House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Dec 1990

Column 854

that the price that they had to pay was the legitimate price of bringing long-term stability to the middle east. Iraqi aggression in Kuwait was entirely self-serving. A long-term initiative should be presented as recognition of the continuing anxiety of Arab states, which see the Palestinian problem as a continuing cause of instability, and of the contribution that they made to the United Nations' forces. The long-term initiative for peace in the middle east should be seen as an achievement of collective Arab opinion, not as a reward for Iraqi expansionism.

Any such initiative will necessarily require Israel's involvement. If that is given willingly, well and good--but if not, the United States, which is in a stronger position to persuade Israel than any other country, may have to bear that burden. That may have consequences for domestic United States politics, but Israel's participation would be of such significance and importance that if it were unwilling to participate America might find itself called upon to exercise the necessary degree of persuasion.

In the long term, we shall require a security system in the middle east which does not emasculate Iraq but neutralises it. If the United Nations resolutions are implemented, I do not believe that Saddam Hussein would voluntarily surrender his chemical and biological weapons, and the possibility of owning nuclear weapons. If the resolutions are implemented, we know that there will be no majority for military action among those who have gone to the middle east under the auspices of the United Nations. Instead, resort must be made to political means, and one questions what they would be. Answering that will be for all the nations of the middle east, and in particular for the United Kingdom and the United States, who have a presence in the region as a consequence of United Nations resolutions. How we answer that question and create a security system which neutralises the effect of a heavily armed Iraq with more than a million men under arms will be a test for the United Nations, for the United States and almost certainly for all the right hon. and hon. Members of this House.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I remind the House that earlier Mr. Speaker imposed a limit, and that speeches between now and 8 o'clock should not exceed 10 minutes.

Dr. Godman : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you extend that limit to 9 o'clock?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The limits are set out clearly in the Standing Order. Mr. Speaker has used his powers to their full extent. 5.59 pm

Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West) : This debate takes place against the background of the unexpected--to most of us--release of hostages held in Iraq. Our thoughts go out to them and to their families tonight as they begin to return to this country. Above all, our thoughts are with those people who have been hiding in Kuwait for the past four months, and also those who have been held in so-called target areas. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that they will need all the help and support that they can get. Unless one has lived in such conditions for a long time, one cannot understand their effects.

Column 855

I can look back over many years of service in the Army. The period that I remember most clearly was that sad and unhappy time in 1956 when Nasser nationalised the Suez canal. By good chance, or misfortune, I was away from the middle east, attending a course in England at the time. I came to the House and sat in the Strangers' Gallery to listen to all the wise words. I went back to my battalion in Cyprus heartened, because I heard speech after speech in the opening debate making it clear that aggression must be countered and that we could not allow it to stand.

I remember only too well the eve of the landings in Port Said. I commanded a parachute company. We were awaiting the order to move in. As always, the overseas service of the BBC was excellent, and I listened to some of the final debates in the House on the crisis. Those of us at the sharp end did not know whether we were coming or going. Many of us wished that, instead of going, we were returning to Cyprus and playing no part in that confused operation whatsoever. I strongly disapproved of the operation at Port Said and, as a result, I left the Army, having spent 13 happy years there from the age of 16 to 29. I would not be here to make this speech if I had remained in the Army ; I should be retired and probably sitting quite happily in Dorset.

Frankly, we can all be ashamed of what happened in the aftermath of Suez. Perhaps we would not be talking about Iraq today if it had not been for Suez, with Nurisaid and the king being dragged through the streets and murdered, the riots in Jordan, and all the other repercussions. No one can tell what may happen in the aftermath of an operation like Suez, or, for that matter, Kuwait.

