House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Sep 1990

Mr. Archer : The right hon. Gentleman is accurate about the reason for article 51 being included in the charter. It was because there could be no certainty that there would be a general agreement among the United Nations. However, where a consensus is attainable, would it not be a step back to rely on the right of self-redress?

Sir Peter Blaker : I agree with what the right hon. Member for Islwyn said--that it is desirable to have the clear backing of the United Nations if that is attainable. However, we should not deny ourselves the opportunity to act even if it is not possible to obtain a Security Council resolution. As the House will recall, we relied on article 51 for our action in the Falklands.

Column 774

The Soviet Union recently suggested that there should be a comprehensive conference dealing with both Iraq's aggression and the question of Palestine. I do not know why it made that suggestion, which I believe is unwise. It would risk obscuring the main issue, which is to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not profit from his aggression. We must obtain his withdrawal and ensure that there is no possibility of further Iraqi aggression against Kuwait or its small neighbouring countries. Measures must be taken to deal with Iraq's nuclear and chemical weapons capability, and a security regime must be established in the Gulf.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Is there not a danger that in agreeing to an international conference--which I hope will not be the case- -it would give the dictator of a criminal regime the status to say, in effect, that what he has done in Kuwait has led to an international conference to deal with all sorts of other issues? Those of us on the Labour Benches who were strenuously opposed to the Suez aggression in 1956 made it clear that we did not want an international conference, but an end to the aggression--which was supported at the time by France and Israel. Our view remains the same. The aggression that began on 2 August must be ended before there is an international conference to deal with all the other issues, including the position of the Palestinians which, at some early stage, must also be discussed and resolved.

Sir Peter Blaker : The hon. Gentleman made a number of valid points. An international conference would enhance the status of Saddam Hussein. An additional, important point which was implicit in what the hon. Gentleman said is that it would enable Saddam Hussein to divert world attention to the question of Palestine and unite the Arabs behind him in opposition to Israel, which would be highly undesirable.

The world faces enough problems over the Gulf without adding the question of Palestine in the same forum. Of course we must not lose sight of the Palestine problem, but if we attempt to treat both those issues in the same forum at the same time, we are in danger of failing on both. We must first concentrate on solving the problem of Iraq's aggression. If we are successful, we may then find the further momentum to tackle, as we should, the question of Palestine. 5.38 pm

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Many hon. Members have said that this is the gravest crisis that we have faced since 1945, and I share that view. In the light of that, can anyone doubt that it was right to recall the House of Commons so that we could debate the matter outside the television and radio studios and without relying upon the mass media? There has also been a demand--quite properly in a crisis--for a degree of unity, and that unity has been present in a number of important respects. No hon. Member supports the act of aggression by Saddam Hussein against Kuwait. So far as I know, no hon. Member is other than strongly supportive of the sanctions taken by the United Nations against Saddam Hussein and the resolution for their enforcement. We also have something else in common--none of us will be killed if a war breaks out.

But as Members of Parliament, we have responsibilities which cannot simply be subordinated to the role of the

Column 775

Government. This is not the place to deal with it, but under our constitution, military deployments, acts of war and treaties of peace come under the Crown prerogative. Parliament has no legal or constitutional right whatever to decide the matters that are before us for debate.

But we have a duty to represent people. We have a duty to represent--as far as I can make out, some Conservative Members have done it with tremendous energy--British citizens in Iraq and Kuwait. We have a responsibility for them and their families. That has hardly been mentioned except as an instrument for denouncing, quite properly, the man who is detaining them. We have service men and women in the middle east, and perhaps more are to go there if the stories in today's papers are right. They and their families are entitled to have Members of Parliament to represent them. There are the refugees, thousands of them without water and food, and as human beings we have a responsibility to them. I might add that the tragic pictures that we have seen of people in the desert without proper food or shelter would be as nothing to what would happen if war broke out. As you know, Mr. Speaker, because we discussed it yesterday, I intend to oppose the motion tomorrow that the House should now adjourn. The motion to adjourn the House is usually a formal one. The House adjourns at night and meets again at 2.30 pm. But this is the one rare occasion when whether we should adjourn for another six weeks while events take their course is the real question. If anyone says to me, as some have said in the face of the crisis, that we should send a united message to Saddam Hussein, I remind the House that on 5 May 1940, when Hitler was at the gates, there was an Adjournment debate on the handling by the Government of the Campaign in Norway, and a vote. The then Prime Minister won the vote and resigned, and Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. So let us not be told that the duty of the House of Commons is to unite behind whatever the Government of the day does, because that is not what the House is there to do. We are here to represent people and to contribute our own opinions as best we can. I have no complaint of any speech made today about how we feel that the crisis should be handled.

