HL Deb 10 March 2003 vol 645 cc1132-47

4.33 p.m.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

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

"I should like to make a statement on Iraq and Israel/Palestine."

"On Friday last, 7th March, I attended a ministerial meeting of the Security Council in New York—the fourth such since late January. I have placed copies in the Library of the House of the chief inspectors' latest reports, together with the text of the speech which I gave to the council, and a copy of the amended second resolution of which the UK is a co-signatory.

"The Security Council's meeting on Friday took place four months after the adoption of SCR 1441. This gave Iraq a 'final opportunity' to comply with a series of disarmament obligations. Significantly, during the hours of intensive debate last Friday, not a single speaker claimed that Iraq was in compliance with those obligations. Neither did a single speaker deny that Iraq has been in flagrant breach of international law for 12 years.

"Dr El Baradei's and Dr Blix's reports were about the continuing work of the inspectors. I pay tribute to them and to their teams.

"The first issues concern the International Atomic Energy Agency. As the House will be aware, nuclear facilities are intrinsically more difficult to construct and less easy to conceal than facilities for producing biological or chemical weapons. Dr El Baradei reported that, 'after three months of intrusive inspections, the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.' That is welcome.

"As for UNMOVIC, on the other hand, Dr Blix reported movement in some limited areas: for example, the partial destruction of prohibited Al Samoud missiles. This is, however, only the tip of the iceberg of Iraq's illegal programmes.

"The full extent of that iceberg was revealed in a document compiled by UNMOVIC entitled Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes, which was made publicly available late on 7th March. I have also placed copies of this document in the Library of the House. I commend it to all honourable Members. It sets out, in 173 pages of painstaking detail, the terrible nature of the weapons Saddam has sought with such determination to develop. It is a chilling catalogue of evasion and deceit, of feigning co-operation while in reality pursuing concealment.

"The sheer scale of Iraq's efforts to develop these weapons and to hide them can only be grasped by reading the whole document, with great care. But, from 29 separate sets of unresolved issues, let me give the House one illustration—anthrax. It is easily inhaled. The death rate in humans on untreated victims may be 90 per cent or more. Only tiny amounts are needed to inflict widespread casualties. Contrary to Iraqi assertions, the inspectors found evidence of anthrax where Iraq had declared there was none. Again, contrary to Iraqi assertions, UNMOVIC believes there is a strong presumption that some 10,000 litres of anthrax were not destroyed in the early 1990s and may still exist. Iraq also possesses the technology and materials to allow it to return swiftly to the pre-1991 production levels.

"Let me now deal with the issues of inspections and more time. I recognise the temptation to believe that the inspections are working and all that is needed is more time. But Saddam is the master of playing for time. Frankly, as anyone can see from reading the UNMOVIC document, to continue inspections with no firm end date will not achieve the disarmament required by the Security Council. This is the suggestion in the recent memorandum from France, Germany and Russia. But, as the memorandum acknowledges, this cannot be achieved without Iraq's full, active and immediate co-operation,

"Once more last Friday, the Iraqi Permanent Representative to the United Nations claimed that Iraq had no more weapons of mass destruction. It is the same old refrain that we have heard from the regime for the past 12 years. Yet whenever the inspectors have caught them out, the regime have first protested, then conceded the point, but then mendaciously claimed that there is no more.

"So the choice before us is whether we stand firm on our objective of disarmament, or settle for a policy that, in truth, allows Saddam to rebuild his arsenal under cover of just enough co-operation to keep the inspectors tied down for years to come.

"Let us not deceive ourselves. The alternative proposals before the Security Council amount to a return to the failed policy of so-called containment. But the truth is that containment can never bring disarmament, nor is it the policy of the United Nations, as expressed in Resolution 1441.

"Dr Blix reported on some further recent activity by Iraq, in respect mainly of the Al Samoud missiles. What has caused it? It is not our policy that has changed, nor international law, nor diplomatic pressure. The only thing that has changed is the willingness of the United States and the United Kingdom to deploy their armed forces for the sake of achieving the objectives set by the United Nations.

"The reality is that Saddam responds only to pressure, and the clear conclusion to draw from this is that we must further increase the pressure on him. We must put him to the test.

"The Government have made plain all along their desire to secure a peaceful outcome to the crisis. It is for this reason that I took the initiative in the Security Council last Friday to circulate a revised version of the UK/US/Spain draft second resolution. "This specifies a further period beyond the adoption of the resolution for Iraq to take the final opportunity to disarm. Negotiations on its detail have continued over the weekend. We are examining whether a list of defined tests for Iraqi compliance would be useful in helping the Council to come to a judgment."

