House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Jun 1991

Column 481

I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's contention that the settlement was unsatisfactory but, as my predecessors have said, the provisions of the treaty remove any possibility of the British Government claiming further compensation or reparations from the Japanese Government. That is our best understanding of our legal obligations, although I hear with respect my right hon. Friend's different views.

We are not alone in that understanding. We have been in touch with our missions in the countries that my right hon. Friend mentioned to ascertain the position of their Governments. Other allied powers share our view that the question of compensation was settled by the 1951 peace treaty. However inadequate the terms may appear now or appeared at the time, it was accepted that the Japanese had fully discharged their obligations.

Sir Bernard Braine : I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I am not surprised at anything that he has said so far, because he is basing his reply on legal considerations. In 1951, Japan's economy had been affected by the war and by Japan's defeat. The pitiful compensation was paid out of assets that we had seized when, without declaring war, Japan attacked the United States, the British, French and Dutch in the far east.

Forty years on, we are not talking about a defeated nation but one which is the second richest in the world. Down Whitehall, every third or fourth car is Japanese. Japan is doing very well out of the free world. I am arguing not on purely legal grounds but on moral grounds. If the Japanese have any honour, they will recognise that, since 1951, thousands of ex-service men have endured 40 years of suffering. I am talking not about the dead, although they are not forgotten, but about men who, since the signing of that peace treaty, have lived in agony and are sleepless at night. God knows how many of them continue to live.

We are talking about 40 years on. The Japanese put up their hands and say, "We signed the peace treaty all those years ago and that is the end of it", and my hon. Friend says that that is the legal position and that is what we must accept. That is not good enough.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I have been describing the 1951 peace treaty. I shall say something later about the change in Japanese circumstances since the war. I reiterate that I was describing the 1951 peace treaty, but my right hon. Friend will be aware that that does not mean that the Government will impede or obstruct in any way the private attempts of any group to obtain further compensation. The Government could not directly associate themselves with such attempts, but we have every sympathy with their aim.

I should not give my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that the chances of success of claims for further compensation are likely to be good, but I shall touch upon a recent development to the claim lodged with the United Nations Commission for Human Rights by the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association. It was lodged under a procedure known as resolution 1503, on which my right hon. Friend made comment.

I shall go into a little detail about the procedure. It is a confidential system that is designed to establish, on the basis of personal petition, whether there has occurred a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights by

Column 482

states rather than to adjudicate on individual complaints. There is no obligation on the Japanese Government to pay compensation to complainants under the procedure.

It gives me little comfort to refer to what must be regarded as cold legal technicalities. Indeed, my right hon. Friend intervened to make that very point. I can say, however, that I hope very much that the Japanese Government will respond to the petitions as sympathetically as possible.

I referred earlier to the bitterness that many must feel to see the country that was guilty of such cruelty and oppression two generations ago now so successful and prosperous and a member of the world community. The world has changed. That makes it even harder for the wounds inflicted at the time, for which, perhaps, no compensation can ever be entirely adequate.

It is important to understand the way in which Japan has changed, which my right hon. Friend has generously acknowledged, and why it has changed. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me one more quotation from article 14 of the 1951 treaty. The contents of the article are not always remembered now. The passage states that : "it is also recognised that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations."

That was stated in 1951 because the negotiators of the treaty were acutely conscious of the terribly dangerous precedent that had been set after the first world war by the onerous burdens of the treaty of Versailles.

Of course, the negotiators had conflicting obligations. They had as far as possible to ensure an equitable settlement of manifest wartime injustice ; they had to ensure also that the circumstances that led to the war were prevented from recurring. There may have been no very happy medium between the two responsibilities, but I do not think that we can easily ignore the imperative that lay behind the words that I have just quoted.

Japan is prosperous and successful and plays a constructive and responsible role in the affairs of the world, because the negotiators of the peace treaty were far-sighted enough to recognise the awful dangers of squeezing Japan as Germany had been squeezed after the first world war. In the 1930s and 1940s, Japan was a terrifying and brutal force in the region. As my right hon. Friend has rightly conceded, Japan is now democratic and peaceful. Its military strength once laid nations waste, but its economic strength now definitely contributes to their welfare and prosperity.