I will use plain language. I fear that the United States has already decided that, when it is ready, it will create a pretext for a war. That is what I believe. I acquit the Foreign Secretary of being in that hawkish clan because, in so far as one can penetrate the inscrutable corridors of power and the minds of their inhabitants, he seems to be a bit of a dove. But let me say this, too, without offence. Britain is a minor player in this game. We have had a debate today as though everything hinged on whether the Prime Minister decided to go to war. The Prime Minister, too, is a minor player in this unfolding tragedy. She decided to go in with President Bush, perhaps because of the transatlantic relationship, the so- called "special relationship", or as thanks for the Falklands, or because she did not want to get mixed up with the EEC.

But she is a minor player and once she and the Cabinet decided to commit even a notional number of forces--including the RAF and the RAF regiment and now the troops--she was locked into what President Bush intended to do. It is important that we should not discuss, as if we

Column 776

were in a position to decide the post-cold- war order, what the Prime Minister will be doing here and there. We are a minor partner in an American strategy.

It must be known by now that I am opposed to a war against Iraq. I am opposed to action outside the United Nations. I believe that it would divide the Security Council. It might not exactly unite the Arab world, but it might bring many Arab countries together against us. The outcome of such a war could not be sure, because President Saddam Hussein would certainly have the capacity, were he to choose to do it, to destroy so many oil installations that, even though he himself might be destroyed, it would inflict a burden on the world economy and the middle east which could not be contemplated.

Mr. Cormack : Nobody in the House is enthusiastic for war, but is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is prepared to let Saddam Hussein keep his loot?

Mr. Benn : No, I am not saying that at all. I said at the beginning of my speech that there is unanimity for sanctions. I share the view of, I think, either the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), that a country dependent for its revenue on oil cannot survive when its oil pipeline is cut.

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn : No, I shall not give way again.

I believe, therefore, that the sanctions will be effective ; but that has to be put against what would happen otherwise.

I must also say something else to the House without in any way being offensive. Governments of any colour in any country are not the main practitioners of morality. America went into Panama and 3,000 people were killed. America went into Grenada. America supported Iraq when it attacked Iran. America did nothing when Cyprus was invaded and partitioned by Turkey. America has no moral authority, any more than any other super- power. The same would be true of the Soviet Union after Afghanistan, or wherever. It has no moral authority. Nor, might I add, because these things must be said and nobody else has said them, can we defend the Emir or the King of Saudi Arabia, neither of whom practise any democracy. I am not saying that they are not entitled to the protection of the UN charter--I have already said that they are--but, given the denunciations of the breaches of human rights in eastern Europe by Ministers, one might have expected one of them, in this dispute, to point out that a person found guilty of shoplifting in Riyadh will have his hand chopped off. Are we to live in a world where morality is seen as the product of a parliamentary majority?

The real issue is this. Everybody knows it and nobody has mentioned it. The Americans want to protect their oil supplies. I think that I am right in saying that not one Member on either side of the House has drawn attention to what the former Attorney-General of the United States, Ramsey Clark, said on the radio last night. He said that the United States forced Saudi Arabia to accept its army there because it wanted to protect its oil.

We are experienced as an imperial power and that will not shock the Conservatives. I am not asking anyone to be shocked, only to recognise the fact that stares us in the

Column 777

face. America has benefited much recently from cheap middle eastern oil. It was reported in the Financial Times that it has reduced its oil production and increased its oil imports from 31 per cent. to 52 per cent. It has become hooked on this cheap fluid that now has to be controlled by the American army. That is honestly the position. The United States wants a permanent base.

