| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 465
It is right that this House, while supporting the forces to the full, should debate the war and lay down limits to its aims. We have to say yet again that we regard the aim of the war as being limited to the liberation of Kuwait, the restoration of peace and stability there, and the restoration of the country's sovereignty and its government. In that connection, I seek three assurances from the Minister of State. I welcome very much what he had to say about the non- occupation of Iraq. That is very important. In the press a few days ago, there was a report of an American official having talked about preparations for some kind of interim administration in the city of Basra. It is very important that such loose talk be stamped on firmly. The Minister of State did so, and on that score we need ask no more.The second assurance that I seek concerns the nature of the destruction that inevitably arises from allied raids. Of course, we all understand the need to interrupt transport lines and to attack bridges and power stations. A newspaper article, referring to a very important report issued by Greenpeace, says :
"The war zone is littered with storage tanks filled with chemicals of the petrochemical industry, including benzene, ethylene and hydrochloric acid.
Bombing or land detonation would spill their contents. Release of large amounts of these and other toxic substances could cause loss of life both to human and to terrestrial and marine life,' the environmental group said in a report published yesterday. Detonation of phosgene and chlorine gas storage tanks posed a further risk."
I should like an assurance that our forces will be given an instruction that every effort that is reasonable, given the knowledge of these tanks, will be made to avoid any further environmental destruction. I repeat : I accept that, in war, accidents are inevitable.
The third assurance that I seek concerns the much-discussed question of the supposed removal of Saddam Hussein himself. No doubt we all agree that that is an end devoutly to be wished. The dancing in the streets of Baghdad the other day following the false reports that he was prepared to leave Kuwait showed that it is something devoutly to be wished by most Iraqi people, too. Those television pictures depicted a very significant interlude. However, it is not for the allied forces to say who should rule Iraq. That has nothing to do with the United Nations resolutions. Were we to try to dictate who should rule Kuwait--were we to try to extend the war aims to include the removal of any government in Iraq--we should be making the same mistake as Saddam Hussein is making. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to assure us that that is not part of the Government's understanding of the war aims and of Security Council authorisation.
The amendment that we tabled, although it has not been selected, expresses our view very clearly. Since hostilities began, I have often expressed the anxiety that we may win the military war but lose the political war. It is desperately important that loose talk be ended. I think that such talk has come mainly from American sources. We have heard it said that there may have to be a long period of western occupation in the middle east. It should be made clear that the presence of American or British forces there following the war is not part of the Government's objectives. We must ensure that any long-term British
Column 466
presence would be under the direct authority or command of the United Nations and that, when the peace comes, the long- term security of the area and the peace settlement will be implemented and supervised by the United Nations. If we can achieve that, out of this disaster may yet come precisely the sort of authority for the United Nations that many of us have long hoped to see.5.29 pm
Sir John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge) : I think that this is the fourth debate that we have had on the Gulf war. I do not complain about that ; indeed, I am glad about it. However, we must bear in mind what has happened in the past. I recall that the turning point of the second world war was the tremendous battle at El Alamein which lasted 11 days. During that time the House was in recess and it was not recalled.
Perhaps on this very solemn occasion I can make a lighter remark. When I first saw that the motion was to be proposed in the name of the Scottish National party, all my historical and Jacobite sentiments began to tingle. I thought that the motion might be some new and startling motion about the restoration of the Stuarts or some other impossible cause. However, I was being far too romantic and imaginative.
When listening to the carefully reasoned and argued speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), I thought that he was a little cheese-paring in his attitude to the Government. I believe that the Government's amendment is absolutely right to state that "the aims of British military action are to secure the implementation of the relevant United Nations Security Council's resolution."
That summarises the matter perfectly.
Diplomatic opportunities are sometimes dangerous and disappointing. The Soviet opportunity was largely instigated by Mr. Gorbachev because of his obvious inherent local difficulties. I believe that the Soviet action was being used by Saddam Hussein to try, if possible, to divide the allies and to delay the inevitable advance of the coalition armies to repossess Kuwait. We know as a result of the end of the Iraq-Iran war that Saddam Hussein is a past master of deceit and dissimulation. The allied solidarity under the United Nations umbrella has been a remarkable phenomenon, unique since the second world war, and it holds out great hope for world peace in future.
