House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Dec 1990

Column 400

of the maiming and wounding, but the amount of grief and suffering caused by it is more than human thought or sympathy can measure." I hope that I may be forgiven for saying that both my mother and my father were Arabic speakers and I was brought up to respect the Semite people, Arab and Jew. I have the feeling that threats and refusing to talk simply will not work with those people. I am distressed at what I can only refer to as a certain kind of Anglo-Saxon self-righteousness.

When I was a young Member of Parliament in January 1964, my wife and I were in Cairo. On our last night there, at his request, I received a message to go and see President Nasser in his private house on the outskirts of Cairo. The hour and a half that he gave me made a lifelong indelible impression on me about the aspirations of the Arab peoples.

I draw from such an experience the view that, if we try to humiliate the Iraqis, whatever we may think, there will simply be a bitter war. I think that the troops on the ground understand that, and I should like to pay tribute to Brigadier Patrick Cordingley. It must have taken courage, and I thought that he was quite ritght, to speak out as he did about possible losses. Some people may think that a field commander should not do that, but in these circumstances he was justified in bringing the possible casualties to the attention of people here.

If my hon. Friend--hon. Friend in more senses than one--the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) thinks that I am a bit way out, I call in aid Sir Brian Urquhart of the United Nations, in particular his Montagu Burton lecture to the university of Edinburgh. He said : "The idea of Saddam Hussein as the righteous champion of the underprivileged of the world is particularly hard to take, but it is a distinct possibility. One must understand the extreme frustration and hopelessness of some parts of the world which could be channelled easily by someone clever. This is Saddam's Robin Hood act, but it is getting quite a lot of takers in the Middle East." Sir Brian should be listened to.

Having worked itself up to an impressive pitch of martial readiness in the Gulf, the United States may think it needs to achieve every one of its stated aims in full, or be regarded as having failed. Some Americans think that the United States remains a great power only if it deals once and for all with Saddam Hussein. That is a dangerous attitude. Perhaps as politicians we must understand the possible difficulties of loss of face by the President of the United States, but I beg Ministers and some of my colleagues to realise that loss of face is as nothing compared with the alternative of war. That is why I have concentrated on the ecological aspects, although the Minister may not think them important.

Saddam Hussein has the ace of trumps and a good deal more. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and others have told us--it is almost certainly established fact--that Hussein has deep-mined at least 300 of the Kuwaiti oil wells. Even if only 30 were ignited, accepted safety standards would go for the proverbial burton. The effects would linger in the atmosphere. I told the Foreign Office--no doubt it suspected that I would do this--that I intended to quote yet again what the King of Jordan said in his speech on global warming :

"The preliminary calculations of our scientists indicate that if half Kuwait's oil reserves (or about 50 billion barrels) were to go up in flames during a war, the environmental impact would be swift, severe and devastating. Emissions of carbon

Column 401

monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide would surpass internationally accepted safety standards by factors of hundreds, and, without factoring in wind effects, would blacken the skies over a radius of at least 750 km from Kuwait--that is, all of Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, the Emirates and the waters of the Gulf, and most of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran. Other than poisonous emissions of carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide the emission of carbon dioxide will increase by at least a factor of 100 over the current total global emission of 5.5 billion tonnes per year. Lingering in the atmosphere for around a hundred years, this massive carbon dioxide emission would promote the green house effect and contribute to global warming, climatic changes, lower global food production and human and animal health deterioration. The environmental and human toll of such a scenario would be beyond our wildest fears. If oil production facilities suffered long-term damage, which is likely in the event of war, the catastrophe, we warn warn of, would be compounded by the devastating impact of the loss of oil imports for economies and peoples around the world."

The House will have to bear with me while I go over the subsequent parliamentary exchanges. In arguing such a case, I must be extremely careful about ministerial answers and I do not want to truncate them because if I did so I would be accused of distortion. It is certainly no part of my case to distort what Ministers have said. On 13 November, I tabled Question 2 to the Prime Minister. It reads : " Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the discussions in Geneva with King Hussein of Jordan in relation to the ecological consequences of war in the middle east." The Prime Minister at that time, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), replied :

"My bilateral discussions with King Hussein did not cover this subject, as I made clear to the hon. Gentleman on 7 November. However, if a tyrant is never to be fought in order that freedomn and justice may be restored, tyranny will triumph with all its brutality and the environment of human rights, which we seek to extend, will have received a fatal blow."

