| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 534
gaining a lot of benefit while we lose. That is why we must abandon the idea that we must get rid of President Saddam Hussein before anything else can be done.Mr. Hurd : I gladly acknowledge that I owe a large part of my education to my right hon. Friend. It has moved on a little in some respects since those days, but I certainly acknowledge the debt. I hope that we are reasonably in touch with the Arab world. I believe that it would have dismayed the Arab world much more--even those who utter some discontent now--if we had allowed Saddam Hussein to exploit what he saw as a moment of weakness and uncertainty in the western world. If, as a result, we were today in a position in which the integrity of Kuwait, with its new boundaries, had clearly been violated ; in which the United Nations had conditions imposed on it before any inspection teams were allowed into Iraq to examine and destroy chemical and nuclear weapons ; and in which allied planes that are helping to protect the Shias and the Kurds had in effect been bullied out of the sky, the tremors of nervousness, dismay and accusation directed from the Arab world reaching their friends in the West would have been overwhelming and very dangerous.
Sir Edward Heath : My right hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to his view, and I would not challenge part of it. The damage has been caused by the attack on the alleged arms factories outside Baghdad which alienated public opinion. There is no use my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence saying, "In any case, it is all Saddam Hussein's fault," because that is not accepted. If we decide to bomb targets where there are questions of legal justification and that action does undesirable harm, of course we lose out. That is where the whole question arises of how the situation should be handled and it is a question of utmost importance. There is far too much of, "Whatever happens, it is all President Saddam Hussein's fault." That is not how the rest of the Arab world sees it.
Another factor left out of the account in looking to the future is the action of Iran, which has not been mentioned by either my right hon. and learned Friend or Labour's Front-Bench spokesman. There is undoubtedly a desire on the part of Iran, and the opportunity, to penetrate the southern area of Iraq, as it has tried to do for decades and centuries and against which we must guard. No action has been taken and I would like assurances on that aspect.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that Kuwait has made no request for British forces to be sent there. I am reassured by that, but I want a reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that if any such request is made, it will be turned down at once. We cannot become involved in having ground forces in Kuwait against any possible threat from Iraq. We cannot accept that for one moment. [ Hon. Members :-- "Why?] I will explain why.
Such action will again deepen the hostility of the rest of the Gulf towards this country. We got out of it in 1961 ; now, we will be regarded as the colonial powers returning again. I was responsible for handling the events of 1961. Kuwait asked for complete independence : it wanted control over foreign and defence policy. The Government accepted that, negotiated it and agreed it at the beginning of July. We also said privately, "If there is any threat to you, you can come to us." According to our own
Column 535
information, such a threat was posed towards the end of that July. We said, "This is a threat to you. Do you want us to come to your assistance?" The Kuwaitis said yes, so we sent in forces. As a result, the Iraqis--who were on the Basra road--halted and then withdrew. We then said--this is the important point--"You are now independent in every respect. If you are to have forces here permanently, they should come from the Arab League. They can be placed there as a guard against any attempts from Iraq to the north." The Arab League accepted that : it moved in its forces and we--having gone in at the end of July--withdrew in the middle of October. That was the end of it.Now, we should get the Arab League to take action and provide what is necessary for the defence of Kuwait. Its members can agree that among themselves. There may be difficulties ; the Al-Sabah regime in Kuwait is not the most admired in the Arab world, for good reasons. Nothing that has happened since the war gives us any reason for admiration either. The rest of the Arab world knows that perfectly well. Of course, no one over here ever mentions the fact that many Palestinians and Jordanians who were working in Kuwait have spent all their lives there and have never been allowed back ; nor does anyone mention the action taken against individuals who have been allowed no proper trial. However, I do not want to go into all that. If it is necessary for action to be taken, it should be taken through the Arab League. That will mean active work on the part of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and by the Foreign Ministers of the countries that were involved in the Gulf war. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will accept that.
I have expressed the strongest possible opposition to the sending of British forces to Kuwait. Earlier, a voice behind me asked, "Why?" I have explained one of my reasons ; another reason is that, once the forces were there, it would be impossible to get them out. We should find ourselves landed with yet another commitment abroad, in a country where there are no direct British interests. [Hon. Members : -- "There is oil."] We have all the oil we need. What other British interest is there? We must face facts. The only direct interest that we could have in Kuwait is oil, and we have oil.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : I am very interested in my right hon. Friend's idea that we should leave the security and defence of Kuwait to the Arab League. The Arab League has never called itself an effective military instrument, capable of coherent defensive action. That being so, surely it is incumbent on the western allies jointly to secure the interests of their friends in the region--the emirate of Kuwait and the other continguous powers.