There will be little hope of peace in the region if Saddam is left with a large army, biological and chemical warfare facilities and possibly atomic weapons. The state of Kuwait is now spiritually, morally and physically appalling. It will need to be built up to regain its life as a nation. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states will also continue to feel threatened unless Saddam's army is defeated. The whole area will therefore continue to experience instability and the allied forces may be compelled to remain there at least for a short time, although I very much hope that that will not be necessary.
Once peace has been secured and safeguarded, the United Nations will be able to concentrate on the other pressing problems in the middle east such as the highly unsatisfactory situation with regard to Israel and the occupied territories about which reference was made most eloquently and clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters).
I am pleased that the motion refers to the overwhelming support for the British forces in the Gulf. As Kipling once
Column 467
said in a famous poem, perhaps it takes a war for people remember the debt that we all owe to our armed services. The armed services, from private to general, have been most impressive on television. The people whom we have sent to the Gulf in the Army, Navy and the Royal Air Force are the cream of our nation and the debt that we owe them is immense. They have maintained in their professional service those ideals of chivalry, honour, courage and service to the Queen to which some other professions in this country could well look.The only thing that dismays me is that the support for our forces, which is widely felt throughout the country, is not entirely shared by some sections of the news media which have now become so terrifyingly and overwhelmingly important. If the news media are not controlled--[ Hon. Members :-- "Oh!"]--they will present a great danger to many facets of life in this nation. If we are not careful, we shall be dominated by what comes out of that television box night after night.
At first the BBC--and later ITV--broadcast many programmes which lasted all day and were often boring and repetitive. Like many of my colleagues, I am worried by the attitude of some of the press people in Baghdad who fail to point out that they are speaking under duress and are showing only what the Iraqis want them to show. As a great admirer of what the BBC once was and of Lord Reith, I say with sadness that the BBC has failed the nation as it failed the nation during the Falklands war. Its lack of patriotism sticks out a mile and I should like to see a thorough investigation of those producers whose loyalties seem in doubt. Those ideas men and very dangerous people seem miles away from the ordinary Englishmen we meet in the streets.
We have now heard that the Soviet initiative has been destroyed as a result of Saddam's recent speech in which he said that he wanted war. Therefore, a final assault on his forces seems inevitable. As I know the country and was a soldier there for some time, I emphasise that we must not assume that our attack will be a walkover. Heavy artillery and large tanks which are well dug in are difficult to neutralise by bombing alone. In the end, the poor old infantry--the men with rifles and bayonets--must go over the top and occupy, seize and hold the ground. We must therefore prepare ourselves for the possibility of heavy losses and high casualties, although I pray that I am wrong. Meanwhile, our duty is to back our forces, the resolution and the United Nations.
5.37 pm
Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) : I am pleased to have the chance to participate in this extremely important debate and to follow some enormously important and constructive speeches about the expansion of the war aims and the post-war settlement. However, I must first tell the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) that, when he criticises the BBC, he undermines democracy in our country. There is no reporting freedom in countries like Iraq. The tide of opinion from the Tory Benches constantly calls for more censorship so that the people of this country cannot learn as much as is necessary about the war that is being prosecuted in their names. That is deeply undemocratic.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Will the hon. Lady give way?
Column 468
Ms. Short : I am sorry, but I cannot give way as time is short. [Interruption.] I have a lot to say and I do not want to waste time on trivial interventions.