"What we are proposing is eminently reasonable. We are not expecting Saddam to have disarmed in a week or so; but to demonstrate by that time the full, unconditional, immediate and active co-operation demanded of him by successive UN resolutions since 1991. I profoundly hope that the Iraqi regime will, even at this late stage, seize the chance to disarm peacefully. The only other peaceful alternative would be for Saddam Hussein to heed the calls of a number of other Arab leaders to go into exile and hand over to a new leadership prepared to conform with the Security Council's demands. But if it refuses to co-operate then the Security Council must face up to its responsibilities.

"In the event that military action does prove necessary, then the international community 'will have a duty to build a secure, prosperous future for the Iraqi people. Last Thursday, I met the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, to discuss the humanitarian situation and the involvement of the United Nations in any reconstruction of Iraq. At that meeting, I proposed that the UN should take the lead role in co-ordinating international efforts to rebuild Iraq and that this should be underpinned by a clear UN mandate.

"As the crisis enters this phase, there are fears that in securing Iraq's compliance with international law we may exacerbate tensions across the region. Emotions are inflamed by the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories where, tragically, there seems to be no end to the spiral of killings. Since September 2000, over 2,300 Palestinians have been killed and over 700 Israelis. We mourn the loss of life on all sides.

"But we cannot allow the cycle of violence to destroy hope for a better future. There are some grounds for optimism. The international community today shares our vision of a lasting settlement, as set out in a series of SCRs: a viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 boundaries; and an Israeli state free from terror, recognised by the Arab world.

"We actively encourage both sides to meet their obligations. We are playing a full part in the international effort to help the Palestinian Authority to build more democratic institutions and a sound civil administration. I chaired a meeting in London on 14th January to discuss these issues with Palestinian leaders, representatives from the region and the quartet. The United Kingdom hosted further meetings, this time attended by Palestinian representatives in person between 18th and 20th February. I have spoken to Chairman Arafat on two occasions in the past week. I greatly welcome his decision to nominate Abu Mazen for the post as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. I hope this nomination is approved by the Palestinian Legislative Council. Abu Mazen has a fine track record in peace negotiations with Israel. We very much hope that this appointment, and other reform measures being taken by the Palestinian Authority, will help to restore a meaningful peace process, as set out in the road map devised by the quartet.

"Likewise, we look to Mr Sharon and his new team of Ministers to work with the international community in restoring hopes for peace. I shall be talking to the new Israeli Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, tomorrow.

"A lasting settlement in the Middle East would remove one great threat to security in the region and the wider world. In confronting the danger from Iraq's weapons, the UN can remove another.

"Irrespective of the choice the Iraqi regime makes, we must not let Saddam turn his 'final opportunity' to disarm into endless opportunities to delay. If he refuses to disarm peacefully, then the only sensible course for the international community is to compel him to do so by force".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Howell of Guildford

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this full and detailed Statement from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

This is a dangerous time for us and for the rest of the world. We all want peace, but many of us fear that as the evidence mounts of Iraq's hideous and terrible weapons, Saddam Hussein is inviting war, unless there is full compliance at the last moment—of which there is, sadly, little sign. Does not the evidence of new plans for building unmanned aircraft capable of spraying chemical and biological agents—the so-called MIG 21 RPV project—confirm that the moment of appalling revelation and truth is fast approaching? The more one studies the small print of the latest expanded UNMOVIC statement—the working document published on Friday, to which the Foreign Secretary referred—the clearer that becomes on almost every page.

This is not a time for point scoring, but I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel that I am being too reckless in observing that unity of purpose, both internationally and within our own leadership, is crucial. Divisions and disunity send a fatal message to Saddam to hold out against UN resolutions. Indeed, they have probably already sent that fatal message, possibly with disastrous results.

We on these Benches hope very much that the second resolution will be passed. Will the noble Baroness say a little more about the legal situation? Is a second resolution essential for the legal validation of any subsequent action, or would that vary depending on how the voting went? For example, a vote might get a Security Council majority but still face a French veto; or it might get a French, Russian and Chinese veto, which would be a majority of the countries among the permanent members; or it might fail to get the basic nine countries needed. We should know something about what legal advice the Government are receiving on those various circumstances, since that will enable us to judge more clearly the rights and wrongs of the path being taken.