I then asked a supplementary question and said :

"If King Hussein is right and 50,000 million barrels of oil equivalent go up in flames, what will be the result in terms of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, and what would that do to people and the planet?"

The then Prime Minister replied :

"If the hon. Gentleman wishes to avert such a tragedy, there is one method which would do it easily--that is for Saddam Hussein to withdraw totally from Kuwait and for a legitimate Government to be restored. I do not necessarily accept King Hussein's figures--mine are a little different--but that is not the main point. Saddam Hussein's withdrawal would not put right a wrong because of the brutality that has been perpetrated in his name, but that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question."--[ Official Report, 13 November 1990 ; Vol. 180, c. 446.]

I fear that that is not the answer to my question, because it does not deal with the king's statement, awkward and unpleasant though that statement may be. I happen to know that that statement was carefully put forward by the king's not inconsiderable science institute in Amman, which received a good deal of technical help from elsewhere.

On 11 December I was lucky enough to have Question 1 to the new Prime Minister. It reads :

" Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) of 13 November, Official Report, column 446, if he will specify those figures which he possesses relating to oil stocks, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide which differ from those given by King Hussein, showing in each case the comparable figures and the source for those which he uses."

Column 402

The Prime Minister replied :

"No, Sir. The calculations rest on assumptions about the consequences of a conflict in the Gulf which, by their nature, are not quantifiable. The best way to avoid any adverse consequences is for Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations resolutions in full."

The assertions may not be exactly quantifiable, but simply to say that they are not quantifiable will not do.

I asked the following supplementary :

"Is not the spine-chilling truth that no mining engineer, no scientist and no politician knows for certain what will occur if 300 deep-mined oil wells are detonated? In those circumstances, might not the fires rage for months, if not years, in a fashion quite outside human experience? In view of that, should not the damage to the planet, let alone the human slaughter and the Arab ecological disaster, rule out any talk of a military option?"

The Prime Minister replied :

"As the hon. Gentleman says, no one can be absolutely and precisely certain about the outcome. Insofar as it is possible to make an assessment, we see no reason to agree with any of the views put forward thus far as to what the outcome might be."

This is not adequate, because in my original question I had asked about the figures

"relating to oil stocks, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide which differ from those given by King Hussein, showing in each case the comparable figures and the source for those which he uses."

The Prime Minister might have been a bit more forthcoming about his sources.

After my question, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), a parliamentary colleague whom I respect greatly, also asked a question :

"Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week I visited the Council for Higher Education in Amman, where the calculations were carried out for King Hussein? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the horrors of war, whether human or environmental, should be made abundantly plain to Saddam Hussein in particular?"

The Prime Minister replied :

"I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that, but on the assumptions that King Hussein used, we believe that some of the difficulties to which he referred would not be precisely as described."--[ Official Report, 11 December 1990 ; Vol. 182, c. 814.]

The Government must be far more forthcoming. I can understand the Prime Minister not going further, given the nature of Prime Minister's Question Time, and his crisp answering, but tonight the Minister has an opportunity to tell us a bit about the sources, and why he does not accept the King of Jordan's figures.

My sources tell a different story. For example, there is Dave Matthews, who is a full-time officer of the Fire Brigades Union. When I made inquiries of him, he asked me whether I remembered the fire at Thorne colliery, in Yorkshire. As you come from near Doncaster, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may know a good deal about this. It may be within your recollection that the British fire brigade, probably the most efficient in Europe, had to call in the Red Adair team to do something about that fire. As my friends in the Fire Brigades Union said, if they had to do that for what was a comparatively minor fire, who will put out a massive conflagration in Kuwait? That is a good question.

I then went, naturally, to BP, which has known me for a quarter of a century as I represent many of those who work at Grangemouth. I have had excellent relations with the company and it did me the courtesy of sending me a representative at the most senior level. He is a managing director who had been general manager in Kuwait, and was in charge, as an engineer, of the most awkward fire in

Column 403

the middle east in the 1970s. He told me that the Red Adair team was not the only one of its type and that there were various ways of extinguishing fires, including the blowing-up method. He said, "Yes, we could cope ; but with how many fires would we have to cope at the same time?" I am open to contradiction, but has there been a time when there have been more than two major oil fires raging at the same time? It is extremely difficult to dampen down and extinguish such fires. It would be even more difficult if, dare I say it, a military conflict were taking place on top of an oilfield.