I want to put before the House my analysis of the grave errors that have been made by the United States Government in their handling of the crisis in Kuwait. I shall do so not only to criticise what has been done in the past--serious though that is, and history will analyse it--but because it seems to me that the way in which the war is being prosecuted has major implications for the post-war settlement in the middle east. The evidence so far is that that settlement is likely to be disastrous and to leave the middle east even more unstable than now. In my judgment, it is unlikely that the Palestinian issue will be settled, although it is desperately urgent that it should be settled. In my judgment, there will inevitably be another war in the middle east in the next 10 years. I remind the House that there have been wars in the middle east in 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 and now there is a war in 1991. If there is no decent settlement following the war, there will be yet another war. The background to this conflict and the major cause of the disaster is United States policy in the middle east-- [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will let me put my views to the House--if they are democrats. It is strange that the United States of America intervened when Britain was involved in a disastrous strategy at the time of Suez and prevented that by making a constructive intervention. Ever since then, however, the United States has seemed to have a short- sighted policy, which has basically been to prop up the state of Israel, to back it in all its intransigence and its gross breaches of international law in terms of its behaviour towards the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The United States has massively subsidised the Israeli state and has given it a mighty war machine. That means that the United States of America has colluded in the confiscation of half the land in the occupied territories--a grave breach of the Geneva convention ; colluded in the expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied territories--a grave breach of the Geneva convention ; colluded in the detention without trial of nearly half the males who live in the occupied territories--another grave breach of the Geneva convention ; and colluded in the horrendous beatings and shootings of men, women and children in the occupied territories, which is also a grave breach of the Geneva convention. Israel has incorporated east Jerusalem into the Israeli state, and also the Golan Heights. That is totally illegal under international law, but the United States of America backs and subsidises Israel and gives it arms.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : Tell us why.
Ms. Short : Please allow me to make my speech.
The suffering of the Palestinian people is heartbreaking to all of us who have visited the occupied territories and have seen in hospitals some of the children who have been damaged and beaten since the intifada began. It has also led to enormous distress and to a feeling of humiliation throughout the Arab world. That has led to the attitude in the Arab world that the United States of America is hostile to the Arab world and to the interests of the Palestinians. In the end, it is leading to a great and deep sense of antagonism towards the United States of America
Column 469
throughout the middle east. It also means that the Arab powers feel deeply threatened by the mighty war machine of Israel.Mrs. Dunwoody : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Dunwoody rose --
Ms. Short : I am sorry, but I am not giving way-- [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order.
Ms. Short : I should like to give way, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is obvious from the noise that if I gave way I should not be able to complete my speech. I think that the best thing to do is simply to put my views before the House--if some of the rude Conservative Members, who are hardly honourable, will allow me to do so. There is an enormous feeling about the Palestinian issue throughout the middle east. There is, therefore, enormous antagonism towards the United States of America because it has backed all the illegality and intransigence of the state of Israel. There is also a feeling of threat and worry about the possibility of future wars because there have been many previous wars. There is therefore a need for Arab states to seek to arm themselves to counter the might of the power of Israel. Thus, western Governments charge into the middle east to sell arms to all the Governments in that region simply to make money, thereby increasing the instability of the middle east and the danger of the constant repetition of war.
Mr. John Marshall : Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Short : No, the hon. Gentleman knows that I will not. The west and the United States of America have played a major role of complicity in building up the power of the monstrous tyrant, Saddam Hussein. It was convenient for the United States of America when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. It was the same breach of international law, but because Iran was seen as a threat to United States interests at that time, Saddam Hussein was massively supplied with weapons, equipment and export credits by the west, and by the Soviet Union. However, there is absolutely no question--it is a matter of historical record--that America snuggled up to Saddam Hussein and supported him by providing him with intelligence information when prosecuting that war because that was convenient to America as Iran was seen as the major threat to American interests at that time. Although our own country officially stopped supplying arms to Iraq following the beginning of that war--a million people died in a war that the west, especially the United States, helped to feed--we allowed the superguns to get into Iraq. That story has not been fully told-- [Interruption.] If hon. Members look at the evidence, they will see that that was not stopped. This country also supplied export credits after we had ceased to supply arms. After the gassing of the Kurds, the current Foreign Secretary went to see Saddam Hussein, offered him export credits and tried to improve the relationship between Iraq
Column 470
and Britain. Tory Members may well rise now to talk about the gassing of the Kurds, but we heard none of that at the time. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) said, we also know that, following the end of the Iran-Iraq war, when there was a dispute between Kuwait and Iraq about whether Iraq had to pay back the loans that had been given to it by Kuwait when helping to prosecute the war, the then United States ambassador gave a signal to Kuwait and to Saddam Hussein that the United States would not object if there was some military action against Kuwait. That is an enormously important issue. History will show exactly what happened, but there is no doubt that that happened and it is another major element in the complicity of the United States of America and the fact that we are now involved in this war.None the less, the invasion of Kuwait was intolerable and unacceptable. It was a grave breach of international law and must be reversed. The whole world agreed on sanctions. The evidence that the Central Intelligence Agency gave to the committees of Congress in the United States suggested that sanctions were working effectively. Because we have such a weak democracy in this country, we could not dream of asking our intelligence services what they thought about the working of sanctions. That is just one issue that shows the poverty of democracy in Britain.