The Foreign Secretary mentioned in his Statement a "further deadline" in the UK draft now being circulated. Does that mean a deadline to a fixed date still, or has the concept of the fixed date been abandoned?

I should make it crystal clear that, whenever the vote comes in the Security Council, this House should have a debate immediately afterwards—not before, but after the Security Council has voted. That is absolutely essential.

Looking further ahead into the crisis, will the noble Baroness say a word on Iraq reconstruction, which President Bush has promised will be "a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom"? How are we contributing to working with Americans and others under a UN mandate, if that is what it is to be, to bring about this vision of a "prosperous future", as the Foreign Secretary has just called it? Will she give us some more detail on that?

As for Israel and Palestine, we welcome all moves towards a viable Palestine and a secure Israel and hope that Chairman Arafat's appointment of a Prime Minister will help on his side. On the Israeli side, we can only note once more the futility of disproportionate violence, however great the provocation. So can Ministers continue to urge the new government in Jerusalem to reaffirm their wobbling commitment to the goal of a Palestinian state, and can they urge the Americans not to delay too long in taking new initiatives in line with the road map rather than holding off on the road map until the Iraqi crisis is over, whenever that may be?

Meanwhile, we support the Prime Minister's line, eloquently advanced as it was by the Foreign Secretary at the United Nations at the end of last week. We pray that others, too, will understand the need for firm and prompt action before Saddam reaches that fatal crossroads where fanaticism and weapons of mass destruction meet and the entire world then suffers.

4.50 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for allowing us to practise our speed-reading skills. The Statement is accompanied by several supporting documents and a 173-page background paper which we are recommended to read with care before we comment on the Statement. It is a good test of whether we are wide awake in the middle of the day.

I am puzzled by the very clear difference of emphasis between the report that Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei gave to the United Nations last Friday and the tone of the Foreign Secretary's speech. The Foreign Secretary said: It's the same old refrain we've heard from the regime for the past 12 years". Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei said that, under pressure—and we on these Benches have always supported the concept of coercive diplomacy—the Iraqi regime has begun to make useful concessions. "As of today", Hans Blix commented, Iraq has … accepted that … missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. Just in case anyone had not noticed, he added: We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed". Mohamed El Baradei said: In the last few weeks, Iraq has provided a considerable volume of documentation relevant 10 the issues I reported earlier as being of particular concern". All of us accept that Iraq has not yet come into full compliance. However, it has begun to move significantly. The policy of coercive diplomacy appears to be working. I therefore have to ask the Minister whether it is now the Government's conviction, as it now appears to be the conviction of the American Administration, that coercive diplomacy is not working, that regime change is the only answer, and that we are therefore committed to war; or whether a continued policy of coercive diplomacy—over a matter of months, as Hans Blix said, not weeks or years—is the appropriate way forward.

How important do the Government regard the passing of a second resolution? The phrase "unreasonable vetoes" has been used. Does the Minister think that three vetoes, should that happen, could be regarded as unreasonable?

We all recognise that this is not just about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. It is, as the US administration has said from the beginning, also about the broader politics of the Middle East, the war on terror and the Arab/Israeli situation. I was surprised to read the following in the New York Times this morning: Now, officials say, Bush has changed his mind and regards the pledge made in December"— the pledge to publish the road map after the Israeli elections—"as unrealistic". The article continues: Among the angriest allies is Britain's prime minister, whose aides say he has pleaded with Bush to be more involved in the Israel-Palestine dispute". In the following paragraph of the report, an unnamed European official is quoted as saying: Let's face it, the Road Map is dead". Have we reached a point where the US Administration are no longer interested in bringing pressure to bear on the Israeli Government to make parallel progress on the Arab/Israeli conflict? Are we now pursuing a different policy from that of our American allies?

I turn to the question of the wider war on terrorism and how we can come to terms with the Muslim world. Some weeks ago, I asked a topical Question about the American treatment of prisoners, including the alleged treatment of prisoners on Diego Garcia. I was surprised to see, in a very well-sourced article in the New York Times, the following: American officials have acknowledged that the CIA has interrogation centers"— in a number of places, including— at a base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean". That appears to contradict the Government's response to my Question of some weeks ago. I would be very grateful if the Minister can tell me if she has further information on that as well.

