House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Dec 1992

Mrs. Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to link his attack on the British Government's conduct in the Iran-Iraq war with the United Nations, but I suggest that that link is wholly spurious. There was no unilateral United Nations arms embargo against Iran or Iraq during that eight-year period. The hon. Gentleman is indulging himself, and that is unwarranted and at the expense of others who hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I will be the judge of that. The hon. Gentleman is getting very near the mark, but he keeps returning to United Nations sanctions--and, bearing that in mind, so far he has just remained in order.

Mr. Dalyell : I would say rather sharply to the hon. Lady that the House was told that the whole Gulf operation was justified by United Nations resolutions. Her point of order reveals that in the minds of many, it was an American-British operation. Therein lies a lot of the trouble.

Mr. Rogers : I find the remarks of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) rather disturbing. There was a United Nations embargo on arms imports into the middle east. Lord Howe, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, has repeatedly asserted that the British Government were sticking to the guidelines laid down by the United Nations and reinforced by the Government. There was an embargo, and the

Column 526

Government's criminality in putting arms and the potential for making them into the area needs to be examined--and the Scott inquiry will do that.

Mr. Dalyell : Out of deference to the House, I will not pursue Jonathan Foster's argument, but that matter must be investigated. I was being a bit defensive of the present Prime Minister, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a bit generous being defensive of the Prime Minister, because on 2 December, in reply to a written question of mine that asked

"whether the briefing material relating to United Kingdom exports to Iraq, prepared for the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister in September 1989 still exists", the Prime Minister replied :

"Yes. The brief referred to British media interest in Iraqi procurement activities in the United Kingdom, naming Learfan and Matrix Churchill as examples. No further details were given and there was no other reference to United Kingdom defence exports to Iraq."-- [Official Report, 2 December 1992 ; Vol. 215, c. 220.]

So he knew that much.

The Prime Minister wrote to me on 23 November, and the last paragraph of his letter stated :

"At the beginning of August 1990, following the invasion of Kuwait, I did see a copy of a minute about the implications of the invasion for trade with Iraq. That minute referred to Matrix Churchill as one company with potential exports that would need to be prevented." On Tuesday 17 November The Daily Telegraph, which is not exactly a Labour paper, ran a long and detailed article by Sean O'Neill under the headline

"The stories Major missed on his way to see Aziz."

Whatever the situation in relation to the Prime Minister, it is clear that his predecessor, Lord Howe--who left the Foreign Office on 24 July 1989, when the present Prime Minister was appointed--was, indeed, informed.

I have the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), who is the secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union parliamentary group, to refer to his correspondence in relation to sanctions. On 18 February 1988 my hon. Friend wrote to the then Foreign Secretary :

"I enclose herewith correspondence which has been passed to me by our union"--

that is, the AEU--

"regarding the growing problems of the machine tool industry relative to Iran and Iraq. I should be most grateful to receive your observations".

There has come into the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley a document identified as 000046 and dated 29 February 1988, headed

"MP's letter : machine tools for Iraq."

It states :

"Ken Eastham MP wrote to the Secretary of State on 18 February enclosing a letter from D. K. Todd, District Secretary of the AEU, concerning the export of machine tools to Iraq. I submit a draft reply."

That document was signed

"A.J.H. Cowell, Middle East Department."

It continues :

"The AEU's concern seems to have been prompted by an article in the Daily Telegraph which gave the misleading impression that a complete embargo on this equipment has been approved. In fact, in the second half of 1987, the IDC agreed a series of licence applications for the export of machine tools to Iraq worth over £44 million. The IDC was satisfied that the lathes and tools were civilian items for general industrial purposes, as the companies had claimed. Since the licences were approved we have received information from secret sources that the two Iraqi consignees, Hutteen General Establishment for Mechanical Industries

Column 527

and Nassir General Establishment for Mechanical Industries, intend to use the equipment to set up a munitions manufacturing facility. We have also received a letter from an employee of Matrix Churchill of Coventry, an affiliate of the T I Matrix, Brechin, referrred to in Mr. Todd's letter, concerning that machine tools for manufacturing shell cases are being supplied to Iraq. It was decided last month, given the companies contractual position, and the industrial consequences should the licences be revoked, that existing licences should be allowed to stand. Further licences should, however only be granted after careful scrutiny and once we are satisfied that their export would not contravene the guidelines."

He did know.