Sometimes, Japan is criticised for not making more contribution in terms of personnel and resources, as well as money, to the protection of the world order in which she herself has grown and prospered. That has been touched upon, for example, in terms of the recent crisis in the Gulf. However much it is right to encourage Japan to play a role in such affairs commensurate with its economic strength, we must recognise that the pacifism and self- restraint that holds it back from doing everything that we like to see was born of a determination among the Japanese never to allow themselves again to be seduced down the path of totalitarian oppression and aggression overseas. We welcome that commitment to peace and justice and must remember that it owes its strength to the spirit of magnanimity and conciliation that infused the treaty of peace that was signed 40 years ago.

Column 483

My right hon. Friend said that there is a growing recognition in Japan of some of the harrowing truths which he has described. I believe that a growing sense of contrition is being expressed in Japan for the atrocities which were committed. Most Japanese today were born after the end of the second world war. Many others were too young at the end of the war to have played any substantial part in it. It is right that the new generations should know enough of the evils of the past to ensure that they are never repeated. It is equally right that we should never forget our debt to the generation which, as my right hon. Friend recalled, defended our freedom in that war.

It is a matter of the deepest regret to me that I am prevented from giving a more positive response to the questions that my right hon. Friend raised. I have tried to explain the Government's views of the underlying principles that bear on the issues. These are not questions that can be debated in terms of political expediency. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that my response, however discouraging it must seem, is meant to convey a spirit of great respect for the memory of the men and women whose almost unimaginable suffering we have been discussing.

Mr. Lawrence : Before my hon. Friend concludes his reply--has he done so?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I shall respond to my hon. and learned Friend--

Mr. Lawrence : I think that we were waiting to hear from my hon. Friend, even to the very end of his reply, that he would do his best to ensure that one of our Ministers will raise the debate and the tenor of it with Mr. Kaifu and his team when they come to London in the near future. I agree that there may be some legal justification for Japan saying, "That was the agreement, that is what we were bound to and we can or will go no further." However, is

Column 484

not true remorse something that prompts one to do something that is over and above that which the law requires to be done? It would be most heartening to us

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. The hon. and learned Member has already addressed the House once. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Lawrence : I will be, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We are asking that my hon. Friend the Minister will say to Mr. Kaifu and his team that true recompense means doing more than the law requires.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose --

Sir Bernard Braine : I shall be very brief and very much to the point.

We are to have a visit from the Prime Minister of Japan. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to go into any detail on what the Japanese Prime Minister should be told, but common sense and common justice demand that the intense feeling that exists in this country, especially among those who know what happened, should not be disregarded, and that what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said a moment ago will be taken to heart. The Japanese Prime Minister should be told in a discreet but determined way that there is a debt to be paid.

I do not care a damn about the legalities of the matter : I am concerned about the way in which, in 1951 when the Korean war was upon us and various other pressures were coming into play, a treaty was signed whereby our Government took upon themselves the responsibility for waiving claims against Japan in future--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I understand that this is a serious matter, and I do not question the right hon. Gentleman's depth of feeling, but other hon. Members are waiting to address the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : My right hon. Friend was helpful enough to say that he did not expect me to reply in any detail, but I can assure him that his points have been noted.

Column 485

Kurdish People

8.53 pm

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : I am grateful to have the second Adjournment debate this evening, and it follows in a timely fashion from the previous debate. It is chilling that both debates are about war and the outcome of war, and many of the discussions appear to be the same-- for instance, the desirability of war reparations, which is also being discussed in relation to Iraq. The moving debate that we have just heard clearly demonstrates man's inhumanity to man writ large--horrors, cruelty and indifference to suffering on a horrendous scale. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said that it was necessary to spell out those horrors, and that we must not forget. I wonder whether we ever learn anything from history, or whether the only lesson we learn from it is that we do not learn anything at all.

Wars are catastrophic. The right hon. Gentleman detailed the long-term effects on people's' lives produced by the second world war. We clearly understand that the consequences of war, including the war with Iraq, have already destroyed many lives and will continue to make many suffer, not least the Kurds, who have been persecuted by Saddam Hussein and Iraqi Governments over many decades. The situation continues to deteriorate.

