House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jan 1991

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : It will take 15 years with Iraq.

Mr. Heath : I shall give my hon. Friend a little map. Iraq is quite differently placed as a country. Unless we put a naval blockade on South Africa, which was impractical for us, we knew that South Africa would go on supplying Rhodesia. What is more, we were constantly under pressure from President Kaunda and those north of Rhodesia to keep open the lines from South Africa through Rhodesia in order to keep those countries going. That was why it took 15 years. The case of Iraq is quite different. All its petrol sales have been cut off. The only case that I have so far seen drawn to public attention Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar) rose --

Mr. Heath : I shall give way in a moment.

The only attempt so far to break sanctions was made by a Russian ship that was apparently keeping President Hussein supplied with Soviet weapons. That in itself points to a danger--a great danger bearing in mind the events in the Baltic states and all the questions opened up about President Gorbachev's future and whether we are now returning to a regime that is much more like the cold war. Where are all our forces and what will Europe do in the event of the re-establishment of the Soviet military? What about the position of Russia with regard to the United States and the rest of Europe? Those issues must also be taken into account because they are desperately serious.

We should continue with sanctions and do all that we can to ensure that they are successful in obtaining the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. Ultimately, the world may come to believe that force is necessary. We must then be fully aware of all the consequences of using force. But until then- - [Interruption.] There is no point in asking, when is that exactly?

Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North East) : One problem is that, while we prevaricate and wait for sanctions to work, Saddam Hussein may develop a nuclear capability. What will happen to our troops sitting out there on our behalf waiting for sanctions to work?

Mr. Heath : On the first question, it is most unlikely that Saddam Hussein will be able to make any progress on the development of nuclear weapons while the blockade continues.

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : Not wholly unlikely.

Mr. Heath : Yes, I accept that it is wholly unlikely that Saddam Hussein can possibly develop his nuclear weapons.

What about our forces in the Gulf? In the words of the American commander, "If it is a question of death or sunbathing in the sun, I would rather go sunbathing in the sun." Our forces are quite capable of coping. What is unforgivable is to say that we must go to war because we

Column 755

are impatient. If we as a country did that-- [Interruption.] We did not go to war with Hitler because we were impatient.

Mr. Cecil Franks (Barrow and Furness) : The same argument was used on 3 September by people in the House.

Mr. Heath : If we were to go to war because we were impatient, our forces could say, "We are being sacrificed because you are too impatient to pursue the alternative course." That is the real challenge facing us. For this period, we should use all our skill to continue to carry out sanctions in an endeavour to bring about a change in President Saddam Hussein's attitude. That is not impossible. He once made a most dramatic change that nobody expected ; he welcomed Iran back, gave its people everything they had lost, and was friends with them.

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : The right hon. Gentleman has met Saddam Hussein. When he did so, did he ask him to withdraw from Kuwait? If so, what response did he get?

Mr. Heath : This answer should command a large fee. Briefly, I said to him, "The United Nations' resolution states that you must withdraw from Kuwait, and you must do so. If you withdraw from Kuwait, there is nothing left for the British and Americans to do but to go home." [ Hon. Members :-- "What did he say?"] He said, "If I withdraw from Kuwait, what assurance will you give me that, instead of going home, the British and Americans will not go into Kuwait and attack me from there?" Since my visit, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and President Bush have given an undertaking that that will not happen, but I believe that more is necessary. I believe that the Arab League must put a buffer round to separate Kuwait from the other countries and Iraq. That will be the Arab League's duty.

President Hussein said to me, "You are putting forward hypothetical situations." I said, "Yes, because I want to find out your response to each hypothetical situation." I suggested a number of other such situations to him, emphasising all the time that the United Nations' resolution meant that he should withdraw. Of course, we all know that problems exist between the two countries and have done for a long time. The resolution states that they should be resolved. A peacekeeping force could then be sent in to ensure that the peace remained.

I believe that our duty at present is to persist with sanctions and to do the utmost possible to ensure that they are kept by everyone involved and to see whether there is a sudden change in President Saddam's attitude.

Alternatively, President Saddam may find himself gradually brought to a position where he has no alternative but to withdraw from Kuwait.

5.8 pm

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) : When I rose to speak on 6 September following the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members please leave quietly?