Shell went to great trouble. It consulted the expertise that was available to it, both in this country and in the Netherlands, and said that the general view was, "We simply do not know." No one in the world before has ever detonated oil wells on purpose. Furthermore, there is the problem of fire fighting in the waters of the Gulf. Much of the previous debate was about the Piper Alpha disaster. What would happen in the shallow waters of the Gulf, where fire is more uncontrollable than in the North sea, if there were to be a major Iraqi effort to set the Gulf ablaze? I am told that that would be only too likely to happen. Some of us remember the Torrey Canyon and all the difficulties that ensued as a result of that episode. The scale of that disaster might be multiplied.

Do not let us imagine that Saddam Hussain would not do it. He has shown before that he is capable of bringing the temple down with him. That may not be the basis of what we call western rationality, but on that basis we might not be having this debate nor facing the circumstances that have led to its taking place. I quote Al-Jumhouriya of 8 November. It stated that Iraq threatened to turn the Arabian peninsula into ashes and the Saudi oilfields into a sea of fire if it was attacked. It said :

"The mother of all battles is nearer today."

It commented that only Medina and Mecca would be spared and added :

"If the fire of aggression is unleashed against Iraq, flames will burn in every direction."

Apparently the Iraqis have sets of sealed orders in case of war. I do not think that there is much doubt that the Iraqis could do it and would do it. Their history shows that they have not made claims of that sort that they could not put into effect. What are the Government doing to find out?

On 29 November, I asked the Prime Minister

"if he will discuss the ecological consequences of a military option in the Gulf with President Bush."

The Prime Minister replied :

"I have no plans to do so."--[ Official Report, 29 November 1990 ; Vol. 181, c. 466. ]

After August, September, October and November, surely the Government should have made some effort to establish a rather more detailed view of the scenario that I and others--others with real expert qualifications--have been painting.

On 16 November, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether

"the United Nations has any plans to assess the safety and security implications for the oilfields in the Gulf area of possible conflagration."

The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), replied :

"We are not aware of any United Nations plans to carry out such an assessment. For our part, we are fully aware that hostilities in the Gulf would have serious consequences of

Column 404

many kinds. Hence our determination to bring maximum pressure to bear on Saddam Hussein to comply with the Security Council resolutions in order to resolve the crisis."-- [Official Report, 16 November 1990 ; Vol. 180, c. 261. ]

I think that the Government might show a little more curiosity. Even if 30 of the 300 oil wells in Kuwait deep mined by Iraq were ignited after detonation, the emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide would pass internationally accepted safety standards by a factor of hundreds. The skies would be blackened all over Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, the Emirates, the waters of the Gulf, and over most of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran.

For the past 24 years, I have been a weekly columnist for the New Scientist. Successive editors of that journal would not have countenanced me if I had been given to making fanciful judgments. The truth is that no scientist from a British university, no mining engineer from an oil company, no expert in any professional capacity from the Fire Brigades Union or any of the firms that are involved in fire fighting--Red Adair would not comment to the Library of the House of Commons when he was asked- -let alone any politician, could tell what would happen if 300 oil wells were detonated. As has been pointed out, at the very least it would mean that oil would be $120 a barrel in Rotterdam.

War is a disproportionate response to the original outrage of invading Kuwait. We must consider the economic consequences. On 10 December, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer

"what assessment he has made of the economic consequences of a military option in the Gulf."

The Chief Secretary replied :

"The Government's firm objective is to resolve the Gulf crisis by peaceful means on the basis of full implementation of the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council. To achieve this, it is essential to establish a credible military option, so that Saddam Hussein is left in no doubt that he is facing a military force which could compel him to leave Kuwait. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) drew attention in his autumn statement to uncertainties in the economic outlook generated by the Gulf crisis."--[ Official Report, 10 December 1990 ; Vol. 182, c. 258. ] It may be that the Government cannot answer the question ; the fact is that they have not.

When we talk about the effect on Saudi Arabia, we must comment that military experts do not know how Scud missiles targeted on Saudi targets would be deflected. I am not surprised that tonight we heard that General Calvin Waller, the United States commander, said that he was not ready. The truth is that they are finding it more and more difficult. We delude ourselves if we imagine that we can predict that such wars will be brief, limited to surgical attacks, with relatively light casualties and with predictable consequences for the politics and economies of the countries involved.