4.55 p.m.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their remarks. I very warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his remarks about my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his comments last Friday at the United Nations Security Council. I thought that the Foreign Secretary's statement was excellent. It took on the argument and answered the points, some of which were erroneous, made in the Security Council. I agree very much with the noble Lord's comment about this being a very dangerous time. I reiterate that we all want peace; he is quite right on that. I think that he was right also in his judgment that the choice here is the choice of Saddam Hussein.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised the question about the RPVs. I appreciate that he has not had these documents long. However, page 14 of the document to which my right honourable friend referred in his Statement—"Unresolved Disarmament Issues"—contains the following statement: Recent inspections have also revealed the existence of a drone"— which is indeed the RPV 20 to which the noble Lord referred— with a wingspan of 7.45 metres that has not been declared by Iraq. Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone has been test flown". The report goes on to say that further investigation is required into the drone. Nevertheless, the noble Lord is right that that is one of the unanswered questions—of which, as he said, there are many in almost every page of this document. When the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, says that he is puzzled by the difference in tone between the comments of Hans Blix and those of the Foreign Secretary, I would urge him to read this document very carefully. It is this document that provides the evidence. I fully concede that the position of Dr Blix and Dr El Baradei must be very difficult. They will not want to be seen to be going too much towards one side of the argument or the other. However, this document provides the evidence. It is this document that my right honourable friend thought was so important to bring to the attention today of both Houses of Parliament.

Hans Blix did say that Iraq had begun to take some useful steps. The point, however, is that Saddam Hussein always does. He always begins to take a few useful steps, but he always does so at the last minute. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that UNSCR 1441 demands the full, active and immediate co-operation of the Iraqi regime—not a few useful steps at the last minute. In no way could anyone claim that we have had full, active co-operation, and not a single speaker at the Security Council did so last week.

So we turn to the second resolution—a resolution on which the Prime Minister is working tirelessly, as is my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about the legal questions. Iraq's obligations are unambiguously set out in existing Security Council resolutions passed over the past 12 years. Iraq has consistently been in breach of them. Resolution 1441 sets out in detail the council's requirements and it makes plain to Iraq that failure to comply now will have serious consequences. The words "serious consequences" have real meaning. The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring that any military action in which we engage anywhere in the world is carried out in accordance with international law. We have made very clear our strong preference for a second resolution in the event that Saddam continues to defy the UN. But we have also made clear that we must reserve our position in the event that a second resolution proves to be unattainable. The legality of the use of force in any particular case would depend on all the circumstances at the time. I do not believe that that is any different as a policy from the policy espoused by the noble Lord's own political party.

The noble Lord asked about a deadline. There is a date stated in the draft resolution which has been circulated. Operational paragraph 3 states that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded in the resolution unless on or before 17th March 2003 the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full unconditional immediate and active co-operation. That matter is now under negotiation. It is being discussed by my right honourable friends, by our allies, by those with whom we agree and by those with whom we disagree, many of whom are also close allies. We must await the outcome of those negotiations.

The noble Lord asked about a further debate in your Lordships' House after a second resolution. We discussed the possibility of that. Indeed, I believe that it was referred to in the debate when we last discussed the matter a week last Wednesday. That would be a matter for the usual channels. If that is your Lordships' wish and that is what the usual channels decide, the Government would be happy to take that forward.

As regards the UN mandate on humanitarian issues, my right honourable friend's Statement mentioned that he had had discussions with Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, last week. We shall be guided by a number of considerations in the event that there is a decision to launch military action, which is not decided. I refer to considerations of maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq and that the Iraqi people themselves, in consultation with the international community, should generate ideas for future political arrangements for Iraq. Moreover, we would expect a successor regime to be a significant improvement on the existing one in terms of good governance and respect for human rights. We also believe that the United Nations should be at the centre of any transitional administration for Iraq. I hope that those four important points are useful to the noble Lord.

I hope that your Lordships have noted the determination of my right honourable friend, as set out in his Statement, to take forward the issues concerning Israel and Palestine. The road map is very important. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we do not believe that there is any sense in which the road map is dead. I spoke to the Foreign Secretary this morning and I believe that he has recently discussed the matter again with Secretary of State Powell. I shall return to the points the noble Lord raised about Diego Garcia.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asks whether it is now the Government's view that diplomacy is not working. I say baldly to the noble Lord that the Government's view is that diplomacy has never worked in relation to Iraqi disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. I say to the noble Lord that the only reason that we have inspections going on in Iraq at the moment is the credible threat of military force, and that military force has been put

there by the United States and the United Kingdom. When the noble Lord talks of a little more time for diplomacy, it is important that he recognises that diplomacy would not and has not delivered results. The UN SCR that we are now discussing—a second one—is designed to add that extra pressure.

