HL Deb 11 February 2003 vol 644 cc566-72

3.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend Mr Adam Ingram. The Statement is as follows:

"The North Atlantic Council has been examining the technical procedure of tasking the NATO military authorities to undertake and carry out contingency planning to deter or defend against a possible threat to Turkey. Yesterday, the silence procedure was broken by three allies, who sought further information on the timing of such a tasking. There is no debate regarding the need for the alliance to provide assistance to a NATO member if so requested.

"Also yesterday, Turkey requested consultations under article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The North Atlantic Council meeting scheduled for this morning has been adjourned until 16.30 Brussels time for further consideration of the proposal. It is too early to speculate on the outcome of these ongoing deliberations".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.16 p.m.

Lord Howell of Guildford

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very brief Statement on what is a very serious situation. I am also pleased that, under our Statement procedure, noble Lords will have a little more time than was perhaps indicated by the brevity of the Statement to discuss such important events. That is particularly appropriate given that, at this moment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is making a major statement of policy—it is a pity that he does so outside Parliament—on all these issues. Therefore it is valuable that we in this House should have a chance to speak on them as well before the crisis meetings of next week are upon us.

Does the Minister accept that we regard the situation that has emerged as deeply regrettable? It is all the more so given that, by demonstrating divisions among the international community as it does, it will encourage Saddam Hussein to, in the American phrase, play games and thus increase and not reduce the chances of war, which we all abhor and indeed dread. In our view, the Foreign Secretary is right to say outside Parliament as he now does that 1,000 extra inspectors would not help, and that the key question in all of this, including the question of Turkey, is whether Saddam will co-operate in disarmament. Nor does it help to try to prevent Turkey, which is next door to Iraq, taking proper precautionary and defensive measures, as that too will only encourage the Iraqi dictator to more excesses.

Does the Minister agree that behind the dangerous disagreement that has developed there are two much deeper political factors at work? First, the people of Europe—obviously the French and Germans and also, if opinion polls are correct and are to be believed, many people in this country as well—have not yet been convinced of the case for an early attack on Iraq. Secondly, we face the persistent tendency of our French neighbours—it is a great nation—along with Germany not merely to follow their own European agenda, but to depict and construct Europe as a rival to and not a partner of the United States.

On the first of those matters, those of us who happen strongly to believe that Iraq is a clear, direct and present danger to us all have been much impressed by the Prime Minister's resolution and energy. We have said so again and again. However, we have been much less impressed by his powers of public persuasion, least of all by the original dossier on Iraq, which omitted all mention of terrorism and 9/11. That was a cardinal error. We were even less impressed by the pathetic plagiarised dossier of 5th February.

On the second issue, does the Minister agree that although France and Germany—our neighbours—must be respected, neither they nor even less Russia must be allowed to dominate the European or NATO agenda, or wilfully tarnish trans-Atlantic relations? Does the Minister agree that NATO and the EU have survived earlier crises? This is not a time for absurd cries of panic.

The United Kingdom will be most respected as a good and a forward-looking European nation if, at the proposed EU summit next Monday, it neither caves in to delaying tactics on Iraq, which are clearly in the minds of many of our neighbours, nor hurls invective at its French and German neighbours. Instead we should remind them firmly, as I believe we should have done much earlier, and as Colin Powell did in detail before the Security Council, that Iraq, international terrorism and an unstable Middle East are all deeply interwoven; that Iraq has long been a lead contractor in the consortium of global terrorism; and that while other issues in the region demand attention—for example, the Palestine tragedy—the way to deal with them effectively will not be clear until this malign man is disarmed. Next Monday at the EU meeting we should remind our neighbours that a new UN resolution to achieve that aim is much the best path to peace and world stability and is deeply in the interests of all democracies.

3.20 p.m.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I thank the Minister for making that short Statement. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in asking the Minister when noble Lords can expect a debate on this matter in the House. The two Opposition parties and the Cross-Benchers have pressed for such a debate.

Can the Minister say when the request was made by Turkey for Patriot missiles? Was there a specific request by Turkey for the missiles or just for the planning of the movement of them? That appears to be at the heart of the argument. An assumption that Patriot missiles are to be sent to Turkey presumes that there is an almost unstoppable momentum towards war. In many Statements the Minister has said that it is hoped that war will not take place. However, there appears to be no great urgency for the movement of the missiles, especially as Hans Blix's report will be brought before the Security Council on Friday.

Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government believe that there is merit in the Franco-German proposals for an increase in the number of inspectors? Surely the aim of the military build-up is to force Saddam Hussein to disarm and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. As we saw during the Gulf War, the inspectors were far more successful in removing the potential threat to us all. Over 80 per cent of the weapons of mass destruction were removed through the work of inspectors and a very small proportion was removed by military action. It is unfortunate that Britain finds itself in opposition to its EU allies rather than acting as a bridge between our EU allies and the Americans.

3.23 p.m.

Lord Bach

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I was answering a question in the same way my right honourable friend Mr Ingram was answering a question from Bernard Jenkin in another place. That is why the Statement was short.

I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. We believe that it is important to keep what has happened so far at the North Atlantic Council in context. It may help if I remind noble Lords of the sequence of events. It is not the first time that this has occurred in NATO and I dare say it will not be the last.

First, the United States and other nations issued a proposal for NATO prudent planning, defensive in character, and which does not imply any automatic NATO action. Secondly, the Secretary-General, our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, issued a proposal under the silence provisions. Thirdly, that silence was broken on Monday by France and Belgium, supported by Germany.

They were entitled to break that silence if that is what they saw fit to do. We are disappointed that they did so. I make no bones about that at all. We believe that the proposal put forward by the Secretary-General was sensible. That silence having been broken, the North Atlantic Council meeting was adjourned. It was reconvened yesterday but there was no consensus; it agreed to meet again today at 11 o'clock but that was postponed until 11.30; and that meeting was immediately adjourned without comment and will reconvene at 16.30 Brussels time, which, if I am not mistaken, is in precisely five minutes' time.

I thought that it was worth setting out the process for the House to put the matter into context. Yesterday the Turkish representative raised article 4, as he was entitled to do. That states that NATO's members will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any NATO country is threatened.

What our three allies did does not constitute a veto. They did what they were entitled to do, although the Government are disappointed that they broke silence in that way. The lack of consensus appears to be over timing and not substance. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked what it is like to fall out with our allies. I point out that 16 of the 19 members of NATO have not fallen out with us; they agree with us. Three members of NATO have fallen out with us. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, meant to say that he supported what his spokesman in another place said a few minutes ago, that his party regretted, as we do, that they had done so.

We believe that a further delay in reaching agreement—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on this point—will send the wrong message to the alliance on alliance unity and particularly to Iraq. We agree with him that this is a serious matter, but it is no more and no less than a serious matter. In this House we must not rush to judgment when it may be sensible to sit back coolly and see what happens later today.

On the suggestion which is not accepted by the French, German and Russian Governments in relation to more inspectors, I can do no better than to quote what Dr Blix said: The principal problem is not the number of inspectors but rather the act of co-operation of the Iraqi side". Mr El Baradei, in his turn, said that what was needed was a drastic change of mind. It is not for the weapons inspectors to discover weapons of mass destruction; it is for Saddam Hussein to disclose them. This is not a game of adult hide and seek; under the terms of Resolution 1441 Iraq must comply actively, immediately, fully and unconditionally. It has failed to do so. Therefore it is in material breach.

3.28 p.m.

Lord Wright of Richmond

My Lords, as someone who shares what appears to be the majority European opinion that the case for an immediate attack against Iraq has not yet been made, I suggest that if the American intention at Munich was to persuade their allies of the case, they signally failed to do so. I have some sympathy with the German foreign minister who said that he found it difficult to present the case for war when he had not been persuaded of it himself. Was it wise of the Americans to send Mr Rumsfeld to Munich? I have been reading Bush at War, by Bob Woodward, which makes it absolutely clear that in the Afghan context Mr Rumsfeld saw no need to present any case whatever to America's allies. I suspect that he takes the same view on Iraq. I join others in deeply deploring any damage done to NATO by the events of the past week.

Lord Bach

My Lords, the noble Lord is always heard with great interest in this House on these matters because he is undoubtedly an expert on them. I was not in Munich myself this weekend, although I know many people who were. I understand that the American Secretary for Defense presented the case for the United States and the coalition that it is hoped will be formed in a measured and proper tone, as I am quite sure he did.

I have no doubt that criticisms can be made generally of politicians from whichever country in regard to this very difficult matter, but I think that it would be unfair to say that any particular individual had made matters better or worse. The fact is that there is one individual who really counts in this matter in the opinion of the British Government, and that is Saddam Hussein. It is really up to him. He can prevent war if he wants to. What he must do is to disarm.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

My Lords, I wish to return to the content of the Statement about the NATO situation. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that this is not the first crisis that NATO has encountered and it will obviously not be the last one either. Should we not take a leaf out of a certain insurance company's advert and try if we can not to make too much of a drama out of what is a crisis?

Lord Bach

My Lords, as usual I agree exactly with what my noble friend has said.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford

My Lords, I speak as one who is also not yet convinced of the case for military action and who shares the great sense of unease at the public disagreements that have surfaced within NATO. Does the Minister agree that the deployment of defensive missiles in Turkey is a sensible precaution and is a necessary step to take if the threat of the use of force is to be credible? It is the credibility of the threat of the use of force that is most likely to bring about that drastic change of mind of which he speaks.

Can the Minister clarify the position about the deployment of those missiles? Will the United States provide them in any case, even if there is no agreement within NATO? Has Germany indicated also that it might provide them with Dutch personnel to man them if there is no agreement? There seems to be great confusion. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position.

Lord Bach

My Lords, as to the last point made by the right reverend Prelate, I am not in a position to speculate about what will happen if NATO does not reach the consensus required under the treaty. I very much hope—and I am sure the House agrees—that it will reach such a consensus. I think it would be foolish for me to speculate about what could happen next. I am grateful for the right reverend Prelate's comments, in particular because he is not convinced yet of the case.

As to the right reverend Prelate's point about Patriot missiles in Turkey, they are part of the credible force that is clearly required at the very least—I think we can agree on this—if Saddam Hussein is to move at all. Does anyone think for a moment that inspectors would be in Iraq or that we would be where we are if it had not been for the credible force that might be employed against him? I think the clear answer is, no.

As regards the case made, we continue to hope that Iraq will co-operate fully and disarm peacefully in line with the demands of the international community. I remind the House that that international community includes NATO. It was not just the United Nations Security Council that voted 15:nil for resolution 1441, not long afterwards at Prague all NATO members—every one of them—agreed that 1441 was an appropriate resolution. It gave Saddam a final opportunity to comply. He has not complied yet I fear to say and time—I also fear to say—is running out.

Baroness Northover

My Lords, can the Minister answer the question from my noble friend Lord Redesdale about Turkey? Can he tell the House when Turkey asked for assistance? Did it make any request for Patriot missiles before Monday? In addition, I note that the Russian parliament will debate the question of Iraq tomorrow. Might the House authorities agree to our having a similar debate, so that we can have the same rights as those of our newly democratic neighbours?

Lord Bach

My Lords, I do not know the answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness as to the exact chronology of what Turkey asked for and when it asked. I have given the chronology as regards events in Brussels this week.

We have debated Iraq on a number of occasions in this House, as has the House of Commons. I understand and appreciate the feeling that there should be another debate shortly. I also know that the Chief Whip knows that too, and these matters will be sorted out, as always, through the usual channels. I do not think we need to take any lessons about free debate from the Russian parliament.

Lord King of Bridgwater

My Lords, I understand the Minister referring to the need to avoid exaggerated language at the present time. One hopes that the present controversy can be resolved, albeit it was only seven minutes ago or whenever we started discussing it. None the less, we are in a very serious situation.

Everyone in the House agrees that unless there is the absolute credibility of force to support the UN resolution, there is no prospect whatever of this matter being resolved by inspectors or by the programme set out by the UN. Every instance of indecision and disagreement among United Nation members, who were agreed, merely reinforces the conviction in Baghdad that perhaps after all the United Nations—as has been the case for the past 11 or 12 years—will fail once again to rise to the challenge and that it will be able to get away with it.

Lord Bach

My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not disagree with a single word that he has said.

Lord Clark of Windermere

My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as the leader of the British delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I agree with the Minister that NATO has had crises in the past and we have always overcome them quite well.

Does the Minister appreciate the concerns many of us have in this case? We understand that the application by the Turkish authorities for missiles was under Article 4—and, of course, that has been negated—which was a precursor and indeed perhaps a preventive measure for an application under Article 5. Article 5 would require all the other 18 member states of NATO to go to the assistance of Turkey if it were threatened. Can the Minister assure us that nothing would be allowed to stop Article 5 being invoked if it were necessary?

Lord Bach

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right; the Turks have invoked Article 4. That matter is currently being considered in Brussels. As regards speculation about the future, I am reluctant to go very much further, but I must say that it would be remarkable if and when Article 5 came into play there was not unanimity among all NATO members.