The difficulty is something else. If there is not a relatively quick victory, we have to turn to the question that I put to General Colin Powell when he came a fortnight ago to Committee Room 14. It will be within the recollection of some 70 of my colleagues there, mostly Conservative Members, that I asked two questions. The second was whether General Powell contemplated the use of nuclear weapons. I prefaced that by saying that I was one of the minority of Members of Parliament who thought that there was no successful military solution to be had, but that I respected General Powell's sincerity about preferring the peace option to war.

Column 405

Within the hearing of many of my colleagues, General Powell said that he did not contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, but he added that he could not rule out any advice that he might give in certain circumstances to the President of the United States. I believe that everybody in that room realised that in certain tragic circumstances the nuclear option was a possibility. The mind boggles at not only, for heaven's sake, the ecological effect, but the human effect and the effect on relations with the Arab world for decades, and possibly longer, to come.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : I do not want to distract my hon. Friend from his line of thought, but would it not be appropriate at this point to remember that only a few short years ago the partial explosion of one nuclear power station at Chernobyl had serious long-term consequences in Wales and in Scotland and that one accident in Bhopal had long-term consequences for the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people in India? If the effect of the destruction of a number of oil wells was added to the effects of biological, chemical and nuclear warfare, the region that would be affected would be massive and the number affected would run into millions.

Mr. Dalyell : I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an important part of the argument. It is a serious point, succinctly and well put, and I would like to add it to the argument.

Admiral William Crowe, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, expressed the following view :

"If deposing Saddam Hussein would sort out the Middle East and permit the US to turn its attention elsewhere and to concentrate on our very pressing domestic problems, the case for initiating offensive action immediately would be considerably strengthened. But the Middle East is not that simple. I witnessed it at first hand ; I lived in the Middle East for a year.

I would submit that posturing ourselves to promote stability for the long- term is our primary national interest in the Middle East. It is not obvious to me that we are currently looking at the crisis in this light. Our dislike for Saddam seems to have crowded out many other considerations. In working through the problems myself, I am persuaded that the US initiating hostilities could well exacerbate many of the tensions I have cited, and perhaps further polarise the Arab world. Certainly, many Arabs would deeply resent a campaign which would necessarily kill large numbers of their Muslim brothers and force them to choose sides between Arab nations and the west "We may be, in a certain sense, on the horns of a no-win dilemma. Even if we win, we lose ground in the Arab world and generally injure our ability to deal in the future with the labyrinth of the Middle East.

I firmly believe that Saddam must be pushed out of Kuwait ; he must leave Kuwait. At the same time, given the larger context, I judge it highly desirable to achieve this goal in a peaceful fashion, if that is possible. In other words, I would argue that we should give sanctions a fair chance before we discard them."

Some of my hon. Friends might ask, "What about the United Nations?" I was fortunate enough to be chosen by Mr. Speaker to lead the Inter- Parliamentary Union delegation to Zaire. It was a truncated visit because we were recalled for the vote of confidence debate. However, we saw the country's Foreign Minister, who had just held a long meeting with James Baker. We naturally asked him about it. I do not think that I am distorting matters in any way when I say that it was clear that Zaire lined up with the Americans not because of a judgment on the middle east,

Column 406

but because it wanted the lifting of the ban on American aid to Zaire that had been imposed because of that country's human rights violations--an issue totally separate from the merits or demerits of going along with the American position in relation to the United Nations.

Some of us fear that, if there is a conflict, it will be goodbye to King Hussein and the Hashemites, and that it may well be farewell to President Mubarak. Heaven knows what would be the reaction in Tunisia and Algeria. There is considerable hearsay that the Tunisians are providing credits to the Iraqis so that they can circumvent the embargo. I ask for that strong rumour to be investigated. I cannot claim it as fact, but perhaps someone could comment at a convenient point on whether there is any evidence of that happening. I might be asked what I think the Labour party should do. I am very influenced by my most senior parliamentary colleagues. One was a beachmaster at Anzio, and another is a former Prime Minister with a distinguished war record ; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) served bravely in the RAF during the second world war. They have all taken a rather distinctive line. I would like my party to follow the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), and ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) to pay an official visit to Baghdad on behalf of my party.

The alternatives are horrific. I did national service at a time when many of my contemporaries at Catterick went with the 8th Hussars and other units to Korea. A lot of them were shot up. The tanks did not work properly, and the soldiers who had to get out of their tanks to do something about equipment that had gone wrong became the proverbial sitting ducks.