I was asked about unreasonable vetoes. I say to all your Lordships that we are still negotiating on these issues. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have worked tirelessly and continue to work tirelessly, as they should—that is their responsibility—at the United Nations to try to get a resolution that will enhance the possibilities of peace. The alternative is that we have to look very seriously at the possibility of taking forward military action. From the beginning no one has hidden that from anyone. I say to all your Lordships that the tireless effort of my right honourable friends deserves to be supported, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, made clear, in your Lordships' House, across government and, I believe, by the people of this country.

5.5 p.m.

Lord Wright of Richmond

My Lords, I note what the Minister said about the road map. However, is she aware that recent statements by President Bush hardly give one encouragement that the road map is anything other than dead? The most positive comment that I think he has said is that success in Iraq, whatever that means, could lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I have seen no evidence at all that the Americans have seriously taken on board the real importance of tackling the Arab/Israel problem without reference to Iraq. It is a serious problem. I have argued before in this House that I think it is the most serious problem in the Middle East and that it needs urgent attention. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance that the Americans have taken that on board.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I am well aware of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, on that matter which I believe is echoed by many noble Lords on all sides of the House, as we have discussed on many occasions. I remind the noble Lord—I am sure that he does not need reminding, erudite as he is in these matters—that last year President Bush espoused the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. That was an important statement made last year by the President of the United States. The noble Lord may feel that some impetus has gone out of the discussions on the Middle East peace process. I point out that there have been very recent elections in Israel. Only in the past few days the Prime Minister of Israel has appointed a new Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Silvan Shalom. My right honourable friend said in his Statement that he hopes to talk to the new Israeli Foreign Minister tomorrow. The Statement makes clear that we wish to take forward the road map, which is not just an initiative of the United States but also involves the United Nations, the EU and the Russian Federation. We believe that it is the best way forward. We shall continue to argue our case vigorously, as the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have done, and as they do, both publicly and privately, with our allies in the United States.

Lord Turnberg

My Lords, one aspect that has not been touched upon so far in our discussions is the role of other countries in the region in perpetuating the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. 'The question I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister concerns the build-up of personnel and arms, including, I understand, several hundred short and medium-range missiles, in southern Lebanon on Israel's northern border. Those could, if fired, reach almost every part of Israel. They are put in Lebanon not by the Lebanese but by Syria and Iran. Will the Government exert pressure on those countries to prevent them taking advantage of any conflict in Iraq as a pretext to launch an attack on Israel which would do nothing to help resolve the dispute and could serve only to exacerbate the problem for suffering Palestinians and Israelis?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, of course, the Government recognise that the role of other countries in the region is enormously important. We certainly did when we invited representatives of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to attend discussions in London in January on the democratic institutions in Palestine. My noble friend's point on the role of other countries is well taken. He asks whether we can exert pressure on those other countries. We make clear our view about the use of weapons in any circumstances not just in circumstances that might involve our military engagement in Iraq. This is a fundamental issue and one to which we return often in our bilateral relations with all these countries; that is, that there needs to be a scaling down not only of the spiral of violence within Palestine and Israel but also the potential for that violence with their neighbours.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart

My Lords, in the Statement that the Minister read to us, the Foreign Secretary said that it was not international law that had changed. Are the Government able to say what advice they are currently receiving on international law? Have they observed the declaration by 17 leading public international lawyers last week, which stated that the use of force allegedly in self-defence against Iraq without an imminent and present threat would not be other than a serious violation of public international law, or the statement by Mr Mark Littman today that the approach would be a personal violation of international world peace, for which individual Ministers would hold responsibility? Can she also say why it was felt necessary to emphasise in the Statement that we cannot have years to ensure compliance although Hans Blix made it plain that he was not seeking days or years but months in order to reach assurance of compliance? The supporting evidence for that was set out in the 173 pages to which the Minister referred, and that is what led Dr Blix to that central conclusion.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, much as we respect Dr Blix, it is not up to him to rewrite the terms of UNSCR 1441. UNSCR 1441 is clear—it demands immediate and full co-operation from Iraq. It is Dr Blix's job to report but he has not taken on the responsibility of the United Nations Security Council to decide what to do in the face of a material breach. I repeat to the noble Lord that not a single member of the United Nations Security Council last week was able to argue that Iraq is fully complying, is complying immediately or is doing so with co-operation.

