§ 3.8 p.m.
§ Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ What steps they propose to take under international law or the United Nations convention naming genocide as an international crime, or the declaration of human rights within UN Resolution 678, to insist on the surrender of Saddam Hussein and his immediate associates to be tried for crimes against international law by a specially established military tribunal.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, European Community Foreign Ministers agreed on 15th April that the Twelve should work for Saddam Hussein to be held to account and that the EC Presidency would ask the UN Secretary-General for ideas on how that could be achieved.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Am I therefore to understand that the quintessential reply to my Question is, yes? Am I also to understand that Saddam Hussein, who indulged in genocide before the Gulf war, during the Gulf war and after the Gulf war, will be tried by a tribunal so that he will not get away with taking those tens of thousands of lives? Does the Minister agree that his arrest will mean that in future anyone who endeavours to inflict genocide in any part of the world will have to face the same tribunal at the world's highest court, the United Nations?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the position was spelt out clearly in Security Council Resolution 674. Under international law individual Iraqis bear personal responsibility for any offence that they may have committed. The noble Lord read a little too much into my reply. The EC Presidency will ask the UN Secretary-General for ideas as to how that can be taken forward.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to bear in mind the feelings of our people. I have been in touch with representatives and leaders of the Kurds in the past fortnight. They are grateful to our Prime Minister and the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for their endeavours. Does the Minister agree that all those who have suffered so abominably under Saddam Hussein will not be satisfied unless the 1345 perpetrator of those evil deeds is brought to justice as quickly as possible so that he cannot continue with his evil endeavours?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I certainly confirm that we would shed no tears at all to see the end of Saddam Hussein.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will clarify one small point. Is it the case, as I understood him to say, that if the EC Foreign Ministers' meeting concluded that proceedings should be instituted against Saddam Hussein, the matter would be transferred to the United Nations, which would decide what further steps could be taken?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right. The Twelve agreed that Saddam Hussein should be held to account and the EC Presidency is today taking up the matter with the UN Secretary General.
§ Lord MonsonMy Lords, much as one sympathises with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, does the noble Earl agree that to bring Saddam Hussein to trial would require the deployment of hundreds of thousands of ground forces, which in practical terms means the Americans, and that, unless we can persuade President Bush of the rightness and prudence of such a course, one is wasting one's breath?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point, if there is to be a trial and if Saddam Hussein is to be taken out of the country. However, trials of that kind are best done within national boundaries.
The Earl of HalsburyMy Lords, cannot all this be expressed more economically in the old adage, first catch your hare?