I draw attention also to the hospital aspect, in the event that the worst happens. This afternoon, I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he would make a statement on the provision made in Scottish hospitals for the reception of service casualties in the event of the use of the military option in the Gulf. The Under-Secretary replied :

"Plans which provide for the treatment of military casualties in Scottish hospitals in the event of war have been reviewed. If required, beds would be made available in NHS hospitals in Scotland to treat service casualties arising from possible hostilities in the Gulf."

It so happens that there used to be a distinguished burns unit at Bangour hospital, in my constituency. The shortages of skills to cope with burns and similar injuries are a national problem--I will not say a national "crisis". I am not casting blame, but saying that there is a real problem, which is encapsulated by an article in The Universe, the Catholic newspaper, of 16 December 1990 entitled "Wife's horror at Gulf graves plan".

It says :

"A plot of land has already been allocated to bury victims of the Gulf war by the War Graves Commission, claims the wife of an Army officer serving in Saudi Arabia.

The Catholic woman, who didn't wish to be named, is based in Germany and keeps in touch with her husband by mail and forces' radio and television.

She said : The most sickening thing my husband told me was that men from the War Graves Commission have been out to Saudi Arabia. They have already measured and acquired a plot of land in preparation for any war dead.

Last week saw the first suicide in the Gulf. A medic shot himself on hearing that his wife had left him.'

Column 407

She said Army officials had warned wives not to believe all they heard or saw on television, radio or in the newspapers and that they would be kept reliably informed through military sources. The woman, mother of two young children, said that according to British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS), the soldiers are not allowed even to mention the word Christmas' in Saudi Arabia." That appeared in print. I do not know whether it is true. However, I gave the Foreign Office notice that I should like it to comment on whether the War Graves Commission has been out there or not. It is not only a question of British service men. We ought to remember that many Iraqi women and children would certainly be killed in any action. Some people say that they believe that they would be dying for a heroic cause, and refer to Iraqi mothers who believe that their sons will be next to Allah, which is the reward for martyrdom. When the Iraqi people are attacked, they will react as the citizens of London did in 1940, or like the citizens of Hamburg in 1943. Production in German cities increased after bombing because that is the effect that bomb attacks have on populations.

I believe that we should let sanctions run for a long time. A powerful television programme, produced by George Carey, called the "Case for Peace", showed convincingly that if sanctions ran for at least another year the Iraqi forces would be at least 30 per cent. less effective.

Also, we ought to have an explanation as to why the

British--apparently--led the pack of EEC Ministers against the wishes of the Germans and the Italians by cancelling the meeting that was to have taken place with Tariq Aziz in Rome. Unless we talk we shall get nowhere, and we deserve an explanation why we took the initiative against the wishes of two of our major European partners.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : I have listened with interest to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making. Indeed, I have a particular interest, as both my father and my

grandfather--coincidentally--were wounded fighting in the middle east, my grandfather severely so in Mesopotamia.

The hon. Gentleman has made his point clearly and with great integrity. May I remind him, however, that just over half a century ago these Benches were full of people who had fought in the first world war, and who took the view that the diplomatic solutions that he is talking about now must be tried and pursued at all costs rather than another war taking place? It was because we went on and on--through the abandoning of Czechoslovakia, the Munich crisis and so forth--failing to grasp the nettle that we finally allowed Hitler to become so strong that we very nearly lost the war.

In a year or two, Saddam Hussein may have the very nuclear weapons that the hon. Gentleman so dreads. Surely the worst option of all would be to back away and allow diplomatic talks to go on and on, allowing Saddam Hussein to become more powerful, and to delay action until he has the next move.

Mr. Dalyell : That is certainly a respectable point of view. I can only say, in shorthand--because I am trying the patience of the House with my long speech--that I do not accept the 1939 analogy, and I certainly do not accept any comparison with, for instance, the heroic work of the

Column 408

8th Army against Rommel. The weapons available now--leaving aside nuclear weapons--are such that the consequences would be entirely different.

Let me put another argument to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). Let us suppose that there was a military victory. What then? We are faced, are we not, with a sullen, resentful and vengeful Arab population, and it would be an Anglo-American army that would be holding them down. It is highly significant that 10 of our partners have not sent any troops to the middle east. Like it or not, this is seen to be becoming more and more an Anglo-American situation. Let us suppose that blood was spilt. Would King Hussein remain in Jordan? Would President Mubarak retain power in Egypt? What would happen in Syria is anyone's guess.