Sir Edward Heath : The Arab League has the necessary resources. It has money, equipment and men. My hon. Friend may treat it with contempt, but it worked for many years in the 1960s. What is more, if the Arab League defends Kuwait, it will be much more difficult for Saddam Hussein to use the Iraqis to attack it.
My opposition to sending British forces into Kuwait is equalled only by my opposition to the involving of further British forces in any Yugoslavian action. A ghastly civil war is going on : people are trying to wipe out the legacy
Column 536
of generations and centuries. We cannot do that for them ; what we can do is, where necessary, put a fence between Yugoslavia and other countries that might be affected. That is an understandable aim, but we are simply not capable of working out the answer for Yugoslavia. Perhaps the plan worked out by Lord Owen and his colleague will eventually be accepted ; we cannot tell. If it is accepted, however, we shall not know whether it will be kept. Many would want to accept it, get rid of any intervention and then start adjusting again--but this is not a war in which we must become involved. If we send in more forces, we shall become more and more tied down.We must accept that, if we try to protect humanitarian forces, we are bound to suffer casualties. That cannot be avoided, although it is tragic. Already, tributes have been paid to one soldier whose life was lost in Yugoslavia. What will happen when such events occur constantly? What will the public say if we put forces in, those in the mountains start carrying on as they did during the second world war and all the casualties start coming home? We know that the public are affected by television coverage of those who are suffering now ; what will they say when the forces that we put in are in the same condition? I know that, technically, the debate is not about Yugoslavia, but I want to make it absolutely plain how strongly I oppose our being dragged in to Yugoslavia step by step, as is now happening.
Nor should we give way to American pressure. We do not know yet what the new president will want, or how he will conduct himself. If I were the American president, I would be furious about what his predecessor has done during the past 10 days to try to force him into a corner and to deprive him of any freedom of decision in policy matters. To take all public interest from the arrival of a new president so that it will stay with the old one is appalling behaviour on the part of anyone in public life. That is the Americans' affair, however ; we do not have to give way to American pressure.
In the 1960s, Harold Macmillan and his Government stood firmly against all American pressure to get us into Vietnam. That pressure was added to by Australia and New Zealand. We continued to stand against it, and how right we were. At the time of the war between India and Pakistan, there was tremendous pressure on us to become involved. Macmillan and his Cabinet stood against it : I well remember the emergency meetings that we had. When there was trouble in Jordan and Israel, there was pressure on us to become involved in that, too ; we resisted that pressure. When there was war again between India and Pakistan, President Nixon and Henry Kissinger put great pressure on us to go in. We withstood that pressure and said no and we were absolutely right to do so.
There was great pressure for us to go into the Yom Kippur war ; we withstood it absolutely. In all those cases, we took the right attitude. I hope that our present Government will stand up to any American pressure to become involved in Yugoslavia, Kuwait or the Gulf. We must concentrate on working out a way of taking publicity away from Saddam Hussein and securing a workable agreement. I think that the UN Secretary-General is probably the person to do that. It must be done personally ; it cannot be achieved through long-distance communications--another communique here, another decree there. That will not produce the answer. It is time that we got down to the real job of working out a solution for the future.
Column 537
5.38 pmMr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) for introducing an element of reality to a debate that was becoming absorbed in the hype of the last days of President Bush.
