Iraq: Sanctions (Hansard, 6 February 1991)

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness)
My Lords, the remit of the UN Sanctions Committee was established by the Security Council. It has not been tasked with assessing the effectiveness of sanctions.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is it not the case that, following the passing of Resolution 678 on 29th November and the setting of the deadline of 15th January, the decision to go to war was taken on the basis that sanctions were not working and would not work? If that is the case, from where did the evidence for that conclusion come? Why has it not been published so that Parliament and the people can judge the reasons for the United Kingdom and the United States taking such action?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord asks a supplementary question which is not related to the Question on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Mowbray and Stourton
My Lords, in view of the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is it not fatuous that the Question should exist? Having regard to the punishment being taken by the poor, wretched Iraqi people and the lack of feeling for that by their leadership, how could sanctions have worked given that strong leadership?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, my noble friend has made a valid point which was covered extensively during our debates on the subject.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, are sanctions being violated by any country? Is the Minister aware of reports that German companies have been selling important material to Iraq and that the matter is being investigated by the German Government? Is that true? Have the Government received any reports from the German Government following their investigation?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I have seen the reports referred to by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. We are in touch with the German Government about the matter and are awaiting details. My noble friend the Leader of the House and I have both said in our debates that sanctions were almost universally applied. The point is that they were not going to succeed in getting Saddam Hussein to abide by Security Council resolutions.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is it not a fact that the occupation of Kuwait occurred in early August, and from that time sanctions were applied? The United Nations then gave notice to Saddam Hussein—which extended for weeks and weeks—that the deadline was 15th January. It was not until after that date that the first shot was fired by our side. Is it not about time that we stopped all this manoeuvring and messing about and made it perfectly clear where the trouble lies—that at no time has Saddam Hussein been prepared to consider the effects on Iraq of sanctions or military action?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord is right. That is the almost unanimous view of this House.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is it not correct that there was strong evidence that sanctions were beginning to work and that given another few months they would have been effective in bringing down Saddam Hussein? Is it not the case that an outside attack on a country solidifies the people in favour of the government and, consequently, that the support now being enjoyed by Saddam Hussein is much greater than it was when his country was subject to sanctions?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord refers to evidence. I have not seen that evidence.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, is it not a mistake for us to embark on yet another debate during Question Time on a subject which we have debated three or four times in your Lordships' House?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I have already covered all of the points which have been raised today.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, the sanctions came from the United Nations, as did Resolution No. 678. Should we not pay tribute to the gallantry and wonderful endeavours being made in the desert by the alliance troops? Will the Government be prepared to consider that point?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords wish to pay tribute to our men and women in the Gulf.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, if I heard the noble Earl correctly, he said that it is not the task of the UN Sanctions Committee to assess the effect of sanctions. If that is so, can he tell us what is the task of the committee, when it last reported and what it said?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the task of the committee was set up under Security Council Resolutions Nos. 661, 666 and 670. Those cover: the seeking of information from states and examining reports on national implementation—Resolution No. 661; determining on the basis of information from UN and other humanitarian agencies whether humanitarian circumstances have arisen to warrant the provision of foodstuffs to Iraq and Kuwait—Resolution No. 666; and authorisation of flights to or from Iraq and Kuwait carrying people, medicine or food in recognised humanitarian circumstances—Resolution No. 670.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, far from wishing to continue a debate in Question Time, I asked a specific Question on a specific issue. If it is the case, as the noble Earl said, that the UN Sanctions Committee does not have the responsibility for determining the effectiveness of sanctions, who does? Who supplied the information on which the decision was taken that sanctions were not working sufficiently and what was that evidence?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to repeat that I said that the UN Sanctions Committee does not have the task of assessing the effectiveness of sanctions. That was done by individual member states. Resolution No. 678, to which the noble Lord referred, was decided by the United Nations.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I know that Resolution No. 678 was decided by the United Nations, but I am asking Her Majesty's Government for the evidence on which they made their judgment. Will that be published and if not, why not?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord does not know by now that the proceedings of the UN Sanctions Committee are confidential.