The same applies today, but, throughout the present crisis, the unanimity between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government has been heartening. That is the best thing. However, I am slightly worried that when the Opposition Front Bench spokesman talked of how long we should carry on with sanctions there was a suggestion that it could be open-ended, which perhaps left a way out, if it should be required by the Opposition. I hope that it will not materialise. We are delighted that our people are coming home, but what of the Kuwaitis left behind? So far, too few hon. Members have taken the Kuwaitis into account. Day after day I have watched the Kuwaiti ambassador sitting in the Strangers' Gallery, listening to our debates. My heart goes out to him, and to the 100,000 Kuwaitis who have been dispossessed, killed, and thrown to one side, the intention being to destroy their country. I find it unbelievable that we can debate this issue so coolly, and talk about waiting three months, six months, nine months or another year. Sheikh Ali al-Khalifa al Sabah, the Minister of Finance, came to our Conservative party conference in Bournemouth. He told us that they could not wait 40 years, 40 months or 40 days. In the 40 days which have passed since then, even more horrifying action has been taken in Kuwait by the Iraqis. I have not had any recent meetings with Saddam Hussein-- although I spent two and a half hours with him about three and a half years ago--so I am not well versed. However, I did not take kindly to him, and I did not think that he was a very nice chap. Other hon. Members may have found him more amenable--I am a fairly junior

Column 856

personage. Certainly at the height of the last Basra offensive he was tough, determined, knew exactly where he was going, and would not take advice from anyone.

I could pretend to have some military knowledge and could give my estimates of casualties and other battle figures, but I shall not do so. I shall end my speech by quoting the words of the Bishop of Oxford last Friday morning on "Thought for Today". If we listen to the words of a man of God, speaking about the problem that he, the Church and indeed all of us face, we might learn a little. He said that :

"The human response to the announcement"--

that all hostages, guests and those in hiding are free-- "is natural and straightforward. The political response is, alas, more complex. If hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, then Saddam Hussein's hypocrisy can be welcomed. But of course it is a calculated move. Public support for a war in the United States has shown signs of waning. This action, like the T.V. appearance of Saddam Hussein with children, is designed to convey the message that he is really quite a nice guy. If the hostages are all back safely and Hussein's really not too bad, why bother about someone else's country a long way away, especially when it means risking horrendous casualties? This is the mood which he will count on--one which will allow him to retain Kuwait. So it is important to keep the international resolve firm that he must withdraw.

In recent years the churches have, understandably, put peace high on their agenda. But peace is inseparable from justice, of which it is the fruit. The role of the churches is not simply to work and pray for peace but for just order. Naked aggression must not be allowed to pay ; the brutal annexation of one country by another must be rectified. The integrity of national boundaries is to be respected and upholding the rule of international law is important for the whole world There are dangers in being specific. Nevertheless, on this issue I want to pray not only for peace but for the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and continued determination in the international community to see this happen".

I think that those words would be echoed by 95 per cent. of hon. Members, and I pray to God that it comes about and that this evil man will withdraw.

6.8 pm

Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East) : I hope that one consequence of this debate will be that we shall have no more nonsense from the Opposition Front Bench about hon. Members who argue for caution in dealing with this issue being appeasers. It is striking that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)--I hope that I can include myself--fought hard against appeasement by the Tory Government in 1938, so we know what we are talking about. Also, we have all, except I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, served in the forces, and we know what is involved in a war. Of course, we cannot rule out the use of force if Saddam Hussein fails to leave Kuwait, but the resolution just passed by the United Nations does not commit us to use force immediately the deadline is passed on 15 January, nor does it commit us to use force. It commits us to use

"all necessary means to restore peace and security" to the middle east. I shall return to those words in a moment. What concerns many of us here and in the United States is that President Bush, by his words and deeds, is making it more difficult to use the necessary means that will restore peace and stability to the middle east. He is threatening to commit us all to a course that will destroy the possibility of peace and stability for at least a generation. I am disturbed by attempts by the Pentagon to misrepresent the value of sanctions, as it did in Secretary Cheney's evidence to Congress the other day. In answer to the hon. and

Column 857

learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), we have had a detailed account of the efficacy of sanctions from the head of the CIA when he gave evidence to Congress. He estimated that

"Iraq is now deprived of more than 90 per cent. of the goods and services it needs, and that by next spring only some energy-related and military industries will still be able to operate the equivalent of 43 per cent. of both the Iraqi and Kuwaiti GNPs has effectively already been eroded."