I joined the Royal Air Force 50 years ago this year, and qualified as a pilot in 1945--too late to fight. As a former service man, however, let me say that nothing upsets service men more than Ministers' sending them into action, then hiding behind them and saying that those who criticised the action are traitors to their country. The Royal Air Force was formed 75 years ago and some other things that successive Governments have asked it to do are on the record. Squadron Leader Harris--later "Bomber Harris"-- used chemical weapons in the twenties against the Iraqis to control the tribesmen. It was the first time that air power had been used for colonial control. That was not the fault of the RAF : it was the post-war Government who decided to use air power to keep Iraq under our control. We may not want such things to be remembered, but in the Arab world they are remembered.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup spoke about Kuwait. He will recall that Selwyn Lloyd sent a message to Foster Dulles in 1958 suggesting that Britain take over Kuwait as a crown colony. Foster Dulles said, "What a marvellous idea." That may not be remembered in the House, but it is remembered in the Arab world. I hope that many of my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby against the motion for the Adjournment. It is a disreputable motion. Whenever a decision of policy arises, the Government table a motion that the House goes home. That is what an Adjournment is. We never had a single vote of substance during the Gulf war. We always had to vote on the Adjournment. Let us be clear that, by voting against the Adjournment, those who take my view--I do not know how many there are--are voting against the wickedness of the bombing that occurred in the past 10 days, and I will tell the House why.
During the Gulf war, we were told that Saddam Hussein was comparable to Hitler. Incidentally, that was a description used in connection with Nasser as well. Subsequently, however, we have learnt a lot about the Government's attitude to Saddam Hussein. They armed Saddam Hussein. The present Prime Minister, as Chancellor, provided a credit of £1 million to Saddam Hussein three months before the war. Iraqi pilots were trained by the Royal Air Force until a few days before the war.
There is some evidence to suggest that the American ambassador indicated to Saddam Hussein just before he occupied Kuwait that such a move would be seen in Washington as an Arab matter. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and I both spent many hours with Saddam Hussein arguing that he should withdraw from Kuwait. I do not know what he said to the right hon. Gentleman, but I know what he said to me : "Even if I withdraw from Kuwait, America is determined to destroy me." Everything that has happened since has confirmed Saddam Hussein's analysis of American policy.
It was not a question of human rights ; otherwise, why would Saudi Arabia have received different treatment? There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia. The al-Sabah
Column 538
family run Kuwait. Why have not we heard the great spokespeople on the Conservative Benches on the subject of civil rights in Kuwait. What about the Palestinian question? Have the Government ever really seriously contemplated exerting the sort of pressure--I am not talking about military pressure--on Israel that might have forced her to respect the resolutions concerning Palestine or even the recent evictions of 400 people? I am a lifelong member of Labour Friends of Israel because I believe in Israel's right to survive. But the Government have never been serious about implementing United Nations resolutions involving Israel.British Governments did nothing when Turkey invaded Cyprus. Why? Because Turkey was the bulwark of the west against the Soviet Union. We ought at least to understand that the rest of the world understands that what is going on here is odious hypocrisy. The language used is so false. If a woman is shot in Belfast, as happened the other day, that is terrorism. If a women is killed in the al-Rashid hotel in Baghdad, that is the international community introducing a proportional response. If anyone tries to kill someone else in Bosnia, we send in Lord Owen to tell both sides to stop. The Minister cannot get away with the fraudulent arguments that he put to the House last week and this. Although he did not like to admit it, he has even produced a slight change of opinion among those on the Opposition Front Bench, who now say that we should go back to the United Nations. That was not said at the beginning : I do not recall my right hon. and hon. Friends saying then that the action should have been freshly endorsed by the Security Council. I cannot go into the Lobby to vote for a Government who killed 300, 000 Iraqis the year before last.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn : I shall not give way for the moment.
Do not think that that was all marvellous high technology precision bombing. We know from the recent bombing of the al-Rashid hotel that high technology precision bombing is an illusion pumped out as propaganda.
Mr. Robathan : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn : I shall not give way for the moment.
The Harvard medical team went to Iraq just after the bombing. It said that 150,000 Iraqi babies under five would die because we had bombed the water supply and that cholera and typhoid would spread as a result--and so they did. The other day, a United Nations Children's Fund spokesperson, speaking on the 7 o'clock news, said that cholera and typhoid were still rampant. Why? Because we--the so-called allied forces--bombed the water supply. What military targets were at stake there?
We express horror at ethnic cleansing, but, my God, the Kuwaitis threw out every Palestinian after the war because, for their own reasons, the Palestinians had been sympathetic to Saddam. Saddam was an enemy of Israel. Was not that ethnic cleansing? The Saudi Government threw 750,000 Yemenis out of Saudi Arabia into the Yemen. When did the British Government protest about that? It is odious hypocrisy, and people around the world know it.
Column 539
Mr. Robathan : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn : I will not give way for the moment, because I am developing an argument which does not carry a lot of support but at least I can make it clear.