Column 756

Mr. Ashdown : I recall that I bemoaned my fate of always following the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. On that occasion I found myself agreeing with a large proportion of what he said. Today I fear that for reasons which I shall explain I shall have to part company with him on major portions of his speech.

We are dealing with a literally terrifying issue. Democracies go through agony when considering whether or not to embark on war and use force, and it is right and proper that they should go through that agony. Decent people throughout Britain will have come to conclusions different from mine and those of other hon. Members for perfectly proper, right and sincere reasons. Therefore, I echo the Prime Minister's comments at the start of his speech when he said that he hoped that the debate would not be conducted in a partisan spirit, but would address a terrifying, moral and practical problem in a rational manner, understanding the views of different people who had reached different conclusions.

All the conclusions that each of us in our separate ways will have reached will be based on judgments, not truths. It is at the very heart of the democratic process that those judgments should be out in the open and open to question. I should like to explain my position and that of my party and how we rationally approach the answers to four questions.

First, is it possible at this midnight hour to reach peace?

Mr. Ron Brown : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown : The hon. Gentleman must forgive me. I intend to make progress and I shall not give way at this point.

Secondly, if we fail to find peace, will it be necessary to use force? Thirdly, if we use force, can we, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested, wait a little longer to ensure that sanctions are tested through? Lastly, if we have to use force, what should be the aims of the war in which we would then be involved, what should be the limitations on it and what should we hope that its outcome will be?

Can we, as we teeter on the last millimetres at the edge of this terrible decision, still reach peace? All hon. Members, whatever their hopes, judgments or wishes, and whatever line they want to pursue--

Mr. Ron Brown : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ashdown : The hon. Gentleman must recognise that I am not his right hon. Friend and that I have not the slightest intention of giving way.

We must all recognise that we must be deeply pessimistic about the possibility of achieving peace at this last moment. I know that the Prime Minister agrees that it must be our aim, consistent with the terms of the UN resolution, to search for and to explore any last realistic, constructive approach to peace that remains open to us. That is what I have said that the Prime Minister must do. I think that he has underestimated the French initiative. I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that that initiative does not dilute or undermine the terms of the UN resolution. I believe that it is on all fours with the resolution. However, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that there will be at least one final appeal from the Security Council.

Column 757

I hope that the Prime Minister agrees that if today is not a deadline for the start of war, by that definition it also cannot be a deadline for stopping talks. If there are further lines to pursue, they should be pursued, although not as delaying tactics. Only constructive lines must be pursued. In these difficult times we shall of course support our troops on the field if the terrible decision has to be taken, but I must point out that the French initiative requires a timetable for withdrawal, the immediate withdrawal of large numbers of troops and a UN peacekeeping force to monitor and oversee that withdrawal.

There is also the nasty issue of linkage, and I share the Prime Minister's determination that we should not put ourselves in the position in which we reward Saddam Hussein. The French resolution stipulates the calling of a peace conference at an appropriate time, which is already the policy of the United Kingdom Government. It is the declared policy of our Government, and we support it, that there should be a middle east conference to deal with these matters. I must caution the Prime Minister in the gentlest possible terms not to get caught by the following perverse paradox : the moment the first shot is fired or the first bomb is dropped in a war, a middle east peace conference becomes inevitable. Would it not be illogical to go to war on an issue that becomes inevitable the moment we do so? There must be questions about linkage, but we can surely find the wit and the way to portray a conference not as a concession to Saddam Hussein but as a means of resolving the problem of the Palestinians which Hussein's occupation of Kuwait is preventing from happening. In that way Hussein becomes the bulwark to the resolution of the Palestinian problem, not the instrument to which the benighted Palestinians look for a resolution to their problem.

I anticipate that if the French initiative were put to Iraq it would be rejected by Iraq, but if the Prime Minister were seen to be pursuing last steps towards peace without diluting the United Nations resolutions he would take away Saddam Hussein's capacity to play the Palestinian card. I can see no disadvantage in that course of action.