We know that by next summer Iraqi guns, tanks and aircraft will be running out of spares and that they have no money with which to buy more. They may also be running out of fuel.

Mr. James Schlesinger, who has been head of the CIA, Secretary for Energy, and Secretary for Defence in the United States under both Democratic and Republican Administrations, told Congress the other day that when sanctions were first adopted, the American authorities knew that they would take about 12 months to work. Those of us who studied the problem warned the House in the debate in September that it would be a long time before sanctions would work. However, many of us believe that, given time, they will work.

I am disturbed, as I hope are other hon. Members, by the deliberate disinformation about Iraq's nuclear capability that has been spread by the Defence Intelligence Agency, which is a public relations organisation for Mr. Cheney. It suggested that the Iraqis are only a few months away from producing a nuclear weapon and that that was an argument for the early use of force. Even the Israelis, who have the biggest interest in exaggerating the Iraqi capability, admitted that an Iraqi bomb is years away. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which regularly inspects Iraqi facilities and did so only a few weeks ago from 19 to 22 November, said that there was no evidence of a diversion of nuclear materials. A Financial Times writer was correct in saying last week that Iraq is no more nuclear capable now than it was 10 years ago.

What worries me most is that the sort of war that the United States is now planning to fight would not contribute to peace and security in the middle east and is not necessary. As the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, they have now put more men there than they had in Germany to confront the Russians at the height of the cold war. To use those forces would mean an economic catastrophe and political instability for many years. Incidentally, in answer to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), it is doubtful whether one building would be left standing in Kuwait after such a war. So let us not have crocodile tears about what happens to the people in Kuwait. The sort of war that the Americans are planning to fight would probably mean the death by bombing of almost every man, woman, child and living thing in Kuwait City at least.

The economic consequences would be oil at $45 a barrel next year and $35 a barrel in 1992. That would be a doomsday scenario. It would mean disaster for eastern Europe and the third world, would tip the United States and much of western Europe into deep recession and would probably produce the collapse of the American banking system. The political consequences would be no less serious. Iran and Syria would be in the saddle if Iraq was destroyed in the sort of war that America is planning to fight. That

Column 858

is just after the west and the Soviet Union have spent 10 years arming Iraq to prevent precisely that possibility. It would undoubtedly lead to the collapse of the Gulf regimes particularly if, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested, the Israelis came into the war on the Anglo-Saxon side from the word go. We must give sanctions at least another 12 months to work. That will create difficulties because of what has been done already. The morale of the American troops will be a problem, but it would be possible, as Admiral Crowe and General Jones suggested in Congress--both of them oppose war now--to rotate the forces arriving in January to use with the forces already there.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that we must support peace initiatives from the Arab countries, particularly those under way from Jordan and Algeria. We must start planning now for stability in the Gulf after Saddam Hussein withdraws, and that will include a settlement of the Israeli problem. If Saddam Hussein is to give up his nuclear ambitions, something will have to be done about Israeli nuclear weapons, which are an incentive to the Arab countries to follow suit.

The Gulf will remain unstable however the crisis is resolved, and there is an overwhelming case for reducing the west's dependence on oil from the Gulf. American experts have calculated that if America had maintained the energy-saving programmes that it followed between 1977 and 1985, it would now be totally independent of Gulf oil. If the Americans taxed gasolene to the level at which we tax it here, it would solve their budget problem and encourage the use of smaller cars. If the Americans simply replaced their older cars that now do only 19 miles to the gallon with some that do 29 miles to the gallon, it would have no need of Gulf oil.