The plight of the Kurds in Iraq at the hands of Saddam Hussein may no longer feature every night on our television screens, but no one should be fooled into believing that their plight has eased or improved. Safe havens- -the Prime Minister's idea to encourage Kurds off the mountainsides away from the horrendous experiences and tragedies that unfolded at the end of the war with Iraq--should not lead us to believe that all Kurds are safe and back in their homes, their safety guaranteed by allied troops.

The impression created is that the Kurds have gone home, but alas that is far from the truth. They have moved to districts, many where there is a presence of allied troops, where they believe that they will be safe, but they have not necessarily returned to their homes. Half a million or more Kurds are in the no man's land on the border between Turkey and Iraq, and there are a million or more either in Iran or on the Iran-Iraq border. All those Kurds are unprotected and without aid.

There is a chronic shortage of aid, both in Iraq and Iran, to support and help the Kurds. We have seen and heard horrific reports from Iraq about the lack of medical supplies. We have heard of operations being conducted by doctors who are unable to wash their hands between operations and where flies hover over patients and settle on open wounds. There have been detailed reports of the lack of electricity and vital clean water, not to mention the lack of food and supplies that people need to live. The tragedy is truly appalling and the suffering is great.

Today, I spoke to the Iraqi relief co-ordination group, which works closely with the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and regularly receives information from a range of groups including Oxfam, the Red Cross, the Refugee Council, Medical Aid for Iraq, Kurdish Relief, the Kurdish Cultural Centre and the Islamic Cultural Centre, to name but a few. They all say that they consistently receive reports from camps and districts where the Kurds are living in Turkey, Iran and Iraq where United

Column 486

Nations aid supplies are simply not getting through to those who desperately need them. Supplies of aid still fall desperately short of what is needed. For the Kurds in the south, nothing, or next to nothing, is getting through. The Kurds are not certain where the aid is going, but believe that it is being redirected--or intercepted--by Saddam Hussein.

The Kurds also say that their latest information is that in the next two days the supplies of chlorine left in Iraq will be exhausted. That means no clean water. Cholera, typhoid and other appalling infectious diseases are already widespread and many people do not have access to clean drinking water.

Worse still, the Kurds now fear a new genocide--a new war initiated by Saddam Hussein. I am deeply concerned that the signs and messages sent by the allies to Saddam Hussein are leading him to believe that he will soon be able to continue his appalling persecution of the Kurds unthwarted. The political background is complex, but we know that the only lasting solution to the problem that the Kurdish people face is a political one. I am told that in the past two weeks 60,000 Iraqi troops have amassed in the Sulimaniyah area, accompanied by 60 tanks from Kirkuk. That arises directly from comments made by the allies and it demonstrates clearly what Saddam Hussein's intentions are.

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) intends to contribute to the debate if he is able, and he will detail the appalling record of the resumption of Saddam Hussein's oppression of the Kurds and others in Iraq. The signals are that a new wave of atrocities is on its way to Kurdistan. The truth is that Iraqi Kurdistan may well now be on the precipice of a new period of oppression which is now building up.

The Kurds have made it clear that they want to see a democratic Iraq and, within that, an autonomous or confederated Kurdish area negotiated directly within a democratic Iraq. They are not looking for an independent Kurdistan.

At present, negotiations have been continuing in Baghdad between Kurdish representatives and the Iraqi Government and it had been hoped that an agreement would be reached with the Iraqi Government which would later be ratified internationally in some way, perhaps by a resolution through the United Nations which would specifically guarantee that the Kurds would be able to live in a democratic Iraq free from repression and in security. But the United Nations appears to have sent the wrong message again. It said in July last year through its ambassador to Saddam Hussein that an invasion of Kuwait would be an Arab affair and nothing to do with the UN--and we know how that situation unfolded. The UN is now saying that it must withdraw its troops by15 June, and the number of troops in the area has already declined from 22,000 on 21 May to 20,000 now.

Saddam Hussein has seen that as an opportunity to drag his feet in negotiations with the Kurds so that the agreement will not be reached before the allied forces have left. Then he will no doubt terminate the discussions and move heavily against the Kurds. Negotiations have been caught on three main areas. There is the question of geographical boundaries for a Kurdish area and the question of guarantees and security for that area. There are also problems in relation to the constitution involving the apportionment of oil revenues. Perhaps more importantly, there is also the question of the Arabisation

Column 487

that has gone on in Kurdish areas, where once-Kurdish towns have been cleared and populated by Arabs. The Iraqis have refused to include them in the debate. The Government need to go to the United Nations for more international pressure to be applied to Saddam Hussein to negotiate seriously and to make progress on the agreements with the Kurds for the establishment of a democratic Iraq. As I have said, a solution is not possible unless it is a political solution. A political agreement must be achieved and the comments made by the United States representatives and forces of withdrawal have not helped that political process. Indeed, they may plunge the Kurds into persecution and another war, as I have outlined. Let us not forget that it is not only Iraq which persecutes the Kurds. The Turkish president was in Paris yesterday lobbying and applying for membership of the European Community. In Turkey, the Kurds are not allowed to speak their own language except in the privacy of their own homes. They are not allowed to sing in their own language except at private parties. Education and publishing in the Kurdish language are banned, and there is an enforced 15-mile zone on the Turkey-Iraq border where forced removal of Kurds occurs, with no resettlement plans, so as to break the links between the Kurdish communities in Turkey and Iraq.

The Kurds are talking of returning to the mountains because they fear what Saddam Hussein plans for them. An article in The Independent earlier this week quoted American troops in the region. It said :

" See that man in my car over there?' the American colonel asked I've tried to help him but I can't. When the Iraqis come back in here, they're going to kill him. But I can't get him out.' "

Thousands of people face that prospect under Saddam Hussein. We plead with the Government that the Kurds, despite the absence of their plight from our television screens, must not be left with no protection against Saddam Hussein. Pressure must be applied through the United Nations and internationally to ensure that Saddam Hussein negotiates seriously on a political settlement. We need immediate and unequivocal undertakings that Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey will not be abandoned and a detailed strategy to ensure that massive aid gets through to those who need it.

There has been much talk of building a new world order. The previous Adjournment debate was on the consequences of a war 50 years ago. Surely we must have learnt that a new world order cannot be based on or grow from the horrors, indifference, persecution and slaughter of the Kurds in Iraq. I press the Minister as hard as I can to send a clear message from the House that we shall not desert the Kurds and that they will be supported positively and continuously in their struggle to establish a free, democratic Iraq.

9.7 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on securing this Adjournment debate. It could not be more timely to have a debate on the plight of the Kurds, because the history of the past 70 years shows that

Column 488

there has been a profound lack of discussion by the House of Commons and successive British Governments of the situation facing them.

I am not a newcomer to the subject as I have been heavily involved in issues affecting Kurdistan since I became a Member of the House. Many Kurdish people from Iran, Iraq and Turkey who have sought asylum here have made their homes in my constituency. The way in which the Kurdish people have been treated is one of the great injustices of the century. We witness on television, which was not available to earlier generations, the horror of life for many Kurdish people, such as the easy death of so many young Kurds, the abject poverty in which many of them live and the profound ignorance of the rest of the world of their plight.

The Kurds should be living in an area the size of France, but their population of more than 20 million is largely ignored by the rest of the world. The Ottoman empire collapsed at the end of the first world war, and the Kurdish people, mainly through accidents of geography and topography, enjoyed a semi-autonomous existence.

The Kurdish people have brought much learning to the world. Saladin himself was a Kurd. Kurdistan produced many other heroic people. At the end of the first world war it was hoped that the Kurdish people would receive justice. The treaty of Se vrres, which was signed in 1920 but not ratified, contains three crucial articles. Article 62 made reference to a commission sitting in Constantinople, composed of three members appointed by the British, French and Italian Governments, to determine the boundaries of Kurdistan.