Mr. Brazier : As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a particular interest in that part of the world ; indeed, I was in the Lebanon in February. The truth is that the boot is on the other foot. If we back away from this, the star of Saddam Hussein will rise still further, and the positions of the very gentlemen whom he has

mentioned--certainly that of President Mubarak ; I am not especially concerned about President Assad--will be strongly threatened. Mubarak will be seen to have backed the losing side, and his position will be extremely weak.

Mr. Dalyell : What I might describe as a martyred Saddam Hussein would also create problems for the youngest among us. Once blood had been spilt, the circumstances would be horrific. That is why I say to Ministers- -to the Prime Minister really, I suppose--that we ought to swallow our pride and talk to the Iraqis. When the Prime Minister--rightly--visits troops, he should also go to Jordan to hear what the Jordanians say. Yemen was the one United Nations country, apart from Cuba, to vote against the consensus in the Security Council ; it is also the country nearest to Iraq, with the most to lose. He should go there.

I believe that the heavyweight European leaders--particularly Felipe Gonzalez, and perhaps Chancellor Kohl, although I should like to see our Prime Minister among them--should go to Baghdad themselves, to talk and talk. That is not appeasement. There is great confusion between dialogue and appeasement. The results of failing to have a dialogue would, I believe, be as horrific as I have tried to outline.

12.14 am

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on his persistence and determination in putting very grave issues before the House. Implicit in his speech was his belief that in no circumstances, even if sanctions were to be imposed for a year and found to be wanting, would the use of force be justified on account of the resulting ecological and financial consequences.

That is not the Labour party's view, and it is certainly not the view taken by the United Nations in a series of resolutions passed by the Security Council. I heard what my hon. Friend said about Zaire, but if one analysed the motives of Security Council members in that way one could rule out almost any United Nations move. The credibility of the United Nations is at stake. If the UN does not emerge from this crisis with an enhanced

Column 409

reputation, the prospects for a new world order, envisaged by the founding fathers of the United Nations in 1945, will be strangled at birth.

The new ecological dimension was given great publicity by King Hussein in mid-November and it added to the anxieties of those who were wholly against the use of force in any circumstances. The consequences of an ecological disaster are of great concern. They were set out in detail in The Guardian on 16 November. That newspaper rendered a signal public service by quoting at length King Hussein's speech to the world climate conference in Geneva. One has to treat with respect what King Hussein said, but it is significant that he was not unaware that the message he was broadcasting lent additional weight to a threat which had been made by Iraq. His speech must therefore be considered in that context.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has considerable scientific knowledge and has many contacts in the world of science, on which he has drawn so well. He will therefore be the first to admit that there are many scientific uncertainties. He seeks scientific precision from the Government, and he seeks precision about the financial and other effects on the third world, but by their very nature the variations are so great that it would be impossible to respond with precision.

All one can say is that, in the worst scenario, the effects would be substantial indeed. For example, will the wells ignite? What will be the prevailing winds at the relevant time? One need only consider Carl Sagan's article in Foreign Affairs , "Nuclear Winter : Climatic Catastrophe", in the winter of 1983-84 and the United States Administration's eventual response in 1988, to see the differences on a matter of this nature within the scientific community. Indeed, some of the effects may work in opposite directions. Although the emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide may lead to global warming, by contrast, with the effect of rising dust, the rays of the sun could be reflected back and there could be a cooling effect, as happened with the eruption at Krakatoa at the end of the last century.

So much in the calculations of the greenhouse effect is unpredictable because it depends on the complicated pathways of the relevant gases. Should we take the most extreme or the most realistic scenarios, and with what effect? What would be the possibility and effect of ignition? What do we know of the effect of the bombing of the Abadan refinery during the Iran -Iraq conflict, and of the fact that that refinery it is now back as it was before?

In the speech that my hon. Friend quoted, King Hussein spoke of the preliminary calculations of our scientists and of the effects being felt within a radius of at least 750 km from Kuwait. The effect being spread about 750 km around Kuwait means that Iraq is very much within the care radius of the effect. What do we make of that? Before coming to the debate, I re-read Milton's "Samson Agonistes", who pulled down the same destruction upon himself. Is Saddam Hussein prepared to act like Samson? It is clear that he has been acting against his own interest. Even if Saddam Hussein were to lay Kuwait to waste by fire, the cloud effect could be as devastating in Iraq as in Kuwait. We must be aware of the worst scenario adumbrated by my hon. Friend, and of the unpredictability, the

Next Section

Home Page