Not to continue with sanctions for longer was an enormous historical error. We could have dealt with the tyrant Saddam Hussein by using sanctions. If we could have reversed that grave breach of international law by using sanctions in this instance, we could do so in others, and the world would move to a higher level of civilisation. It is shameful and disgraceful that that attempt was not made.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) rose
Ms. Short : No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The question is this : did the United States of America give up on sanctions deliberately because of its strategy in the middle east and because it decided that it had better use the situation in Kuwait to break the power of the Iraqi war machine, or did the United States blunder into war? I am inclined to think that it was incompetence and blunder and that the turning point came when President Bush, who is constantly trying to prove that he is not a wimp, sent out further soldiers. By the time there were votes about sanctions or war, the thing had been decided. The beginning of the end of the sanctions strategy came when the extra forces were sent out in November. I suspect that Bush thought that he could frighten Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but when all his troops were there he realised that he would look like a wimp if he did not call a war. That is why we have this monstrous war instead of continuing with sanctions.
Another background point is the deeply worrying situation in the United Nations Security Council. We all respect the United Nations--I have never heard Tory Members have so much respect for the United Nations before--but we must recognise that, with the decline of the power of the Soviet Union, there is no longer a balance in the Security Council to represent the interests of the world.
Column 471
The United States has been able to manipulate and misuse the United Nations to undermine the latter's authority in the world--Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ms. Short : No, I am sorry but I cannot give way to my hon. Friend because I have not given way to any other hon. Member.
Unlike most of my hon. Friends, for whom I have great respect and whose feelings I understand, I felt, once we were at war and had given up on sanctions, that it was not right for me simply to rail against the war. As a politician, I thought that it was our job to ensure that the war was cut short, to minimise casualties and to achieve a just settlement. Therefore, I have taken a rather different perspective from those who simply say that they were against the war from the beginning, although I respect their position.
The gung-ho Conservative Members and our nasty tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun and The Daily Star, do not care for our troops. Their attitude encourages a bigger war, which means more casualties and more deaths. That is not the best way to care for the interests of our troops. Those of us who wish to contain the war and bring it to an end are doing our best to care for them. That is a more honourable and intelligent attitude.
There is absolutely no doubt that there has been deliberate duplicity on the question of widening the war aims as shown by the evidence produced by the hon. Member for Govan. Once the war had started, it became clear that the United States of America was followed, poodle like, by Britain. Anyone who thinks that Britain has influenced what has happened should realise that Britain has constantly followed what America decided to do. America started to change the objectives of the war. It ceased to talk about the liberation of Kuwait and started to emphasise the part of the Security Council's resolution which dealt with the restoration of international peace and security in the area. That is carte blanche for anything.
I am told that during the arguments on the drawing up of the resolution to authorise "all necessary means", many countries would not vote for a resolution which contained the words "including force"--so the phrase "all necessary means" was used so that America could later interpret it to mean force. At the same time, the section of the resolution dealing with the restoration of international peace and security in the area was slipped in deliberately to allow room for manoeuvre in interpreting it--[H on. Members-- : "Who says?"] The researchers who did the work for the Brian Walden programme. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is an enormously well-resourced and respected programme. However, this is a serious analysis, so it will not interest Conservative Members.
