, there has certainly been considerable press reporting of the forcible removal of Iraqi Kurds from Qala Diza and also from Rania. The Iraqis have denied any mass relocation, but they have admitted to what they call some "local resettlement" in north-east Iraq on security and anti-smuggling, as well as humanitarian, grounds. As I said in answer to a Question some weeks ago, we have urged the Iraqis to allow British diplomats and journalists to visit the area to see for themselves what is happening. But we have made quite clear to the Iraqis that, despite the proximity of these towns to the Iraq-Iran border, there is no justification whatever for mass deportations. Britain and other Western countries took the lead in co-sponsoring a firm and unambiguous resolution on Iraq at the UN CHR. It is disappointing that an Iraqi procedural motion blocked that resolution.
The arms fair is very much a matter for individual companies to take part in if they wish. We cannot comment on individual cases.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, how can he justify the arms fair? Does he defend the sale of arms by this country to the present Iraqi Government?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows full well, all exports of defence-related equipment to Iran and Iraq, whether or not they stem from an arms fair, are governed by very strict guidelines. They prohibit the supply of lethal equipment which would significantly enhance the military capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate any conflict. Whether or not companies attended that arms fair would be no guarantee of licences being agreed for export.

§ Lord Jenkins of Hillhead
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what are the non-lethal arms which he believes would be appropriate to export from this country to Iraq?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, a wide range of equipment can be used in a variety of different ways. I do not have a list with me but I shall look at it to see whether I can let the noble Lord know.

§ Lord Kilbracken
My Lords, can it be the case—and apparently it is—that the Foreign Office did not receive a copy of the fax sent to The Times and other newspapers yesterday admitting that the evacuation of Qala Diza had been completed, involving the transfer of 16,000 families or approximately 100,000 people?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I do not know where that particular fax stemmed from, but I have not seen it. That claim, which I have heard on a number of occasions and which was referred to earlier, stemmed largely from the press, and we have seen nothing to justify it.

§ Lord Kilbracken
My Lords, the fax was received from the Iraqi Embassy in London.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, to the best of my knowledge I have not seen it, but I shall check to discover whether it was received.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, the Minister said that it was prohibited, as well it would be, to conspire to commit genocide as well as to commit it. Can he explain what kind of preparation has been identified which would rank as conspiracy?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness's question off the top of my head. We must look at the convention not only from a practical but also from a legal point of view. In answering the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I pointed out that these two elements—the intent and then the acts—must be complied with if a breach of that convention is to be proved. The fact is that we do not believe that the two elements—the intent to destroy and breaching of those acts—has taken place.

§ Lord McNair
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are convinced that chemical weapons were used on the population of Halabja and, if so, that it was the Iraqi forces which carried out the attack? If not, who else could possibly have done it?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, certainly it is quite possible that chemical weapons were used, and we utterly deplore that fact. On 30th November last year my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State made a clear condemnation of that. We were horrified by the barbaric acts which took place during the Iran/Iraq conflict at Halabja and we played a leading role in drafting the tough UN Resolution 612 which followed.

§ Lady Saltoun of Abernethy
My Lords, is it possible to prove intent? Surely that is difficult to prove.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, that is perfectly true. It is made even more difficult when the crime must be supported not only by intent but also by the actions to which I referred.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, following the question put by my noble friend the Leader of the 578 Opposition, can the Minister tell us, off the top of his head or otherwise, which British company would attend an arms fair without a serious expectation of selling arms?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, that is a question which the noble Lord might address to the arms manufacturers.