To quote a well-known source, there is, in fact, an alternative. However, the alternative requires patience and some lead from Her Majesty's Government. The Foreign Secretary's speech today--as was detected by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup--was significantly different in style and content from speeches that he made on earlier occasions. I am glad that it took only a day or two after the departure of the previous Prime Minister from No. 10 for him to recognise Syria and talk about dropping the Nuremberg elements of the United Nations posture on Iraq. There have also been important changes on Europe and defence. He has now agreed to support the zero option for land-based missiles in Europe and he made an interesting speech yesterday. However, I tried to reconcile that with the rococo variations played by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the same day. Those of us who study the piano--that includes the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup when he is awake--all know that sometimes the variations bear little resemblance to the original tune.

I believe that if the Government take my advice, they will earn the heartfelt gratitude of our allies, our friends in the United States and the Soviet Union and, above all, the British people.

6.18 pm

Sir Peter Blaker (Blackpool, South) : I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) in expressing my sympathy for the hostages, who have suffered danger and anxiety, and for their relatives. However, I have been worried by some of the criticisms

Column 859

that have been made by some of the returning hostages about the conduct of our embassies in Kuwait and in Baghdad. Some of those criticisms are based on misunderstanding. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out, the ambassador in Kuwait, Michael Weston, and Mr. Banks, his only colleague there, have been incarcerated in the embassy, so it has not been possible, since the beginning of the problem, for them to get out to help the British hostages in Kuwait. They have not been able to help in providing food, for example, or in the elimination of rats or in improving living conditions.

It has been suggested that our embassy in Baghdad has not given sufficient help in getting the hostages out. The reality is that the British and American hostages have been discriminated against by the Iraqis because Britain and the United States have taken the strongest stand against the Iraqi aggression. We should take careful note of what happens now because the determination and resolve that the British and American Governments have shown in pressing for successive United Nations resolutions and for a firm posture against Saddam Hussein have resulted in the release of all the hostages. If they are released in the next few days, it will mean that our approach has been extremely effective.

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Blaker : No ; I do not have enough time.

We should pay tribute to the ambassador and his colleague in Kuwait and to the ambassador and his staff in Baghdad.

We should continue to hold open the possibility of war between the coalition and Iraq. I am not calling for war itself. If war comes, it will be because Saddam Hussein has refused to obey the United Nations resolutions. It will also be a result of the need to protect the world's oil supplies and I see nothing wrong in accepting that fact. We are talking not about the profits of the oil companies, but about keeping the wheels of industry and of agriculture moving all over the world. We are talking about providing the necessities of life for the world's people, including the pensioners in my constituency and in all the other constituencies. We are talking about providing the means of life for the Indian peasant and for the African peasant. Protecting the supply of oil for the world is a legitimate purpose for us.

If war comes, it will do so because we have to show that aggression does not pay. It is ironic that, having successfully operated a policy of deterrence in Europe for 40 years, we have failed to operate a policy of deterrence in the middle east. We must now do the next best thing. We must hold open the possibility of war to redress the wrong that Saddam Hussein has done. That does not mean, as has been alleged, that the drums of war are beating on the Conservative Benches, but only that we believe that, without the possibility of war, we shall not oblige Saddam Hussein to surrender to the sanctions of the United Nations. In my experience, it is those who have known war who hate war the most. Let us also be clear that we are not talking about aggression, as some correspondents have alleged when writing to me. We are talking about liberation. The aggression has already taken place, so it is the liberation of Kuwait that is at issue.

If, regrettably, war comes, it will be nasty and it will not necessarily be over in a short time. I do not trust those who

Column 860

say that a quick surgical strike by air will be effective. It is almost certain to be a war of tanks and of infantry, and of occupying ground, which will mean substantial human casualties. It is possible that gas will be used. Another point, which other hon. Members have not mentioned, is that some countries, including Britain, America and some Arab countries, will suffer casualties whereas the Germans and the Japanese, who have at least as much at stake, will not. That will cause political problems.