There has also come into my hands from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley document 00048 :

"Thank you for your letter of 18 February enclosing a letter from D. K. Todd, District Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, concerning the export of machine tools to Iraq. As you may be aware, the Government operate special guidelines on the export of licensable goods to Iran and Iraq, which reflect our stance of strict impartiality, and our commitment to preventing any escalation of the conflict. Since the beginning of the conflict we have prohibited the sale of any lethal equipment to Iran and Iraq. In 1985, this policy was tightened and refined into the current Ministerial guidelines which were announced in the House in October 1985. Essentially, we prohibit the sale of any defence related equipment that could significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. This policy is enforced by a strict export licence regime and all applications are rigorously scrutinised. It is possible that industrial machinery which could be used for the manufacture of military equipment would fall within these guidelines. However, contrary to the report in the Daily Telegraph of 1 February, there is a complete embargo on such goods. Each export application is assessed against the guidelines on a case by case basis and we have no plans to change this policy." The Foreign Secretary knew.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley has another document, 00050, which he has given to me. It says :

"I attach the draft reply which was submitted for the Secretary of State's signature"--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. While he has been strictly in order, in one sense, there is so much repetition and quotation in his speech that I hope he will now consider making a speech with fewer quotations.

Mr. Dalyell : I shall bring them to an end very briefly, but I have to be extremely careful about fact in such delicate issues. My point is that Mr. Culshaw said :

"On reflection it seems better for Mr. Mellor to reply to this letter. The Secretary of State has commented"

--that means that he knew--

"only that he is not sure which side our correspondent wishes us to take on this issue. It may therefore be best just to restate our standard policy, although Mr. Mellor might consider the possibility of including the points in the last paragraph of MED's submission." The official position was very different. On 9 March 1988, reprinted in The Sunday Times of 22 November, the official position of the Foreign Office junior Minister--because the Foreign Secretary was not going to touch it--was that

"The Government operates special guidelines on the export of licensable goods to Iran and Iraq, which reflect our stance of strict impartiality [in the Iran-Iraq war], and our commitment to preventing any escalation of the conflict. Since the beginning of the conflict we have prohibited the sale of any lethal equipment to Iran and Iraq. The policy was tightened and refined in the current ministerial guidelines. We prohibit the sale of defence-related equipment that could significantly enhance the capability of either side to

Column 528

exacerbate or prolong the conflict. This policy is enforced by a strict export licence regime and all applications are rigorously scrutinised."

I would just say, because of your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on 6 September there was a letter from the then Minister of State, Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West--printed in The Independent On 12 November--to Lord Trefgarne which tells a very different story. This is the difficulty with the whole question of sanctions : that Ministers say one thing to Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and others when they know that there is another whole policy on arms exports. I might just mention the various statements of Alan Clark, who is no longer with us. There are dual standards.

Although I said earlier in my speech that, maybe, the present Prime Minister did not understand or was not fully briefed in his short time at the Foreign Office on the intricacies of all these matters, his successor was a very different kettle of fish. Few men have come to the office of Foreign Secretary with a greater knowledge of world affairs than the present Foreign Secretary. He is a man who is very clever and very quick on the uptake.

I cannot believe that Foreign Office officials would have dared, in these matters, not to brief this incoming Foreign Secretary. Therefore, I ask, in relation to United Nations sanctions, what was the role of the present Foreign Secretary who chaired the Cabinet committee in July 1990 which questioned the efficacy of the guidelines. Again--this is a matter of public knowledge--

"Highly-placed United Nations sources told The Independent that Matrix Churchill computerised numerical controlled (CNC) machine tools were used to make components for gas centrifuges and calutron electro-magnetic isotope separation equipment used in enriching uranium for nuclear weapons."

I do not make too much of it, but for 27 years I have been the weekly columnist of the New Scientist and understand a great deal about these matters. I raised them in December 1979. They are of lasting interest to me. Then I read that

"The CNC equipment was found by UN inspectors making searches of Iraq's nuclear development installations in Iraq. The components have been destroyed, but the Matrix Churchill machine tools have been sealed and logged by officials."

Mr. Rogers : I do not want to prolong my right hon. Friend's speech because I understand that he is coming to the end of it. However, I want to reinforce what he has said and to bow to his extremely well-founded scientific knowledge. Does he not also find it strange that the ignorance that seems to be professed by the Government at present, whether it be the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or anyone else, is confounded by the fact that the schedule that was given to the Trade and Industry Select Committee contained many of the items that my hon. Friend has just mentioned and that there was also a schedule of many other pieces of equipment that were enhancers, as well as actual pieces of military equipment, that were exported to Iraq?

Mr. Dalyell rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. It may help the House, and certainly the hon. Gentleman, if I draw his attention to page 365 of "Erskine May", which says :

Column 529

"A Member is not permitted to read his speech, but he may refresh his memory by reference to notes. A Member may read extracts from documents, but such extracts and quotations should be reasonably short."