Most of hon. Friends will probably abstain in the vote tonight because that is one way of dealing with the matter ; Conservative Members will be whipped to vote for the Adjournment ; and some Labour Members will go into the no Lobby. We want the House and the country to know why.
Even during the Secretary of State's speech, I noticed little indications that something that is being said has been noted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said very clearly that the no-fly zones are not an attempt to partition Iraq. That came from the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office insisted in a memorandum to the Secretary of State that that should be included. That had to be said because many people in the Arab world think that the no-fly zones are an attempt to partition Iraq. The Turks are terrified that, if the Kurds were really free, there would be trouble in Turkey, where the Kurds are also repressed. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the former Prime Minister, said, if the Shi'ites or some of the marsh Arabs could join Iran, Iran would become a threat. The arguments are fraudulent. The cover is thin.
The truth is that the Government did everything that Bush wanted. I can only say, thank God that Bush has gone. That man did more damage to the true international community than any recent President. [Hon. Members :- - "Oh."] Roosevelt and Truman were very different. I do not believe for a moment that the Government have majority support for what they have done. People understand very well that what happened was that the British Government, yet again--in contrast to the courage of Macmillan over the Vietnam war and the Indian war as revealed to us by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup--simply went along with everything that Bush wanted. Then, when they realised that it was not popular, they got the press office at No. 10 to pump out a story that the Prime Minister had had five or six telephone calls to Bush, just to drop a little hint that there was more caution in London than they were prepared to admit at the time.
It is a disreputable policy. It is a policy that will lose support worldwide. The Government should not be surprised if it does enormous damage to the United Nations. The other day, I read that students in Ethiopia had demonstrated against the United Nations, which they regard as being no more than a flag surrounding American imperialism. I am very clear about it : I want to see a democratic United Nations. I want the member states to elect the Security Council--
Mr. Robathan : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn : I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman ; he will just have to make his own speech.
The United Nations was intended to be an instrument of the world community to rid humanity of the scourge of war, not a cover for the one remaining super-power to take on board what Queen Victoria tried to do when she sought to run the world herself and through her three grandsons--the King of England, the Kaiser of Germany and the Czar of Russia. Those days of imperialism are over. It may not be recognised by those on the Government Front Bench, but the Government burnt their fingers at the time of Suez. I believe that they will have burnt their fingers
Column 540
again this time for embarking on an operation that could not be justified by any of the arguments. If the world is to deal with violations of human rights and protect the planet, those questions must be dealt with through genuine international action free from the economic interest of one or another super-power.5.49 pm
Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater) : None of us who sat in the Chamber or served in government during the invasion of Kuwait and its subsequent liberation will have been surprised by the speech that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). If he had had his way, and if the policy of the House and the Government had followed his votes on those occasions, Saddam Hussein would still be in Kuwait. He would still be committing the atrocities and cruelties that it was proved that he committed in Kuwait. Indeed, there cannot be much doubt in the House that his ambitions would have spread far wider still.
I give full marks for courage to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his speech, in which he most bravely said that the actions of the United Nations would have the Opposition's full support. That was a brave attempt before the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was let loose. One realises that full support in terms of Labour party attitudes must be severely qualified.
Thank God that, unlike the Parliament in Iraq, we have a Parliament here in which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield can make a speech like the one that he has just made, which was critical of and hostile towards Government policy, and still live to tell the tale. I take some pleasure in that.
The hon. Member for South Shields referred to the length of time that our armed forces, and particulary the Royal Air Force, have been engaged in work within Iraq, and in the skies over Iraq, to save human lives. It is sobering for me to think that it is nearly two years since I stood on the snow-covered hillsides of northern Iraq and met the streams of Kurdish people who were in a pathetic condition, having been driven to the extremities of those mountains through their sheer terror of the threatened genocide of Saddam Hussein and his forces. The House should take pride in the fact that those people live ; they are fed, watered and housed. They have come down from the mountain tops and are now back in their villages. To an extent, they are protected by the Peshmerga, their own foot soldiers. That is of course made possible as a result of the air cover provided for all these months by the RAF and the American and French air forces.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield referred to Operation Haven. In that respect, it is right to pay tribute to the attitude of the Turkish Government. It was not an easy decision for them to take. The decision in the Turkish Parliament was by no means unanimous. It raised major domestic problems in relation to the support for the Kurds in northern Iraq. However, the Turkish Government have continued with that policy in the interests of humanity and to save lives.
Operation Haven is now known as "operation provide comfort"--the Americans have a great habit of changing brand names after the original name is established. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) will be aware, while the situation in
Column 541
respect of the southern no-fly zone is tragic, at least that policy has provided some comfort and help in desperate circumstances. I want first to deal with Iraq as I want to refer directly to the comments of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. However, I am mindful that this debate is also about the RAF. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said, the two subjects are, quite rightly, linked in the debate. I want to address recent events and to draw on my experiences in an earlier incarnation.We recognise that what we have seen in recent weeks and months is what we saw in the period before the Gulf war broke out. Perhaps tributes should be paid today to former President Bush and former Secretary Baker in respect of the United Nations action in that it was possible to hold together a coalition of such diverse and different countries. At the start of the events, no one would have dreamt that the coalition could have held together in such testing circumstances. It is vital that that coalition should hold together now.
With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the Father of the House, I subscribe to the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and not to that of my right hon. Friend. My evidence is that, while there will always be Arab concern about the risk of civilian casualties and that any response should be proportional and not excessive, there would have been far greater concern if it appeared that the United Nations no longer cared about the insistence on the ceasefire terms, about the determination to impose UN resolutions or about the need to ensure the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction which could have posed a major threat to neighbouring countries had they not been successfully dealt with.
Saddam Hussein is, as we know, an attentive viewer of CNN. He, like everyone else, knew about the transition period and the change of President. He knew what problems that could pose in the American political scene. We clearly passed through an initial period of challenge and trial by Saddam Hussein, and I believe that we have passed that test in an appropriate and responsible way. If Opposition Members disagree with me, they must recognise that the United Nations' objectives, certainly in the short term, appear to have been achieved. The United Nations' inspectors have returned to Iraq and can continue their work.
We must recognise the determination to maintain UN resolutions and we should not underestimate the work of the UN inspectors. I wonder how many hon. Members have obtained from the Library copies of the 16 reports by the UN Secretary-General on the progress of the work of the UN inspectors which is taking place now in Iraq and which we hope will continue.
How many people understand the scale of the work that has been undertaken? We have now established the new plant to incinerate the bulk mustard agent. How many people are aware that we have now commissioned the plant to destroy the two types of nerve agents that have been identified? Incidentally, both those plants were built by Iraq to UN standards.
How many people are aware that those operations will be centralised with supplies brought to Muthanna? It has been estimated that there is 18 months' work in the
Column 542
destruction of mustard and nerve agents. That information provides some idea of the scale of the resources that have been identified. How many people are aware of what has already been destroyed? Five thousand sarin-filled 122 mm rockets, 350 R400 aerial bombs, and 44, 500 litres of nerve agents have been destroyed. Can the House begin to comprehend the scale of that arsenal and the huge importance of the work of the United Nations inspectors?Mr. Dalyell : This is not meant in an offensive or hostile way. I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he occupied the position of Defence Secretary, he had any idea, before hostilities started, of the scale of the exports and their nature.
Mr. King : If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the export of arms, as he knows very well, we imposed the tightest prohibition of any country in the United Nations : no export of arms to Iraq. What we know--and there is no secret about it--is that people were not aware of the extraordinary deviousness and equally extraordinary skill in concealment. It is no secret that some of the chemical manufacturing capability, identical to what is required for agricultural purposes and pesticide manufacture, was disguised as requirements for alternative products ; and we also know the sad saga of the supergun. We know to what lengths Saddam Hussein and his procurement operation went to disguise the true purpose of his activities.
Mr. Robathan : My right hon. Friend has given an interesting list of chemical weapons that Iraq possesses. Could he, from the benefit of his previous position, tell the House, particularly Opposition Members, how many chemical weapons the British forces had in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq when we were there two years ago?
Mr. King : We had none, and we would not have had any. This has been our position, as my hon. Friend knows, for very many years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has said that we must look to the future. We will not find an answer to these unhappy problems if there is a lack of resolve by the United Nations to stand on ground that is sound and just. We must ensure that we take with us in that stance our friends in the Arab world and maintain the coalition. We must ensure that our response to any challenge or provocation is at all times only proportional to such challenge. There must at no time be any doubt in Saddam Hussein's mind of our resolution in that respect.
Reference has been made--it may or may not be true ; we cannot be certain about it--to the conversation between the American ambassador at that time and Saddam Hussein, but if there was any evidence in that respect it would merely serve to underline the crucial importance of there being no misunderstanding or room for doubt in Saddam's mind of our determination.
If we need to give proof of that resolution, does it include the necessity to ensure the security of Kuwait and, leading straight on from that, what does it mean for the location of British forces were we to receive such a request? Contrary to what my right hon. Friend said, if it was perceived that there was an urgent, major and early threat to Kuwait, it would be essential for the United Nations to ensure that forces were available so that there was no open invitation to attack. It was the weakness of Kuwait that
Column 543
encouraged the attack on it. There is no way in which Kuwait on its own could possibly defend itself were there to be a major Iraqi attack.However--this is perhaps where I take my right hon. Friend with me more--it could only be a very short-term operation. He is right when he says that it is not desirable, either from the point of view of our own forces and the climate and conditions in which they would serve or from the point of view of our Arab friends for Western forces to be present in a different culture, which could and would be exploited by Islamic elements seeking to cause and develop grievances. In that respect, therefore, it is not desirable that our forces should be there on any long-term basis.
My right hon. and learned Friend talked about the Arab League. He will know that there is the Gulf Co-operation Council comprising the six Gulf states. The original proposal, at the end of the Gulf war, was that the council, together with Egypt and Syria, would act jointly to provide forces on the ground. Sadly, that proposal seems to be making no progress at all ; the latest newspaper report that I read said that it was dead. If it is dead in respect of the location of Egyptian and Syrian forces, I certainly hope that we can look to our friends in the Gulf in the knowledge that in the final analysis we will be anxious to ensure their independence and liberty. We will want to play our part and do anything we can to help if they suffer outside aggression, but the first burden of responsibility should be carried by them.
Whatever the differences between the individual territories concerned, there is a need for real effort. I say this as someone who very much values his friendships with those in positions of responsibility in all the Gulf states. We should be able to expect in future a greater effort to establish a positive and effective co-operative force against the background of the proof that we have given of our willingness to help in their time of need.
More widely, in respect of the Royal Air Force, my right hon. and learned Friend talked about Britain's defences for the 1990s. We know that there are areas, not least in the number of our infantry regiments, where there is concern about numbers and what would happen if commitments were to build, and that this imposes extra stress ; but when we are discussing the issue we must not overlook the fact that our Navy, our Air Force and other branches of our Army are also getting on with the changes which are very painful for them all and which involve major upheaval for many of them. I pay tribute to the progress being made by the RAF in the changes that my right hon. and learned Friend announced, which I think are going forward with general agreement and to the benefit of our country in cost-effective defence and the people involved.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to pay tribute to the RAF, not just for its work in the no-fly zones but for the work that it is doing on what I suppose is probably the most dangerous flight in the world, going into Sarajevo and out again in a Hercules. I do not know whether any hon. Members have invited themselves for that trip, but I am told that one needs to take certain facilities if one undertakes that extremely dangerous flight. It is showing great courage in their support of the people there, in the
Column 544
work done in Somalia and, above all, in the work that is done, as I know so well, in Northern Ireland. We pay tribute to the courage that it shows day and night.My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the RAF anniversary which will be upon us shortly. It has had some brave anniversaries. Only recently we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. Now we are approaching the 75th anniversary of the Royal Air Force itself. It has served our nation well. I am very proud to pay my tribute to it tonight, a night when we know that the service continues, as it does, in the finest traditions of the past. 6.7 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : As some of us thought was inevitable when the change of business was announced, the debate so far has displayed a concentration on the urgent issues raised by Iraq at the expense of some important, long-term questions which are of particular significance to the Royal Air Force. I hope that Government Front-Bench Members will have appreciated that there is a considerable desire on both sides of the House, if some of the issues of importance to the Royal Air Force cannot be debated this evening, for an early opportunity to be found for such a debate to take place.
I would like to deal with three particular issues which are of direct relevance to the Royal Air Force. The first is the European fighter aircraft, which I understand we must now call the Eurofighter 2000, in order perhaps to meet the sensitivities of Mr. Volker Ruhe. In that regard, I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State, who unhappily has left us for a moment or two. He deserves great recognition for the skill with which he ensured that the European figher aircraft programme will be maintained.
The military case for the European fighter aircraft as the Secretary of State pointed out, is overwhelming. The employment and technological consequences for the United Kingdom industry are extremely significant. I would add to that the political damage which would have occurred had we had yet another failed European procurement programme. After the failure of the NATO "frigate for the 90s" programme, the whole notion of common procurement would have been dealt a severe blow if the project for the European fighter aircraft had had to be shelved. It was generous of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to acknowledge that, in the difficult negotiations with which he was concerned, his hand was substantially strengthened by the fact that he enjoyed the support of virtually the whole House of Commons.
The second issue to which I shall refer--I suspect that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will not be surprised--is that of search and rescue facilities. He will know that this is an issue to which I have given some attention over the past three or four years. He will know also that, because of the proposal for the implementation of the new arrangements for search and rescue on 1 April 1993, this may be the last chance that we have to debate the proposals. Finally, he will know that I have a particular constituency interest in this matter because of the location of RAF Leuchars in my constituency and the provision of search and rescue facilities from that station. I do not wish to rehearse once again all the arguments in favour of the retention of search and rescue facilities at RAF Leuchars, but I think that it is worth reminding the
Column 545
Minister and the House in summary of one or two matters which seem to me, at least, to provide an overwhelming case for the Government to think again.RAF Leuchars is in the front line of our air defence, as the Secretary of State acknowledged in his speech. It is situated by the sea and there are additional rescue operations because of that. B flight of 22 squadron has an outstanding record of achievements in search and rescue and it is inevitable that, as a result of the arrangements to be implemented from 1 April, the level of cover provided by search and rescue in the area around the station will be substantially reduced.
From an answer that I received yesterday, I ascertained that over the past five years search and rescue operations from RAF Leuchars have rescued 352 civilians and 25 military personnel. Some of those people would have been at risk if the arrangements which are to be put into operation after 1 April had been in operation over the past five years.
Mr. Bill Walker : The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that during the past few weeks my constituency has taken up what can only be described as an enormous amount of search and rescue helicopters' time. I would like, as I am sure he would, to give credit for the fact that the crews there do far more than their duty requires. In particular, we have been most impressed by what they have done in seeking out and finding all the people stranded as a result of floods and ensuring that no lives were lost.
Mr. Campbell : The hon. Gentleman anticipated two points that I was about to make. First, although he did not say so expressly, by implication he pointed to the enormous public relations value of these operations. He also pointed, perhaps more directly, to the experience of the past fortnight in his part of Scotland and in mine, where the extreme weather, first snow, and then flooding, has meant that the facilities at RAF Leuchars have been constantly employed, and in a way that does considerable credit to those responsible for these operations. This has served to underline just how significant and important is the service at present provided. There really is an opportunity on this occasion for the Government to think again. I have to say, perhaps in a slightly partisan way, that throughout the 1992 general election Conservative supporters in north-east Fife accused me of scaremongering when I suggested that search and rescue at RAF Leuchars was at risk. The Government have proved me right and their own supporters wrong. It would be in the interest of the community if the Government were to prove me wrong. That is a burden that I would happily assume for the benefit of the community. There is a chance to think again and I hope that the Government will take it.
The third matter which I wish to raise, dealing most directly with the Royal Air Force, is that of the EH101 support helicopter. The Secretary of State referred to the increasingly important notion of our armed forces operating with flexibility. I want to put a series of questions. I suspect that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs may not be the best person to answer them, but no doubt the Minister of State will write to me in due course in response to what I have to say.
Can the Minister of State tell us why the Government have delayed issuing the invitation to tender for the utility
Column 546
version of the EH101 ? He knows that on 9 April 1987 the then Secretary of State committed the Government to 25 EH101s. Why has no contract been placed ? Is it understood how important such a contract would be for Westland ? It must be understood how important the helicopter is for the Royal Air Force. Will the in-service date of 1997 still be met ? If not, has there been a change of date and what is the new date ?Having taken the time of the House to deal with some precise matters concerning the Royal Air Force, I turn to the broader question of Iraq.
The Liberal Democratic party has been content to endorse the action that has been taken so far, based on three criteria : first, that the action generally had the agreement of the coalition allies ; secondly, that it could be demonstrated to be in accordance with international law ; and, thirdly, that minimum force was used. I believe that those criteria were met.
I am unconvinced by some public protestations of doubts by countries which supported in private the action taken, but which now, for domestic purposes, feel it necessary to add their reservations to others.
The test of the action is that it was effective : Iraq backed down. It described its action as a ceasefire--a characteristically misleading definition of an acceptance of obligations under duress, which I suppose might be more accurately described as a surrender to the inevitable. But we would be wrong to think that this was the end of Iraqi provocation. We would be wrong to think that the self-imposed moratorium, no doubt designed to offer some kind of attraction to President Clinton, would necessarily be continued without limit of time.
It is my belief that in due course there wil be further provocation. Therefore, looking forward, as some have already urged in the debate, the question that we must now ask ourselves is how we should deal with such provocation when it arises. The answer to that question depends upon two related considerations : first, what is our long-term policy concerning the region ; secondly, what is the nature of the provocation?
It is in the interests of the region, and certainly in the interests of the United Kingdom, that there should be stability in the middle east. If, by some extravagant response to provocation, we were to cause irreparable damage to the middle east peace process, that might be too great a price to pay. The peace talks, however imperfect, are the best way to achieve stability. I shall be critical of Israel in due course, but one has to recognise that the anouncement today of its intention to remove the legal bar against discussions with the Palestine Liberation Organisation must be seen as an encouraging step that may have far-reaching consequences. It should have happened long ago, but it has happened now and it should be applauded and recognised as having the potential to make a substantial contribution.
We also want Saddam Hussein to be replaced by an opposition in Iraq. If, by over-zealous responses to provocation, we make him stronger, that will hardly serve our interests or that objective. Not every provocation requires a response and not every response needs to be a military one. If force is the only way, we must be prepared to use it, but only when we are satisfied that there is no other way. Nor should we believe that legal justification is always adequate in itself. Legally justifiable action is all the more acceptable when it carries with it moral authority. Public
Column 547
opinion in the streets of Arab capital cities is unlikely to be impressed by the niceties of that least empirical of disciplines, international law.There has been much discussion of double standards. When we talk about double standards we should impose on ourselves some clear thinking. Not all United Nations resolutions are the same either in their terms or in the action which they authorise. It is facile to say that every solution should be enforced in the same way. Inevitably, there will be resolutions which, by their language, are variable in their strength.
The strength of our political commitment to all resolutions should never be variable. Once passed, all resolutions deserve, even demand, the same political will for their enforcement. Some say that, because we are not displaying the same political will over resolutions relating to Bosnia or the Palestinians, we should not enforce resolutions relating to Iraq. That argument is fundamentally flawed. The proper position to adopt is to say that all resolutions will be enforced with the same political will. That is the only way in which to eliminate double standards.
A moment ago, I said that I would be critical of Israel, and this is the moment when I propose to be so. It is monstrous that, some weeks after the illegal expulsion of about 400 Palestinians, those people are still languishing in no man's land between Lebanon and Israel. That is a clear breach of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention and of international law, and we should use every means in our power to persuade Israel, which is responsible for expelling those men to that place, to take them back.
Mr. Galloway : Even by bombing?
Mr. Campbell : It is unlikely that the United Nations has the will to enforce the resolution by bombing. If the hon. Member thinks that bombing is a way of persuading Israel to be reasonable, he has a curious appreciation of the mentality of the Government of Israel, although they are a changed Government.
Mr. Galloway : The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have the greatest respect for him. He is right : Israel would not see sense if it were bombed. Why then would he expect Iraq to see sense if it were bombed?
Mr. Campbell : The hon. Gentleman falls into the trap of assuming that each situation is parallel to any other. With regard to Iraq, we have a series of United Nations resolutions which Saddam Hussein has deliberately avoided. We have used the force which the resolutions authorised. No force is authorised in the resolutions with regard to Israel.
When the United States said that it might not provide the £10 billion guarantee for settlement on the west bank, the Government of Israel found themselves driven to a more amenable posture than they had previously taken. We should use every means available. I do not believe that bombing Israel would make the slightest difference. Other means are available, including making strenuous efforts to persuade the United States that the extent to which it remains a patron and Israel a client has substantial disadvantages for the momentum of the peace process in the middle east.
| Next Section
| Home Page |