In article 63, the Turkish Government agreed to accept and execute the decisions of the commission mentioned in article 62 within three months of their communication. Article 64 dealt with the recognition of that arrangement by the then League of Nations. That treaty was the source of some hope and provided an opportunity for the Kurdish people but, tragically, it was never ratified. Instead, Mustafa Kemal led the development of the modern state of Turkey, and the British Government decided to back modern Turkey rather than the aspirations of the Kurdish people. The RAF undertook chemical bombardments of the Barzani-led Kurdish separatists in 1922. Britain has very bloody hands in the history of Kurdistan and of the Kurdish people. The treaty of Lausanne, which was ratified in 1923, expunged from the record anything to do with Kurdistan or the Kurdish people. Kurdistan was obliterated from the modern political map.

There is something very tragic about Kurdish history and the way in which national movements developed in each of the countries in which Kurdish people lived--Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. In every case, there has been manipulation of the Kurdish people. Iranian Kurdish people are backed by Iraq. Iraqi Kurdish people are backed by Iran. Turkish Kurdish people are backed by Iraq, and so on. The awful circle continues. The Kurdish people are the losers every time. There have been notable assassinations, including that of Dr. Ghasamlou, the leader of the Kurdish people in Iraq, who was disgracefully murdered by Iranian agents while trying to negotiate on behalf of his people in Switzerland. Many others died in the same cause.

Column 489

I hope that even now, in the midst of the horrors of the aftermath of the Gulf war, it will be recognised that a tragedy that has occurred repeatedly over the past 70 years must not arise again in the coming months and years.

It is deeply moving to talk to Kurdish people. One finds Kurdish people in almost every city in the world. They say, "Yes, I am a Kurd. I do not have a country, I do not have a language and I do not have a literature that the world recognises." But when Kurdish people come together to hear the singing of Sivein Perver, a marvellous entertainer if ever there was one, who attracted 3,000 people to Kensington town hall for an nueroz celebration, which I attended, one realises the spirit and strength of the Kurdish culture, and the determination of the Kurdish people.

Many Kurds have been compelled to migrate to the cities, to do the dirty jobs that no one else will do. Many have sought political asylum in this country, as in others. Often, they have not been well treated. In 1989 Siho Iyuguven took his own life rather than be deported back to the horrors of the fascist regime in Turkey. I could cite many other examples.

I hope that, in the aftermath of the Gulf war, we will look again at the way in which the Kurdish people are treated. I was one of the Members of Parliament--and others are present in the Chamber tonight--who did not support the Gulf war in any way. We did not see that it would solve any of the problems of the region. One now sees oil wells on fire in Kuwait, marshal law imposed on the streets of Kuwait, destruction throughout Iraq, and the carnage of the Kurdish, Shia, and Syrian peoples, and many others, throughout Iraq. The scenario is one of a managed instability in the region.

The United States and Britain, having fought a war for the liberation of Kuwait, are making no discernible efforts to bring democracy to that city. They say that they are supporting the Kurdish people, and then withdraw ; at no stage have they said that they recognise the Kurdish people's right to self-determination, although that is now a clear and necessary demand.

Both Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talebani have visited the House several times, and I have come to know Mr. Barzani quite well over the years. Both are at present negotiating in good faith in Baghdad--attempting, on behalf of the Kurdish front and the Kurds who wish to unite, to achieve a solution that would give autonomy to Kurdistan within Iraq. Their crucial need is for aid and recognition ; but aid is in short supply, while recognition is in no supply at all.

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's forces are preparing once again to deal with what they describe as the Kurdish problem--that is, to impose Arabisation on Kurdish villages, just as the Turkish army has imposed "Turkification" on the Kurdistan villages in eastern Turkey, and just as Iran has done at various times in the past.

This is a tragedy of immense proportions. It has happened so many times before ; now it is happening yet again. I hope that the Minister will recognise the justice of the Kurdish people's case, and will accept that there can be no peace in the region until the rights and demands of the Kurds are recognised internationally. Those who have died in the mountains- -including the children who never came down from them--and those who are now dying of disease in the cities and camps in Iraq are victims of the whole awful process. They are victims of the carve-up of

Column 490

1920 ; they are victims of the greed of oil companies and military powers ; and they are victims of the latest Gulf war.