The hon. Gentleman has been going beyond that, and I hope that he will bear it in mind.

Mr. Dalyell : I shall end, therefore, with one short quotation. Hon. Members may recollect the Foreign Secretary's statement on nuclear trigger devices. The subject was at the top of his mind ; this was not an ill- considered, off-the-cuff remark. He turned round to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)--I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) remembers the occasion ; I certainly do because I was one of the uncalled by Mr. Speaker Weatherill-- and said :

"The right hon. Gentleman knows that we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear." [ Official Report, 29 March 1990 ; Vol. 170, c. 673.]

I do not want to be thrown out of the House because I know that that is what happens when one uses the word "lie", but when a man as well informed as the Foreign Secretary tells the shadow Foreign Secretary that

" we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear"

it calls for some explanation--and certainly long before Lord Justice Scott reports to the House, by which time the Foreign Secretary may have ceased to be Foreign Secretary, may be greatly honoured and perhaps moved to another place.

I think, if not in the wind-up, at least very soon, against the detailed background that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed me to give this morning, an explanation must be given of how the Foreign Secretary could give his considered opinion that

"we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear."

I think that that is misleading the House of Commons.

12.3 pm

Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove) : I shall be fairly brief as I am aware that a considerable number of hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I shall endeavour to ensure that my remarks have some proximity to the motion.

Dag Hammerskjold said that

"The United Nations was not set up to get us into heaven but to save us from hell."

It is inevitably a fallible human organisation. Our expectations of it must, therefore, be low.

I welcome the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said earlier, it is the first debate on the range of the United Nations' functions for many years. In fact, a dip into Hansard failed to reveal when the last debate was held. I congratulate him on drawing the subject to our attention, which gives me the opportunity to say how much many hon. Members appreciate the work that he does in association with the United Nations. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), I must apologise for being unable to stay long in the Chamber due to other commitments.

A few years ago, I was a United Nations sceptic, but I am not now. I am encouraged by the effort with which it seeks to address a wide range of issues, a number of which

Column 530

have been referred to, so I shall not repeat them. It must consider issues such as population growth, environmental protection, human rights and health and the regulation of essential international accords--a roll call of numerous worthy objectives.

In a nutshell, the United Nations's charter governs the conduct of international behaviour between sovereign states. If it did not do so, what else could fill the gap? The world needs a talking shop. It must retain communications betweeen states in a formal, procedural manner. It must have an opportunity to vent violent pressures, and the General Assembly is the only place for universal international talks. If nations are not talking, we may be warring.

The world needs an international policeman ensuring that international laws and standards are not based on might and a code of international morality that does not undermine the legitimate sovereignty of Governments--a point to which I shall return in a moment.

The United Nations was established after the second world war with the primary objective

"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." One could argue that it has failed miserably in that objective. It ran into the cold war, and there has been repeated regional or local warfare ever since. But there has been no world war. Is that because the United Nations or of the nuclear deterrent? Certainly at moments of great international crisis the role of the United Nations has been important. The Cuban missile crisis and the middle east conflict in 1973 showed that the United Nations can work as a positive power to reduce international tension. It has been successful in mobilising world opinion against aggressors, as it did over Afghanistan. In its first 40 years, the United Nations was involved in eight peacekeeping operations. Since 1988, there have been at least 10 others, including Cambodia and now the former Yugoslavia. In addition, other nations have been sanctioned to take action on the United Nations's behalf, as in Korea and Kuwait.

As the cold war has rolled back and the threat fof nuclear warfare between the two super-powers has receded, so the importance of the United Nations for dealing with localised conflict has grown. The old conflict between the allied powers of the Soviet Union and those of the United States led to some international discipline. So it follows as that role changes with the breakdown of the super-power groupings there is an increasing need for localised discipline to be imposed by nations acting in concert.

I want briefly to praise the work of the troops that perform the peacekeeping functions of the United Nations because little has been said yet on this. It is important to place that on record. They are people who go into action, often without arms and under threat of their lives. Fortunately, the six observers who were detained in Cambodia have just been released, but they demonstrate only too clearly the risks that are run by many on behalf of world peace. I want to return to the point about national sovereignty and whether it is appropriate for an international force to override the legitimate Government of a country. What is a legitimate Government of a nation? Are Governments legitimate only because they are elected, or because they are carrying out the functions of government? It is difficult for the United Nations to be called in to support a corrupt regime against its own people. Yet that

Column 531

regime might be the legitimate Government of the country concerned. Is it legitimate and proper for the United Nations to prevent risings by oppressed minorities when human rights are threatened? Is it correct that law and order should be restored by the United Nations when it has broken down within the boundaries of one country and when the Government of that country do not seek outside help?

It will never be easy to address such issues. They must be judged item by item as they arise. It is perhaps wrong to set down in advance too many criteria for judging whether it is appropriate for the United Nations to be involved. It is certainly true that the United Nations must act as a doctor, saving life after an accident rather than as a law enforcer seeking to prevent the incident. I shall suggest criteria that it might be appropriate to consider. All, or certainly most, of these criteria should apply before it is proper for the United Nations to become involved in the affairs of a nation. The first criterion is that there should be extreme violence, not isolated terrorist acts. Secondly, there should be a breakdown of law and order. Thirdly, world or regional peace should be threatened. Fourthly, there should be extensive suffering of the civilian population. Unless those criteria apply, I do not believe that the United Nations should take action.

Mr. Rogers : Does the hon. Gentleman say that all those criteria should apply at any one time?

Mr. Thomason : Certainly most of them should apply. I have already said that each case should be considered on its merits. It is wrong to lay down hard and fast rules in isolation from individual cases. Hon. Members have already referred to the United Nations costly operations and its difficulties in dealing with its duties without proper funding. I shall not repeat what has been said, but much criticism has correctly been levelled at the United States. However, the United States contributes--or at least is due to contribute, although it does not always do so--30.7 per cent. of the United Nations budget. We must bear in mind the considerable burden that falls upon that one country.

Mr. Corbyn : It does not pay it.

Mr. Thomason : The United States funds the United Nations substantially, but the funding is often rather late. The critical problem is the United Nations cash flow. The figures cited earlier reveal that more than 80 per cent. of the current year's subscriptions as at July were unpaid. That represents the accumulated total, including arrears of previous years' subscriptions. In addition, there are peacekeeping costs.

Mr. Corbyn : The hon. Gentleman is doing a good job of defending the indefensible. Should not the United States simply pay up? As it wishes to play a major role in the United Nations, the least that it can do is to pay its subscriptions.

Mr. Thomason : I have made it clear that I believe that the United States should pay, and it is rightly criticised for not paying its contribution, but some provisos should be added to that argument. I am interested to note that in the past few hours the United States has announced that it will send 28,000 troops to Somalia. It is not clear whether they will be paid for by United States taxpayers or whether a contribution will be made from the United Nations

Column 532

budget. If the former, by contra-entry, as it were, the United States may make a substantial financial contribution to the peacekeeping budget.

There is no doubt that to function properly and effectively the United Nations must be properly funded. It is disgraceful that it is left in its present condition, not knowing whether it can pay its salaries month by month. I make it absolutely clear that the United Nations needs the financial as well as the moral support of the nations of the world. The United Kingdom has been in the forefront of ensuring that the contribution is made. So have other European countries--at least, with regard to the subscriptions. The criticisms of nations such as Germany and Japan relate not to the payment of subscriptions--they often pay up well--but to their contributions to the peacekeeping role over which they have been laggardly in doing their duty.

The United Nations structure needs to be reformed. I shall not repeat what was said earlier about the work of the present Secretary-General in introducing much-needed initiatives in that process. He has not yet been able to go far enough, and I hope that so far we are seeing only a start.

Duplication between agencies must be avoided, and the management structure must be reviewed to show a clear chain of command. Inter-agency in-fighting must be reduced, and staff must be chosen according to merit rather than nationality. The credibility of the organisation needs to be enhanced, to general good will.

Only the United Nations can provide action in the wide spheres that require a complex and important organisation. The International Maritime Organisation, and the International Civil Aviation Organisation are important bodies whose work must be acknowledged. So is the World Health Organisation, which has achieved the eradication of smallpox, and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations Commissioner on Narcotic Drugs, the World bank, the Universal Postal Union, and the International Telecommunication Union. They are all essential parts of the work of an important international body. I must emphasise the importance that the United Nations now gives to the environment. The United Nations initiated the Rio summit, and has addressed vital issues--but the pace is slow. Our initiatives in this country have not been reflected across the world. The issues must be addressed with greater urgency.

The United Nations charter governs the conduct of international behaviour between sovereign states. To succeed, therefore, the organisation must be effective and efficient, and must raise its profile so as to command respect. It must deal with current international issues such as the environment, but it must not become involved in issues that are irrelevant to international action. It must direct and initiate action to help the helpless, but it must not simply provide food for the starving people of a nation while thereby allowing that nation's Government to be free to buy arms and equip troops. Food must be given to those who need it, not to remove pressure from a Government to allow it to equip troops who then steal that food because of their power.

The United Nations must avoid becoming a permanent policeman. I noted what was said earlier about the organisation becoming locked in to certain areas of

Column 533

difficulty in the world. It must be an agent for peaceful settlement and then withdraw. Its affairs must be managed with transparent accountancy.

Above all, the United Nations must help all the nations of the world appreciate the difficulties of international operations. Patience is needed where time is short. Achievement is measured by the shuffle, not the stride, and success is often merely survival. 12.17 pm

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I shall emulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) by making my comments as brief as possible, and to the point.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on choosing the United Nations as the subject of the debate. That is especially appropriate in view of yesterday's announcement on Somalia by the Security Council.

I welcome the general tone of the debate and the attitude of the Government these days to the role of the United Nations. Not long ago one could have been forgiven for thinking that there was sheer hostility in the Conservative party towards the role, functions and work of the United Nations. That is not true under the present Prime Minister, but it was under the previous Prime Minister in her more strident mode.

It is a depressing fact that, as those hon. Members who have been lucky enough to be called so far have said, the end of the cold war has led to an upsurge in regional conflict. The existence of two military super-powers naturally provided a stalemate, but a stalemate is not a solution to problems. All it does is to keep the lid firmly pressed down on them. It was a dangerous stalemate because it was brought about by the possession of vast quantities of nuclear weapons on each side. That was clearly unsatisfactory. Whatever price we are now paying for the end of the cold war, it is, to echo the words used by others, a price well worth paying on this occasion. However, we must accept that there is a price to pay.

The break-up of the Soviet Union and its empire has posed enormous problems, specifically for Europe. Yugoslavia is the most bloody at present, but there could be more and far worse to follow in eastern Europe. I am worried about the 14 newly independent former Soviet republics in whose territories there are 25 million ethnic Russians. The thought of Russia intervening militarily in any of the republics is a frightening prospect. We need to be aware of that possibility, and we need to ensure that the United Nations is able to deal with any problems in the area.

There is great economic suffering in Russia and I want to use this debate to mention that fact. We read so much about the suffering of the Russian people and others in eastern Europe. I do not believe that the west is doing enough. It is no good wringing our hands and saying that we hope that things will work out well for people there. Of course we have the problems of recession in this country, but, even with the Conservative Government's economic policies, our problems are probably temporary.

The problems of the former Soviet people are long-term problems which can be solved only by a massive transformation of their economies. That will require an

Column 534

equally massive transfer of wealth from the west to the east, such as the Americans gave to war-ravaged Europe after the second world war by means of the Marshall plan. We need a latter-day Marshall plan. Our failure to transfer resources to eastern Europe could result in a tragedy of historic proportions.

The end of the cold war has highlighted the work and role of the United Nations in a changed world. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the United Nations is the hope for the future because of all its international roles. At the moment, its peacekeeping role is the most significant. As a result of the way in which the world has changed in recent years, the peacekeeping role of the United Nations is now putting enormous demands on that organisation. The United Nations has done as much peacekeeping in the past four years as it had done in the previous 40 years. That is the scale of peacekeeping facing the United Nations.

Conservative and Opposition Members have said that peacekeeping is an expensive function. It cost $233 million five years ago. It is estimated that it cost $421 million last year, and that the figure for this year will be $3 billion. The United Nations budget is roughly $2 billion a year for all its functions, including peacekeeping. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about costs and contributions and about the fact that we should ensure that this country and the United States pay their full subscriptions on time. It is important that subscriptions are paid on time. The United States, Russia, Germany and France are well behind with their contributions. Although it is good to know that the British Government have paid their annual subscription, I understand that about $500,000 is still owed by the Government as a contribution towards peacekeeping.

The United Nations is undertaking 12 peacekeeping operations around the world. To ensure that adequate support can be given to those operations, it is necessary greatly to expand the United Kingdom budget. These are difficult times in which to talk about giving more money to international organisations, but the price of failure is so great that we cannot simply ignore the need to put more resources at the disposal of the United Nations. We must take a long-term view. We must not merely look at our own short-term economic problems when there are so many long-term problems facing the world which require action now if they are not to develop into tragedies.

The Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, has called for a standing UN peacekeeping unit. That is an excellent idea, but it has not met with a favourable response from other countries, especially the United States. I welcome the announcement that many extra troops are to be sent to Somalia, but I make the point that the United States is very reluctant to put its own troops under the military control of the United Nations. As long as the United States refuses to do that, the finger of suspicion can always be pointed at it, even when it is acting in the best interests of the world.

Next Section

Home Page