House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Jan 1991

Column 23

The Gulf

Mr. Speaker : Before calling the Prime Minister to move the motion in his name, I wish to announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

I should draw the attention of hon. Members that no fewer than 58 right hon. and hon. Members have expressed an interest in this debate. I propose- -I hope that hon. Members will think this fair--to give precedence to those Members who were not called in either of the last three debates on this subject. Further, I propose to impose a limit of 10 minutes on speeches delivered between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock. I hope that Members who speak before or after that period will also bear that limit in mind.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : The whole House accepts entirely, Mr. Speaker, your right to decide which amendments should be selected and which should not be selected. I should, however, like to put to you now, Sir, a point that I raised with you privately, concerning the handling of this Gulf war by the House of Commons. It is a matter of great concern, not least because of our anxiety in respect of the troops and their families. We have had three debates on the Adjournment without substance. Today, we are having a debate without choice. As I understand the situation, the Government intend to accept the Opposition amendment-- [Interruption.] That is a fact. They will accept it. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members support the military action that is being taken, as do both Front Benches.

But a substantial minority do not take that view--57 hon. Members went into the Lobby to vote against war--and, even if the opinion poll in The Sunday Times is right, 20 per cent., or 8 million people, do not support the war [Interruption.] I am putting this to you, Mr. Speaker, because of the handling of this matter in the future. There is no one in the House who supports the invasion of Kuwait and no one who is opposed to the United Nations or who wants to embarrass our troops--

Mr. Speaker : Order. When the right hon. Gentleman came to see me, he said that he would raise this matter briefly.

Mr. Benn : The point I am seeking to make is not only that different views should be expressed, but that they should be able to be tested in the Lobby, so that Parliament is seen as a place where different views can be registered.

Mr. Speaker : I have no knowledge of whether amendments have been accepted or not. [ Hon. Members-- : "Oh!"] Order. The whole House knows that I select amendments on their merits. As to the minority view, there will be plenty of opportunity today for hon. Members on both sides of the argument to express alternative views if they hold such views.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I know that you have a difficulty, Mr. Speaker, about making a judgment on amendments, but may I point out to you that the Government motion and the Opposition amendment were tabled at 2.15 pm on Friday. One of the factors enabling Mr. Speaker to make a judgment as to whether to select an amendment is often the strength of feeling expressed by supporters of it. However, when a

Column 24

motion is tabled at 2.15 on a Friday afternoon--one cannot table an amendment until the motion is tabled first-- the opportunity for gauging support is virtually nil. I hope that you will therefore take that into account in order to give a wider choice to hon. Members to express support for forces in the Gulf, but linked with other important considerations.

In conclusion, I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order No. 31(3), under which you can, if you think fit,

"call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the object thereof as may enable him"-- you, Mr. Speaker--

"to form a judgment upon it."

I should be happy to do so during the course of the debate.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : It takes up time in the debate. The hon. Gentleman has previously been called in the debates and I ask him not to cut out those of his hon. Friends who want to participate. Is it a point of order that I can answer?

Mr. Canavan : I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. The amendment that is down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and myself is the only amendment on the Order Paper that specifically calls for

"a halt to hostilities to provide for a peaceful settlement." There is a significant body of opinion in this House, albeit a minority, in support of that amendment. Millions of people outside the House also support that amendment, and they fail to understand why the House is being deprived of an opportunity to express an opinion and to vote upon this important matter.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member will find that, as the debate goes on, the House will have plenty of opportunity for those opinions to be expressed.

3.33 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I beg to move,

That this House expresses its full support for British forces in the Gulf and their contribution to the implementation of United Nations resolutions by the multinational force, as authorised by United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.

It is of course essential that the House should be fully informed of events in the Gulf and have the opportunity to debate them. With this in mind, I can assure the House that my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Defence Secretaries will make regular statements as events unfold, and there will be contacts through the usual channels to arrange appropriate debates.

This is the first time that the House has debated the situation since the start of hostilities on 17 January, but it is the third occasion on which I have spoken about the Gulf situation in the past week. I shall therefore be brief. This is an occasion for hon. Members to express their views and then to vote on a substantive motion.

We did not want this conflict. We tried hard, very hard, to avoid it. We failed because--to keep his spoils--Saddam Hussein was prepared for conflict. Because he made his decision, we were thereupon forced to ours. We are determined to give our forces every ounce of support

Column 25

to ensure that Iraq is defeated and the United Nations Security Council's resolutions are implemented in full. Nothing more and nothing less will suffice.