I have not had a distinguished military career like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, but I served in Egypt in 1945 and I still have my identity card saying that I was exempt from Egyptian law. I looked at it the other day. We had a base at Tel-el-Kebir in Egypt from 1888, when Mr. Gladstone put it there, to 1956. If one talked to any Egyptians, all they did was read a list of promises by successive British Governments about when we would withdraw our base. We withdrew in 1956 and were in again with the support of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)--he and I clashed at the time--within a few weeks.

Then there is the arms trade. That has been brought out a bit. A couple of years ago, in Algiers, I met a former Egyptian Foreign Minister who told me that there had been a seminar in Cairo about the crusades and that during the crusades European arms manufacturers supplied arms both to Richard Coeur de Lion and to Saladin. Nothing has really changed. Arms manufacturers have made billions of pounds from selling instruments of mass destruction, partly to hold down those colonial people so that the sheikhs will supply cheap oil, and partly because it is highly profitable to sell arms. I shall not try to differentiate between Governments, because the Labour Government did it too.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said that it was wrong, and I shall have to put footnotes to that effect on every page of my diary--but at the same time, we did it too. The arms trade is a corrupt trade. If our troops have to fight those of Saddam Hussein--I hope that that does not happen--they will be fighting against modern weapons in part sold by Britain, France, America and Russia for profit. That is a major issue.

If we go to war--and there are those who think that we might--what will be our war aims? That is not an unreasonable question. Will it be to free Kuwait, to topple Hussein, or to destroy Iraqi weapons? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went further than the Prime Minister in setting the objective. She said that it was to arrest Saddam Hussein and to bring him before an international crimes tribunal. The Prime Minister said that on television. Are British troops to be sent in to fight before their objective has been clarified? The Government have never made clear what is their aim. However, it is clear that the United States, having helped to arm Hussein, is determined to bring him down and to establish a new base.

I do not need to dwell on the consequences of war. They include a massive loss of life and possibly an air attack on oil installations. In the peculiar circumstances, we would to some extent, if not in every sense, be taking on Islam. Stalin is remembered for asking a very silly question. He asked how many battalions the Pope had. [ Hon. Members-- : "Divisions."] We should ask how many divisions the prophet Mohammed had. There are 105 million Muslims in India alone. We have some here, too. I am sure that the BBC World Service will explain that that has nothing to do

Column 778

with the situation, but there are people who will see our action as an attempt to reimpose a white, rich control over an area once dominated by the British empire.

The Prime Minister courteously gave way to me when I asked what I hope was a relevant question. She said three times--so she must have meant it--that she already has the legal right to attack Iraq and that no further stages are necessary. The only consideration is that that will be done not at her discretion but at that of President Bush. I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that anyone who goes into the Lobby with the Government tomorrow night will be endorsing the view that no further action is needed to legalise an attack on Iraq.

Those who vote with the Government tomorrow will be voting for giving the Prime Minister a free hand or a blank cheque. Those who vote against the Government will be accepting the view expressed in my early-day motion, which calls on the Government

"to make a clear and unequivocal statement that it will not commit British Forces to offensive military operations against Iraq that have not been explicitly authorised by a Resolution passed by the Security Council, and under the provisions of the UN Charter, which deal with the use of force by the United Nations and under its military command."

I referred to two points of view, but others may think that it is better to reserve judgment and not to vote at all. Even those who cannot go with my view may not want to give the Prime Minister a free hand between now and 15 October.

Yet another view has been constructively touched upon by other speakers-- the belief that peace is possible, but that one must take a broad view of the factors involved. One must look both at the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and UN resolutions relating to the west bank. One cannot pick and choose between Security Council resolutions. One must have both a Palestinian state and security for Israel. One must deal also with the oil companies that are busy exploiting the situation as much as they can.

There has been a 7 per cent. fall in oil production worldwide but a 100 per cent. increase in its price. How is that justified? Thank God for Winston Churchill, who in 1914, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company for £2 million. His speech on that occasion made the strongest case for public control and ownership of oil companies that one can find. Winston Churchill said that countries were being squeezed by the oil companies.