We should all like to see Saddam Hussein fall, but the question of how we achieve that is crucial to the post-war settlement. I believe that the nature of the bombardment of Baghdad, with the deliberate destruction of the civilian population's water supplies, sewage systems and access to medical care and electricity, is, in practice, an enlargement of the war aims. Some of the bombardment cannot be justified for military purposes. The Arab world now takes the attitude that the war aims have been widened and that it is now a question of an attack on an Arab country. The Arabs believe that we do not care about the death of Arab
Column 472
children and Arab women, but only about our own casualties. There has been a sweeping change in attitude in the Arab world--from initial hostility to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait to the belief that America is destroying an Arab country to perpetuate its control of the middle east. That is very dangerous for the post-war settlement. It is a question of winning the war but possibly losing the peace. There are two possible post-war settlements. I believe that the most likely is the pessimistic settlement. The United States is now determined to destroy Iraq. It is interesting that the United States, again followed poodle-like by Britain, rubbished the Soviet initiative from the beginning.The briefing from this morning's war Cabinet, as reported in the Evening Standard , said :
"There will be no let-up in the war against Saddam Hussein, even if he accepts all the Soviet proposals for peace."
That means that the war aims are wider than the liberation of Kuwait.
If the objective is to destroy Iraq, the likelihood is that America will continue to see its interests protected by propping up the Israeli state and not settling the Palestinian issue. America and Britain will send arms to prop up the Gulf states and maintain a military presence in the Gulf. There will inevitably be another war in the middle east, possibly over Syria, which happens to have switched sides to the coalition, but which could easily switch back again. That is another horrible, tyrannous regime with a mighty war machine.
The second possibility--and one for which we should aim--is to seek the liberation of Kuwait, and only that. We should then seek to remove all non- conventional weapons--nuclear, chemical and biological--from Israel, Syria and Iraq. We should also settle the Palestinian issue by giving the Palestinians their state based on the west bank and Gaza. Since the Palestinians changed their objective, gave up their aspiration to a secular state in the whole of the old Palestine, and simply said that they wanted their own state in the occupied territories, that problem has been resolvable. It is a disgrace that the United States did not respond to that massive shift by the Palestinians, which meant that the old dispute could have been resolved.
The optimistic settlement would be to remove weaponry from the region, to stop selling arms, to settle the Palestinian question and to seek the development of an economic community which would mean that the wealth of the oil states could be properly shared by the people of the middle east. There is enormous resentment in the middle east that the tiny, undemocratic states monopolise the wealth and that it is not shared by all.
We are now on the brink of a war which, so the military experts and the Iraqi soldiers who have surrendered tell us, will inevitably become a chemical war. That would be a horrendous war, not just in terms of our own casualties, but of Iraqi soldier casualties. Hon. Members should realise that many young Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait do not want to be there. I have a friend whose brave family have resisted the tyranny of Saddam Hussein for years and who have been persecuted for it. That family has a son in Kuwait and he is wholly opposed to the Iraqi regime. There are many like him in Kuwait at the end of a barrel of a gun.
If chemicals are used in the war against Israel, heaven knows what the escalation will be. Even if Saddam Hussein agrees to the initiative at this late stage, a ground
Column 473
war seems inevitable. The Government are not interested in whether he agrees with the Soviet peace proposal. That is disgraceful. The way in which the war is fought is crucial. Are we to try to slaughter the Iraqis in Kuwait or seek an opportunity for them to surrender? Have we made broadcasts or given them leaflets to assure them that they will be properly treated? Have we looked for routes to get them out through the minefields? Today and yesterday, there have been big demonstrations in Iraq of people calling for the downfall of Saddam Hussein and his regime. We are bombing them ; why are we not telling them that our war is not with the Iraqi people and giving them the right to get rid of this tyrant who has oppressed them for so many years?We have heard about the horrendous treatment of the Kuwaiti people. Saddam Hussein's regime has treated the Iraqi people like that for a long time. One report after another from Amnesty International has shown that he put the children of political opponents in prison to torture them and get the parents to confess. The brutality in Kuwait has been perpetrated on the Iraqi people for a long time. We should deplore it all and not use part of it to justify the bombardment of the Iraqi people who have suffered for so long.
I appeal to the British Government to cease being a poodle. It seems that in our mono-power world--in which the United States is dominant because the Soviet Union is in such a weak position--the possible balancing power is Europe. But Europe is unable to act, even though it has a better understanding than the United States has of the middle east and of the need to settle the Palestinian question. Britain is so attached to the policy of the United States that Europe is disabled and unable to act to balance that policy.