I turn to the legal point that the noble Lord raised. I hope that I answered that in the response that I gave to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. However, for the sake of absolute clarity, I make it clear to the noble Lord that we are committed to ensuring that any military action that we in the United Kingdom undertake, wherever it is in the world, is carried out in accordance with international law.

Lord Eden of Winton

My Lords, will the Minister say a word or two more about the threat of international terrorism? The Statement had little to say about that. Does she also agree that whatever may be one's hopes for and views of the United Nations organisation, where there is a credible threat to international peace and where it is perceived that the security of one's own country is in danger, it is wholly within the sovereign responsibility of the individual country to take whatever action it deems necessary to protect itself?

Finally, I refer to the United Nations organisation generally. Despite what is clearly an internationally orchestrated hate campaign against America and this country, does not the real threat to the United Nations organisation come from Saddam Hussein himself, who is in breach of resolutions, rather than from those who seek to take action to uphold integrity and to protect world peace?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, the Statement was about Iraq and Israel/Palestine. I take the noble Lord's point that Iraq has a long record of support for terrorism, including support for radical groups such as the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian terrorist groups such as Abu Nidal, which we have discussed in your Lordships' House, and the activities of the MEK against Iran. It also makes payments to suicide bombers' families and supported the assassination of political opponents in Iraq and abroad. Saddam Hussein tried to sponsor the assassination of ex-President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait in 1993. As UNSCR 687 makes clear, Iraq threatened to make use of terrorism and infamously held human beings as hostages and shields during the Gulf War. Of course these issues are interlinked.

The noble Lord referred to a hate campaign against the United States and ourselves and went on to say that the real threat came from Saddam Hussein. Yes, the real threat does come from Saddam Hussein; that is absolutely right. What is so difficult about this issue is the fact that Saddam Hussein has and will continue to have a pattern of behaviour by which he makes small concessions at the last moment. Those small concessions appeal to good people such as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who said, "Wait a little longer because it is all starting to work. If we wait a little longer, it will all come right in the end". That is the perfidious nature of the way in which Saddam Hussein operates. It is bound to appeal to good men and women who do not want war—none of us wants war—and who argue that if only we waited a little longer, it would all come right. I do not believe that the evidence is there to substantiate that wish.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick

My Lords—

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords—

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, the Minister gave the impression that the only—

Noble Lords

Cross Bench.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick

My Lords, in dealing with the legal position, the Minister referred to the concluding words of Resolution 1441. Is it not the case that the expression "serious consequences" was a compromise formula that falls short of the usual expression "use of force"?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, there are always compromises in United Nations Security Council resolutions. I dare say that if we went through with a tooth-comb, we should find many compromises. I do not believe that when nations signed up to the terminology of "serious consequences", they had much doubt about what they were signing up to.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, the Minister gave the impression—

Lord Chalfont

My Lords—

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and then from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, the Minister gave the impression from the answer in which she invoked the name of my noble friend that the only situation that we are now looking at is that of war, which seems to go against the many Government Statements that there is a prospect of peace. Although she will deny that, will she say what an unreasonable use of the veto involves? In an interview, the Prime Minister said that it might be unreasonable for one of the permanent members of the Security Council to use its veto. However, since France, China and Russia have considered the use of the veto, on what basis does the Prime Minister make that assertion?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I do not believe that I gave that impression. I have gone out of my way to preface virtually everything that I have said with phrases such as, "in the event of war" and "we hope that war will be avoided". A moment or two ago, I stressed again that we all hoped that there would he peace. I referred to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, because he made a passionate point to noble Lords and I was responding to him in debate. It seems entirely reasonable to do so. The noble Lord said that I should deny his suggestion; I do deny it, but I do so because that is true.

The noble Lord referred to the use of an unreasonable veto. We are negotiating now. There could be no more crucial time in our international relations—certainly not in my experience, as a Minister of nearly six years' standing in your Lordships' House. We maximise our chances of success, which I, as a Government Minister, wish to see, by wishing our negotiators well and not by trying to predict failure of individual parts of this negotiation. I will stick with my colleagues; that is the right thing to do and that is my responsibility. It may not satisfy the noble Lord, but my answer to him is that my approach is far more likely to help to deliver the answer that I believe all noble Lords want.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords—

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

My Lords—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I said that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would speak next, followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, should speak first and I shall speak after her.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

My Lords, my mother often said that gentlemen are born, not made.

As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, we live in dangerous times. We all want to see the United Nations come through this dire situation intact for the future. On no fewer than three occasions during her responses, the Minister spoke of negotiations taking place on the second resolution. I wholly agree with and support that. If what the newspapers say is true, I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, is, as we speak, on her second visit to Africa as part of such a negotiation process. Therefore, does the Minister agree with me that it was most injudicious, possibly even reckless, for a Minister in the Department for International Development to undertake such a trip in the knowledge that the Secretary of State for International Development has said that she would resign if a second resolution were not signed? Surely that takes away some legitimacy, integrity and ability of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, to negotiate a peaceful solution to this dreadful situation. We all know that Hussein will not back down until we are knocking on his door.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Dean that this is a dangerous time and that negotiations on a second resolution are at a crucial stage. I am sure that the whole House joins me in wishing my noble friend Lady Amos Godspeed in her discussions with colleagues in three African countries. She has great experience in Africa; she has good relationships with those in Africa; and I believe that she will be able to talk to people in terms of partnership based on experience and on her relationships. I do not believe, as I have read in some newspapers, that she will try to induce support through unwarranted pressure. I am sure that my noble friend will make an excellent case to those to whom she speaks.

I am sure that my noble friend, Lady Dean, will understand if I say that I do not wish to add to the column inches on discussions on her second point. However, I agree with everything that she said about unity of purpose at this difficult time.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there would be catastrophic effects on the future peaceful behaviour of the world if America were forced to back down by an unholy alliance, a French self-seeking movement? For the French Foreign Minister, whose views on Napoleon are, "What a pity he did not succeed at Waterloo", to be giving lectures to the rest of the world on American behaviour strikes some of us francophiles as rather unpleasant. The consequences of the Americans being forced to hack down will mean allowing a man to get away with starving babies to death, letting them wither at the breasts of their mothers and then shooting their mothers—that is Ann Clwyd speaking, not me. I am also reminded of the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, on the Marsh Arabs. Those messages should be brought home to the French and the Russians time and time again. The consequences of doing nothing are far worse than the consequences of doing something.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I believe that we are at a serious juncture, not just in terms of what is happening in relation to Iraq, but also in terms of the future health of international relations, as the noble Earl said. It is a crucial, difficult time. I have not read the French Foreign Minister on Napoleon, although from previous discussions with the noble Earl I know that he has—I believe he may have learned it off by heart. That makes the position of my right honourable friend on the United Nations Security Council last Friday so important; it was important for him to answer the points raised so forcefully by Mr de Villepin. He did so clearly in his excellent speech, a copy of which is in your Lordships' Library. I commend it to your Lordships.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, does the Minister agree that in some of the comments made about the problem, far too much emphasis is placed on the present, dangerous and real as those dangers may be, and not enough emphasis is placed on the future? As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, surely we shall be faced with a grave danger in the future if weapons of mass destruction, which we now know to be in the possession of Saddam Hussein, come together with international religious fanaticism, making the world a hideously more dangerous place than it is now. Then it will be too late to do anything about it. Is the Minister aware that despite some of the demonstrations and other protestations that have been made about the policies of the Prime Minister, many people closer to the matter believe that the Prime Minister is behaving with great intellectual clarity and great political courage?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for those closing remarks. The noble Lord is concerned that there is too much emphasis on the present. There is bound to be such an emphasis at the moment because we are facing a situation in which Saddam Hussein has to decide whether he will disarm his weapons of mass destruction peacefully or whether he will force a military conflict on the rest of us.

Of course, there are concerns about the spread of weapons of mass destruction and fanaticism, as the noble Lord characterised it, or the terrorism spoken of in other parts of your Lordships' House. The great worry must be about weapons of mass destruction slipping into the hands of groups who have allied themselves with the destruction of the United States or with attacks upon the United States and this country. Those issues are important. I also believe that an enormously important issue is the future of Iraq, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, mentioned. The integrity of the state of Iraq, its future stability, the immediate humanitarian needs of the country and the longer-term reconstruction are all matters that my right honourable friend has discussed not only in New York last week, but also, as one would expect, in contingency planning, as we discussed in our debate on Iraq about 10 days ago. They are important issues for the future.