Iraq: Legality of Conflict (Hansard, 19 October 2004)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government respect the Secretary-General but in this case we do not agree with him. My noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has made clear the Government's position on the legality of the conflict in Iraq and your Lordships have debated and discussed the issue on a number of occasions. The division of opinion on this issue is clear and, I suspect, unchanged.

§ Lord Watson of Richmond
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for its clarity, but I have a further question to put. Do not the Government understand that, with the credibility of their policy in Iraq eroded with every day of continuing violence that comes and passes and with the justification for their position in Iraq also eroded on the one hand by the acceptance now by the Government that the 45-minute warning was false and on the other by the Prime Minister's assertion in the other place in March 2003 that the justification of the Iraq policy is not on the basis of nation-building, it is really quite unacceptable at this stage for the Government to be considering deploying British troops in Baghdad under United States command? There simply is no mandate for such a policy.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the noble Lord raises the question of the credibility of the Government on this issue. I remind the noble Lord that the credibility of the Government on this issue and the way that the Government have conducted themselves have now been examined by four separate independent committees: two from another place, one under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, and one under the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and on every occasion the Government have been acquitted of any wrongdoing on the question of good faith.
The noble Lord says that the Government's credibility is eroded. I wish that he had been in my office yesterday afternoon when the Vice-President of Iraq, Dr Shaways, came to see me. I wish that he had 644 heard the Vice-President of Iraq, a Kurd, tell me how grateful the Kurdish people were, and the Iraqi people are, for what the people and the Government of this country have done in removing Saddam Hussein and giving Iraq back its future. I wish that the noble Lord would listen to the people on the ground and not just to the people on his own Benches.

§ Lord Archer of Sandwell
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the reason given to Parliament to justify the invasion was that the Security Council in Resolution 1441 had authorised military action? Does she agree that, whatever else may have been the case, at the time of the invasion the Security Council clearly was not prepared to authorise it?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I cannot agree with that either. As your Lordships will know—we have been over this many, many times—my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General set out his views in answer to a question from my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. I refer to the combined effects of UNSCR 678, which authorised the action in the first place, then SCR 687, which suspended it in certain circumstances, and SCR 1441. It was the combination of all those brought together which we believe gave us the legal justification for action in Iraq. We have been over this ground many, many times and, as I indicated in my initial Answer, I suspect that opinions are unlikely to change.

§ Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, do the Government accept that two of the justifications given by the United States for invading Iraq were, first, that Saddam Hussein had been behind the events of September 11 and, secondly, that they wished to change the regime? In the light of previous ministerial statements that it is not Her Majesty's Government's policy to change other people's regimes, does the Minister accept that both justifications are neither correct nor legal?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I accept that those justifications were not United Kingdom justifications. I remember being asked over and over again in this House to make the link between A1'Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I remember being asked that by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and refusing point blank to do so because it was not possible. I also remember the noble Lord himself asking me over and over again whether this was about regime change, and making it perfectly clear that it was not—it was about repeated flagrance of United Nations Security Council resolutions. That was and is the position of the United Kingdom Government.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I concur with what the Minister says about the Vice-President of Iraq. I also had the privilege of meeting him and he asked me to give a goodwill message to the former Prime Minister, John Major, for what he had done for the Kurdish people and for Iraq as a whole. The Minister is absolutely right about that.
645 However, I return to the narrower question. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, rather widened his own Question, but it is about the legality of the whole operation. Will the Minister define exactly what she regards as the source of international legitimacy for these operations? Were the operations in Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, or Haiti legal? Are not these criteria that we need to examine very carefully before coming to very general conclusions about these complex matters?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, it is important that we examine all the different instances. So far as Kosovo was concerned, questions were raised about the legality at the time. We can remember those; we debated them in this House. Then we turn to the justification of overwhelming humanitarian concern, which some noble Lords questioned. However, your Lordships will also know that a high-level UN panel has been set up to review the way in which the UN responds to threats to international security. It will make recommendations for reform in December.
I also remind the noble Lord, given that he mentioned his right honourable friend Mr Major, that the legality that justified the action taken in 1993 is the same legality as I cite in respect of 2003—that is, UNSCR 678 and 687. It was also the same justification we used in relation to the Desert Fox campaign in 1998, when those on the Liberal Democrat Benches went out of their way to support the Government's action. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said: I rise to support the Statement on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. In the circumstances, it was unavoidable that Britain should take action with the United States. Clearly"— this is the important bit— Saddam Hussein has broken all the terms of the UN conditions attached to his regime. Under those circumstances, we had no choice but to intervene".—[Official Report, 17/12/98; col. 1528.] Why was a breach enough in 1998, but not enough in 2003?

§ Lord Goodhart
My Lords, we know from the Butler report that the Attorney-General advised the Prime Minister that, for the war to be legal, it must be, possible to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-co-operation with the requirements of Security Council Resolution 1441". Where is that hard evidence is to be found?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the Attorney-General has made clear that his view in 2003 was that the war was legal. He has made clear only in the past couple of weeks or so that that view remains the same. I remind the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said in his report—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, called it "brilliant"—that the case for war rested on Iraq's non-co-operation and non-compliance.