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), among others, referred to another reason for ensuring that Saddam Hussein leaves Kuwait when he said that the United Nations must not be allowed to fail in this enterprise. After 40 years of frustration caused by the obstructiveness of the Soviet Union and, sometimes, of China, the United Nations now has a magnificent opportunity to operate as its founders planned. A successful outcome to the whole affair would give the United Nations a new momentum to carry it forward, as was mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), to the resolution of other problems, whereas the failure of our enterprise could set the United Nations back by a decade.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that there must be a peacekeeping presence in the middle east after the immediate problem has ended, whether through withdrawal by Saddam Hussein or through war. The Iraqis have an army of 1 million men and they have the largest population of any Arab country in the immediate area. There must, therefore, be a multilateral or some other force in the area to prevent the repetition of aggression and it should be under the United Nations. It should, of course, contain Arab elements, but it will also have to contain non-Arab elements and some NATO countries. In that connection I, too, was interested by the speech made in Berlin yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

We shall have to take account of the chemical warfare capability and of the nuclear potential of Iraq. All that means that a financial burden and other burdens will face us, if I am right in my assessment. This will be an expensive operation, but it will be less expensive than keeping our forces in Germany for the past 40 years and it will certainly be less expensive than a renewal of instability in the Gulf.

6.26 pm

Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West) : From day one, the Opposition have taken the attitude that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) set out at the beginning of the debate. We have supported the United Nations as the most appropriate international body and means of resolving conflict between states. We see it as the body to be charged with enforcing international humanitarian law, as set out in the Hague convention of 1907 and in the Geneva convention of 1949. If properly enforced, those conventions should be more than sufficient to dissuade or prohibit states from carrying out an illegal agenda of occupation and annexation.

At this stage, we need to keep our nerve. Gathered together in the Security Council permanent membership are some of the most flagrant perpetrators of breaches of resolutions by the Security Council and by the General Assembly. If we keep our nerve today and insist on the

Column 861

primacy of the United Nations, all the hon. Members who are concerned about other areas of the world--I will not go over them all--may feel confident that they can call to account the nation states that breach such resolutions.

I pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I, too, believe that we need to do more than simply restate our support for the United Nations. There should not merely be parallel discussions ; there are other actions that we can take.

In the declaration issued in Dublin on 26 June this year, the European Community leaders broke new ground in referring, for the first time, to the obligation placed on states parties to the fourth Geneva convention and especially to article 1 of that convention, which states :

"The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances".

By undertaking not only to respect the convention but to ensure respect for it in all circumstances, states parties, which include all member states of the Community, have taken upon themselves an ongoing responsibility to ensure that the convention is respected by its co-parties whenever and wherever it applies. The reference to the article 1 obligation in the Dublin declaration was a milestone in the recognition of the political significance of protecting human rights in the pursuit of conflict resolution.

The fourth Geneva convention sets out mandatory rules governing the conduct of an occupying power. The rules not only offer an important degree of protection of the most basic human rights of the civilian population of occupied territories but place important restraints and disincentives on the prosecution by the occupying power of an agenda of conquest, annexation and demographic transformation, by rendering the agenda illegal in its own right and by limiting the scope and nature of actions that an occupant may take against the population of an occupied territory.

In the Dublin declaration the Twelve combined their first reference to the article 1 obligation with a call for further action in accordance with the convention. The Council also took the opportunity to support a role for the United Nations in protecting the Palestinian population and the west bank and Gaza. In November, the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, in his report to the Security Council following the Dome of the Rock massacre in Jerusalem on 8 October, made the same points in greater detail and pointed to a way in which positive co-operation might be achieved for the objective of securing implementation in the occupied territories of the fourth Geneva convention.