If there is to be a peace-keeping force, it would be better if it were Arab, but I turn to the longer, post-cold-war perspective to which our attention has been properly drawn by a number of speeches. One cannot have a new order for the middle east based on the redeployment of white power in the form of a permanent American army in Saudi Arabia. That will not work. One is no longer dealing with the natives who featured in Rudyard Kipling's poems but with a quite different world. For me, the United Nations is the General Assembly, not the bigwigs, permanent and rotating members who sit on the Security council. I personally would like to see direct elections to the General Assembly. They might only return one British Member of Parliament, but I would certainly be a candidate, if that were possible.

We are always being told that we must come to terms with reality and that we must not live in the past. The fact remains that we live in a very small world of many religions. There are fundamentalist Christians. When

Column 779

President Reagan spoke of an evil empire, he was declaring a Christian jihad against communism. Anyone who has visited America and listened to those Christian fundamentalists, who have not got into trouble and been removed, will know that they make their reputations out of their religious wars against communism. However, as right hon. and hon. Members know very well, the Americans stimulated Islam to defeat communism--but when communism changed, fundamentalism remained.

We shall have to plan and share the world's oil. America has only 2 per cent. of the world's population but uses 25 per cent of the world's resources. That situation cannot be allowed to last, even if America has a big army. The real function of the United Nations is to act as the custodian of social justice. It should not serve just as a policeman. The first meeting of the UN General Assembly took place in Central Hall, Westminster in 1945. Then, Gladwyn Jebb was its acting secretary-general. Some people may remember that. I was just back from war. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, know that the UN was the great hope to end wars. However, it was more than that. It was meant to promote social justice. Those right hon. and hon. Members who support the Government's interpretation of the law, and their readiness to use their discretion without referring back to the House again, will vote with the Government in the Lobby tomorrow. Those who oppose the Government will vote with us, while others should abstain. I urge caution, because many other western European nations are being very cautious and have not sent troops. Many of the non-aligned countries are not really behind the action being taken by America and Britain. It is time to try to take some of the hatred out of the situation. I shall never forget the day I was first elected to Parliament. No one ever does. It was 30 November 1950. That same day, President Truman said that he might drop an atom bomb on China. We were then using against the red Chinese the language that we are now using against Saddam Hussein. They were seen as worse than the Russians. Nevertheless, there was a Peace for China Committee, and China was later admitted to the United Nations. Whatever the Chinese Government may have done in Tiananmen square, no one wants a war with the Chinese, otherwise they would not have been given Hong Kong-- [Laughter.] So much for the right of self-determination.

Mr. Heffer : Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of giving the Chinese Hong Kong but that the Americans have just agreed that they should have a special relationship and make special economic arrangements with China, despite the events of Tiananmen square?

Mr. Benn : I know that my hon. Friend, whom I much respect, will agree with me that morality and power march uneasily together in public life. At the time of the Suez crisis, the Father of the House and I clashed --something of which he generously reminds me occasionally. What was said then about Nasser is exactly the same as what is being said now about Saddam Hussein.

Column 780

The Falklands may be too close for comfort. Not all that many people looking back, think that that huge expenditure was justified-- [Interruption.] I do not think so. I have been in a minority before, and I might be in one now, but that does not worry me--

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Benn : In 1986, there was the bombing of Libya which tried to kill Gaddafi--it killed his god-daughter, I believe. Our bases were used for that. Some people took the opposite view.

I urge caution because it is not the hardware of military weapons that frightens me. A gun cannot go off by itself. It is the hatred which makes people want to use weapons. That is the fuel of war and in the past few months we have had the most vicious war propaganda pumped down our throats. The temper of peace, of which Pandit Nehru used to speak, is what we need, and we want to be cautious and to let it work its way through the United Nations. For that reason, Mr. Speaker--it would not have been possible without some help from the Chair--I intend to divide the House against the Adjournment motion tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I remind the House that the 10-minutes rule on speeches will operate between 6 and 8 o'clock.

6 pm

Sir Dennis Walters (Westbury) : As the 10-minute rule applies, I shall not be able to deal with a number of the points made in an eloquent speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He always speaks eloquently, but his conclusions are usually wrong. In any event, it is absurd for anyone who knows the middle east to compare Nasser with Saddam Hussein. Their records and their respective countries are totally different.