It is as well to be aware what our forces face. They face an enemy that, having invaded Kuwait, is now well dug in ; that has established extremely strong defensive positions, manned by many hundreds of thousands of his forces ; that is equipped with thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, together with substantial numbers of aircraft and helicopters and anti- aircraft defences ; and that has some of the best equipped and most experienced units of Saddam Hussein's armed forces, the Republican Guard, held in reserve on the borders of Iraq and Kuwait. These forces are supported by an elaborate war machine.

Throughout the past decade, Saddam Hussein has starved his country of economic resources precisely to build up that military machine. It has sophisticated military communications. It has missiles, and it has chemical and biological weapons that Saddam Hussein has threatened to use. As we well know, he has not scrupled to use chemical weapons in the past, even against his own people. The conclusion to be drawn is clear. We should not for one second underestimate the scale and difficulty of the task which confronts our forces. Nor should we underestimate the time which it may take to complete this matter. We have deliberately set ourselves the aims of keeping casualties to a minimum, both among our forces and among the civilian populations of Iraq and Kuwait, and of avoiding damage to sites of religious and cultural significance.

Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : In a moment, I shall give way to the hon. Gentlemen.

We must recognise that, by introducing these constraints, we are bound to lengthen the conflict. I am sure that that is right. The House should recognise what we are doing : by first destroying his air defences, we seek to save ourselves many casualties in any subsequent land battle. I give way to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Livingstone : Has the Prime Minister had any estimate from his advisers about the level of civilian casualties in Iraq?

The Prime Minister : I am going to deal precisely with that point in the next few moments.

Mr. Dalyell : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : I undertook the other day to give way to the hon. Gentleman and, regretfully, did not. If I may, at the conclusion of this point on casualties I most certainly will give way to him. We have heard very little from Iraq so far on the subject of casualties. I will tell the House why I believe that is. I believe that it is because our efforts to avoid harm to innocent civilians have so far been successful. The figures of tens of thousands of civilian casualties quoted by some anti -war groups seem to be entirely fictitious. There is no evidence for those claims. The evidence is entirely to the contrary.

Column 26

Mr. Dalyell : While accepting that Saddam Hussein, probably on purpose, placed his missile boosting factory near to Najaf and near Karbala ; because of Karbala's associations with the grandson of the prophet and because Najaf is the seat of the Islamic university and the spiritual leader of the Shiahs, the Ayatollah Khoi He Marje, is it not important that, as far as possible, they should not be damaged?

Can the Prime Minister say something about the nuclear destruction? After all that has been said about Chernobyl in this House, when we talk about damage to nuclear installations, do we mean power stations, research facilities, cooling or what? Could we have the facts?

The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will deal particularly with the latter point in his reply. I reassure the hon. Gentleman on the former point that very clear instructions have gone to our troops to avoid sites of religious and cultural interest. That has been so since the beginning of this conflict and remains the case.

If I may, I shall return to the question of injuries. Although injuries on both sides so far have been relatively few, no one should imagine that this war will be an easy or painless business. There may well be times in the days and weeks ahead when we shall all need to bear bad news with fortitude.

Against that background, the first priority of the multinational force has been to engage and destroy military targets in Iraq and Kuwait through a massive air campaign. The targets in Iraq are chosen for one of two reasons --either because they are supporting the military occupation of Kuwait, or because they are of strategic importance. They include the Iraqi command and control system, communications, airfields, aircraft, missile sites, nuclear, chemical and biological sites, and other targets that enable Iraq to make war. Success in this air campaign will make it impossible for Iraq over time to sustain its forces in Kuwait, which will then become far more vulnerable to attack from the air and from land.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Would it not be appropriate at this stage to tell the House that the International Red Cross will be asked by the allied Governments to make urgent inquiries about the position of allied prisoners of war? Would it not also be appropriate for the allied Governments to make it perfectly clear that, if any ill treatment and worse is given to allied prisoners of war in defiance of the Geneva convention, those who carry out such treatment will be held personally responsible and will not be able to get off later by saying that they were given instructions? Nuremberg dealt with that.

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I will be dealing specifically with that point, and with the news that we all heard this morning, later in my speech.

At present, the air campaign is still in progress, and, because there are many targets to be attacked, it will continue for some time. No one expects it to end speedily ; certainly I do not. While it is clear that Iraqi air defences have been considerably weakened, in no sense have they been eliminated. As more and more military targets in Iraq are destroyed, the weight of the air campaign will shift increasingly to attacks on Iraqi ground forces in and around Kuwait.

Column 27

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make some progress. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this afternoon's debate.

Because of the attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia over the past two days, a particular effort has been devoted to eliminating Iraq's Scud missile delivery systems, both fixed sites and mobile launchers. General Schwarzkopf has assessed that some 16 mobile launchers have been destroyed, but we estimate that a significant number still remain. The hunt for them goes on by day and by night, and will continue.

An especially important part in the air campaign has been played by RAF Tornado and Jaguar ground attack aircraft, supported by VC10s and Victor tanker aircraft. They have attacked large numbers of targets in western, central and south-eastern Iraq and in Kuwait. They have concentrated in particular on low-level attacks at night on highly defended airfields, using the JP233 runway cratering weapon, and have done considerable damage. The nature of these attacks makes them particularly hazardous, and they have been carried out with great skill and bravery.

One striking feature of the air campaign has been the way in which the air forces of seven nations have successfully worked together. The United States has made by far the largest contribution, but the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, France, Canada and Italy have all been involved.

In relation to the number of sorties flown--and by all historical precedents--the number of losses so far has been remarkably small, with 17 aircraft lost. Sadly, these have included three RAF Tornados lost in action, whose crews are missing. The House will be aware that Iraqi television apparently showed seven captured airmen yesterday, among whom seem to be the crew of one of our Tornados. Such broadcasts themselves are wholly objectionable in every respect. Today, there has been a reported threat to use captured airmen as human shields. Such action would be inhuman, illegal and totally contrary to the third Geneva convention. The convention expressly provides that prisoners of war shall be evacuated as soon as possible after their capture to camps situated far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger. It expressly prohibits the sending of a prisoner of war to an area where he may be exposed to fire, or his detention there, and forbids the use of the presence of prisoners of war to render points or areas immune from military operations. There is no doubt about Iraq's obligations under the Geneva convention. I can assure the House that we have reminded Iraq very forcefully indeed of its obligations under that convention. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, summoned the Iraqi ambassador once again this morning to register beyond doubt what our views are in this matter. I remind the Iraqis that they are bound to give us the names of any prisoners that they take and to notify the International Red Cross and provide it with access. They are also bound to grant those taken prisoner all their rights under the convention. We shall hold them to that completely.

We have already asked the International Red Cross to seek access at the earliest opportunity to the two RAF air

Column 28

crew apparently being held. Meanwhile, I am sure that the whole House joins me in expressing sympathy to the families of those air crews of all nationalities who are unaccounted for. We can only guess at the distress that their families must feel at present.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely plain that, if war crimes are committed, those responsible will be held to account after the war is over?

The Prime Minister : I can absolutely reaffirm that point. That is most certainly the position.

While the air campaign goes ahead, we and our allies have continued to build up our ground forces and ready them for their part in liberating Kuwait. This calls for a massive logistics exercise. On average, over 3,000 tonnes of freight is arriving in the Gulf every day in support of British forces. The way in which these vast amounts of supplies and equipment have been brought to the area and then channelled to our forces can already be credited as one of the remarkable successes of this campaign.

So, too, can the activities of the Royal Navy. It continues to patrol the waters of the Gulf on anti-aircraft picket duty and to play a vital part in enforcing sanctions against Iraq, in escorting shipping and in keeping the shipping lanes free from mines. It has been responsible for challenging more than 2,800 ships and boarding 36 of them, as well as discovering and destroying a number of mines. I pay tribute also to the many civilians who are playing a crucial part in the support for the multinational force in Saudi Arabia, among them those employed by British companies there. The way in which they have stayed at their posts and continued their work deserves our whole-hearted congratulations.

On Friday, I spoke directly to the commander of the British forces in the middle east, General de la Billiere, and was able to brief him on the tremendous support which there is in this country for our forces. In return, he was able to give me a very good report of their morale and their state of readiness. He left me in no doubt about his confidence in the outcome. Our forces want to get the job done and to get home to their families just as soon as they can. Our thoughts are very much with those families, both here and in Germany. More than any of us, they live with the war, day in and day out, and with the constant worry about the safety of those they love. They deserve and will have all the support that we can give them.

One most disturbing development in this conflict has been the Iraqi missile attacks on population centres in Israel. Such attacks are deplorable-- utterly deplorable and wholly unforgivable. They would be so against a belligerent, but they are even more so against a country which is not even a party to this particular conflict. We know why it has been done. We know what Saddam Hussein wants. We understand the cynical ploy. He wishes to draw Israel fully into the war in the hope of inflaming Arab opinion, breaking the multinational coalition and inciting a holy war. He will fail. He will not break the coalition in the Gulf against his invasion of Kuwait.

I believe that he wholly underestimates the cohesion and resolve of the international forces. There is no indication at all of any weakening of the will of our Arab allies. They remain determined to carry forward and sustain the campaign against Saddam Hussein, until he

Column 29

and his forces leave Kuwait, either voluntarily or as a broken-backed, defeated military machine. It is their choice. Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) rose --

The Prime Minister : Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I wish to make a little progress.

I do not believe that that will change, because our Arab allies understand the threat that Saddam Hussein represents to the interests of the Arab countries. They know this, too : no one has been responsible for the deaths of more Muslims in Iran, Kuwait and Iraq than Saddam Hussein.

Every Government have the right to self-defence, and no one can take that away. But we have urged on the Israeli Government the importance, if at all possible, of not granting Saddam Hussein his objective of involving Israel in a conflict which is exclusively about his occupation of Kuwait and nothing else. The remarkable restraint which Israel has shown so far is a sign of strength, and not weakness and will be widely recognised as such throughout the world. I hope that the American decision to send Patriot missiles to Israel will be further reassurance to it, especially after the Patriot's splendid performance against the Scud missiles.

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) : It is being widely speculated, especially in the United States, that a deal has been struck with Israel : that, in exchange for it not getting involved in the war, America will soft-pedal on European efforts to bring Israel to the negotiating table after the war is over. Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that, notwithstanding Israel's decision so far not to retaliate, the British Government's determination that Israel must come to the negotiating table eventually with the Palestinians and must grant them their rights of self-determination is unmoved by current events around that subject?

The Prime Minister : There is no such deal, and I shall come to the British Government's position in a short while.

There is one aspect of the conflict to which I want to run--the very real threat from terrorism. We are dealing with a vicious enemy, and we have learnt that his threats must be taken seriously. There is therefore a risk of terrorist action in this country, of terrorist attacks against British premises and communities abroad, and a more general threat to air travellers. We must recognise and take account of that.

To counter that, the Government have taken several steps to protect people. One hundred and thirty members of the Iraqi community suspected of readiness to engage in terrorist acts have been deported or detained. Security has been tightened at airports, Government offices and other public places, as well as at embassies and high commissions abroad. We are also encouraging other countries to improve airport security. The dangers are considerable ; everyone will need to be vigilant.

Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? Many hon. Members wish to speak.

In the days and weeks ahead, there will undoubtedly be many calls for a pause in military operations to enable

Column 30

negotiations to take place. It will be said that negotiations should be given another chance and that compromises should be explored. We do not wish the conflict to continue a day longer than necessary. We do not wish to risk the lives of our forces if implementation of the Security Council resolution can be achieved by peaceful means, but I must say to the House that the Government do not favour such a pause. A pause in the period up to 15 January was one thing, but a pause after 15 January is quite another. Our forces are now engaged. Our prime consideration must be to protect them and to avoid any unnecessary casualties, and that we shall do. We cannot agree to any suspension of hostilities, which would allow Saddam Hussein to regroup and strengthen his position, simply in the hope that that might lead to negotiations on the basis of some vague promise about his intentions. Hostilities cannot end--or pause--until we know that all Iraqi forces are out of Kuwait. There can be no other basis on which we can ever agree to explore any proposals for peace : once again, it is in Saddam Hussein's hands.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the country and the House agree that Saddam Hussein must be removed from Kuwait? How much safer will we be if this evil man decides to withdraw his forces from Kuwait and regroups within Iraq's borders? Is it not a fact that our argument is not with the Iraqi people but that, as long as a man as evil as Saddam Hussein stays in power, we can never hope for peace? If we do not beat this regime now, we shall have to beat it in two years' time. Will we chase him out of office, or will we allow him to withdraw when he is beaten in Kuwait?

The Prime Minister : We would need, of course, to be perfectly clear that there was no threat to Kuwait. That is absolutely clear under the Security Council resolutions, which we propose to implement in full.

Even while we are engaged in a conflict which may last for some considerable time to come, we are already giving thought to what might lie at the end of it : in particular, future security arrangements in the area, which will avoid any repetition of Saddam Hussein's aggression.

Clearly, it if for the Arab Governments themselves to give a lead in devising such arrangements and in providing the forces to sustain them. The Gulf states are far from reaching conclusions about this yet, but they need to be given attention now, so that, when Saddam Hussein is defeated, the necessary arrangements can be instituted rapidly and effectively.

Those arrangements will almost certainly involve a contribution from countries outside the area : and if the Gulf states wish it, we will be ready to play our part. There are a number of options which will need to be carefully considered. They include guarantees, the pre-positioning of equipment, visits and exercises by military units and the continued stationing in the area of naval and air forces. I see no circumstances in which we would envisage the permanent stationing of ground forces in the area.

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

The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little more progress.

We shall play our full part, too, in the vigorous efforts to solve the Arab -Israel problem which the international

Column 31

community will need to renew once the war is over and Saddam Hussein is out of Kuwait. This will be crucial to the search for stability in the region as a whole. We must recognise that what Saddam Hussein has done by invading Kuwait and now by attacking Israel has made a solution harder to achieve, but I believe that, once the war is won, there will be a general recognition by all parties to the Arab-Israel dispute that the time has come for some new thinking. We shall do everything we can to promote this. At the end of the first few days of the conflict, we can be well satisfied with what has been achieved. Our forces have performed effectively and bravely. The air campaign has caused significant damage to Iraq's massive war machine. Casualties and losses have been kept down. The international coalition has held together well. By any yardstick, it has been a good start. There is no doubt about the outcome. As every day passes, it becomes clearer that Saddam Hussein cannot win this conflict, but there is still some considerable way to go before he has lost it. It is important only that he should not doubt our resolve. He should have no such false assurance. What he should have is the absolute certainty that our forces have the total support of the House as they risk their lives in a just and necessary conflict.

4.4 pm

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn) : I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add

"commends the instruction to minimise civilian casualties wherever possible ; and expresses its determination that, once the aggression in Kuwait is reversed, the United Nations and the international community must return with renewed vigour to resolving the wider problems in the Middle East."

Let me begin by giving clear support to our forces in the Gulf. We have had recent and, I believe, justifiable argument in the House about the timing and consequences of the use of force in the Gulf, but there can be absolutely no doubt about the legitimacy of the military action against the Iraqi dictator.

Our forces are now engaged in fighting for the lawful purposes set out in the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. My party has endorsed those resolutions repeatedly. We consider the fulfilment of those resolutions to be critical to the future authority of the United Nations, and British forces--along with others in the coalition--are being used for the precise purpose of maintaining international law and sustaining the authority of the United Nations. They are doing their duty bravely and will continue to do so. It is our duty to give them our firm backing, and that we do.

The Prime Minister has been right, both today and on previous occasions, to add his voice to those warning that this war is not likely to be a war of weeks, and that the Iraqi forces are very large, well equipped and, in many respects, well protected and dug in. No one is more aware of all that than our forces engaged in the fighting. [Interruption.] That knowledge makes their courage all the clearer--as, indeed, does the way in which they scrupulously make every effort to avoid civilian casualties and damage to holy places. [Interruption.] Their courage is demonstrated in a particularly praiseworthy way by the

Column 32

way in which they express themselves--as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is seeing fit to do, continually, as I speak.

No one can fail to admire the young RAF officer who, returning from his first mission, described himself, without affectation or bravado, as terrified. People like that are certainly worthy of our support. Those of our forces who have been captured thus far, and who may be captured in future, also deserve support, as do their anxious families. The Prime Minister gave fair notice to Saddam Hussein and to the Iraqi forces that we expect full adherence to the requirements of the Geneva convention. But, thus far--on the basis of rumours about the use of prisoners of war as human shields--it has yet again become clear that, although Saddam Hussein may wear the uniform of a soldier, he certainly does not take the risks of a soldier or follow any soldier's code that I know of.

Support for our forces must amount to more than recording our esteem. They are risking all their youth and all their strength, and our support for them must involve a great deal more than cheering them on. It must mean doing everything that we can to ensure that what they are doing in the name of our country and for the sake of the United Nations has worthwhile results.

In giving our support to the services, this House, and all the Governments who have committed forces against Saddam Hussein, must be able to say honestly to the men and women involved in the conflict that the war that they are waging for the liberation of Kuwait is a necessary part of the efforts to free the middle east from tension and from fear. If, in the wake of this war, the powers that be--and the people who, like us, debate--leave the roots of the conflict to grow again or let the middle east continue to be a cauldron, we shall have failed in our duty and we shall have failed those who now fight. No one in the House wants that, and no one would be content with it. Even now, in these early days of war, when everybody is naturally and necessarily preoccupied with the immediate conflict, it is important for us to look to the future and to try to influence its shape.

In many ways, of course, the future after this conflict will be strongly determined by the way in which the war is fought, the way in which the objectives of the use of force are adhered to by the coalition, and the way in which the conflict is concluded. I am sure that it goes without saying that, at the earliest time that the basic purpose of resolution 660 is properly fulfilled, the Security Council will want to take steps quickly to end the conflict. That is certainly our strong hope, and everything that we hear conveys the message--again this afternoon from the Prime Minister-- that it is the Government's hope too.

Of course there are some who want the fighting to stop immediately and renewed efforts then to be made for a peaceful solution. The motives are entirely understandable, especially to anyone who is part of that great majority who did not want fighting to start if it was at all avoidable. There can be no one--at least no one of any humanity--who does not recoil from the dreadful carnage ; and there can be no one who does not want it mitigated as much as possible and ended as completely and as quickly as possible.

However, we must ask whether a ceasefire would produce that result. Would it really be likely to reduce the toll of lives? The answer must be that a ceasefire could reduce the toll of lives only if there was certainty that it would definitely produce an immediate and permanent

Column 33

withdrawal from Kuwait and the complete laying down of arms by Saddam Hussein. It is obvious that, in the absence of such certainty, a pause in the attack on Saddam's forces and facilities would simply provide him with an opportunity to regroup, to resupply and consequently to resist even more stubbornly.

In Iraq, a ceasefire by the coalition could not fail to give substance to Saddam's propaganda and to add further to that resistance. The result would be to prolong, not to shorten, the conflict, to postpone, not to promote, the end of fighting and to increase, not to decrease, the slaughter. None of that outcome could conform to any definition of peace or peace-making. It would not fulfil the purposes of mercy, and it would not even promote post-war stability, since it has every likelihood not of mitigating the slaughter but of leading to the increase of slaughter.

Meanwhile, as the war rages, two points must fairly be made : first, Saddam Hussein shows absolutely no inclination to comply with the basic requirements of the United Nations and quit Kuwait. On the contrary, all his words are of fanatical defiance, and all his actions of military offence. Secondly, it must be said that, by withdrawing from Kuwait, Saddam could have prevented any possibility of war. Even now, he can stop the war immediately by withdrawing from Kuwait and laying down his arms. Whatever else may be said or thought about the Iraqi dictator, some things are obvious : he wilfully refused to follow a course that guaranteed no war ; he does not as yet want peace, and he will not as yet allow peace. If he does, he will get peace.

On both sides of the House and among the general public there is a general and a strong desire to play a part in influencing the future after the war. It is therefore obvious that, while this debate and those that will undoubtedly follow must be about war aims, they must also be about peace aims.

The war aims of liberating Kuwait from occupation and restoring the legitimate Government are precise and limited, and rightly so. However, the peace aims must be broader. They must relate not just to the crime that Saddam Hussein committed against international law by invading Kuwait last August ; they must also relate to depriving him of the ability to commit such a crime again. The war aims do not relate to the dismembering of Iraq, and rightly so. That would provoke instability, not prevent it.

Peace aims must therefore include the purpose of keeping Iraq whole and secure from outside attack after the cessation of this war. The war aims do not include the deposing of a Government or the death of a dictator, and rightly so. They are not fit objectives for the United Nations. But the peace aims must involve the substantial disarming of Iraq by the reduction of conventional forces and the verified and complete removal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means of making them. Peace aims must relate to ending regional super-power status for Iraq and for every other country in the region if they truly are peace aims. To ignore that is to ignore the fact that great disparities of military strength and conventional and non-conventional armaments are of themselves major sources of instability.

That unavoidably means that, in the wake of this war, the peace aims must be geared to the stability of the whole of the middle east. That requires firm and dependable long-term security structures for the region, as the Prime Minister indicated. It requires freedom from the fear of

Next Section

Home Page