In all seriousness, I know that the Foreign Secretary understands the situation in the middle east very well, but he does not talk as if he did. Even when the European Foreign Ministers met, our Foreign Secretary imposed conditions when it was said that there had to be a settlement of the Palestinian issue. He said, "But the question is, who will we talk to?" It is not for Britain or Israel to say with which Palestinians we shall talk. We should talk to the representatives whom the Palestinian people choose. That is democracy. I ask in all seriousness even at this late hour for the British Government to be wiser about this conflict and not lead us into a dreadful war which could escalate horrendously and resonate for years to come.
Madam Deputy Speaker : I reiterate Mr. Speaker's appeal that hon. Members make short speeches, in view of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate.
5.59 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : I am interested to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). As she knows, I have great respect for her honesty and the courage with which she expresses views which are frequently wrong, but nevertheless sincerely held.
I wish to comment on some of the hon. Lady's remarks before making my brief speech. First, the hon. Lady and several of her right hon. and hon. Friends have a paranoia about the United States which I find depressing. One must
Column 474
remember that the reason why it is possible even to consider Europe as a counterweight to the United States or, indeed, the Soviet Union is that the United States gave so much money and time, and suffered bloodshed, to assist the Europeans to rebuild their economies after the war, which the Americans helped us to win, and to remain steadfastly in Europe at considerable cost to themselves right up till now, when the Soviet empire is crumbling and change has been brought about there as a direct consequence of the support that the Americans have given.In many parts of the world the Americans have been extremely supportive of democracy. Of course, all great powers and all small powers make mistakes from time to time. The Americans have taken action at times which I would find difficult to support. Certainly, with hindsight, many Americans regret those actions. But we are free to discuss whether the Americans are or are not appropriate allies only because of the steadfastness of America in the past. I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Ladywood that it would have been lovely if sanctions could have been made to work. If they could have been made to work, sanctions would have been by far the cheapest, least bloody and most effective way of cutting off the Iraqi aggression. If ever there were a sign that sanctions could not work, it must have been the extraordinary spectacle in Baghdad. The Iraqis have virtually no petrol and it is said that they have little water or food, yet Saddam Hussein has no intention of allowing them to deflect them from his purpose. So I fear that sanctions would never have worked and would not have worked within a timescale that we could conceivably have supported.
The hon. Lady made some comments about the war aims. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said so well, it is remarkable that the war aims have changed so little. After all, many things have changed during the war, not least the fact that the Iraqi ambassador has consistently sought to make out that Israel is a party to the war when manifestly it is nothing of the sort. It is astounding that we have stuck to the war aims, as defined by the United Nations, so steadfastly, instead of shifting in some Machiavellian way, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and the hon. Member for Ladywood maintained that we have done.
I have an extraordinary admiration for the British forces and the allied forces as a whole. It is remarkable that they have meshed together so effectively. At the beginning of the war anyone who thought that a coalition of such diverse partners could fight together with such skill would have been thought to be a dreamer. I congratulate the commanders of the allied forces on the way in which they have made the war machine work.
There has never been a war in which an army has been so constrained or so conscientious. The idea that young men should fly aeroplanes at over 600 mph through anti-aircraft fire a short distance from the ground seeking targets that would be approved even by Greenpeace seems ludicrous. Yet that is what they have done night after night, with an astounding degree of success. Of course, they made errors from time to time. They blew up a bunker which turned out to be a shelter, although our intelligence believed that it was a command post. That is very sad and deeply to be regretted, but it is an extraordinary achievement that the allies have kept so well to military targets.
Column 475
As I said in an earlier intervention, the latest reports from refugees and others leaving Iraq are that the allies have destroyed military targets and civilian targets next door have remained extraordinarily undamaged. I congratulate the allies on that. What is more, there has never been a war which has been so meticulously and overwhelmingly covered by the media. The whole world can see day in and day out photographs of what we have done and of what we are alleged to have done. The only thing that is lacking is coverage from within Kuwait. That gives a strangely unbalanced view of what this war is about. I do not altogether blame the media for that, but it must be constantly borne in mind by those of us who watch our television screens that we are seeing only two thirds of the picture and that the third which matters--Kuwait--is never shown because Saddam Hussein would never dream of letting it be shown. I admire enormously--and how lucky we are to be able to admire--the dignity, courage and loyalty of our armed service families. Like almost every Member of the House, I have a Gulf family support group working in my constituency. It is made up mostly, but by no means entirely, of women. Parents and wives manage somehow to give each other support, sustain their loved ones in the field and not to complain about very much. The sort of complaints that we hear are that the post office has run out of blueys. That is an important complaint, but it does not undermine the war effort. Families realise that their loved ones have joined up to serve the political purposes of a democracy and, however frightened and anxious they are, they are very proud of what is being done. I support and admire them hugely. It is always a privilege to meet them.As many hon. Members have said, when the war is won, we shall have to address directly the question of arms supplies. It is not an easy question. Our friends in the Gulf will instantly ask for all the amazing equipment which they have seen in such effective action. It will be enormously difficult for us, when countries can afford to buy them, to refuse to supply the latest weapons to protect those countries. There will be powerful arguments that if we arm our friends we will create stability in the Gulf.
Some of the allies in this great fight are allies only for a short while because it serves their present purposes. We must look carefully at how we re-supply the armed forces of the countries in those areas. That will not be easy. Many employees of arms companies are represented by hon. Members. For example, Opposition Members have complained, for sound reasons, about the closing of military bases in Scotland. Nevertheless, when it comes to the crunch, if we do not supply the arms, another country will be only too ready to do so. Such matters must be dealt with on a much wider basis than simply a single nation trying to achieve a commercial advantage in the short term.
We must remember that, for centuries, it has been common for countries with an advanced military capacity to sell off their second-hand, less good or obsolescent goods to other countries. But those goods are now capable of creating such damage that it is intolerable to continue selling them.
Column 476
6.10 pmMr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) : The hon. Member for Mid- Kent (Mr. Rowe) will forgive me if, in the interests of time, I do not pick up any of his remarks. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
In the 12 years that I have served in Parliament, the Gulf war and all that it entails is by far the most serious issue that I have had to consider. Like every other hon. Member, I have had to give much thought to the issues and implications of our decisions. I concluded that there was no course other than to support the United Nations and the actions necessary to secure the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 660 and 678.
The war was not sought by this or any other nation, but is a direct consequence of Iraq's refusal to accept the rule of international law as expressed by the United Nations. The world community was and is in no doubt about what is required to achieve peace and stability in the middle east. Iraq must unconditionally remove its forces from Kuwait. The war would never have taken place had not Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on 2 August. His action would not have resulted in this tragic war if, after that event and before 16 January, he had withdrawn from Kuwait.
The United Nations has never in its history spoken with such unequivocal authority on any international crisis--120 member states supported the resolutions and 28 are currently engaged in military action.
One of my constituents, critical of my support for the United Nations and the coalition forces, said that the war was "imperialistic and materialistic". In one sense, he is completely wrong but in another he is completely right.
Mr. Corbyn : Completely right.
Mr. Hogg : As my hon. Friend said, my constituent was completely right.
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because of oil. He aimed to secure control of more than 65 per cent. of the world's oil reserves. He wanted to control oil prices and the rate of oil extraction. If that is not imperialistic and materialistic, I do not know what is. The consequences of Saddam Hussein's action, had he succeeded, would have been extremely detrimental to the interests of the world community and not least to the working people of this country.
I respect the view of those who say that they cannot support the United Nations and the coalition forces. I agree with the argument expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to the House on 11 December that the achievement of UN objectives by comprehensive sanctions would be a notable success for sanctions and would strengthen them as an effective international instrument for use in other contexts. But if, in the end, force was necessary, force it would have to be.
Like all my colleagues, I wanted sanctions to work and should have preferred longer time to allow sanctions, the blockade and military readiness to have the maximum effect. In the event, force was used and the Labour party stands by the British troops and the coalition force.
As the war proceeds and sanctions remain in place, it becomes increasingly apparent that sanctions would have taken a very long time to be effective. One wonders whether Saddam would ever have capitulated to such action, even if Iraqi children had been starving on the
Column 477
streets of Baghdad. I have never viewed sanctions as a soft option. Their consequences could be devastating for the nation and people against whom they are directed.The Scottish National party introduced this debate and I refer to Scotland in the context of the war. I believe that the people of Scotland support the stand that has been taken in support of the United Nations. All the evidence from polls points to that conclusion, as do my soundings in my district. Scots are essentially internationalists in their outlook. They readily work abroad--indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) worked in the district that is now caught up in the conflict.
Many Scots work for international and multinational companies and understand the international dimension of economic life. The same is true of Scottish academic life and the arts. "Scotland in Europe" is a good slogan, if for no other reason than that it taps into the Scots' internationalist outlook. Because of their internationalism, the Scottish people support the United Nations and the coalition forces.
Naturally, there is a body of influential opinion opposed to the war. Although I respect that stand, it cannot be presented as reflecting Scottish opinion. The System Three opinion poll in the Glasgow Herald showed that 77 per cent. of Scots supported military action in the Gulf, while only 13 per cent. opposed it. It showed that war support was stronger among Scottish Nationalists, at 76 per cent., than among Labour supporters- -74 per cent. Liberal Democrats registered, marginally, the least support at 21 per cent. I do not doubt for a moment that the coalition forces will win the war if it is prosecuted to a conclusion. Saddam has a formidable army and war machine, which is said to be the fourth largest in the world. I recognise that such a force could be matched only by a coalition consisting of United States, European and Arab nations, and I appreciate the tensions that such a multinational force presents to the Arab people of the middle east. It means that, when the hostilities are over, tackling the peace will require great commitment and determination, just as was required to prosecute the war.
I hope that, even in the circumstances that are developing tonight, diplomatic activity will secure the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. However, whether by diplomacy or force, we must deal with peace once the conflict is over. It would be naive to believe that the settlement of the Palestinian problem will mean an end to instability in the region. Justice demands that that issue must be dealt with as a matter of urgency, but that will not, of itself, resolve all the problems of the region. There must be a Palestinian homeland and self-determination, although it will be difficult to decide what those boundaries should be and what will be required of other nations in the region. At the same time, Israel's right to exist within secure boundaries must be established and guaranteed by international treaty. That, in itself, will not solve all the outstanding problems caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. Boundaries, the economic viability of a new Palestine and the issue of Jerusalem must all be considered--the difficulties are formidable.
What I am struggling to say was best summed up in an article in The Economist published last week, which states :
"The Gulf episode has killed the fashionable pre-war idea that Israel would have nothing to fear from its Arab
Column 478
neighbours if only it made peace with the Palestinians. Peace with the Palestinians is a necessary condition for a stable Middle East, not a sufficient one. True stability will have to wait until democracy reaches the Arab world, so that despots no longer prop themselves up by telling their people that the road to Jerusalem, and to paradise, runs through their neighbour's country."There are mighty forces at work that militate against the stability of the middle east. The absence of any sort of democratic tradition, with Governments run either by military regimes or hereditary rulers, hardly bodes well. It seems unlikely that such Governments can establish stability or accept a limitation on arms. Nothing that has happened in the post- second world war period suggests that such a policy is likely to commend itself. Oil riches will continue to be spent on arms--at least in some of the nations--as a first priority, with social and economic development coming a poor second. We must also recognise that nationalism remains a potent force in the region. Taken with the continuing Islamic revival and its expression in political terms, there exist sufficient ingredients in the cauldron to cause great problems in the future.
This country will be a major player in the settlement that will have to flow from the present conflict, but we cannot continue to be involved. We have already had more than our share of involvement in the middle east and, some would say, there are issues and problems that we created in our previous role. A return to stability and lasting peace must initially come from the nations of the region, in conjunction with the United Nations.
No one dealing with those problems can fail to appreciate the huge difficulties facing the United Nations in the aftermath of the war. Establishing a peace with justice will not be easy. We cannot have repeats of these terrible events, and the responsibility on our Government, the Governments of the coalition countries and the United Nations is greater than has been presented by any other world crisis since the second world war. The British people know those difficulties and understand that they must be faced. I believe that they are right to have placed their faith in the United Nations as the only mechanism to establish and build peace.
6.25 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |