Iraq: Action against Missiles (Hansard, 26 January 1993)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, action was taken against Iraqi ground missiles in southern Iraq on 13th and 18th January to ensure the safety of coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone. It was fully justified in international law.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer that the Government have given previously in both Houses. However, my Question was specific. It was to ask the Government whether they could quote the words in the UN resolution which they believed justified that action. Being justified in international law is one thing; being justified by a UN resolution is another —and the Government have claimed that.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I regret that I believe the noble Lord to be mistaken. The Security Council determined in its statements of 8th and 11th January that Iraq was in material breach of Resolution 687 and its related resolutions. It warned Iraq that serious consequences would ensue from continued failure to comply with its obligations. Resolution 687 lays down the terms of the formal ceasefire between the coalition states and Iraq at the end of the hostilities mandated by the Security Council in Resolution 678. Those terms are binding in themselves. However, they have also been specifically accepted by Iraq as a condition for the formal ceasefire to come into effect.
In the light of Iraq's continued breaches of Resolution 687, and thus of the ceasefire terms, and of the reported warnings given by the Security Council and members of the coalition, their forces were entitled to take necessary and proportionate action in order to ensure that Iraq complies with those terms.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some on this side of the House fully support any action against Saddam Hussein? While he is in power, there will never be any hope of unification. Will somebody please do something about it?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for the sensible 1132 support which he so often gives. I share many of his sentiments. However, we must work this issue out with extreme care.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister state that we should work matters out with extreme care. Does she agree that any further coalition action should have the complete backing and authority of the United Nations Security Council? Will she tell the House when the Security Council will next discuss the situation in Iraq?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that we certainly act with complete backing. The actions of 13th January, 17th January, 18th January and the recent skirmishes on 21st, 22nd and 24th January were all justified either following Iraqi breaches of Resolution 687 or in self-defence. I can assure the noble Baroness that should further action be necessary, then the Security Council, if necessary, will meet again. It tends to discuss these issues each day for a short while. I cannot give her its specific timetable.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many people believe it was unfortunate that Saddam Hussein was not dealt with when the opportunity was ripe? Is she further aware that the description of actions by the allied forces, or the coalition forces, is leading people to believe that those actions are not on behalf of the United Nations but of the United States? Can we have different descriptions of the forces used? Can we go back to the United Nations and have a proper and clear mandate?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, each time we sit together in the Security Council to review what is going on, we come to the same conclusion. We are not relying on old decisions. As I said to the noble Baroness, there are repeated discussions. I do not believe that the noble Lord is right. There has been a clear statement each time Iraq has been in breach of its obligations under Resolution 687. It was that resolution that established the ceasefire and provided the conditions essential to the restoration of peace and security in the region in a number of ways. There has been the refusal by Iraq to allow the special commission inspectors and the observation mission to use their own aircraft to fly to and from, and within, Iraq. There has been the failure to provide declarations of the weapons of mass destruction, the concealment of the capabilities, and so on. I can list to your Lordships' House reason after reason as to why all the actions have been justified.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is necessary to have the support of Arab and other nations in this matter if the Western group is not to be seen to be apart from the others? Is it not the case that this matter does not go from the Security Council back to the General Assembly because it is widely believed that the General Assembly would not now give its support?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I regret to say it, but I think that the noble Lord is wrong. Most Arab states understand the reasons for action, 1133 whatever they say in public. Frankly, the military actions carried out by the United States, the United Kingdom and France could not have been carried out without close collaboration from states in the region.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, may I invite the noble Baroness to note that my Question was not addressed to whether the action was well judged but whether it was endorsed by a Security Council resolution? May I ask the noble Baroness and all Members of the House in a quiet moment to compare the wording which the noble Baroness read out—and which is impressive—with the wording used in the United Nations resolution, inviting all members of the United Nations to drive Iraq out of Kuwait in the first place? Is it not the case that that was, if not a mandatory, at any rate an expressly permissive resolution to take warlike action? Such wording is missing from the resolution cited just now by the noble Baroness.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, briefly, not only did Resolution 687, passed on 3rd April 1991, set out the formal ceasefire and demands for Iraqi compliance on a range of issues; it also referred to the monitoring and destruction of weapons of mass destruction and the demarcation of the border. That is quite explicit.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware and will she agree that the exchanges that have taken place this afternoon in your Lordships' House on all sides emphasise the necessity for the United Kingdom to retain its membership of the Security Council? That membership should not be placed under the competence of the Commission of the European Communities.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, knows that I wholeheartedly agree with him.