Undoubtedly there is massive support in the House and in the country for the Government's policy on the Gulf crisis. The facts are abundantly clear. President Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait, which was a member not only of the United Nations but of the Arab League, was an act of blatant aggression. It was callous and unprovoked and was particularly beastly because for eight years, while Iraq fought for its life against Iran, Kuwait gave Iraq generous and unstinting support. Saddam Hussein's accusations launched at the Emir of Kuwait were a grotesque distortion of the truth. Sheikh Jaber al-Sabah is one of the most independent-minded and wise of Arab leaders. I have been a member of the Kuwait Investment Advisory Board--an interest which is duly recorded--for many years and I was therefore able to witness at close quarters Kuwait's munificence to Iraq during the war and, for much longer, the enlightened investment policies pioneered by the Emir. There are not many countries whose principal investment portfolio is the "future generations fund", which is precisely what its name indicates. It was established to support future generations of Kuwaiti citizens without having to rely on oil revenues.

The Government obviously are right in what they have done and said. This act of aggression must not be allowed to succeed. Co-operation between the United States and the Soviet Union has been the most encouraging aspect of the crisis, and it is essential that it should continue. Saddam Hussein's two crucial miscalculations were, first,

Column 781

that a puppet Quisling regime would speedily emerge in Kuwait and, secondly, that the Soviet Union and the United States would immediately be at loggerheads about how to respond to his aggression.

Hopefully, the economic action taken will have the desired effect. Sanctions should start to bite before too long, and bite severely. Eventually it is not unreasonable to expect that Saddam Hussein or his successor will be forced to comply with the United Nations resolution calling for the immediate Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. Should that not happen, we must accept that action, under article 51, will have to be contemplated.

As has been said, the legitimate Government of Kuwait would be entitled to ask for the removal of the Iraqi presence from Kuwait. Should action become unavoidable, it is essential that the United States and the Soviet Union should act in concert. British and European Community diplomats should employ all their skills to help to cement the new Russo-American understanding.

I shall now mention the wider scene in the middle east. It is simply not good enough for the United States and the world community to deal exclusively with one act of aggression. It would not be acceptable to the Arab masses, who cannot and should not be lightly dismissed, if the United Nations, under American leadership, dealt speedily with one outrage while allowing others to continue festering. Why is King Hussein, one of the best friends of Britain and the west, so disturbed? Why is the Arab world partially divided over Iraqi aggression? The answer is relatively simple for anyone willing to take an objective view of the area and its history. It is Palestine and the running sore of the Arab-Israeli dispute, which is still unresolved and where efforts to do so have been at best half-hearted and often contemptible.

Twenty-three years have passed since Israel was called upon to withdraw from Arab territories occupied by force in 1967. United Nations resolution 242 is quite explicit, but Israel has not budged, and, what is more, it has continued to pursue a policy of savage repression against the Palestinian people on the west bank and in Gaza and no one has bothered to do much about it.

In the past two years alone, 159 Palestinian children under the age of 16 have been slaughtered and thousands wounded. What has the international community done about that? Some years ago, Israel invaded Lebanon, and its artillery mercilessly bombarded Beirut for weeks on end. What did the international community do then? Some years ago Israel bombed Tunis--the capital of a sovereign state--which was a clear act of international piracy. Again, the international community failed to take appropriate action.

Regrettably, the realities of internal American politics in the past have not allowed the United States to act even handedly in the area. This continuing exercise in double standards has created a seething and unfathomable sense of bitterness, frustration and anger in the Arab world.

President Bush and Mr. Baker have rightly said that they want a stable middle east, but they will not get it unless they face up to this reality. Therefore, it was most encouraging that Mr. Baker seemed to recognise this fact when he told the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee that

"America accepted that regional stability in the Middle East must include a settlement of the Palestinian issue."

Subsequent reports from Washington seem less encouraging, but I hope that the quotation I have cited

Column 782

represents the authentic view of the American Administration and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has just returned from an important and successful visit to the area, will be able to confirm that that is so.