Like the European Council, Mr. de Cuellar took note of the regrettable fact that Israel has not responded positively to the many calls to recognise the applicability of or abide by the fourth Geneva convention in the territories that it has occupied since 1967, including calls to that effect by the United Nations Security Council. If members of the European Community Council were to support Perez de Cuellar in his most recent comments and suggestions that there might be a convening of the states signatories to the fourth Geneva convention, it would not necessarily give Saddam Hussein any succour but it would demonstrate to the Arab states in particular and to the rest

Column 862

of the world that the Security Council is determined to continue to ensure that all states abide by Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

It is important to remind ourselves that, right now, there are attempts by the United States not to have that debate in the Security Council. It would surely give confidence to Arab countries if the United States were to allow it to go ahead.

All efforts to find a just and durable negotiated settlement to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians are doomed to frustration unless and until the Israeli Government and their electorate are fully convinced that they do not have the option of asserting and exercising sovereignty in any part of the territories that have been occupied since 1967 and that, to the contrary, full withdrawal is essential. That is exactly the same message as we are giving to Saddam Hussein. My right hon. and hon. Friends must carefully consider the message that they will send to Saddam Hussein if they divide the House tonight.

We must also make certain that we ask for some assurances from the Government. One or two worrying comments have been made. In particular, the committee that has been formed in the United States by Richard Perle and his friends--the committee to remove Saddam Hussein and his military power- -is one from which we must distance ourselves at every opportunity.

Equally, if the Kuwaitis and Iraqis, even before the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi forces from Kuwait, decide on some new arrangement in the area, the Government must accept that that will be the decision of those two nation states and that, provided that Saddam Hussein continues to meet Security Council resolutions, it is up to those two states to decide what arrangements to make between themselves to resolve the problem.

We must also make it clear that if we are to deal adequately with military power blocs in the middle east, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, we must also deal with the nuclear capacity and military power that Israel exercises in the area. It is not only the nuclear and chemical potential of the Iraqis with which we must deal.

The occupation and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq has raised questions about the new order in the post-cold war world and has brought to prominence the topic of international law, in particular laws of war, including those on belligerent occupation. There seems to be a growing realisation of the need to give effect to the provisions of the fourth Geneva convention to protect the civilian population under belligerent occupation. All hon. Members will recognise and welcome that. In particular, there is a growing awareness of the bottom line of non-selectivity in applying and enforcing the law. We must restate that point during such debates. Although the search for a peace process appears to be effectively stalled in other parts of the world, we must say to those whom we represent and the families of service men and service women who are presently in the Gulf that it is our determination to support the United Nations so that those young people will not need to go to war again. Our determination to support the United Nations will surely convince Saddam Hussein that he must withdraw from Kuwait according to the very same United Nations resolutions.

Column 863

6.36 pm

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : Four months and one week after Saddam Hussein's wicked and brutal invasion and annihilation of a tiny state that is friendly to us--an act of unjustified, naked aggression which the civilised world universally condemned and against which it has taken a firm stand through the United Nations--where are we? Saddam Hussein is still raping, pillaging, destroying and laughing at us for our feeble response, and where are we?

Yes, we have 450,000 troops in the desert, but how long will it be before they no longer want to remain there or no longer can remain there while Congress begins to weaken and its support peters out? Yes, we have firm resolutions in the United Nations, and ultimatums, but how long will that firmness last? Yes, we have imposed economic sanctions and there is some food rationing in Iraq, although food is being stolen from Kuwait, and there is some petrol rationing, but I think that that has been discontinued. Perhaps there will be some spare parts that will help to grind Iraqi industry to a halt because it cannot get any, and the water purification plants may fail. But will that happen before the will of Congress and some United Nations powers ebb and fail? Will that happen before Kuwait is entirely obliterated by Saddam Hussein?

What must he be thinking? He will be wondering whether we are any more than paper tigers. He sees the developing split in the United States Congress. He sees the demonstrations in the streets of the United States. He sees joy on the faces of the families of the hostages and gratitude to him for his acts of mercy. He sees those, such as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on "Newsnight" the other night, who talk about giving the islands and the oil wells to Saddam Hussein. He welcomes visits by world dignitaries such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and former Prime Ministers of Japan. He will read my right hon. Friend's speech with considerable satisfaction. He welcomes indications that an Arab-Israeli settlement and a conference are very much in the mind of our Government when the only thing that should be in their mind is Saddam Hussein's aggression.