Every right hon. and hon. Member except for a few Labour Members can see clearly that there can be no dilution of the terms of the United Nations resolutions without affecting the authority of the United Nations and undermining the primacy of international law. If, therefore, every last desperate effort at peace having failed, we have to use force, then we must be prepared to use it. It would be a good enough reason to use force to free Kuwait from the misery, oppressions, terror and torture that the Prime Minister described. It might be a good enough reason to consider the use of force to stop the further aggrandisement of Saddam Hussein. Iraq will be armed in two years' time with nuclear weapons which we have no doubt that Saddam Hussein will use once he has them. The use of force for that reason might, therefore, prevent greater conflagrations in future. But these are not the primary reasons for being prepared to use force now. The prime reason was exactly as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition expressed it : if we do not now back international law and take every action necessary to uphold the authority of the United Nations, we shall have a broken-backed United Nations--

Mr. Skinner : Its authority must be upheld everywhere.

Column 758

Mr. Ashdown : That is true. I have sometimes attempted to ask the hon. Gentleman how he will be able to complain about a Panama or a Grenada in future if on this occasion we do not stand up for Kuwait--

Mr. Cryer : The United Nations resolutions on such countries have not always been complied with in the past.

Mr. Ashdown : That is a departure that we can now make--but only if we back the United Nations on this occasion. I warn hon. Members who oppose my view to beware. If we do not now back the United Nations and international law, we shall have a broken-backed United Nations at the very moment when the world needs a strong one and when we shall have to face--

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) rose --

Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham) rose --

Mr. Cryer rose --

Mr. Ashdown : We shall have a broken-backed United Nations at the very moment when international gangsters armed with nuclear weapons confront the world--because we failed to control the proliferation of those weapons. That is the moment when we shall need a counterbalance to a world in which there will be only one super-power

Mr. Skinner : Why does not the leader of the Liberal party tell the whole story about the United Nations, and about how, when the United States proposed a vote on a resolution to set the date of 15 January, America was so far behind with its subscriptions that it crawled in to pay them before the vote was held--and told Egypt that the United States would bail it out with $3.5 billion?

Mr. Ashdown : Sometimes I despair. Why do the hon. Gentleman and others who take a similar line always seek explanations in the past instead of facing up to the problems that confront us now? However we arrived at this situation, and whatever the ingredients that went into it, the authority of the United Nations is at stake and we must back that authority and support the rule of international law. Mr. Ron Brown rose --

Mr. Ashdown : I am keen to allow other hon. Members to speak-- Mr. Brown rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat?

Mr.Brown rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. Mr. Ashdown has the floor.

Mr. Ashdown : The upshot is that our troops are not in the Gulf to uphold British or western influence. We could be said to have created the monster that is Saddam Hussein, with whom we are now trying to cope, but that does not lead me to the conclusion that the world should pay the price of war because of our past follies in the middle east. Nor are British troops in the field in the middle east to assure our oil supply. Our gluttonous dependence on oil and our failure to learn the lessons of the 1970s does not lead me to believe that we should risk a war on that basis alone. Our troops are there as the

Column 759

instruments of international will, the upholders of international law and the preservers of the authority of the United Nations.

Mr. Franks : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, several hon. Members have sought to intervene and I should like to make some progress.

I therefore come to whether, if we have to contemplate the use of force, we can give sanctions more time. I wish that I could tell the House that the answer to that question in my view is yes. When I spoke on 6 September I said that I hoped that sanctions would be given sufficient time. I said that they needed sufficient time to be judged, but we must judge the present situation according to what is happening, not what our hopes were.

The question is best answered by seeking to obtain answers to two questions. First, would the prolongation of sanctions have an effect on the Iraqi people? The answer would no doubt be that in due course it might. It probably would, but that is not the key question. The question to be answered is not whether it would have an effect on the Iraqi people but whether it would have any effect on the will of Saddam Hussein. Although I wish that sanctions had worked, and I longed for them to work, I do not believe that one can make a judgment which leads one to answer yes to that question without suspending rational judgment in favour of pious hope, and I do not believe that we should be considering this matter on the basis of pious hopes.

What would happen if we were to prolong sanctions, having exhausted every last avenue for peace? In the meantime, Saddam Hussein would strengthen immensely his defences in Kuwait. There are those who argue that his military capacity would be diminished, but that is counterbalanced by far by the preparations that he would be able to make to resist any retaking of Kuwait in the name of the United Nations--by far. In so doing we would raise the cost that has to be paid in the lives of our troops in achieving success.

In the intervening months, Saddam Hussein would be able massively to increase--quantitatively and perhaps also qualitatively--his access to and capacity for delivering weapons of mass destruction. Again, the price that we would have to pay for success if we wanted to use force then would be higher in the lives of our troops.

In the intervening time, although the Leader of the Opposition seems to wish to ignore it, there would be some risk to the cohesion of the international coalition. It may well be that if we waited until September-- incidentally, that worry comes not from the western powers but from the Arab powers who have serious problems with the maintenance of the stand of the international coalition--or October or November, the option of force would not be open to us.

The hard and difficult judgment that we must now make is this. A prolongation of sanctions is unlikely to be successful in changing the will of Saddam Hussein. If it were to happen, however, it would be almost certain to raise the cost that must be paid for success in terms of the lives of our troops and may even increase the chances of failure and, with that, the failure of the authority of the United Nations.

Column 760

Gloomily, I have to reach this conclusion. If at the end of the day, all avenues to peace having been exhausted, we have to grasp this terrible nettle, it would be better that we grasped it when we had to rather than to delay and pay a higher price later.

I now address my remarks briefly to the question of aims, constraints and objectives. I hope that the Government will, in clearer terms than I have heard so far from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary, announce what the aims of any action would be. It is important that if we go into this terrible action we do so clear about our objectives. It would be a catastrophe to allow a war which invented its own aims as it rolled along. We must now state what our aims will be. That means that the Prime Minister should confirm--perhaps the Foreign Secretary will do so when he replies--that the aims of our operation as an instrument of the will of international law do not extend further than the terms of the UN resolutions, that they are consistent with those and do not go further.

Secondly, I greatly welcome the Prime Minister's statement on the use of nuclear and chemical weapons in response. We do not need to use them. We have sufficient conventional forces to deter effectively or to respond effectively without their use. But the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary must realise that the Liberal Democratic party could not countenance and would not support the use of nuclear or chemical weapons.

Mr. Cryer : Nor does the United Nations.

Mr. Ashdown : Nor, indeed, as the hon. Gentleman says, does the United Nations.

Therefore, the constraints that we use must be proportional to the task. The aim has to be consistent with the UN resolutions--the freedom of Kuwait, not the acquisition of Iraqi territory. We all recognise that action within Iraq against its air force and chemical capacity may be part of the operation in Kuwait, but it should not include the acquisition of Iraqi territory.

If we are in the Gulf now as the instrument of international will, supporting the authority of the United Nations, the United Nations has a part to play in that operation. It is obvious that the conduct of the war must lie with those nations which have troops at risk in the field. The United Nations should now be responsible for the construction of any peace which follows. That peace cannot be on the basis of a Versailles conference where those with forces in the field carve up the territory which may or may not have resulted. It must be a peace vested in the United Nations, constructed in the United Nations and based on a broad middle east peace conference, arranged for and carried through under United Nations auspices.

The House today debates a literally terrifying decision. We in the Liberal Democratic party hope that the Government will pursue every last realistic avenue for peace. But if, as regrettably seems likely, peace fails, we believe that action must be taken to uphold international law. In voting with the Government today, we are not only giving that support to which our troops in the field are entitled ; we are also expressing our view that it is only by upholding international law and backing the authority of the United Nations that the long-term peace of the world can be assured.

Column 761

5.27 pm

Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : After the very fine speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and many of the points, but not all, so excellently and eloquently made by the Leader of the Opposition, and the forceful and fine speech made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), I wish to add only a few points and to detain the House for a minimum of time in doing so.

First, as the hours tick away and the enabling hour for United Nations approval of the use of force approaches, we should have the most profound respect for those who recoil from the very idea of extended force and war, particularly those who have themselves been involved in the great wars of the past and who understand better than some of us the sheer terror, hell, cruelty and indiscrimination of the war process as it continues.

But to those people, whose instincts one completely respects, we have to say that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded the House, we already have war in the Gulf. That war began in the early hours of 2 August when the tanks of Iraq rumbled into Kuwait and when people began to die, and have continued to die ever since. There has been a war, and the issue before us now, which has gradually unfolded with terrifying clarity, is how we check Saddam Hussein, this warmonger, with his intention of evil aggression clearly announced, from expanding that aggression and from strengthening his weapons to control it further ; how we check that evil so that a greater evil does not result. When people say that war is evil, we can only agree--but sometimes the smaller evil must be faced to halt the larger evil. That point is at the centre of the immensely difficult decision that must be made.

If Saddam Hussein will not move towards peace, even in these last hours, and if he is not checked, he will continue to use the force that he has shown, and is showing hour by hour--in the form of terror, street executions, man hunts and other atrocities. That is surely an easy lesson for those of us in Britain to understand. Without drawing too much on historical analogies, which can be overworked, it must be embedded in our folk memory that if such people are not checked at an early stage, there is always a much higher price to pay later in bloodshed, misery and terror. That is something which many people in Britain who do not understand the higher complexities and the interweaving of the finer arguments can understand. It is an argument which can easily be grasped by people who remember, or whose parents remember, the hostilities of the past.

Are sanctions failing, or could we somehow maintain them and eventually see Iraq's war effort wither and Saddam Hussein withdraw from Kuwait? There is little evidence of that. Instead, one sees every sign that the effects of the sanctions have long since peaked, and that, like the old fishing net, gaps are developing even in the oil trading system--for there is evidence that trading with Iraq in oil is still taking place on a small scale. Certainly the sinister trade in the international arms market continues. In a thousand other ways, Iraq is at the centre--as it has been throughout history--of a gigantic trading network which cannot indefinitely be bottled up, and which shows every sign of redeveloping.

Of course, sanctions have proved uncomfortable for Iraq, and they will continue to do so--but they will not do the trick. They will not lift Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

Column 762

They will not even create the starvation among the mass of the Iraqi people that would compel Saddam Hussein to think again, for the very good reasons that living standards in Iraq are appallingly low anyway, and that the potential for expanding its food production is considerable and is now being exploited. Although one prayed that sanctions would do the job, there is no evidence that they will achieve their purpose--certainly not in a foreseeable time frame, and perhaps not for years ahead.

Even if one could foresee the day, a year or two ahead, when Saddam Hussein declares, "We have had enough of being the pariah of the world", where would we be? By then, Iraq would have developed a nuclear capacity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) suggested that the Iraqis do not have such a capacity now, though other reports imply that they are capable of manufacturing a rather crude nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, it would probably be bigger than anything dropped on Hiroshima, even if too big to carry under the wing of an aircraft. The Iraqis already have the mechanism for creating some kind of nuclear detonation--and that would certainly still be the case in two years' time, sanctions or no sanctions.

As much as one yearns to go with those who argue that we should wait for sanctions to work, the truth is that the clock is ticking the other way, and the longer that Saddam Hussein is allowed to get away with his actions, the deeper he will dig into Kuwait, and the more likely it is that he will successfully defy the collective security of the world.

Collective security is the light which failed at the League of Nations. It was the light which many in the Labour party, and in many other parties also, tried to reignite, and which they believed passionately would somehow secure peace. Again and again it was discredited. Speeches were made, rhetoric was tried, and sanctions were implemented--but they all failed in the inter-war years. After years of the United Nations being a feeble, divided force because of third world arguments, non-alignment, the hostility of the communists against the capitalists and the lining up against anything that the Americans supported, we now begin to see it emerging as an effective force, bringing together all the great nations, and the smaller ones, of the planet. It is uniting the Americans, Europeans, Asians, Chinese--and even the Soviet Union in its travail, as it disintegrates. They and many other countries are working together, having recognised the need to display collective security in such a way that their representations are seen as something more than a tap on the wrist or a rap across the knuckles.

In that situation, one must surely have the support of all political parties and their leaders--as we have in this instance--in emphasising the need for collective security particularly at this time, at the start of the post-cold war period and the beginning of a new era, when there really is a chance, for the first time almost in living memory, for collective security to be effectively organised. That is not to say that such an arrangement can bring peace to the middle east. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) rightly said the other day, the middle east is inherently unstable and always will be. Nevertheless, we ought to be able to create some envelope framework or order by which the instability of that boiling stew can be contained and not spill out to create more hideous tragedies and global instability.

I acknowledge the point made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the tone of the French initiative

Column 763

goes beyond the substance of the United Nations resolutions. However, we should not be too harsh on the French. Their president is himself under some political pressure, and he is in a delicate situation in having to commit French troops to fighting. President Mitterrand must demonstrate that he is reaching his decision independently- -in a French way that may sometimes madden us, but it is a trait that the world recognises. I may not agree entirely with the French, but I understand why they feel that they must go the final mile, or kilometre, in proving beyond doubt to the French people that there is no further room for diplomacy.

Ms. Gordon : The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the thoroughgoing, two-and-a-half-day debate in the American Congress, during which members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate reflected the unease felt by a large number of the American people that sanctions have not been properly tried. Iraq has only one major export--its oil--and needs to import about two thirds of its food requirements. Even Iraqi dinar are printed in this country. If we turn our minds to devising constructive ways of putting pressure on Iraq--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady is meant to be making an intervention, not a speech. I ask her to make her point.

Ms. Gordon : If we can devise better ways of applying pressure rather than entering into a dreadful bloodbath, we shall save bloodshed, the break-up of families and everything else that war brings--and I have lived through a war, and know what one is like.

Mr. Howell : No one doubts that sanctions are having an impact and are proving irritating, frustrating and difficult for Iraq. Nevertheless, they are not doing the trick. The international oil market is fairly indiscriminate and even now it is being fed by Iraqi oil. Not every sanction is working in the way that it should or in the way that we hoped that it would. The effectiveness of sanctions eventually wears out and I fear that the system is not on our side. I repeat that we should not be too harsh on the French. As to their proposals for a middle east conference and linkage, I recoil from the linkage concept as it somehow implies that the Iraqis' attack on Kuwait is of the same order as the Israelis' occupation of the west bank. Although there may be injustices in both, they did not arise under the same conditions and they should not be compared.

Mr. Heath : Given that both pipelines from Iraq have been cut, there is a blockade of all shipping, and no roads are available to the Iraqis, can my right hon. Friend explain how Iraq is still able to export its oil? Should not my right hon. Friend inform the authorities?

Mr. Howell : Certainly. I am doing so now and I have done so already. Road facilities for moving oil still exist. I must inform my right hon. Friend--I shall discuss this with him later if he wishes--that people in the oil market tell us that Iraqi oil is somehow seeping into the system. Because of the sanctions arrangements, it should not, but links exist. I do not know whether it goes through

Column 764

neighbouring countries or on ships of other nationalities, but there is evidence that some revenue from oil is passing to Iraq.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell : No, I must move on as it is only fair to other hon. Members.

I recoil from the question of linkage and there is too much of it in the French proposal. In due course there will be some sort of conference to address the need for security arrangements in the Gulf and the Arab-Israeli issue with more vigour. That will have to come, but there is no question of its coming to order, in response to some agreement made with Saddam Hussein. That conference will begin to make sense only if it is well prepared and if Israel is in a different mood from the mood that it was in when it was considering its security in April and nearly met the PLO in Cairo, but backed out at the last minute.

Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell : No, I shall press on.

I do not think that the fact that the French have raised linkage at this last moment should count too much against them. It is worth trying anything to get the message through. However, the truth of the matter is that Saddam Hussein probably does not need a message. Perhaps he needs an excuse or a peg, but that opportunity has been open to him all along. It has been open since 2 August and it is still open now. He could withdraw from Kuwait and bring about peace from the moment that he did so and from the moment that he complied with the resolutions.

One understands all the eloquence which has been directed against war, but it should be addressed to that man in his cocoon, with his inner voices and his Messianic stance, who seems determined, and probably was determined from the start, to provoke a war and to bring the most fearful retribution upon himself, his country and his people. That is what he is going to do unless, in the next few hours, he takes a step to avoid it. We should sombrely and grimly face that fact if the further safety of nations both large and small is to be assured.

5.42 pm

Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent) : I wish to confine my remarks to the question of sanctions, especially in the light of what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said at the end of his speech, when he stressed that sanctions need to be kept at the centre of our debate. I believe that that is absolutely right. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) put that issue in its proper context. One of the main purposes of our debate should be to get answers from the Government, which we have certainly not had yet. What is the Government's verdict? When did they make the decision? How does that tie up with the deadline? I do not believe that the Government or their allies have fully examined the effects and the possibilities of sanctions. In the face of such peril for the world, it is outrageous that the Government have not given us a much fuller account of that aspect of the matter. I hope that they will reply to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and to the remarks that he made at the end of his speech.

Next Section

Home Page