We now face a genuine opportunity for good and one for evil. For good, after Iraq has agreed to withdraw from Kuwait, the United States and the Soviet Union should jointly sponsor an international conference to deal with all the middle east's territorial and economic problems, especially the Palestinian problem, and the role of the United Nations should become genuinely effective.

For evil, there exists a real danger that King Hussein may fall and be replaced by a fanatically anti-western fundamentalist regime. The King is facing gigantic economic and political problems, and needs major help and understanding--not the kind of idiotic comment that was made by some American senator or congressman the other day, describing him as a wimp.

Should Jordan be destabilised, this could be the moment for which the Shamir Government have been waiting for in order to implement the transfer solution so beloved by Likud racialists : that is, to expel the bulk of the west bank population. Such a move would have catastrophic and irredeemable consequences for western interests, and for the whole of the middle east. Wars and chaos would rage. It must not be allowed to happen : the opportunity for good must be seized, and, after the Iraqis have been obliged to leave Kuwait and the Emir and his legitimate Kuwait Government have been restored, the Palestinian problem must be dealt with immediately. That unresolved cancer, which is at the root of almost all the dangerous turmoil in the middle east, must finally be tackled and resolved.

6.10 pm

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : I hardly need to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I share most of the sentiments expressed in that excellent speech by the right hon. Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters), who is an old political friend of mine.

No apologist could clear Saddam Hussein of his crimes. The Iraqi dictator has an appalling record of repression, torture and murder ; he has brought upon himself the near-universal condemnation of the world community. His occupation of Kuwait was a criminal misjudgment which could drench that region in blood.

I deplore the invasion of Kuwait, and pray that sanctions may succeed ; but it is only fair to Iraq itself--not to the dictator--to state that there may be some validity in its claim to Kuwait, which lay in that region of the Ottoman empire and which was a British creation in the colonial post- first world war carve-up. Are we going to go to war every time some country in Asia or Africa or the middle east has a boundary dispute over the colonial boundaries that we drew? Of course we are not.

There was a special factor in Kuwait, and that was American interest. The United States has jumped at the opportunity to benefit from Hussein's action. It has clear war aims ; do not let us fool ourselves about this. The first is, in the memorable phrase of an American commentator,

"to make the world safe for gas guzzlers".

The Americans intend to control the supply of oil from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to ensure their immense

Column 783

consumption of oil. To do that, their second aim is to destroy the Iraqi regime and, by their continued military presence, to ensure a compliant successor. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Faulds : Oh, they can mumble away ; they do not want to know, because they do not want to learn.

The Americans intend to control the supply of oil from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to ensure their immense consumption of oil. To do that, their second aim--I am repeating this for the benefit of those who did not want to hear--is to destroy the Iraqi regime and, by their continued military presence, to ensure a compliant successor. They are playing the role that we played earlier in setting up regimes which would conform to our requirements for the supply of oil. But their third aim is the most sinister : to bring about the dominance of Israel in the area. Even most Members of the House probably know nothing of the strategic alliance that Reagan set up between Israel and the United States. No one so far has mentioned it. Of course, one should never underestimate the ignorance of the House of Commons on major matters.

Reports have it that Israeli politicians and strategists are urging America to war. Military commentators are urging, "Do it now," and, once the war starts, under the strategic alliance--which hon. Members should perhaps learn something about--and its web of options, there will undoubtedly be attacks by Israel on Iraq's strategic targets : nuclear and chemical sites and missiles and communications.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Faulds : No. I have 10 minutes, and I am going to use every moment.

In leading their great moral crusade, what hypocrisy the United States Government display ! Their aggressions since the last war have been flagrant : in Vietnam, the war they lost--America can lose wars : against Nicaragua : in Panama ; and in the great military victory in one of Her Majesty's realms, Grenada. Why, when Israel invaded Lebanon, was no such stringent action, led by the United States, taken against Israel? Instead, the United States supplied Israel with its latest weapons to try out against the Lebanese civilians, who died in their thousands.

What action does the United States pursue to bring to an end the Israeli Government's harassment, torture and murder of hundreds of Palestinians in the illegally occupied territories? What is the difference in moral terms between occupied territories in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, and occupied territory in Kuwait? What nauseating hypocrites American politicians are-- and that, of course, applies also to some of our own home-grown variety.

James Baker, the United States Secretary of State, is now attempting another gloss--the establishment of a new security structure. The purpose of the operation is to lead the world towards a middle east settlement to remove the region's threat to global order. Are the Americans going to induce Israel to give up the occupied territories? Are they going to cease to provide Israel with the newest armaments which give them control of the region? James Baker's scheme to remove the region's threat to global order

Column 784

entails the removal of Iraq's chemical, nuclear and ballistic missiles. What about Israel's nuclear and chemical threat, and its ballistic missiles? Are they to go to remove the region's threat to global order, or are they to remain in site to guarantee Israel's and America's control of the area? What utter, nauseous hyprocrisy this is.

What about our Prime Minister's role in all this moral charade? She always has to be more macho than the male, of course. She leapt in to support the United States. She thrives on the whiff of grapeshot, but she really does not know the background to developments in the Gulf--or anywhere else in the world, come to that. She is ignorant of history, and unaware and unconcerned about the beliefs and cultures of people in the world outside. She committed British troops--with the support of the "Gotcha!" and gutter British press--but she delayed consulting the House of Commons. We are just to rubber-stamp her jingoistic jaunt. But, most significantly, she backed the United States Government's policy in the middle east without any reference to our EC colleaugues, which shows her disregard for our European involvement. Then she proceeded to insult most of them for not tagging on quickly enough.

Can there be a resolution without war? The redrawing of a colonially imposed boundary would be a small price to pay for peace. It appears that Saddam Hussein has offered to link some Kuwaiti realignment with Israeli withdrawal in Palestine and Syrian withdrawal in Lebanon. Might it not be worthwhile to examine such an arrangement? But, better still, might it not be advisable, before war breaks out--as it will if we continue on this course--to respond to Mr. Gorbachev's proposal to hold a middle east conference where all these necessary steps could be pursued, and justice achieved for all the aggrieved parties : Lebanese as well as Palestinians, Kuwaitis as well as Syrians? It would make much more sense, and be juster and much more successful, I guess, than Mr. Baker's pursuit of a pax Americana--which might have very little "pax" about it.

6.18 pm

Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion) : Like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) managed to inject the music of controversy into the debate, but without--as far as I could see--really disagreeing with the fundamental proposition that the Iraqis have to withdraw from Kuwait. It cheered us up, but it did not add a great deal to the debate. The right hon.--and gallant--Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) reminded us of the dangers of war. He was quite right : on that journey, men know where they start but not where they will end up. The right hon. Gentleman then treated us to a charming

autobiographical account of his own ideological progress. He has occupied a distinguished career, which could, I think, be described as the triumph of intellect over consistency. If anyone is responsible for the debate that we are holding today--although I would not want to attribute too much to any one man--it is the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. We are discussing the crisis today because he initiated the dismantling of the British security system in the Arabian peninsula without ensuring that an alternative system was put in its place.

Column 785

It is easy to see what I mean. In 1961, when the Iraqi dictator of the day threatened Kuwait, the British Government-- the Macmillan Government--said, "Is this for real or is it bluff?" We could not tell. Intelligence reports gave us the troop figures, but we did not know what would happen. We said that we could not take the risk, so we put in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. The Iraqi dictator retreated and was toppled. We could not have done that unless we had had a major base in Aden and facilities in Oman and Sharjah, an advance base in Bahrain and stockpiles in Kuwait.

When, a month ago, the present Iraqi dictator concentrated his troops on the borders of Kuwait, the Americans had no facilities, even if they had had the will, to meet the crisis. Their nearest base was Diego Garcia, 2,000 or 3,000 miles away. There were no stockpiles and no facilities that they could have used, so Kuwait fell. We were lucky that Saddam Hussein did not push his luck further and go for the eastern province of Saudi Arabia.

The lesson is clear. The states of the Arabian peninsula, friends as they have been to us over the years, do not have the resources, the population or the strength to protect the oil resources that are vital to the economies of America, Europe and Japan. They cannot defend those oil resources by themselves.