He asks for time to negotiate and the United States Secretary of State is going to see him and speak to him. Why? Would anyone blame Saddam Hussein for thinking that Baker is going to negotiate, particularly when he reads sees and hears speeches in the House such as that of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East calling for negotiations, playing down any possibility of a threat of nuclear power developing in Iraq, speaking of linkage with the Arab-Israeli dispute and effectively saying, "No war at any cost"?

Would not Saddam Hussein be tempted to think that we are all losing our nerve, and that, if he stays in Kuwait or withdraws only partially, we shall risk not one life to force him out? Is that not the stench of appeasement in the air? Is not appeasement totally unacceptable to nations like the United Kingdom with any self-respect or any regard for the international rule of law?

�Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lawrence : I shall give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be quick, because I have only 10 minutes.

Column 864

Mr. Brown : I am not an appeaser, but, like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have been out there, at the sharp end and--

Mr. Lawrence : That is long enough.

Mr. Brown : Can I read out a letter from the British business community to the--

Mr. Lawrence : No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order.

Mr. Brown : This is important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has the floor, has decided that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) has had long enough.

Mr. Lawrence : So what can we do--

Mr. Brown : This letter is not from members of the Labour party.

Mr. Lawrence : We should make clear, as we have never made clear before--

Mr. Brown : They have views that should be heard. Why is the hon. and learned Gentleman afraid to hear them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is hoping to catch the eye of the Chair. He is not improving his chances.

Mr. Lawrence : I have learnt the lesson that I should not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I was asking what we should then do. We should make clear, if we have not made clear enough before, that if economic sanctions do not work soon in securing the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, we should drag him out by force. There can be no more delay and no more dithering. What should "soon" mean? It should mean 15 January 1991, a date beyond which resolution 678 says that "all necessary measures"--meaning force, because what else on earth could it mean?--can be taken to supplement economic sanctions and drive him out.

If we do not set a date, there will be no sanction worthy of the name, and the rule of law with no enforceable sanction is no rule of law. If we do not set a date and enforce that date, Saddam Hussein will win. There will be nothing to stop him taking over other countries, safe in the knowledge that we do not have the necessary will to stop him. There will be nothing to stop other Saddam Husseins from doing the same thing, and the world would end up in chaos. If we climb down and refuse to set a date, the greatest potential force for peace and security in the world--the United Nations--will be, as the Leader of the Opposition said, little more than a public mourner, spectator and charity worker. I would add that it would be little more than a gutless, hopeless institution, incapable of standing up for the rule of law and what is right. If we climb down because we refuse to set a date, world peace will be threatened. The aggression will go on until we have to fight, and when we have to fight the war will be far bloodier than we have envisaged. Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against his own people, so he is unlikely to refrain from using them against others. He has been responsible for the deaths of 1 million people in the Iran-Iraq war, so he is unlikely to

Column 865

be worried about the loss of life. He is developing a nuclear capability, which may be ready for use within the year, or sooner. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East quoted from the International Atomic Energy Agency. If he were here, could he have told us whether it had investigated the uranium mines in the north of Iraq from which it is said that Saddam Hussein is even now mining the uranium that will give him the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons? If we are frightened to stand up to Saddam Hussein now, will we not be even more frightened to do so when he has nuclear weapons?

There is a fair measure of consensus in the House of Commons which has not been revealed by the speeches made today. Some speeches from the Conservative Benches--in particular that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup--and most from the Labour Benches have been contrary to the line taken by both the Government and the Opposition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup drew an analogy with Kennedy and Khrushchev over the Bay of Pigs and spoke of how discussion and negotiations could work. That analogy is so false that I cannot even begin to understand how he could have made it.

