| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar (Glasgow, Govan): Does my hon. Friend accept that, when Saddam Hussein initiated the war against Iran and used chemical weapons against it and his own people, Britain and the United States supported him?
Mr. Winnick: Yes, I cannot deny that my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I wish one could say that this country consistently opposed Saddam Hussein, but that is not so. I hope that I, many of my Labour colleagues, some in the Liberal ranks and the nationalists are in a different position from many Conservatives who found excuses for Saddam Hussein. I wish that I could say that the United States had a consistent record of opposing him, but that is far from the truth. I have to say to my hon. Friend that one could have argued in 1939 that, because the western powers to a certain extent helped to arm Hitler and gave political support to the Nazi regime, we should not have gone to war. As I said in 1990, when the time came, during the invasion of Kuwait, at least the western powers woke up. Incidentally, we were not one of the worst offenders--in all fairness, France, Germany and some others were worse.
Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow): Is it not the general inconsistency that hangs over the United Nations' and the international community's approach to violations of human rights that puts us in this more difficult position now? Although I agree with the position of my hon. Friend and the Government, it has been undermined by the fact that we seem on occasion to have been influenced by oil as well as other factors.
Mr. Winnick: If oil was the only reason that we went to war in 1991, thank heavens that that was so--nothing would have been worse than if we had allowed the invasion of Kuwait to take place without our taking action. What would have happened? We know how Saddam Hussein operates. If he had got away with the invasion of Kuwait, he would have been encouraged to invade other countries.
Mr. Wareing: My hon. Friend has drawn a comparison between 1939 and now. People are asking what alternative there is to the bombing. I supported the attack to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, but I suggest that we would not have defeated Germany in 1945 without massive armed troops
on the ground. If we really want to get rid of Saddam,the real alternative is that mentioned by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). Had we taken that option in 1991, we would not have this problem now.
Mr. Winnick: It is perfectly true that ordinary people asked then, and are no doubt asking now, why we did not finish the job then. The job then was the liberation of Kuwait. Although I would have liked to see the liberation of Iraq in 1991, there was no mandate for that--we should bear that very much in mind. I do not think that members of the alliance, particularly countries in the Arab world, would have gone along with us. Whether we should escalate the armed conflict along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), I have considerable doubts.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend said that he would like to see Iraq liberated. Would he like to see it liberated by Iran?
Mr. Winnick: No, I would not like to see it liberated by Iran, but the Iraqi regime is so horrifying and brutal and has inflicted so much terror on its own people that I certainly want Iraq liberated from Saddam Hussein, and I make no apologies for that. Far from being ashamed of my view, I am proud of it. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with me about that.
Using whatever ammunition they can find, some critics are saying that these events are a plot to save Clinton--perhaps they have seen too many recent American films. My response is to ask: where is the evidence that the Republicans, who have been waging a campaign against the American President, are going to drop the motion to impeach him? All the indications are that they are going to continue. It will be difficult to persuade people that the American President is conspiring with UN inspectors, the British Government and other countries to save his political skin.
There were two main objectives after the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. The first was the ending of the enemy occupation, which was achieved. The second was the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction. I believe that, for all the reasons set out by many hon. Members, we should be as single-minded about that objective as we were about Kuwait.
I want to give other hon. Members the opportunity to speak, so I conclude with two points. Labour has a reputation of being against despots and mass murderers. I hope that I am in order when I say that it would be very difficult to find a single Labour Member who does not want to see Pinochet brought to justice. We are against such criminals, even if their criminal deeds ended a few years ago. The vast majority of Labour Members have such strong views about dictators, so there is no reason that our view on Saddam Hussein should be different.
I understand that some of my hon. Friends have reservations--some are pacifists--and are deeply worried, as we all are, about innocent people being killed. However, we should not forget that this party, before the second world war and since, has had a consistent record of opposing criminal dictators, and long may it be so.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
I must first tell the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), how much I personally appreciate the fact that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), were able to attend the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday, when they must have had many more serious matters on their mind.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has made clear what was also apparent from all the speeches this evening--that there is no support in the House for military action for its own sake. I detect no sense of jingoism or bombast. Instead, there is a strong reluctance--rightly so--to use military means as a way of achieving international justice. International justice is the universal wish.
I listened carefully to hon. Members for whom I have the deepest personal respect, such as the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I hear what they say about some of us being of a generation that has not seen combat and, indeed, that cannot have seen combat. There was an implication that perhaps that makes it easier for us to support military action. I believe that the reverse is true.
Many Labour and Liberal Members grew up in a political atmosphere that strongly opposed war and everything associated with it and that saw war very much as a last resort. I spent my college years in the same college as the Prime Minister, and I know that the atmosphere in which we grew up makes it more difficult to conclude that military force is the right solution. It takes more moral courage to come to that view. It is easier to follow one's instincts and say that military force is not the right solution. Yet, on occasions, when crimes are committed, it is not right simply to say that it is somebody else's business, that somebody else can call the police, that somebody else can deal with it. The right thing is to screw up one's courage and intervene. That is what Britain is doing.
I find it odd that hon. Members who applauded the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, when he returned from Iraq with a memorandum of understanding a few months ago, are now prepared to stand by and allow that memorandum of understanding to be ripped up in the face of the United Nations, just as every previous agreement that Saddam Hussein has made with the international community has been. Time and again, we have been asked to stay our hand to give the man another chance. Time and again, he has taken advantage of that.
I have listened with great care to all speeches. Not once in a speech by a hon. Member who opposes the Government's action have I heard an alternative strategy that would maintain the rule of international law. Not once have I heard another way in which to bring matters to a successful conclusion, other than from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said that we should remove sanctions and that, somehow, that would bring Saddam Hussein to his senses. I do not believe it.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle):
It is not true that an alternative has not been posed. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) explained perfectly clearly that it should be a central policy objective to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That is an alternative, although one must will the means. In 1991, the decision was taken not to go after Saddam Hussein, for geopolitical reasons. People were afraid that Iraq would fracture, a new Kurdistan would be created and that that would destabilise Turkey.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |