---

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

Mr. Hurd : I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister dealt with the French proposal in his opening speech. The Security Council has been meeting informally today--the last day of this important chapter in its history. Four months after the original invasion, the original resolution 678 gave Saddam Hussein a further 45 days to decide whether he would comply. The Security Council and the Secretary- General have done their utmost to remind Saddam Hussein that 45 days have now passed by issuing a solemn appeal to him. That seemed to us to be a wholly sensible step. What we have not wanted to do is to suggest, even obliquely, that the time frame set by the Security Council should be extended, or that we have been converted by Saddam Hussein, in the context of his aggression, to the idea of an international conference on the Arab- Israel problem. The Arab members of the coalition would resent that fiercely, as has been made clear to me, and I cannot conceive of Israel's attending a conference convoked in such a way and under such auspices.

That said, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that there is no case for harshness towards this proposal. What is necessary is for realism to be applied to it. We have been working all day in New York to achieve an appeal to Saddam Hussein around which all Security Council members can rally. We believe that a straightforward appeal of that kind would be the right course for the Secretary-General and the Security Council today.

This morning, we put forward certain British ideas to try to find the basis for such an appeal. I have just received a message from our representative in New York to the effect that the Security Council has agreed that the Secretary-General will make a statement, which he has said will fully reflect the Security Council resolutions, within an hour or two. If that proves to be right, it would seem a sensible end to the day's work.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Hurd : I will give way to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who asked me to. [Interruption.]

Mr. Nellist : I am not sure why hon. Members find that so funny. What is the Secretary of State frightened of? Why will he not answer the question?

Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that the ForeignSecretary was giving way to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

---

Column 818

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way.

If war breaks out--in a very few hours--I believe that the right hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush will have been total and abject failures. They will have failed the whole world, and in particular the people of the middle east. They are all failed politicians--wimps--and they will go down in history as the people who caused blood to be spilt by thousands in the middle east.

Mr. Hurd : I shall answer that point by describing where I think the real danger lies. Before I do so, however, I will fulfil the promise given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that I would say something further about sanctions.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask--as many have asked themselves and the Government--whether sanctions should not be given longer to take effect. Since sanctions were imposed, Iraqi oil exports have dwindled to virtually nothing, and Iraq is now cut off from its sources of external finance. Sanctions are not completely watertight, but there is no doubt that the flow of goods to Iraq is a very small proportion of that before the invasion of Kuwait. At the time of the invasion, Iraq had considerable food stocks. Although there is some rationing, consumption remains fairly high, and there is no reason to suppose that Iraqis face short-term difficulty in that regard. Steps have been taken by a dictatorial regime to force an increase in agricultural output.

Industry is also prepared for a long haul. As has been pointed out, many factories have closed as a result of deliberate action by the Iraqi Government to divert resources to the military sector. We believe that the key sectors of industry are likely on this basis to continue operations for a long time, and the Government have the option of closing down more factories without disruption and without affecting essential services.

I come now to the key question--that of the military. President Saddam Hussein has systematically built up a large arsenal in recent years. It is therefore hardly surprising that we see no signs that he is at present short of spares. We believe that that arsenal provides him with so much hardware that he can still afford to capitalise if necessary.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East has studied the matter carefully, and will appreciate this point. One test is the rate of sorties by the air force. It has not declined, which suggests that Iraq does not see a need to reduce sorties in order to conserve spare parts. Similar is true of the operations of the ground forces such as tanks and artillery. Prodigious quantities of hardware are deployed in Kuwait and Iraq, together with ammunition, and we see no evidence that the imposition of sanctions has so far affected those elements. We believe that Saddam Hussein could hold out for a long time without dramatically affecting his fighting arm, and that is the critical point.

Mr. Healey : My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) quoted the evidence given by the head of the CIA, Mr. Webster, a few weeks ago to the American Congress when he stated that the air capacity of Iraq would begin to be affected by about Easter, that other weapons would begin to be affected in

---

Column 819

six or nine months and that there would be a serious impact on the military capability by next autumn. Does the Secretary of State agree or disagree with Mr. Webster?

Mr. Hurd : I have given the House an up-to-date--as of this week-- assessment of the situation. Mr. Webster's evidence was given some time ago. I do not believe that there would be a wide divergence of assessment and I have given the House the best assessment that we have.

Mr. Healey rose--

Mr. Hurd : The question that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East has not tackled is whether sanctions will get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. There is no doubt that if they were left in place for a long time, they would impose substantial hardships on the Iraqi people, but that is what they have been used to enduring for years. Saddam Hussein does not care for the suffering of his people. He has proved that in the war against Iran in which 350,000 people died. He is preoccupied with his own position and with the strength of his military machine. Will the right hon. Member for Leeds, East accept that there is no evidence that sanctions will have a decisive effect on Saddam Hussein's armed forces in the foreseeable future? That is the key point. Unless we wish to delude ourselves, we must face the possibility that sanctions, no matter how long they are applied, will not force Saddam Hussein to withdraw. They will not achieve such a decisive rundown of his military machine that he will leave Kuwait. People could argue that we should put that proposition to the test if waiting were cost- free, but it is not. As time passes, it will be easy for the world outside to forget what has happened. Saddam Hussein has taken a sovereign nation, a member of the United Nations, and wiped it off the map. Its people have fled or been murdered and we estimate that of the 700,000 Kuwaitis who lived in Kuwait before August, only 250,000 remain there. If we let this pass, Kuwait may never be restored. Theoretically, the military option may still be open to us in six or 12 months but, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East knows, in practice it may be eroded. Time passes quickly in these matters and familiarity with a tragedy can easily blunt the outrage. If we do not take action within the foreseeable future, assuming that a peaceful outcome is prevented, it may be that the conditions for action will not again be favourable.

I fear that we must accept the possibility that by the time we looked again at the military option Kuwait would have become just another item on the international agenda. In fact, the will and the means might not come together again. If we blink now, how could we expect Saddam Hussein to believe in a military option again? To those who say, as many do and as many will be tempted to do in coming months, "Let sanctions work", I say that I fear that that is not a safe option.

Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles) rose --

Mr. Hurd : I shall give way in a minute.

In a year or so, we may find that sanctions have not worked, that Saddam Hussein is still in Kuwait after more plunder, torture and killings and that, in practice, the military option no longer exists. I do not believe that any sensible hon. Member would regard that outcome as acceptable or safe.

---

Column 820

Miss Lestor : If the policy of sanctions has been abandoned, when was that decision taken?

Mr. Hurd : It has not been abandoned ; it is in full force. As the right hon. Member for Gorton emphasised, it was right to pursue it. We must seriously assess its prospects, not in terms of hardship for the Iraqi people but in terms of so crippling Iraqi's military machine that it has to get out of Kuwait. I have given the House the best assessment that I can of that situation.

Mr. Benn rose --

Mr. Nellist rose --

Mr. Hurd : I am coming to a close.

Several hon. Members, particularly those who will vote against the motion, have drawn our attention to many other acts of injustice and repression in the world, some of which are continuing and some of which have defied solution before. Of course it is right that we must continue to look for answers to problems in Cambodia, Lebanon and Palestine, with which I have dealt, and in Lithuania. On 2 August, we were faced with a clear, abrupt act of aggression. I cannot understand how it can be argued that that act of aggression should go unredressed because there are other injustices in the world. We should not forget Kuwait simply because we have other grievous problems to remember--a point made notably by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).

In all this swell of argument, the essential point is more clearly understood in this country than elsewhere. We must ask, for what cause are we justified in asking young men and women to put lives--their own and others--at risk in war? The answer is safety--the safety of this country and of the international community, of which we are a part. The threat from Iraq to this country is not of invasion or direct bombing, although it might come from terrorism, but if we want a safe world we must accept the principle that a small, peaceable state cannot be obliterated, that aggression must be reversed and that, in part, our safety depends on the safety of others. We have learnt that lesson the hard way several times in this century. We must not only accept the point in argument but act on it. Everybody respects the pacifist position, but pacifists would accept that their position involves accepting, or at least putting up with, acts of aggression and letting them succeed.

Of course we must try peaceful action first. We have used peaceful means for more than five months, and for six weeks Saddam Hussein has known that from tonight members of the United Nations are authorised to use force to secure compliance with the Security Council's resolutions. The right hon. Member for Gorton rightly said that the most striking fact is that Saddam Hussein has refused to discuss, let alone admit, the need for withdrawal. I expected it to be otherwise. I thought that in the past week or so there would have been a flow of clever proposals from Baghdad, designed to divide the coalition and to confuse the issues. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said about that. I thought that there would be proposals for partial withdrawal--or for withdrawal, but not yet--or that Saddam Hussein would pounce on one of the compromises floated before him in such profusion. That has not been so, and this evening, as I understand it, he has shown no interest--rather the reverse-- in the latest

---

Column 821

French idea. He knows the range of forces against him, and he knows that if he fully withdraws he will not be attacked and that we have not added to the requirements of the Security Council. Unless there is some sudden change, which we can only guess at but cannot, I fear, expect, the only conclusion is that he prefers war to a satisfactory and fair solution of these disputes.

Mr. Benn rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to. Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn :-- The House divided : Ayes 57, Noes 534.

Division No. 36] [10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Bidwell, Sydney

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Clay, Bob

Cohen, Harry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Dalyell, Tam

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Eadie, Alexander

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Faulds, Andrew

Fyfe, Maria

Galloway, George

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Gordon, Mildred

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Heffer, Eric S.

Hinchliffe, David

Hood, Jimmy

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)

Lambie, David

Lamond, James

Lewis, Terry

Litherland, Robert

Livingstone, Ken

Loyden, Eddie

McAllion, John

McFall, John

McKelvey, William

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mallon, Seamus

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Mullin, Chris

Parry, Robert

Primarolo, Dawn

Redmond, Martin

Sedgemore, Brian

Skinner, Dennis

Strang, Gavin

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Vaz, Keith

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Wigley, Dafydd

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Wray, Jimmy

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Dave Nellist and

Mr. Dennis Canavan.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Allason, Rupert

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Anderson, Donald

Arbuthnot, James

Armstrong, Hilary

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Ashby, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ashton, Joe

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkins, Robert

Atkinson, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Barron, Kevin

Batiste, Spencer

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Beckett, Margaret

Beggs, Roy

Beith, A. J.

Bell, Stuart

Bellingham, Henry

Bellotti, David

Bendall, Vivian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Benton, Joseph

Benyon, W.

Bermingham, Gerald

Bevan, David Gilroy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Blair, Tony

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Blunkett, David

Boateng, Paul

Body, Sir Richard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Boswell, Tim

---