There are two fundamental differences. First, Saddam Hussein invaded an innocent, harmless country in flagrant defiance of international law, and destroyed that country, murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of people. That is something that Khrushchev had not done before embarking on the Bay of Pigs operation. He never invaded Cuba. Secondly, Saddam Hussein's action has been condemned time and again by the United Nations. Khrushchev's actions before the Bay of Pigs were not so condemned. It is difficult to see how my right hon. Friend could have seen a similarity between the two events. He has given a misleading and damaging signal to Saddam Hussein which I utterly deplore.

The issue that we have to address, and about which there is insufficient agreement in the House, however much other consensus there may be, is timing. How much longer do we give Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations resolution? Do we wait until our troops have lost the will or ability to enforce sanctions ; until the Arab countries supporting the United Nations get tired of our dithering and make their own peace with Saddam Hussein ; or until Saddam Hussein has developed nuclear weapons and made it impossible for us to force him out?

I hope and pray that Saddam Hussein will withdraw before 15 January 1991 so that war is avoided. If he is to do that, he will have to start soon. I hope and pray that he has no inclination to turn his attention towards Israel when he does withdraw, or truly terrible bloodshed will follow. If my hopes and prayers are not answered, then Saddam Hussein must be forced out. We can follow no other course if we want to maintain the integrity of the United Nations and ensure stability and relative peace in the world.

6.47 pm

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe) : The likelihood of war in the Gulf seems to have diminished a little. The confrontation remains stark, but the atmosphere has eased. This may be deceptive. For, even before Saddam Hussein's decision to release the hostages, it had

Column 866

become clear that the balance of advantage has passed to him, and this was predictable. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had come to present a face of monolithic resolution to the world, in marked contrast to the discordant voices of the west. As the timetable of the allied military preparedness to act appeared to slip, public doubts grew about whether war is justifiable, acceptably feasible or even likely to take place.

Since August, President Bush and his team have done their best to persuade Americans and their representatives in Congress that the threat of imminent war against Iraq must be maintained, but the critical clinching reason for a fight still eludes the

Administration. The President has been forced on the defensive as he seeks to convince the world and domestic opinion that all the options for peace have been exhausted before the momentous decision to go to war in the Gulf is taken. What will be the position if those options are kept open for a further 12 months, say on the ground of sanctions? I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is no longer in his place.

The memory of Vietnam is also a factor in the growing peace movement in America, as is the suspicion that once again American youth is being called upon to die in defence of Europe's interests. This lack of cohesion and solidarity has painfully exposed the underlying divisions in the western alliance, and reinforced the need to see European security in a broader global context, and for the alliance to think long and hard concerning its future policy towards threats beyond its traditional area of competence.

In contrast, Saddam has shown that his nerves are stronger than those of western democracies. He knows that talking will not by itself stop war, but he also knows that it offers him his best hope of exploiting American domestic weakness and dividing the international alliance against him. He will have been encouraged by the weekend headlines in our own quality press. The Sunday Times, for example, stated :

"Iraq scents victory as Gulf peace deal looms",

The Sunday Telegraph stated :

"America insists : we're not going soft on Saddam".

Those were the headlines just two days ago.

Yet, despite all that has happened since August, the essentials remain unchanged. The invasion of Kuwait in August was an act of aggression. The United Nations, in the most impressive fashion, acted against Saddam Hussein. Now that the United States and the United Kingdom and some of their allies have committed their armed forces and prestige, the blow to international order would be intolerable if Saddam were able to extract any victory or face-saving compromise. Saddam has also turned the Gulf crisis into a crisis for democracy. He has raised with brutal clarity the central issue at stake : are western democracies resilient enough to resist blackmail or are they too short-sighted to perceive threats to their longer -term interests?

So there can be no compromise on Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. There can be no question of profit to the aggressor. If aggression is permitted to succeed, other acts of brutality by bigger nations against their smaller neighbours will be encouraged. So there can be no weakening of our position. However, there can be no western objection to subsequent talks about disputed territories and their borders. Nor can there be any valid

Next Section

Home Page