Those people need and deserve as much aid as can be conveyed to them. I am glad to say that aid is getting through to various parts of Iran and Iraq, and, to some extent, to Turkey, but it is not reaching all the Kurds. They are dying of preventable diseases, while the world watches on television screens and through television camera lenses. Something must be done, and action must be taken in the long term to prevent a repeat of this tragedy. I believe, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, that that will indeed be prevented if the importance of the current Baghdad negotiations is recognised and the United Nations ratifies them after their completion.

Instead of snuggling up to the Turkish Government, as they have done so many times, the British Government should recognise that the treatment of the Kurds in Turkey is nothing short of abominable. The cosmetic changes to the laws that the Turkish Government have introduced in the past few months do not absolve them of responsibility for such a large Turkish army presence in Kurdistan. People whom I have met in villages on the Iraq- Turkey border have been arrested on a whim ; their villages have been razed to the ground and their families moved miles away, because they have been deemed to threaten national security. That is not a civilised way in which to treat a people ; there must be something better than that--something more.

I am not advocating a new Gulf war. I am advocating recognition of the Kurdish people, which would make it harder for any Iraqi Government to behave in this way--including the Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussein, which was consistently opposed by some Opposition Members even when the Government were lending it money and allowing arms to be sold to it through the use of foreign currency. I hope that tonight the Government will acknowledge the needs of the Kurdish people, who have suffered so tragically in the past 70 years. Their suffering must end ; they must be able to live in peace and harmony with their own history and culture, which have contributed so much to the world.

9.19 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has a long history of involvement in this problem. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for taking the initiative in calling this debate in rather curious circumstances. I want to bite deeply into what I consider to be at the heart of the whole affair--statements made by American and British politicians and by representatives of the American Administration, and the United Nations resolutions, how they interlock and how they should resolve the crisis in Kurdistan.

The principal resolution that we should consider tonight is resolution 688. It demands that

"Iraq as a contribution to removing the threat to international peace and security in the region immediately ends this repression." That resolution was carried shortly after the mass movement of population from the towns and cities of Kurdistan to the boundaries of Turkey and Iran. It

Column 491

followed a statement by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in America, Mr. Colin Powell, on 31 March, in which he said : "It would not be in the interests of the Government in Baghdad to return to this area in an aggressive way which would threaten these people" --

he was referring to the Kurds--

"and cause them to fear for their lives again. The Iraqis should not doubt America's resolve."

I believe that, at that time, that statement was a sign that the United States Administration understood the problem, that it would press for the United Nations resolution--which was pressed for and secured on 5 April-- and that there would be subsequent resolutions to enforce resolution 688 in the event that the Iraqis breached the principle of no repression. However, that has not been the case. I was further fortified in my view that action might be taken when, on 21 May this year--only a few weeks ago--the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), said to the Arab Research Centre that "no- one can ever feel secure while Saddam Hussein remains in Baghdad--any more than we in Europe could have felt secure as long as Hitler survived in Berlin".

They are the words of a British Foreign Office Minister to an Arab audience in London, yet tonight I can refer to innumerable breaches of resolution 688 which have been ignored, and indeed denied, by the Government as late as today. During business questions, the Leader of the House said :

"There is no evidence that there is any systematic or widespread repression of the Kurds at present."

That is from a statement made by the Leader of the House today from a written brief. He continued :

"We are in close contact with other joint force members to agree ways of providing reassurance to the Kurdish population if and when forces are withdrawn."

I want to draw attention to the breaches which the Leader of the House says are not taking place, but which all the evidence suggests are taking place. I begin with what happened on May 13, when Iraqi forces fired on a United States helicopter and on British Marines inside the protection zone. Ministers were informed of that by field commanders. They know that it happened, and they know that the forces in question were involved in humanitarian aid relief efforts and in the protection of populations in the area. That is an example that has been denied today by a Minister at the Dispatch Box.

On 19 May, 570 people were rounded up and summarily executed in Babylon in a Shia area of the south. I ask the Minister to check the allegation that I make tonight. On 20 May, Iraqi forces attacked a Kurdish aid centre, killing and injuring Kurds. On 22 May, reports stated that up to 500,000 refugees were trapped by Iraqi army road blocks in the region of Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk. Could my allegations be checked? May we have an assurance from the Dispatch Box tonight? On 23 May, whole areas of Kirkuk were levelled by the Iraqi army as part of its Arabisation programme. Kurdish lives were lost. That matter needs to be checked by Ministers. I was told today by the Leader of the House that, if I can prove or if it can be proved conclusively that the Iraqi Government breached United Nations resolution 688,

"we"--

Column 492

that is the Government--

"would obviously consider making a statement to the House, and I can give him that assurance."