I am sorry that he is not here, but I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I do not believe that, by itself, an Arab solution would work. The Arabs are bitterly divided. They make European union look like federation. We could not rely on them to protect the oil resources. A great many of them are interested in the issue only because they hope to get some of the oil wealth for themselves.

We--when I say "we" I mean the United States, which is quite rightly playing the leading role, Europe and Japan--will have to accept the responsibility for a regional organisation. I was glad to see that Secretary Baker gave his support to that concept. It has as yet to be developed, whether under the United Nations--that would be ideal--NATO, or an offshoot of NATO--perhaps. Something new is needed that includes those Arab countries that want to join us. But there will have to be an organisation with bases and facilities to protect those interests that are so vital to the role of the industrial world.

I shall be told that this is neo-imperialism. I do not believe that it is. The states of the Arab peninsula never wanted us to go. King Feisal begged us to stay in Aden and offered to subsidise the maintenance of the British base, until the right hon. Member for Leeds, East rejected the proposal as turning British forces into mercenaries. There was a chance then, and there is a chance again today, for the industrial countries of the west and Japan to contribute both forces and finance in order to set up a regional organisation to protect those resources on which the industrial world depends.

We in Britain are playing a supporting role. I do not believe that we should become too deeply involved militarily unless we are also involved in planning the strategy. However, we have unique experience of that part of the world. We have something else, too. Our continental European friends have not shown quite the response that I had hoped for to the crisis in the middle east. In December, we shall be talking to them about financial and political union. I hope that we shall drive home the lesson that there is not much point in talking about financial union if they are not prepared to defend the most

Column 786

important economic interests of the west, and that there is not much point in talking about political union if they are not prepared to come together with us to meet the threat that faces us. Here is an opportunity for us to give the lead.

6.24 pm

Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport) : It may be useful to consider what Saddam Hussein is planning at this stage, because then we might be better able, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, successfully to prevent him. He intends to sit tight. Having annexed Kuwait, he intends to absorb it fully into Iraq. He does not intend to provoke a conflict. He has already instructed his forces not to respond to any United Nations naval intervention on the high seas. He intends to allow his aeroplanes to put United States, Saudi and British aeroplanes on full alert by flying close to the border, but he will not cross it. Unless there is a miscalculation, he does not intend to provoke war ; he will just sit tight.

Some people say that sanctions will bring him down. I should like to be able to believe them. We must tighten the air embargo. At the moment, considerable air traffic is going into Iraq, so that sanction must be tightened. There are long borders around Iraq and there are traditional black market routes along which, over the centuries, goods have entered Iraq. This leader does not care about privation for his own people. His country had to put up with tremendous privation during the Iran-Iraq war. Given that, for humanitarian reasons, we cannot starve Iraq, it will be very difficult to make sanctions work. They will work only if there is the fullest support from the Soviet Union.

Easily the most hopeful event is that at last the Security Council is working as it was envisaged that it would work. The creation of the military staff committee is immensely important. I hope that the United States will give up some of its anxieties about the military staff committee being made fully effective. I hope that the Soviet Union and China will be involved fully and absolutely in the implementation of the embargo. It would be no bad thing if the military staff committee discussed some of the problems of the multinational force on the ground in Saudi Arabia. There is no reason why they should not be discussed.

Technically speaking, because of the way in which the military staff committee has been constructed, it will not be provided with a full mandate to discuss the United Nations embargo. However, it is operating flexibly and developing new techniques. It is massively important that President Bush is to speak to President Gorbachev on Sunday. It is understandable that President Gorbachev is faced with an immense dilemma.

There are many who call for United Nations action and who rule out any other action. It is nonsense to rule out action under article 51. If Saddam Hussein is to be pressurised to come out of Kuwait, he has got to fear the possibility of a massive attack. Let us be clear about this talk of a first strike. The only first strike was that by Saddam Hussein of Iraq against Kuwait. Any action that is taken in consequence of that is secondary.

I believe and hope that, by means of diplomatic pressure and in particular the involvement of the Soviet Union, we can make Saddam Hussein give up Kuwait by the further tightening of sanctions, economic pressure and more Arab unity. I believe, however, that that man would

Next Section

Home Page