I am putting the evidence to the Minister. He can test the evidence, and when it has been substantiated perhaps we can have a Government statement on the matter.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : I have been listening extremely intently to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House will be shocked but not surprised by the catalogue of atrocities that he has recounted. In a sense, was not that catalogue inevitable, when the allied high command decided not to force the unconditional surrender of Iraq, and particularly that of the leader of Iraq, President Saddam Hussein ? The Minister of State drew the parallel with Hitler. In that instance, the allies rightly demanded the unconditional surrender of the Nazi regime. Should we not have done the same with Iraq ? The future of the Kurds, the Shias and others would have been much brighter than it is today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : That would have been one solution, but not one that I would necessarily have supported. There are other ways--for example, a further United Nations resolution with the threat of force at a later stage, which would have had precisely the same effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South referred to 60,000 Iraqi troops. I understand that the Republican Guard are now located in the town of Salumaniya. I understand that they were used with tank forces to quell protesters. On 3 June, in Dahuk, Kurds were shot and killed by Ba'athist security party members. On 4 June--only a few days ago--United Nations relief officials reported that Kurdish refugees returning to Irbil had fled back to the Iranian border after Iraqi troops fired on a Kurdish crowd. Innumerable examples of aggression are being reported every day.

I draw the attention of the House to the house arrest and imprisonment of religious leaders, which were reported extensively in the western media and by Reuters on 9 May. I understand that they were Shias. I refer also to the desecration of holy places, the rounding up of clergymen, teachers and their families, and reports of secret police operations in Safwan, which I understand have been brought to the attention of the United Kingdom Government. There have been reports of abductions in all areas where there is an Iraqi Government presence, and reports of the systematic destruction of Dahuk before the Americans went in. I understand that in that case the Americans were able to witness the damage after they arrived. This week, we have reports of Iraqi forces being deployed in the area of the southern marshes, near the town of Alamara. I understand that those forces have been deployed there with a view to the removal of the population currently living in very temporary conditions in the marshes.

Those incidents are violations of United Nations resolution 688. The Kurdish people are entitled to know what the Government's response will be. We certainly have an undertaking today that there will be a statement in the event that they can be substantiated. I now refer to sanctions. I want the Government to know that there is a statement on the record to which many of us will hold the Prime Minister. It is a statement that he made on 10 May to the Conservative party conference in Scotland :

Column 493

"Today at this conference I can give the country two assurances. First, Britain willl veto any UN resolution designed to weaken the sanctions regime we have set in place for so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power."

We want to be absolutely sure that there will be no weakening of that statement.

I understand that the Prime Minister's statement has been reinforced by statements in the United States. Marlin Fitzwalter, a White House spokesman, said on 21 May :

"The United States Government wants the Iraqi people to negotiate a new political compact. It"--

that is to say, the United States Government--

"will exert all possible sanctions against Baghdad until Saddam Hussein is removed from power."

That statement was qualified further by Robert Gates, who is an adviser on national security affairs. He said :

"Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new Government in Baghdad."

Those are clear statements. We do not expect Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box in the weeks or months to come and, while Saddam Hussein remains in power, say that, in light of the problems in Iraq, it is necessary to ease oil sanctions. That sanction is the Kurds' only hope of securing a democratic Iraq without Saddam Hussein at the helm.

That principle should be reaffirmed from the Dispatch Box. That will signal to the Kurds the resolve of the British Government and, together with the discussions that have been taking place in Washington--in which some of us participated when we visited that city recently--it will clarify the position for the Kurds and strengthen their resolve.

There has been discussion of an international guarantee. While Saddam Hussein is in power, it is utterly impossible for the Kurds to return to their towns and cities, without an international undertaking guaranteeing their future security. The Minister might wish to comment on that aspect of the affair tonight.

9.32 pm

Next Section

Home Page